No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB Minutes 1994TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, January 20, 1994 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 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 pm 2. Report of Chair 7:40 pm 3. Member Concerns 7:50 pm 4. Town of Ithaca Greenway Development - Phase 1 8:50 pm 5. Environmental Review Committee Report 9:15 pm 6. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Janet Hawkes Phillip Zarriello MEMO DATE: January 12, 1994 TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Candace Cornell, Conservation Board, Chair RE: REVISED 1994 Conservation Board Schedule The original 1994 Conservation Board meeting schedule erroneously indicated that our meetings would begin at 7:00 pm. As we agreed, our CB meetings will be held at 7:30 pm on the first and third Thursdays of the month in the Board Room at Town Hall. Our 1994 schedule will be as follow: January 6th and 20th* February 3rd and 17th* March 3rd and 17th* April 7th and 21 st* May 5th and 19th* June 2nd and 16th* July 7th and 21st* August 4th and 18th* September 1 st and 15th* October 6th and 20th* November 3rd and 17th* December 1 st and 15th* * Indicates additional meeting scheduled on an as needed basis. MEMO DATE: January 5, 1994 TO: Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary FROM: Candace Cornell RE: 1994 Conservation Board Mailing List (Revised from 12/17/93) Please mail the following CB members the CB meeting agenda and all supporting materials supplied by the CB Chair: 1994 MEMBERS TERM OF APPOINTMENT TELEPHONE Candace E. Cornell 1/l/93-12/31/94 257-6220 (H) 1456 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Cheryl Smith 1/1/93-12/31/95 272- 0112 (H) 104 Skyvue Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Richard B. Fischer 1/1/94-12/31/96 273-2007 (H) 135 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Phillip Zarriello 1/1/94-12/31/96 266-0217 (W)/272-8722 (H) 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, New York 14850 Eva B. Hoffmann 1/1/93-12/31/94 273-2389 (H) 4 Sugarbush Lane Ithaca, New York 14850 Janet Hawkes 1/1/94-12/31/96 272-1126 (H) 1401 Mecklenberg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Louise Raimondo Planner I and CB Staff Liaison John G. Whitcomb Town of Ithaca Supervisor 1 273-1747 (W)/273-6569 (H) 273-1721/255-2555 (W) 273-7322 (H) r Karen Moore Conservation Board Recording Secretary 2075 Slaterville Road # B3 Ithaca, New York 14850 Monika Crispin Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County 615 Willow Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Betsy Darlington, Chair City of Ithaca CAC 204 Fairmount Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 Barbara Page, Chair Village of Trumansburg CAC 41 Prospect Street Trumansburg, NY 14886 Brent Stephans, President Forest Home Improvement Association 145 Forest Home Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 Carl Leopold, Chair Village of Lansing CAC 1203 East Shore Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Katherine White, Coordinator Environmental Management Council Coordinator Tompkins County Planning Dept 121 East Court Street Ithaca, NY 14850 cc: John Whitcomb, Supervisor Dan Walker, Town Engineer Karen Moore, Conservation Board Recording Secretary Conservation Board Members 2 253-3082 (W)/539-7952 (H) 272-2292 (W)/272-1723 (H) 273-0707 (H) 387-3363 (H) 275-3151 (W)/257-8497 (H) 273-5457 (H) 254-1327/254-1234 (W) 274-5560 (W)/589-7881 (H) TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, February 3, 1994 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 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 pm 2. Report of Chair 7:40 pm 3. Member Concerns 7:50 pm 4. Greenway Projects including Coy Glen Greenway 8:50 pm 5. Environmental Review Committee Report 9:15 pm 6. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CIS Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Phillip Zarriello • MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD February 3, 1994 Approved 04/07/94 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Richard Fischer, Janet Hawkes Eva Hoffman, Phillip Zarriello GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Jon Meigs PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None REPORT OF THE CHAIR: 1. Candace, Janet, Eva, and Louise worked on the Greenway Plan at the last meeting. 2. The Planning Board still working on the Cornell DGEIS. The biggest questions now are traffic, water quality, preservation of natural areas. MEMBER CONCERNS Dick stated there was a lack of understanding between Cornell and the Town regarding landscaping. Phil is concerned about their storm water run-off plans. Cheryl mentioned flooding where she lives and her concern about storm water run off when the snow melts this spring. Candace suggested the CB she photograph problem areas to illustrate erosion problems. Phil coordinates this effort to demonstrate the need for storm water run-off controls. Greenway Plan: Nancy Ostman, Manager of the Cornell Plantation Natural areas suggested Coy Glen would be a good greenway start since there are connections already made. Part of this is a Cornell Natural Area. This area connects with the State Parks Cayuga Inlet trail. There is a confirmed coyote den that shouldn't be disturbed by pedestrian traffic. This site is possibly better suited for a biological corridor instead of a trail. If there is a pedestrian trail, Candace asked what easements, etc. would be necessary. Cornell University requires easement holders to carry liability insurance for trails. There is a trail already that starts in the quarry. It was in good shape at one point but it hasn't been well maintained. Using tax maps, Eva researched the landowners in the Coy Glen area. She also provided information on the type of land use and the assessed value of the property. Nancy will help research the sensitive environmental areas. Dick will present the following proposal to the Natural Areas Committee meeting next week. The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board is interested in including the Coy Glen Natural Area as part of a Greenways system extending from the mouth at Coy Glen Creek at Inlet Valley to its head waters within the limits of the Town. Our intentions are to connect the Greenway to the proposed rail system along Inlet Valley but the main purpose is to preserve the land as a biological corridor for wildlife. This will be consonant with the policies of Cornell Natural Area Committee. Candace proposed the above memo be forwarded to the Cornell Natural Area Committee, seconded by Dick, passed unanimously. 0 Membership Interview: The CB Interviewed John Meigs. Phil moved that John be nominated to the Town r • of Ithaca Conservation Board, seconded by Janet Hawkes, passed unanimously. Recommendation will be forwarded to the Ithaca Town Board for Approval. Environmental Review Committee (ERC): Janet presented a checklist for ERC. Using ideas from the SEAR Handbook and "Local Government Technical Series Development Plan Reviews." These checklists included: regional and local environs; assessibility; economic impact; needs assessment; fiscal impact, air, water noise, and visual compatibility; historical and archeology evidence; natural features; design and usage; vehicle and pedestrian traffic. A cover letter will also be included with the ERC report specifying the proposed action and all appropriate reference numbers. Current Proposals: 1) Eco -Village would need about six variances to proceed. 2) A sketch plan of the Buttermilk Valley subdivision preserves 20 acres of open space (out of 75 acres) including wetlands and steep slopes. 3) Saponi Meadows is a large proposed development in the Bostwick and Seven Mile Drive area (approximately 80 acres). There is thought to be an Indian village in the area. 4) The 56 acre Glendale Farms Subdivision is in the same area as above. 5) The 42 acre Little Farm Subdivision was previously called Jones Farm and has over 2 acres of wetlands on the property. There is a 30 days turn around period for the ERC report. Janet suggested that the ERC meet more often since applications are coming in. MEETING ADJOURNED: Next meeting March 3, 1994 @ 7:30 p.m. 0 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, February 3, 1994 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 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 pm 2. Report of Chair 7:40 pm 3. Member Concerns 7:50 pm 4. Greenway Projects including Coy Glen Greenway 8:50 pm 5. Environmental Review Committee Report 9:15 pm 6. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Phillip Zarriello MEMO DATE: January 26, 1994 TO: Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary CQ PcS� FROM: Candace Cornell, Conservation Board, Chair RE: February 3, 1994 Conservation Board Meeting Please send the following agenda to the recipients designated on our mailing list (memo dated: January 5, 1994 "1994 Conservation Board Mailing List (Revised from 12/17/93)." I would also like the enclosed memo sent to the CB members, Louise Raimondo, and John G. Whitcomb. Thank you for your assistance. MEMO DATE: January 26, 1994 TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Candace Cornell, Conservation Board, Chair RE: February 3, 1994 Meeting The CB's January 20th meeting was officially canceled and converted into a work session due to membership attendance problems. Eva, Louise Raimondo, and I accomplished a great deal formulating strategies for the Town's Greenway Plan. We agreed that the CB will develop a Town -wide Comprehensive Greenway Plan to forward to the Town staff as part of their update of the Parks and Recreation Plan. The CB will also focus on planning and implementing greenway projects in localized areas of the Town. Our initial methods for planning these localized greenways will be: 1) Pick two destination points to connect with a greenway. 2) Locate the site on tax maps and aerial photographs available at Town Hall. 3) Make working copies of these materials. 4) Develop a list of the relevant tax parcels and their ownerships from the tax rolls. 5) Map the proposed greenway using available base maps. 6) Analyze the feasibility of the proposed greenway in this area. On January 20th, we began to outline a possible Coy Glen Greenway originating at the Inlet region travelling through Coy Glen to upper West Hill. There are potential opportunities in this area to develop trail easements with Cornell University and the private landowners. In preparation for our February 3rd meeting, please think of other areas in the Town you are particularly interested in or feel there is a demonstrated need for establishing a greenway — e.g., foot paths, bikeways, or biological corridors. I would like to develop a list of these additional greenways and establish a work plan for our Greenway project. The Environmental Review Committee will also make a presentation on their plans for future review projects. Please make all efforts to attend this meeting. See you on February 3rdl TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, March 3, 1994 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 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 pm 2. Report of Chair 7:40 pm 3. Interview Mary Russell for CB Membership 7:50 pm 4. Committee Restructuring 8:15 pm 5. Committee Reports: ERC Committee Greenway Committee Environmental Atlas Committee 8:45 pm 6. Approval of Minutes of 4/15/93, 6/10/93, and 2/24/94 9:00 pm 7. Member Concerns 9:15 pm 6. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Cheryl Smith I Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs 1 '111 MEN I February 24, 1994 MEMO TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Candace E. Cornell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, Cha t SUBJECT: March 3, 1994 CB Meeting Mary Russell will join us at our March 3rd meeting to be interviewed for membership on the Conservation Board. Mary will be a terrific addition to the Board. Her resume is enclosed for you reference. Other enclosures include: 1) notices for two upcoming conferences that might be of interest to our members; 2) an interesting article on property rights vs. community rights by John Humbach, an insightful law professor at Pace University; 3) the Cornell Natural Areas Committee's response to our Coy Glen biological corridor designation request; 4) three sets of draft minutes for your review. Please make substantive editorial comments only. Karen Moore, our new secretary, is making a valiant effort to dig us out from the large backlog of minutes built up after our previous secretary resigned. Our aim is to have minutes that adequately reflect our meetings for the record and not literary works; and 5) our 1994 work plan for reference during our committee restructuring discussion. See you on Thursday, March 3rdl CORNELL/COLLUM TEL:607-257-6220 Fedi 24'94 19:06 No.005 I✓.02 H MAL 1994 CONSERVATION BOARD WORK PLAN Approved 12/16/93 Proposed Projects: 1) Town of Ithaca Greenway report (a supplement to the proposed update of the Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Report) - Develop "wish" lire map for greenway. - Research ownership of properties transversed by the "wish" lines. - Review feasibility of the path with staff in terms of terrain and ownership. - "Reality -check" with Rich Schoch for construction and maintenance of greenway. - Mapping of greenway by staff. - Develop greenway report (proposed contents):rational, costs and benefits, examples, describe existing greenway components, review needed additions, and suggest implementation methods. - Plan and implement sections of the greenway plan. 2) Environmental Atlas - Develop list of attributes for the EA for the GIS system (Phillip Zarriello is responsible for compiling the 013's Input). - Assist the Town in data collection and interpretation (Candace Cornell and Janet Hawkes are responsible for coordinating this work). 3) Assist in Town Board and staff implementing the comprehensive Plan - Assist In research for a storm water run-off ordinance. - Research possible regulations and modes of environmental protection. - Research topics as needed. 4) Ongoing: Environmental Review Committee 5) Short-term projects PERSONAL DATA Address: MARY LOUISE RUSSELL 955 Coddington Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone: (607) 273-2199 Birthdate: August 9,1953 PROFESSIONAL Member of the State Bar of California ASSOCIATIONS EDUCATION LAW SCHOOL: The University of Michigan Degree: Juris Doctor, May 1979 Honors and Activities: Environmental Law Society Writing and Advocacy Award Undergraduate Teaching -Women and the Law Clinical Law Program UNDERGRADUATE: Wayne State University (Detroit, Michigan) Degree: B.A.,December 1975, with Highest Honors Major: Psychology Honors and Activities: Phi Beta Kappa Psi Chi (National Honorary Society in Psychology) CURRENTLY Full-time parent to my 3 children, ages 6, 8, and 11. 1982 -present. EXPERIENCE Dooley Kiefer for County Board, Ithaca, New York, Campaign Manager. Managed successful political campaign for Tompkins County Board of Representatives. Fall 1993. League of Women Voters of Tompkins County, Ithaca, New York, Co - Chair Natural Resources Committee. Responsibilities include the monitoring of local land use policy regarding transportation, open space and agricultural lands preservation as well as the study of watershed protection regulations. 1992 -present. Member of Natural Resources Committee since 1988. University Cooperative Nursery School, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Treasurer. Kept Nursery School records and accounts, handled disbursements, uncovered mismanagment of funds and revised tiered tuition scheme to balance budget and prevent further erosion of surplus. 1991-1992. Levi, Greenfield and Davidoff, San Jose, California, Associate with law firm. Commercial real estate, bankruptcy and business law practice. 1981-1982. Natural Resources Defense.Council, Inc., Palo Alto, California, Legal Intern. Legal research on,environmental law issues for national environmental organization. 1978. Coastal Zone Research Laboratory .University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Legal Research Assistant.. Legal research involving public rightsin the coastal zone,of.the Croat Lakes.' 1977-1978. �_ Blue.Cross and Blue Shield, Detroit; Michigan; Customer Service ` Representative: Interviewed customers by telephone providing benefit interpretation.,and assistance with. claim.processing. 1976. REFERENCES : Dooley Kiefer, 629 Highland -Road, Ithaca, New York 14850. ,. <: Legal ,references are on file with, the University of Michigan Law School Placement Office. CORNELL PLANTATIONS The ARBORETUM, BOTANICAL GARDEN, and NATURAL AREAS of CORNELL UNIVERSITY ONE PLANTATIONS ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 February 18, 1994 607-255-3020 Candace E. Cornell Town of Ithaca Conservation Board 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Candace, At our February 10, 1994 meeting, the Natural Areas Committee reviewed the Conservation Board's request that the two Cornell parcels within the area proposed as the Coy Glen Greenway be designated as part of the system. We are supportive of your intention to protect Coy Glen as a biological corridor and endorse your project in principle. Your idea seems reasonable, attractive and in keeping with the existing policy and uses of the Cornell natural areas. The greenway designation could give the glen more protection overall and could provide a local identity and recognition of the importance of the glen. Completion of your project could be a fine example of good town and university relations. However, the Natural Areas Committee does not own the land, Cornell does, and any legal agreement or designation would have to be approved by the appropriate bodies at Cornell. We will make a recommendation to the Plantations Advisory Board asking that they likewise endorse the greenway project and the designation of these parcels as part of the Coy Glen Greenway system. We also are willing to work toward Cornell endorsement. We have several questions which Dick Fischer was unable to answer. How will you implement the greenway designation? Will you seek a non -development contract, a legal easement of some kind, or would this be an agreement of mutual intent to protect the land? How will you protect biological corridors in your greenway system from too much human use? If we were to find that being part of the greenway drew many people to the site and was causing degradation of the glen could we withdraw from participation? How close will the proposed trails along•the inlet be to Coy Glen? Separation of the two types greenway systems could reduce traffic into biological corridors. Thank you for consulting us, and please keep us informed of your progress with the Coy Glen greenway. Sincerely, Nancy O/ stman Natural Areas --Program Director cc: Dick Fischer, Peter Marks NYPF 488 Broadway, Suite 313, Albany, NY 12207 Vol. 57, N0. 3 Winter 1993 PRIVATE PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS What Communities can Still Do After LUCAS There has been quite a bit of confusion about communities' ability to regulate land uses in the public interest. After the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, many unwarranted constitutional claims have been made. As a practical matter, the Lucas case has little , if any, real effect on communities' longstanding land - use authority. On the contrary, local governments still have broad legal powers to adopt whatever zoning or other regulations they deem necessary to prevent negative impacts from development. And, with a few simple precautions, they apply those regulations without having to pay compensation to owners whose "right" to develop may be affected. The Lucas case was decided under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The Lucas case acknowledged that this constitutional protection of private property was originally intended to apply only to physical invasions of private property by government --when government literally "takes" the property away by excluding the owner from it. What the Supreme Court mainly did in Lucas was to reconfirm that regulations on land use can also amount to takings, even without a physical invasion, if they deprive a particular owner of all economically beneficial use." The Supreme Court itself conceded that a total taking of all use by a mere by John A. Humbach regulation would be an "extraordinary circumstance." It plainly recognized that there is a "broad realm within which government may regulate without compensation." The limits are simple: A regulation must serve a legitimate governmental interest (such as preserving community qualities or protecting the environment) and it must leave private owners with at lease some economically beneficial use. It is an economic reality that some interests have much to gain if they can convince local boards that localities have less power to prevent negative development impacts than they actually have. Communities should not let themselves be misled. Here are some things to remember: 1. Reducing the Value of Land is NOT Unconstitutional. A community does NOT have to pay compensation to discontented owners just because its land -use regulations may reduce land value. As the Supreme Court said in Lucas, "government may affect property values by regulation without incurring an obligation to compensate -- a reality we nowadays acknowledge explicitly." 2. Restricting Valuable Uses of land is NOT Unconstitutional. A community does NOT have to pay compensation just because its regulations restrict owners from making the "highest and best" uses of their land. A regulation does not have to allow an owner to make the most valuable use. It just cannot take away "all economically beneficial use." 3. Requiring Land to be Kept as Open Space is NOT Unconstitutional. As long as there is a legitimate public objective (preserving agriculture, protecting the environment, retaining community character, open space, etc.), localities can even zone lands to retain exclusively open -land uses. For example, the urban growth boundary (UGB) system used in Oregon since 1972 utilizes open -land zoning to channel development and prevent sprawl by eliminating virtually any new structures at all outside of the UGBs around its urbanized areas. The only requirement is that the affected land must, as open space, retain at least some economically beneficial use, such as fanning, forestry or marketable recreational uses (e.g., golf). (continued on page 2) •y. ,..,. rX..' IN THIS ISSUE fi Announcements ' t ��:a *� 3 r. 4 - Cellular Antennae � Non=point Pollution i 6 �2 Wetlands Workshops T L4ilatiye Initiatiy, 6 8 �x 2 PLANNING NEWS Winter, 1993 4. Subdivision Regulations Can Keep Open Lands "Open". Denying subdivision approval may reduce a piece of land's value but, almost by definition, it cannot eliminate all value. It is therefore practically impossible for subdivision regulations to run afoul of the Takings Clause. This fact often makes subdivision regulations the technique of choice for preventing undesirable conversions of rural open lands to developed uses. 5. It's Easy to Inoculate Against Lucas, but Not Automatic. The Supreme Court in Lucas was more explicit than ever about the concept of regulatory taking, and this makes it easier than ever for communities to inoculate their land -use laws against "takings" challenge. Protection is not, however, automatic. Communities must act. To give your community's budget maximum protection against compensation liabilities, the community should, as soon as possible, amend the zoning and other land -use laws to: a. Provide for Hardship Variances -- Your law should entitle owners to variances based on hardship alone. (Most zoning variances consider other factors in addition to hardship.) PLANNING NEWS Library of Congress Catalogue Card No. 65-29356 Vol 57, No 3, Winter, 1993 Published by New York Planning Federation 488 Broadway, Suite 313 Albany, New York 12207 (518) 432-4094 (518) 427-8625 (fax) David Church, editor Officers Herbert J. Levenson, President Mildred M. Whalen, 1 st Vice President J. Donald Faso, 2nd Vice President With a hardship variance provision, no owner can ever honestly assert that the law eliminates "all economically beneficial use." (If the state had provided this sort of escape valve in Lucas, the case would have been thrown out.) Hardship variances can detract from the integrity of the comprehensive plan, but this effect can be minimized by: (a) defining hardship to mean no economically beneficial use at all, and (b) entitling the applicant only to the minimum variance necessary to allow at least some economically beneficial use. b.Back up Use Regulations with Subdivision Regulations -- Once open land has been divided up into little parcels too small to use economically "as is," the owners of the individual lots can claim a taking based on lack of "economically beneficial" open -space use. Due to subdividing, in other words, open -land protections can no longer be validly applied to the land. Subdivision regulations can prevent this by stopping people from creating the little lots that have no value except in uses that violate zoning or other regulations. Subdivision regulations can also provide important back-up for rules protecting sensitive environmental resources, such as wetlands. Takings law looks at the PLANNING NEWS welcomes responses from its readers. Manuscripts may be submitted for possible publication. Submittals should be double-spaced and in duplicate. If published, such articles become the property of PLANNING NEWS and may be edited to conform with format requirements. The opinions and views expressed in PLANNING NEWS are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the New York Planning Federation. economic effect of regulations on parcels— "as a whole." A takings challenge (or th need for a variance) can therefore be avoided by preventing people from severing areas too sensitive for building from the buildable adjacent land. This avoids a taking by making sure that parcels containing sensitive, non - buildable lands stay whole and, therefore, retain "economically beneficial use" viewed as a whole. 6. Comprehensive Plan. No matter what the economic impact, covets repelled when they believe that a community may be attempting to unfairly single out particular owners with ad hoc restrictions on use while others do not have to play by the same ground rules. This does not mean that every piece of land has to be treated the same, but it does mean that there must be carefully thought-out rationales for the differences. A thoughtful and thorough comprehensive plan is a strong defense against "takings" challenge. John A. Humbach is a Professor ojLa at Pace University School of Law, White Plains, NY where he specializes in property law. The NEW YORK PLANNING FEDERATION is a non-profit membership organization established in 1937. Our mission is to promote sound planning and zoning practice throughout New York State. Membership is open and welcomed to anyone supporting this mission. Membership categories include municipalities, counties, public organizations, private businesses, individuals, and libraries. Contact the Federation for information. The New York Planning Federation now maintains a toll-free number for members needing technical assistance. Call (800) 366-NYPF David Church, AICP, Executive Director printed on recycled paper The Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County, Inc, Presents a brown -bag seminar for staff and board members of non-profit agencies: USING THE MEDIA TO GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS PART H Enlighten yourself about using television and radio to get your organization's message across. Learn how to maximize the use of air time and the community bulletin board. Additional information will cover preparing releases and programs. Learn how to help the media and the public understand and personify your agency. Presented by Molly Cummings, News Director, Newscenter 7 Lauren Stefanelli, Community Access Coordinator, PEGASYS Geoff Dunn, News Director, WTKO Thursday, April 7, 1994 12:00 Noon — 1:30 p.m. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Room B 615 Willow Avenue in Ithaca Bring your brown -bag lunch. Beverages will be provided. Registration Fee: $10.00 For more information, please contact the Human Services Coalition at 273-8686. ❑ YES, sign me up for Using the Media to Get Your Message Across: Part II. Enclosed is my check for $10.00 made out to the Human Services Coalition. Name Title Address Please return by April ,4th to: Agency Human Services Coalition 313 North Aurora Street Ithaca, NY 14850 A United Way Agency Phone# cAwp51 \works hop\publicl I.fly • The increasing popularity of walking, birding, running, cross-country skiing, bicycling and horse -back riding among a very large cross-section of our population has created a need for a new arid unique type of park. Children, families and people (young and old) need a place where they can engage in these activities unimpeded by traffic in a safe, well managed environment. Grassroots organizations all over the country have been and are currently mounting successful efforts to develop trail systems and linear parks for the enjoyment of the general public. To date, there are over 550 established trails in the United States, with more coming on line everyday. Ontario. Pathways in conjunction with the Finger Lakes Community College have gathered together members of many of Western New York trail organizations and experts on recreational trails for an exchange of ideas, and a day of education and recreation. Featured Keynote Speaker. Simon Sidamon-Eristoff Counsel National Rails -to -Trails Conservancy Washington, D.C. Information and Questions - Call: Jim Rose - (716) 394-7303 MORNING SESSION 7:30-8:20 a.m. Registration/Coffee and Donuts 8:25-9:30 a.m. "Rails -to -Trails: Movement, Mission and Successes" Speaker: Simon Sidamon-Eristoff Counsel Natiohal "Rails -to -Trails Conversancy" 9:35-10:10 a.m. Informal Question and Answer Session with "Rails -to -Trails" Coffee and Donuts 10:15-11:10 a.m. "The Finger Lakes Trail:. Current Status and Future" Speaker: Howard Beye, Chairman Finger Lakes Trail Association 11:15-12:15 p.m. Panel Discussion and Idea Exchange on Multi -Use Trails in Ontario and Surrounding Counties Panel Members: Outlet Trail Macedon Trail Group Crescent Trail Genesee Valley Greenways Victor Hiking Trails 12:15-1:15 p.m. Lunch served FLCC Cafeteria (included in registration fee) AFTERNOON RECREATIONAL SESSION 1:30-3:15 p.m. Option #1: Tour of Proposed Ontario Pathway's Rail Trail Various Sections Option #2: Cross -Country Ski on CCFL Campus Nature Trails (bring your own skis) Option #3: Tour of Nature Trail Onanda Park i "RECREATIONAL TRAILS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY" Course No.: SCP 08G-50 Name: Social Security #: Street Address: City: _ State., Zip: Telephone: Home: _ Work: MAIL TO: Office of Community Education Finger Lakes Community College 4355 Lakeshore Drive Canandaigua, New York 14424-8395 (716) 394-3500; ext. 387 Make checks payable to: FLCC LU O WU1 Nwi 00 N O r�®<U i� V) Cz CL L. W fL d. U; _ O W z o U a� c y Ln �U 'IT W c cE>0 Evo� Ev,�z Ud) 0: J Y V �Lo S 2 0LLVU COLLEGE and FLOC Room - B-440 4355 Lakeshore Drive Canandaigua, New York 14424-8395 N PRESENT: co c v r- w z ►► ReCJ `tG4.P� P'� a �� ' � a) 0 CO N _ c :E coo U A Conference for Establishing, Maintaining and Improving Public Trail Systems Saturday, March 19, 1994 Morning Education Session: 8:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. - - - Buffet Lunch - - - Afternoon Recreation Session: 1:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. FLOC Room - B-440 4355 Lakeshore Drive Canandaigua, New York 14424-8395 CORNELL/COLLUM TEL:607-257-6220 Mar 05'94 20:25 No.002 R.02 *** NNOTHGE *** NA L RESCHEDULE MFETINCS Rom 3/3194 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, March 17, 1994 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. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 pm 2. Report of Chair 7:45 pm 3. Committee Reports: ERC Committee Greenway Committee Environmental Alias Committee 8:45 pm 4. Committee Restructuring 8:55 pm S. Approval of Minutes of 4/15/93, 6110193, and 2/24/94 9:05 pm 6. Member Concerns 9:15 pm 7. Adjournment If you are Tenable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CR Membnrw Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Fawkes Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell Tonight (3/17/94) Sorry for any inconvenience! CORNELL/COLLUM TEL:607-257-6220 Mar 05'94 20:25 No.002 P.01 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 5, 1994 StarrRae t Mailing for the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Please mall (your schedule permitting) the enclosed agenda to all members of the Conservation Board on fix, March 81h. (Don't mail It before Mary Russell's nomination Is confirmed at Monday evening's Town Board meeting.) The CB members need to receive this notice ASAP as a reminder of the rescheduled meeting. I would also like to request the addition of Mary Russell to our.growing list of GB members (Mary Russell, 955 Coddington Road,_ Ithaca, 14850). As aver, many thanks for your Delp, tae- �1�1a t� vea�j �- �j JOAO LALJ -� i/l rte" �� o 9i 01 MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD April 7, 1994, 7:30 pm Approved 7/7/94 HEX PRESENT: Candace Cornell, John Meigs, Janet Hawkes, Phil Zarriello, Cheryl Smith ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Richard Fischer, Mary Russell Candace opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 1. Persons to be heard: None 2. Report of the Chair a. Implementation of the Comprehensive plan: The CB will be looked to for assistance and advice. Things to think about are: a) Planning committee - rezoning. Candace to get copies of AG report and Six Mile Creek to Janet, John and Cheryl; b) Parks Plan - Greenways Committee to update; c) Environmental Law Institute - evening courses will be available. If CB members wish to attend it will be paid for by the Town; d) Greenways and Bike Expo. '94 on May 21st; e) Finger Lakes State Parks celebrating Cayuga Lake the week of July 25th - CB was criticized in Open Space report for not studying Cayuga Lake this would be an opportunity to do something. 3. Mann Library Extension - New York State University Construction Fund The CB is concerned about the proposed plans for the library expansion. The building footprint will encroach on the vegetated transition zone that buffers the old growth forest from environmental stress. The plans state it will take over the buffer area and cut approximately 10 trees. This will result in killing the roots of many other tress. There is also a Northern Pearl Crescent butterfly whose habitat will be destroyed. An Environmental Impact Statement has been ordered. The questions the CB would like considered in the scoping process are: a) Slope consists of loose gravel and construction can change the slope and ground water seepage. b) Vegetation depends on conditions as they are now. If this is altered, i.e. moisture change, light and shading, this will adversly affect the forest. c) CB requests long-term monitoring of the forest to see that no damage results to forest growth. Candace suggested the Phil take over this task since its a geographical and hydrologic concern. 4. By -Laws - updated and retyped - attached All CB members voted unanimously to approve bylaws, passed unanimously. A 4. Committee Report ERC: Responded to four requested: 1) Little Farm subdivision - supported action and encouraged avoidance of weland; 2) Sapone Meadows - supported action with contingencies; 3) Glendale Farm subdivision - supported action with contingencies; 4) Sanctuary Woods Subdivision - Did not support action as designed - sent back for re -design. Janet said that Sapone Meadows asked for a buffer zone around the stream. Planning Board asked the ERC to determine the width of the buffer zone. Candace to check on this information. Former Oxley Arena Site - Rt. 366 - proposed parking lot for overflow of Sage Hall. Plans provide a buffer zone with a trail near the stream. George Frantz providing Candace with filtration system information in regard to this. Greenway Committee: Candace and Janet met and did some sketching. Nothing more the report. Environmental Atlas: Town has hired an intern for the summer. Phil wants to demonstrate the GIS system to CB members. He has put together a packet of information for CB members to look over and comment on. CB members need to inform Phil of classifications, features, properties, etc. that should be included in the database. Suggestions to Phil at next meeting. 5. Meeting Minutes Phil motioned to approve minutes of June 1993, April 1993, and February 1994, seconded by Cheryl, pass unanimously 6. Member Concerns: Phil saw a video by ASCE - Owego Conference. The video was about pesticides, herbicides, etc. and effect on farmers. He suggested that copies be made (didn't see a copyright) and distributed to different farmers. CB members approved. 7. Meeting --Adjourned Next Meeting - May 6, 1994 Respectfully submitted by Karen Moore, Secretary to the Conservation Board TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, April 7, 1994 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 p.m. 1 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Discussion of Scoping items for Mann Library Project (enclosed) 8:20 p.m. 4. Discussion of Bylaws (enclosed) 8:40 p.m. 5. Committee Reports: ERC Committee Greenway Committee Environmental Atlas Committee 9:00 P.M. 6. Approval of Minutes of 4/15/93, 6/10/93, and 2/24/94 9:15 P.M. 7. Member Concerns 9:30 p.m. 6. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann. Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell CB Mailing Checklist Date Mailed Packets: Cornell �f Hawkes Zarriello Fischer Smith Hoffmann Russell Meigs Agendas: Moore Crispin Darlington Page Stephans Leopold White Staff Louise John W. j Mary IV �"J M(L CC,4-LEz CI[d r7 DC Ctl /Yb p CC 1 �EG6/ZIJS. �//�b0 FiLFS�-yam Foe Y/�/95' � ✓3 �. MEMO DATE: April 1, 1994 TO: StarrRae FROM: Candace RE: Mailing for the Town of Ithaca Conservation Boar Please mail the enclosed materials, copied in duplex, to all members of the Conservation Board for our meeting next Thursday, April 7th. **I also need you to copy the minutes from 4/15/93, 6/10/93, and 2/24/94, (found in the meeting package of 3/3/94) and include them in this week's package. The CB has eight members: Dick Fischer, Phil Zarriello, Eva Hoffmann, Cheryl Smith, Janet Hawkes, Jon Meigs, myself, and Mary Russell. Mary Russell, 955 Coddington Road, Ithaca, 14850 Jon Meigs, 235 Culver Road, Ithaca, 14850 As ever, many thanks for your help. MEMO DATE: April 1, 1994 TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Members FROM: Candace E. Cornell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, Chair RE: April 7th Meeting Agenda Item #3 Mann Library Addition/Renovation Project (SUCF Project No. 16069/167/198) The C131 has an opportunity to submit items to be addressed during the scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Mann Library Addition/Renovation Project. The ERC will take the concerns voiced by the CB at our April 7th meeting and compose a response on behalf of the CB. The deadline for our comments is April . To fully address the concerns of the community, the EIS should include an analysis of the potential impacts of altering the current light, moisture, and temperature regime in the old growth forest. It should also address potential storm water runoff and erosion impacts on Beebe Lake and changes in the aesthetic character of the natural area and view. The State University Construction Fund does not favor the alternative to shrink the building footprint away from the slope while increasing the height. I have included information about the SEQRA scoping process and this proposed project in your meeting package. Lynn Leopold's letter address many of the concerns of the community. Briefly, the massive addition (110,00 sq. ft.) is planned on the north side of the existing library. The building footprint will cover the vegetated buffer area of the slope and intrude into the old-growth woods. The project will necessitate the removal of about ten of the old trees with potential impacts on the entire area. Agenda Item # 4 The Conservation Board has been operating under the bylaws of the Conservation Advisory Board (last revised November 11, 1992). The CB should adopt its own bylaws and forward them to the Town Board. We will discuss updating our bylaws at our April 7th meeting and decide whether to adopt the current version (enclosed) or make revisions. 1 Although these woods are in the Town of Ithaca, the proposed project site is about 200 feet west of the Town's border with the City of Ithaca. r STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND STATE UNIVERSITY PLAZA Mr. George Frantz, Assist. Town Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (,a, #A.,< Le, -I ii C� K*z51994 D March 22, 1994 Subject: SEAR Positive Declaration Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Determination of Significance Dear Sir: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and Section 314.5(b) Part 314 of Title 8 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, Implementation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, State University of New York) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A determination of significance - Positive Declaration is submitted for the following Type I action: SUCF Project No. 16069/167/198, Addition/Rehabilitation to Mann Library; Loading Dock Relocation, Various Buildings and Construct Horitorium, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Tompkins County; Construct a 110,000 s.f. addition to an existing library that houses a University library, administration area and associated support space. A 2,500 s.f. loading dock will be constructed to service the existing and proposed library and the adjacent Plant Science Building. A new 56,000 s.f. building will contain a horitorium and a conservatory. Based upon an environmental assessment, the Environmental Quality Review Committee of the State University of New York and the State University Construction Fund has determined that this action may have a significant effect on the basic elements of the environment. Any questions regarding this positive declaration may be addressed to the undersigned, State University Plaza, P.O. Box 1946, Albany, New York 12201- 1946, telephone (518) 443-5744. Very truly yours Mary Ellen Rajtar Environmental Coordinator Enclosures (Appendix E, Distribution List) James E. Biggane, Director of Consultant Design, Post Office Box 1946, Albany, NY 12201-1946 (518) 443-5735 / FAX 443-5509 1412.6 (2187)-8c 617.21 Appendix E State Environmental Duality Review POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Project Number 16069/167/198 Date 3/17/94 SEAR This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The State University Construction Fund , as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Addition/Rehabilitation to Mann Library, Loading Dock Relocation, Various Buildings and Construct Horitorium SEOR Status: Type I Unlisted ❑ Description of Action: A 110,000 s.f. addition to an existing library that houses a University library, administration area and associated support space. A 2,500 s.f. loading dock will be constructed to service the existing and proposed library and the adjacent Plant Science Building. A new 56,000 s.f. building will contain a horitorium and a conservatory. At the completion of the above the existing library will also be renovated. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) The proposed site is on the existing Cornell University Campus, City of Ithaca in Tompkins County and is bounded on the west by the existing Mann Library and on the south by Emerson Hall. See attached map. SEAR Positive Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: The following potential impacts from the proposed action have been identified: 1. Potential impacts to Cornell Plantations due to physical alteration of the site and alteration of light. conditions. 2. Stormwater runoff impacts to areas downstream: of the project, including Beebe Lake. 3. Erosion and sedimentation impacts, including to Beebe Lake. 4. Changes in aesthetic character. For Further Information: Contact Person: Mary Ellen Rajtar; Environmental Coordinator Address: State University Construction Fund, P.O. Box 1946, Albany, New York 12201-1946 Telephone Number: (518) 443-5744 A Copy of this Notice Sent to: i Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 ' Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation 1 Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. Applicant (if any) Other involved agencies (if any) See attached list. c -\ oQ � Martha Van RmuNac Beebe Lake 0 � Savage Hall ..... .. ..' �... ., tit Computing ' Q Q Galley Nall Comm..!�!��..�' 1 Center Gail «I Warren Hall � J p \P antations - �, suwsu Mann Facility OR bort all Library (2 ) J (4) 1�� • Q Emerson Mall Fernow Hall Lf, �•� �! o ' I I ° Plant Science (� I Malotl Hall Kennedy •Q I L \O �.•� Mall OO 1 (3) radlie L Rice HaU I a Mudd Nall V7— Corson Hall a w , W a Z w Alumni Fields , L7 mstoc Hall Biotechnology 1 Barton Hall \-- I r � Teagle Hall Lynah Rink Alberoing Field Mouse / O p0 1. Phase 1 - Loading Dock 2. Phase 2 - Addition to Mann Library 3. Phase 3 - New Horitorium/Conservatory 4. Phase 4 - Renovation of Mann Library New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences MASTER PLAN at Cornell University FINAL NOTICE OF SEQRA SCOPING SESSION NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES AT CORNELL SUCF PROJECT NO. 160691167/198 ADDITION/REHABILITATION TO MANN LIBRARY LOADING DOCK RELOCATION, VARIOUS BLDGS. AND CONSTRUCT HORITORIUM MAR 2 5 1994 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING ZONING ENGINEERING The State University Construction Fund, as lead agency for the above project, has determined that a scoping session will be held to determine the relevant issues of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.7. Those persons/agencies who wish to be heard regarding the DEIS issues may be heard on Tuesday, April 5, 1994 between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm in Room Number 205 of the Riley Robb Academic Building, Wing Drive on the Cornell University. If persons are unable to attend, written comments on the DEIS scope will be received at the address listed below through April 19, 1994. Any questions regarding the scoping session may be directed to the individual listed below: Mary Ellen Rajtar, Environmental Coordinator State University Construction Fund P.O. Box 1946 353 Broadway Albany, New York 12201-1946 (518) 443-5744 r�� January 14, 1994 Irving H. Freedman State University Construction Fund State University Plaza P.O. Box 1946 Albany NY 12201-1946 Dear Mr. Freedman: On behalf of the Land Use, Transportation and Energy Committee of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the current plan for the expansion of Mann Library on the Cornell University campus (SUCF Project No. 16069/ 167/ 198). After reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and Site Plans, dated November 30, 1993, I would like to convey the following concerns and suggestions. 1. Our main concern is for the mature forest covering the slope directly to the north of the proposed building addition. The woods surrounding Beebe Lake have been designated a Tompkins County Unique Natural Area (Site Code IT -21), as well as having been recognized by the campus Natural Areas Committee as a site "of critical importance to the University as a natural area." It is clear from the site plan that the building footprint will cover most of the upper slope forest area that presently serves as a buffer zone between the campus and the impacts of its urban activities, and the older forest down slope. It is hard to imagine that placing the proposed addition directly next to the mature forest will not further threaten an already vulnerable ecosystem. This forest is an irreplaceable feature of the Cornell Campus. A four—story building placed as close as 20 feet from the older trees at some points along the planned north wall will challenge the survivability of the nearby trees, especially those whose roots will be cut in order to excavate for the foundation work. Some of the trees to be removed during construction will be impossible to replace on site. It is doubtful that a construction project of this magnitude can be managed so as not to impact severely the fragile woodland ecosystem below the site. 2. Part A13 claims that the project area is not used by the community as an open space or recreation area. While in the strictest sense, this is true, if only the building footprint is being considered; in the larger sense it is not true, given that the paths along the north side of Mann and Warren Hall, as well as through the woods down to Forest Home Drive, are used daily by students walking to and from classes, as well as for recreational purposes, such as walking, biking and jogging. Further, the entire Beebe Lake basin, an area that includes hiking paths, the wooded embankments, the gorge, open meadows and upper slopes, is one of the most scenic areas on the campus proper. Finally, the forest north of the . addition site provides a valuable teaching resource for several of the biological sciences at Cornell. 