No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB Minutes 1995TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, January 5, 1995 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. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Election of CB Chair for this meeting 7:40 p.m. 3. Nomination and election of officers for Conservation Board for 1995 7:50 p.m. 4. Nominating Committee for new members 8:00 p.m. 5. Town of Ithaca "Reuse Events" discussion 8:15 p.m. 6. 1995 CB Plan of Work -� 8:55 p.m. 7. 1995 Meeting Schedule discussion and approval 9:00 P.M. 8. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 9:15 p.m. 9. , Member Concerns CB Members: Candace Cornell Jon Meigs Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Phil Zarriello r'0 —!NAL DRAFT MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD January 5, 1995 PRESENT: Janet Hawkes, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs, Phil Zarriello Jonathan Kanter, JoAnn Cornish y I - Janet Hawkes called the meeting of the Conservation Board to order at 7:35. 1. There were no persons to be heard. 2. The first order of business was to elect a chairperson for the meeting, pro tem, until a new chairperson has been elected and approved by the Town Board. Richard Fischer moved that Janet Hawkes be chair for the January 5 meeting, Cheryl Smith seconded, vote was unanimous for Janet Hawkes. 3. Nomination and election of officers for the Conservation Board for 1995: Richard Fischer nominated Janet Hawkes for chairnded by Jon and vote was unanimous in favor of Janet Richard nominated lit Russe for vice chair, Phil Zarriello seconded. No vote was taken as Mary was absent from the meeting and could not accept the nomination. 4. Nominating Committee for New Members: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, informed the Board that there are two openings on the Conservation Board, stating that Candace Cornell, due to personal reasons, was willing to become an associate member (non-voting member). Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith and Janet Hawkes agreed to serve on the Nominating Committee for new members. 5. Town of Ithaca "Reuse Events": Janet read a memo from the Tompkins County Solid Wiste Division. The County is asking various groups to sponsor an area reuse event for recycling of trash. The County is willing to show support with a master calendar of events. The County may also be willing to provide funds for the event but not for pickup of left over trash. Money is available for the cleaning up of illegal dumping provided the illegal dump is certified as such. Some examples of reuse events are: Community Yard Sale, Swap Meets, Designating a weekend as a "Put Your Trash On the Curb Weekend". This could be a City/Town/County partnership event where everyone is invited to participate. Residents could put their trash on the curb for others to take and when the weekend was over, residents would be responsible for taking their trash back in. Richard Fischer asked what the stated aim of such an event would be. Janet responded by saying the aim is to reduce waste. Jon Meigs asked who would'i�un such an event. Phil suggested an article in the Town Newsletter to promote neighborhood reuse events. Jonathan brought up the liability issue saying that many Committee Reports con't. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: Nothing to report. Parks and Open Space Committee: Janet reported that the draft inventory was nearly completed and that the committee would be meeting on January 12. A February 28th deadline for completion of the report is planned. 9. Member Concerns: Phil brought up the Coy `Glen Biological Corridor Plan saying that he felt the report should be scaled down. That there is too much redundancy. He asked what the purpose of the report is, who is the targeted audience? Phil also thought there should be better working maps in the report. Janet said since Candace worked on much of the report, she would like to have her input during the discussions. It was suggested since she is house bound, perhaps we could comment and she could do the rewrites. Janet suggested we continue this discussion at the February 2 meeting. 10. Meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. DRAFT TO: CONSERVATION:BOARD:'•. JANET'HAWKES, Chair CANDACE CORNELL, Vice Chair RICHARD FISCHER EVA HOFFMANN JONATHAN MEIGS MARY RUSSELL CHERYL SMITH PHILLIP ZARRIELLO FROM: JON KANTER, TOWN PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSERVATION BOARD 1995 SCHEDULE DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1994 The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board will meet at_7:30 p.m., on the first and third Thursday of the month in the Board Room at Town Hall. *INDICATES ADDITIONAL MEETING SCHEDULED ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS. THE 1995 SCHEDULE IS AS -FOLLOWS: January 5 and January 19* February 2 -and February 16* ..March. 2 .and 'March 16* April 6 and April 20* May 4 and May 18* June 1 and June 15* July 6 and July 20* August 3 and August 17* September 7 and September 21* October 5 and October 19* November.2 and November 16* December 7 and December 21* COUSSCM DRAFT MINUTES • TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD January 5, 1995 PRESENT: Janet Hawkes, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs, Phil Zarriello Jonathan Kanter, JoAnn Cornish Janet Hawkes called the meeting of the Conservation Board to order at 7:35. 1. There were no persons to be heard. 2. The first order of business was to elect a chairperson for the meeting, pro tem, until a new chairperson has been elected and approved by the Town Board. Richard Fischer moved that Janet Hawkes be chair for the January 5 meeting, Cheryl Smith seconded, vote was unanimous for Janet Hawkes. 3. Nomination and election of officers for the Conservation Board for 1995: Richard Fischer nominated Janet Hawkes for chair onded by Jon and vote was unanimous in favor of Janet. Richard nominated Russe for vice chair, Phil Zarriello seconded. No vote was taken as Mary was absent from the meeting and • could not accept the nomination. 4. Nominating Committee for New Members: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, informed the Board that there are two openings on the Conservation Board, stating that Candace Cornell, due to personal reasons, was willing to become an associate member (non-voting member). Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith and Janet Hawkes agreed to serve on the Nominating Committee for new members. 5. Town of Ithaca "Reuse Events": Janet read a memo from the Tompkins County Solid Waste Division. The County is asking various groups to sponsor an area reuse event for recycling of trash. The County is willing to show support with a master calendar of events. The County may also be willing to provide funds for the event but not for pickup of left over trash. Money is available for the cleaning up of illegal dumping provided the illegal dump is certified as such. Some examples of reuse events are: Community Yard Sale, Swap Meets, Designating a weekend as a "Put Your Trash On -the Curb Weekend". This could be a City/Town/County partnership event where everyone is invited to participate. Residents could put their trash on the curb for others to take and when the weekend was over, residents would be responsible for taking their trash back in. Richard Fischer asked what the stated aim of such an event would be. Janet responded by saying the aim is to reduce waste. Jon Meigs asked who would run such an event. Phil suggested an article in the Town Newsletter to promote neighborhood reuse events. Jonathan brought up the liability issue saying that many L of the Town and County roads do not have wide shoulders and that if cars are constantly stopping to look at trash, this may cause an accident. Jonathan will check with John Barney on this issue. The idea was brought up that if the County will supply funds for cleaning up illegal dumps, perhaps the Conservation Board could sponsor an illegal dump cleanup. Janet suggested that an event could take place as part of the 25th Anniversary of Earth Day. 6. 1995 Conservation Board Plan of Work: Janet read the 1994 Conservation Board Plan of Work for the Board which included: A Greenways Report, Working on an Environmental Atlas, Tax Assessments for Conservation Easements and a Storm Water Management Ordinance, UNA's as Critical Environmental Areas, The creation of Stream Buffer Zones and the Coy Glen Biological Corridor. Janet stated that the 1995 Proposed Plan of Work might include: Continued work on the Greenways through the Parks and Open Space Report, Continue work on the Environmental Atlas. (Phil suggested that for this we need to establish a work plan to include a what, how and when schedule since this is such a long term project.) Continue work on Stream Buffer Zones and a Storm Water Management Ordinance. At this point Cheryl Smith stated that the CB always seems to be searching for projects to which Janet replied that many of the CB's projects are long term and that perhaps some short tenr► projects may be a good idea. Cheryl stated that she would like to focus on some short term, manageable projects, perhaps a field project such as planting a tree or counting birds, something to show the public that the CB actually is doing things. Maybe youth groups could be involved. It was suggested that Rich Schoch be contacted for ideas. Janet suggested that something be done in conjunction with the Celebrate Cayuga Lake event in July. Other ideas included: Citizen monitoring of streams, identifying non -point source pollution, Work on the South Hill Trail, Identifying Viewsheds, UNA field checks to gather botanical or biological information, assist in the Park inventory, Communicate and educate the public with regards to the SEQR process, Create a Town wetland ordinance and guidelines. Janet also suggested that there be a South Hill Recreation Way Event. Phil suggested that we conduct a View Shed Photo Contest and advertise it in the Town Newsletter. Discussion on this topic will be ongoing. 7. 1995 Meeting Schedule - Discussion and Approval: The meeting schedule was approved as presented for 1995, no discussion. 8. . Committee Reports: Environmental Review Committee: Jon Meigs reported that the ERC had commented on Buttermilk Valley Estates and South Hill Complex at the December Board meeting. 'a ' jp • Committee Reports con't. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: Nothing to report. Parks and Open Space Committee: Janet reported that the draft inventory was nearly completed and that the committee would be meeting on January 12. A February 28th deadline for completion of the report is planned. 9. Member Concerns: Phil brought up the Coy Glen Biological Corridor Plan saying that he felt the report should be scaled down. That there is too much redundancy. He asked what the purpose of the report is, who is the targeted audience? Phil also thought there should be better working maps in the report. Janet said since Candace worked on much of the report, she would like to have her input during the discussions. It was suggested since she is house bound, perhaps we could comment and she could do the rewrites. Janet suggested we continue this discussion at the February 2 meeting. 10. Meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. is 0 Dear Mr. Whitcomb: %Te are writing to ask if your municipality would be interested in sponsoring a community -wide reuse event, such as a garage or yard sale, a rummage sale or curbside set -out event, next spring, summer or fall. As you know, garage sales are wonderful opportunities for finding treasures at bargain prices or even for free. These functions have the added benefit of reducing waste by extending the life of household goods. There are many Opti, p ions for holding community garage/yard sales or reuse days. They could be done on a neighborhood, village, or town -wide basis. Events could also be held in a central location, where residents could bring in items" to sell, give away, or trade. The event could be used as a fund-raiser for your fire department or • for a special project in your community, such as a day-care center or youth program, or held in conjunction with a chicken barbecue or festival to attract more people. Would you consider presenting this proposal to your local community to see if there is support for a reuse event? Enclosed is a brief description of some possible reuse events. You may know of a community organization or group than might be interested in trying one of these ideas. Your "community may already sponsor such an event, or have additional reuse ideas. If so, we would very much like to hear about them; we could put your event in a master calendar for next year. If a reuse event interests you, the Solid Waste Management Division would like to offer you assistance with planning and promotion. Please call Lynn Leopold at 273- 6632 or 273-5700 to discuss this further. Spring is not far away! Sincerely, Lct�t,� Ly Leopold ?udy�o?s Recycling Specialist Solid Waste Advisory Committee Waste Reduction Committee Chair encl. cc: Tom Todd, Chair, Solid Waste Disposal Committee Barbara Eckstrom, Solid Waste Manager Tom Richardson, Recycling Supervisor �s ��� Recycled paper TOMPKINS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEC 21994 �\ DEC �- 6 1994 r P .