3. Every precaution must be taken to protect the forested slope and Beebe Lake from storm water run-off, since construction activities so close to the steep slope will threaten the fragile woodland soils. The new DEC regulations for reducing storm water erosion and sedimentation should be carefully followed, including obtaining approval for erosion control on and adjacent to the site prior to construction. The EAF and Nov. 30 site plan give no clue as to how storm water run-off will be managed. A building addition that will literally double the square footage of the existing library will most certainly add to the overall roof area, thus increasing the force of water flowing off the building and parking area. It is an observed fact that paved surfaces and rooftop areas contribute significantly to the erosional force of storm water. 4. It should be noted that Tompkins County no longer has landfill capacity within its borders. The proposed Dryden landfill site was withdrawn indefinitely from consideration; waste is currently transferred to an out -of -county disposal site. 5. We do not doubt the need for the expanded library facility. However, to build the addition as proposed would sacrifice a recognized_ natural area of immeasurable value, which would be a disservice to the- University, as well as to the community at large. Is it possible to reconsider the present design to incorporate a smaller footprint, therefore reducing the total land required for the addition? The Cornell Campus plan (Vol. I, P. 14) states that "[To] meet the need for centrally located facilities, the potential for underground construction ... should be explored"... Since there is considerable depth to bedrock and ground water, and alternative to constructing a four—story building would be to build the library addition underground, similar to the one built for Olin Library. Alternatively, reorienting the geometry of the present plan to utilize the space behind Emerson and Fernow Halls could lessen the impact to the woods and slopes. Thank you for including the Environmental Management Council as an interested party and for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment. Sincerely, Lynn Leopold Chair, Land Use, Transportation and Energy Committee, EMC cc: Herb Engman, Chair, EMC MANN LIBRARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Draft Scoping Document - 3/22/94 Cover Sheet Executive Summary Brief description of the action, significant impacts, issues of controversy, mitigation measures, alternatives, matters to be decided Table of Contents 1.0 Description of the Proposed Action 1.1 Location Location map(s) Pedestrian and vehicle access 1.2 Existing Use Brief description of existing uses on and around site 1.3 Project Purpose, Need and Benefits Background and history Need for the project and relationship to adopted University plans Objectives of project sponsor Benefits to the City and Cornell 1.4 Design and Layout 1.4.1 Existing Conditions Existing site layout, including building locations and dimensions, impervious areas, landscaping and natural areas Description of existing structures Existing utility service 1.4.2 Proposed Conditions Use Site plans Size Exterior appearance Landscaping/open space Impervious area Utilities and stormwater drainage 1.5 Construction Schedule of construction, including starting dates and total time Construction infrastructure Future potential development 1.6 Operation Hours of operation Maintenance practices 1.7 Approvals and Funding - Cornell - State University Construction Fund - Utility connections - Funding source(s) 2.0 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measure 2.1 Physical Resources 2.1.1 Environmental Setting Geologic history and setting Bedrock type, properties and depth Soil descriptions, including physical and engineering properties, characteristics, construction suitability, agricultural suitability and susceptibility to erosion and sedimentation Topography and slope 2.1.2 Potential Impacts Construction suitability Soil erosion 2.1.3 Mitigation Measures Erosion control plan Site restoration Other 2.2 Ecology 2.2.1 Environmental Setting Description of Plantations Inventory of flora and fauna and description of existing characteristics, including significant species, individual specimens, communities and habitat values Description of rare, threatened or endangered species Wetlands 2.2.2 Potential Impacts Impact to Plantations Loss of habitat Damage to roots Damage due to shading, including impact on growth of existing specimens and on regeneration 2.2.3 Mitigation Measures Construction measures Site restoration Design measures to avoid impacts Other 2.3 Water Resources 2.3.1 Environmental Setting Site drainage characteristics Beebe Lake characteristics, including classification and quality Groundwater characteristics, including depth and potential seasonal fluctuations 2.3.2 Potential Impacts Alterations to drainage characteristics including adequacy of facilities to accommodate flows Sedimentation of Beebe Lake during and after construction Construction suitability due to groundwater depth Storage of petroleum products during construction Chemical fertilizer runoff 2.3.3 Mitigation Measures Erosion control plan Stormwater management plan Other 2.4 Air Resources 2.4.1 Environmental Setting Climate Existing air quality levels Local pollutant sources Sensitive receptors 2.4.2 Potential Impacts Construction generated dust Heating/cooling sources of pollutants Automobiles/truck generated pollutants 2.4.3 Mitigation Measures Construction dust control Construction equipment maintenance Other 2.5 Transportation Resources 2.5.1 Environmental Setting Regional transportation characteristics including public transportation Pedestrian access including Plantations path Parking Loading facilities Local street and roadway characteristics 2.5.2 Potential Impacts Impacts to pedestrian facilities, including physical changes to Plantations path Loss of parking Changes to loading patterns Changes in traffic volume, or levels of services Changes in levels of use of public transportation 2.5.3 Mitigation Measure Plantation path design and landscaping Other 2.6 Land Use 2.6.1 Environmental Setting Description of existing uses on and around site, including Plantations City zoning and review authority City master plan and other planning studies County master plan and other planning studies Campus master plan 2.6.2 Potential Impacts Compatibility with existing uses, including Plantations Compatibility with City and County plans and studies Compatibility with campus master plan 2.6.3 Mitigation Measures Construction and design measures to avoid impacts to Plantations Other 2.7 Demographic and Economic Consideration 2.7.1 Environmental setting Profile of demographic characteristics of Cornell campus, City of Ithaca and community Existing employment Existing economic impact of subject facilities 2.7.2 Potential Impacts •a Changes to demographic characteristics of City and campus Construction spending including direct and secondary economic impact Job creation Operations spending including direct and secondary economic impact 2.7.3 Mitigation Measures As required 2.8 Local Services 2.8.1 Environmental Setting Police protection Fire and rescue services Hospital and physician services Schools Solid waste disposal 2.8.2 Potential Impacts Increased security demands Increase in fire and rescue calls Increase in hospital/physician demands Changes in school enrollment characteristics Solid waste generation 2.8.3 Mitigation Measures As required 2.9 Utilities 2.9.1 Environmental Setting Water supply, including source and transmission facilities Sewage disposal, including conveyance and treatment facilities Gas and electric, including distribution system location and adequacy Telecommunications 2.9.2 Potential Impacts Water use and impact to supply and conveyance facilities Sewage generation, including impact to conveyance and treatment facilities Reconstruction/changes to existing lines 2.9.3 Mitigation Measures As required 2.10 Cultural Resources 2.10.1 Environmental Setting Buildings/sites on local/state/national historic registers Stage IA cultural resources survey 2.10.2 Potential Impacts Alterations to historic site/structures Construction on archaeological sites 2.10.3 Mitigation Measures As required 2.11 Aesthetic Character 2.11.1 Environmental Setting Visual character of the site, including from Plantation's path and Forest Home Drive Noise characteristics Odor 2.11.2 Potential Impacts Changes to visual character from Plantations path and Forest Home Drive Changes in noise levels during and after construction Odor producing activities during and after construction 2.11.3 Mitigation Measures Building layout and appearance Landscaping Construction practices and scheduling Other 3.0 Alternatives 3.1 Alternative Location Alternative location on Cornell campus for the proposed project 3.2 Alternative Size Larger or smaller facilities 3.3 Alternative Layout Alternative site plan utilizing same project site 3.4 Alternative Design Underground facilities Building on top of existing facilities 3.5 The No -Action Alternative Effect on Cornell's needs Beneficial and adverse environmental impacts 4.0 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 5.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 6.0 Growth Inducing• Aspects Secondary impacts due to job creation and spending 7.0 Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Energy conservation measures References Appendices As required 4017wx04.noc ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS 55 The project sponsor/applicant has the option to prepare the draft EIS, or it may request the lead agency do so, but the lead agency has the right of refusal. It is most common for the applicant or project sponsor to prepare the draft EIS. A final EIS is the responsibility of the lead agen- cy. The lead agency may prepare the final EIS itself or request that the project sponsor respond to the substantive comments and submit a preliminary version of the final EIS. The lead agency must review the document and modify it, as appropriate. A lead agency may also seek advice from other involved agencies and con- sultants in completing the final EIS. A supplemental EIS, if needed, is also usually prepared by the project sponsor at the request of the lead agency, in order to account for significant adverse concerns not adequately ad- dressed in the draft/final EIS. 6. Would a draft or supplemental EIS contain more reliable information if it was prepared by the lead agency or an independent third party, rather than the applicant? Draft and supplemental EIS's would probably not be more reliable because applicants or spon- sors know best what their original concepts are, and the draft EIS provides the opportunity to present their ideas in relation to identified poten- tial impacts. The EIS must meet the minimum standards for an EIS and conform with the specific scope or content specified by the lead agency. Remember that draft and supplemental EIS's are intended for public scrutiny. Involved agencies and interested parties have the opportunity to raise questions about their specific environmen- tal concerns which may or may not have been adequately dealt with in these E IS's. It is in the final EIS, which is a product of the lead agen- cy, that such issues are answered and guidance is provided for the ultimate decisions which must be made regarding the overall action. 7. If an involved agency has no environmental concerns about an action for which an EIS is being prepared, may it make an immediate decision on the action? No agency shall issue a decision on an action that it knows any other involved agency has determined may have a significant effect on the environment until a final EIS has been filed. 8. Who pays for the preparation of an EIS? If an applicant prepares an EIS, itis done at the applicant's cost. If there is more than one ap- plicant involved in the overall action, they may share the cost of the EIS preparation. If the EIS relates to a direct agency action and no appli- cant is involved, the agency bears the cost of its preparation. If an agency agrees to prepare an EIS for an applicant, it may charge for such preparation, but may not charge for subsequent review activities. There is a limit on the amount that a lead agency may charge an applicant for preparation of an EIS (see 617.17 and Section 5-J, page 84). 9. Who determines the adequacy of a draft EIS? The lead agency determines the adequacy of a draft EIS prior to its release for public review. (For more information, see Section 5-D, page 69). B. SCOPING A DRAFT EIS �--- 1. What is scoping? Scoping is a process that identifies relevant en- vironmental effects of an action to be address- ed in a draft EIS. The purpose of scoping is to narrow issues and to ensure that the draft EIS will be a concise, accurate and complete docu- ment that is adequate for public review. The scoping process is intended to create consen- sus among the lead agency and the other involv- ed agencies in order to minimize the inclusion of unnecessary issues or the submission of an obviously deficient EIS for review. 2. What are the objectives of scoping? The scoping process has six main objectives: • Identify the relevant environmental issues and provide the preparers with the specific issues to be addressed; 56 CHAPTER 5 • Eliminate irrelevant issues and de- emphasize nonsignificant issues; • Identify the extent and quality of informa- tion needed; • Identify the range of reasonable alter- natives to be discussed; and • Identify potential areas of mitigation. • Identify available sources of information. 3. Is scoping required for every EIS? While the regulations do not mandate scoping, one of two forms of scoping occurs in the development of every EIS. Scoping occurs following the formal procedures contained in 617.7 or it occurs informally. Formal scoping may be initiated by the lead agency or perform- ed if requested by the project sponsor. Formal scoping results in a written scope of issues; this helps the lead agency to eliminate non -relevant issues. Informal scoping occurs when a project spon- sor prepares a draft EIS based on informal com- ments from the involved agencies and issues identified in the positive. declaration. A formal procedure may not be needed for smaller, more readily defined actions. When there is little or no scoping before prepar- ing a draft EIS, there is a tendency to discuss every topic conceivable. This takes the focus away from the relevant issues. Another strong argument for providing a written scope of issues (i.e., formal scoping) is the benefit it provides the lead agency when it must determine whether the submitted draft is adequate. The written scope provides a checklist to ensure that topics have not been missed, and that the level of analysis corresponds to that established in the scoping process. 4. Is there a time period for formal scoping? Scoping should be started as soon after a positive declaration as possible. The lead agency must complete the process and provide a writ- ten scope of issues to the applicant and all in- volved agencies within 30 calendar days of the filing of the positive declaration. This time period can be extended by mutual agreement between the applicant and the lead agency. If the project is a direct action by an agency the 30 day time limit does not apply. 5. What happens in formal scoping if the lead agency fails to provide a written scope within thirty days? If the lead agency fails to provide a written scope within 30 days and there has been no mutual agreement on an extension, the appli- cant has the right to submit a draft EIS. However, this draft EIS must still be determin- ed to be adequate by the lead agency before starting the public review period. 6. Who may participate in scoping? Depending on the type, extent and interest in the action, there are three levels of scoping par- ticipation which may be appropriate: The minimum level involves only the ap- plicant and the lead agency. After discuss- ing the project, the lead agency may pro- vide the project sponsor with a written list of issues that form the scope of the draft EIS, or the project sponsor may submit a list of issues for consideration by the lead agency. The second level of participation adds the involved agencies to the scoping process. Either by a meeting or correspondence, the lead agency ensures that the relevant con- cerns of all involved agencies will be in- cluded in the draft EIS. The third level adds the public in the scop- ing process. This can be accomplished by requesting written public comments, by in- viting representatives of various public in- terest groups to a scoping session or by holding a general public meeting. This third level is appropriate for large, com- plex, and controversial projects. It is sug- gested that prior to a public scoping meeting the lead agency prepare and distribute a draft scope. This tends to organize and focus the review and make for a more effective public scoping meeting (see Model Scoping Checklist in 617.21 Appendix D). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS 57 The lead agency may use any or all three levels of participation, progressively opening the pro- cess to a larger audience. This depends on the. nature of the proposed action. 7. Does scoping always require a meeting be- tween the involved agencies and the project sponsor? No. The format used for scoping is determin- ed by the lead agency. For a small, less com- plex action, scoping could be accomplished by phone or an exchange of written materials. A meeting may be a productive method of scop- ing, but a lead agency may use other methods in place of or to complement a meeting. If a meeting is chosen as the method, it may be coor- dinated with other preliminary meetings on the project. 8. Can staff of an agency meet with an applicant and/or other involved agencies to prepare a scope without involving the public? Yes. Part 617 does not require public access to a scoping meeting. However, certain boards which may develop EIS scopes during their regular meetings may be obliged by their own rules or by the State Open Meetings Law to allow public attendance during the scoping pro- cess. This does not mean, however, that au- dience input must be taken. 9. What role does an involved agency play in scoping? Although it is the responsibility of the lead agen- cy to organize and conduct scoping, involved agencies have an obligation to provide input reflecting their agency's concerns, permit jurisdictions, and information needs. Once the final EIS has been completed, all involved agen- cies are required to make their findings based upon the EIS record. If an involved agency fails to participate in scoping, it may find that the EIS record that was developed is not adequate to support its findings. The lead agency cannot delay the completion of the written scope due to the failure of an involved agency to participate. 10. What materials should be reviewed by the lead agency in preparing the scope? Existing information in agency files should be used to develop an initial scope for the EIS. Such information may include: • The determination of significance and sup- porting information, particularly the En- vironmental Assessment Form (EAF); • A previous Generic EIS which considered the project site, the surrounding area, or the same type of project. • Previous site-specific EIS's for similar pro- jects that are likely to involve similar im- pact issues; • Previous site-specific EIS's for different projects on sites that may exhibit en- vironmental conditions and sensitive features similar to the proposed site; • A community master plan that indicates the community's intentions for the project site and the surrounding area; • A natural and/or cultural resource inven- tory or map that identifies the important and sensitive resources affected by the proposed action; and • An area wide traffic study or other similar studies; and • The scoping checklist incorporated as Ap- pendix D of 617.21 which may be used as a basic checklist for potential significant issues. The use of adopted plans, Generic EIS's and natural resource inventories expedites scoping and reduces the need to develop extensive new data for the current EIS. Local agencies should consider preparing these documents to aid in their environmental decision-making. 11. What should a written scope of issues ad- dress? The written scope whenever possible, should prescribe the form and extent of analysis for identified issues by including the following: 58 CHAPTER 5 Specific aspects of impacts, not just general topic areas. For example, if ground- water is an issue, identify whether it is quantity or quality which is the issue (or both) and what aspects of either need to be discussed. The extent to which existing data can be relied upon for each significant impact and what new information must be developed. For example, will new samples for ground- water quality analysis be needed or will ex- isting data from nearby wells be sufficient? Methods to be used by the applicant to assess the project's impacts. For example, review the mathematical models propos- ed to predict air, traffic or water quality impacts and determine if they are acceptable. 12. Can issues be added after scoping has been completed? Yes. There are valid circumstances in which issues may be added after formal scoping has been completed. Issues may be overlooked or remain undiscovered until the field work and research for the draft EIS is conducted. There may be project modifications that raise new issues. Unforseen issues may come to light that could not have been known when formal scop- ing was completed. When such issues are signifi- cant and were not covered in the original for- mal scope, the lead agency must provide the ap- plicant and the involved agencies with a writ- ten statement that identifies the additional in- formation and explains the need for including this information in the draft EIS. This procedure is also warranted when an EIS has been scoped informally. The responsibility for the adequacy of the environmental assess- ment does not end with the scoping process, but care should be taken to identify and narrow issues early in the process. 13. Why involve the public in scoping? volvement of the public will also limit the rumors and inaccurate stories regarding the pro- posed project that are generated when project information is withheld or only partially available. Eliminating these potential problems can ultimately shorten the SEQR review process. 14. How can you make public scoping meetings f more effective? 1�_ Public scoping is often avoided due to the perception that public scoping meetings are un- productive and often confrontational. The lead agency can make public scoping more effective by using some or all of the following techniques. a . Don't arrive unprepared. Prepare and distribute a draft scope prior to the public scoping meeting. Providing a draft scope, that has been reviewed by all involved agencies prior to the actual meeting, will tend to focus the public review and reduce the number of redundant or irrelevant comments. b. Set rules of conduct. Since the lead agen- cy is running the meeting, it is reasonable to establish certain ground rules for participation: • explain that the purpose of scoping is to identify the relevant issues that need to be discussed in the EIS, it is not intended to resolve issues; • require that all potential speakers sign up; • encourage large groups with a limited in- terest to designate a single spokesperson; • allow 5 or 10 minutes per speaker; • encourage submission of written com- ments; • allow all speakers the opportunity for comment before allowing questions; • require that the project sponsor present a brief description of the project at the start of the meeting; and • if the meeting will be controversial, ob- tain the services of an impartial mode- rator. Including the public in scoping can reduce the c. Don't make a decision without all the likelihood that unaddressed issues will arise dur- facts. If a new topic is identified at a scop- ing the public review of the draft EIS. Early in ing meeting, resist the urge to incorporate I C) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS 59 it or dismiss it at the meeting. A topic which sounds good and is received with en- thusiasm by the public may, after review, not be a valid topic for the EIS. Dismiss- ing a proposed topic without a thorough assessment is equally dangerous. d. Prepare and distribute a final scope. If the scope of the EIS is revised following the meeting, distribute it to those individuals who participated at the meeting. e. A public meeting is not your only choice. There are other ways to obtain public com- ment on the proposed scope. If the public interest in the project is limited to a single group or a few individuals, you can meet individually with them or allow them to comment on a draft of the scope. If there is broader interest, you can prepare and distribute a draft scope and allow for sub- mission of written comments. C. CONTENTS OF A DRAFT EIS 1. What is the purpose of a draft EIS? The draft EIS is the primary source of en- vironmental information to help involved agen- cies consider environmental concerns in mak- ing decisions about a proposed action. The draft also serves as means for public review and com- ment on an action's potential environmental ef- fects. The draft EIS examines the nature and ex- tent of identified potential environmental im- pacts of an action, as well as the various means to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. A close relationship should exist between pro- ject planning and the draft EIS for projects that have been planned with environmental goals as integral considerations. This concept of "good planning" was one of the objectives con- templated by the legislature when it passed SEQR. A well -scoped draft EIS is evidence of this planning. 2. What information should a draft EIS contain? The requirements for the general content of a draft EIS are provided in statewide SEQR regula- tions at 617.14. Cover Sheet 3. Is there a special cover sheet for the begin- ning of an EIS? Yes. See 617.14(d) 4. Is the acceptance date shown on the cover sheet related to the date an EIS is released to the public? Yes. However, what is most important is that the draft EIS in fact be available for public review for the minimum period of 30 days. Ac- cordingly, when the lead agency accepts the draft EIS as complete and sets the public com- ment period it should take steps to ensure that copies of the draft EIS will be circulated and available to the public by a date which provides for a 30 day comment period. Table of Contents and Summary 5. Must every draft EIS follow the format as described in 617.14(f)? No. The content of the document is much more important than the format. So long as all of the items identified in 617.14(f) are contain- ed in the document it is acceptable to deviate from the specific format. Many preparers find that placing all the impact analysis and mitiga- tion in one section (impacts include: irreversi- ble/irretrievable, growth inducement, effects on the use and conservation of energy, impacts on solid waste and coastal zone consistency) im- proves the EIS's continuity and makes the docu- ment easier to understand. If you follow this ap- proach the format would be: • Cover Sheet • Table of Contents • Summary • Description of the proposed action • Environmental setting • Impacts/Mitigation • Alternatives. 6. How extensive should the draft EIS Summary be? The Summary does not have to be a narrative statement. It should contain a brief description IS ACTION SUBJECT TO SEOR? DRAFT EIS DRAFT EIS FINAL EIS TYPE I FULL POSITIVE PREPARED ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY ACTION EAF DECLARATION FOR LEAD FOR OF AGENCY PUBLIC LEAD FORMAALL — ACCEPTANCE REVIEW —SEOR— AGENCY SCOPING OPTION I HEARING . OPTION • • INFORM REVIEW EACH AGENCIES CRITERIA DRAFT EIS AGENCY • SELECT DETERMINE REVISION MAKES r —10 LEAD 10, SIGNIFI- REQUIRED FINDINGS AGENCY CANCE COOR41NATEO REVIEW (OPTION V SHORT EAF UNLISTED (FULL UNCOORDINATED NEGATIVE END END ACTION EAF DECLARATION REVIEW REVIEW Optional) REVIEW PROCESS CND PROCESS CHANGED TO POSITIVE I DECLARATION (Ii comments warrant) I I INFORM L _ CND UNLISTED AGENCIES CONDITIONED PUBLIC CONDITIONED OPTION ACTION FULL AND IDENTIFY NEGATIVE COMMENT NEGATIVE END BY EAF SELECT MITIGATION' DECLARATION PERIOD DECLARATION REVIEW APPLICANT LEAD (Given notice) 30 DAY (Becomes Final) PROCESS AGENCY MINIMUM TYPE II EXEMPT NO OR 00 FURTHER EXCLUDED REVIEW ACTION SEQR FLOW CHART PROCEDURES NOT REQUIRING AN EIS ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES WHEN AN EIS IS REQUIRED �yo1M Sla�� �T� r� IT -21 Beebe Lake Woods, Tompkins County Gorge Unique Natural Area SiteCode Surveyor NLO Town Ithaca OwnershiIT-21 p private (Corr,Aii� USGS Quad Ithaca East Lat/long 042° 027' N 076) 028' W I Number 67-1-3.2,4; tion TI..,_ 3u-1-1.2,1.1 (city) CY- niwvmpasses the mature forest around Beebe Lake, from the Tri hammer Bridge to the Forest Home Bridge on Pleasant Grove Road, p (� Iype Upland forest,. rock outcrops, open water, meadow W CD uescrl Dtion I— The forest vegetation around Beebe Lake is diverse, ranging from�slopes 0 south -facing slopes to beech and hemlock forests on cool north fathe gorges.T Significance re ....,,a.aj, rare plant species, remarkable examples of mature forest. Scenic and 2 recreational importance. Spring migrations for mayflies. Good birding site. 2 I� -4- Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 4o Elevation 780 to 880 ft. Tnnn ------------------ -•mor 1611101uds, gorges, waterfalls 00 P, Aspect N and S Beebe Lake, Fall Creek Geology Slope(%) ❑ Flat Topographic ® Crest Moisture Q 0 to 10 ® Upper Slope ❑Inundated (Hydric) ❑ Saturated 010 to 35 ® Mld-slope (Wet-mesic) ®Moist ® Over 35 ® Lower Slope (Mesic) . ®®Dry-mesic Vertical ❑ Bottom ® Dry (Xeric) C Site Code: IT -21 Page 2 Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area Mc 20% Vegetation oak -hickory forest, maple -beech forest, hemlock -beech forest, sugar maple -basswood forest Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) The old-growth forests above Beebe Lake have many very large trees and many species are found here. Spring wildflowers are abundant in some areas. Rare plants are found on the dry forest slopes and dripping cliffsides of the gorges. Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Rare or Scarce Species: Yes Flora Genus & species RarelScarce Comments Nyssa sylvadca Scarce Ceanothus americanus Scarce Lathyrus ochroleucus Rare G4, G5, S2, S3 Primula mistassinica Rare G5, S2 Pinguicula vulgaris Rare G5, 81 Cryptogramma stalled Rare Parnassia glauca Scarce Fauna Genus & species RarelScarce Comments Site Code: IT -21 Page 3 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Reco Parts of this forest have been disturbed by campus development. Other areas damag by roads and parking. Trail maintenance causes damage to trees, Adjacent Land Use Cornell Campus, residential, student housing. Threats to Site Campus development Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Not terribly vulnerable in most places since good trails exist. Special Conservation/Management Needs A commitment from the University to protect important Natural Areas such as this one is needed. Protective Ownership Unknown Adequate Buffer DEC Wetland ®DEC Wetland DEC Mapped Protection Site Code Acreage The Fall Creek Conservation Committee would like to see these areas protected as part of a recreational river corridor. Summary of Special Features ® RarelScarce Plants ❑ RarelScarce Animals ❑ RarelScarce Communities ® Unique Geology ® High Quality of Example ® High Esthetic Qualities Comments 777,WWI Ri R�!�:;. `'�� •--t--t-.. �._ .-..-•�-�-- .�.c. 1� 1. yam+ --�..�-�i-'� a—:r a:ai1] F' �[.'''.E�±'ti :,E'` -':"..`mac t :�• day ���ilrfsl%`—� �—�1;: ��" �-����- ��� !!1 `'� •�'� �{)1':i=_ti:..�� S.u.�r.�]_:._::i,. Jii.� 't ��_�l 1'' � l .H q `Ci R;-�1 y'.? iY�`��- <<.'•—r '_ _ ��•,ci. �''i /fir �� f — .r , '4�_:-�__ !. .7 '� 1` ^ - aim ' _ �:`�•:i�� r �j:%' J i .• � �•ir..r*��.:'l�f'_,►�:%/ice =:/� �- 1=` =:.:._���:1�:.�nf.�r`���•�;•r/i�„�_� � �� �. �• . � �•. �. i �•'�jf / `•i1 111^J _��''tYJ �._ _ _r1J� •:^ay'•-_ - - :..• • •f',L ;etc'-.1?�t:�.�:�ij.t'�, -'%""� ; "'�, :, WNT r ;1�� _��• / �, ` r {''• _ nPLI \ •� - ��1• n\s •��^�. ♦ \�` Y Age If iA Imo-+ fvl I \ I, .1 stn , • •R� _ . • '' ' u� � 1''11I• lY� � APR 2 41995JL ent BYLAWS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Approved 4/7/94 The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (hereafter referred to as the CB) was established by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on 4/12/93 to assist the Town in the management and protection of resources such as open space, agricultural lands, natural areas and features and other environmental matters. II. Membership The CB shall consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of nine residents of the Town of Ithaca who demonstrate interested in the conservation issues. They will be nominated by the CB and approved by the Town Board. All the above members, once approved, will have full voting rights and responsibilities. CB members will be appointed for two year terms by the Town Board: a member may serve for as many terms as she/he wish with CB and Town Board approval. Associate members may be approved by a quorum of the CB but do not have voting rights. III. Chair The Chairperson of the CB will be nominated for a one year term by a majority vote of the CB. After confirmation by the Town Board, she/he will assume the normal duties of a chairperson, including calling, scheduling, and canceling meetings and keeping CB meetings orderly. The Chair will also be responsible for overseeing the keeping of adequate financial records and filing financial statements and reports to the Town Supervisor and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in a timely manner. IV. The Vice -Chair The Vice -Chair will be appointed for a one year term by a majority vote of the CB. The Vice -Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chairperson. V. Meetings The CB shall meet once a month, with a second meeting as necessary, at a time and place which accommodates the majority of the members. Regular attendance at meetings is expected. The annual re -organizational meeting of the CB for developing the annual work plan and membership should be scheduled to coordinate with other Town Boards. VII. VIII. A quorum is majority of permitted. Agenda a simple majority of the Board. An issue will pass by vote if a the quorum present votes affirmatively. Proxy votes are not To the extent practical, the agenda will be set by the Board with the Chairperson adding, deleting, and organizing the agenda as appropriate. The time to be allotted to each item shall be decided in advance and used as a guideline during the meeting. Time should be spent at the beginning of each meeting reviewing the agenda. If an issue is not on the agenda, any CB member may bring up issues at any meeting under the item Member Concerns. Member Concerns and Persons to be Heard must be on the agenda at every CB meeting. Minutes Minutes shall be kept at every meeting either by a secretary hired for that purpose or by a CB member designated by the Chair on a rotating basis. Minutes should be mailed to members along with the information of the following meeting's agenda. Every effort should be made to pass minutes at the meeting immediately succeeding it. IX. Calendar September October December Dec./Jan. X. Amendments CB Financial records go to the Supervisor to be included in the town budget. New members solicited Interview and nominate new members: Elect Chair and Vice - Chair Town Board appoints new members and officers These bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new bylaws adopted by 2/3 vote of the CB membership, provided that quorum is present and that a statement of intent to change the bylaws has been published in the agenda of the meeting. MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD May 5,1994,7:30 pm Approved 7/7/94 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Richard Fischer, Janet Hawkes, Eva Hoffmann, Mary Russell, Phil Zarriello, Cheryl Smith ABSENT: John Meigs GUESTS: George Frantz Candace opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Welcome Mary Russell to the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board 1. Persons to be heard: None 2. Report of the Chair Ag reportlordinance package handed out. Saturday May 21st is the Pathway to the Future Expo which is co-sponsored by the Tompkins County Greenway Coalition and Bicycle Coalition. Mass Transit Center trying to get people together to discuss trail and alternate transport methods. Planning Committee decided that Greenway Committee will work with staff updating parks plan. 3. Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan - George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Discuss specific things to do: What needs to be done is to determine space needs for the future regarding population size, etc. and the amount of open space needed. There are three types of parks: Area (i.e., Eastern Heights); neighborhood (i.e., Salem Road, Troy Road, Northview, etc); recreation (E. Ithaca trail, Cayuga Heights, etc.). Town Parks: Stewart, Cass, Buttermilk, Treman, Golf Course, Cornell Plantation (not Town owned). George put up a map and different parks lands, recreational right-of-ways, etc. point out and color coded. The Town Planner's office has a framework of outdated plans from 1977 and 1984 to work from. Nothing done to start development in these specified areas. George stated that in planning development that 10% of gross lot area is set aside for the town overall. Candance asked that biological corridors and greenways be added to the category of park land. She suggested conservation easement for open space areas with no public access. Biological corridors are to be identified, put on maps and then integrated into Park, recreation, open space plan and some will be incorporated into park, open space and some will be preserved via conservation easements and Town Planning. . George also mentioned that more area parks needed for Athletic events, etc. due to shortage of space. He suggested two or three larger parks opposed to one large park. Both Buttermilk and Treman park are both showing signs of environmental damage due to over -use. 4. Committee Report ERC: Sapone Meadows - Janet talked to DEC and Fish and Wildlife regarding the buffer zone. All said 100 ft but wanted to see the site. They said the ideal situation would be to exclude that stream from development. Fish and Wildlife put easement on waterway. A 50 ft buffer zone suggested by Candace and Janet after looking at the site. Eva stated that the Planning Board gave three lots 40 ft buffer zones due to narrow lots and the rest were given 50 ft buffer zones. Sanctuary Woods Subdivision - more information distributed regarding the site plan. Blanchard Subdivision on King Road - new application. ERC to schedule meeting. Candace thinks that Janet should write up a report showing where the bufffer zone is to be measured from, either the center of the stream or the edge. Greenway Plan should be able to designate these areas more specifically. Environmental Atlas: Phil asked George the status of the GIS. Jonathan Panter is the new town planner from Westchester. Member of CB asked were asked to give a list of attributes at the last meeting. Dick, Eva and Mary need copies and will continue discussions at the next meeting. When everyone has had a chance to look at things. 5. Meeting Minutes: 9/16/93, 4/7/94, 6/15/93, 5/6/93 minutes edited and approved unanimously. 6. Member Concerns: Cheryl brought up Eastern Heights Park. Is now the time to incorporate Town owned land into park land? Candace said it should wait until Peregrine Hollow is completed. Phil stated that was done and Candace said to move head. Candace will send a formal message to Town to proceed with the Eastern Heights Park. Phil mentioned the video tape he would like the CB to view. Candace will set up time at the next meeting for this. 7. Meeting dates: GIS Meeting - May 19th, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in Phil's Office at Community Corners. CB Meeting - June 2, 1994, 7:30 p.m. 8. Meeting Adjourned. Next Meeting - May 6, 1994 Respectfully submitted by Karen Moore, Secretary to the Conservation Board 1-1 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, May 5, 1994 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 p.m. 1 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Discussion of updating the Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Updating the Plan, expanding recreational facilities, preserving open space, and establishing greenways. (Please read the enclosed 1977 and 1984 Town Park Plans enclosed) 8:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: ERC Committee Environmental Atlas Committee 9:10 p.m. 5. Approval of Minutes 5/6/93; 6/15193; 9/16/93; 4/7/94 (enclosed) 9:20 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220 CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Phillip Zarriello. Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell f\[6 -F,�,/f� MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD May 5, 1994, 7:30 pm Approved 00/00/00 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Richard Fischer, Janet Hawkes, Eva Hoffinan, Mary Russell, Phil Zarriello, Cheryl Smith—� ABSENT: John Meigs GUESTS: George Frantz Candace opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Welcome Mary Russell to the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board 1. Persons to be heard: None 2. Report of the Chair Ag reportlordinance package handed out. Saturday May 21st is the Pathway to the Future Expo which is co-sponsored by the Tompkins County Greenway Coalition and Bicycle Coalition. Mass Transit Center trying to get people together to discuss trail and alternate transport methods. Planning Committee decided that Greenway Committee will work with staff updating parks plan. 3. Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan - George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Discuss specific things to do: What needs to be done is to determine space needs for the future regarding population size, etc. and the amount of open space needed. There are three types of parks: Area (i.e., Eastern Heights); neighborhood (i.e., Salem Road, Troy Road, Northview, etc); recreation (E. Ithaca trail, Cayuga Heights, etc.). Town Parks: Stewart, Cass, Buttermilk, Treman, Golf Course, Cornell Plantation (not Town owned). George put up a map and different parks lands, recreational right-of-ways, etc. point out and color coded. The Town Planner's office has a framework of outdated plans from 1977 and 1984 to work from. Nothing done to start development in these specified areas. George stated that in planning development that 10% of gross lot area is set aside for the town overall. Candance asked that biological corridors and greenways be added to the category of park land. She suggested conservation easement for open space areas with no public access. Biological corridors are to be identified, put on maps and then integrated into Park, recreation, open space plan and some will be incorporated into park, open space and some will be preserved via conservation easements and Town Planning. George also mentioned that more area parks needed for Athletic events, etc. due to shortage of space. He suggested two or three larger parks opposed to one large park. Both Buttermilk and Treman park are both showing signs of environmental damage due to over -use. 4. Committee Report ERC: Sapone Meadows - Janet talked to DEC and Fish and Wildlife regarding the buffer zone. All said 100 ft but wanted to see the site. They said the ideal situation would be to exclude that stream from development. Fish and Wildlife put easement on waterway. A 50 ft buffer zone suggested by Candace and Janet after looking at the site. Eva stated that the Planning Board gave three lots 40 ft buffer zones due to narrow lots and the rest were given 50 ft buffer zones. Sanctuary Woods Subdivision - more information distributed regarding the site plan. Blanchard Subdivision on King Road - new application. ERC to schedule meeting. Candace thinks that Janet should write up a report showing where the bufffer zone is to be measured from, either the center of the stream or the edge. Greenway Plan should be able to designate these areas more specifically. Environmental Atlas: Phil asked George the status of the GIS. Jonathan Panter is the new town planner from Westchester. Member of CB asked were asked to give a list of attributes at the last meeting. Dick, Eva and Mary need copies and will continue discussions at the next meeting. When everyone has had a chance to look at things. 5. Meeting Minutes: 9/16/93, 4/7/94, 6/15/93, 5/6/93 minutes edited and approved unanimously. 6. Member Concerns: Cheryl brought up Eastern Heights Park. Is now the time to incorporate Town owned land into park land? Candace said it should wait until Peregrine Hollow is completed. Phil stated that was done and Candace said to move head. Candace will send a formal message to Town to proceed with the Eastern Heights Park. Phil mentioned the video tape he would like the CB to view. Candace will set up time at the next meeting for this. 7. Meeting dates: GIS Meeting - May 19th, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in Phil's Office at Community Corners. CB Meeting - June 2, 1994, 7:30 p.m. 8. Meeting Adjourned. Next Meeting - May 6, 1994 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, May 5, 1994 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 p.m. 1 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Discussion of updating the Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan — George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Updating the Plan, expanding recreational facilities, preserving open space, and establishing greenways. (Please read the enclosed 1977 and 1984 Town Park Plans enclosed) 8:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: ERC Committee Environmental Atlas Committee 9:10 p.m. 5. Approval of Minutes 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; 4/7/94 (enclosed) 9:20 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment if you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Pandace E.'Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes ��Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell MEMO DATE: April 29, TO: Mary FROM: Candace RE: Mailing 1994 for the M' th Conservation Board Meeting Please mail the enclosed materials and a copy each of the Town's Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plans dated 1977 and 1984 to all members of the Conservation Board' for our meeting next Thursday, April 7th. Non-members on the mailing list should only be sent the agenda. Please remove Barbara Paige from the non-member mailing list if you have not already done so. The meeting package should include 10 items: agenda; "The Park and Recreation Planning Process" article; 1977 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan and the 1984 update;, greenbelt article in Zoning News, CB Bylaws, and minutes from 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; and 4/7/94. George had planned to duplicate the two park plans ahead of time. As ever, many thanks for your help. 1Janet Hawkes and I already have copies of the Town's Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plans dated 1977 and 1984 and do not need additional copies mailed to us. MEMO DATE: April 29, 1994 ii rr oo TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Members J� w FROM: Candace E. Cornell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Boar , Chair RE: April 7th Meeting The Planning Committee has asked the CB's Greenway Committee to help the Planning Staff update the Town's Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plans dated 1977 and 1984 (enclosed). At our meeting this Thursday, May 5th, George Frantz will review these plans and discuss with us future directions for the Park and Open Space Plan. The Greenway Committee will use the concerns and suggestions raised at our May 5th meeting as a basis for their recommendations to the staff. Please read the Town's Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plans dated 1977 and 1984, and "The Park and Recreation Planning Process" article before the meeting. See you on May 5th! Bring your questions and suggestions to this meeting. Please call me at 257-6220 if you are unable to attend our meeting. r G,k,� , �I•�.-;►'�� a,1 � we.,�; �,•, � i'�r� f Assoc, Park and recreation planners need to be aware of a number of trends that will influence the selection of park and recreation standards for the 1980s: • Changing attitudes toward recreation and leisure. • Changing population and household composition. • Changes in the workplace. • Changing housing patterns. • Depressed regional economies. • Changeable world energy situation and its impact on personal transportation. • New forms of leisure equipment technology. • Advances in medicine. - • Growth of electronic games, computers, and cable television. • Highly unstable political environments. A number of significant shifts have occurred in attitudes about recreation. Recreation is in- creasingly viewed as an important factor in maintaining adult health—both physical and mental. It is perceived as more than just weekend activity. Recreation is an integral and necessary element of adult life to be incorporated into a daily routine. Furthermore, recreation for both adults and children includes social contacts, experiences in natural environments, and intellectual and cultural experiences and expression, as well as sports. Studies of children's behavior and development have documented the importance of play, espe- cially informal and unstructured play, not only in children's physical development, but also in their social, intellectual, and creative growth. In summary, recreation is now seen as a "means to an end" rather than simply as an end in itself. Two demographic trends will cause major changes in potential demand for park use. First, the American population is aging. According to 1980 Census figures, 15 percent of the popula- tion was over 65 at the time of the census, and this figure is increasing steadily. Most elderly 71 The Park - and Recreation Planning Process Factors Influencing the Planning Process 19 Americans maintain their own households; only 5 percent are institutionalized. Although many suffer either ill health or mobility handicaps, many are robust and mobile, drive a car or use public transportation easily, and are capable of participating in recreational activities. The need can be expected to increase for parks designed to accommodate the physical abilities and to be responsive to the activity preferences of these "seniors." In addition to con- sidering barrier -free design, planners must focus on determining interests and capacities. As the age of this group increases, so does the number of widowers and widows and persons living alone. There is also a rise in the poverty rate among the group. Questions to be addressed during the planning process include: Is there easy access to the facilities and areas by public transportation and by foot? To what degree is the design barrier - free and what can be done to increase access? Do the layouts of the facilities and the structure of the activities encourage people to meet and mingle as well as provide opportunities for them to be spectators? Are programs and activities geared to the physical and mental abilities of older persons as well as to their interests? Another critical focus is the single (without partner) adult. Almost a third of the population lives in a household with only one adult—elderly persons who live alone, single adults, and single - parent households. Single -parent households now constitute 11 percent of all households. Single adults need recreational pursuits that provide opportunities to meet other people. Single parents need similar opportunities to make social contacts with other adults within the limits imposed by their financial resources and time. In addition, single parents need near -by recreational activi- ties for their children, especially supervised after-school or summer programs. Changes in employment patterns will alter patterns of park use and create more demand at new times. Notable trends include a shorter work -week, flexible work hours, early retirement, and longer vacations. Several trends in the housing market are having, and will continue to have, a significant effect on the size, location, and use of neighborhood parks within the decade of the 80s. The rising costs of land, housing, and energy are causing the decline in construction of single family homes on large lots with spacious yards. In addition, vacant lots and quiet streets with little traffic are generally no longer available as sites for informal recreation. As population density increases and private recreation space (backyards, for example) decreases, the demand for public recreation spaces, especially those close to dwelling units, will increase. In planning for community recreation, public park and recreation departments must urge localities to require adequate on-site space—open space for adults and for informal play for children and teenagers—as part of all housing developments. No public park system can substi- tute for open space and play areas immediately adjacent to homes, where most children play most of the time. Park planners can, however, provide more space for organized games near dwelling units. 20 II Z Because of inflation and erosion of buying power, both adults are employed outside the home in more families than at any time since World War 11. This phenomenon leads to problems in synchronizing leisure time, especially for vacationing and increases the need for close -to -home outdoor recreation. It also decreases the amount and structure of time formerly devoted to mother -child leisure activities. Energy and other costs have decreased the mobility range of the family, creating shifts in both destinations and leisure -time pursuits. The cost of housing is forcing more people into apartment living. Budget -trimming by all levels of government for traditional recreation programs is coming at a time when new groups, such as the rapdily growing older population and increas- ingly vocal disabled persons, are demanding new and specialized programs and facilities. In sum, it is imperative that recreation and park administrators, managers, and planners be constantly in tune with the rapid changes taking place in America and throughout the world. Ignoring these changes, plus failing to understand their impact on the provision of recreation and park services, is a perilous course of action. Park and recreation planning in any community, large or small, occurs at three levels. The first, the policy plan, 'is sometimes referred to as the master plan for parks, recreation, and open space. The second level of planning is the physical or concept plan. Usually prepared in a series, concept plans are site-specific and serve as the basic documents for the layout, facility mix, landscaping, and construction details for a park or recreation facility. The third level addresses the operation and maintenance plan for parks, open space, and recreation facilities. The policy plan is the most important of the three planning documents. It is a strategic management tool for the executive branch and a guidepost for the legislative branch of govern- ing bodies. Community park and recreation standards are the means by which an agency can express park and recreation goals and objectives in quantitative terms, which, in turn, can be trans- lated into spatial requirements for land and water resources. Through the budget, municipal ordinances, and cooperative efforts of the quasi -public and private sectors of the community, these standards and policies are translated into a system for the acquisition, development, and management of park and recreation resources. The Process Considered 1. THE POLICY PLAN 21 ti -_ Planners should consider the policy plan as the key program document to facilitate the orderly provision of park and recreation opportunities. It is to be used together with a long- range guide for development of areas and facilities, recreation programs, and operation and maintenance procedures. The plan should be recognized, accepted, and adopted by the park and recreation board or town council. Regular review and updating are critical. The plan documents a continuous planning process and records this evolution only for a given segment of time. The content of the comprehensive park and recreation policy plan should reflect the ex- pressed and established goals and objectives for the particular community. The plan should define the role of each of the providers of recreational experiences, including private commercial and private membership organizations and public agencies. An inventory of citizen needs and prefer- ences, as well as available resources and facilities, is analyzed. The inventory process can be accomplished by one or more methods, ranging from field investigation with paper and pencil tabulations to remote sensing and computer simulation/ analysis. The methodologies should be appropriate to the needs and circumstances. Contributions of varied professional disciplines and representation of all citizens within the community must be included while preparing the policy plan. Ecologists, economists, soci- ologists, psychologists, market analysts, lawyers, engineers, landscape architects, leisure spe- cialists, and urban planners can combine their talents to provide a multi -disciplinary approach to the planning process. For the past several years, planning in America has been shifting away from physical plans toward more socially responsive or policy -oriented plans. In light of local demands for par- ticipatory planning, growth management, and neighborhood preservation, planners have been phasing out traditional project -oriented planning and instituting more interactive planning modes. More consideration is now given to citizen goals and policy issues in developing a frame- work for decision-making. Seymour Gold emphasizes the need for development of park and recreation plans that address public policy prior to making commitments at the project level: It makes little sense for cities and suburbs with rapidly changing populations to prepare long- range plans without the flexible dimension of policy. In light of new leisure patterns, design concepts and management techniques, many cities may have been blessed because their traditional master plans were not implemented.... If the purpose of a city's general plan or capital improvement budget is to reflect public policy and rational decisions, serve as a tool for effective management, or allocate scarce resources to competing needs, the virtues of a flexible, policy -oriented approach to recreation are evident. To neglect this approach is to deny realities of recreation planning in the 198W (Gold, 1980: 214, 216). 22 II d A -- The focus of attention on a broad policy framework provides more flexibility for guiding governmental response to rapid physical, economic, and social change. However, there are other major benefits. First, this planning approach requires more information, forcing planners to develop a more current and comprehensive database. Second, because the process must involve interaction with the community to identify issues, problems, and priorities, planners and ad- ministrators are less likely to cling to national standards as the primary rationale for decision- making. A systematic and methodologically sound policy planning process must come to grips with areas traditionally avoided in preparing most recreation plans—needs assessment, equity issues, and desired procedure and strategies for decision-making. Therefore, the policy plan will reflect more community -specific park and recreation standards—standards tailored to the particular characteristics of cities, communities, and neighborhoods. If approached according to the con- siderations addressed in this document, policy planning should result in more liberated and responsive planning, which should yield more useful plans and better prospects for implementing them. Citizen Involvement. The policy plan and the planning process must be directed to and in- clude the citizen. The wider the area governed by the plan, the more geographically widespread the citizen representation should be. Community meetings, site surveys, and household question- naires and interviews are techniques for obtaining data. A citizen participation statement should be included in the scope of every planning program. Elected and appointed public officials can provide another important input. The goals of these individuals for government may provide initial direction for planning. Often, diverging political philosophies may temper enthusiasm, but in all cases must be considered. Citizen participation serves government and the citizenry best when it is a carefully planned and integral part of park and recreation planning at all levels of government. It is important to have a written plan outlining involvement and specific budgetary support. Citizens should par- ticipate in devising the program of citizen participation and evaluating and revising it from time to time. Citizen involvement encompasses information exchange, neighborhood input, and issue identification and assessment. Methods for building citizen participation into the administrative process of government may range from formalized councils, advisory committees, "and task forces with defined roles and responsibilities to more informal workshops, public meetings, and surveys. The combination of methods will vary according to need and program. However, in order to assure balance and flexibility, the composition of any citizen participation program Considerations in Developing a Policy Plan 23 should include social, ethnic, and economic representation in addition to that of the traditional special interest groups. Preference Surveys and Needs Assessment. Periodic analysis should be made of park and rec- reation preferences, needs, and trends to project the necessary space and facility requirements. Consultant services, questionnaires, user surveys, and public hearings for citizen input can further on-going analysis. Advance Acquisition of Park Land. The park and open space element of the community land - use plan should be used to identify key land and water resources suitable for park and open space purposes. These resources should be acquired in advance of actual need in order to ensure their protection and availability. There are a variety of strategies available to communities to safeguard such lands and areas for future use. The policy of encouraging advance acquisition of parkland must be communicated to park boards, city councils, and citizens. In many instances, these lands can be leased for agricultural uses. Where minerals may be present, a community might permit carefully controlled production, with the royalties deposited in a park development trust fund. The land can be restored for park and recreation development when the mineral activity has been completed. Accessibility. Human sensitivity, as well as the law, requires that public facilities be accessible to disabled, elderly, and less mobile groups in a community. Such a mandate implies that there will be leisure opportunities available within a system for all citizens. Equity of Distribution. The park and recreation plan should serve as the policy guide to achieve equitable distribution of basic park lands, recreation facilities, and programs throughout the community. Standards should be applied uniformly and consistently. Disproportionate allocation of acquisition, development, and maintenance funds should be discouraged. Internal Consistency. Implementation programs involving capital outlays, exactions, zoning, and related actions must be consistent with the plan's policies. Arbitrary departures from adopted or endorsed policy statements could lead to litigation. Intergovernmental and Interagency Relationships. Every level of government, as well as not- for-profit organizations and voluntary, private, industrial, and commercial agencies and religious groups, share the responsibility to provide citizens with adequate recreation and leisure oppor- tunities. The area of responsibility must be carefully defined and coordinated so that each entity contributes to the optimal use of the increasingly scarce fiscal, energy, and natural and human resources available for parks and recreation. This element of the plan can also be used to energize and direct the resources and talents of community volunteers, who are becoming more important in the delivery of quality leisure services. School -Park Cooperation. The school -park concept should be enlarged to include not only joint acquisition of land, but also joint and effective use of school buildings and facilities as part of the total park and recreation system. This approach can result in higher quality recreation 24 O opportunities at a more reasonable cost to the taxpayer. It is essential that the park and recrea- tion department cooperate with the school board in the planning, financing, maintenance, and scheduling of these facilities. Special Urban Influences. Parks and recreation have positive, but often intangible, effects on the economy and quality of life in urban areas. A healthy, attractive neighborhood results when a combination of factors is present, for example, well -kept homes, adequate jobs for residents, quality public services, including a well-maintained parks and recreation facility. Sectors of many urban areas have been neglected in the wake of the flight to suburbia. Municipal governments are now putting greater emphasis on encouraging the rehabilitation of older, estab- lished neighborhoods. Given the cost of new housing, this trend is expected to continue through the decade. As older neighborhoods are renewed, parks in these neighborhoods can also be renovated, often at a fraction of the cost of establishing new parks. In new developments, the school -park should be planned as the focal point of each neighborhood. Urban design policies relating to circulation, drainage, buffers, lot arrangement, and public easements should be written with park and. open space amenities as the primary quality -of -life concern. A concept plan should be prepared once the comprehensive park and recreation system plan has been completed and location of individual park sites determined. The concept plan must be based upon a well-defined program of recreation opportunities and services to be provided, ac- companied by a thorough activity analysis for each recreation experience to be offered, with delineation of space, equipment, facilities, and support needs. Concept plans, frequently called "general development plans," outline the overall physical arrangement of recreational areas and facilities and their support elements—circulation, lighting, irrigation, water and sewer, health, safety and emergency provisions, and vegetative and topo- graphic pattern. Concept plans are not working drawings and do not provide accurate layouts for recreation areas and fields or construction details for structures and facilities. Construction plans include specifications and contract documents. The purpose of the operation and management plan is to provide tools for the development of facilities and delivery of services necessary for the provision of recreation experiences. Opera- tion and management plans are prepared by either agency staff or consultants for a specific park or a system of interrelated parks. Other examples of this type of action plan include capital improvement programs, operations manuals, personnel tracking plans and maintenance zoning, scheduling, and standards. } 11. PHYSICAL OR CONCEPT PLAN III. OPERATION. AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 25 M M o n DESIRABLE SIZE ACRES/1,000 POPULATION C) O -, — O 0 y = Less than %-mile 1 acre or less 0.25 to 0.5A Within neighbor - that serve a concen- 3 fy d W trated or limited pop- proximity to apart. •va�3M ulation or specific = 0 ca 3 townhouse develop - senior citizens, F. Cn a M This classification system is intended to serve as a guide to planning—not as an absolute blue- print. Sometimes more than one component may occur within the same site (but not on the same parcel of land), particularly with respect to special uses within a regional park. Planners of park and recreation systems should be careful to provide adequate land for each functional component when this occurs. NRPA suggests that a park system, at a minimum, be composed of a "core" system of parklands, with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. The size and amount of "adjunct" parklands will vary from community to community, but must be taken into account when con- sidering a total, well-rounded system of parks and recreation areas. COMPONENT USE SERVICE AREA DESIRABLE SIZE ACRES/1,000 POPULATION DESIRABLE SITE CHARACTERISTICS A. LOCAL/CLOSE-TO-HOME SPACE: Mini -Park Specialized facilities Less than %-mile 1 acre or less 0.25 to 0.5A Within neighbor - that serve a concen- radius. hoods and in close trated or limited pop- proximity to apart. ulation or specific ment complexes, group such as tots or townhouse develop - senior citizens, ment or housing for the elderly. Neighborhood Area for intense rec- Y. to Y: -mile radius 15+ acres 1.0 to 2.OA Suited for intense Park/Playground reational activities, to serve a population development. Easily such as field games, up to 5,000 (a accessible to neigh - court games, crafts, neighborhood). borhood population— playground appa- geographically ratus area, skating, centered with safe Picnicking, wading walking and bike ac- pcols, etc. cess. May be devel- oped as a school - park facility. Community Park Area of diverse en- Several neighbor- 25¢ acres 5.0 to 8.0A May include natural vironmental quality. hoods. 1 to 2 mile features, such as May include areas radius. water bodies, and suited for intense rec- areas suited for in- reational facilities, tense development. such as athletic com- Easily accessible to plexes, large swim - neighborhood served. ming pools. May be an area of natural quality for outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, picnicking. May be any combina- tion of the above, depending upon site suitability and com- munity need. TOTAL CLOSE -TO -HOME SPACE 6.25-10.5 A/1,000 TOTAL CLOSE•TO-HOME SPACE - 6.266-10.5 Ah,6b B. REGIONAL SPACE: r Regional/Metro. Area of natural or Several communities. 200+ acres 5.0 to 10.OA Contiguous to or Politan Park ornamental quality 1 hour driving time. encompassing for outdoor recrea- natural resources. tion, such as picnick- ing, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, and trail uses; may include play areas. R III, - l Park Arca of natural Several communities. 1,000+• acres; Variable Diverse or unique Resem quality for nature- 1 hour driving time. sufficient area to en- natural resources, oriented outdoor compass the resource such as lakes, recreation, such as to be preserved and streams, marshes, viewing, and studying managed. flora, faune, top - nature, wildlife habi- ography. tat, conservation, swimming, picnicking, hiking, fishing, boat- ing, camping, and trail uses. May in- clude active play areas. Generally, 80% of the land is reserved for conservation and natural resource mar, agement, with less than 20% used for recreation development. TOTAL REGIONAL SPACE 1520 A/1,000 C. SPACE THAT MAY BE LOCAL OR REGIONAL AND IS UNIQUE TO EACH COMMUNITY: Liner Park Area developed for No applicable Sufficient width to Variable Built or natural cor. one or more varying standard. protect the resource ridors, such as util- modes of recreational and provide maxi- ity rights-of-way, travel, such as hiking, mum use. bluff lines, vegeta, biking, snowmobiling, tion patterns, and horseback riding, roads, that link other cross -county skiing, 9, components of the canoeing and pleasure recreation system or driving. May include community facilities, active play areas. such as school, . (NOTE: any included libraries, commercial for any of above com- areas, and other park ponents may occur in areas. the "linear park.") Spacial Use Areas for specialized No applicable Variable depending Variable Within communities. or single purpose rec- standard. on desired size. reational activities, such as golf courses, nature centers, mari- nas, zoos, conserva- tories. arboreta, dis- play gardens, arenas, outdoor theaters, gun ranges, or downhill ski areas, or areas that preserve, maintain, and interpret build- ings, sites, and objects of archeological sig- nificance. Also plazas or squares in or near commercial centers, boulevards, parkways. Conservancy Protection and man- No applicable Sufficient to protect Variable Variable, depending agement of the standard. the resource. on the resource be- natural/cultural en- ing protected. vironment with rec- reation use as a secondary objective. A. JS J JANUARY 1990 /�. ffsAMERICAN F0 , fPLANNING ASSOCIATION 1W Greenbelts, Greenways, and Trails The following article is an edited excerpt from Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth Management Strategies by Michael A. Mantell, Stephen F. Harper, and Luther Propst, copyright 1989 by The Conservation Foundation. The book and its companion volume, Resource Guide for Creating Successful Communities, can be ordered from Island Press, Box 7, Covelo, CA 95428 (800-828-1302). Creating Successful Communities (350 pages) is $39.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper). Resource Guide for Creating Successful Communities (300 pages) is the same price. Both volumes can be ordered for $69.95 (cloth) and $44.95 (paper). Noting that, by the year 2000, 80 percent of Americans will live in metropolitan areas, The Report of the Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors stresses the growing need for convenient outdoor recreation lands and tracts of "green" in and near urban areas. To meet this need, some communities have developed comprehensive strategies for protecting greenbelts, establishing greenways, and providing extensive trail systems. A greenbelt is a contiguous, interrelated open space buffer surrounding an entire community or metropolitan area (essentially, a ring of green around a city). The resources protected in a greenbelt may include river and stream courses, wildlife refuges and migration corridors, scenic roads, hiking and bicycling trails created from utility easement corridors or abandoned rail lines, public parks, floodplains, farms, grazing lands, mountains, and hillsides. These lands provide a broad range of recreation, scenic, economic, and ecologic benefits. In addition to the functions typically served by open space lands, a successful urban greenbelt may help to contain the spread of suburban development (either from the community or toward the community from neighboring cities or metropolitan areas) and create a green "gateway" to a community, enhancing its individual character. Rails to Trails Opportunities for creating recreational trails from abandoned railroad rights-of-way exist throughout the country. In the early twentieth century heyday of railroading, there were more than 270,000 miles of railroad track—six times the present-day mileage of the interstate highway system. Postwar changes in freight and passenger transportation have eliminated over 125,000 miles of this original network, and the rail abandonment process will continue at least into the near future. This abandonment presents a tremendous opportunity for developing trails and linear parks. Abandoned rail corridors, with their gentle grades and right-of-way ^� buffers, make ideal multipurpose trails. They often present a means of creating a greenway network by linking communities with outlying parks and rural lands. Current trail development efforts illustrate the potential of abandoned rail corridors. The Rails -to -Trails Conservancy is a Seattle Dept. of Parks and Recreation The Burke -Gilman Trail in Seattle. national organization that specializes in assisting groups to identify, build support for, and convert railroad corridors for use as trails. The conservancy has documented 124 converted trails in 25 states, totaling 1,900 miles of rail lines converted for trail use. For example, under the sponsorship of the conservancy, the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail is working to transform a recently abandoned local rail spur into a continuous 20 -mile trail from the Maryland suburbs to the Potomac River at Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C. Assembling the Land As the report of the President's Commission makes clear, greenways can come in many forms. In addition to adapting abandoned railroad corridors, many communities have created greenways and trail systems along rivers and streams and in mountainous areas. Unless a ready-made corridor, such as an abandoned rail line or utility easement, is available, land assembly is the first hurdle in developing a greenway, greenbelt, or trail system. Several important steps should be taken. In developing a trail, one or several alternative trail alignments should first be plotted on a topographic map and "field checked" by walking the proposed route. Land ownership along the alignment should be identified to determine the owners with whom negotiations must be undertaken. Information about the landowners in the area (e.g., their attitudes toward the proposed trail, financial situations, estate . 4741 planning objectives, and plans for the land) will help determine which alternative alignment to select and how best to approach each landowner. Landowners who are likely to donate land should be approached first to develop momentum for the trail system. Landowners who are less sympathetic may be influenced if their neighboring landowners make such donations. Land Acquisition The most direct approach for developing greenways, trails, and other forms of recreational access is land acquisition, which can be undertaken by both public agencies and nonprofit organizations. Full fee acquisition (buying all rights to private property) is particularly appropriate for parks and access points that require significant related development, such as a parking area. For most sections of a greenway system, however, acquisition of a full fee interest may be unnecessary or prohibitively expensive. In many situations, acquisition of public access easements and conservation easements can effectively complement fee simple acquisition. Acquisition is often most successful as a joint public/private effort because some landowners may prefer to deal with a land trust or other group that has well-known community members or neighboring landowners on the board than with a municipal agency. Conversely, some landowners may only negotiate with a municipal agency that brings the power of eminent domain to the negotiating table. Planning and Regulation Local comprehensive plans can call for development of a greenway, and local land -use regulations can then incorporate the greenway plans so that, for example, dedication requirements and access easements become mandatory for approval of private development projects that increase recreational demand within the area. Regulatory measures are widely used to require land dedication for recreational access as a condition of subdivision or development approval. Currituck County, North Carolina, adopted a provision in 1971 requiring developers of more than 600 feet of waterfront property to provide a 10 -foot public pedestrian access way from a public roadway to the beach or sound. Under the California Coastal Act, both the California Coastal Commission and local governments require dedications of access easements for certain types of coastal development. Similarly, the Florida coastal construction regulation program requires an evaluation of interference with public beach access when reviewing new beachfront construction. Martin County, Florida, has implemented a well-documented and defensible Beach Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires developers to contribute to a fund, based upon the projected recreational demand resulting from a proposed development, to purchase and maintain public beachfront property. Legal Considerations in Protecting Open Space Due to the diversity of resources encompassed by the term "open space," open space protection programs present a full range of legal issues. Four legal concerns, discussed in the following paragraphs, deserve particular consideration. A locality often cannot regulate property so that only open space uses are permitted. Although a zoning revision can substantially—even dramatically—reduce the value of a parcel, such a revision should be made only if the parcel affected retains some economically feasible use. Court decisions have upheld minimum lot sizes of as much as 40 acres or more in agricultural districts or particularly sensitive areas. Public agencies should carefully identify and thoroughly document the need for community recreational lands and facilities; the recreational needs of proposed developments; and the linkage or connection between any land dedication or exaction requirements and the needs of proposed developments. Courts generally uphold exaction or land dedication requirements for new development so long as they are reasonably related to the increased recreational demands resulting from that development. The recent Supreme Court opinion in Nollan v. California Coastal. Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1987), emphasizes the need to ensure that conditions imposed upon the issuance of development permits (particularly those that require public access) bear some reasonable relationship to a documented public need. Open space preservation programs should clearly identify specific public functions served by open space preservation. While courts generally recognize land -use controls based upon purely aesthetic purposes as valid, documentation of the more traditional public health, safety, and economic objectives will improve the legal defensibility of the program in any constitutional or statutory challenge. The description of public purposes should, therefore, discuss the aesthetic benefits of open space preservation. It should also emphasize tangible public health and safety benefits, benefits to local and regional tourism and economic development, and other fiscal benefits. Regulatory decisions must be clearly and completely independent of land acquisition policies. Municipal officials should carefully avoid creating any appearance that the reason for rezoning property or for adopting any land -use regulation is to facilitate public acquisition. Suggestions for Building Open Space Protection Programs In addition to the requirements for a legally sound open space program, the following components are commonly found in successful open space preservation programs: ■ Develop open space protection programs around a vision of the future. This vision of the community should be embodied in local land -use plans and specific local policies directing growth in appropriate areas. This vision then guides local decision making affecting specific capital improvements and development applications. ■ Combine regulatory and land acquisition measures. Regulatory and land acquisition programs should be distinct but complementary. In turn, land acquisition efforts should be undertaken both by a public agency and by a local or regional nonprofit land trust. The public agency and the land trust will likely find different niches and will excel in different circumstances. ■ Build strong community support outside of the local regulatory boards. Open space protection efforts should be spearheaded or supported by local groups that can play at least two different roles: 1) advocating policies, monitoring regulatory actions, and keeping open space issues on the public agenda; 2) participating in land trust activities, such as negotiate acquisitions in land trust actions, managing land preservation agreements, and working quietly with benefactors for funding. ■ Document and publicize the diverse benefits of open space preservation. Documentation should stress the tangible and economic benefits of open space protection. This documentation helps build broad coalitions for open space U preservation and assists in legal defense if necessary. ■ Think, plan, and operate on a regional level. Coordinated regionwide action is necessary to prevent development from "leapfrogging" narrow open space protection areas and to ensure that the plans and programs of neighboring communities do not conflict with one another. Flexible Standards for Site Plan Review Loveland, Colorado, has learned that site plan review is more of an art than a science. When the city reviewed development proposals on a case-by-case basis, the development community complained that the review process was too arbitrary. Yet, the stringent standards for site development that the city adopted two years ago proved to be too inflexible to administer. Recently, the city developed a set of performance standards and guidelines that allow for flexibility but limit discretionary decision making during site plan review. The illustrated regulations set forth requirements for access, parking and circulation, landscaping, pedestrian improvements, drainage, and lighting. There are two components to the code—a set of mandatory site development standards and a set of guidelines that supplement the standards. For example, all developments must comply with 12 minimum standards governing landscaping materials, irrigation and maintenance, tree preservation, and landscape ;.--� design. In addition, there are 19 recommended landscaping guidelines. During the development review process, the planning staff may allow deviations from the guidelines as long as they explain in writing why the deviations were allowed. The new standards and guidelines replace a set of mandatory requirements that met immediate, vociferous opposition when they were introduced two years ago. "The standards were like a straitjacket—at times, a development project would fall apart because it could not comply with the requirements for a small design element of the project," notes Ed Moore, chief planner for Loveland. The inflexible site improvement standards were particularly inappropriate for redevelopment projects. For example, the standards thwarted the adaptive reuse of certain older residential areas that, because they were located along major arterials, were more suited to commercial uses. Several potential small commercial ventures were abandoned because it was not financially feasible for the property owners to meet the ordinance's paved parking and landscaping requirements. The new standards encourage adaptive reuse by allowing flexibility in the administration of the code and by loosening the site development requirements for redevelopment projects. "The credibility of the planning department has increased tremendously since the adoption of the revised standards. The development review process is no longer an adversarial confrontation with the development community," Moore said. The revised code is also designed to implement the city's downtown development and entryway beautification plan. In the past, site development requirements were mechanically applied without regard to the long-range design goals that the city was trying to achieve. Now, the code includes special standards for "character districts" that are located along the city's major transportation corridors. For example, the downtown district calls for a thematic street -lighting program and attached sidewalks with special paving treatments at intersections. In the Lakeside Boulevard district, the guidelines emphasize preservation of the views of the Rocky Mountains and Lake Loveland. Signs are restricted and review guidelines encourage the development of pedestrian esplanades at viewpoints along Lake Loveland. Seattle Scales Back Multifamily Zoning Last month, the Seattle City Council took steps to restrict the size of apartment buildings acid condominiums in multifamily districts. The new regulations are designed to stop the proliferation of oversized apartment buildings that were springing up like giant toadstools in the midst of traditional single-family neighborhoods. The new provisions tighten controls on the width, height, and density of low-rise apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods. The regulations replace the city's 1982 zoning provisions for multifamily buildings, which did not include density or lot coverage limits. The new rules reduce the allowable size of apartment buildings to about two-thirds of the previous maximum. "When the zoning code was revised in 1982, no one anticipated that we would get these bulky multifamily buildings that really don't fit in with the character of the existing neighborhoods," said John Skelton, senior land -use specialist for the city. But, as the city's real estate market improved in the mid-1980s, some of the older residential neighborhoods began to get a tremendous amount of new construction. "The citizens finally said `enough is enough'," Skelton added. The new limits on multifamily dwellings further demonstrate the strength of the growth control movement in the city. In the spring of last year, Seattle citizens approved a growth cap that limits development of downtown office space to no more than 500,000 square feet through 1994. More recently, Seattle and surrounding King County residents voted in favor of a $117.6 million open -space bond issue that will be used to acquire trails, parks, and greenbelts in the metropolitan area. New Orleans Clamps Down on Zoning Freezes The New Orleans City Council recently voted to restrict its power to impose development moratoriums. The new process was adopted to quell accusations that the council's frequent use of moratoriums to halt unpopular development proposals was a clear misuse of authority. Currently, there are nearly 50 neighborhood moratoriums on land uses that range from group homes to flea markets. Under the revised process, council members must request that the planning commission create an "interim zoning district" that would place a moratorium on certain types of development in specific areas for up to 18 months. During the interim period, the planning staff would be required to devise permanent zoning guidelines for the area. Prior to the new procedure, council members could use moratoriums to prevent development that vocal neighborhood groups opposed. Development moratoriums were most often BYLAWS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Approved 4/7/94 Establishment and Duties of the Conservation Board The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (hereafter referred to as the CB) was established by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on 4/12/93 to assist the Town in the management and protection of resources such as open space, agricultural lands, natural areas and features and other environmental matters. II. Membership The CB shall consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of nine residents of the Town of Ithaca who demonstrate interested in the conservation issues. They will be nominated by the CB and approved by the Town Board. All the above members, once approved, will have full voting rights and responsibilities. CB members will be appointed for two year terms by the Town Board: a member may serve for as many terms as she/he wish with CB and Town Board approval. Associate members may be approved by a quorum of the CB but do not have voting rights. III. Chair The Chairperson of the CB will be nominated for a one year term by a majority vote of the CB. After confirmation by the Town Board, she/he will assume the normal duties of a chairperson, including calling, scheduling, and canceling meetings and keeping CB meetings orderly. The Chair will also be responsible for overseeing the keeping of adequate financial records and filing financial statements and reports to the Town Supervisor and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in a timely manner. IV. The Vice -Chair The Vice -Chair will be appointed for a one year term by a majority vote of the CB. The Vice -Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chairperson. V. Meetings The CB shall meet once a month, with a second meeting as necessary, at a time and place which accommodates the majority of the members. Regular attendance at meetings is expected. The annual re -organizational meeting of the CB for developing the annual work plan and membership should be scheduled to coordinate with other Town Boards. VI. VII. a" Voting A quorum is a simple majority of the Board. An issue will pass by vote if a majority of the quorum present votes affirmatively. Proxy votes are not permitted. Agenda To the extent practical, the agenda will be set by the Board with the Chairperson adding, deleting, and organizing the agenda as appropriate. The time to be allotted to each item shall be decided in advance and used as a guideline during the meeting. ;Time should be spent at the beginning of each meeting reviewing the agenda. If an issue is not on the agenda, any CB member may bring up issues at any meeting under the item Member Concerns. Member Concerns and Persons to be Heard must be on the agenda at every CB meeting. Minutes Minutes shall be kept at every meeting either by a secretary hired for that purpose or by'a CB member designated by the Chair on a rotating basis. Minutes should be mailed to members along with the information of the following meeting's agenda. Every effort should be made to pass minutes at the meeting immediately succeeding it. IX. Calendar September. October December. Dec./Jan. - X. Amendments CB Financial records go to the Supervisor to be included in the town budget. New members solicited Interview and nominate new members: Elect Chair and Vice - Chair Town Board appoints new members and officers These bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new bylaws adopted by 2/3 vote of the CB membership, provided that quorum is present and that a statement of intent to change the bylaws has been published in the agenda of the -meeting. CQRNELL/COLLUM TEL:507-257-6220 Mary, May 27°94 10:10 Pio.001 F.01 1-'qay 27, 1994 Please send the enclosed notice to the Conservation Board members . ............ .n::.:---1.xv. .v.... .....,..w.n. �q �i i::yyyy N,J .... .* ..... ....... ..................... :.w.i.....n.......x.:.......w�...y �. ,a . ............ .n::.:---1.xv. .v.... .....,..w.n. �i i::yyyy N,J . ............ .n::.:---1.xv. .v.... .....,..w.n. CORNELL/COLLUM TEL:607-257-6220 May 27'04 10:10 No.001 F.02 June 2nd Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Meeting s° ww,.......����...� a .....,....»..... ....... ............. J.^tla. June 16th from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. The focus of the June 16th eeting will be water quality issues an the Town of Iihaca. .ren agenda ani. supporting materials for this iM1)ortant 1n . ting wiil be mailed to you prior to the meeting. Please Bail Candace at. 257-6220, as soon as possible, if you will be unable to attend on June 16th. CB Mailing Checklist Date Mailed Packets: Cornell D( Hawkes h ello Fisc Fischer Smith Hoffmann �( . Russell , Meigs Agendas: Moore x Crispin_ Darlington Stephans �t ; Leopold K,' White fL Staff: Louise John W. Mary t/ TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Adopted June 16, 1994 Resolution To The Town Board: Recommendation To Develop A Comprehensive Stormwater Management And Erosion Control Plan And Supporting Ordinances. 1994.03 CB Resolution Whereas, alteration of natural ground cover soil disturbing activities can increase the rate and velocity of storm water runoff, and Whereas, inadequately controlled surface water runoff can accelerate stream bank erosion and channelization, and Whereas, excessive surface water runoff can cause soil erosion, stripping valuable topsoil and increasing the sediment load in our local streams and Cayuga Lake, and Whereas, surface water runoff into streams and lakes can degrade aquatic biota by excessive flushing and sediment loading, and Whereas, impaired biological functioning of aquatic biota degrades water quality, and Whereas, stormwater runoff can induce flood peaks that can damage culverts, bridges, and other public facilities, and Whereas, excessive rates and velocities of runoff can cause floods that endanger and damage life and property, and Whereas, the residents and the biota of the Town of Ithaca require high water quality, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has no ordinance or plan to control stormwater runoff and erosion, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan recognized the need for controlling stormwater runoff and erosion, Now, therefore, be it resolved, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, requests that the Town Board develop a comprehensive stormwater management and erosion control plan and supporting ordinances. 1994.03 CB Resolution CEC 6/16/94 RESOLUTION TO THE TOWN BOARD MEETING NOTICE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, June 16, 1994 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on west side of building) (607) 273-1747 The focus of the June 16th meeting will be water quality issues and strategies for the Town of Ithaca. AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Introduction of Jonathan Kanter, our new Town of Ithaca Planning Director 7:45 p.m. 3. Environmental Atlas 8:00 p.m. 4. Water Quality Issues 9:20 p.rri. 5. Approval of Minutes of 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9%16/93;� 9/30/93; 12/16/93; 4/7/94; and 5/5/94 '(as time' permits — please submit any substantive changes in writing.) 9:25 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:35 p.m. 7. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell • MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD June 16, 1994 Approved 07/7/94 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Richard Fischer, Janet Hawkes, Mary Russell, Cheryl Smith, Phillip Zarriello ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann GUESTS: Louise Raimondo, David Edgel, John Whitcomb Candace opened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. 1. Member Concerns: None. 2. Report of the Chair: Tompkins County Greenway Coalition co-sponsored expo in May at the Mass Transit Facility on Willow Ave. Large display of two counties greenways and Town of Ithaca Southhill Recreation Way trail plan. There was a great deal of interest. Approximately 300 participants. George had nice display of maps. Louise was there. Candace did a survey of interests and asked whether people were willing to use tax dollars for improvements to public places, etc. 99% said yes. Opening of the Plantation Path Alumni weekend. Greenway Coalition co-sponsored kick-off lecture with • Tony XX. Monday was the inauguration of the path at Treaman Triangle at the base of Cascadilla Falls 3. Introduction of John Cantor: Unfortunately he is unable to be at meeting. He is in Westchester country accepting an award for CB board project he was involved with. He will attend next meeting. 4. Environmental Atlas: Louise Raimondo and David xx were present to talk about what is currently being done. They passed around a hand-out which listed on p. 2 the different ecological features that were going to put into the system. The priority at this point is a map of the Town on the computer and the accuracy checked. David is doing this project for the summer, going through mounds of paperwork already in existence and cataloging them. Janet suggested talking with the constituents who would be using the system to see what features they would find useful before setting the system up. 5. Water Quality: Need to discuss this at the next meeting. Candace passed out a resolution that the CB read over and edited. Janet suggested that a water management plan as well as an ordinance be adopted so a broader scope would be covered. Candace motioned for Executive Session, seconded by Dick Fischer, pass unanimously. Resolution edited. Dick Fischer motioned that the draft resolution be accepted, seconded by Cheryl Smith, passed unanimously. Copy of resolution attached. 