�,: ,! -- -�C- SOLLD'WASTE �DIV.ISION TtM ,1 OF , r PLANNiiVG ZONING, ENGINEERING , 3,122'CommryerCtal Avenue } Itha 'a" BARBARA A. ECKSTROM Telephone (607)`273 6632 SOLID WASTE MANAGER �\ L John Whitcomb, Town SupervisorM." " December 1, 1994 Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Whitcomb: %Te are writing to ask if your municipality would be interested in sponsoring a community -wide reuse event, such as a garage or yard sale, a rummage sale or curbside set -out event, next spring, summer or fall. As you know, garage sales are wonderful opportunities for finding treasures at bargain prices or even for free. These functions have the added benefit of reducing waste by extending the life of household goods. There are many Opti, p ions for holding community garage/yard sales or reuse days. They could be done on a neighborhood, village, or town -wide basis. Events could also be held in a central location, where residents could bring in items" to sell, give away, or trade. The event could be used as a fund-raiser for your fire department or • for a special project in your community, such as a day-care center or youth program, or held in conjunction with a chicken barbecue or festival to attract more people. Would you consider presenting this proposal to your local community to see if there is support for a reuse event? Enclosed is a brief description of some possible reuse events. You may know of a community organization or group than might be interested in trying one of these ideas. Your "community may already sponsor such an event, or have additional reuse ideas. If so, we would very much like to hear about them; we could put your event in a master calendar for next year. If a reuse event interests you, the Solid Waste Management Division would like to offer you assistance with planning and promotion. Please call Lynn Leopold at 273- 6632 or 273-5700 to discuss this further. Spring is not far away! Sincerely, Lct�t,� Ly Leopold ?udy�o?s Recycling Specialist Solid Waste Advisory Committee Waste Reduction Committee Chair encl. cc: Tom Todd, Chair, Solid Waste Disposal Committee Barbara Eckstrom, Solid Waste Manager Tom Richardson, Recycling Supervisor �s ��� Recycled paper Possible Reuse Event Ideas • 1. Curbside A.B.C. (Attic -Basement -Closet) Reuse Days: Residents could be encouraged to place free, reusable items near the curb for a specified period of tirne, such as over a weekend, after which time all unclaimed items would be brought back in from the curb. This activity would be much like the past clean- up days, where people drive the streets, collecting useful items that were left at the curb, but there would be no clean-up collection after the reuse period was over. It would be important to coordinate the scheduling among the participating municipalities to avoid overlapping. For example, the City of Ithaca could designate a different ward per weekend until all wards were covered, or the Town of Ithaca could do the west and east sides of the lake on different weekends, but not on the same weekend as, say, the Town of Lansing. 2. Centrally Located Community Yard Sale, Rummage Sale or Reuse Meet: A yard sale or reuse meet could be held in a central or other convenient location. such as a fair grounds, large parking lot, or warehouse. The event could be run by a municipal government, a civic organization or a not-for-profit group who could charge a nominal entry fee for people to come in and drop things off as well as take things away. Items also could be given away for free. Entry fees could help cover the cost of disposing of any residual material at the end of the event and could raise money for a playground, a park or other community resource. Such an event could become an annual affair, perhaps held in conjunction with a local fair/festival, chicken barbecue, or other fund-raiser. A reuse meet would make it possible for limited income residents to participate; for the cost of an entry fee, they could come in and take away quantities of goods. 3. Community Yard Sales. Towns, villages, and the City of Ithaca, could help promote yard sale days that would concentrate the sales on a particular weekend in each municipality. This would allow residents and browsers to maximize their sales and purchase opportunities within one geographic area. People holding yard sales, especially those who live off the main highways and roads, would be encouraged to use readable signage. People living on side roads should put signs at their nearest main intersections that indicate the location of their sales. With enough lead time, it might be possible to collect a nominal sum from each of the families holding yard or garage sales to pay for a classified ad in the local papers. The community could hand out a map with a list of all garage sale addresses at some specified convenient location and could publicize the event through its existing community newsletter. As with all community -wide events, it would be important to coordinate the event with those of other communities to reduce overlapping. 4. Collection of Nou-Curbside Recyclable Materials: A municipality or civic organization could sponsor a town or village -wide recycling collection in which people bring in targeted recyclable items, such as scrap metal or white goods • (appliances). The municipality could contract with a local hauler or trucker to TCSWMD Reuse Event Ideas December 1, 1994 Lake the items away to a Scrap yard w1here they could be paid for the materials. Collecting G1U refrigerators and freezers S V V V Li1lA it.Ul some expense LV capture the i i2Gii'F or the municipality could collect only stoves, water heaters, washers, dryers and t1he like. This 11 Ligi Lt provide al. L incentive to clean up some Gi the unsightly "JurLlk" that has become a problem in rural areas. liroino ion and Planning Coinmunity yard SaleEo rummage sales, reuse meets or c it Vjide reuse days could be promoted in the local. media to encourage participation, with an emphasis on reuse. The Tompkins County- Solid Waste Management Division Will help, coordinate events a111G1 Lg different m Ul Licipali ties by contacting and working with itl i local. community 11 l.y grGujJS, individuals and L1LC JV11LA Waste i"li.LvlsGly Committee. Stall V111 assist with sC1Cdull-1g Q1A tlGlo Lio lL1«VUg1h press releases, posters, lGSS1Vl y talllk shows, alLt`7A newsletter articles and is developing a reuse event master calendar or 1995'th t-�....ul be 1..1:,,1 a the 1V1 17 J L1lGll would VC �.JU V11011eU ill the press. v TCS NID Reuse Event idea, Deee ::ber 1,19'4 J TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, January 19, 1995 TOWN HALL 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. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Reports from Chair, Planning Staff and Committees 7:45 p.m. 3. 1995 Plan of Work Priorities 8:00 P.M. 4. Cayuga Lake Source Cooling for Cornell University Report and Discussion Guests: Robert Bland, University Environmental Engineer W. S. (Lanny) Joyce, Chill Water System Manager 9:15 p.m. 5. Member Concerns CB Members: Candace Cornell Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes, Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello � MINUTES CB TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Thursday, January 19, 1995 Approved 05/02/96 PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Eva Hoffmann, Jonathan Meigs, Phillip Zarriello. ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Candace Cornell, Cheryl Smith. GUESTS: JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), Lanny Joyce, Steve Little, Rob McCabe, Dr. Liz Moran. Chairperson Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 1. PERSONS TO BE HEARD. None. 2. Ongoing. Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project. Lanny Joyce introduced Dr. Liz Moran of Stearns and Wheler. Cornell is continuing to work with the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, State University Construction Fund, DEC, and others. Cornell has taken a harder look at costs of Lake Source Cooling. Stearns and Wheler has finished a Draft Report of Environmental Impact. Dr. Moran of Stearns and Wheler presented information on the following issues: * Effects of intake in hypolimnion to outfall in epilimnion including thermal effects, water chemistry, and biological effects, * Concerns about recirculation of deep water to the surface, * Short term impacts during construction including sediment bed disruption, * Optimum location for intake and outfall since temperatures in Cayuga Lake fluctuate. The outfall would be constant at 50 degrees F and the intake would be constant at 40 degrees F, * Thermal Effects: The lake temperature would be virtually unaffected; there would be no change in water patterns and no change in ice thickness, * Water Chemistry: Prior to testing, it was expected that there would be subtle differences in deep vs. shallow water with regard to phosphorous concentration. Tests revealed no significant differences in top and bottom water. Cornell will continue to monitor phosphorous levels, 0 - Conservation Board Minutes 2 January 19, 1995 * Biological Effects: Not harmful for organisms. Fish do no stay down at depth of intake (200 feet). Mysis relicta (Cayuga Lake shrimp) live in the hypolimnia and are food for lake trout. Of special concern is the fact that Mysids migrate vertically at night. During the day they stay at about 200 feet. Alight source on the intake may be a possible mitigation measure. This may attract some invertebrates so on going monitoring is a possibility. Mysids migrate up according to moonlight and water clarity. * Cornell will need to do further study and develop a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for these concerns. 3. Conservation Board questions and discussion: Concern was raised that the cell size of the model is too coarse. There is a mathematical instability with a cell size that large. There are problems with the statement about ice formation. Will the effluent in the summer cause cold water plumes and have an effect on recreation? Cornell will need more intense studies for a DEIS if project moves forward. May be able to compare fish mortality rate with Bolton Point and Millikin Station. Fish tend to like the corners of the lake, not the middle. The intake will be screened. What type of screen will be used and how will it be maintained at that depth? Ultrasonic, chemical, and electrical methods are being looked into to discourage zebra mussels and fish. Possible solutions could be: slippery pipe, over -designing the system, mechanical cleaning, and chemical cleaning. Most systems use chemical cleaning (chlorine) Cornell is trying to stay away from this, but may have to resort to it. Intermittent chemical shocking is the most common method. A main concern is quaga and zebra mussels. Design strategies such as coated pipes, reduced number of square corners, etc., would reduce the use of chemical biocidal agents. Millikin Station is not required to monitor effects of thermal impact. It has been said that fishing has improved. Next step is trying to determine if project is feasible, economically affordable, and in scale with new construction planned at Cornell University. More than 50a of the energy load at Cornell goes into 12 buildings. Cornell University is considering reducing the project by as much as half. There is $10 Million in fixed costs that would not change with project size. Cornell needs to know whether the community supports this project. The Conservation Board will write a letter of support for the project and review the Draft Environment and Assessment Plan for the Lake Source Cooling Project. k Conservation Board Minutes 3 January 19, 1995 4. Plan of Work: Conservation Board Members and planning staff reviewed the draft prioritized plan of work for the Planning Department. The UNA and Critical Environmental Areas will be included as a priority. Also to be added are the Baldwin Trail, environmental audits by Cornell of Noah's Boatyard, public access to the lake, and Coy Glen protection. 5. Committee Reports: Environmental Review Committee - deadline for Wal-Mart comments is March 10, 1995. Public Hearings in late February. South Hill Complex drainage plan was reviewed by ERC. The ERC commented on Eco Village. Their major concerns were impacts on Coy Glen and drainage issues, including a buffer zone around the wetland. Their comments were reviewed by the Planning Board. The ERC will have an opportunity to comment on Eco Village again during Site Plan review. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee - No Report. Parks and Open Space Committee - Work in continuing on the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Report expected at end of February. 6. Members Concerns. - None. Adjournment. Upon MOTION, Chairperson Hawkes declared the January 19, 1995, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board duly adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 5/3/96.srh Philli iello, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. Date: January, 12, 1994 To: Conservation Board Members From: Janet E. Hawkes Re: Conservation Board Meeting January 5, 1994 7:30pm Town Hall Enclosed is the agenda for the January 19th meeting. As you will notice, there are two main activities for the evening. The first being the creation of a Plan of Work for 1995. Prior to the meeting, please prioritize the ideas for activities (see enclosure) generated at the January 5th meeting. Indicate priority 1, 2, or 3 for each of the short-term items (1 = highest priority). I apologize if I inadvertently left out any ideas that were mentioned at that meeting. At this time, feel free to add any others activities that you would like to have considered. The second main agenda item is to have a dialogue with Cornell University engineers regarding the results of their study of Lake Source Cooling. Enclosed is a copy of the Executive Summary of the results to date. Please read this over before the meeting and jot down any questions or concerns you may have. I look forward to working with you this year and serving as Chair of the Conservation Board. I appreciate your support. Please call me at 272-1126 if you cannot attend the meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cornell has used a central chilled water system based on electrically -driven chillers for the past thirty years to meet campus air conditioning and dehumidification needs. Recent federal air quality legislation phasing out the use of chloroflurocarbons, coupled with the growth in demand for cooling of campus facilities, has created an opportunity for Cornell to examine alternate approaches to cooling. The university is currently exploring the feasibility of using the deep cold waters of Cayuga Lake in a process termed Lake Source Cooling (LSC). This report focuses on one aspect of the feasibility analysis for LSC, the potential effects on the ecology of Cayuga Lake. A project team including staff from Cornell's Utilities Department and Environmental Compliance Office, and scientists and engineers from Stearns & Wheler designed a monitoring program to evaluate the potential impacts of the LSC project on the thermal structure, chemical composition, and biological communities of Cayuga Lake. Findings of the 1994 program will be used to compile data sets necessary to file applicable permits, and scope the Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) if the project continues to appear viable. A comprehensive monitoring program was initiated on June 7, 1994. The 1994 monitoring