6. Approval of Minutes: Tabled until next meeting. • 7. Committee Reports: ERC: Janet stated she wanted to set up a meeting after the CB meeting. Ithacare Project: Suggested to the Planning Board that the building site be moved to avoid the overlook. If you look at the current site towards the left of the proposed building, if the developer fills the land the result would be a bigger view, and maintaining the overlook as it is now. Candace showed a diagram. Cornell Storm Water Management: Proposed that it is diverted to Cascadilla Gorge and wants to re -grade wetlands. CB has been in discussions for 2 years. ERC invited to the field site on Monday, June 20th @ 3:00 at the Library Annex. 8. Miscellaneous: Candace stated a few areas that she would like to discuss at future CB meetings: a) Explore how to designate more critical environmental areas which trigger Type I action. b) Compile a list of people who are experts in flora, fauna, etc. C) Community clean-up and replanting d) Cayuga Lake Celebration - July 23rd. Articles requested for the Ithaca Journal. 9. Next Scheduled Meeting: July 7th at 7:30 p.m. 10. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully submitted by Karen Moore, Secretary to the Conservation Board MEETING NOTICE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, June 16, 1994 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on west side of building) (607) 273-1747 The focus of the June 16th meeting will be water quality issues and strategies for the Town of Ithaca. AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Introduction of Jonathan Kanter, our new Town of Ithaca Planning Director 7:45 p.m. 3. Environmental Atlas 8:00 P.M. 4. Water Quality Issues 9:20 p.m. 5. Approval of Minutes of 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; 9/30/93; 12/16/93; 4/7/94; and 5/5/94 (as time permits — please submit any substantive changes in writing.) 9:25 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:35 p.m. 7. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell June 10, 1994 MEMO TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Candace E. Cornell, Conservation Board, Chair SUBJECT: June 16th Conservation Board Meeting At our June 16th Conservation Board meeting, I will have the pleasure of introducing our Town's new Planning Director, Jonathan Kanter, to our Board Members. Jon and his family are moving here from White Plains where he worked as a county planner and was also a member of a local Conservation Board. Jon is a terrific addition to our Community. David Egdell, a summer student intern in the Planning Department, will be joining Louise Raimondo to discuss a work plan for the Environmental Atlas project. Phil is the chair of our Environmental Atlas Committee and will be working closely with David and Louise on this project. The main focus of the June 16th meeting will be water quality issues and strategies for the Town of Ithaca. The Comprehensive Plan highlighted concerns about water quality issues including the protection of wetlands, steep slopes, groundwater, stream corridors, and the lake shore, as well as controlling storm water runoff and sedimentation. The CB will explore workable solutions to theses water quality issues. I have enclosed fact sheets stormwater and a NYS DEC stormwater informational brochure as an introduction to this water quality issue. Also included in this package is the Town of Penfield's environmental overlay ordinance and a very interesting 11/3/93 article, "Trees and the Bay," discussing stream buffer strips for your reference. Penfield's system is best illustrated on a map that I will bring on the 16th. Please refer to several items in the information package I gave you in March including: Clean Water... A Community Commitment to Protecting New York's Watersheds, A Guide on Soil and Water Management for Local Official, and various ordinances from the Towns of Perinton, Mendon, and Queensbury, and Village of Honeoye Falls. After we discuss the water quality issues facing Ithaca, I would like to break into two groups to work formulate action plans. We are catching -up on our backlog of minutes thanks to the valiant efforts of our secretary, Karen Moore and Cheryl Smith. Enclosed are the minutes of 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; 9/30/93; 12/16/93; 4/7/94; and 5/5/94. We will approve them as time permits. Please submit any substantive changes in writing. See you on June 16th. Please remember to call me if you will be unable to attend. Stormwater Tins #1 STORMWATER RUNOFF: WHAT IS IT? WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? What Is Stormwater Runoff? Stormwater runoff is water from rain or melted snow that cannot be absorbed by the soil and instead washes off the land surface. As it, goes, it often picks up pollutants such as road sand and salt, automobile fluids, pet wastes, grass clip- pings and fertilizers. Why Is It A Problem? According to a 1991 report by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), stormwater runoff is a common source of pollution in streams, lakes and rivers that are polluted in New York State. Stormwater runoff is a particular problem in urban areas. Large expanses of sur- faces impervious to water, such as roofs and parking lots, make it difficult for precipitation to soak into the ground. As stormwater moves over the land and towards streams, rivers and lakes, it can be contaminated with a number of sub- stances, such as: 4 Sediment from construction sites, eroding roadbanks and stream -banks. 4 Organic materials, such as leaves, grass clippings and other yard wastes. When these substances are washed into streams and lakes, they decay - using oxygen in the process. This can use oxygen needed by fish and other aquatic organisms. Oil and gasoline leaked from auto- mobiles and storage tanks. Nutrients, such as phosphates and nitrates. Often these can be traced to fertilizers washed off lawns and golf courses, and from failing septic systems. When nutrients enter wa- ter, they can stimulate the growth of unwanted aquatic weeds and algae. Pesticides, from lawns, gardens and golf courses. 4 Pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, which can cause disease. These may come from improperly - disposed of human and animal wastes and failing septic systems. Other toxic substances, such as cop- per or lead. These may come from spilled or improperly -disposed of paint, or be deposited back on the land from automobile emissions. Trash and street garbage, such as plastics, paper and other litter. Besides causing pollution problems, stormwater runoff also contributes to and aggravates flooding problems. The less precipitation that soaks into the soil, the more there is to run into streams. When too much water enters a stream all at once, flooding 'results. Stormwater runoff can also increase the temperature of streams in urban areas. As stormwater runs over streets and other paved areas, it can'pick up heat as well as pollutants. When a large amount of stormwater is flushed into a stream, such as during a summer storm, it can raise the water temperature of the stream to a point where fish and other aquatic organisms are injured, or in extreme cases, killed. Prepared by the USDA -Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. All Soil Conservation Service programs and assistance are available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap or national origin. November 1993 Stormwater Tips #2 HOW TO MANAGE STORMWATER Why Manage Stormwater? Traditionally, stormwater 'from develop- ing areas has been handled by getting it off-site as quickly as possible. As water moves off-site, it picks up and carries with it pollutants, such as sediment, litter, automobile fluids, etc., to streams, rivers and lakes. The sheer volume of water rushing off paved or built-up areas also frequently results in flooding. Water pollution and flooding problems cost communities in New York State millions of dollars each year. Proper stormwater management can prevent pollution, re- duce flooding, and improve a commun- ity's appearance. How to Manage Stormwater The goal of any stormwater management program is to ensure that the quantity and I quality of stormwater runoff from a specific development is not substantially altered from pre -development conditions. On a specific site, such as a subdivision or shopping mall, this means controlling stormwater where it falls on the land, using structural and vegetative measures to detain and store water. When stormwater is detained on-site, pollutants can settle or be filtered out by the soil. Peak flows are diminished, and flood damages are re- duced. Ideally, stortnwater control measures are applied throughout a watershed or lake basin. This improves groundwater re- charge, reduces streambank scouring and bank erosion and keeps potential contam- ination on land and out of lakes, streams, rivers and coastal waters. Stormwater Management Practices The following are some practices available for managing stormwater: • Vegetative practices: filter strips, grassed swales, tree plantings. Structural Practices: constructed wetlands, concrete grid and modular pavement, diversions, extended de- tention basins, infiltration basins and pits, infiltration trenches, porous pavement, retention ponds, water quality inlets (oil/grit separators). • Maintenance Practices: fertilizer and pesticide application control, litter and leaf control, vehicle maintenance, and street cleaning. What's Required for a Stormwater Manage- ment and Erosion Control Plan At a minimum, a stormwater management and erosion and sediment control plan should provide: 1. Background information about the scope of the project, including: • Project description. • Description of existing pre - development conditions. • Description of expected post - development conditions. 2. A statement of stormwater manage- ment objectives. A comparison of post -development runoff conditions with pre -devel- opment conditions, including: a description of methodologies and calculations used to make the comparison. 4. A description of the proposed structural and vegetative measures that will be used to control storm - water runoff and erosion and Prepared by rhe USDA -Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. All Soil Conservation Service programs and assistance are available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap or national origin. sedimentation. This should include calculations used in sizing the stormwater control structures and devices. A description of long-term maintenance for stormwater man- agement facilities. A full description of components needed for an effective stormwater management and erosion and sediment control plan can be found in Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater from New Development, a publication released by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in April 1992. See the "Where To Get Help" box, below. Nnvemher 199.3 Stormwater Tins #3 THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT What's In It For You? An effective stormwater management program pays for itself. When stormwater is improperly managed, the entire community pays through flooding, higher costs for road maintenance, polluted water and more. It makes financial sense to require proper stormwater management before damages and costs start to accrue. It's also an issue of fairness: Why should developers and builders save money in the short run by not managing stormwater properly -- only to have taxpayers foot the bill in the long run? You Have the Legal Authority to Manage Stormwater In New York State, local governments have the legal authority to enact regulations for I stormwater management. This can be done by local law or by ordinance, and is part of the authority granted local governments to regulate growth and development. The source of this authority is the General Municipal Law and City, Town and Village Law. Whether a local ordinance or local law is used, it should specify the elements to be included in stormwater management plans that would be submitted by a project applicant to the local planning board for review and approval. Stormwater Discharge Permits Under the recent amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, developers of any construction site larger than five acres must get a stormwater discharge permit from the state. In New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has an EPA -approved program for issuing permits in accordance with the federal stormwater regulations. This program includes a general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. To find out more about the permit process in New York, contact the Regional Office of DEC. To comply with the permit requirements, a discharger must: 1. Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) form at least 2 days prior to staring construction; and 2. Develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans Generally, the plan must include: - a narrative description of the construction activity; - a description of the proposed measures to control pollutants in stormwater discharges during and after construction operations; - a site map indicating drainage patterns and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading, and the location of structural and non-structural controls identified in the plan; - the name of the receiving water. Local Government Role in Stormwater Permit Program The stormwater permit requires the developer to submit copies of the NOI form and the stormwater pollution prevention plan to the municipality that has jurisdiction over the project. The municipality can review the plan if it has either a stormwater management ordinance or a local law in place that establishes a local review process. Prepared by the USDA -Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. All Soil Conservation Service programs and assistance are available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap or national origin. November 1993 Stormwater Tips #4 A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU? What's In It For You? The bottom line of an effective storm - water management program is it pays for itself. When stormwater is improperly managed, the entire community pays through flooding, higher costs for road maintenance, polluted water, and more. It makes financial sense to require proper stormwater management before the damages - and costs - start to accrue. It's also an issue of fairness: Why should developers and builders save money in the short run by not managing stormwater properly - only to have taxpayers foot the bill in the long run? of vegetated areas and open water can provide recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat and open space benefits for the community. This can result in higher property values as well. 7. Public Safety Proper stormwater management practices detain runoff on-site, and help prevent flooding of streets and basements. Benefits of a Stormwater Management Program 1. Flood Protection Uncontrolled runoff can damage a spe- cific site. When runoff from several sites flows into one stream, the surrounding community can be flooded. Proper stormwater management practices retain runoff on the site and release it slowly, preventing flood damage on and off-site. 2. Groundwater Recharee Stormwater management practices can increase movement of water into the ground, recharging the water table and assuring an adequate water supply for the community. 3. Water Quality Protection Stormwater management practices can prevent runoff from carrying pollutants from land into streams, lakes and coastal waters. This protects drinking water, re- creational opportunities and wildlife habitat. 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Soil washed off the land causes all sorts of expensive problems when it enters waterbodies as sediment. Streams and lakes become cloudy and less attractive 8. Lower Flood Insurance Premiums Under the Community Rating System (CRS) of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a community that implements an approved stormwater management program can achieve credit. This can reduce flood insurance premiums for residents. for recreation. Sediment destroys fish and wildlife habitat, particularly fish spawning sites. As sediment accumu- lates on stream bottoms, the water carrying capacity of the stream is reduced and the frequency of flooding increases. Lakes and reservoirs may have to be dredged as they become shallower. Streets require more frequent sweeping, and ditches and storm sewers need to be cleaned out more often. Water treatment costs rise when sediment must be removed from drinking water. Stormwater management practices re- duce the volume of rushing water on the site as well as from the site. This keeps soil on the land and out of storm sewers, ditches, streams and streets, and prevents streambank erosion. Costs of removing sediment from where it doesn't belong are reduced. 5. Infrastructure Protection Stormwater management practices keep sediment out of highway ditches, culverts and waterways. This reduces costs for maintenance, dredging and early re- placement of public facilities. 6. Open Space and Visual Enhancement Stormwater management practices can be designed as an attractive part of the project landscaping. Careful placement 9. Helps Businesses Comply with the Law New federal legislation requires developers of construction sites larger than 5 acres to apply for a discharge permit. Usually this means a stormwater management and erosion and sediment control plan must be on file with the municipality that has jurisdiction. By having a stormwater management program in place, you can help local contractors and developers comply with the law. Stormwater Tips #5 YOUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE Why Enact An Ordinance? Uncontrolled stormwater can cause costly problems for a community. Flooding, streambank erosion, water pollution, clogged ditches, blocked storm drains and damage to wildlife habitat are but a few problems caused by uncontrolled stormwater. Management practices exist to control storm - water, both on a specific site and on an area or watershed -wide basis. The key is to make sure that practices are properly installed and maintained. Many communities across the country have found that a stormwater ordinance provides the legal framework necessary for developers and others to carry out and maintain effective stormwater management and erosion and sediment control practices. It's important to remember that the existence of a stormwater and erosion control law. By thoroughly studying the model ordinance and reviewing these questions, you should be able to demon- strate to a court that you have gone through the necessary "thought process" prior to adopting the ordinance. You should also maintain a record of your deliberations. What is the nature of the stormwater runoff problem in the community, and will adoption of an ordinance to control stormwater runoff help address the prob- lem? If so, how? What are the purposes and objectives of the law/ordinance? (see Chapters 2 and 3 of Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Devel- opment). • Under what authority can the community adopt a stormwater management and erosion control ordinance? See Article 9 of the Town Law; Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law; Article 4 or 20 of the Village Law; or Section 20 of the General City Law. • Who will (and will not) have to prepare a stormwater management and erosion control plan? Who will review and approve the plan: planning board, code ordinance does not force a community to choose between development or no develop- ment. Rather, it is simply a way to ensure that the community is protected from costly envir- onmental, economic and aesthetic problems caused by uncontrolled stormwater from development sites. Where To Start: A Model Ordinance Effective ordinances usually include four key points: 1. Stormwater management is required in all development plans submitted for approval. 2. Plans are reviewed by someone technically knowledgeable before approval of the development. This may be a consulting engineer or, in many counties, the Soil and Water Conservation District. 3. Performance standards are clearly estab- lished, and practices are required to meet them. 4. Provisions are made to maintain practices after they are installed. The New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation (NYSDEC) has developed a model stormwater management and erosion control ordinance. The model ordinance is designed to support the objectives of an effec- tive local stormwater management program. In addition, it will satisfy stormwater manage- ment provisions and erosion control provisions of the National Flood Insurance Community enforcement officer? Should a public hearing be held as part of the review process? What kinds of information should be contained in the plan and how is it to be used? (Chapter 4 of Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development contains minimum plan information requirements which should be incorporated into Section 8 of the ordinance or local law for controlling stormwater runoffand erosion and sedimentation.) Will an inspection process be established? Who will do the inspections and when? What performance standards will be used to ensure that the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff after development is not substantially altered from pre -development conditions? (Chapter 5 of Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development contains performance standards which are considered minimum by the DEC to achieve the above goal, and should be incorporated into Section 10 of the ordinance.) • Should the stormwater management and erosion control law contain provisions for off-site control of stormwater runoff? If so, what provisions will be incorporated into the local law for off-site management Rating System. The model ordinance is also consistent with federal and state stormwater regulatory programs. The model ordinance can be found in Appen- dix A of a new manual entitled, "Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff From New Development'. See the "Where To Get Help" box later in this fact sheet for how to obtain the manual. Copies of the model ordinance can also be obtained for free from Flood Staff in NYSDEC Regional Offices. Avoiding Legal Pitfalls Occasionally, a municipality will adopt an ordinance without fully understanding the ordinance, its purpose and why it is being adopted. If the ordinance is then challenged in court, the municipality may be unable to defend itself and the ordinance may be thrown out by the court. To prevent this, local officials must be able to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that they went through a "thought process" when enacting the ordinance. This means that the municipality must be able to show that it knew what was being adopted, why it was adopted, how and by whom it would be administered and what was expected from those affected by the ordinance. The following questions are designed to guide municipal officials in a "thought process" that will lead to the development and effective implementation of a stormwater management and erosion control law. By thoroughly of stormwater runoff. (Section 11 of the model ordinance contains provisions that address this issue.) What arrangements will be made to ensure that stormwater management facilities are properly maintained: a home -owner's association; use of municipal revenues; creation of a special (tax) district? (Chapter 7 of Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development provides guidance in this regard. Also, see Section 12 of the ordinance.) What arrangements or provisions will be in the law or ordinance to ensure that the approved stormwater management and erosion control plan is properly implement- ed and all conditions for its approval are properly adhered to: a performance bond; an escrow account certification; or an irre- vocable letter of credit? Who will be au- thorized to release the developer from bonding or letter of credit requirement and when: elected municipal officials; the plan- ning board; code enforcement officers? (Section 13 of the ordinance contains provi- sions relating to the use of performance bonds, letters of credit, etc.) NOW POu".KT Stormwater Tips #6 SQ How To CARRY OUT YOUR ORDINANCE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL Once your community has a stormwater management and erosion control ordinance in place, it must be carried out. There are three phases in the building/development process where you can apply the ordinance: Plan Re- view/Approval, Site In- spection, and Maintenance. The specific tasks to be com- pleted, how it is to be done and who should do it are shown on the following table. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PLANS 4 What ► Review plans for individual site development, subdivisions and industrial or commercial developments 4How ► .4 Who ► Establish applicability criteria for • Soil & Water Conservation District project review and requirements for - Soil Conservation Service information from the developer. - NYS Dept. of Envir. Conservation projects). - Consultants Establish a procedure for review along - Municipal Attorney with a timetable for hearing comments. for this item can pay for inspection Establish Memorandums of Under- - Soil & Water Conservation District standing (MOUS) or contracts for - Consulting Engineers needed technical assistance. SITE INSPECTION What P. On-site inspection during the various phases of construction, at the end of construction and during operation of the project throughout its period of usefulness. MAINTENANCE What P. How ► .4 Who ► 'Fee paid by the developer. *Dedicated Municipal employee or contract with fund from the developer (surety bond, letter consultant or soil and water conservation of credit). 'General reviews. 'Revenues district. Funding sources listed under from special benefit districts (existing "How" for this item can pay for projects). inspection personnel and corrective fees through property or home -owners' measures if needed. MAINTENANCE What P. Facilitate proper maintenance of stormwater management and erosion control practices to ensure they are functioning as intended. How ► .4 Who ► 'Establish maintenance requirements. 'Set Municipal employees, consultants/con- up a schedule for maintenance. 'Establish a tractors or soil and water conservation mechanism for taking corrective actions. district. 'Establish a funding mechanism, such as fees through property or home -owners' Funding mechanisms listed under "How" associations, local government general for this item can pay for inspection revenues or special purpose districts. personnel and if needed, corrective actions. Stormwater Tips #7 MAINTAINING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES It is absolutely essential that, once in- stalled, stormwater management facilities are properly maintained through an on- going maintenance program. Without proper maintenance, stormwater facilities will not function as intended, and they may eventually fail. Institutional Approaches For Maintaining Storm - water Management Facilities Under current state -enabling legislation, ongoing maintenance of stormwater man- agement facilities can be provided through one of three institutional approaches: I Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Guidelines The following guidelines identify the kinds of maintenance tasks which should be performed periodically to ensure that stormwater facilities function properly: • Inspection There should be periodic inspections of stormwater facilities for the first few months after installation and on an annual basis thereafter. Important items to check for include: differential settlement of earthen embankments or impoundments; cracking, erosion, seepage through em- bankments; brush, shrub or tree growth on embankments; and sediment accumulation in stormwater catchments. • Maintenance by Homeowner's Association A homeowner's association can be formed as part of the subdivision approval pro- cess. The usual role of the homeowner's association is to provide specific services to individual homeowners and to provide and service improvements in the subdivi- sion on lands held in trust by the association for the common good of all. landowners. In forming a homeowner's association, the developer will provide for a board of directors usually consisting of home- owners in the approved subdivision. The board will be responsible for guaranteeing maintenance of stormwater facilities. The association becomes a legal entity having specific duties and responsibilities after the developer prepares and files an offering plan with the State Attorney General. The offering plan contains all legal documenta- tion regarding the services to be provided by the homeowner's association. • Maintenance by Municipality with General Revenues A municipality (city, village, town or county) can utilize its general revenues to maintain stormwater management facil- ities. This will require that the developer • Vegetative Control Vegetative control includes mowing, cutting, pulling, etc., of woody vegetation to prevent its establishment on earthen impoundments or dams. • Debris and Litter Removal Debris and litter should be removed from inlets, ditches, embankments, culverts, etc. • Structural Repair/Replacement Stormwater maintenance facilities may need structural repairs, for example, inlet/outl'et devices and standpipe or riser structures may deteriorate with time and have to be replaced. turn over or dedicate the stormwater management facilities to the municipality whereupon the municipality will pay for maintenance of stormwater facilities with the funds derived from general revenues. The presumption of using (largely) property tax -derived general revenues for stormwater facilities maintenance is that each taxpaying citizen in the community will benefit from having the facilities properly maintained and functioning as intended. • Maintenance by Special Improve- ment District A town or county may establish a special improvement district to construct and maintain stormwater management facilities (under Article 12 or 12A of the Town Law and Article 5A of the County Law). A town district may not include any part of an incorporated village, unless the village board consents in a resolution or local referendum (under Article 24 of the Municipal Home Rule Law) to join the special improvement district. The major advantage of the special improvement district approach is that contributors can be assessed for main- taining stormwater facilities in proportion to the amount they contribute to the problem. • Erosion Control Eroding areas in contributory drainages to stormwater facilities should be stabilized to minimize sediment removal costs from the storage facility. • Sediment Removal Sediment should be removed periodically from stormwater management facilities to ensure that the storage capacity of the facility is not diminished and, in the case of infiltration basins, to prevent decreases in soil percolation rates. Stormwater Tips #8 What Are Wetlands? Technical definitions of wetlands may vary slightly, but all wetlands share certain characteristics. Wetlands display saturated soil conditions, flood or pond often and can support specific wetland plants and animals. What Roles Can Wetlands Play in Stormwater Management? Wetlands can be valuable in stormwater management for several reasons: • Flood Control: Wetlands detain stormwater naturally, reducing down- stream flooding. WETLANDS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT • Groundwater Recharge: Community groundwater supplies and individual wells often depend on wetlands as recharge areas. • Clean Water: Wetlands trap sedi- ment and filter nutrients from storm - water runoff. This is especially important for fish and wildlife. Recreation: By providing clean water for fish and wildlife, wetlands create recreational opportunities for the community and tourists. Hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing, photo- ography and other outdoor activities are enhanced. • Open Space: Besides its aesthetic value, many communities are finding that open space can translate into increased property values and other economic benefits. How to Make Wetlands Work For You 1. Identify and locate valuable wetlands in your community using existing in- ventories and local technical exper- tise. 2. Plan ahead for community growth. Integrate wetland protection into stormwater management programs and watershed plans. 3. Protect wetlands. You may choose to protect wetlands through special reg- ulations or comprehensive land use planning, zoning, stormwater and erosion control ordinances or other techniques. Existing federal and state wetland regulations must be considered. 4. Don't overload natural wetlands. Al- though it is true that wetlands can purify slightly polluted water, stormwater must be treated before being discharged into natural wet- lands. Untreated runoff can con- taminate the wetland, alter its hy- drology and damage wetland vege- tation. 5. Consider creating wetlands. Carefully planned, properly designed construct- ed wetlands can be used to detain and treat stormwater runoff. Federal or state permits may be required to construct these wetlands. (See the special note on Wetlands on pgs. 111- 112 in Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development). Prepared by the USDA -Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. All Soil Conservation Service programs and assistance are available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap or national origin. November 1993 Stormwater Tips #9 WHERE TO GET TECHNICAL HELP WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT As more communities undertake stormwater management programs, they may find they need technical assistance. A number of groups and agencies can help. Consultive Assistance Private Consultants: Professional engi- neers and land use planners can perform detailed hydrologic studies or watershed analyses. They can also prepare and review stormwater pollution prevention plans, review site plans and subdivision proposals for a fee. County Soil and Water Conservation Districts: Provide review and comment on stormwater pollution prevention plans, subdivision proposals, site visits, and construction inspections. County Planning Departments: Pro- vide guidance with stormwater management programs; land use planning, and subdivision review. I • NYS Department of Environmental Conservation: Regional Offices offer communities help with model stormwater management ordinances, floodplain management programs, and information on local water resources. • NYS Department of State: Through the Coastal Management Program, it provides help with public education and coordinating stormwater management efforts, particularly in coastal areas. • New York Sea Grant: A Cornell Ex- tension coastal partnership designed to link research with local education needs. Information on nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff is available. • USDA -Soil Conservation Service: Of- fers soil maps, relative ratings for stormwater runoff and soil erosion poten- tial, and access to SCS Technical Re- lease #55 (Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds). Training Opportunities Erosion and Sediment Control Train- ing Sessions: These one -day and two- day training opportunities are periodi- cally offered by the USDA -Soil Conser- vation Service and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. The sessions cover the planning, design and construction of erosion and sediment control practices. Stormwater Runoff Management Training Sessions (TR -55; TR -20): These two-day courses were recently developed by the USDA -Soil Conservation Service and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. They cover stormwater runoff computations, management techniques and structure design. University Courses: Colleges and universities are increasing their course offerings in the field of stormwater management. Syracuse University has recently developed a short -course and a full semester course on Urban Storm - water and Erosion Control Design. The short -course has been offered in various New York State locations. Professional Organizations: Confer- ences and forums sponsored by groups such as the Soil and Water Conservation Society, the American Water Resources Association, and other professional groups address stormwater management and related nonpoint source pollution issues. Prepared by the USDA -Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the NYSDepartment of Environmental Conservation and the New York Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee. All Soil Conservation Service programs and assistance are available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap or national origin. November 1993 Stormwater Tips #10 STORMWATER REFERENCES The goal of a stormwater management program is simple: to ensure that the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff from any specific development is not substantially altered from pre -development conditions. An effective way to do this is to control stormwater where it falls, on-site, using structural and vegetative measures to deiain and store water. Several references are available to help you plan, design and implement these stormwater control measures. Reducine the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development contains guidance on,reducing flooding and water quality impacts from new development through stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. This manual also contains information on stormwater management planning, performance standards, management practices and a model stormwater ordinance. The manual is a valuable tool for planners, engineers, local officials, contractors and others involved in land development activities. Available for purchase from: County Soil and Water Conservation District; or, Empire State Chapter -Soil and Water Conservation Society, P.O. Box 7172, Syracuse, NY 13261-7172. • Price: $15.00 Building Better Communities Through Stormwater Management is a 14 -minute slidettape show which shows the benefits of stormwater management and explains how communities can develop and carry out a stormwater management program. Available for local viewing through your Regional Water Engineer, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. The New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control contains standards and specifications for erosion and sediment control measures commonly used on construction sites. Both vegetative and structural \\ measures (permanent and temporary) are included. The manual was developed for planners, engineers, 'local officials, contractors and others involved in land development ' activities. Available for purchase from: County Soil and Water Conservation Districts; or, `� �� �0 . Empire State Chapter -Soil and Water Conservation Society, P.O. Box 7172, Syracuse, NY 13261-7172. V, �O \ •. Price: $25.00 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds: USDA -Soil Conservation Service Technical Release #55 presents simplified procedures to calculate storm runoff volume, peak rate of discharge, hydrographs, and storage volumes required for designing stormwater control measures. The manual and computer software is a useful tool for designers and reviewers of stormwater management plans and practices. Available for purchase from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), US Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA. 22161. Phone No.: (703) 487-4650. Manual and Microcomputer Program: Accession Number PB87-101598/AS Price Code: D99 -Contact NTIS for price To order manual only: Accession Number PB87-101580/AS Price Code: AO -8 ($23.00) Stream Corridor Manaeement: A Basic Reference Manual identifies the various approaches, opportunities and techniques which can be employed to restore, protect and enhance streams which flow throughout communities.' The manual should be of particular interest to local planning agencies, environmental groups, planning and engineering consultants, sportsmen's organizations, county environmental management councils and local conservation advisory commissions. Available for purchase from: Health Education Services, a Division of HRI, P.O. Box 7126, Albany, NY, 12224. Phone No.: (518) 439-7286. Price: $9.50 Management Practices Catalogues contain information on management practices that prevent or reduce the availability, release or transport of pollutants from stormwater runoff. The catalogues are a valuable tool for professional watershed planners and orbs involved in nonpoint source water pollution control measures. Available from: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Water Quality Management, 50 Wolf Road, Rm. 326, Albany, NY. 12233-3508. Phone No.: (518) 457-6781. Community Ratine System (CRS) Credit for Stormwater Mana ement describes the credits available from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for communities that adopt stormwater management programs. This reference and the more comprehensive CRS Coordinator's Manual are suitable for county planners and local officials. Available from: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation -Regional Water Engineers; or, Flood Publications, NFIP/CRS, P.O. Box 501016, Indianapolis, IN. 42650-1016. A Guide to Conservation Plantines on Critical Areas for New York contains recommendations for stabilizing eroding areas and protecting water quality through the use of conservation planting. Species selection, site preparation and planning considerations are included. 48 pages. Available from: County Soil and Water Conservation District Stormwater Runoff: the Problems When it rains, it drains Each year, an average of 40 inches of precipitation (as rain and snow) falls on New York State. That's an average of 90 billion gallons a day - S enough water to fill the Cannonsville u1".e), P�Pt.};o., Reservoir. or 2 1/2 times the water�� �001 in Lake Placid. Some areas get more, some less, and the total varies . according to the weather for the year. Where does the water go? 9T_ . q "n le� I Np IIIIhIAIllnaiuMninneni u... ue.I'm I���II�I III ISI (.I Some of the precipitation is warmed by the sun and soon evaporates from land and water into the air; some transpires into the air from trees and other plants. Together, these processes are called evapotranspiration, which accounts for the "loss" of about half of our precipitation. When there is more water vapor than the air can hold, clouds form. Where conditions are right, the clouds drop their moisture and we get rain or snow. In New York State, about 14 to 18 billion gallons a day become groundwater, seeping into the ground through soil and gravel and through the cracks in rock layers. This process is called recharge because it renews the amount of water underground. Some groundwater is held in an aquifer, which is any soil or rock formation that holds sufficient water and yields it to wells and springs. The remaining precipitation flows as runoff into surface waters and, eventually, out to sea. Several inches of rain may fall in a hour, or a slow rain or snowmelt may soak an area for days. When the ground can no longer absorb the rain or snowmelt, the water washes rapidly off the land surface and flows downhill through drainage basins (watersheds). The amount of runoff is determined by a combination of factors: climate, weather, soils, geology, landforms, vegetative cover and, most importantly, land use. Runoff is a natural and essential part of the hydrologic cycle. However, runoff from agricultural lands, from lands that are undergoing urban development and from lands that are already developed can cause significant problems downstream, We all live in a watershed; runoff affects all of us. On the other hand, we all affect the watershed. How does land use change runoff? Precipitation Water (Hydrologic) Cycle Evapo- transpiration Groundwater Recharge Aquifer Runoff Watershed New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mario M. Cuomo, Governor Am Langdon Marsh, Commissioner Designate v .%W In undisturbed areas, the landscape is more likely to slow the rate of runoff and reduce the volume because the water flows through wooded areas, fields and wetlands in the watershed. Of course, flooding can occur, but the results are usually less destructive than where a watershed has been altered. PRECIPITATION 1100%1 Runoti 100/ opportunities for infiltration and evaporation. In highly developed urban (city) areas, PRECIPITATION roofs, highways, sidewalks and parking lots 100% cover what was once porous soil and plants. Because rainwater cannot soak into the ground, even small rains will create runoff. tmm �ap°r—fit—`` The percentages change further: Rund Too little, too much: Water flowing over the land during and following a rainstorm is called stormwater runoff. Water that runs rapidly off the land surface cannot infiltrate into the ground. Where runoff is increased, recharge is reduced. That means lower water tables and less water in wells. Where soil is saturated with water or where the surface is impermeable due to ice, compaction or paving, runoff can move rapidly and may cause local flooding in low or poorly drained areas. Even where special stormwater drains have been built, heavy storms can produce more water than the structures can handle. Controlling the volume of stormwater is particularly difficult in urban areas. Pollution Just as rain or snow is not absolutely pure, runoff never starts off pristine. But our actions make it worse. We add fertilizers and pesticides to our lawns and gardens, parks and golf courses, fields and pastures - and some of those added substances wash downstream when it rains. The wastes from animals are carried in runoff, as are oils and greases from cars and trucks. Sand and soil from construction sites, plowed fields, road and stream banks are also carried in runoff. All of these pollutants from diffuse (or nonpoint) sources wash from our land and enter our streams, lakes, estuaries and groundwater. Although the exact origins of nonpoint source pollutants may be hard to determine, there is no doubt that runoff transports most of them into our waters. The quality of runoff from developed and developing areas is a particular concern in New York State. 2 Where the land is somewhat developed, IECIPITATION such as in a small -lot housing area, the 100% percentages change. Because less of the 5 o landscape is covered by plants and trees, less rainwater can seep into the ground and more Evapotranspiration water becomes runoff, flowing quickly from roofs, paved driveways and streets. Drainage 71 Runoff '3 structures such as ditches and storm sewers Recharge 3 Aso move runoff away rapidly, reducing the opportunities for infiltration and evaporation. In highly developed urban (city) areas, PRECIPITATION roofs, highways, sidewalks and parking lots 100% cover what was once porous soil and plants. Because rainwater cannot soak into the ground, even small rains will create runoff. tmm �ap°r—fit—`` The percentages change further: Rund Too little, too much: Water flowing over the land during and following a rainstorm is called stormwater runoff. Water that runs rapidly off the land surface cannot infiltrate into the ground. Where runoff is increased, recharge is reduced. That means lower water tables and less water in wells. Where soil is saturated with water or where the surface is impermeable due to ice, compaction or paving, runoff can move rapidly and may cause local flooding in low or poorly drained areas. Even where special stormwater drains have been built, heavy storms can produce more water than the structures can handle. Controlling the volume of stormwater is particularly difficult in urban areas. Pollution Just as rain or snow is not absolutely pure, runoff never starts off pristine. But our actions make it worse. We add fertilizers and pesticides to our lawns and gardens, parks and golf courses, fields and pastures - and some of those added substances wash downstream when it rains. The wastes from animals are carried in runoff, as are oils and greases from cars and trucks. Sand and soil from construction sites, plowed fields, road and stream banks are also carried in runoff. All of these pollutants from diffuse (or nonpoint) sources wash from our land and enter our streams, lakes, estuaries and groundwater. Although the exact origins of nonpoint source pollutants may be hard to determine, there is no doubt that runoff transports most of them into our waters. The quality of runoff from developed and developing areas is a particular concern in New York State. 2 How Much of a Problem Is Stormwater Runoff in New York State? Recharge: Because groundwater feeds many of our lakes and streams during dry periods, reduced groundwater recharge is also likely to diminish streamflow and lower lake levels. In developed areas such as southeast New York State, where buildings and pavement cover the ground and where periodic droughts occur, runoff steals precious resources. Erosion and sediment: Rapid runoff can cause erosion as it flows downhill. The resulting load of sediment can clog drains and ditches, slowing the flow of water. Where the drainage is blocked, water backs up onto roads and into people's homes. Heavy rains or rapid snowmelt may exceed the capacity of drains intended to remove the water. In either case, flooding can occur. Road and stream banks, fields and lawns lose valuable topsoil. Eroded sites must be regraded; sediment -filled waterways must be dredged. Sediment destroys aquatic habitat. It also can carry pollutants with the soil particles. The results are costly both in damage and dollars. Example: Planners in Hamburg, New York recognized that increased runoff from the new, 147 -acre McKinley Mall could have flooded the downstream Village of Blasdell; a 10 -acre detention basin was built to hold 47 million gallons of water, reducing the threat of flooding. Cattails and muskrat are flourishing in the new habitat. Pollution: Runoff can carry oil and fluids from vehicles, litter, lawn chemicals and fertilizers. When these pollutants are dumped into a stream or lake, they degrade water quality. Runoff from urban areas, construction sites and stormsewers impairs the use of 441 miles of New York's rivers and 110,743 acres of lakes, reservoirs, bays and estuaries. Runoff, which has not been treated, contributes over 500 times more biological oxygen - demanding (BOD) substances into waterbodies than treated point source (pipe end) discharges from wastewater treatment plants. BOD is a measure of organic and inorganic materials that use up dissolved oxygen in the water as they decompose. Low oxygen levels in water can cause the death or impair reproduction of fish and other water -dwelling organisms. Runoff flushes 40-200 times as much nutrient load into waterbodies as do discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, are a major cause of algae blooms in lakes, bays and estuaries and excess weed growth in lakes and rivers. Small amounts of lead, zinc, copper, cadmium and chromium (heavy metals), along with oils and gasoline, are flushed from highways and parking lots into rivers, lakes and estuaries. In New York/New Jersey Harbor, stormwater runoff contributes from 1%-7% of total heavy metals entering the waters. If these substances exceed water quality standards, they can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Runoff, especially that which is conveyed by combined sewers, carries viruses and bacteria, some of which are disease -causing organisms, or pathogens, into waterways. Beaches maybe closed, shellfish harvesting may be restricted and drinking water can be affected. Polluted runoff affects not only the waters within New York's boundaries, but also the waters into which our rivers drain, such as Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean. It is important for each one of us to keep stormwater as clean as possible. Water quality begins with us, at home at work or at school; clean water starts HERE! 3 Working Towards Solutions What happened? As our part of the country was settled and developed, a main concern of builders was to drain water away from buildings and streets.as quickly as possible. Ditches and culverts were dug out to drain water efficiently. Over the centuries, the land itself was shaped to meet the needs of growing communities; hills were leveled, roads were cut, wetlands were dredged or filled. Forests gave way to farm fields, many of which in turn yielded to suburbs. Dirt roads were paved, and parking lots covered open areas around buildings. The surfaces of urban areas became impervious, resulting in more runoff. Communities attempted to solve the runoff problem by installing street drains and miles of storm sewer pipe, shunting large volumes of rainwater or melting snow into a wetland or waterbody. Storm sewers carry untreated runoff directly into lakes, rivers and bays. Other pipelines were built to carry away household and industrial wastes in "sanitary" sewers, dumping untreated wastes into the nearest waterbody. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) Many of New York State's older communities have combined sewers, most of which were built between the late 1800s and mid -1900s. These are sewer systems that use the same pipes to collect both stormwater runoff and sewage from households, businesses and industries. Combined sewers were built to solve a public health problem, using stormwater to move raw sewage away from cities. When municipalities started constructing sewage treatment facilities in the mid -1900s, the combined sewers were connected to the plants. During dry weather, combined sewers send wastewater to a sewage treatment plant, where it is made clean enough to meet state standards for discharge into a waterbody. During wet weather, stormwater runoff enters the sewer system. However, most sewage treatment plants are not equipped to handle large volumes of additional flow. When the combined sewer pipes get too full, regulating valves shunt all additional flow to a local waterway to prevent the plant from flooding and the pipes from backing up. During these combined sewers overflows (CSOs), any of the sewage mix not treated in the plant or other treatment facility is discharged untreated into the waterway, along with debris and pollutants washed from the streets. Consider the scope of this problem in the New York City area, where more than 700 CSO outfalls border the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Reduction of CSOs is now a major strategy of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act, an important regulatory program in New York State, and an ongoing focus in.older communities across the state. Answers We now know more about how stormwater acts in a watershed. Groundwater recharge areas should be protected so that they can continue to serve this function, instead of being paved or polluted. The harmful effects of CSOs can be reduced. Much of the damage from runoff can be avoided with foresight and proper action. But it is a complex problem whose solution will require help from all of us. Read'Stormwater Runoff: Solving the Problems in this packet to find out what solutions New York State is exploring and what you, your group and your community can do to help. 4 Stormwater Runoff: Solving the Problems We all live in a watershed. What we do at home, work, school or at play affects the water that flows under and over the land. Scientists, engineers, policy -makers and educators have been working together to increase their knowledge about the way that stormwater runoff acts in a watershed, and to share that knowledge with the public. It is much easier, and much less expensive, to prevent runoff problems through proper planning than it is to restore waterbodies and rebuild flooded properties. The challenge now is to carry out a variety of cost-effective stormwater management methods in communities across New York State. Individuals, schools, businesses local governments and citizen groups all have a role to play. The goal of any stormwater management program is that the quantity and quality of runoff from developed areas should not be substantially altered from predevelopment conditions. Practices may be site-specific, regional or coordinated for a whole watershed. Approaches Basically, there are three ways of managing stormwater runoff. ■ Increase recharge ............................... stow it below O Reduce the rate of runoff ............. 6 .. slow the flow E Reduce pollution ............ lower the load Each of these approaches may also achieve the intentions of one or both of the other goals; they may be used singly or in combination. Stow it Below: Ways of increasing recharge The idea is to retain stormwater on site and keep it from running off. Stormwater will evaporate or infiltrate into the ground. Site planners can design grassed swales, basins, trenches and drywells to hold stormwater for infiltration. Planners can also specify modular pavement and other materials that allow rapid groundwater recharge. For more information, consult a site -design engineer, or order Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development, $15.00 from Empire State Chapter, SWCS, PO Box 7172, Syracuse NY 13261 Slow the Flow: Ways of reducing the rate of runoff To slow the flow, engineers and design specialists, such as landscape architects, design structures or apply site practices that will capture the peak flow of runoff and allow slow release into the watershed. Retention slows the movement of water, causing the stormwater to drop some of its sediment load. Dry catchments are low places constructed where stormwater can collect temporarily. For example, you may find grassy swales or stone -lined stormwater basins at the edge of a shopping center's parking lot. The catchments temporarily store stormwater, which drains slowly, into a stormwater collection system, providing time for some infiltration to occur. Vegetative controls Plants provide effective and low-cost ways of slowing stormwater flow, preventing erosion and settling out suspended sediments. For example, rye grass is often seeded on construction sites as a temporary cover to hold soil in place. Permanent grasses and shrubs stabilize slopes and graded areas, such as road cuts and field edges. Plants also trap sediments and other pollutants. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mario M. Cuomo, Governor Langdon Marsh, Commissioner Designate Slow the Flow... continued Wet ponds are permanent pools, frequently designed as landscape features for a campus, office park or housing area. The pond provides storage for stormwater. The pond's outlet controls the flow into a creek or river. Loss of Natural Wetlands Marshes and swamps act as natural storage sites for rain and flood water, spreading stormwater runoff shallowly across the landscape and slowly releasing the water downstream. Where wetlands have been drained and filled, a watershed loses some of its capacity to absorb floodwater. In New York State, it is estimated that half of the freshwater and saltwater wetlands that existed at the time of the early European settlements are gone. At the edges of New York/New Jersey Harbor, 80 percent of the pre -colonial wetlands have been eliminated. The remaining marshes exist only as fragments of wetlands that once buffered the tidal estuary. We have lost the capacity to store millions of acre feet of water. The same amount of rain typically falls now as 400 years agd; what has changed is the volume and speed of runoff. Constructed Wetlands: Communities are now recognizing the benefits of wetlands to control flooding. However, it is not acceptable practice to discharge untreated stormwater directly into naturally existing wetlands. Instead, artificial wetlands are created to detain stormwater and filter out pollutants from runoff. They are constructed as part of a total system designed. to control nutrients and sediments. Lower the Load: Ways of reducing pollution It is important to keep clean water clean and separate from dirtier water. For example, runoff from a building's roof should be collected in gutters and drained into a downspout pipe that directs the flow into a graveled area for infiltration rather than running onto bare earth or down a driveway and into the street. The "first flush" - the first half inch of runoff - contains 75-90 percent of the load of contaminants washed off the land. Practices that catch and retain this first flush will address most of the water quality concerns about stormwater runoff. Requiring proper stormwater management practices as part of the site design for new construction will keep new projects from causing water quality problems. Infiltration, retention and extended detention settle out contaminants. Reducing Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs): In choosing methods to abate combined sewer overflows (CSOs), states and municipalities consider engineering feasibility, environmental benefits, land availability and cost. Techniques in the stormwater collection system include: ■ separating the stormwater and sanitary sewers ■ balancing the flow by storing excess stormwater in the drain pipe ■ using holding tanks to store water temporarily offline, or out of the main flow ® screening floatable debris out of the stormwater flow For the largest CSOs, storage structures can be built to hold water near the discharge point. The stored water is pumped to the treatment plant after the flow subsides. The treatment plants themselves may have to remove solids and floatables and disinfect the stormwater, when necessary. Construction and operation of smaller CSO abatement facilities present a greater challenge as they cost more per unit while yielding less environmental benefit. New and improved technologies are needed to help our older communities solve CSO problems. How does New York State Manage Stormwater? Regulatory controls for stormwater management ■ Under the federal Clean Water Act, dischargers of pollutants that adversely affect the state's waters are regulated by DEC with permits under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). In addition, developers of any construction site larger than five acres and industries in certain categories must get.a New York State permit for stormwater discharges. Two general permits have been developed to make it easier for dischargers to obtain coverage. Your regional DEC office has more information. As part of the permit, the developer or industry must prepare and carry out a stormwater pollution prevention plan. If the local government has a stormwater ordinance or local law in place, it will also review the plan. ■ Local governments have the authority to manage stormwater through a local law or ordinance, as they regulate growth and development in the community. Voluntary management practices for stormwater management ■ Local governments, institutions and corporations manage the application of fertilizers and pesticides and control leaves and litter on their own grounds. They maintain their car and truck fleets so that vehicles do not leak on the street or parking lot. They clean their streets regularly. ■ Developers work with engineers and design specialists to produce a site that controls stormwater runoff while providing planted areas, scenic ponds and wetlands, wildlife habitat and community recreation. Builders reduce the amount of impervious surfaces in developments. ■ Municipalities hold household hazardous waste clean-up events. What can you do as an individual? ■ Understand the fundamentals of stormwater management. ■ If your community has combined sewers, reduce the amount of water that goes down the drain. If everyone conserves water, your wastewater treatment plant could increase its capacity. Disconnect your basement sump pump from the sewer line and let it discharge to a graveled driveway or grassy area. ■ Never throw anything down a stormdrain. Take used motor oil to a gas station for recycling; they must accept up to five gallons of used oil, at no charge to you. Filter and reuse other automotive fluids, if possible. ■ Garden ecologically. Compost yard wastes. Don't let grass clippings or leaves wash down the storm drain. Keep fertilizer and pesticide use to a minimum; use when needed, in the right amount. Don't let your sprinkler wash them down the gutter: ■ Use gravel, ashes or calcium chloride instead of salt for traction or deicing. ■ Be a pooper scooper. Dispose of pet wastes by burying or composting them. You could even put them (wrapped in paper) in the trash. ■ At work or at school, be alert to actions that could affect the quality or quantity of stormwater. Suggest tactfully how practices could be improved. 3 What can you do as a group member? ■ Suggest that your group undertake a community awareness campaign to promote the connection between storm water, water quality and flooding. Hold a Water Week event. ■ Team up with schools and other groups to conduct a storm drain stencilling project. ■ Become water stewards. Adopt a waterbody or water related structure; conduct action projects and tell DEC about them (see bottom of page for address). You will receive a certificate recognizing your group's work. ■ Sponsor a forum on stormwater issues. Involve teachers, students, representatives of local businesses and industry, and local officials. Summarize results and send to officials and community leaders. ■ Offer scholarships to enable students or staff to attend environmental workshops, camps, meetings, conferences and seminars. Ask for a report and publicize it. ® Sponsor a neighborhood cleanup that includes yards, streets and waterways. What can you do in your community? ■ Review and evaluate proposals affecting stormwater; offer informed opinions and voice your concerns. Work to solve problems together. ■ Become a working member of a community board or civic committee. Work to create proposals, provide or analyze information and suggest options for local government to follow. v Attend meetings of your county's Water Quality Coordinating Committee. Find out how you can help implement the county Water Quality Strategy. Let your local officials know what they can do to help. ■ Support proposals to maintain and improve water and sewage treatment systems. What can your community leaders do? ■ Adopt a stormwater management ordinance. • Develop and carry out a stormwater management program. Require contractors and developers to install management practices on construction sites and to address the long-range impacts of runoff from the development. ■ Protect wetlands; they absorb stormwater and filter pollutants. ■ Include water and sewer system improvement in the annual budget; support regular preventive maintenance. ® Use Water Week (May 1-7, 1994) as a focus for local action to protect water. Zr i V Agenda 9:00 am WELCOMING REMARKS & h-rmDUCnoN June O'Neal, Director NYS Office of Rural Affairs Patricia Salkin, Director, Government Law Center, Albany Law School MS am TOWARDS REroRMn-rG LAND Us$ LAws nv MassAAcs- Em William G. Constable I000 Friends of Massachusetts and General Counsel, A.W. Perry 9:35 am THE NEm roR REroRMnaG New YORK'S LAND Use LAWS Professor John Nolon Pace University School of Law I0:05 am BREAK I0:I 5 am CHART A DmecnoN FOR NEW YORK: PANEL DsA=oN Robert Bristol, Chairman Center for Economic Growth's Community Development Council David Church, Executive Director New York Planning Federation Jeremiah Cosgrove, NY Field Representative, American Farmland Trust James Hanson, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Dean Gitter, Chair, Route 28 Corridor Committee Barbara Samel, Counsel, New York Conference of Mayors I I:00 am Qtrr 01Z FROM THE S= Participants from across the State can phone in questions for any of the speakers I I:SO am WRAP-UP AND hZTRUCFIOM FOR SURVEY Patricia E. Salkin Registration Form Nam rrde Organization Address City state Zip Telephone Fax The registration fee is $35. Please make checks payable to Albany Law School and send this registration form and check for $35 to: Barbara Mabel Government Law Center Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY I2208 PIease register as soon as.possible --- the Teleconference may be cancelled at sites where there is insufficiept registration. If there is not a. location convenient for you, please contact the Government Law Center at 5I8 -44S-2329 and we will try to identify a site in your area. I will be attending the teleconference at the T0WFM% 4 Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins Co. 6I5 Willow Ave., Ithaca, NY I48SO The Government Law Center of Albany Law School Presents This program is co-sponsored by the Land Use Law Center at Pace Law School, the New York Planning Federation, and the NYS Association of County Planning Directors. In cooperation with the New York State Office of Rura/Affairs. 6 PLANNING NEWS Spring, 1994 DEC PROPOSES AMENDMENTS TO SEQR REGULATIONS submitted by NYS DEC Division of Regulatory Affairs The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) proposes to amend the regulations that implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (Title 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR), Part 617) to streamline and simplify the SEQRA process and to clarify certain provisions of the regulations. The major proposed amendment that adds clarification is new language related to cumulative impact analysis requirements. A definition of the term is added, and guidance is provided in the sections on scoping, criteria for determining significance, and generic environmental impact statements (617.2, 617.7, 617.11 and 617.15). Other areas of clarification are the amendments stating that the results of a coordinated review are binding on all involved agencies (617.6), procedures for amending and rescinding negative declarations (617.6), amendments related to contents of findings statements and guidance on when findings can be amended (617.9) and language clarifying that a lead agency may charge future project sponsors to recover costs of a generic EIS prepared to support a comprehensive plan (617.17). The major proposed amendments that seek to streamline the regulations are the amendments to the scoping process (617.7) and the addition of a number of items to the list of actions not requiring environmental review (formerly Type II actions (617.13). Other streamlining amendments include the following: changes in the critical environmental area (CEA) designation and review requirements to focus more attention on the review of impacts on a CEA rather than the current procedural compliance requirements (617.4, 617.7 617.11 and 617.12); application of the conditioned negative declaration process to Type I actions (617.6) and extensive revisions to the EIS format (617.14) which allow more flexibility in the format of an EIS and provide that if an item is not applicable or significant it should not appear in the EIS. The remaining amendments are updates to bring the regulations into compliance with statutory amendments enacted during the past seven years, plain language edits and minor editorial corrections. Public hearings are scheduled for June 20, 21 and 22 at the following locations with afternoon and evening sessions each day: June 20, 1994 at 2PM & 7PM Cornell Coop Ext Auditorium 249 Highland Avenue Rochester Cornell Coop Ext Auditorium 840 Front Street Binghamton Plattsburgh Town Hall 152 Banker Road at Rt. 3 Plattsburgh Spector Hall, 1 st Floor NYC Dept. City Planning 22 Reade Street, NYC Poughkeepsie Town Hall 1 Overocker Road Poughkeepsie June 21, 1994 at 2PM & 7PM NYSDEC Region 7 Office 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse State Office Building 1 st Floor, 317 Washington St. Watertown Cheektowaga Town Hall Corner of Broadway & Union Cheektowaga Social Services Building 85 Court Street White Plains State Office Building, Room IA6 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge June 22, 1994 at 2PM & 7 PM Legislative Office Building 2nd Floor, Hearing Room Empire State Plaza, Albany IMPORTANT SEQR HEARINGS! The DEC is holding a series of public hearings on amendments to SEQR. We know about you frustrations and values with SEQR. Please take the time to comment at these hearings or in writing. Opportunity to influence regulations may only come once every several years. Each hearing will consist of an informational session to briefly explaining the amendments and answer questions, followed by a legislative hearing to receive comments on the draft GEIS and proposed text amendments. Copies of the proposed amendments and draft GEIS are available at major, central public libraries and at all regional DEC offices as well as through the NYS Library system on INTERNET and on RAIN, the NYS Office of Rural Affairs computer bulletin board (518) 486-6631. Comments on either the draft GEIS or the SEQRA amendments will be accepted in writing or on RAIN through July 22, 1994. Comments should be submitted to: Barbara Rinaldi, NYSDEC, Division of Regulatory Affairs, 50 Wolf Road, Room 514, Albany, NY 12233-1750. CORNELL PLRNTRTIONS- TEi_:607-255-2404 J LIMOO 14N TNSTTTTTTF 010 LAND POLICY Jun 10,94 12:48 No.001 P.01 Deali>np Withba ngge in the Connecticut River 'V Hey-, A Design Manual ?�r Conservationand evelo mento Third Printing, June 1989 By Prof, Robert D. Yaro Diroctor, Center for Rural Massachtraetts C ollop of food and Natural ResouraPs University of Mumchusettr ArnLorst, MA 03003 11=dall G. Arendt, M.R.T.P.I. AsBociato Dirootor, Coxater for Rural Massachusetts Coliqu, of Pood amd Neaturul Resources lUnivorsity of P+ ossr<chusetts Aralrcrst, MA 01003 Harry L. V0430n, ASIA, Principal Dodson A.ssoclatm, Landscape ATC11itr.cts Ash#lcld, MA 01330 Etizalztb. A.13rml;cc, MLA, Ffu cipal Scufo-13ra'bm Design Choverly, MD 20785 Published by the. Lincoln Instituto at Land Policy and tho Ravir°onmoDtal Law Vound ation ,I CORNELL PLRNTRTIONS TEL:607-255-2404 Jun 10,94 12:49 No.001. P.02 movement, or severe erosion, when over two acres in oxicni). Those arnaa urea litrtited to agriculture and timber harvesting, with special permits i9suable for "smell rton-rogdential facilities for education, scientWle or nature interpretation purposcs;' and for "public and prlvato parkts and root cation areas involving mimimat structural development" (but specifically excluding cmmpgroundh). In order to protect special places in which a development, ban could pose legal obsi.aclos (ouch as areas of significant wildlife habitat, or natural sites of significant scenic Ur aesthetic value, including those: identified by federal, state or municipal government), a fourth tyke of district could easily be cruatud, In this "Resource Conservation Diistrlct" the concept of "compulsory clustering^ of new development could be introduced. Development would not lie prohibited, but it could be rcquired to be located as far as possible from the resource to be protected (such as a door Winteting area, a unique geologic formation, waterfowl nesting sites, a particularly scenic view, etc.), 'ibis approach works best where the; overall development density is fairly low, such as two acres per dweliiug unit, in the Wlregste- It should be noted that this approach would not necessarily require attached -wall (multi -unit) housing. If a town's desire is to maintain a single-family ebaractcr, this district could be limited to "clustering" of detached single-family homes on individual, down -sized lots. The residual land, leA over from such down -sizing, Provides the vehicle for protecting the natural resource for which this district is created. Performance Standards Clear, detailed standards specifying how certain aspects of now development should be carried out are highly recommended. Wben reviewing applications for new development in the shoreland none, the special permit granting authority will be able to refer to these. standards, which help to ensure fair and consistent decisions. Compliance with these standards also reduces uncertainty for Wlicants, who can expect approval if their submissions meet the stated requirements. Such standards typically address a broad range of environmental and aesthetic concerns, and may include many of the "sax] neighbor„ performance standards listed in the section of this dcsign manual dealing with Site ]Plan Review procedures. In additions to standards on setbacks, frontage, vegetative thinning (or re -vegetation.) discussed above, the bylaw should contain explicit language relating to other possible negative impacts of shOreland activities, as detailed below. 1) DoekA and Mrs.- Access to the water from lots in any propomd subdivision shall be via one: common dock, whose length shall riot be greater than — ft., and whose width shall not bo sweater than ft Z) Campgrounds: The Aelbark standards for recreational vehicle sites shall be the same as for structures, but the setback for tentsites may be halved. Vegulative thinning (car reaplanting) standards shall be as for structur64 In All cases. 3e- Agrleultur+e- Soil shall not be tilled within 50 ft. of the high water mark, and tillage of more than 20,000 sq. ft. within the shoreland none shall he. conducted in conformance, with the provisions of a Conservation Plan meeting the standards of the local Soil and Water Conservation District. 4) 'limber Harvesting- No subsl$ntial seaumulation of slash shall he left within 50 ft, of the normal irisin water mark. Beyond that distance, within the shorcland 7.one, slash shall be disposed of so that it lice on the ground and no part extends more than four feet above (he. groamd. The vegetative thinning standards 8pccificd for view -clearing in residential development shall also apply to timber -harvesting within 100 ft. of the normal high water mark. Beyond that point, harvesting shall be wnducted nn x "sustainod yield" basis, with no more than 40% or the' volume of treca removed with any 10 -year period. S) Septic Systema; Soria -surface disposal systems for septic wastes shall be lotated no less than t id ft, fr(un the normal liigh water mark. 167 03 t latinns of the Saco River with minl:nurn , of too ft. for e.Ach otMponent. This a vfsrla p t but whore the mmlained Corridor Cam icy Maine, where the sate tninitnutrts apply, ,ssiblc approaches, and towns could setbackJfrcrntugv, is Stlo ft. Ail of these are valid and legally dufcsuch as A combined 6e9ect front amu, f 4W fpr vy h stminitnum 150 ft. for each oTTnlx'nhe requilromOntli into a now crrt�. frontage/stitbacl� of Restrictions on cloaritig of uatoral vegetationiai� along gi ntir studies 1 ave zcp®at dly confirmed tate need as The setback and frontage provisinns. Mul 17 agricultural vc ctnted buffer strip adjacent to the watCr line, to filter cant Pollutants from to retain a ztaturaUy l; ,s seeded to prntret lakes, rivers, storm -water run-off. such pnilutaaof ineludpref bl 75 it. or more) la o fedt o roan S clear- pcsticidcs. An abtiulutc m;tumum of 5(1 ft, (P u}llished :°csearch results. Within that area, and marshes from these Substances, Arccardin$ to p a r cos3didnras attached to special cutting sbould br, pruliibited; judlcioirs thinning can be allowed llrroug l perrntt approval. Alurlg the Noelle 1Ver, tltc standard etatpinycd in tho too ft, buffer strip, is that "the ife Seiceted and dispersed to crcato a view of the, cutttiRs of venol onrnc t lIFitiOn for ilmpact, particularantoly "11w th Fespecihe spe i yet atc"no r1vCr...Slla11 Cause ncgigiblc adverse the riverbank and th* uu or c f tree.6, 6 inches I�BH (d8ame' r 4112 t. �bovde the Wound) or lamer more that 35% of ttrG year cried. In second.gpowtir', woodlands where tlacrd sire relatively few from shall be cut in any toy p 9! 11 of this diameter, the standards could be revised to "25% of the numbisr cif trees, �l ixincBs er Where there is nay prG-existing natural vegetativnl towns wtletr "6 as stipulated ill Nrcrmomtps'ACI Quid' rds yegetalion which will sheen tbo subdivision from t ould be at le' 0t 1e slation. The width of dais t0-vagetate.d l utff indigenous tr es and shrubs (Au hdar sugthe armaaple. eeclar, Should specify that tlto plant n}atcrinl consist g eastersi rad white oak, birch, white pine, h=10ek, wintarhorry, elderberry, viburreuni, wild rose, Ctc.)• Shorelond. Sub -Districts Because land alongside rive) s, lakes, a" hes sansd tber -' for s'ter lorcland v erlay zaxae3 to in lrsda d fe In Mahn~, roan -made and natural condit!"N it raa and districts that recognize orns the C, fisting :para and ntng �'t contains critLrialtan�i �tandaltds for three sub cter of the land for example, the slates Mandatory districts: 1 Limited Residentlal-Recret+tional mstt�ict! This is typically the most ePttensive lyse of district, And uau ally applies to areas of town wtu aas detare not ilednntv13,, bo:low)oly ,Moetla d uses horn Willy permitted in limitinil cnvironrnetital clrtuactcrl�� ( prohibit even. gmati-ecrele caanmcreial residential districts would be allowed hero. 'ThrR would gcues�' ally F fnr cxantple, in a ,Rural Genaxal Mid industrial uses. If a town's prGscnt zoning allows such prohibit ras, , purpose zone,,, it should, in the shurelar►d l'istrict, at(inrsst car h Washes, bulk kiuc:l stns ger junkyards, potential for environmental Follut.101, (e't; g truck terminals, and any facilities using or handling }7A7.ardvus Or toxic n'at'rials�. 1 and witl•in a 5t1 to x) General DevelePment District; This distriet wcsuld include all "shoreland" i.e., inteal [3atcd usiness, industry, 5p0 it, of the high water shark, thatsmall'-lot PL ��{acs'►deratial subdivisions.¢SuOr �h d str`►cts are dt,aig a�me�ia rcere.Atirrn, mineral extraction, o tc of shordlnnd regitircrttents r'garding building setbuck, Primarily to exclude them front the typical rpvisinns would not be as applicable, ae ccs3ary or Vegetative thinning, and allowable land use:, as Ouch P sensible in existing built -ftp areas. sortrce aces all wetlands (both tidal and freshwater), the pretmction 1Disttict, 'B his district otnbr00.year floodplain, and magas havial; unstable sails (Subject to Slump�B> federally-ciclincated yu 3j Re'ass 166 CORNELL PLPNTATIONS TEL:607-255-2404 Jun 10,94 12:49 No.001 P.04 0 Protective Development Strategies for Riverfronts and LaWronts Introduction sad Statement of the Problcm ']Che laud located along the water's edge has lung been recognized as :having significant ecological and aesthetic values. This is piu'tivularly true along the upper reaches of the Connecticut River in 14gasaar-husetis, which retains 1nuch of Its natural appearance in most art:as, due to the very limited amount of 20th contury dcvclupm= within the viewshed of rivor users. Following sevt.ral docades of massive public oVonditw v to reduce pollution of this major regional waterway, the Connecticut .River is becoming ripe for new residential subdivision proposals. Without adequate controls, riverfront lmnd is highly vulnorable to develuprnent in which new homes crowd the banks and im which an natural vegetation is removed to create broad open views across a succession of suburban back yards, straight clown to tho water. H wcvar, this =c=lad b not tnevitablo, i1e, river need not become the bac drop to linear ® eubdivlaioaa staring at ouch other from opposito banks. The following sections outline a hopeful etratcgy, based upun rvolld and practical experience, L3lsa where,, to guide deve-lopment witI► a more saaaitivo hand. 'alae rr5ult can be more creatively designed development patterns which gently 'rinse tiu$ si 4111cmnt uaturel resourec:, rather than infringing heavily upon it. A Framing a t"vslaive Strategy for Conservation and DevQte�pment Although sGvoral states (including Maine and Wisconsiaa) have, since tile, early 1970's, required all mxi:lic petlit$pS to adopt and enforce Fairly stringent rninirnTurn standards for locating new develorn,colt I this "shurcland" zona, in the C;ontmonweallh such protection depends Upon the local initiative of individual towns and cities,, under Home Rule previsions and thu Zoning Enabling ,pct. The paragraphs below introduce the concept of "shoreland zoning" to Massachusetts communities, and llrovido sample bylaw language which would protMt this fragile and torque natural resource frog, imvushive developmmnt, while respecting the property rights of private landnwners. Stated in its simplost terms, "shoreland coning" is typically implemented through "overlay dilMete which set Moro protective requirements on new development, in terns of the array of permitted uRcs, lot sizes, building setbacks, and environmental performance standard,.. In this sense tht, voneent is similar to that employed in aquifer overlay zoning. The overlay districts follow a linear pattern, covering the land within a certain distance of the resource which is to be protected (lakefrant, riverfront, oceanfront, or marshland edge). Tho width of this regulatory zone can vary, but is usually between 25o ft. and 500 ft., measured from (her normal high water mark. Within the ahoreland overlay districts, the principal control Mchaalisrns are wnstruction setbacks fruau the high watea mark, reStrictions on the; removal of natural vegetation within a minimum buffer ..onC adjacent to the water, and performance standards gnwFrmng land use activities 4itWn the protected Mile. Setbacks, Frontage, and Btl.p'ers Within the Commonwealth there are premittly two existing "models" to chnase frp,rl, in fewer of shoreland setback regulations, The COnneeticut Valley Action Program .h as reed a,nit:adbtl that new GflnStruction along rural stretches of i.he river be located at latest 300 ft, from: the hi811 water mark. Whore the land between an existing road alnd the river would not ullcaw sud, A settrack, the distance could br. adjasted dowia to half the distance between the road and the rlvcf, The TOM Of Sunderland has enacted such a prpV1510A in itg Zoning bylaw, At. the et,stcrn and of thu atata, six comrmUnities along the North River require that the eAmbined shoreland satback and sI oz Claud frontage be at least 3UU ft., 165 Anneke Davis Trees located along rivers and streams may become an important part of the Bay restoration effort. Research shows that trees are effective at con- trolling runoff, reducing nutrients, and providing.important habitat. Pj Trees and the Bay Restoring streamside forests may be an important key to restoring the Chesapeake By Karl Blankenship IF John Smith, who explored the Chesapeake Bay in the early 1600s, were to return today, one of the changes he would surely notice would be the disap- pearance of the trees. It is, after all, the largest single change affecting the land — and ultimately the water quality — throughout the Bay's 64,000 -square -mile watershed. In Smith's day, about 95 percent of the watershed was covered with trees. Today, less than 60 percent of inose forests re- main. First the watershed was cleared by lumbering operations, then converted to other uses. About 30 percent of the wa- tershed is now agricultural land, and about 10 percent is covered by urban and subur- ban development. During the past 20 years, an average of 100 acres of forest have been lost daily in the watershed. That change in land use has a profound effect on the Bay and its tributaries. Acre - for -acre, forests contribute less pollution — particularly nutrients, a key problem for the Bay — than any other land use. Some people equate every acre of lost for- est to an increase in pollution. But perhaps even more important is where much of those trees have been lost: along the rivers and streams that feed the Bay. In such areas they reduce erosion by stabilizing stream.banks, provide organic material to feed insects and other life at the base of the aquatic food web, moder- ate the water temperature, and provide a wide array of other benefits. In addition, a number of recent studies indicate that — at least in some areas — forests are one of the most effective ways to remove nutrients from surface runoff Please see FORESTS — page 4 ME FORESTS—from page I and shallow ground water. "One of the most devastating things we did in the first 300 years of settlement was to remove all the trees from along the streams," said Bernard Sweeney, director of the Stroud Water Research Center, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel- phia. This area along the stream is known as the "riparian zone" — a transitional strip between uplands and waterway which is of varying width and may include stream - banks, wetlands, floodplains, and other land types. A recent Bay Program report, "The Role and Function of Forest Buffers in the Chesapeake Bay Basin for Nonpoint Source Management," recommends that the restoration of riparian forests be con- sidered. a "priority tool" in developing nu- trient control strategies. "The restoration of a healthy aquatic ec- osystem from the tributary streams to the Forest trends in the Bay watershed 0-1' 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Chesapeake Bay will require the re- establishment of significant amounts of ri- parian forest," the report said. "It will also require the enhancement and repair of many existing forest buffers." Reintroducing trees to these areas, the report says, has "enormous potential for the long-term improvement of aquatic re- sources in the Chesapeake Bay wa- tershed." The Bay watershed has more than 100,000 miles of riparian zone, covering perhaps 3 million acres of land. No one knows how much of that land remains fo- rested, but some partial surveys provide a clue. An inventory conducted by the Mary- land Department of Natural Resources found that less than half the rivers and streams had "adequate" buffers on both sides. A survey of the Conodoguinet Creek in Pennsylvania, a 100 -mile long tributary of the Susquehanna, found simi- lar results. But restoring forests in those areas would present a major challenge: It is esti- mated that 90 percent of those lands are, Forested streams are wider and shallower dhan meadow streams, providing more suitable bottom habitat for aquatic organisms. The stream on the left is so narrow it is obscured by plants. Only a few yards downstream it widens significantly as it enters a forest (right). 4 Bay Journal • November 1993 PS Forest buffers raise many concerns for farmers Forested buffer strips may provide a new tool to control nutrient runoff and improve habitats, but they are looked upon with apprehension by farmers who occupy 30 percent of the Bay watershed and own much of the land adjacent to rivers and streams. Farmers worry that if 100 -foot -wide strips were taken out of production in - all fields next to all streams — some of which may measure a foot or less across — it could significantly affect their abil- ity to make a living. During public meetings on Mary- land's tributary strategies — being de- veloped for each major river to meet the Bay Program's nutrient reduction goal — many farmers raised concerns about the use of forested buffers. Many voiced support for other options, such as the use of certain cover crops that can re- move nutrients or the development of nutrient management plans. "The chief concern might be the threat of mandatory requirements for buffers around farm fields on a pro- scribed one -size -fits -all basis," said Dennis Stolte, environmental resources specialist with Maryland Farm Bureau. "Most forested buffers and other forest- ed areas are provided by farmers volun- tarily." Stolte said that too much regulation can be a disincentive for farmers to plant trees along streams, even voluntar- ily. Farmers worry that once planted in trees, the government would enact more restrictive measures that could prevent them from managing the forests. In addition, some drained areas — if left unfarmed for five years — could re- vert to wetlands and become subject to `If there is a public benefit for putting addi- tional land in trees, is it appropriate to ask for a contribution from the public?' regulation. If the forests attract endan- gered species, farmers could be subject- ed to still more regulation. "We have farmers who are very proud, privately, about having endan- gered species on their land," Stolte said. "But they're not anxious to publicize it because of the restrictions that could cause." Land left unplanted probably would revert to non-native shrubs and weeds. Farmers are required by law to control "noxious weeds" to protect other farm- ers. Actually restoring a forest requires planting and active management for years. Once established, forests can create problems for nearby fields. Tall trees may shade the crops, and the fo- rests provide shelter for deer which may graze in the fields. "The key policy issue is: If there is a public benefit for putting additional land in trees, is it appropriate to ask for a contribution from the public for this type of practice?" Stolte said. "We're also talking about a significant capital investment just to put those trees in." Some cost -share programs help farm- ers cover the cost of planting trees, but not for income lost by taking land out of production. "We're not talking about taking it out for one year, we're talking about multiple years," Stolte said. Maryland's Green Shores Buffer In- centive Program does make a $500 -an - acre grant to farmers and other land- owners who establish and maintain fo- rested buffers along the Bay and its trib- utaries; but even that falls far short of the lost income. To provide a greater incentive for farmers, many proponents of streamside forests suggest that trees outside an ini- tial buffer strip of a few yards could be managed to produce lumber, — and therefore income to the landowner. "That would be a real key part of a successful program," Stolte said. "If you could provide for selective harvest- ing and management of those forested buffers, I think you would find land- owners would be much more receptive to those kinds of programs. Again, that's because they're compatible with current farm practices." In Pennsylvania, where the state Game Commission has established a voluntary program to erect fences along streams in pastures — -with the intent that the fenced -off area would revert to forests — some farmers also have ex- pressed reservations about the buffers. "The biggest economic consideration for farmers, particularly in the southeast where land prices are so high, is taking part of their remaining very valuable, very overstressed pasture land out of production," said Lamonte Garber, an agricultural specialist with the Chesa- peake Bay Foundation who has. worked to promote the streambank fencing pro- gram among farmers. "Land is very dear in some of these areas, and the thought of placing some of it in a `non- economic use' is too much of a disin- centive for some farmers." But economic factors may ultimately help promote the establishment of such buffers for dairy farmers, he said. Some evidence indicates that diseases could be spread among cows in heavily used streams. "The herd health issue is some- thing that I think will ultimately weigh in favor of fencing and protecting streams from direct livestock access," Garber said. Still, economics is not the only rea- son for streambank protection. A recent_ CBF survey of those participating in the program found that many farmers cited environmental benefits as an important factor for joining, Garber said. "If those farmers based their decisions strictly on economic terms back three, four, or five years ago, they probably wouldn't have gotten into it," he said. It is a sentiment echoed by Stolte. "Remember, most of these guys are try- ing to do what's right environmentally, but they're also concerned with staying in business, so they've got a dual chal- lenge." Bay Journal • November 1993 Riparian forest management at root of research efforts Sprouting out of the ground along a streambank at the Stroud Research Cen- ter is a forest of plastic tubes. One day, the tubes will be replaced — it is hoped — by a forest of trees. The need for the tubes serves as a dramatic illustration of how much the region has changed since John Smith ar- rived nearly 400 years ago — and how complex a job it is to restore forests to streambanks. "If you just planted trees like this and then walked away, you wouldn't end up with a forest," said Bernard Sweeney, director of the center which is part of The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Learning the best techniques to plant trees is one of many critical issues fac- ing researchers — and resource manag- ers — who want to promote forested buffer strips as a preferred land manage- ment method for streambanks. Other critical issues involve just how wide those buffers should be, how they should be managed and harvested, and what species are best. All are key issues for landowners such as farmers, who are asked to sacrifice productive fields and pastures, or homeowners who may give up their view of the river, in order to plant trees. While forests are the natural stream - side environment in the mid-Atlantic re- gion, research at the Stroud Center shows that they cannot be counted on to return naturally if a streambank is left alone. The reason is that settlers to the New World brought with them — both inten- tionally and accidentally — an invasion of foreign plant species. Almost a third of the plant species now found in Penn- sylvania are not native. While the native species adapted to centuries of living in forests, many of the exotic invaders thrive on disturbed, open areas such as abandoned fields or pastures. Left unmanaged, these invaders will crowd out any native tree. Sweeney found, for example, the banks of a small stream in an abandoned cattle pasture were completely dominated by non - woody vegetation such as multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, and Japanese honeysuckle after 10 years. Protective tubes, like these used in an experiment at the Stroud Center, help tree seedlings compete with other vegetation. These plants not only prevent the na- tive trees from growing, but they may not provide food for the in -stream or- ganisms which have adapted to the na- tive flora. "We tried to raise mayflies on multiflora rose and they all died," Swee- ney said. By planting trees in biodegradable plastic tubes that allows light to pene- trate, keeps back foreign plants, and holds off grazing deer, the native trees get an edge in the competition for the streambank. The tubes cost about $2 each, but that is still cheaper than buying a tree large enough to have a competitive edge, Sweeney said. "The strategy is to get these seedlings as tall as possible as quickly as possible." At that the shelters seem to work: Af- ter one season of growing, some of the trees — a type of poplar — were poking out the tops of the tubes. Other trees be- ing planted include a mix of hardwoods. They, too, were growing rapidly. "We put trees here that we think will have a market," Sweeney said. "If we're going to ask a landowner to take a sub- stantial amount of land out of produc- tion, we ought to give him the option of having an alternate crop. And trees are an alternate crop." Providing farmers such an alternative is important because establishing forest- ed buffers could mean taking sizable amounts of land out of production. Forest buffer guidelines from the U.S. Forest Service and Soil Conserva- tion Service call for a buffer of nearly 100 feet from the edge of the stream. Of that, the