program was designed to provide information regarding the potential impact of LSC on the ecology of Cayuga Lake. We are able to draw several conclusions based on the results to date: • Short-term construction activities would affect the turbidity and aquatic habitat of Cayuga Lake. However, these impacts are temporary, and would not have long-term detrimental effects on the lake's physical, chemical, or biological nature. Mitigating measures, such as timing of construction activities to avoid spawning periods and use of physical barriers during construction, could help reduce adverse impacts. The Cayuga Lake sediments sampled during the 1994 program do not contain elevated concentrations of contaminants. Disturbing these sediments and removing them from the lake bed is not expected to cause the release of chemicals into the lake. Additional analyses of sediments along the pipeline route is recommended to confirm. this finding. • The relative magnitude of potential thermal changes caused by the LSC can be estimated by comparison of this project with other heat sources. The amount of heat that ES -1 would be added to Cayuga Lake from the LSC project through the 50 year planning horizon is less than 9 percent of the current heat input from the NYSEG Milliken Station. Less than one percent of the hypolimnion volume would be circulated through the LSC facility on an annual basis. A detailed longitudinal and vertical hydrodynamic and transport model, CE -QUAL -W2, has been used to simulate the time -varying vertical temperature distribution in the lake with and without the Lake Source Cooling project. The model results to date indicate that the hypolimnetic withdrawal and shallow discharge will have only small, transient impacts on the temperature structure of the lake. These temperature effects are only discernible in water segments close to the southern lake basin. No changes in Cayuga Lake's period of thermal stratification or duration and thickness of ice cover are projected. • The major potential impact on Cayuga Lake water chemistry would result from internal cycling of hypolimnetic water into the epilimnion. The water chemistry data collected to date indicate that recirculation of the hypolimnetic water to the epilimnion would not have adverse impacts on the Cayuga Lake ecosystem. There are only minor differences in concentrations of monitored chemicals between the upper and lower waters. The relative contribution of phosphorus from internal recycling is small as compared to external point and nonpoint sources. • The biotic impacts of the LSC are projected to be minimal, and would not affect the environmental viability of the project. A shift in phytoplankton and zooplankton species assemblage to those with optimal growth at 50° is likely in the region of the outfall. Macrophyte populations are characterized by large variation between years. Biological factors such as competition and natural predators are likely to mask any subtle changes due to LSC. Zooplankton in the immediate vicinity of the plant intake would be entrained (drawn into the system) and experience mortality due to physical damage. Investigations of the magnitude of this impact from existing power plants have concluded that there is no impact on lakewide populations. The potential for entrainment of the hypolimnetic crustacean Mysis relicta by an LSC intake was examined. Mysids are an important food of juvenile lake trout. The 1994 results indicate that Cayuga Lake mysids are sensitive to very low levels of light. At water depths shallower than approximately 70 meters, the zooplankton spends daylight ES -2 hours on the lake bottom. At night, mysids migrate upwards to depths between approximately 10 and 50m, depending on light and temperature. An intake structure at 60m oriented away from the bottom sediments would, therefore, be unlikely to entrain large numbers of mysids. The LSC could potentially affect Cayuga Lake's deep water fishery in the intake region and littoral fishery in the outfall region. The deep water community during the summer stratification period is not vulnerable to entrainment and impingement. Alewife and smelt, however, could be in the region of the intake during the winter, but the low LSC intake velocity during winter (0.05 ft per second) makes entrainment of fish unlikely. In the region of the proposed outfall, there is a potential for an increase in fish production, due to the temperature of the discharge water. In 1994, zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha were found in southern Cayuga Lake. The LSC project therefore must plan for the presence of this exotic bivalve, and the closely related quagga mussel, Dreissena bugensis. The engineering design of the LSC facility could incorporate mitigating measures to plan for these biofouling organisms. Design strategies such as reduction in the number of square corners, use of coated pipes, and analysis of water velocities through the system to predict places at which mussels could settle would be useful. The LSC pipelines could be designed with additional capacity to accommodate some colonization by mussels. The use of chemical biocidal agents to control mussels could be reduced by incorporating these design elements. We conclude from the results to date that there are no significant adverse impacts on the Cayuga Lake ecosystem associated with the Lake Source Cooling concept that could not be adequately mitigated. Detailed analysis of thermal impacts proposed for a later phase of this investigation would provide additional guidance regarding the near -field impacts associated with the outfall plume. Further sampling and analysis of the distribution and density of mysids is recommended. ES -3 1-1 7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. 7:45 p.m. 7:55 p. m. 8:10 p.m. 8:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, February 2, 1995 TOWN HALL BOARDROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9:15 p.m. 7. CB Members: Candace Cornell Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes, Chair Eva Hoffman Persons To Be Heard Report from Chair Report from Planning Staff Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 1995 Plan of Work Priorities Old Business -Coy Glen Report -CU Lake Source Cooling -WalMart DEIS -Earthday Activities -Others Member Concerns Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello • CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA FEBRUARY 2,1995 7:30 P.M. ADOPTED: MAY 2.1996 PRESENT: Janet Hawkes, Chair; Eva Hoffmann, Cheryl Smith, Mary Russell. ABSENT: Candace Cornell, Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Phil Zarriello. GUESTS: JoAnn Cornish, Planner II; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Loren Tauer. Chair Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 1. Persons to be heard: None. 2. Report from Chair: Chair Hawkes - I went through the Personnel Department here in the Town and found a secretary, Joan Lawrence, who is a secretary at the Cascadilla School. Ms. Lawrence will be doing our minutes, and hopefully she will get us caught up on the back meeting minutes. I have some information on a conference sponsored by the Farmers Alternatives Program called Farming for the Future, and one of the target groups of the conference is for Planners, Environmentalists, and Boards like ours. The key -note speaker is Greg Watson who is now the Regional Director of the Nature Conservative, but he was the Massachusetts Commissioner for Food and Agriculture. The conference is February 22 and 23 in Syracuse, and some of the sections the Board might be interested in are Holistic Resource Management, Incorporating Water Quality, and Economic and Environmental Impacts of Intensive Grazing. This would be looking at the Environmental Impact of Farming and having an open dialogue on that. There will be a conference on Wetlands 1995 in April, by the New York State Wetlands Forum. Since this is on our plan of work by developing a Wetland Protection Ordinance, I suggest this would be an interesting conference for some of the Board Members to attend. There will be a conference on Western New York Storm Water Management Conference and Trade Show on February 16, and this is focused on storm water erosion control and non -point source pollution. At the last meeting, I handed out information about the Endangered Species Act which is up for re - approval this year, and there was a Public Hearing on changes for that legislation. When more information is available I will present it to the Board. 03. Report from Planning Staff. C: CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 2, 1995 ADOPTED 5/2/96 Jonathan Kanter - Wal-Mart has a Public Hearing with the City on February 27, at the Women's Community Building. Comments are due on March 10 for the Environmental Impact Statement. I mentioned this to the Town Board and proposed, in terms of a Planning Staff review, that we would do a review and a report on what our findings and recommendation to the Planning Board, and then have an official letter written from the Planning Board in response for the Public Hearing. I would be attending an American Planning Conference in Toronto in April, and they have a lot of different things, workshops, programs, and mobile workshops. If there are any particular programs that the Board would like me to attend, feel free to let me know. EcoVillage was approved by the Town Board for the Special Land Use District, so now EcoVillage would be going back to the Planning Board at some point for Subdivision and Site Plan Review. A discussion meeting is tentatively set for March 7. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee: Mary Russell - The Environmental Review Committee met last Thursday, and they considered the • information that had been submitted to them on the drainage plan for South Hill Complex. The information appeared to be satisfactory, but it needed to be supplemented with construction drawings, so the Environmental Review Committee submitted comments to that effect. The South Hill Complex had submitted a down cast lighting plan which the Planning Board had requested. The Planning Board had requested views of the site from Route 96B with or without buildings, but the South Hill Complex submitted a bird's eye view with all the buildings included and some photographs of the current site. Chair Hawkes - Where is the Planning Board with regards to that project? JoAnn Cornish - Final Site Review will be on February 7, with the Planning Board. b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: No report. c. Parks and Open Space Committee: Chair Hawkes - The Parks and Open Space Committee met earlier today. The Committee is in the middle of a draft of the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. The Committee is working on the inventory of existing features within the Town and surrounding areas, and then analyzing those for their adequacy, where they are located, and things like that. When there is a full report that will be the time to share with the other members of the Board. 0 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 FEBRUARY 2, 1995 0 ADOPTED 5/2/96 5. 1995 Plan of Work Priorities: Chair Hawkes - We do not have enough people here tonight for this discussion. 6. Old Business: - Coy Glen Report: Chair Hawkes - A Board Member from the EcoVillage Organization, called and was very interested in this Board's efforts to protect Coy Glen as a biological corridor. They want to support this protection in any way possible, and they were willing to draft a letter in terms of that support. Cornell Plantations has submitted a letter to the Board in support of forever wild areas and areas of limited human access. EcoVillage is also willing to support that and will submit a letter which may help leverage support of other land owners of the area. The Conservation Board has written a report, and most of the peoples response was that we need something much smaller to use with the land trusts and working with the land owners to protect that area. We can add this to another agenda meeting for further discussion when more Board Members are here. - CU Lake Source Cooling: Chair Hawkes - They have asked the Conservation Board for a letter with our comments and of support, and they are meeting with the DEC next week. I thought we should do two sets of letters: One letter saying thank you for coming, keeping us informed, applaud your thoroughness on investigating this, etc... A second letter regarding our comments about the environmental issues on further areas as they explore, and the areas that they should address during their draft of the Environmental Impact Statement. Eva Hoffinann - Would it be less helpful if the Board puts in the initial letter that we expect to have more detailed comments after we have all read the report? Chair Hawkes - Yes. Mary Russell - Do you think it would be helpful to get a National Environmental Organization interested in this project? Chair Hawkes - That would be great. - Wal-Mart DEIS: Chair Hawkes - The Board needs to have their comments by the February 28 meeting. The • Conservation Board and the Environmental Review Committee should combine their comments and address them directly to the Planning Board. • 1�1 7. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 FEBRUARY 2, 1995 ADOPTED 5/2/96 - Earth Day Activities: Chair Hawkes - Cornell University and the Natural History Network are both having Earth Day Celebrations, there is a Planning Meeting tomorrow about this. A suggestion is to do a hand out activity at Cornell University on April 22. At the Natural History Network, they are still trying to coordinate on what they are doing. Mary Russell - Do you have any ideas on what is appropriate for this Board to do? Chair Hawkes - Suggestions before were to do public information, such as Lake Source, water quality, wetland booth, view shed, or any other areas of interest. On the South Hill Recreation Way, the Board could do an Earth Day walk to publicize to the Town residents that the South Hill Recreation is opened. JoAnn Cornish - That would be a good thing to do to get people out to enjoy a nature walk on the trails. Eva Hoffmann - That would be a good idea to get some people's opinions on the trail surface and things like that. Mary Russell - I think there is a problem with the surface especially if the trails are not maintained. JoAnn Cornish - When I spoke to George Frantz about this, he stated that when the gravel was put down originally there was not time to compact it properly with a roller. This should be on the work schedule to compact the gravel this spring. Chair Hawkes - Then will they plant over that? JoAnn Cornish - Yes, they will put some seed down. Chair Hawkes - When I- talk to the Natural History Network, I will mention to them that the Conservation Board would be interested in an activity such as the South Hill Trail walk. Also the Board could put an information booth together for the Cornell activities on April 22. Member Concerns: None. Next meeting March 2, 1995. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, March 2, . 1995 TOWN HALL 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. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee - b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:10 P.M. 5. 1995 Plan of Work Priorities 8:30 p.m. 6. Old Business -Coy- Glen Report and Plan -CU Lake Source Cooling Response -Earth Day Activities -Others 9:10 P.M. 7. Approval of minutes 1/5/95; 1/19/95' 9:15 p.m. 8. Member Concerns CB Members: Candace Cornell Jon Meigs Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Phil Zarriello FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 1995 ADOPTED: May 2, 1996 PRESENT: Janet Hawkes, Chair; Mary Russell, Phil Zarriello, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer (potential new member). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, John Meigs. GUESTS: JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Rich Schoch, Parks Department; Fred Noteboom, Highway Department; Bill Hilker, Burns Road, Ithaca. Mary Russell opened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Persons To Be Heard: Mr. Noteboom - I hope to be coming to a few more Conservation Board Meetings because I feel there should be an atmospheric relationship with the Highway Department, Open Space, and Conservation. I think we should be working together and really view our right away along highways as open spaces. What can we be doing differently with them? How can we be handling them? Hopefully get ideas and share some things and we will all be getting a better direction on them better than we have been. I do not feel Highway necessary has to be a totally cut down through landscape. I mean we need highways that we are trying to do the best we can with them. Chair Hawkes - I think it is helpful when our Environmental Review Committee will often ask developers for storm water runoff plans, road cut plans, and all the other engineering plans since we do not have capacity or the capability to really judge all the wants of those things. That is why it will be nice to have that dialogue to have the technical information. Mr. Noteboom - Mr. Schoch and I have discussed about this, and we feel there must be a way to maintain our right away to be more practical and cost efficient. There must be a better way than in the past. We really do not have the answers and we also feel that if we get more dialogue and learn some answers. Mr. Zarriello - What is the right away down a town road? Mr. Noteboom - All new right a ways are sixty feet, and the old ones could be about fifty feet. Mr. Zarriello - Is that sixty feet from the center line of the road? Mr. Noteboom - No. Thirty feet from the side of the road, sixty feet total. Conservation Board Minutes 2 March 2; 1995 Chair Hawkes - Mr. Noteboom could we put you on the next agenda for an overview of the Highway of the town and what your concerns are? Mr. Noteboom - Yes. Mr. Zarriello - Could you present some of your ideas on what problem areas are and what might be good highway uses so we can have an idea of what you are thinking about. Mr. Noteboom - OK. 2. Report Of The Chair: Chair Hawkes - There was a lot of doings since last time. Order of business, at the January 5 meeting, Mary Russell was nominated as Vice Chair and we need to vote on this. A vote on the nomination for Mary Russell for Vice Chair was as follow: Chair Hawkes - aye; Mr. Zarriello - aye; Ms. Smith - aye; Ms. Russell - aye. Chair Hawkes - I did want to report that we did go for the Farming for the Future Partners in Search Conference in Syracuse. It was a very informative conference. Greg Watson who is Regional Director of Nature Conservatives, but also had been the Commission for Agricultural and Markets in Massachusetts, who spoke on land use, quality of water, and other issues, and the workshops were very informative. There is a Greenway meeting on March 25. Wet Land Forum is sponsoring a meeting on the March 6 an 7. The Environmental Management Council asked us for two volunteers from the board to help them with Unique Natural Area Report. The Unique Area Natural Report identified 60 or 90 areas in the county that were classified for unique habitat, rare or scarce plants, rock formation, water shed, or whatever. The Environmental Management Council said there are two areas in the Town of Ithaca, and what they asked us to do is inform the residence/ land owners, and have them sign a permission form to let us come onto their land and do this survey. Chair Hawkes - Our New York State Association of Conservation Commissions had their board of directors meeting, when they sent the minutes around they also sent a. plea and a sample letter to George Pataki, Governor, and the senates of New York State because we get a little reimbursement through the Local Environmental Assistance Program called Refunding which helps us extend our local dollars to be able to some of the work we do in this board and also the refunding is used for county level and the proposal is to pull all that funding. What it actually does it helps multiple the money we have spent here. They have reimbursements based on the amount we spent and allows us to do more than we could do otherwise. We might want to send a letter in support of this. Ms. Cornish - I checked our recordings today to see actually how much we have received from Leaf Reimbursement and it seems to be on an average of $1300 to $1500 a year, so that is a substantial amount for this board. Conservation Board Minutes 3 March 2, 1995 3. Committee Reports: Ms. Smith - Since our last meeting the Environmental Review Committee met to discuss Wal- Mart and comments that were going to be submitted from the Town to the City of Ithaca Planning Board, and we were going to have joint comments with the Planning Board and the Town staff. The comments that we suggested on the ideas that could mitigate the effect of having Wal -Wart on that site so close to Buttermilk Park and also adjacent to Town Park lands. We also addressed the lighting issue. We asked for cut off fixtures at a much lower height. Question for Ms. Cornish, we were thinking the parking spaces were over the usual scale and that was addressed. Ms. Cornish - I did some research, and in fact Wal -Wart does over design by a tremendous amount, and if they went by the City's zoning for retail stores they could drop their parking by about 400 spaces which converted to 1.8 acres. MALE - You mentioned that the Wal-Mart site was adjacent to the Town of Ithaca site, could you please clarify what is adjacent? Ms. Cornish - The Town of Ithaca does not currently own that land. Some of it is city owned and privately owned, and one parcel has been marked for a park for some time now. The Planning Board did review the letter and there was some revisions. It was agreed that Steve Smith would read the letter with revisions, and if it was ok with him he would sign it and send it on to the City. I have another issue for Coy Glen Area about a hydrant for a house that is being built in Coy Glen. It is in a critical point. The stream actually divides into two parcels of land. The house is being built in between the creek, and the house is on top of the hill, so it slopes down to the creek on both sides of it. The foundation, septic, and sand filter are all in. The sand filter is suppose to be 100 feet from the edge of the gorge, but it is on top of the gorge. The Conservation Board may want to think about, for the future, in fact there are houses being built in critical environmental areas where we should be able to review it. Chair Hawkes - How did they get a permit to this? Ms. Cornish - The Health Department gave them the permit to do the sand filter and the septic tank. Chair Hawkes - What about the foundation? Ms. Cornish - It was a building permit, and it was based on the fact that they were only going for the height variance, so if in fact they built that foundation, for some odd reason, and the Zoning Board decided not to give the height variance and they could always modify their plans. That was how it was done. It goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals next week because it is in a very critical area even if they approve it. Mr. Zarriello - The County Health Department would issue the permit without looking at the Conservation Board Minutes 4 March 2, 1995 site? Ms. Cornish - I do not know that. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the Conservation Board. The other issue is while they are constructing on the steep slopes and there is potential for heavy amounts of erosion to go into Coy Glen, and once construction is completed and the ground is seeded and mulched there should not be a problem, but right now the ground is frozen, but should we have a thaw the soil in going to go into Coy Glen. Mr. Noteboom - I am not sure this is an appropriate time to bring this up or not, but being it is Coy Glen, the Elm Street Extension the road is slipping into the gorge there, and sometime we are going to have to address that. We had to go in there and see exactly what we need to. Once we look at the area, we will bring the information back to you for further discussion. Chair Hawkes --That is an area we have been particularly interested in, and we initially talked to some the larger land owners and they agreed to keep their land forever open to preserve the water quality. That is one of the few streams that does not have either significant agricultural run off going into it or being a big impact, and it does not have a trail where most of our bigger gorges are part of the state park system and have trails. So Coy Glen is one area we have targeted and we are working with Finger Lakes Land Trust to try and protect to get some conservation easements, but we were hoping critical environmental area designation to protect it somewhat, but obviously it does not. Mr. Zarriello - The Environmental Atlas and GIS Committee have discussed a need assessment for the GIS system could be used for. We do not have much to report at this time. Any questions or comments please feel free to address us. Ms. Cornish - Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner, asked me to present to the Conservation Board the idea on picking up the Agricultural Committee. What had happened there was an Agricultural Committee then the terms expired, so it was never picked up again and they did not have enough interest. The Town Board was wondering if the Conservation Board would take it under their wing again.- Which would mean some of the members on the Conservation Board would be willing to serve on a sub -committee, the Agricultural Committee. Mr. Zarriello - Could you give me a little history here? Christiann Dean, who was part of the Conservation Council at the time who was an active farmer, very concerned about farm practices and maintaining farms in this area, so she shared that committee and did a lot with the local farmers because she is was touch with that. That is why after she left the committee was dropped. If we were to pick the committee up again, it would certainly help out to have farm interest represented. Ms. Cornish - Christiann Dean has expressed some interest in sharing that committee. If there was some concern because she is not a member of the Conservation Board, and Loren Tauer was filling the vacancy, now that Candace Cornell has resigned we may have another Conservation Board Minutes 5 March 2, 1995 opening. In which case, Ms. Dean would like to sit on the Conservation Board as well as Chair the Agricultural Committee which may be an easy way to go about doing this. Mr. Zarriello - If she is interested, by all means. Chair Hawkes - Very consistent with the conference we went to Sustainable Agricultural. Ms. Russell and I just went to the conference called Farming for the Future Partners in Search Conference that was the beginning of a dialogue in New York State to get in the same room with environmentalists, agriculturalists, and consumers to start a dialogue to really get these issues of Land Use, Farm Open Space, Farm Land Protection, and issues on pesticides all speaking together. I myself was very interested in that for open land and my own background. I think we have already started to bridge that gap with some of the work Ms. Russell and I have been involved with. I think it is very consistent and I thought we already had the Agricultural Committee and I was hoping to work with them. But the other group we should work with, as we also work with the Environmental Management Council at the Tompkins County level, we should work with the Farm Land Protection Board which is also a Mandated County Wide Planning Board. Unfortunately, they have no budget or power, but they do have the mandate to start to plan on a county wide basis in every county to in New York State to develop plans for environmental protection which should be included in comprehensive county planning which hopefully comes down to us. So just to make a case, it is consistent to what we are doing and in the same time it is protecting the open space and farm land. They have different issues, but we trying to get at them the same way, taxes, conservation, or zoning. Ms. Cornish - Should we invite her to sit on the Conservation Board meeting? Mr. Zarriello - I suggest we nominate her back to the back is she wants to be a part of the Agricultural Committee. ,Ms. Cornish - I believe that the Town Board was hoping to get this on their April agenda as a resolution to take on the Agricultural Committee with the Conservation Board. Chair Hawkes - I would like to obtain a motion for nomination of Loren Tauer and Christiann Dean for membership of the Conservation Board. Mr. Zarriello - I would like to make a motion for Loren Tauer and Christiann Dean for the Conservation Board. Ms. Russell - Seconded. Chair Hawkes - This motion will passed on to the Town Board for approval for Loren Tauer and Christiann Dean. The