first 15 feet is undisturbed for- est, which provides organic material to the water and shading which is impor- tant for habitat. The next 60 feet is a managed forest — which would allow some harvesting and financial return — where much of the runoff filtration and ground water nutrient removal takes place. The next 20 feet is a runoff con- trol zone, which may be an area where grazing could be allowed, in which run- off is slowed and dispersed before en- tering the forest. But 100 feet on each side of a stream that may be only a few feet across is a lot of land to take out of production. Re- search is aimed at determining whether that strip can be more narrow, how soil types and geology may affect the width, and the amount of timber harvesting that could take place in the buffer with- out affecting water quality. "If you start telling farmers that you've got to lock up an area that is 100 feet or 150 feet wide adjacent to every stream, and that they're never going to be able to do anything with that except to let it grow in trees — and they can't even harvest the trees — there's going to be very little acceptance by farmers of that idea," said Richard Lowrance, and ecologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Southeast Watershed Re- search Laboratory in Georgia. But foresters are concerned whether the riparian buffer can sustain itself if the outlined specifications are signifi- cantly altered. "We are working with re- searchers and conservation agencies at the states to determine what level of flexibility we can build into forest buf- fer specifications," said Al Todd, U.S. Forest Service Liaison to the Bay Pro- gram. If farmers need to keep only a narrow area permanently in trees, and the rest of the buffer could be planted in some- thing that can be harvested for timber, pulpwood, or fuelwood, the idea may be more attractive. Other research is looking into how quickly a newly planted ' uffer will be- gin removing nutrients. Research is also seeking to determine how different species may affect in -stream habitat. Scientists are hopeful that their re- search will lead to creative solutions that will reduce the concerns of proper- ty owners while having a buffer that benefits both water quality and habitat. One such innovative solution, Swee- ney suggested, could be the establish- ment of orchards in portions of the stream buffer. "I think there's a lot of creative research that needs to be done." privately owned. They run through pas- tures and fields, alongside — and under — parking lots, streets and buildings, and across thousands of backyards. Returning those areas to forest would require active participation by landowners, many of whom — particularly farmers — could be economically impacted. In addition, while there is general consensus that planting trees along streams is beneficial, there are major uncertainties about how these areas can be restored and managed, and how large they must be in order to be effective. [See related stories.] "We've got a job ahead of us, to be quite honest," said Al Todd, U.S. Forest Service Liaison to the Bay Program "There are complicated social, political and technical issues to resolve." But he, like others who advocate the restoration of riparian forests, say that cleaning up the Bay has to start in all the tiny headwater streams that feed the rivers and ultimately the Chesapeake itself. Af- ter all, once pollutants reach those streams, there is little thai can be done to get them out. "It's tough to work on water quality from the bottom up," Todd said. the phosphorus that binds to sediment par- ticles — to settle out before reaching riv- ers and streams. a °ent of restedbheffers can re - phosphorus move up to 85 p in surface runoff. Perhaps more significant from a Bay perspective, though, is the ability of ripari- an forests to remove nitrogen. Unlike phosphorus, which binds to particles and can be "trapped" with sediment, nitrogen is more soluble. Rather than running off the surface, it sinks into the soil, ultimate- ly reaching.the ground water as nitrate. As a result, reducing the amount of ni- trogen has proven more difficult than re- INTEREST in riparian forests around the Bay watershed has risen dramatically in the wake of recent research showing that they are highly effective at removing nutrients. Excessive nutrients in the Bay cause algae blooms, which block the sun- light needed by aquatic grasses and de- plete the water of oxygen when they -die. The Bay Program has a goal of induc- ing the amount of two nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, that reach the Chesa- peake by 40 percent by the turn of the cen- tury. To achieve that goal, the Bay states are developing nutrient reduction strate- gies for each major tributary. Drafts of the tributary strategies being developed in Maryland promote the use of forested buffers to remove nutrients, while the draft Pennsylvania strategy encourag- es the expansion of that state's streamside fencing program, which ultimately may allow streambanks to return to a wooded condition. The rough understory in forested strips slow water runoff from adjacent fields and developments and allows sediment — and ducing phosphorus. Since 1985, the amount of phosphorus in the Bay has dropped sharply, but the amount of nitro- gen has remained steady. ' But research has shown that nitrate moving through shallow ground water — which is anywhere from a few inches to a few feet below ground — is largely re- moved as it passes through a forested ri- parian buffer. "Almost no nitrate ever reaches a stream from a field in this part of the coastal plain if there is a 50- to 100 -foot riparian forest .along the stream," said Richard Lowrance, an ecologist at the US. Department of Agriculture's Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory in Geor- gia, who has been researching the effects of forest buffers for more than a decade. Likewise, scientists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center near Edgewater, Md., found that nearly 90 per- cent of the nitrate was removed as it flowed under forested buffers studied on the Rhode and Chester rivers. "That's fair- ly remarkable," said David Correll, direc- tor of the research center. A third site, characterized by sandier soil, had nitrate removal rates of about 50 percent. Correll said the research also showed that the fo- rested buffers removed nitrate all year long. Trees appear to remove nitrogen from the ground water in two ways. First, some of the nutrients are absorbed by the trees as they grow. Second, trees -create -a: -soil environment e. S that helps convert the nitrate to nitrogen gas, a process known as denitrification. Organic material from the trees, combined with soggy soils, create the anaerobic con- ditions required by the bacteria that con- vert the nitrate into nitrogen gases, which return to the atmosphere. Most denitrifica- tion takes place in the top layers of soil, but the roots of the trees help pump nitro- gen from greater depths to the surface. "The entire riparian forest ecosystem is important for nitrogen removal," Low- rance said. Grass buffers, by contrast, are not as ef- fective as nitrogen removal in most set- tings, Correll said. Grasses do not create as much organic matter to fuel the denitri- fication process, and lack the root struc- ture to pump much nitrate from the ground. Grass is also less effective for long-term surface runoff control because heavy storms can carry enough sediment to "essentially cover the grass up" and al- low water to flow unfiltered into the wa- ter, Lowrance said. In addition, forest buffers appear to be able to filter some water -as it flows down the stream. Still, researchers say, forested buffers are not the "silver bullet" that will solve all the Bay's nutrient problems. The buf- fers can only remove nitrate from shallow ground water that passes near the roots. Nitrate that reaches deeper ground water will be carried under the root systems, directly entering the bottom of large aquifers. "They may be looking at an erosion,.or runoff, or other problems and not look at the whole range of benefits, like habitat," Todd said. "Because of the forest buffers' ability to work as a natural ecosystem, it warrants looking at as a priority practice, the one we shoot for first." Not only can different agencies recom- mend different control practices, they may recommend varying buffer widths, tree se- lections, and management guidelines. "That's part of the problem," said Ste - For more information The U.S. Forest Service has produced a booklet that provides a good overview of the ecological and water quality role of forest buffers as Well as general es- tablishment guidelines. The booklet, "Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources" is available from the USDA Forest Service Radner Of- fice, P.O. Box 6775, Radner, PA 19098. A report from the Bay Program, "The Role and Function of Forest Buffers in the Chesapeake Bay Basin for Nonpoint Source Management," is available from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 1- 800-523-2281. vice. "It looks very convoluted and dis- jointed to the landowner who is looking for the definitive source on riparian buf- fers." To help bolster the case of riparian fo- rests, the Bay Program has brought togeth- er a group of scientists to summarize work conducted on the effectiveness of forest buffers at controlling nutrients in the ground water, reducing runoff, and im- proving aquatic habitat. That report, ex- pected next year, will provide the basis for new technical guidance for creating forest- 11Fis:nr�t�r;;sgw will be most effective, the types of trees that should be used, how the strips should be managed, and similar issues. In addition, Todd and others would like to establish demonstration projects to .il- lustrate the uses of forest buffers. Such projects could be aimed at agricultural ar- eas as well as urban areas where trees may be used to treat storm water runoff as well as .providing habitat. "There is no stream or river that would not benefit from a ri- parian forest in some way," Todd said. Yet some questions are unanswerable. �`?R::A,ny!wilj; �wel ;l:Cao;�„w{l at, strearp; ecg. P. 6 systems .were like before the trees were re- moved; they can only make guesses based on recent, observations made of intact wa- tersheds. As a result, no one can say what the Bay — and its tributaries. — would be like if all the riparian forests were re- stored. But, Todd said, restoring those fo- rests is an important part of bringing back the aquatic environment that existed in John Smith's time. "When we're talking about naturally functioning riparian areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, we are talking about forests," Todd said. "They ]pwIJ 6z-1-JF1,2"L-D'S ,:tPoIDS ARTICLE III ZONING.DISTRICTS S 3-1. Application of District Regulations. No activity shall take place except in conformity with the regulations for the district in which the proposed activity is located. Where this Ordinance imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations or ordi- nances, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. S 3-2. Classification of Districts. The districts established by this Ordinance shall be as fol- lows: (EPO Environmental Protect_on�Overl.ay Dstrrct FP Flood Plain Overlay District RA -2 Rural Agricultural District RR -1 Rural Residential District' R-1-12 Residential 1-12 R-1-15 Residential 1-15 R-1-20 Residential 1-20 `- MR Multiple Residence District TH Townhouse Dwelling District PD Planned Development District MHP Mobile Home Park District BN -R Business Non -Retail District NB Neighborhood Business District GB General Business District LI Limited Industrial District HP Historical Preservation Overlay District S 3-3. District Location. The boundaries for each district listed as part of this Ordinance are indicated on the map entitled "The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Penfield" dated with the effective date of this Ordinance, which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of this Ordinance, and hereinafter known as the "Official Zoning Map". S 3-4. Official Zoning Map. There shall exist only one "Official Zoning Map" which shall be kept in the office of the Town Clerk and it shall bear the ` seal of the Town of Penfield, a certification that it is "The Of- ficial Zoning Map of the Town of Penfield" and its date of adop TTT Inl 10 tion by the Town Board. Said zoning map shall be on material suitable for reproduction. Copies of this map which may from time to time be published and distributed would be accurate only as of the date of their printing and shall bear words to that ef- fect. Changes made in district boundaries or other matters por- trayed on the zoning map under the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be permanently affixed to the zoning map promptly after the amendment has been approved by the Town Board and shall convey information as to the date and nature of the change. No amend- ment to this Ordinance which involves changes to the zoning map shall become effective until such change and entry has been made on said map and has been certified by the Town cleric. The Town Board may by resolution adopt a new zoning map to supersede any former map. The new zoning map shall bear a statement which ex- plains that it supersedes the prior map and gives the dates of adoption of both the prior map and the new zoning map. S 3-5. Interpretation of District Boundaries. In making a determination where uncertainty exists as to boundaries of any of the aforesaid districts as shown on said zoning map, the location of such boundary, unless the same is in- dicated by dimension on the map, shall be determined by the Town Board. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS S 3-6. Purposes. It is the purpose of the Environmental Protection Overlay Districts to provide special controls over land development to protect vital environmental features and resources. It is de- signed to guide land use proposals into areas (as defined by the Town' Master Plan) where they may best enhance the general wel- fare of the community. Environmental Protection Overlay Districts (EPOD) regula- tions are not intended to be substituted for other zoning dis- trict provisions. The Overlay Districts are to be Superimposed on the primary zoning districts and represent an additional level of review and regulation related specifically to the protection of identified environmental features. S 3-7. Districts. To carry out the foregoing purpose, the Town of Penfield is hereby divided into districts which shall be designated as fol- lows: III -302 V Wetland. Watercourse. Steep Slope. Woodland. Floodplain. S 3-8. Maps. The location and boundaries of the foregoing districts shall be as delineated on the E.P.O.D. Maps which are on file'in the Town Clerk's Office. Upon application to the Town to conduct a land use activity which may be regulated by the provisions of this Article, the Authorized Official shall locate, using the criteria set forth in this Ordinance for determining Environmen- tal Protection Districts boundaries, the E.P.O.D. Boundaries for the land area involved. S 3-9. Interpretation. Where these districts overlay any primary zoning district delineated on the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Penfield, the requirements of these districts shall be met in addition to those requirements specified for development in the respective primary district. S 3-10. General Exceptions. The permit procedures contained within this Article shall not apply to activities involved in the necessary normal mainte- nance and upkeep of property. Necessary normal maintenance and upkeep of property shall include by not be limited to the follow- ing activities as determined by the Authorized Official: A. Lawn care. B. Gardening. C. Tree and shrub care. D. Removal of dead or deteriorating vegetation. E. Removal of structures. F. Repair of structures. G. Repair of faulty or deteriorating sewage facilities. H. Reconstruction of structures damaged by a natural disas- ter. I. Agriculture. S 3-11. Authorization to Grant or Deny Permit. III -1303 J The Authorized Official has the authority to grant or deny a permit under the regulations of this Article except in situations in which the action requiring the permit is under the jurisdiction of a Board of the Town, in which case, the Board having jurisdiction shall have the authority to grant or deny a permit under the regulations of this article. Further, the Authorized Official, where deemed necessary, may refer any application for'an Environmental Protec- tion Permit to the Town Board for their review and recommenda- tions. All permits granted pursuant to this section shall be issued by the Town Clerk at a fee as required by resolution from time to time by the Town Board. (Added 12/21/81) S 3-12. Application for Permit. Applications for Environmental Protection Permits shall be made in writing to the Authorized Official by the owner or his/her agent and be accompanied by materials the Authorized Official may deem necessary, including but not limited to a scale plan prepared and certified by a licensed engineer or licensed land surveyor containing: A. A vicinity sketch and boundary line survey of the site. B. The location of all E.P.O.D. Boundaries on the property as defined by this article. C. Location of any building, structures, utilities, sewers, water and storm drains on the site where the work is to be performed. D. Location of any building or structure on land of adja- cent property owners within one hundred (1001) feet of the site. E. Location of all proposed new structures, additions or alterations to existing structures, and impervious sur- faces on the site. F. Existing and proposed contour levels at five (5) foot intervals maximum (one (1) foot contour intervals are required within the steep slope district). G. All existing shrub masses and trees with a diameter of two (2) inches or more are to be accurately located on the plan. H. The location of existing and proposed drainage patterns on the site. III -304 I. Further, pursuant to this section, a fee shall be set from time to time by -the Town Board and shall be re- ceived by the Town Clerk upon request for. an Environmen- tal Protection Permit. (added 12/21/811 S 3-13. Irrevocable Letter of Credit. After the approval of the application and before the is- suance of any permit, the applicant shall furnish the Authorized official an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in an amount to be ap- proved by the Town Engineer; which Letter shall ensure that all items as may be deemed necessary are constructed in accordance with the approved plan and the standards and specifications of the Town of Penfield. Said Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall continue in full force and effect until the Town Engineer has certified to the Town Board that all items have been completed. S 3-14. Wetland District - Delineation of District Boundaries. The Wetland District Boundaries as shown ,on the Environ- mental Protection Overlay District Map #1 (Wetlands) are desig- . nated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva- tion. Wetland map boundaries are not final and are subject to change. Upon application for a permit in the Wetland District,, the site shall be referred to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to determine the exact Wetland bound- ary. S 3-15. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to preserve, protect and conserve designated wetland area in the Town of Penfield pur- suant to Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conserva- tion Law. S 3-16. .Regulated Activities. The following activities shall not be allowed when lo- cated in whole or in part within the Wetland District boundaries without first requesting and receiving a permit from the Autho- rized Official as outlined in Sections 3-11 and 3-12 of this ar- ticle: A. Any form of draining, dredging, excavation or removal of any natural materials directly or indirectly from a wetland. B. Any form of dumping, filling or depositing any material either directly or indirectly within a wetland. A C. The erection or placement or any structures, roads or any man-made materials within the wetland. D. Any form of pollution, including but not limited to: installing a septic tank, running a sewer outfall, discharging sewar-.: treatment effluent or other liquid wastes into or sc as to drain into a wetland. E. Any activity which impairs the natural function of wetlands whether located within the wetland or not. F. Any activity regulated by Section 24-0701 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. S 3-17. Standards. No permit shall be granted for a regulated activity within the Wetland District unless the applicant adequately demonstrates that the activity will in no way at present or at any time in the future. A. Alter groundwater reservoir capacities. B. Decrease watercourse flood carrying capacities. C. Deteriorate water or air quality. D. Alter water retention capabilities. E. Increase downstream siltation. F. Alter the natural wildlife balance. G. Impair any natural function of the wetland. S 3-18. Interpretation. It is the intent of this section that pursuant to 24- 0501 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and as previously provided by Chapter 13 of the Penfield Town Code that the Town of Penfield Shall fully undertake its regulatory author- ity to administer the New York State Freshwater Wetland Act for lands within the Town's jurisdiction. . S 3-19. Watercourse District - Delineation of District Bound- aries. The Watercourse District Boundaries as shown on the Environmental Protection Overlay District Map (watercourses) in- clude: III -306 r A. All those areas within two hundred feet (2001) of the centerline of a natural or man-made watercourse with an Approximate Channel Top Width which is one hundred feet (1001) or greater. B. All those areas within one hundred feet (1001) of the centerline of a natural or man-made watercourse with an Approximate Channel Top Width which is fifty feet (501) or greater and less than one hundred feet (100'). C. All those areas within fifty feet (501) of the - centerline of a natural or man-made watercourse with an Approximate Channel Top Width of less than fifty feet (50'). The date for determining the Approximate Channel Top Width of a natural or man-made watercourse shall be taken from Table I - Drainage Data contained in the Town of Penfield Drain- age Study - Guides for Drainage Planning dated December, 1965. S 3-20. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to encourage plan- ning and development which will preserve and protect all water- courses within the Town of Penfield. S 3-21. Regulated Activities. The following activities shall.not be allowed when lo- cated completely or partially within the Watercourse Boundaries without first requesting and receiving a permit from the Autho- rized Official as outlined in Sections 3-11 and 3-12 of this ar- ticle: A. Clearing of or constructing on any land area which lies within the Watercourse District boundaries except that the following activities shall be exempted from the clearing regulations of this part: 1. Customary agricultural operations. 2. Watercourse maintenance activities. B. The construction or placement of any septic tank or sep- tic drainage field. . C. Any activity which would alter the natural flow pattern of the watercourse. III -307 w S 3-22. Standards. A. No permit shall be granted for a regulated activity within the Watecourse District unless the applicant adequately demonstrates that the activity will in no way at present or at any time in the future: 1. Deteriorate water quality. 2. Decrease watercourse flood carrying capacities. 3. Increase sedimentation. 4. Increase the velocity of groundwater runoff. 5. Increase the possibility of flooding, either up- stream or downstream due to alterations in the natural characteristics of the watercourse. B. When altering the natural flow pattern of a natural or man-made watercourse, the applicant shall prove that the alteration: 1) is necessary; and;; 2) will not impair the natural functions of the watercourse. S 3-23. Steep Slope District - Delineation of District Bound- aries. t The Steep Slope District Boundaries as shown on the Environmental Protection Overlay District Ordinance Map #3 (Steel Slopes) includes all areas with a fifteen percent (15%) slope or �- greater measured over a linear distance of one hundred feet (100') and all areas within fifty feet (50') of said slopes. S 3-24. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to encourage plan- ning and development which will preserve and protect all steep slopes in the Town of Penfield. S 3-25. Regulated Activities. The following activities shall not be allowed when lo- cated completely or partially within the Steep Slope District Zone Boundaries indicated without first requesting and receiving a permit from the Authorized Official as outlined in Sections 3- 11 and 3-12 of this Article: A. Clearing of or constructing on any land area, except that Customary Agricultural Operations shall be exempted from the clearing regulations of this part. B. The construction or placement of any septic tank or sep-. tic drainage field. III -308 • C. Filling, cutting or excavating. S 3-26. Standards. No permit shall be granted for a regulated activity within the Steep Slope District unless the applicant adequately demonstrates that the activity will in no way at the present or in the future: A. Decrease soil stability. B. Increase erosion. C. Increase the velocity of groundwater runoff. D.- Permanently disrupt plant life on steep slopes. E. Impair existing drainage systems. F. Increase the possibility of flooding due to alterations in the natural characteristics of a watercourse. S 3-27. Woodland District - Delineation of District Boundaries. The Woodland District Boundaries as shown on the Environmental Protection Overlay District Ordinance Map #4 (Woodlands) include all areas of five (5) or more contiguous acres of woodlands, except that the district shall not include any active orchards. S 3-28. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to encourage planning and development which will preserve and protect all existing wooded areas in the Town of Penfield. S 3-29., Regulated Activities. Clearing of or constructing on any land area which lies within the Woodland District Boundaries shall not be allowed without first requesting and receiving a permit from the Autho- rized Official, as outlined in Sections 3-11 and 3-12 of this ar- ticle, except that the following activities shall be exempted -j from the clearing regulations of this part: A. Customary agricultural operations. B. Watercourse maintenance activities. III. -309 S 3-30. Standards. No permit shall be granted for within the Woodland District unless the demonstrates that the activity will in any time in the future: A. Decrease soil stability. B. Increase erosion. a regulated activity applicant adequately no way at present or at C. Increase the velocity of groundwater runoff. D. Impair existing drainage systems. E. Increase the possibility of flooding due to alterations in the natural characteristics of a watercourse. S 3-31. Floodplain Overlay District. This section was adopted 2/12/81 and effective 3/2/81. Amended 9/8/87; effective 9/19/87. A. Purpose. It is hereby found and declared that the unmanaged use of property, the alteration of topography, an excessive filling, channel encroachment of other acts affect the natural discharge of water through floodplains and constitute a threat to the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Penfield and to the economic vitality of the community. The purpose of this section is to regulate development within the areas of the Town which are subject to flooding in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Penfield from hazards due to periodic flooding; to prevent loss of property and potential loss of life in the floodprone areas; to preserve the water quality; to minimize expenditures for relief, insurance and flood control projects; to limit building and development within the areas of special flood hazard. The boundaries of the floodplain protection district shall be delineated on the "Official Town of Penfield EPOD Maps" and shall include all Areas of Special Flood Hazard as defined by Article II -2 of the code of Penfield and as further identified by the Federal Insurance Administration by a report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the Town of Penfield, New York" dated August 18, 1980 with accompanying Flood Insurance III -310 El Rate Map and Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Such maps are incorporated by reference herewith and declared to be a part of this Article. B. Floodplain Overlay District - I (FPO -I) 1. Delineation of FPO -I. There is hereby established a FPO -I zone to accomplish the purposes of this section. The boundaries of this zone include all areas within the floodways as delineated in the Flood Insurance Study for the Town of Penfield. 2. Prohibited Activities: The following activities are not permitted in the FPO -I zone: a. New structures (temporary or permanent); any addition or substantial improvement to exisiting structures; filling of land; excavation; deposits, obstructions or outside storage of materials or equipment. b. The temporary or permanent placement of a mobile home, manufactured home, or similar structure. ( C. The construction or operation of an on-site sewage disposal system. d. Any other activity which, as demonstrated through a technical evaluation, will result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge C. Floodplain Overlay District II - (FPO -II) 1. Delineation of FPO -II. There is hereby established a. FPO -II zone to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance. The boundaries of this zone include all areas within the ten (10) year floodplains but does not include any portion of the Floodplain.Overlay District I (FPO -I). 2. Prohibited Activities. The following activities are not permitted in the FPO -II zone: a. New structures (temporary or permanent); =---- -- - filling of land; excavation; deposits, obstructions or outside storage of materials or equipment. b. The temporary of permanent placement of a �.` mobile home, manufactured home, or similar structure. 0 C. The construction or operation. of an on-site sewage disposal system. d. Any activity which is not in compliance with the standards and requirements set forth in other sections of this ordinance. 3. Regulated Activities. The following activities shall not be allowed in whole or in part in a FPO -II zone without first requesting and receiving a permit from the Planning Board as outlined in Section 3-31- E of this Article: a. Addition or substantial improvements to structures. b. Subdivision of land. C. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations located within the area of special flood hazard. D. Floodplain Overlay District III - (FPO -III) 1. Delineation of FPO -III. There is hereby established a FPO -III zone to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance. The boundaries of this zone include all areas within the one hundred (100) year floodplains as delineated in the Flood Insurance Study but does not include any portion of Floodplain Overlay District I and II. (FPO -I anbd FPO -II). 2. Prohibited Activities. The following activities are not permitted in the FPO -III zone: a. The temporary or permanent placement of mobile home, manufactured home, or similar structure. b. The construction or operation of a on-site sewage disposal system. C. Any activity which is not in compliance with the standards and requirements set forth in other sections of this ordinance. 3. Regulated Activities. The following activities shall not be allowed in whole or in part within a III -312 FPO -III zone without first requesting and receiving a permit from the Planning Board as outlined in Section 3-31-E of this Article: a. Additions or substantial improvements to structures. b. New structures. c. Outside storage of materials and equipment. d. Subdivision of land. e. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations located within the area of special flood hazard. 4. The areas of special flood hazard indentified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the Town of Penfield, of Monroe County, New York, dated August 18, 1980, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary Floodway Maps is hereby adopted and declared to be part of this Ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study and maps are on file at the Department of Planning,. Zoning & Physical Services. E. Permit Conditions When reviewing an application for an EPOD development permit for a regulated action in any Floodplain Overlay District, the Town Planning Board or the Administrator of Planning/Physical Services shall consider all technical information available, all relevant factors and standards specified in :he Section, and shall determine that: 1. the requirements of this Ordinance have been satisfied. 2. if the proposed development adversely affects the area of special flood hazard, for the purposes of this Ordinance, "adversely affects" means physical damage to adjacent properties. An engineering study may be required of the applicant for this purpose. a. If there is no adverse effect, then the permit shall be granted consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. TTT-I1 I F. Im c. If there is an adverse effect then flood damage mitigation shall be made a condition of the permit. All development shall be reviewed for compliance with Section 3-31-H, Encroachments, of this Ordinance. Development Standards/Permit Conditions General Standards. No permit shall be granted for a regulated activity within any of the Floodplain Overlay Districts unless the applicant submits a plan certified by a registered professional engineer, which plan shall contain the following evidence. 1. That the structures will be constructed with its lowest floor elevated to at least one (1) foot above the base flood level. 2. That the structure will not affect the efficiency or the capacity of the floodway, or increased flood heights. 3. That the structure will not cause increased velocities or obstruct or otherwise catch or collect debris which will obstruct flow under flood i conditions. 4. That the structure shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of waters. 5. That the structure"shall be firmly anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement which may result in damage to other structures, restrictions of bridge openings and other narrowings of the watercourse. 6. All manufactured homes shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. Manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Manufactured homes must be elevated to one (1) foot above the base flood elevation or 2 feet above the highest adjacent grade when no base flood elevation has been determined. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over - the -top or frame ties to ground anchors.. This requirement is in addition to applicable State and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. III -314 7. That all new and -replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharge from the flood waters into the systems and discharge from the systems into flood waters. 8. That service facilities, such as electrical and heating equipment shall be constructed at or above the base flood level for the particular area, or shall be floodproofed. 9. That new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using materials, methods and practices that minimize flood damages. 10. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments (including proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions) greater than either fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres. 11. Such other data or evidence as may be requested by the Town Board, Planning Board, Conservation Board or Administrator of Planning/Physical Services of the Town of Perfield pertaining to flooding and site plan information. G. Miscellaneous Standards. The Planning Board may require that the applicant adequately demonstrate that one (1) or more of the following conditions be met before granting a permit for land use within any of the Floodplain Overlay Districts: 1. Anchorage to resist flotation and lateral movement. 2. Reinforcement of walls to resist water pressure. 3. Installation of watertight doors, bulkheads and shutters. 4. Use of paints, membranes or mortars to reduce seepage of water through walls. 5. Addition of mass or weight to resist flotation. 6. Installation of pumps to lower water levels in structures. 7. Pumping facilities to relieve hydrostatic water pressure on external walls and basement floors. 8. Elimination of gravity.flow drains. 9. Construction to resist rupture or collapse caused by water pressure or floating debris. 10. Compliance with other environmental regulations found in the Code of the Town of Penfield. H. Encroachnments 1. In all areas of special flood hazard in which base flood elevation data is available pursuant to the Town of Penfield Flood Insurance Study and no floodway has been determined, the cumulative effects of any proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, shall not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one (1) foot at any point. 2. In all areas of the special flood hazard where floodway data is provided or available, the requirements of Section 3-31-B, FPO -I, shall apply. 3. All proposed development in riverine situations where no flood elevation data is available (unnumbered A zones as indicated by the Town of Penfield Flood Insurance Study) shall be analyzed to determine the effects on the flood carrying capacity of the area of special flood hazards set forth in this Ordinance. This may require the submission of additional technical data to assist in the determination. 4. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Section III -3-31-D-4, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD, the Administrator of Planning/Physical Services shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from the Federal, State or other source. I. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS/INFORMATION 1. In addition to the other duties and responsibilities specified in this Section, the Administrator of Planning/Physical Services is authorized -to administer the following provisions of this Ordinance. a. Secure from the applicant all information necessary for a complete review of the proposed development by the appropriate III -316 Boards and officials. The information necessary for submission shall be specified in Section 3-12 of this Ordinance, plus any additional information that may be required by the Town Planning Board or the Administrator of Planning/Physical Services to adequately review a request for a permit. b. Review all applications to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required. C. Obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement or cellar) of all 'new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement. d. For all new or substantially improved floodproofed structures: 1. Verify and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level). 2. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in this Section. e. Maintain for -public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this Ordinance. f. Notify adjacent communities and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration. Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocation portion of said watercourse such that its flood carrying capacity is not diminished. 2. Where this section imposes greater restrictions that are imposed by the provision of any law, ordinance, regulation or private agreement, this section shall control. Where there are restrictions by any law, ordinance, regulation or private agreement, grater III -3l7 , than those imposed by this section, such. greater restrictions shall control. All uses presently permitted in the zoning districts within the Town of Penfield which also fall within the FPO -I, FPO -II, and FPO -III Zones shall continue to be permitted uses for these districts, except where otherwise restricted by this section. 3. Appeals for variances to the requirement's of this Section shall be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. a. The Zoning Board of Appeals as established by the Town of Penfield shall hear and decide appeals and requests for variances from the requirements of Article III, Section 3-31. b. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made by the Administrator of Planning/Physical Services in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. 4. a. In passing upon such applications, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider all �- the technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this local law and: 1. the danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury -of others; 2. the danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; 3. the susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents .to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; 4. the importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5. the necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; III -318 v 6. the availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; 7. the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program of that area; 9. the safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 10. the costs to local governments and the dangers associated with conducting search and rescue operations during periods of flooding; 11. the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and 12. the costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including search and rescue operations, maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems and streets and bridges. 5. Upon consideration of the factors of Section 6.4(A) and the purposes of this Article, the Zoning Board of Appeals may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of floodplain protection. - - 6. The Administrator of Planning/Physical Services shall maintain the records of all appeal actions including.technical information and report any variances to -the Federal Emergency Management Agency !� upon request. - 7. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. 8. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 9. Variances shall only be issued upon receiving written justification: a. a showing of good and sufficient cause; b. a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and C. a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. 10. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted for a building with the lowest floor below the base flood elevation shall be given written notice that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from lowest floor elevation. a. No Board or official of the Town. of Penfield shall approve any construction or other activity -within the Town not in compliance with the standards of Public Law 93-234, 93rd Congress, H.R. 8449, December 31, 1973, better known as the "Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973", and the Floodplain Management Requirements of Section 60.3 (d) formerly 1910.3 (d) and any amendments thereto. b. The degree of flood protection required by this Ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This Ordinance does not imply that land outside the area of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free III -320 from flooding or flood damage. This Ordinance shall not create any liability on the part of the Town of Penfield, any officer or employee thereof or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance upon this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. J Specific Standards In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in Section III -31-D-4 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS, USE OF OTHER BASE FLOOD DATA, the following standards are required: 1. Residential Construction New constructiuon and substantial improvements of any residential structure shall: a. have the lowest floor, including basement or cellar, elevated to or above the base flood elevation; b. have fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a licensed professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria. 1. a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; 2. the bottom of all such openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above the lowest adjacent finished grade; and 3. openings may be equipped with louvers, valves, screens or other coverings or devices provided they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. 2. Non-residential Construction New construction and substantial improvements of any commercial, industrial or other non-residential structure, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall either: have the lowest floor, including basement or cellar, elevated to or so that the structure is watertight below the base flood level with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. All structure components located below the base flood level must be capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. a. If the structure is to be elevated, fully enclosed areas below the base flood elevation shall be designed to automatically (without human intervention) allow for the purpose of equalizing hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a licensed professional engineer or a licensed architect or meet the following criteria: 1. a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. 2. the bottom of all such openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above the lowest adjacent finished grade; and 3. openings may be equipped with louvers, valves, screens or other coverings or devices provided they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. b. If the structure is to be floodproofed: 1. a licensed professional engineer or. architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice to make the structure watertight with walls impermeable to the passage of water, with structural component having the capability of resisting hydrostatics and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and 2. a licensed professional engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure is floodproofed. III -322 0 The Local Administrator shall maintain on record a copy of all such certificates noted in this section. 3. Construction Standards for Areas of Special Hazards Without Base Flood Elevations New construction or substantial improvements of structures including manufactured homes shall have the lowest floor including basement elevated to or above the base flood elevation as may be determined in Section III -3-31-H-4 or two (2) feet above the highest adjacent grade where no elevation data is available. a. New construction or substantial improvements of structures including manufactured homes shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated at least two (2) feet above the highest adjacent grade next to the proposed foundation of the structure. b. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically (without human intervention) allow for the entry and exit of floodwaters for the purpose of equalizing hydrostatic flood forces'on exterior walls. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a licensed professional engineer or a licensed architect'to meet the following criteria. 1. a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; 2. the bottom of all such openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above the lowest adjacent finished grade; and 3. openings may be equipped with louvers, valves, screens or other coverings or devices provided they permit automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. III -323 K. PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE No structure shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered and no land shall be excavated or filled without full compliance with the terms of this Ordinance and any other applicable regulations. Any infraction'of the provisions of the Ordinance by failure to comply with any of its requirements, including refractions of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions of the permit,.shall constitute a violation. Any person who violates this Ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements, upon conviction thereof, be fined no more than $250 or imprisoned for not more than 15 days or both. Each day of noncompliance shall be considered a separate offense. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Town of Penfield from taking such other lawful action as necessary to prevent or remedy an infraction. Any structure found not compliant with the requirements of this Ordinance for which the developer and/or owner has not applied for and received an approved variance under Section III -3-31-I will be declared noncompliant and notification sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ME - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT S 3-32. Districts. The following use districts which are delineated on the official zoning map of the Town of Penfield are hereby estab- lished: A. Rural Agricultural District RA -2. B. Rural Residential District RR -1. C. Residential District R-1-20. D. Residential District R-1-15. E. Residential District R-1-12. S 3-33. Purposes. The above districts are established to meet the follow- ing purposes: A. Rural Agricultural District RA -2. The purpose of the Rural Agricultural District is to assure a proper eco- nomic and physical environment for continued agricul III -324 CORNELL/COLLUM TEL:607-257-6220 Jan 30'94 20:15 No.002 P.02 H MAL 7:30 P.M. Thursday, My 7, 1994 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, Now York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on west side of building) (607) 273.1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1, Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Discussion of proposed Unique Natural Areas resolution 8:15 P.M. 4. (enclosed) Approval of Minutes of 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; 9/30/93; 12/16/53; 4/7/94; and 515/94 fLom last meatina,s_Q=Kagg and 11/18/993?sed lvlth tills oenda, (Please submit any substantive changes in writing.) 9:00 P.M. S. Committee Reparts: ERC Committee Greenway Committee Environmental Atlas Committee 9:15 p.m, 6. Member Concerns 8:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace I-. Cornell, Chair Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Mary Russell FACSIMILE MEMO ®ATE: ,lune 311, 1894 � �} C\1 IL TO: Mary Bryant FROM: Candace Cornell FSE: July 7th Mailing for the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board I have already mailed the Conservation Board package to the other seven OB members (Click Fischer, Phil Zarrielio, Eva Hoffmann, Cheryl Smith, Janet Hawkes, Jon Meigs, and Mary Russell). i am mailing this memo with the additional meeting materials to you to placed in our CP 7/7!;34 fila folder. Please mail a copy of the enclosed agenda only to the auxiliary names on the Conservation Board mailing list, e.g. the other CACs, EMC. As aver, marry thanks for your help, TO' d 700'0N ST : N V6,012' unr O7•c'.9-�-S�;-L09: -131 6 n-1 103/-i-13NKD TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Adopted July xx, 1994 Resolution To The Town Board: Recommendation To Designate the 26 Unique Natural Areas within the Town of Ithaca as Critical Environmental Areas 1994.04 CB Resolution Whereas, New York State Law allows Environmental Management Councils to designate areas that have outstanding environmental qualities and deserve special attention for preservation in their natural state as Unique Natural Areas, and Whereas, these areas are important for preserving endangered and rare species of flora and fauna, excellent examples of ecosystems or biotic communities, unique geologic features, and outstanding scenic beauty, and Whereas, the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council has identified and designated 26 areas in the Town of Ithaca as Unique Natural Areas in its revised 1990 Unique Natural Area report, and Whereas, these 26 Unique Natural Area in the Town of Ithaca are: (DR -54) Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary, (EN -4) Enfield Glen, (IT -3) Williams Glen, (IT -5) Fleming Meadows, (IT - 6) Larch Meadows, (IT -7) Lick Brook, (IT -8) South Hill Swamp, (IT -9) Six -Mile Creek, (IT -13) Mundy Wildflower Garden, (IT -14) Fall Creek Corridor near Flat Rock, (IT -15) Bull Pasture Ponds, (IT -16) Eldridge Preserve, (IT -17) Cascadilla Gorge, (IT -19) Newman Tract, (IT -20) Palmer Woods, (IT -21) Beebe Lake Woods, (IT -23) Bill Dress' Woods, (IT -24) Creek Gorge, (IT -25) Creek Gorge, (IT -27) Buttermilk Creek Gorge, (IT -28) Coy Glen Road Hackberry Woods, (IT -29) Renwick Slope, (IT -30) DEC Mapped wetland, (IT -33) Cascadilla Woods and Fish Ponds, (IT -34) Negundo Woods, and (IT -35) McGowen Woods, and, Whereas, the Town of Ithaca also recognizes the environmental, ecologic, aesthetic value and importance of these 26 unique sites and the fact that they possess inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change which could be adversely affected by any change, and Whereas, the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council has inventoried the natural features in these 26 sites set forth in Appendix A, and Whereas, New York State Town Law allows towns to designate areas with significant ecological, geological, hydrological, social, cultural, historic, and recreational value as Critical Environmental Area, including wildlife habitats, forests, open space, and sites of aesthetic or scenic quality, Now, therefore, be it resolved, The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board requests: A. That the Town Board designate the areas commonly known as (DR -54) Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary, (EN -4) Enfield Glen, (IT -3) Williams Glen, (IT -5) Fleming Meadows, (IT -6) Larch Meadows, (IT -7) Lick Brook, (IT -8) South Hill Swamp, (IT -9) Six -Mile Creek, (IT -13) Mundy Wildflower Garden, (IT -14) Fall Creek Corridor near Flat Rock, (IT - 15) Bull Pasture Ponds, (IT -16) Eldridge Preserve, (IT -17) Cascadilla Gorge, (IT -19) Newman Tract, (IT -20) Palmer Woods, (IT -21) Beebe Lake Woods, (IT -23) Bill Dress' Woods, (IT -24) Creek Gorge, (IT -25) Creek Gorge, (IT -27) Buttermilk Creek Gorge, (IT - 28) Coy Glen Road Hackberry Woods, (IT -29) Renwick Slope, (IT -30) DEC Mapped wetland, (IT -33) Cascadilla Woods and Fish Ponds, (IT -34) Negundo Woods, and (IT -35) McGowen Woods as "critical areas" of environmental concern pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.40) and 617.12(11) and pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 NYS Environmental Conservation Law. B. The boundaries of the critical areas are substantially as described in Appendix B to this resolution and as shown on Map entitled dated, . This resolution shall also apply pursuant to the provisions of 617.12(11) to the areas which are substantially contiguous to these critical areas. C. The Town Board hold a public hearing at its earliest convenience to consider the designation of the 26 areas listed above in paragraph "A' as "critical areas." 1994.04 CB Resolution CEC 7 xx 94 RESOLUTION TO THE TOWN BOARD R TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, July 7, 1994 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 p.m. 1 . Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Discussion of proposed Unique. Natural Areas resolution (enclosed) 8:15 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes of 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; 9/30/93; 12/16/93; 4/7/94; and 5/5/94 from last meeting'sacckkage and 11/18/93 enclosed with this agenda. (Please submit any substantive changes in writing.) 9:00 P.M. 5. Committee Reports: ERC Committee Greenway Committee Environmental Atlas Committee 9:15 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment If you are unable to come, please notify Candace at 257-6220. CB Members: Candace E. Cornell, Chair Phillip Zarriello, Vice Chair Cheryl Smith Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Mary Russell Janet Hawkes Jon Meigs MEMO DATE: June 30, 1994 1 TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Members FROM: Candace E. Cornell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, Chair RE: July 7th Meeting I have enclosed a resolution to the Town Board recommending that the Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas (UNA) located within the Town of Ithaca be given the designation of Critical Environmental Areas (CEA). This designation elevates the level of environmental review for proposed development projects in and around these areas under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). At the present time, there is only one CEA designation in the entire county — Coy Glen within the Town of Ithaca. The only reason why more sites have not been designated is — no one has requested it. The City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council is in the process of designating all of their UNAs as CEAs. Let us follow suitl The enclosed map is from the Comprehensive Plan showing the locations of the UNAs in the town. You can read more about them and the CEA status in your copies of the Town of Ithaca Open Space Report or in the UNA study located in the Planning Department's library. There is some debate whether or not IT -23, IT -24, and IT -25 merit UNA status. I will hopefully have more information on this by July 7th We have to donate a substantial amount of our meeting time on July 7th towards approving our backlog of meeting minutes. The -minutes of 5/6/93; 6/15/93; 9/16/93; 9/30/93; 12/16/93; 4/7/94; and 5/5/94 were sent in last meeting's package and 11/18/93 is enclosed with this a kaa . Please submit any substantive changes to me in writing to expedite the process. Thank you for bearing with me on this housekeeping chorel LAND RESOURCES 1990 = MATURE FOREST* DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE RESERVATION Wrl'fi TOMPKINS CO. UNIQUE NATURAL AREA F%%l TOWN OF ITHACA CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA IL .-1 RECREATIONAL LAND NOTES: S—Tompkins Coumty sb into othersUnique munklpalNNa. • -Aress when trans 30 Best or greater In height predominate, based on CLEARS Land Use / Land wrWveryryn 1199880 udated SOURCES: Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, C.LE.A.R.S. Aerial photographic Interpntstion, 1989, Town of Ithaca Planning Dept. TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,tor Town Ithaca Planninn g Board \ . 126 East Seneca Street &r'et` Ithaca, New York 14850 M w.... NT e 1000 2000 ]000 .000 1 DATE. S•PL 3. TwT rimae 4 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, September 8, 1994 TOWN HAIL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 7:30 p.m. 1. 7:35 p.m. 2. 7:40 p.m. 3. 11 9 8:45 p.m. 9:10 P.M. 9:30 p.m. CB Members: Candace Cornell Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Eva Hoffman a AGENDA Persons To Be Heard Report of the Chair Introduction of Jonathan Kanter Town of Ithaca Planning Director Study of Cayuga Lake Source Cooling for Cornell University Presented by: Robert Bland, University Environmental Engineer W. S. (Lanny) Joyce, Chill Water System Manager 5. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Greenway Committee 6. Member Concerns 7. Adjournment Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello Memo Date: August 28, 1994 To: Conservation Board Members From: Janet E. Hawkes, Conservation Board, Chair Re: Conservation Board Meeting September 8, 1994 7:30pm Town Hall I hate to be the harbinger of bad news and inform you that summer is nearing an end. But it is true! For the Conservation Board, this means back to work after a short summer recess. At the upcoming meeting you will officially meet the "new" Town Planner, Jonathan Kanter, and hear about the proposed Lake Source Cooling Project for the Cornell campus. Many of you may already have met the Town Planner and are informed about the Cornell proposal for Lake Source Cooling, but it will be valuable to have these experiences as a group. Enclosed is a description of the Lake Source Cooling Project for you to read in advance of the CB meeting. Following the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask the questions about the project. Also enclosed is an updated listing of the Conservation Board membership and the committee assignments. Please check over the information and confirm its accuracy with Mary Bryant at Town Hall. If you are unable to attend the meeting on September 8, please notify me at 272-1126. Thank you. encl. Cornell's Ithaca -Campus Cooling System: A Time for Change Thirty years ago, Cornell University constructed a central chilled -water system to provide the Ithaca campus with cooling for its research and air-conditioning needs. The existing system uses chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as refrigerants, the same chemical refrigerants that currently are used in most refrigerators and air conditioners. By federal mandate. CFCs will not be manufactured after 1995. This mandate will render most existing chillers obsolete. As a result, Cornell — and other large institutions — must reexamine how to provide for campus cooling needs into the twenty-first century. This gives us the opportunity to consider alternatives to conventional chiller technology that offer significant improvements in environmental impact and energy use. We have prepared this information memo as an initial step in that process. It is being distributed to members of the Cornell and Ithaca communities, and to other interested parties statewide, to communicate and explain the alternatives as we know them, including the possibility of using cold water from Cayuga Lake. We welcome your participation in helping us develop the issues and in critiquing our findings. Existing and Traditional Technology C:ornell's current Ithaca -campus cooling system. The University's current central coolin�(T system provides 40 percent of the buildings on the Ithaca campus with humidity control, cooling for computers and other research equipment, and general air conditioning. The core of the University's cooling system is a network of seven large, electric -driven refrigeration machines (chillers) and a chilled -water storage tank. Water is cooled to a temperature of 45°F in the chillers, then continuously circulated from the storage tank to the buildings through a closed loop of underground supply and return pipes. In the process, unwanted heat in the ambient air of the buildings is transferred to the chilled water, warming the water to about h()°F before it is returned to the chillers. The circulating chilled water does not come into direct contact with any ambient air or with other water (such as drinking. water) in the buildings. Heat K Released LBUI am us Seven fff iiP C °ldings Campus y lil Chillers r<< � Energy�Inputrrrr ^rrrr � I I ffrrrr rff rrrr m i "'PO —---.-.---'_...- 600 Cornell University page 2 June 1994 The University's peak demand for chilled water occurs in the summer, although certain processes require year-round cooling. The rate of production of chilled water is measured in "tons." Although Cornell continually strives to reduce its use of chilled water, two factors tend to increase demand: (1) new buildings — such as the College of Veterinary Medicine teaching hospital now under construction — need cooling systems; and (2) changing programs of modern research and teaching frequently require the renovation of older buildings and the accompanying expansion of cooling systems. For these reasons we estimate that the campus chilled -water system must expand its production capability from today's 14,500 tons to at least 18,000 tons by 1998. Conservative projections indicate that the system must almost double its current capacity over the next 30 years. The phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Most chillers, including Cornell's, currently use CFCs as chemical refrigerants. CFCs are now thought to cause ozone destruction in the stratosphere, resulting in potential environmental and health problems. Consequently, the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol established controls on the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. Because the production of CFCs will stop by the end of 1995, these chemicals will no longer be available for use as refrigerants in new or existing chillers. Necessary modification of Cornell's cooling system. As a result of (1) the phasing out of CFCs, (2) our projections of increased campus demand for cooling capability, and (3) the normal depreciation of current equipment, Cornell will be making a major investment in its central cooling system over the next decade. Before making any final decisions on the details of this investment, we want to thoroughly, and publicly, examine the option of implementing an alternative -technology system that would use Cayuga Lake water as a cooling source. Conventional chiller replacement system. Perhaps. the most obvious choice for a modified system is to replace Cornell's current CFC -based chillers with new chillers and refrigerants selected from new commercially available refrigerants to minimize threats to the environment. Chiller replacement would follow a planned equipment -retirement schedule. New chillers would also be built to meet additional loads as required. Current known technologies utilize a range of power sources and refrigerants. Vapor -compression chillers typically employ corepressors driven by electric motors or steam turbines. Absorption chillers are a heat -driven technology requiring significantly more energy. All of these will be included in our study to determine the most cost effective, environmentally sound conventional solution that will be used as the base case for comparison. There are advantages and disadvantages of conventional chiller replacement technology. Advantages: • The initial cost presumably would be the lowest possible. • Relatively little construction or renovation would be necessary to accommodate the new chillers. Disadvantages: • Refrigeration would continue to be a major consumer of energy. • The refrigeration industry is in a state of rapid change, and new equipment and interim chemical refrigerants might become obsolete rapidly. • Other refrigerants have problems such as toxicity and global warming potential. .{ Cornell University page 3 June 1994 Cayuga Lake as an Alternative Cooling Source Lake -based cooling system. In this alternative -technology system, using naturally cold water drawn from the depths of Cayuga Lake as a cooling source could significantly reduce the need for conventional mechanical chillers and chemical refrigerants. This system would be expensive to set up, but the potential reductions in energy use and associated pollutants are considerable. Because we recognize that such a system also raises a number of questions about the potential impact on an important natural resource, Cornell wants the Ithaca/Tompkins County community, and other interested parries, to be involved from the beginning in analyzing the feasibility of this option. Following is an outline describing the Cayuga Lake -based cooling system and some initial points we are considering in our study. We hope this outline will be useful as a basis for future discussion. In a Cayuga Lake -based cooling system, naturally cooled water would be pumped from Cayuga Lake to a new heat -exchange facility located near lake level. There it would cool, via heat transfer, the water used in the closed-loop cooling system on campus. The lake water would not contact the -chilled water, because the two piping loops would be separated by heat exchangers. Our initial thinking is that the lake -water intake point would be about 150 to 200 feet below the surface, where the water is approximately 39°F year-round. As with all deep bodies of water in latitudes where winter temperatures go well below 40°F, the deep waters of Cayuga Lake remain cold as a result of a natural stratification of temperatures. Water warmed by the sun and air floats near the surface. In winter, as the entire lake cools, the water layers mix and the heat gained during the summer is released. After the water is warmed to 50 or 55°F during the heat -exchange process, it would be returned to the lake at a point perhaps 10 to 20 feet below the surface. The intake pipe from the lake and the return pipe to the lake would be buried underground when on land or in shallow water, and would lie on the bottom of the lake when in deep water. No specific locations have been proposed for the heat -exchange facility or for the intake or discharge points. However, the bottom of Cayuga Lake about two miles north of Stewart Park is deep enough to be a potential intake site. Co©Ulrd0 Heat Exchanger Facility, ,1 Cayuga Lake ...... __:::....._ g o _.........-- --... .... X00°;. Cornell _.- -400 F,72V2 2 L University rrt _IC 60° F F MO jG FE Cornell University page 4 June 1994 On average, the flow of lake water through the system might range from 8,000 to 9,000 gpm (gallons per minute) in 1998. On a few hot summer afternoons, flow could peak at -as much as 30,000 gpm. Over the next 30 years, flow requirements could double as the cooling load grows. As part of our study, we would determine if using Cayuga Lake water as a cooling source would have a significant overall warming effect on the lake. In the summer months, the temperature of the lake -system return water, 50 to 55°F, would be close to the temperature of Cayuga Lake at the point of discharge. During the other months of the year, the discharge -water temperature would be slightly higher than the lake water at the point of discharge, although the intake and discharge flow would be substantially less than the flow during the summer months. Cornell's existing system of distribution pipes that circulate the closed-loop chilled water throughout the campus would be extended to the heat -exchange facility. These additional supply and return pipes would be buried underground. One of the chillers in the current campus system would be retained and retrofitted for approved refrigerants. It, together with the existing chilled - water storage tank, would continue to be used during the summer months, the peak demand time for chilled water on campus. Based on the limited information we currently have, an estimate of the total capital costs of implementing a lake -source cooling system might approach $50 million in today's dollars. That could be offset in the long term by avoiding the cost of purchasing new, conventional chillers and by the significantly reduced energy costs of operating the lake -based system. What are some of the potential benefits of using Cayuga Lake water as a natural cooling source, rather than using conventional chiller technology? Compared with conventional systems using mechanical chillers and chemical refrigerants, a system using naturally cold lake water and heat exchangers is relatively passive and technologically simple. 1. Potential 90 -percent reduction in energy required to operate: Electric motors power the compressors in conventional mechanical chillers and auxiliary equipment. A conventional mechanical -chiller system would remain energy intensive in spite of Cornell's effort to select the most -efficient chillers and our continued use of a chilled - water thermal storage tank to conserve energy. This tank, installed three years ago, won the 1993 New York State Governor's Award for Energy Excellence. In contrast, we estimate that the lake -water heat -exchange cooling system would use only one-tenth the energy required to operate a conventional mechanical -chiller system on the Cornell campus. The current Cornell system — which has a maximum production capability of 14,500 tons — uses 19 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, enough to power 2,500 homes that do not use electric heat. We estimate that operating a lake - water cooling system with the same production capability of 14,500 tons would require only 10 percent of that amount of power annually — or about 1.9 million kilowatt hours. Even if demand doubles, this dramatic proportional reduction in energy use would be maintained. It could also help forestall the need for new or expanded electri.c-generating facilities in the region. Cornell University page 5 June 1994 2. Reduction in pollution associated with generation of electricity: The estimated 90 - percent reduction in energy required to operate the lake -based cooling system would be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in pollution associated with the generation of electricity. This would avoid the annual combustion of approximately 12,OOO.tons of coal in area generating plants, the associated emission of 37,000 tons of carbon dioxide gas (which can contribute to global warming), and also the emission of other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, a precursor of acid rain. 3. Minimal use of chemical refrigerants: A lake -based cooling system would significantly reduce the need for chemical refrigerants of any kind. This could virtually eliminate the risk of a possible future finding that chemical refrigerants approved as replacements for CFCs might eventually have deleterious effects that would result in yet another search for alternative technology. 4. Potentially "clean" energy system: The design of energy -using systems rarely affords us the opportunity to reduce consumption so significantly. The lake -based cooling concept is an exception. It is a relatively "clean" energy system that beneficially uses a valuable natural resource while conserving other resources and reducing associated pollution. What are some of the potential concerns and disadvantages associated with using Cayuga Lake water as a natural cooling source? Following is a list of some possible concerns and/or disadvantages associated with using Cayuga Lake water as a cooling source instead of chillers in the Cornell system. Our primary concerns relate to the potential impact on the ecology of Cayuga Lake and drinking water. 1. Effect on water -quality parameters: Will lake -based cooling have a significant impact on the temperature, dissolved oxygen, or water chemistry of Cayuga Lake? 2. Effect on fish: The salmon, trout, bass, and other fish in the lake, and the insects, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and other organisms upon which they feed, are important resources. Could they be adversely affected by lake -based cooling? 3. Effect on algae and other aquatic plants: Will lake -based cooling cause enhanced production of algae and aquatic plants that might interfere with established uses of the lake including recreation and drinking -water supplies? 4. Clogging of intake and discharge pipes by zebra and other mussels: Mussels could clog the intake and discharge pipes that would connect.the lake with the heat -exchange facility, creating the need for some method of control. Could this, in turn, have a significant impact on the ecology of the lake? 5. Effect on other natural resources and areas of the community: Additional concerns relate to the effects of disruption of lake -bottom and shore sediments, wetlands, and other natural areas, including Fall Creek, caused by pipe installation and facility construction, as well as associated effects on traffic flow, noise level, and community aesthetics. These and other concerns will be thoroughly addressed in our study. Cornell University page 6 June 1994 How will Cornell conduct the study of the feasibility of using Cayuga Lake water as a natural cooling source? Cornell has retained a scientific consultant, Stearns & Wheler of Cazenovia, New York, to study key parameters of Cayuga Lake. Stearns and Wheler has broad experience and expertise in lake ecology, and was the principal consultant for the planning and design of the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant. Water samples will be taken from different depths and locations in the lake to identify important characteristics of temperature, chemistry, and biology. This is necessary to assess the environmental impact of the project and to determine if any significant effects can be mitigated. We will share the findings with all interested parties. We will consult with experts at Cornell, including the Department of Natural Resources, the Division of Biological Sciences, and other departments through the Center for the Environment. We will also consult with state and federal regulatory agencies such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and with local environmental groups and government agencies. Cornell will also perform preliminary engineering studies to determine the economic and technical feasibility of using Cayuga Lake water as a natural cooling source. We will investigate the availability of land and rights-of-way necessary to implement the project. By the end of 1994, we should know if lake -source cooling is a viable concept that should be pursued. What will the next steps be, after this study is done? If the study indicates that lake -based cooling either is infeasible or inadvisable, Cornell will pursue the most -likely alternative — conventional chiller technology. We will attempt to meet our 1998 capacity needs with new chillers and plan for the replacement of our existing CFC -based chillers. If the results of the study indicate that the project is environmentally sound and economically and technically feasible, Cornell will take the following steps, beginning in 1995, to meet its projected needs for implementation of this new system. 1. Prepare applications for the necessary environmental permits. These may include, but not necessarily be limited to, permits to discharge the circulated lake water, permits to dig trenches in roads and elsewhere to install buried pipes, permits to construct a heat - exchanger building and install piping in the lake, and a permit to cross Fall Creek. 2. Prepare an environmental impact statement to support the environmental permits. This process would involve community and regulatory agencies fully in- a study of the potential environmental impacts and ways to mitigate them. 3. Begin design and engineering to support the environmental -impact and permit work. 4. Proceed with final engineering and construction work if all the environmental impact statements and permits are approved (1996-1998). 5. Finish construction and begin operation (1998). Cornell University page 7 June 1994 How can interested parties become involved in this study? We urge members of the community, and other interested parties, to become involved in- this study. During the next few months, we will be meeting with local environmental groups and boards that have an interest in this project. We will also hold a meeting for interested individual community members. So far, some local municipal officials, and public -works engineers, and members of environmental groups have identified a series of topics to be studied, ranging from critical environmental issues to infrastructure partnerships, and economic benefits related to construction. The dialogue on this study has begun, and your input will be helpful. At any time, you can direct comments or questions to: Robert R. (Bob) Bland University Environmental Engineer Facilities and Campus Services Cornell University Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853-3701 Telephone: (607) '255-6643 Fax: (607) 255-5329 E-mail: RRB2@Comell.edu We will keep you on the mailing list for information on future developments, unless you notify us to remove your name. Please let us know of other individuals or groups who would like to receive information. • 0 n U TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, October 6, 1994 'DOWN HALLBOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of the Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Introduction of JoAnn Cornish -Epps Town of Ithaca Planner II 8:05 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Greenway Committee 8:20 p.m. 5. Coy Glen Biological Corridor Report -DRAFT Presented by: Candace Cornell 8:40 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:00 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Candace Cornell Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Eva Hoffman Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, October 6, 1994 Approved• PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Janet Hawkes, Cheryl Smith, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs, Mary Russell. Chairperson Janet Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Recording Secretary Karen Moore has sent in her resignation. Will check with her about status of the minutes. Candace and Janet will attend NYS Conservation Advisory Board Conference in Glens Falls next weekend. Meeting times will be the first Thursday of the month hereafter. REPORT FROM STAFF: New Town Planner II JoAnn Cornish introduced herself. She has a BS in Environmental Science and a BLA in Landscape Architecture from Syracuse University and has done graduate work and has experience in regional planning. She is an Ithaca native with two children. Will be working with George Frantz on the Parks and Open Space Plan and the Environmental Atlas. Worked with Cornell on GIS draft. Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan - George Frantz discussed the first part of the Basic Inventory Section for the Parks Plan. Section D is mostly done, but consolidating the information from many sources will be a major job. Assessment of each town park needs to be done for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with list of deficiencies and priorities for each park. Discussion centered around informing the public about accessibility ratings, etc., after deficiencies area corrected. Mr. Frantz Stated that compliance with ADA is 900 thought process and loo modifications to facilities. • CRAFT Conservation Board Minutes 2 October 6, 1994 DRAFT ** DRAFT ** DRAFT 6 For Section E, need to see what adjacent Towns and Villages are doing. Lansing has a community park and Cayuga Heights has Sunset Park plus an undeveloped tract of land. Need to find out if Town has responsibility to provide parks and recreation for village residents. The Town has two budgets - town -side section of budget for all town residents including village residents and part -town section for expenditures and services for residents outside Village of Cayuga Heights. If Parks Department is in town -wide budget, park planning and upkeep may need rethinking. Town of Ithaca has license from Cornell University for Tareyton Park and East Ithaca Recreation Way. Land owned by Cornell University. South Hill Trail is partly owned by Town plus private land with easements. Town Planner Jonathan Kantor has knowledge of status of general purpose land adjoining Eastern Heights Park. Second section needs review and update of policies in the 1984 plan. Payment of money in lieu of land needs addressing by the Town Board. Mr. Frantz hopes for a draft in December. The Town Board acts on yearly recommendations from the Parks Department for what needs to be done, rather than neighborhood input. Recommendations and evaluation should begin on 5 -year parks capital improvements plan for longer range planning for new and existing park needs, based on current and future population. The Conservation Board did a simple survey of the Town, with maps by quadrants, of all existing parkland and open spaces in Town to find where needs are. Population densities and user group information was not included. West Hill has no parkland in the northwest area. Land Trust has map of all their easements. There is a need for Town owned soccer and ballfields and facility upgrades in several areas of Town. Comparison with national standards will show necessity for this. Town is forced to use overloaded New York State parks plus Lansing Park because of the land of facilities. State Park trail and facility maintenance needs improvement. Fee in lieu of land money could be put in a long-term park acquisition and development fund. Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger told Mr. Frantz that the Town Board had adopted policy in the past stating that the Town was not to have large parks. Need to investigate this policy. Work will continue in committee to draft report and work on above issues. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting Adjourned. \.srh COP Thursday, October 6, 1994 Approved: August 1, 1996 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Janet Hawkes, Cheryl Smith, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs, Mary Russell. Chairperson Janet Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Recording Secretary Karen Moore has sent in her resignation. Will check with her about status of the minutes. Candace and Janet will attend NYS Conservation Advisory Board Conference in Glens Falls next weekend. Meeting times will be the first Thursday of the month hereafter. REPORT FROM STAFF: New Town Planner II JoAnn Cornish introduced herself. She has a BS in Environmental Science and a BLA in Landscape Architecture from Syracuse University and has done graduate work and has experience in regional planning. She is an Ithaca native with two children. Will be working with George Frantz on the Parks and Open Space Plan and the Environmental Atlas. Worked with Cornell on GIS draft. Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan - George Frantz discussed the first part of the Basic Inventory Section for the Parks Plan. Section D is mostly done, but consolidating the information from many sources will be a major job. Assessment of each town park needs to be done for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with list of deficiencies and priorities for each park. Discussion centered around informing the public about accessibility ratings, etc., after deficiencies area corrected. Mr. Frantz Stated that compliance with ADA is 900 thought process and loo modifications to facilities. Conservation Board Minutes 2 October 6, 1994 Approved 8/1/96 For Section E, need to see what adjacent Towns and Villages are doing. Lansing has a community park and Cayuga Heights has Sunset Park plus an undeveloped tract of land. Need to find out if Town has responsibility to provide parks and recreation for village residents. The Town has two budgets - town -side section of budget for all town residents including village residents and part -town section for expenditures and services for residents outside Village of Cayuga Heights. If Parks Department is in town -wide budget, park planning and upkeep may need rethinking. Town of Ithaca has license from Cornell University for Tareyton Park and East Ithaca Recreation Way. Land owned by Cornell University. South Hill Trail is partly owned by Town plus private land with easements. Town Planner Jonathan Kantor has knowledge of status of general purpose land adjoining Eastern Heights Park. Second section needs review and update of policies in the 1984 plan.. Payment of money in lieu of land needs addressing by the Town Board. Mr. Frantz hopes for a draft in December. The Town Board acts on yearly recommendations from the Parks Department for what needs to be done, rather than neighborhood input. Recommendations and evaluation should begin on 5 -year parks capital improvements plan for longer range planning for new and existing park needs, based on current and future population. The Conservation Board did a simple survey of the Town, with maps by quadrants, of all existing parkland and open spaces in Town to find where needs are. Population densities and user group information was not included. West Hill has no parkland in the northwest area. Land Trust has map of all their easements. There is a need for Town owned soccer and ballfields and facility upgrades in several areas of Town. Comparison with national standards will show necessity for this. Town is forced to use overloaded New York State parks plus Lansing Park because of the land of facilities. State Park trail and facility maintenance needs improvement. Fee in lieu of land money could be put in a long-term park acquisition and development fund. Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger told Mr. Frantz that the Town Board had adopted policy in the past stating that the Town was not to have large parks. Need to investigate this policy. Work will continue in committee to draft report and work on above issues. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting Adjourned. \.srh 640P • TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES ,� Il Thursday, October 6, 1994 Approved: PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Janet Hawkes, Cheryl Smith, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs, Mary Russell. Chairperson Janet Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Recording Secretary Karen Moore has sent in her resignation. • Will check with her about status of the minutes. Candace and Janet will attend NYS Conservation Advisory Board Conference in Glens Falls next weekend. Meeting times will be the first Thursday of the month hereafter. REPORT FROM STAFF: New Town Planner II JoAnn Cornish introduced herself. She has a BS in Environmental Science and a BLA in Landscape Architecture from Syracuse University and has done graduate work and has experience in regional planning. She is an Ithaca native with two children. Will be working with George Frantz on the Parks and Open Space Plan and the Environmental Atlas. Worked with Cornell on GIS draft. Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan - George Frantz discussed the first part of the Basic Inventory Section for the Parks Plan. Section D is mostly done, but consolidating the information from many sources will be a major job. Assessment of each town park needs to be done for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with list of deficiencies and priorities for each park. Discussion centered around informing the public about accessibility ratings, etc., after deficiencies area corrected. Mr. Frantz Stated that compliance with ADA is 900 thought process and 10% modifications to facilities. .• • Conservation Board Minutes 2 October 6, 1994 DRAFT ** DRAFT ** DRAFT For Section E, need to see what adjacent Towns and Villages are doing. Lansing has a community park and Cayuga Heights has Sunset Park plus an undeveloped tract of land. Need to find out if Town has responsibility to provide parks and recreation for village residents. The Town has two budgets - town -side section of budget for all town residents including village residents and part -town section for expenditures and services for residents outside Village of Cayuga Heights. If Parks Department is in town -wide budget, park planning and upkeep may need rethinking. Town of Ithaca has license from Cornell University for Tareyton Park and East Ithaca Recreation Way. Land owned by Cornell University. South Hill Trail is partly owned by Town plus private land with easements. Town Planner Jonathan Kantor has knowledge of status of general purpose land adjoining Eastern Heights Park. Second section need plan. Payment of money Town Board. Mr. Frantz Board acts on yearly rec what needs to be do Recommendations and evall improvements plan for lc park needs, based on Conservation Board did quadrants, of all existii where needs are. Popula was not included. West I Land Trust has map of a Town owned soccer and ba > review and update of policies in the 1984 in lieu of land needs addressing by the hopes for a draft in December. The Town )mmendations from the Parks Department for )ne, rather than neighborhood input. .ation should begin on 5 -year parks capital nger range planning for new and existing current and future population. The simple survey of the Town, with maps by .g parkland and open spaces in Town to find Lion densities and user group information ill has no parkland in the northwest area. L1 their easements. There is a need for 11fields and facilitv unarades in several areas of Town. Comparison with national standards will show necessity for this. Town is forced to use overloaded New York State parks plus Lansing Park because of the land of facilities. State Park trail and facility maintenance needs improvement. Fee in lieu of land money could be put in a long-term park acquisition and development fund. Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger told Mr. Frantz that the Town Board had adopted policy in the past stating that the Town was not to have large parks. Need to investigate this policy. Work will continue in committee to draft report and work on above issues. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting Adjourned. \.srh TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, October 6, 1994 TOWNHALLBOARDROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of the Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Introduction of JoAnn Cornish -Epps Town of Ithaca Planner II 8:05 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Greenway Committee 8:20 p.m. 5. Coy Glen Biological Corridor Report -DRAFT Presented by: Candace Cornell 8:40 p.m. 6. Member Concerns 9:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Candace Cornell Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Eva Hoffman Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, November 3, 1994 TOWN HALLBOAM ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of the Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee _ c. Parks and Greenway Committee 8:00 p.m. 4. Coy ' Glen Biological Corridor Action Plan 9:00 p.m. 5. Member Concerns 9:.15 p.m. 6. Adjournment CB Members: Candace Cornell Jon Meigs Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Phil Zarriello HER Date: October 17, 1994 To: Conservation Board Members From: Janet E. Hawkes Re: Conservation Board Meeting November 3, 1994 7:30pm Town Hall Over the past two months of Conservation Board meetings we have had an opportunity to meet two new planning staff members and discuss some exciting projects. Now that the planning department is fully staffed we will begin to see progress on some projects near and dear to the hearts of the Conservation Board members, including the Park and Open Space Plan, Environmental Atlas and GIS, and others. In October, we revisited the prospect of establishing Coy Glen as a biological corridor as part of the larger Greenway plan for the Town. Candace presented a plan for the Coy Glen area which included some recommendations for action. At the upcoming meeting in November, I would like to focus the bulk of the meeting on the development of an action plan for the Coy Glen watershed. All of you have (at the time of this mailing) the Coy Glen Biological Corridor Plan. PLEASE READ THIS PLAN and come prepared with comments, questions and recommendations for developing an action plan!! Incidentally, this Coy Glen Biological Corridor Plan received an Environmental Project Award from the New York State Association of Conservation Commissions. Once again this puts the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board on the map, thanks to the tireless efforts of Candace Cornell. Many thanks to Candace!! Also distributed at the meeting (or enclosed in this packet for those who were absent) was a copy of the draft outline for the Park and Open Space Plan presented by George Frantz and JoAnn Cornish -Epps. Please read this over and give your comments to Candace, Chair of the Parks, Open Space and Greenway Committee, or George. I look forward to working with you at the November meeting. Please call me at 272-1126 with your recommendations for Coy Glen if you cannot attend the meeting. MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Thursday, November 3, 1994 Approved PRESENT: Janet Hawkes, Eva Hoffmann, John Meigs, Mary Russell, Cheryl Smith, Phil Zarriello ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Candace Cornell STAFF: JoAnn Cornish -Epps, Jonathan Kanter Janet Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Candace and Janet went to DEC NY Conservation Advisory Council meeting in Glens Falls and received Environmental Project Award for Coy Glen Biological Corridor Plan. This is third award in a row! Division Heads of DEC in Albany all gave reports. Next year there will be a joint Environmental Management Council and Conservation Advisory Board conference in Syracuse. George Frantz and Janet Hawkes attended the Susquehanna Neighbors Exploring New Connections Conference for the Susquehanna River Basin. People from Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Chesapeake Bay Project were there. Discussion centered on citizen monitoring, reparian buffered zones, whole farm planning, and other water quality topics. REPORT FROM STAFF: JoAnn and Jonathan Kanter attended the Planning Federation Conference. The 3 -day conference covered the SEQR update, open space planning, innovative resource management techniques, affordable housing, new legislation and case law updates and networking with other planners and people on conservation boards. He brought back copies of the new legislation outline. The SEQR session discussed the possibility of simplifying and revising environmental assessment forms and DEC wants input on the existing forms. One planned revision concerns communities who make comprehensive plans with a generic EIS. Subsequent actions by applicants that are consistent with the comprehensive plan would have a more expedited review process unless it is for a large and complicated project. JoAnn reported on the open space planning session and brought back handouts on different sources of funding. Three community open space plans were presented and discussed. Other open space projects were discussed, especially the importance of getting backing for any plan from planners, boards, and the community before implementation. John also brought copies of the draft Open Space Plan from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. This is a draft plan pus a generic EIS. In November, there will be a series of public hearing around the state to hear policy statements on what the state would like to happen in terms of open space preservation. Ramification include funding priorities that will be set for parks and open space acquisition. Funds are available from the Environmental Protection Act of 1993. 5,000,000 will be available state wide for 1995 and he brought applications from the Office of Parks. Janet discussed Heritage Corridors which can be parks, greenways, corridors, etc. The Black Diamond Trail could receive funding if the plan is included in the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins County plan. The preliminary architectural digs show evidence of prehistoric Indian ruins and that is fundable through the Environmental Protection Fund. They are looking for collaboration which could include the state, town, city, parks. And other organizations. With reference to the SEQR regulations, Janet stated that the environmental assessment forms and environmental impact statements are only model forms. The Town of Woodstock has their own regulations (TWEQR) which is more restrictive and targeted for their locality. They are sending us a sample copy. We are now using the model forms, except for the short form which was updated by the CAC and is in use. Model forms for SEQR , may change in the future. The South Hill Recreation Way has a marked interpretive trail and a trail guide which is recycled at the end of the trail. The Cornell lake Source Cooling Project would like time to present more information at the December meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Mary discussed EcoVillage. Planning Board is working on the Special Land Use District and held a public hearing on Nov. 1, 1994. No public comments. Much time has been spent on road access, configuration of parcel and wetlands. SLUD has been revised twice and John Barney is in process of completing it. The Planning Board will make recommendation to Town Board at Nov. 15 meeting. The Town Board will set a public hearing, probably at the January meeting. Once a formal SLUD is presented, the CB will tour the property. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS COMMITTEE: Phil said nothing new has occurred since last meeting. PARKS AND GREENWAY COMMITTEE Janet gave report in Candace's absence. George and JoAnn are staff people working with open space report. Several meetings have occurred to develop goals and objectives for the report, as follows: 1. Provide an integrated system of parks and recreational facilities throughout the town, including undeveloped open space as one component, with linkages between various parts of system such as pathways, stream corridors, trails and utility right of ways. (Note: has requested that there be public access to the recreational resources of Cayuga Lake.) 2. Plan for adequate recreational services for all town residents. (Note: has requested that parks meet the residents' needs and are more comprehensive that usual town parks. Extras may include running water, restrooms, ball parks, etc.) Right now, a student intern is doing a inventory of all Town of Ithaca resources, plus area resources. COY GLEN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: Janet reported the Cornell Plantations answered our written request and will reserve their land for the biological corridor. This is a large tract of land that includes sensitive gorge areas. Other landowners have indicated a more favorable opinion of this type of forever wild plan rather that the more complete park previously sought by the Town. There would be limited access through the Plantations trail. Phil would like definitions for biological corridor, preserve, greenway, etc., and the CB needs to develop descriptions of these. Right now the thinking is that greenways are for people access and biological corridors are for animals and plants. Greenways should be more than just pedestrians and should be large enough for many different species. In preparing the report, the Open Space Committee has used a wider reference that is more inclusive and more like a green belt or preserved open space linked throughout the town. We need a definition because EMC has asked us to recommend land to be preserved as biological corridors, etc. The Open Space Report will cover plans for space for wildlife and rare species, etc. Janet requested that all CB members develop a definition of greenway for the next meeting. We must make a clear distinction between greenway and biological corridor because some greenways, like the Hudson Valley Greenway, are totally tourist oriented and this is becoming the NYS model. However, local law can protect these areas. Discussion continued over CB's next step in protecting Coy Glen. The threats to the area are: land that could be open for development, beginning of the watershed is not in the Town of Ithaca, salt contamination from Route 79, mining (none at present). To preserve the whole watershed would take permanent conservation easements and perhaps some local zoning changes. We have an initial agreement with the Finger Lakes land Trust that they may be able to contact the landowners. Since it is private land, we do not want to publicize the area or the corridor. It may be a benefit to publicize the area to educate the public on necessity for protection of fragile areas. After we have reassessed and corrected the Coy Glen Plan, Janet and Mary will talk with FLLT and see how this fits with their priorities. Right now, Coy Glen is temporarily safe, so we have time to get easements, etc. Could there be a tax abatement reward to induce landowners to give the easements? For Six Mile Creek also? This will have to come before the County Board. This may have been broached in the past and this may be the time to do it again. The previous Town park plan for Coy Glen failed because of land taking by the town and concerns of trespass by the public because only the gorge and rim were involved. A gorge buffer area needs to be decided upon because the watershed is huge but ideally we should try to protect it all. The report only lists Town of Ithaca landowners but others could be contacted. We will talk with the town of Enfield concerning this. A large area in Enfield is in a private game reserve now, but that could change in the future and it needs to be protected against future damage. MEMBER CONCERNS: Ithacare: Discussion centered what went wrong and what to do different. The planning board will begin EIS process for lawsuit. Town of Ithaca does not have a viewscape protection ordinance. Planning board passed plan after it was modified by Ithacare and were sued by neighbors. We need to be advised about legality to avoid this in future. Interest was shown in having John Barney and others discuss SEQR, laws, etc., at a future meeting. Planning board needs this information also - perhaps a joint session? General Purpose Land at Eastern Heights Park: This is land adjacent to Eastern Heights Park. Dedicating this general purpose land as park land was brought up at the Town Board but no action taken. Town would like to protect this land as parkland. Needs action by Town Board to be filed with New York State, which then cannot be reversed, except by the state legislature. The CB made a resolution the Town Board about this a year ago. We can send a letter asking the status at this point and resolution for future. Meeting adjourned 9:45 p.m. *WN CLERK 273-1721 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 TO: TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD FROM: JONATHAN KANTER, TOWN PLANNERQ RE: 1994 CONSERVATION BOARD BUDGET - FUNDS REMAINING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1994 This is to provide a brief update on funds remaining in the Conservation Board's 1994 Budget, so that decisions can be made on additional expenditures through the end of 1994. Conservation Board funds are part of the Planning Department's Budget ("CAC Committee" - Line Item B8020.407), which follows the calendar year budget cycle. This is separate and distinct from the Conservation Board "Budget" which is submitted to the State for Local Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP) fund reimbursement. The 1994 Town of Ithaca Budget included $2,000.00 for the Conservation Board. Of that, $939.20 remained in the Budget as of 10/31/94 (most recent Financial Report). In addition, approximately $263.00 in reimbursement submissions recently came in from Candace and Janet, not included in the 10/31 balance, so the actual amount remaining in the Conservation Board's 1994 Budget is approximately $676.20. (This includes $121.00 refunded from the Conference on the Environment, which Candace was not able to attend.) In addition, we are in the process of having copies of the Six Mile Creek report printed, which will cost about $150.00 for 25 copies (@ $6.00). That would leave about $526.20 for the remainder of 1994. As an additional note of interest, the Tentative 1995 Town of Ithaca Budget includes $2,000.00 for the Conservation Board (same as 1994). I hope that the above information will help the Conservation Board plan/prioritize its spending for the remainder of 1994. 0 McName cA1staff\jon\cbbudget.mem NYSACC ae&Aa President's Message henever I write a President's Message after a conference, I feel like a combi nation cheerleader and evaluator. So here goes! I think those of us who attended the Conference on the Environment at Glens Falls left with a feeling of renewal and of new direction after we listened, shared, complained, and discov- ered new and better ways to proceed. We heard the newest information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation divi- sion representatives. We learned what to do with issues related to contaminated land and environ- mental liability. We heard of new initiatives in the Natural Heritage Trust program and learned some strategies for preservation. The region provided its best fall foliage for our Lake George boat ride. One good reason for moving the Conference all over New York is to discover some of the regional delights of our state. We welcome to ourNYSACC Board of Directors MaryAnn Gregory from Big Flats, Janet Hawkes from Ithaca, Janet Hollocher from Schenectady, and Dorothy Stamp from Jamesville. With their election to the Board we now have more representation in Regions IV, VII, and VIII. This year we have been working on some very specif_ .— goals. NYSACC's Board of Directors reaffirmed that our role should be to support our local boards and commissions by providing a forum in which we may all learn to be more effective by sharing our individual triumphs, failures, and plans for the future. We do this in two ways: through the annual Conference on the Environment and through the NYSACC News. Let me share with you our progress on our goals. Our newsletter editor, Ed Griffin -Nolan has attended and fully participated in our last two conferences. Ed now knows us personally and understands NYSACC as an organization. He also knows how to contact us when we don't send the newsletter articles we promise him! As a result, NYSACC Joy Squires NYSACC 168 Parkway Drive Syracuse, NY 13207 Fall 1994 Ke&Aa is livelier, more interesting, and also more specific. I am really pleased with our newsletter progress. We are doing a better job of targeting our NYSACC mailing. As you know, constantly changing CAC membership has been a con- tinual problem with mailings. We changed our policy of mailing to individual members and are now sending multiple copies of NYSACC aecua to the CB or CAC chair at his or her town hall address. The chair is then responsible for distribution to members. We are sending multiple copies only to member commissions that have paid their dues. We also send copies to each state legislator and EMC chair. We think this is working. If you are having problems with mailings, please let me know. Another problem that we are making progress on is the location of future conferences. At the time of this newsletter, we plan to have the next three conferences in Syracuse, Dutchess County, and Ithaca. We need your help in a letter writing campaign for LEAP funding. On Page Four of this newsletter you will find information for letters to be written to the Chairs of the Environmental Conservation Committees in the legislature. This funding is crucial to developing strong local boards and commissions. On Page Two you will find an explanation of LEAP, thanks to Mike Cavanaugh of DEC. Please help! This is an extremely important issue for NYSACC and NYSAEMC. Our next newsletter deadline is March 31. Share your ideas and accomplishments with Ed. He will put them into print. I wish you new ideas and directions, the strength to keep working on persistent problems and most of all, my best wishes for an environmentally productive New Year. Joy Squires, President NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID SYRACUSE, N.Y. PERMIT NO. 287 • E 11 • NYSACC Glens Falls Hosts The 23rd Annual Conference on the Environment Under the clear skies of the mildest Adirondack October in anyone's memory, members of Conservation Commis- sions and Environmental Management Councils from all over New York State met at the Queensbury Hotel in Glens Falls for the 23rd Annual Conference on the Environment. This year's conference, held on October 14, 15, and 16, was a slimmed -down version of previous events. Nonetheless, nearly 100 people attended to hear speakers from the Department of Environmental Conservation as well as the private sector, and to honor the good works being done by dedicated conservationists in towns and counties from Long Island to Buf- falo. The keynote speaker at Saturday evenings dinner was Langdon Marsh, an old friend and recently appointed Commissioner of DEC. Marsh talked about the 1990's as a time when the environmental movement began to return to an earlier, more comprehensive view of environmental protection. This approach, he mentioned, shifts the focus from just regulating `h pollution sources to looking at the larger pic- ture and attempting to prevent problems from occurring. "I welcome this shift," said the Commis- sioner. "because not only does it have good science behind it, but it allows us to maintain an emotional connection to the things that first got us involved with the environment. Most of us can trace our love for the environ- ment to our love for a particular resource, whether it be the ocean, or a mountain, a river, and it is that connection that keeps us motivated and working." Marsh noted that CACs and EMCs are the long distance runners in the environmental movement. "I have been fol- lowing the work you do for twenty years. You have been Volume 21 No.1 among the most effective sets of environmental organiza- tions in the country. You are on the front lines. You have figured out how to make government work better. You have a lot to be proud of." The DEC provided a number of speakers for the confer- ence, which was sponsored by both NYSACC and the New York State Association of Environmental Management Coun- cils (NYSAEMC). On pollution prevention, the Commissioner acknowl- edged that we have "picked most of the low lying fruit" in terms of finding ways to reduce contamination. "Strict en- forcement remains a fundamental base of our work, but new modes of enforcement such as regulatory reform and partner- ships with industry are now part of the mix. "We look to ways that reduce the regulatory burden without adverse consequences for environmental protection. DEC Commissioner Langdon Marsh relaxes with Lee Hanle Younge, Joy Squires, and Simon Skolnik in the lobby of the Queensbury Hotel. By streamlining permitting, consolidating federal, state, and local programs, and reducing paperwork, we free up our resources to use them in areas where we can make a differ- ence." Looking to the future, he notes that there will not likely be an increase in environmental personnel working for govern- ment for the foreseeable future. He sees the 1990 Clean Air Act mandates and sanctions as a motor pushing the state toward the next century. more CONFERENCE —pages 4 & 5 2 NYSACC rein DEC Corner LEAP Funding Can Still Help Michael J. Cavanaugh Chief, Bureau of Community Affairs NYSDEC Over the years, the number of Conservation Advisory Commissions and Conservation Boards participating in the Local Environmental Assistance Program has dropped to a small but loyal group of around thirty. There are various reasons for this phenomenon. Some councils do not need a budget. In other cases, some CAC's budgets are so small that the declining reimbursement rate made it not worth the administrative process in applying for LEAP funding. These are both legitimate reasons for not participating in LEAP. I am afraid that one reason, however, may be that the councils do not have a good understanding of the LEAP program. DEC established the Local Environmental Assistance Program in the mid 1970's as a way to encourage local government to establish and support Environmental Man- agement Councils and Conservation Advisory Commissions at the county and city, town or village level. The law says that DEC can reimburse up to 50% of a local government's approved expenditures in support of its EMC or CAC. In the early years of the program, sufficient funds and low expendi- tures by the participating councils combined to allow the full 50% reimbursement. As the popularity of the program grew, more councils participated at a higher level, and the reim- bursement rate gradually declined. During the last State fiscal year, the final reimbursement rate was 18.21 %. Although the reimbursement rate is relatively low, there are some benefits to participation in the LEAP. The first is increased contact and communication with DEC; a good source for advice and technical assistance. Second, LEAP participation may bring in extra revenue for your council to enable it to take on a needed project. The eligibility requirements for participating in the LEAP program are relatively simple. 1) Your EMC, CAC, or CB must be formed by local law or resolution in accordance with article 47 of the Environmental Conservation Law (for EMCs) or ar- ticle 12f of the General Municipal Law (for CACs and CBs). A copy of the enabling law or resolution must be on file with DEC. 2) Your municipality must submit an application, includ- ing a work plan and detailed budget. This is reviewed by DEC for appropriateness of planned activities and expenditures. 3) Your council chair or volunteer representative must meet with DEC to review the work plan. These meet- ings usually occur during the late winter through spring. Fall 1994 4) If approved to participate in LEAP (and most are), your council must submit quarterly activity and financial reports and State Aid Vouchers to DEC for payment. Councils with small budgets may combine reports and vouchers for up to six months. 5) An annual report must be submitted to your local government with a copy to DEC. If you think that your council would like to explore participation in the LEAP program, I encourage you to contact the LEAP coordinator in your local DEC regional office. Region 1 Cathy Shigo 516-444-0350 Region 3 Ellen Stoutenburgh 914-256-3018 Region 4 Darwin Roosa 518-357-2048 Region 5 Betsy Lowe 518-897-1242 Region 6 Charlie Nevin 315-785-2244 Region 7 Sue Miller 315-426-7400 Region 8 Paul Schmeld 716-226-2466 Region 9 Chuck Kollatz 716-851-7200 Further inquiries on this topic or other DEC issues can be addressed to Mike at DEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233. 518/457-0849. Ed Griffin -Nolan, Editor Joy Squires, NYSACC President Newsletter Office NYSACC Office 168 Parkway Drive P.O. Box 1532 Syracuse, NY Huntington, NY 11743 13207 (516)368-6949 NYSACC is published three times per year. CACs are encouraged to submit press releases, general infor- mation about CAC activities, articles, artwork or photog- raphy to the editor, Ed Griffin -Nolan, 168 Parkway Drive, Syracuse, NY 13207. For additional copies of NYSACC and address changes, contact Joy Squires at the NYSACC office. Vol. 21, No.1 NYSACC wwAa NYSACC Board Members REGION I Joy Squires President 17 Clarissa Lane East Northport, NY 11731 516/368-6949 (h) 516/266-5430 (o) 516/351-3330 (fax) Carole Wilder 278 Waldo Street Copiague, NY 11726 516/842-1966 (h) 516/422-7640 (o) REGION II (vacant) REGION 111 Patricia McConnell Treasurer _ 131 Big Island Road ® Warwick, NY 10990 914/651-4555 (h) Ann Brandt 14 Evergreen Lane Woodstock, NY 12498 914/679-8328 (h) 914/679-5540 (o) Annette Kaicher 5 Seymour Place White Plains, NY 10605 914/948-6024 (h) David Enos Journey's End Road Croton, NY 10520 Margery F. Sachs Long Ridge Road RR1 Box 132 Bedford, NY 10576 914/764-5011 (h) Simon Skolnik Vice President ® 53 Greenville Road 0 Katonah, NY 10536 914/232-r91457 (h) 914/723-3767(o) 914/723-1503 (fax) Rosemary Kait McKinley 29 Marion Avenue Mount Kisco, NY 10549 914/241-8419 (h) Carl Kling 22 Annadale Street Armonk, NY 10504 914/273-9274(h) 914/273-8009(o) 914/241-1066(fax) Steven Otis 26 Lynden Street Rye, NY 10580 914/967-8152 (h) 914/921-0221 (o) REGION IV Janet Hollocher 2208 Barcelona Road Schenectady, NY 12309-5324 518/393-6502(h) REGION V (vacant) REGION VI Stacy Hammill 19 Goodrich Street Canton, NY 13617 315/386-3789 (h) Region VII Donald Duger Secretary RR1 Box 526 Jordan, NY 13080 315/689-6361 (h) 315/652-1085 (o) 315/652-1088(fax) Dorothy Stamp 6238 The Hamlet Jamesville, NY 13078 315/446-6895 (home -fax) Janet Hawkes 1401 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 607/272-1126 (h) 6 REGION VIII Ramona Barton 211 South Genesee Street Montour Falls, NY 14865 Mary Ann Gregory 50 Churchill Place Big Flats, NY 14814 607/562-8292 REGION IX Frank Bermel, Jr. 11507 Cary Road Alden, NY 14404 716/937-7324 ecrun 315/471-4953 SEND ADDRESS CORRECTIONS TO: Joy Squires (see above) SEND DUES TO: Pat McConnell (see above) 3 NYSAEMC President Lee Hanle Younge 425 Pennsylvania Elmira, NY 14904 607/734-4453 (o) 607/562-3988 (h) 7 be mailed in May. That issue will include updates on the work of Conservation Boards and Commissions throughout the state. Please send your reports, <newslet- ters, or press clippings about your work to the editor by March 31, 1995. [o NYSACC aeata Resources Service for Information on State Issues and Legislation A new information service on state issues and legisla- tion is now available to NYSACC members. NYSACC Board member Steve Otis serves as Chief of Staff and Counsel to State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer of Westchester County. Senator Oppenheimer has been a leader on environmental issues in the state legislature. Steve is Chair of the City of Rye Conservation Commis- sion. Steve and Senator Oppenheimer have offered to provide information on state issues and legislation to NYSACC. In addition to inquiries on state policies and issues, copies of legislation can also be ordered. For information, call Steve at (518) 455-2031 or (914) 921- 0221. Written inquiries can be sent to Steve Otis Senator Suzi Oppenheimer Legislative Office Building Room 515 Albany, NY 12247 RAIN network can help keep you up to date RAIN, the Rural Affairs Information Network, is a com- puter service that contains information on State and Federal grants, loans, and technical assistance programs as well as 1990 census data, recycling information, a directory of state and federal legislatures, and a legal section. Operated by the Governor's Office of Rural Affairs, it is available to anyone with a computer and modem. RAIN also features a message board so that users can communicate directly and a bulletin board where notices about hearings, meetings, and conferences are posted. To access RAIN you need a computer with modem set to 7 data bits, 1 stop bit and even parity. If your modem can handle 300, 1200, or 2400 baud, the number is 518- 486-6631. If your modem is 9,600 or 14,400 baud, call 518/473-6855. Rain is also accessible through the Internet at the following address: RAIN.HEALTH.STATE.NY.US (with thanks to Mike Cavanaugh) Wetlands Information Hotline A toll-free telephone service is now available to respond to questions about wetlands. The Environmental Protection Agency sponsors the Hotline, which operates from 9 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays. The number is 1-800-832-7828. Join the Wetlands Forum Fall 1994 Vol. 21, No.1 With the publication of its premier issue and the sponsorship of a fall conference, the New York State Wetlands Forum is now solidly launched. The Forum defines itself as "a non -advocacy organization ... whose purpose is to • improve communication among people interested in wetlands; • call attention to and objectively discuss local, statewide, regional, national, and global wetland issues as they relate to New York State; • improve its members' knowledge and understanding of wetlands, and • make information about wetlands available to members and the general public. If you are interested in becoming a member, write to P.O. Box 128, Slingerlands, NY 12159-0128. Membership dues are $25 annually. The organization's newsletter, The Forum, is seeking articles or letters on wetlands issues. The first full membership meeting will be held in March, 1995. Building Near Wetlands - The Dry Facts This very practical publication gives a plain English, no nonsense look at wetlands. Written for the general public, it is designed to help those thinking of buying or building near wetlands. It includes a step-by-step Project Planning Checklist, a Guide to Wetland Protection Laws, a glossary of relevant terms, and a county -by -county list of contacts for further information. The brochure, printed by the EPA, is available through regional DEC offices or by calling EPA directly at 212/264-5170. Ask for publication # EPA - 902 -F-93-001 Wetlands Regulation Guidebook for New York State Published by the EPA, this fifty page guidebook is designed to provide planners, developers, and the general public with an introduction to the scope and application of laws and regulations that affect wetlands in New York State. Includes a detailed look at the Clean Water Act, a discussion of alternatives to disturbing wetlands, and addresses of implementing agencies. Copies may be ordered for free by contacting EPA Region 2, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278. Call 212/264-5170. 0 • • is • NYSACC aeutz Meet Your Leadership STEVE OTIS MARGERY SACHS STEVE OTIS is now a. member of the NYSACC 91 board as well as Chair of the Conservation Advisory Coun- cil in his home town of Rye. Steve serves on the staff of Senator Suzi Oppenheimer, and in that capacity has been a valuable contactforNYSACC within the state legislature. The Rye CAC works closely with the Rye Nature Center, a 47 -acre natural area Steve Otis established in 1959. The Cen- ter contains a large wildflower garden as well as forest, field, pond and stream habitats which are the site of ongoing environmental study and education. This year the CAC has been very involved in the issue of noise generated by leaf blowers. The Commission met with all interested parties and developed a compromise proposal which Steve believes contains the strictest power blower regulation of any community in Westchester County. For a copy of "Power Blowers and the Noise Ordinance", the RYE CAC's report on this issue, contact Steve at 914- 967-8152. Letter to the Editor The 23rd Annual Conference on the Environment was a wonderful experience in the Adirondacks. I visited with old friends and met lots of new ones. The weather was terrific, the boat ride on Lake George was picture perfect and the weekend flew by. It's too bad more people couldn't attend. I was impressed with the presentations and feel I brought back to my community lots of ideas and contacts. The highlight of the weekend was the dinner with DEC Commissioner Langdon Marsh. He gave us some good directions concerning raising the funding level of the LEAP program and suggested we revisit our Natural Resource Inventories to do some updating. NYSAC Conference Coordinator Jeanette Stanziano deserves a lot of thanks for her efforts in helping us with the hotel reservations and the registration. She found the Queensbury Hotel for us which was great. Already plans are underway for next year's confer- ence. Let's encourage our two organizations to work together towards making this a successful venture. Lee Hanle Younge NYSAEMC President MARGERY SACHS has- been a part of NYSACC ever since its beginning. She has attended all but one of the organization's twenty three Annual Conferences. Speaking of her early years with the Conservation Com- mission in her home town of Pound Ridge, she recalls that "in 1968, a group of us got together on Sunday mornings and we thought we should do Margery Sachs something to protect the envi- ronment and preserve some green space. "The early projects were preservation of green space and walking trails. The Pound Ridge Land Conservancy has taken over more and more land over the years. Her home, which has been the site of a number of NYSACC meetings, borders the Mianus Gorge. Margery loves the Gorge. "I have ridden it, and walked it, and even swam in it. It's remarkable. It's 200 feet deep in some places. Just 40 miles from New York City, and you'd think you were in the Adirondacks." Margery moved to Pound Ridge back in 1933, when she and her husband bought 135 acres with two houses and three barns, as a way to escape from New York City. She has four children and 11 grandchildren and will be a great grand- mother before the year is out. She attributes her love of nature to her father, who had a particular interest in wildflowers. As for this years' conference, she thought the Wetlands presentation was the best, and plans to use the material she gathered here at her second home in Nantucket as well:. 3 M NYSAC C aeata Notice CONSERVATION BOARD MEMBERS INVITED TO FARMING CONFERENCE Farming for the Future: Partners in Stewardship will be an exciting conference on the future of farming and for working together to maintain a viable, sustainable food and agriculture system. This conference will be held at the Sheraton University Inn and Conference Center in Syracuse on February 22 and 23, 1995 Sponsors include Cornell Cooperative Extension, Soil Conservation, Northeast Regional Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Cornell Farming Alterna- tives Program, Northeast Organic Farming Association, and many others. FOR MORE INFORMATION and registration materials, contact: Department of Soil and Atmospheric Science 144 Emerson Hall College of Agriculture and Life Science Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 attn: Pam Kline 607/255-2177 Fall 1994 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 CONFERENCE DEC Staff Lead Workshops PAT REXINGER of DEC's Fresh Water Wetlands sec- tion provided a very lively and informative update on efforts to protect wetlands while at the same time reducing needless or repetitive regulatory burdens. Com- missioner Marsh, she noted, helped develop the wetlands policy for the National Governor's Association, which has now been adopted by the White House. That proposal would end duplication ofpermittingprocesses for development in wetlands. (For some great resources for public edu- cation on wetlands, see page 6). JOHN WILLSON of the Division of Solid Waste gave a progress report Pat Hexinger on the state's plans to reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover energy from solid waste. Of 25.2 million tons of solid waste generated annually, 46% is currently placed in land- fills, 23% reused,16.5% incinerated and 14% is exported out of state. Solid waste generation is still increasing, and recy- cling is booming. Recycling has grown from 3% to 23% of solid waste in just six years. The number of landfills has declined dramatically from 1,600 in 1964 to less than 90 today. Thirty four of those are under consent orders to close. The goal of the State's plan by 1997 is to reduce waste by 6-8% and to achieve a goal of 42% of waste re- cycled, for a total of 50% waste reduction over time. Revisions of SEQRA regulations were the subject Jeff Same of two presentations, one by DEC Program Coordinator JEFF SAMA, and the second by JACK NASCA, also of DEC. Sama said that the revision process has included "the most unprecedented effort we've continued WORKSHOP LEADERS page 5 9 E_ • 0 Vol. 21, No.1 MORE CONFERENCE HAPPENINGS NYSACC aeuta Special Guests and Award Winners JULIE STOKES addressed the luncheon on Saturday to speak about Urban Cultural Parks. A veteran of years of work to preserve historical sites in Saratoga, Ms. Stokes now heads the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preserva- tion. She reminded the group that good advocates must not only be righteous, but practical. GEORGE PRIOS Suffolk's Assistant County Executive, spoke to the Fri- day night dinner gathering on innovative ways to find common ground in dealing with environmental liabil- ity on contaminated lands. His suggestions included bioremediation, limiting the g, liability of banks to the mar- ket value of the contami- nated property, allowing George Prios partial development of sites while groundwater is being cleaned, and allowing DEC to exempt companies doing cleanups from future liability. George is a new member of the board of NYSAEMC. WORKSHOP LEADERS, CONTINUED ever made to provide opportunities for input into the rulemaking." When the new regulations are unveiled, DEC plans a series of forums and programs through the spring to educate the public on the changes. The changes should be effective in early 1995. In a nutshell, they involve looking at cumulative impacts, EIS scoping, additions to the list of Type II actions, the introduc- tion of conditioned negative declarations, and changing the EIS format to create flexibility and avoid repetition. Mem- bers of the audience pushed DEC to make scoping a manda- tory practice, and also asked for help in dealing with town officials who routinely issue questionable negative declara- tions. In a new twist, the awards ceremony was held at breakfast on Saturday. DOROTHY STAMP accepted an Edu- cation award for the Town of Dewitt, which constructed a Butterfly House at Ryder Park. The Conservation Com- mission in Dewitt built the 20' x 40' nylon screen structure, planted flower- ing perennials and annuals, and pur- chased butterfly larvae and chrysalis units for placement among the flowers. Dorothy Stamp Literature and educational programs ac- company the house. The entire project was completed for under $4,000. The Butterfly House will be taken down for the winter and set up again next spring. JANET HAWKES accepted a research award for the Town of Ithaca for a plan to protect the Coy Glen Biological Corridor. This unique natural area has been designated as a CEA. Protecting Coy Glen is the initial part of a plan for a greenway network providing for alternative usage and wild- life habitat preservation. Janet Hawkes Other award winners in- cluded the Town of Rhinebeck and Southold Town for special projects. Rhinebeck developed a Guide to Woody Plants Suit- able for Low Maintenance Landscaping, and Southold pioneered an "Adopt a Creek" project to restore water quality to a local creek. The Town of Colesville won an Award for Action for a Drop and Swap Day. The weekend concluded with an hour long boat tour of Lake George in splendid au- tumn sunshine. 5 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, December 1, 1994 TOWN HALLBOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. I. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of the Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Cayuga Lake Source Cooling for Cornell University Update Presented by: Robert Bland, University Environmental Engineer W. S. (Lanny) Joyce, Chill Water System Manager 8:00 p.m. 5. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Greenway Committee 8:30 p.m. 6. Conservation Board Budget: a. 1994 budget spending b. 1995 budget projections 8:50 p.m. 4. Coy Glen Report Update a. Definitions b. Comments/corrections 9:15 P.M. 7. Member Concerns CB Members: Candace Cornell Jon Meigs Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Phil Zarriello 0 • C] COPY TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, December 1, 1994 TOWN HAIL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. I. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report of the Chair 7:40 p.m. 3. Cayuga Lake Source Cooling for Cornell University Update Presented by: Robert Bland, University Environmental Engineer W. S. (Lanny) Joyce, Chill Water System Manager 8:00 p.m. 5. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Greenway Committee 8:30 p.m. 6. Conservation Board Budget: a. 1994 budget spending b. 1995 budget projections 8:50 p.m. 4. Coy Glen Report Update a. Definitions b. Comments/corrections 9:15 p.m. 7. Member Concerns CB Members: Candace Cornell Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes Eva Hoffman Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello 0 AUNUTES TOWN OF nHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Thursday, December 1, 1994 Approved June 1., 1995 PRESENT: Dick Fischer, Janet _Hawkes, Eva Hoffman, Mary Russell, Cheryl Smith, Phil Zarriello ABSENT: Candace Cornell, Jon Meigs STAFF: JoAnn Cornish GUESTS: Robert Bland,. Lanny. Joyce, and Rob. McCabe from Cornell Janet called meeting to order, at 7:32 'PM. PERSONS TO BE HEARD None. L�W 0 kN, Me I I a, I** I Elil I -MI. The discussion about greenways and stream corridors has been switched. to January meeting because of time constraints. Saturday, Dec. 3rd- is the 2nd annual Greeenway Coalition workshop on building local greenways at the AT&T cafeteria. Regular Greenway Coalition meeting is Dec. 8th. The agenda is Tompkins -County Greenway Report and draft with maps. On Dec 13th, 2nd annual biodiversity teleconference for farms and forests sponsored-. by Cornell will be held at Cooperative Extension office.. CAYUGA LAKE SOURCE COOLING PROJECT: Bob Bland, environmental engineer- and Lanny Joyce, mechanical- engineer echanicalengineer and project manager for Lake Source Cooling gave project update. Rob McCabe is staff engineer in charge of planning and design of project. Much work has been done by Cornell and consultants, in four major areas of focus: A. Engineering and economic. analysis: Lanny Joyce stated that studies have verified that Lake Source Cooling is technically possible:. Cayuga Lake temperatures: are what were expected. at NO foot depth, CB 12/1/94-1 routing from Cornell to heat exchanger facility near lake- is possible and focus is on using road rights-of-way for water pipes. Two possible sites for heat exchanger are Ithaca City School property, near football fields or marina site on -southeast shore of lake. Economics were ,never good for this project vs conventional cooling and further detailed study has not improved cost figures. Cornell is evaluating data to see cif project is still worth pursuing financially. B. Community outreach: Lanny stated that they have met with many groups, and generally met with positive feed -back and discussion. Input from groups has helped Cornell focus on concerns. Second newsletter to be mailed in ,a month or so. C. Partnership development: Cornell working with many different funding sources on state and federal level. NYSEG is., very interested in project because of lowered demand for electricity. , NYSEG wants study, to be thorough and meet their review. .State University of New York would -be 50% of peak load of chilled water system by 1998 Talked with City and. Town of Ithaca about :partnership ideas between City- and Town. Good discussions with County about possibility of marina site becoming future park with cooperative venture to improve natural area.. Project engineers trying to work with Cornell administration for a January 1995 decision. whether to continue -working on project - engineers will visit 'Conservation Board once more before final decision is, made. Member Discussion: Dick asked, which community groups were contacted. Lanny said that meetings were held with all the environmental groups and boards in the county, Rotary Club, the school district. No organized opposition was found. NYSEG interested .in long term sound planning for ,project. D. Environmentalinvestigation and assessment: Bob Bland discussed report from Stearns & Wheler:. Conservation Board will be able to review draft report in a few weeks. Lake ecology was studied with bi- weekly testing of water samples, sonar,' netting, and sediment samples, and other testing 'from 18 places in southern end of Jake. Temperature bouys were placed in three areas for continuous monitoring. Findings show temperature isacceptable for intake at 200 feet and show stratification of water temperatures but, oxygen level were good. No toxins found in sediment. Phosphorus 'levels are not enriched in lake and project would add 2% transport phosphorus to upper levels from deeper waters of lake. Fish are not down at intake depth. Micus .(fresh water shrimp) cannot swim away from intake but are not concentrated there. CB 1211/94-2 Study looked at 50 year impact to lake. Zebra and- Quaga mussels can clog • intake pipes -and mitigation plans will be developed. Thermal modeling is not complete yet. Project estimated to cost $62,000,000 and would not be cost effective for 20-30 years, but is good .use of renewable resource. Funding 'from federal sources may be possible, but probably not state funding now. SEQR review, EIS, and permits would be expensive. COMMITTEE REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW CONaffI TEE. Buttermilk Valley and South Hill Complex projects will come before Planning Board on Dec. 6. We must prepare document and make statement at meeting. Health Department states South Hill Complex sewage and runoff water will impact City of Ithaca and Six Mile Creek. Ithacare, Digicomp, and other projects will also have long term impact. Buttermilk Valley changed their site plan and eliminated buffer zone and have lots on wetland, plus parkland dedication now has a ravine. Land adjoins state park and 20 acres will be dedicated to state park. Owner may propose only a. 15 lot development to Planning Board to avoid an EIS. Site visits scheduled at EcoVillage for later this month. • ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS' CONE\U . Phil spoke with Jon about internship for Cornell student. Jon will contact Cornell Natural Resources Department.. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CONEM=E: Had meeting with JoAnn and George and received draft of inventory of existing parks and open space in County and Town, etc. Mary raised concerns about section of South Hill Trail being covered with large gravel which makes it unusable ' for horses and bikes. This needs to be fixed and future guidelines for trail surfaces should be developed. MEMBER DISCUSSION: Budget: Approximately $500- remains, of original $2,000 from Town and will revert to general fund unless spent. Decided after discussion to use money for library resource books. Budget projection for next year is $2,000 from Town. Proposed budget was unanimously approved. CB members should think about projects and activities for 1995. Staff and intern time next year will be needed for Environmental Atlas and Critical Environmental Area Study. Next meeting time must be spent on plan of • work for 1995 with budget guidelines. CB 12/1/94-3 Janet requested regular meeting on January 5th and special meeting on January 19th for update of Lake Source Cooling Project. Cornell report should be ' reviewed by members before this. Also need to discuss access to lake through Noah's Boatyard property and .possibly John Whitcomb could discuss this with us. Cornell may purchase this property for .pump station and sell back rest of property for parkland. At January 5th meeting, we need to draft resolution. to Town to adopt water course protection and buffer zone ordinance. COY GLEN REPORT:. Editorial comments on draft report and definitions of greenway and biological corridors; etc., were discussed. Draft report is a working document which may need changes.. It was recognized- that there is a need for a shorter, more concise document to use with landowners and others. JoAnn has begun a list of environmental terms that will need definitions. Phil raised concept of defining categories of greenways,, biological corridors, etc., instead of one inclusive definition. Janet stated that statewide, the term greenway is becoming known as a recreation or economic development area and a new defining word for our concept of greenway may be needed. Considerable discussion centered on biological, corridor size; shape, habitat improvement, etc. Editorial changes and definitions were, tableduntil next meeting. Written comments to be forwarded to Janet or Candace. 7. Members Concerns: . Dick Fischer recommended "Voices from Connecticut Hili, a book about the students who did the grouse studies on. Connecticut Hill from 1930-1942. He was part of a team that recently completed editing this book. Discussion of letter to Town Board concerning making general purpose land near, Eastern Heights Park part of the park. Final draft Ok'd to be sent to John Whitcomb and Town Board. Janet stated new minutes secretary is needed as soon as possible to clear backlog and .continue -in future. Meeting adjourned. 0 CB' 12/1/94-4 TOWN OF ITHACAo 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA N.Y. 14850 • TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 May 12, 1995 Susan Miller NYS Dept. of Env:.ronmental Conservation Region 7 Office 615 Erie Boulevard west Syracuse, New York 13204-2400 RE: ANNUAL REPORT Dear Ms. Miller: Please accept my apologies for sending this report late! The Town of Ithaca's Conservation Board has had a productive New York State fiscal year 1994-1995. Below is a brief summary of our most notable achievements and current projects. Currently, our Conservation Board has eight members. During the past year, the Conservation Board made a concerted effort to improve our conservation leadership skills and attract new membership. Members attend meetings and conferences on wetlands, environmental law, greenways, improving water quality, and creative conservation land -use regulations. Members attended the annual organizational meeting of the Tompkins County CRCs and Environmental Management Council .as well as the annual meeting of the New York State Association of Conservation Councils last October. These meetings were productive opportunities to review projects and exchange ideas with other conservation groups. Additionally, the Conservation Board continued it's efforts in the area of public education and outreach through media publicity, Public information, and by hosting an Earth Day Event in which members of the 'Conservation Board provided walking tours of the Town's South Hili Recreation way. The Environmental Review Committee studied appropriate buffer strip widths along the Town's streams and is currently developing other recommendations for stream corridor protection for the Town. The Environmental Review Committee also evaluated and gave guidance on numerous proposals before the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Board. 190 Susan Miller, NYS DEC -Page 2 - April 25, 1995 The Coy Glen Biological Corridor Report, developed by the Conservation Board in 1994, has proven to be an important conservation tool for the Town. The Conservation Board won the Education Award for this report at the 1994 Annual NYSACC meeting. This report has set the stage for preserving a Cr=tical Environmental Area in the Town. Additionally, in Julv 1994, the Conservation Board drafted a resolution tc the Town Board recommending that the 26 Unique Natural Areas within the :'own. of Ithaca be designatad as Crit_cal Environmental Areas ;Or the purpose of evaluating the level of environmental review for Proposed development projects in and around these areas. The Town's Engineering and Planning Departments, in partnership with the Conservation Board, have begun an Environmental Atlas project. The Atlas concept, originally suggested by the Conservation Board to the Town Board three years ago, is now a high priority project for the Town. The Conservation Board will assist in determining environmental attributes andf:eld verifications for the Atlas. A Cornell University graduate student intern, working with the Punning Department, has begun mapping using the Town's AutoCAD System, and is currently preparing a GIS needs assessment survey for various Departments within the Tcwn. The Conservation Board participated in, and advised on, discussions for the proposed Lake Source Cooling Proposal for Cornell University. The Conservation Board along with the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff has been writing an updated Parks, Recreation and open Space Plan. This Plan will help in the planning for future open space and parks in the Town. The recently approved Comprehensive Plan highlighted concerns about open space conservation, water quality, adequate park and recreation facilities, and other environmental protection issues. As we strive to implement the Comprehensive Plan in the coming Years, the Town Board will rely on the Conservation Board to offer workable solutions to many of these problems. SinceWly, yours, Ja a Hawk6s, Chair; Town oi Ithaca Conservation Board OF IT� c(DPf TOWN OF ITHACA o 1 126 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 Town Board Meeting 6/12/95 Agenda Item No. 9b Conservation Board 1994 Annual Report Resolution No. 98 WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has presented its 1994 Annual Report to the Town Board for their review; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed and discussed the said Conservation Board 1994 Annual Report; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby commend the members of the Conservation Board for their commitment and dedication to the Town of Ithaca as evidenced in the said report; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby accept and approve for permanent filing by the Town Clerk the Conservation Board.1994 Annual Report.* MOVED: Councilman Niklas SECONDED: Councilwoman Harrison Supervisor Whitcomb, aye; Councilwoman.•VAlentino, aye; Councilman Niklas, aye; Councilman Klein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye. Carried. unanimously. DATED: June 12, 1995 Joan Lent Noteboom, Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA OPY ¢� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 41�r is TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Town Board Meeting 6/12/95 Agenda_Item No. 9b Conservation Board 1994 Annual Report Resolution No. 98 WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has presented its 1994 Annual Report to the Town Board for their review; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed and discussed the said Conservation Board 1994 Annual Report; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby commend the members of the Conservation Board for their commitment and dedication to the Town of Ithaca as evidenced in the said report; and be it further RESOLVED, that. the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby accept and approve for permanent.filing by the Town Clerk the Conservation Board 1994 Annual Report.' 'MOVED: Councilman Niklas SECONDED: Councilwoman Harrison Supervisor Whitcomb, aye; Councilwoman. -Valentino,' aye; Councilman Niklas, aye; Councilman Klein, aye;- Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilwoman Harrison, aye; Councilman Conley, aye. Carried unanimously. DATED: June 12, 1995 Joan Lent Noteboom, Town Clerk