floor is opened for any discussion. No discussion then we go on to a vote. Conservation Board Minutes 6 March 2; 1995 A vote on the motion was as followed: Chair Hawkes - aye; Mr. Zarriello - aye; Ms. Russell - aye; Ms. Smith - aye. Nays - none. Chair Hawkes - Discussion on the Agricultural Committee is open. Mr. Zarriello - With Ms. Tauer and Ms. Dean coming back to the Conservation Board would be an excellent committee in formation right there with their backgrounds to do something. Chair Hawkes - Would they be like are other subcommittees? Could they also have associate members, then the committee could be larger? Ms. Cornish - Yes. Ms Dean said if there was not an opening on the Conservation Board had suggested be an associate members. I think there maybe some new interests there. Mr. Zarriello - Ms. Dean was pretty much a committee of one. She worked with the local farmers and did a lot of pulling with the farmers to see what the problems were, keeping the agriculture livable in the town, and has wrote a report on the livability in the Town of Ithaca. It was a compilation of her work with the local farmers and her own experience in the town and what needs to be done to maintain livability. Chair Hawkes - She also works with the Cooperative Extension, Human Development, and Family Studies. She created the program Cooperative Communication Between Home and School which is trying to get school administration, teachers, and parents to speaking together more than teacher/student conferences. Mr. Zarriello - I would make a motion to form an Agricultural Committee for the Conservation Board. Ms. Russell - Seconded. Chair Hawkes - This motion will be passed on to the Town Board for approval of an Agricultural Committee for the Conservation Board. The floor is opened for discussion. No discussion then we go on to vote for this motion. A vote on the motion was as followed: Chair Hawkes - aye; Ms. Russell - aye; Mr. Zarriello - aye; Ms. Smith - aye. Nay - None. Chair Hawkes - We seem to have a plan a board regardless if we can agree upon those small activities. One of them was to work with other departments in the Town of Ithaca because it was one of our priorities. Since we have George here to discuss the birthday activities and there is dead line, so I would like to discuss it more. We will more that to the April meeting. Part of the Environmental Review, that time I reported EcoVillage was more than willing to support us from their Board of Directors with a letter, that they would have a portion of their Conservation Board Minutes 7 March 2, 1995 land that is in the water shed of Coy Glen to have an easement on it so there would not be any development on it to preserve the water quality. What they agreed with since the land is on the EcoVillage land not the First Residence Group land, will be preserved and there will not be a necessarily particular animal agricultural activity or other agricultural activities draining into Coy Glen water shed. There will be a meeting announced for that committee. Cornell Lake Source Cooling, does the Environmental Review Committee have any comments or ideas. Ms. Russell - No. We have not discussed it yet. Chair Hawkes - We have sent in a letter in support for the concept of the project. If there are, we can send the minutes of the meeting to reflect what was said. Old Business would be the activity for a birthday, perhaps on the South Hill Recreational Way since we have not done any public event on that trail. We were hoping to do more of a residence parallel to an open trail for people to come and see that the trail is done. Low key event, but also an outdoor event. The weekend is April 22 and 23. Mr. Zarriello - The gravel that was put down was to coarse to run a stroller down it or handicap purpose. Mr. Schoch - We have a number of comments on that. We have done a few things, one of which we tried to blow off some of the loose gravel. Our intention this spring to get in there and was to roll the path and hopefully eliminate the problem. MALE - Some areas are worse than others. The lower trails which are used more is not so much of a problem because the trail is pretty packed down. Chair Hawkes - If we did have the event in April would that be timing in such where you would have been on it at that point? Mr. Schoch - It largely depends on the weather. Hopefully we could do the road before the event. Ms. Russell - You really need to do it when the ground is soft? Mr. Schoch - Right. GEORGE?? - I like the idea of an open house or open trail, and maybe some type of clean up on the lower trail. I am surprise how much use the recreation, especially at the western end. When we designed the turf grass surface, I visioned a little 1 to 2 foot wide bare path down through the middle of it, but has evolved are two separate and distinct tracks that the problem is the tracks are set too close together to be created by any sort of mud run vehicles. It is the result of people biking side by side or two people jogging or walking side by side. Conservation Board Minutes 8 March 2, 1995 Chair Hawkes - That same week we have also been invited, although we do not have any kind of exhibit to participate on Saturday at the Art's Squad, it is something to think about. Ms. Smith - I think wi� might be short of persons to do both things. Chair Hawkes - Right, I agree. We could also, if we have some information, just put it on the Environmental Management Council which is the overall body that also represents us on their table. But if we did an open trail, clean up along the lower trail, or a spring planting, pretty much any of those activities are low keyed enough that mostly would require the publicity and actually showing up on that day. MALE - Have you noticed any? Mr. Schoch - There are certain stretches, like Coddington Road and the upper trail, but nothing to bad. I think the planting effort would be appropriate. Chair Hawkes - Right. Ms. Smith - Would it possible to do anything, when you advertise this, if someone wants to walk the trail they could bring a wildflower or a packet of seedlings, and plant them somewhere as they walk along? Mr. Frantz - The problem with that would be controlling the species that are growing there. Ms. Smith - Then who would supply the flowers? Mr. Schoch - The Park Department does not have wildflowers in our nursery. We have some shrub materials and some trees, but we would have to grow the plants from seed. Chair Hawkes - What type of plantings were you thinking of, George? Mr. Frantz - Most of the plantings, I think is seeding. There are some bare spots on a couple trails. Sprinkling grass seed or wildflower seeds. Chair Hawkes - Are there interesting plantings at the entry ways? Mr. Frantz - We did include plantings at the entry ways, but there is plenty of opportunities to do plantings along the trail. Ms. Smith - If you want to make some kind of event there, on Earth Day activities, if you were just going to come and walk the trails just because it is a nice day, is there any way you incorporate if a person wants to plant some thing on the trail since you are asking people to come and be on the trail. Conservation Board Minutes 9 March 2, 1995 Chair Hawkes - If you want to involve the public is to have a spring wildflower walk or something where you identifying and looking, but not touching. Ms. Smith - It just seems like you were talking about Earth Day, and you want people to come and walk the trails, and you want to plant it, why not take advantage of it this way. Ms. Cornish - The planning for that is time consuming, it will have to be a well thought out plan. Mr. Frantz - One idea to catch the general public would be to have the members on the Conservation Board take 15 minute intervals, take a group of people up the trails and discuss the trail. Ms. Smith - Are, spring wildflowers addressed at all on the pamphlet? GEORGE?? - Some of them are. Chair Hawkes - We maybe we can make one special event, like Beth Mulholland give a guided spring wildflower walk on our trail open to the public, but then also an open trail with the members of the Conservation Board every 1/2 hour on a Sunday from 11 am - 2 pm. 4. Minutes Approval: Chair Hawkes - Any comments? Mr. Zarriello - I motion to approve the minutes of January 25, 1995. Ms. Russell - Seconded. Chair Hawkes - Motion carried. Minutes of January 19, 1995 are there any changes on that? Ms. Cornish --The name on Sterns and Wheeler needs to be corrected. Mr. Zarriello - I motion to approve the minutes of January 19, 1995. Ms. Smith - Seconded. Chair Hawkes - Motion carried. 5. Member Concerns: Ms. Smith - Has there ever been more than nine member, that you ever remember? Conservation Board Minutes 10 March 2, 1995 Mr. Zarriello - No, I think that nine is the limit. Chair Hawkes - What is your thinking? Ms. Smith - We have four members, and maybe we ought to look for more. Chair Hawkes - Next time we will have five. Loren and Christiann Dean would be here. Jonathan Kanter usually is here, but the office is swamp with Wal-Mart plans, Jon Meigs is also on our board, and Eva Hoffmann is not here. Candace Cornell has resigned. Richard Fischer is on the board, but he said in the past he would be missing a few meetings. We can check into that since we are the ones who approve our by-laws and get that changed, if people have the feeling we need a larger board. Mr. Zarriello - I think we are limited by State Law or Town Law, and we can not change that, but we can have as many associate members as we want. Ms. Cornish - I can look into that to see, but Mr. Zarriello is right, you can have as many associate or non voting members as you want. With the Agricultural Committee it might spark some interest from other people. Mr. Zarriello - The suggestions for having a scenic view contest in the Town's newsletter and also the previews recycling, what is the status of that? Ms. Cornish - The newsletter article is due on Tuesday, and I told Betty Poole I would have that to them about the re use event, and Mr. Kanter is concerned with the Scenic View Photo Contest, and have the Conservation Board to discuss it more and come up with a more specific plans and a more specific focus for it. Mr. Zarriello - An idea was to maintain a photo journal album of scenic views with locations, direction of the view, where the view is taken, and the view itself. Ms. Cornish - Right, I think that is the direction Mr. Kanter is thinking we will be moving into, so that will become actual documentation and if in fact there is few protection ordinances that could be used. That is why Mr. Kanter suggests we make it a bigger issue. Chair Hawkes - Bigger issue could also be doing a scenic view inventory of the Town in a more systematic way. Chairman Hawkes - No other concerns, so on the April agenda meeting, Fred Noteboom will be joining with us. We will be having two new members. Richard Schoch will present a slide show on the park department. Chair Hawkes adjourned the meeting. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, April 20, 1995 TOWN HALL.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. 1. Persons To Be Heard ?7z4-ej .{ 'DQr�n\� mar,o��marL 7:35 p.m. 2. Report from Chair f 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff ✓ 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee ✓ b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee ✓ c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:10 p.m. 5. Update and dialogue with Town of Ithaca Highway and Parks Departments Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent Rich Schock, Parks Manager 8:45 p.m. 6. Old Business -Plan of Work -Earth Day Activities -Others 9:15 p.m. 7. Member Concerns CB Members: Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Doren Tauer Jon Meigs ' Phil Zarriello Date: April 10, 1995 To: Conservation Board Meml ers From: Janet E. Hawkes, Chair Re: Conservation Board Meeting April 20, 199W 5 7:30pm Town Hall Enclosed you will find an agenda for the April 20th meeting. At this meeting we are happy to have Fred Noteboom and Rich Schock joining us from the Town -of Ithaca Highway and Parks Departments. After a short presentation of the activities and priorities of each of those deparments. we will discuss ways that we (the Conservation Board and these departments) can work together. Also at this meeting we will be finalizing. times and details for the Earth Day Open House on the Southhill Recreationway on April 23. I hope we can count on your participation for at least part of the time. Thank you. Please call me at 272-1125 if you cannot attend the meeting. O TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES �4? Thursday, April 20, 1995 Approved: PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Eva Hoffmann, Mary Russell, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner), Fred Noteboom (Town Highway Superintendent). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer. Chairperson Janet Hawkes called the meeting to order. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: None. REPORT FROM STAFF: None. COMMITTEE REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Recommendations written up for Eco Village. The main problem is that the road crosses a wetland and does not allow any, much less 100 -foot, buffer zone. There are also traffic issues and concerns about runoff from parking, housing and agricultural areas into the tributary of Coy Glen that would receive the water. The Planning Board approved Special Land Use District and will send it to the Town Board for approval. The Conservation Board will be looking at the site and development plans at this time. The committee reviewed proposals for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision pending further study of a couple of issues, but recommended positive declaration to the Planning Board. This supported the Health Department's recommendation and was based on the fact that where the Town and City sanitary sewers join there is a back-up problem and effluent runs into Six Mile Creek and basements of neighboring houses. The Health Department recommended that until this problem in eliminated, development on South Hill be scrutinized. for Buttermilk Valley, the Health Department recommended a positive declaration even though the problem is not the developer's fault. The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting. The Digicomp development project, South Hill Complex, which is just downhill from the old NCR building on Danby Road received a negative declaration, even though it flows into the same system, because the impact would not be as great. A Conservation Board Minutes 2 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Chairperson Hawkes questioned whether the Conservation Board should request storm water drainage plans from developers at the beginning of the planning process, rather than near the end. Then the Conservation Board would have more and earlier input into the planning process. Planning staff reports that no new large development projects are forthcoming at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS COMMITTEE: No report. PARRS AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE: No report. PRESENTATION BY FRED NOTEBOOM: Mr. Noteboom passed out Town mission statement and stated that the Town has -47 miles of roads with G2 dead-end roads that take more time to maintain with snow removal, mowing, etc. The Town of Ithaca has State, Town, County, Village, City, and Campus roads, each with its own jurisdiction. Mr. Noteboom passed out a sheet listing all parks and trail in the Town. Information is being gathered on Grandview and Troy Parks, which are the most recent parks. Grandview is a large park with ballfields and other facilities, while Troy Park is more of a vest pocket type park with some grading done by the developer. There have been many changes in the Town Highway Department in recent years. We have more responsibilities but now much more personnel. The Parks Department work has doubled in size in the last seven years. Parks are very popular and Mr. Noteboom estimates that the Parks Department will continue to grow. Parks are built by both parks and highway personnel, with the highway personnel using the heavy machinery and doing the grading and earth moving etc., and the parks department building play structures, planting trees, etc. However, in practice, both departments do whatever is needed for completion and maintenance. Water and sewer is presently under the Town Engineering Department, but highway and parks personnel do the maintenance work like cleaning out catchbasins, seeding, fixing water valves, etc. This is an additional responsibility that has been added in the last few years, so we must work more efficiently. The Town will need to do preventative maintenance on water and sewer lines which have not been maintained for 30, 40, or more years. We do our own in-house truck repairs which is cheaper and allows us to do preventative maintenance on Town vehicles for longer truck life. Cooperation is key to the future. Mr. Noteboom would like to share information, open lines of communication, get earlier input from everyone; the Conservation Board, the public and officials - before work is begun on projects. This would avoid some of the adversarial relationships that develop, particularly on highway projects. We need to identify the needs from the public and s - Conservation Board Minutes 3 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT balance them against our operational needs, and this give and take of information would lead to more cooperation. There are many conservation concerns, particularly in Coy Glen where work needs to be done. Both the public and the Town are much more concerned about sediment control when we do road work. Another conservation concerns in salting the roadways. There are new products and additives that can reduce the damage done by salt, and with education, perhaps the taxpayers of the Town would be willing to pay extra to protect the land. The brush and leaf pickup program in the Town is now five years old and now takes 10a of manpower for the year. We have compost and grass pickup programs too. Wood chips and compost are available to Town residents free of charge at the Highway Department. Brush may also be dropped off there. Growth in the Town of Ithaca has brought increased demand for services and manpower has not kept pace. We are much more efficient and cost-effective than we were in the past, but eventually there will have to be increased allocations made to the Highway Department. The Town will continue to grow, so it is important that the Department become concerned with more than just highway maintenance, such as planning, conservation, new programs, etc. Once concern was curbing and sidewalks. A different answer may be to require a wider right-of-way with the highway placed to one side to make room for grass, wood chip, oil and stone, or other access paths to be used for pedestrians and bikers. This is an attractive alternative that is already in use in parts of the Town. A representative from the Conservation Board of the Village of Lansing said that in a recent survey of village residents, the need for walkways and greenways was very high on the list. Mr. Noteboom told him where he could .view some of the different types of walkways in use in the Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Hawkes stated that some areas that the Conservation Board- and $ighway Department could work together on and perhaps at least partially resolve in the future would be: the road salt issue, water quality, surface and stormwater run-off and sediment control, spraying of pesticides and herbicides, including disposal and cleanup of equipment, discouraging cul-de-sacs and encouraging cluster housing or other methods of planning roads, using recycled materials for aggregate, wetlands, and storm ditches, "fee in lieu of" for developers, greenways along highways, etc. Mr. Noteboom stated that the Town is considering.putting in storm drains in the deepest, steepest ditches to solve the continuing considerable erosion problem of ditches and roadbeds. It is now Town Highway policy to reseed storm ditches that have been cleaned out and scraped to bare earth. a Conservation Board Minutes 4 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Noteboom stated that last year the department planned a major project on Christopher Circle to improve drainage, sidewalks, area around water tank, etc. and when they went to do the work, the people became very angry and upset because they were not in on the planning stages. This made him realize how important it is to include everyone in the talking stages of a project, so that the input can make the project better and more acceptable to the residents of the Town. Also, he found it necessary to hold an information session for residents in the affected area. The Town Highway also trim and remove trees as necessary, and perform other forestry duties as needed. Also, brush is removed and/or trimmed along roadways. Mr. Zarr-iello mentioned the necessity for a storm water plan which would include water detention basins and these will also need to be maintained and cleaned. Mr. Noteboom stated that there are many water drainways behind houses in the Northeast section of the Town and the Highway Department does not have the right to go in and maintain them. They are already causing flooding problems to many individual homeowners and something will need to be done by someone fairly quickly. Some of these areas have grown up with trees and brush. For the future, the Conservation Board stated that they would like the County and State Highway Departments to also open a dialog with the committee and the public. Also, the Conservation Board should take the time at future meetings to explore options and solutions to the issues and questions that were raised. The Conservation Board needs to know what current practices of Highway Department are with regard to sale, herbicides, pesticides, etc. Mr. Noteboom and the Conservation Board could work together on Coy Glen roadwork and future projects and become comfortable with sharing information and concerns. Chairperson Hawkes will receive a copy of the Public Works meeting agendas and a representative of the Conservation Board will attend meetings with mutual concerns. The Town newsletter would be an excellent forum for asking for public input on issues, but the newsletter needs to be issued on a regular and consistent basis to be effective, especially if it had a column by the Planning Department, Conservation Board, Highway Department, etc. EARTH DAY ACTIVITY: South Hill Recreation Way Open House on April 23, 1995 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Botanical and wildflower walks will be self -guided with help from Conservation Board members. Ms. Cornish stated that she would find some maps of the South Hill Recreation Way so that Conservation Board members who will lead nature walks on Earth Day will have them to use when welcoming people. Walks will begin at the Hudson Street entrance. Ms. Russell, Chairperson Hawkes, and Ms. Cornish will greet walkers and answer questions. Conservation Board Minutes 5 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT April 20, 1995 MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Russell stated that the gravel problem on the trail still exists and has not been rolled. Bikers can use the trail, but gravel problem causes difficulties for walkers and makes the trail unusable for horses. Original cinder surface on parts of the trail is great. Mountain bikers (Ms. Russell counted 25 on Wednesday) have made numerous "private trails" down into the gorge and stream and into the wildflower preserve and are doing much environmental damage. Bikers congregate at gates, and then go around them and down the gorge. Ms. Russell saw no signs saying "Stay on Trail" so bikers do not feel what they are doing is forbidden. Mr. Zarriello suggested educational signs that explain why it is important to stay on the trail. Newspaper articles on trail etiquette would also help. Mountain bikers are causing concern in the State Parks, Finger Lakes Trail, and other natural areas because of the lack of respect for the environment. At the Burns Road end of the trail, people are using a private circular drive for a turnaround so law enforcement will be necessary. Enforcement will also be necessary against unleashed dogs on the trail. Ms. Cornish stated that the Town may be able to place a "no turning" sign on the private driveway and also improve trail signs to inform the public of the rules. Ms. Cornish stated that LEAP (Local Environmental Assistant Program) funds are no longer available from New York State. These funds provided 180 of the Conservation Board funds. No new business can be voted on because of the lack of quorum, so annual reports for needs funding will be held over. By-laws and associate member will be forwarded to the Town Board because vote was taken at the last meeting. Lake Source Cooling update has been distributed to Conservation Board members. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Hawkes -closed the meeting. \.srh Thursday, April 20, 1995 Approved: August 1, 1996 PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Eva *Hoffmann, Mary Russell, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner), Fred Noteboom (Town Highway Superintendent). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer. Chairperson Janet Hawkes called the meeting to order. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: None. REPORT FROM STAFF: None. COMMITTEE REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Recommendations written up for Eco Village. The main problem is that the road crosses a wetland and does not allow any, much less 100=foot, buffer zone. There are also traffic issues and concerns about runoff from parking, housing and agricultural areas into the tributary of Coy Glen that would receive the water. The Planning Board approved Special Land Use District and will send it to the Town Board for approval. The Conservation Board will be looking at the site and development plans at this time. The committee reviewed proposals for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision pending further study of a couple of issues, but recommended positive declaration to the Planning Board. This supported the Health Department's recommendation and was based on the fact that where the Town and City sanitary sewers join there is a back-up problem and effluent runs into Six Mile Creek and basements of neighboring houses. The Health Department recommended that until this problem in eliminated, development on South Hill be scrutinized. for Buttermilk Valley, the Health Department recommended a positive declaration even though the problem is not the developer's fault. The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting. The Digicomp development project, South Hill Complex, which is just downhill from the old NCR building on Danby Road received a negative declaration, even though it flows into the same system, because the impact would not be as great. Conservation Board Minutes 2 April 20, 1995 Approved: August 1, 1996 Chairperson Hawkes questioned whether the Conservation Board should request storm water drainage plans from developers at the beginning of the planning process, rather than near the end. Then the Conservation Board would have more and earlier input into the planning process. Planning staff reports that no new large development projects are forthcoming at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS COMMITTEE: No report. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE: No report. PRESENTATION BY FRED NOTEBOOM: Mr. Noteboom passed out Town mission statement and stated that the Town has 47 miles of roads with 62 dead-end roads that take more time to maintain with snow removal, mowing, etc. The Town of Ithaca has State, Town, County, Village, City, and Campus roads, each with its own jurisdiction. Mr. Noteboom passed out a sheet listing all parks and trail in the Town. Information is being gathered on Grandview and Troy Parks, which are the most recent parks. Grandview is a large park with ballfields and other facilities, while Troy Park is more of a vest pocket type park with some grading done by the developer. There have been many changes in the Town Highway Department in recent years. We have more responsibilities but now much more personnel. The Parks Department work has doubled in size in the last seven years. Parks are very popular and Mr. Noteboom estimates that the Parks Department will continue to grow. Parks are built by both parks and highway personnel, with the highway personnel using the heavy machinery and doing the grading and earth moving etc., and the parks department building play structures, planting trees, etc. However, in practice, both departments do whatever is needed for completion and maintenance. Water and sewer is presently under the Town Engineering Department, but highway and parks personnel do the maintenance work like cleaning out catchbasins, seeding, fixing water valves, etc. This is an .additional responsibility that has been added in the last few years, so we must work more efficiently. The Town will need to do preventative maintenance on water and sewer lines which have not been maintained for 30, 40, or more years. We do our own in-house truck repairs which is cheaper and allows us to do preventative maintenance on Town vehicles for longer truck life. Cooperation is key to the future. Mr. Noteboom would like to share information, open lines of communication, get earlier input from everyone; the Conservation Board, the public and officials - before work is begun on projects. This would avoid some of the adversarial relationships that develop, particularly on highway projects. We need to identify the needs from the public and balance them against our operational needs, and this give and take of information would lead to more cooperation. Conservation Board Minutes 3 April 20, 1995 Approved: August 1, 1996 There are many conservation concerns, particularly in Coy Glen where work needs to be done. Both the public and the Town are much more concerned about sediment control when we do road work. Another conservation concerns in salting the roadways. There are new products and additives that can reduce the damage done by salt, and with education, perhaps the taxpayers of the Town would be willing to pay extra to protect the land. The brush and leaf pickup program in the Town is now five years old and now takes 10% of manpower for the year. We have compost and grass pickup programs too. Wood chips and compost are available to Town residents free of charge at the Highway Department. Brush may also be dropped off there. Growth in the Town of Ithaca has brought increased demand for services and manpower has not kept pace. We are much more efficient and cost-effective than we were in the past, but eventually there will have to be increased allocations made to the Highway Department. The Town will continue to grow, so it is important that the Department become concerned with more than just highway maintenance, such as planning, conservation, new programs, etc. Once concern was curbing and sidewalks. A different answer may be to require a wider right-of-way with the highway placed to one side to make room for grass, wood chip, oil and stone, or other access paths to be used for pedestrians and bikers. This is an attractive alternative that is already in use in parts of the Town. A representative from the Conservation Board of the Village of Lansing said that in a recent survey of village residents, the need for walkways and greenways was very high on the list. Mr. Noteboom told him where he could view some of the different types of walkways in use in the Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Hawkes stated that some areas that the Conservation Board and Highway Department could work together on and perhaps at least partially resolve in the future would be: the road salt issue, water quality, surface and stormwater run-off and sediment control, spraying of pesticides and herbicides, including disposal and cleanup of equipment, discouraging cul-de-sacs and encouraging cluster housing or other methods of planning roads, using recycled materials for aggregate, wetlands, and storm ditches, "fee in lieu of" for developers, greenways along highways, etc. Mr. Noteboom stated that the Town is considering putting in storm drains in the deepest, steepest ditches to solve the continuing considerable erosion problem of ditches and roadbeds. It is now Town Highway policy to reseed storm ditches that have been cleaned out and scraped to bare earth. Conservation Board Minutes 4 April 20, 1995 Approved: August 1, 1996 Mr. Noteboom stated that last year the department planned a major project on Christopher Circle to improve drainage, sidewalks, area around water tank, etc. and when they went to do the work, the people became very angry and upset because they were not in on the planning stages. This made him realize how important it is to include everyone in the talking stages of a project, so that the input can make the project better and more acceptable to the residents of the Town. Also, he found it necessary to hold an information session for residents in the affected area. The Town Highway also trim and remove trees as necessary, and perform other forestry duties as needed. Also, brush is removed and/or trimmed along roadways. Mr. Zarriello mentioned the necessity for a storm water plan which would include water detention basins and these will also need to be maintained and cleaned. Mr. Noteboom stated that there are many water drainways behind houses in the Northeast section of the Town and the Highway Department does not have the right to go in and maintain them. They are already causing flooding problems to many individual homeowners and something will need to be done by someone fairly quickly. Some of these areas have grown up with trees and brush. For the future, the Conservation Board stated that they would like the County and State Highway Departments to also open a dialog with the committee and the public. Also, the Conservation Board should take the time at future meetings to explore options and solutions to the issues and questions that were raised. The Conservation Board needs to know what current practices of Highway Department are with regard to sale, herbicides, pesticides, etc. Mr. Noteboom and the Conservation Board could work together on Coy Glen roadwork and future projects and become comfortable with sharing information and concerns. Chairperson Hawkes will receive a copy of the Public Works meeting agendas and a representative of the Conservation Board will attend meetings with mutual concerns. The Town newsletter would be an excellent forum for asking for public input on issues, but the newsletter needs to be issued on a regular and consistent basis to be effective, especially if it had a column by the Planning Department, Conservation Board, Highway Department, etc. EARTH DAY ACTIVITY: South Hill Recreation Way Open House on April 23, 1995 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Botanical and wildflower walks will be self -guided with help from Conservation Board members. Ms. Cornish stated that she would find some maps of the South Hill Recreation Way so that Conservation Board members who will lead nature walks on Earth Day will have them to use when welcoming people. Walks will begin at the Hudson Street entrance. Ms. Russell, Chairperson Hawkes, and Ms. Cornish will greet walkers and answer questions. Conservation Board Minutes 5 April 20, 1995 Approved: August 1, 1996 MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Russell stated that the gravel problem on the trail still exists and has not been rolled. Bikers can use the trail, but gravel problem causes difficulties for walkers and makes the trail unusable for horses. Original cinder surface on parts of the trail is great. Mountain bikers (Ms. Russell counted 25 on Wednesday) have made numerous "private trails" down into the gorge and stream and into the wildflower preserve and are doing much environmental damage. Bikers congregate at gates, and then go around them and down the gorge. Ms. Russell saw no signs saying "Stay on Trail" so bikers do not feel what they are doing is forbidden. Mr. Zarriello suggested educational signs that explain why it is important to stay on the trail. Newspaper articles on trail etiquette would also help. Mountain bikers are causing concern in the State Parks, Finger Lakes Trail, and other natural areas because of the lack of respect for the environment. At the Burns Road end of the trail, people are using a private circular drive for a turnaround so law enforcement will be necessary. Enforcement will also be necessary against unleashed dogs on the trail. Ms. Cornish stated that the Town may be able to place a "no turning" sign on the private driveway and also improve trail signs to inform the public of the rules. Ms. Cornish stated that LEAP (Local Environmental Assistant Program) funds are no longer available from New York State. These funds provided 180 of the Conservation Board funds. No new business can be voted on because of the lack of quorum, so annual reports for needs funding will be held over. By-laws and associate member will be forwarded to the Town Board because vote was taken at the last meeting. Lake Source Cooling update has been distributed to Conservation Board members. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Hawkes closed the meeting. \.srh 40+ TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, April 20 1995 Approved• PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Eva Hoffmann, Mary Russell, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner), Fred Noteboom (Town Highway Superintendent). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer. Chairperson Janet Hawkes called the meeting to order. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: None. REPORT FROM STAFF: None. COMMITTEE REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Recommendations written up for Eco Village. The main problem is that the road crosses a wetland and does not allow any, much less 100 -foot, buffer zone. There are also traffic issues and concerns about runoff from parking, housing and agricultural areas into the tributary of Coy Glen that would receive the water. The Planning Board approved Special Land Use District and will send it to the Town Board for approval. The Conservation Board will be looking at the site and development plans at this time. The committee reviewed proposals for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision pending further study of a couple of issues, but recommended positive declaration to the Planning Board. This supported the Health Department's recommendation and was based on the fact that where the Town and City sanitary sewers join there is a back-up problem and effluent runs into Six Mile Creek and basements of neighboring houses. The Health Department recommended that until this problem in eliminated, development on South Hill be scrutinized. for Buttermilk Valley, the Health Department recommended a positive declaration even though the problem is not the developer's fault. The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting. The Digicomp development project, South Hill Complex, which is just downhill from the old NCR building on Danby Road received a negative • declaration, even though it flows into the same system, because the impact would not be as great. • Conservation Board Minutes 2 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Chairperson Hawkes questioned whether the Conservation Board should request storm water drainage plans from developers at the beginning of the planning process, rather than near the end. Then the Conservation Board would have more and earlier input into the planning process. Planning staff reports that no new large development projects are forthcoming at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS COMMITTEE: No report. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE: No report. PRESENTATION BY FRED NOTEBOOM: Mr. Noteboom passed out Town mission statement and stated that the Town has 47 miles of roads with 62 dead-end roads that take more time to maintain with snow removal, mowing, etc. The Town of Ithaca has State, Town, County, Village, City, and Campus roads, each with its own jurisdiction. Mr. Noteboom passed out a sheet listing all parks and trail in the Town. Information is being gathered on Grandview and Troy Parks, which are the most recent parks. Grandview is a large park with ballfields and other facilities, while Troy Park is more of a vest pocket type park with some grading done by the developer. • There have been many changes in the Town Highway Department in recent years. We have more responsibilities but now much more personnel. The Parks Department work has doubled in size in the last seven years. Parks are very popular and Mr. Noteboom estimates that the Parks Department will continue to grow. Parks are built by both parks and highway personnel, with the highway personnel using the heavy machinery and doing the grading and earth moving etc., and the parks department building play structures, planting trees, etc. However, in practice, both departments do whatever is needed for completion and maintenance. Water and sewer is presently under the Town Engineering Department, but highway and parks personnel do the maintenance work like cleaning out catchbasins, seeding, fixing water valves, etc. This is an additional responsibility that has been added in the last few years, so we must work more efficiently. The Town will need to do preventative maintenance on water and sewer lines which have not been maintained for 30, 40, or more years. We do our own in-house truck repairs which is cheaper and allows us to do preventative maintenance on Town vehicles for longer truck life. Cooperation is key to the future. Mr. Noteboom would like to share information, open lines of communication, get earlier input from everyone; the Conservation Board, the public and officials - • before work is begun on projects. This would avoid some of the adversarial relationships that develop, particularly on highway projects. We need to identify the needs from the public and Conservation Board Minutes 3 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT balance them against our operational needs, and this give and take of information would lead to more cooperation. There are many conservation concerns, particularly in Coy Glen where work needs to be done. Both the public and the Town are much more concerned about sediment control when we do road work. Another conservation concerns in salting the roadways. There are new products and additives that can reduce the damage done by salt, and with education, perhaps the taxpayers of the Town would be willing to pay extra to protect the land. The brush and leaf pickup program in the Town is now five years old and now takes 1015 of manpower for the year. We have compost and grass pickup programs too. Wood chips and compost are available to Town residents free of charge at the Highway Department. Brush may also be dropped off there. Growth in the Town of Ithaca has brought increased demand for services and manpower has not kept pace. We are much more efficient and cost-effective than we were in the past, but eventually there will have to be increased allocations made to the Highway Department. The Town will continue to grow, so it is important that the Department become concerned with more than just highway maintenance, such as planning, conservation, new programs, • etc. Once concern was curbing and sidewalks. A different answer may be to require a wider right-of-way with the highway placed to one side to make room for grass, wood chip, oil and stone, or other access paths to be used for pedestrians and bikers. This is an attractive alternative that is already in use in parts of the Town. A representative from the Conservation Board of the Village of Lansing said that in a recent survey of village residents, the need for walkways and greenways was very high on the list. Mr. Noteboom told him where he could view some of the different types of walkways in use in the Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Hawkes stated that some areas that the Conservation Board and Highway Department could work together on and perhaps at least partially resolve in the future would be: the road salt issue, water quality, surface and stormwater run-off and sediment control, spraying of pesticides and herbicides, including disposal and cleanup of equipment, discouraging cul-de-sacs and encouraging cluster housing or other methods of planning roads, using recycled materials for aggregate, wetlands, and storm ditches, "fee in lieu of" for developers, greenways along highways, etc. Mr. Noteboom stated that the Town is considering putting in storm drains in the deepest, steepest ditches to solve the continuing considerable erosion problem of ditches and roadbeds. It is now Town Highway policy to reseed storm ditches that have been cleaned out and scraped to bare earth. E Conservation Board Minutes 4 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Noteboom stated that last year the department planned a major project on Christopher Circle to improve drainage, sidewalks, area around water tank, etc. and when they went to do the work, the people became very angry and upset because they were not in on the planning stages. This made him realize how important it is to include everyone in the talking stages of a project, so that the input can make the project better and more acceptable to the residents of the Town. Also, he found it necessary to hold an information session for residents in the affected area. The Town Highway also trim and remove trees as necessary, and perform other forestry duties as needed. Also, brush is removed and/or trimmed along roadways. Mr. Zarriello mentioned the necessity for a storm water plan which would include water detention basins and these will also need to be maintained and cleaned. Mr. Noteboom stated that there are many water drainways behind houses in the Northeast section of the Town and the Highway Department does not have the right to go in and maintain them. They are already causing flooding problems to many individual homeowners and something will need to be done by someone fairly quickly. Some of these areas have grown up with trees and brush. For the future, the Conservation Board stated that they would like the County and State Highway Departments to also open a dialog with the committee and the public. Also, the Conservation Board should take the time at future meetings to explore options and solutions to the issues and questions that were raised. The Conservation Board needs to know what current practices of Highway Department are with regard to sale, herbicides, pesticides, etc. Mr. Noteboom and the Conservation Board could work together on Coy Glen roadwork and future projects and become comfortable with sharing information and concerns. Chairperson Hawkes will receive a copy of the Public Works meeting agendas and a representative of the Conservation Board will attend meetings with mutual concerns. The Town newsletter would be an excellent forum for asking for public input on issues, but the newsletter needs to be issued on a regular and consistent basis to be effective, especially if it had a column by the Planning Department, Conservation Board, Highway Department, etc. EARTH DAY ACTIVITY: South Hill Recreation Way Open House on April 23, 1995 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Botanical and wildflower walks will be self -guided with help from Conservation Board members. Ms. Cornish stated that she would find some maps of the South Hill Recreation Way so that Conservation Board members who will lead nature walks on Earth Day • will have them to use when welcoming people. Walks will begin at the Hudson Street entrance. Ms. Russell, Chairperson Hawkes, and Ms. Cornish will greet walkers and answer questions. • Conservation Board Minutes 5 April 20, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Russell stated that the gravel problem on the trail still exists and has not been rolled. Bikers can use the trail, but gravel problem causes difficulties for walkers and makes the trail unusable for horses. Original cinder surface on parts of the trail is great. Mountain bikers (Ms. Russell counted 25 on Wednesday) have made numerous "private trails" down into the gorge and stream and into the wildflower preserve and are doing much environmental damage. Bikers congregate at gates, and then go around them and down the gorge. Ms. Russell saw no signs saying "Stay on Trail" so bikers do not feel what they are doing is forbidden. Mr. Zarriello suggested educational signs that explain why it is important to stay on the trail. Newspaper articles on trail etiquette would also help. Mountain bikers are causing concern in the State Parks, Finger Lakes Trail, and other natural areas because of the lack of respect for the environment. At the Burns Road end of the trail, people are using a private circular drive for a turnaround so law enforcement will be necessary. Enforcement will also be necessary against unleashed dogs on the trail. Ms. Cornish stated that the Town may be able to place a "no turning" sign on the private driveway and also improve trail signs to inform the public of the rules. Ms. Cornish stated that LEAP (Local Environmental Assistant Program) funds are no longer available from New York State. These funds provided 18% of the Conservation Board funds. No new business can be voted on because of the lack of quorum, so annual reports for needs funding will be held over. By-laws and associate member will be forwarded to the Town Board because vote was taken at the last meeting. Lake Source Cooling update has been distributed to Conservation Board members. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Hawkes closed the meeting. \.srh E TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, April 20, 1995 TOWN HALL.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. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:10 p.m. 5. Update and dialogue with Town of Ithaca Highway and Parks Departments Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent Rich Schock, Parks Manager 8:45 p.m. 6. Old Business -Plan of Work -Earth Day Activities -Others 9:15 p.m. 7. Member Concerns CB Members: Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello Date: April 10, 1995 To: Conservation Board Members From: Janet E. Hawkes, Chair Re: Conservation Board Meeting April 20, 1994 7:30pm Town Hall Enclosed you will find an agenda for the April 20th meeting. At this meeting we are happy to have Fred Noteboom and Rich Schock joining us from the Town of Ithaca Highway and Parks Departments. After a short presentation of the activities and priorities of each of those deparments, we will discuss ways that we (the Conservation Board and these departments) can work together. Also at this meeting we will be finalizing times and details for the Earth Day Open House on the Southhill Recreationway on April 23. I hope we can count on your participation for at least part of the time. Thank you. Please call me at 272-1126 if you cannot attend the meeting. yI2ol9ci Cornell's Ithaca -Campus Cooling System: Study in Progress Newsletter #2, April 1995 In June 1994 we distributed our first newsletter informing readers of Cornell's intent to study cooling alternatives. The concept we call lake source cooling (LSC) could be the preferred alternative to provide campus cooling needs into the twenty-first century. The newsletter was sent to the Cornell and Ithaca communities, and other interested parties. We explained the current Cornell Ithaca -campus cooling system and the reasons why it must undergo significant change—the federal phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), our existing system's aging equipment, and load growth due to new construction and renovation projects. The potential benefits and concerns of conventional cooling alternatives and LSC were discussed. We also described how the feasibility of using Cayuga Lake as a natural cooling source would be investigated. (If you'd like a copy of that newsletter, please call Henry Doney at 254-4790.) This second newsletter reviews the results of the study effort and explains what our next steps will be in completing the LSC feasibility investigation. We are concentrating on a number of areas including environmental impact assessment, community outreach, engineering and economic feasibility, and plant siting and pipeline routing options. Findings and reactions have been positive, and it appears that the proposed application of lake source cooling would have no significant adverse impacts on the Cayuga Lake ecosystem, although further studies must be performed to confirm this. Community Input Meetings with Community and Environmental Groups Our meetings with many community and environmental groups allowed us to explain LSC and to hear questions and concerns. At our first meetings with these groups we introduced the concept of a campus cooling system, our need to change the current system, and the major cooling system alternatives. In addition, we described the study plan. Follow-up meetings concentrated on the st3.9 l.v .results a zllowec? '-�r detailed public questioning regarding study findings. Over the next few months we will talk with residents along the proposed chilled - water line route (from the LSC heat -exchange facility to the Cornell campus). This effort will include conversations, surveys, letters, and a public meeting that residents and the general community are welcome to attend. The meeting will be held on April 28th at 7 p.m. in Ithaca High School's activity room. We are conducting this outreach to inform the community of the proposed project's specifics, answer questions, and get feedback about the proposed construction. ,. Lake Source Cooling Newletter #2 April 1995 Page 2 of 6 Recreational opportunities Conversations with the Town of Ithaca have made us aware of the Town's desire to improve lake access for Town residents. Should the siting of the heat - exchange facility result in our purchasing lakefront property, the Town has expressed its interest in developing for public benefit part of the property not required for LSC. Such a potential cooperative effort is the type of creative thought we had hoped this study would stimulate. Sharing the resources of lake source cooling Meetings have been held with City of Ithaca School District administrators to discuss routing the chilled -water transmission pipes from the heat -exchange facility to the Cornell campus. During these meetings we learned that the district also relies on an old CFC chiller and cooling tower, and is in the same situation as Cornell. The school district's equipment is scheduled for replacement in their current master plan. The Lake St. complex could easily be provided with cooling from LSC, which could reduce the district's operating and maintenance costs and increase the overall environmental benefit of the project by reducing their electricity and refrigerant use. If the university decides to proceed with LSC, the school district could be included in the system design. At this time, no other prospective users of LSC have been identified. Upgrading infrastructure Should LSC be constructed, a number of improvements would result from the construction. These include resurfaced roads and replacement of existing water and sewer lines where they will be disturbed along the pipeline route. Conversations with City of Ithaca staff have revealed other opportunities for improvements that the city has under consideration. Many of these could be accomplished at reduced cost to the city if they were built concurrent with the LSC project. These opportunities include redesigning Lake Street on the hill near the Gun Hill residences, providing new large -diameter intermunicipal water and sanitary sewer mains through the north end of Ithaca, and providing new sidewalks at locations along the pipeline route. Environmental Investigations Description of lake study The environmental feasibility of lake source cooling depends on the potential impacts on the water quality and ecology of Cayuga Lake. The 1994 field program to evaluate possible lake impacts was initiated the first week in June, and continued throughout the fall with intensive monitoring of the lake's temperature, water quality, and biological parameters. The findings from this effort and the conclusions based on results to date are documented in a report 41 Lake Source Cooling Newletter #2 April 1995 Page 3 of 6 titled "Environmental Investigation and Assessment of Cayuga Lake Based Cooling, Interim Report, December 1994." This report is on file at the Tompkins County and Cornell Engineering College Libraries' reference sections. Weekly monitoring confirmed that the water temperature at 200 feet deep remains cold (around 40 degrees F) throughout the summer period, and appears isolated from the effects of Cayuga Lake's internal waves. As fall approached, the water cooled and the surface water layers gradually deepened and mixed completely with the deep lake waters. Continuous temperature -recording devices were installed at three locations to monitor changes in water temperature during the fall mixing period. Water chemistry results indicated that cycling water from the lower layers of the lake to upper layers will not have adverse impacts on the Cayuga Lake ecosystem. The concentration of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica) and suspended plants (phytoplankton) in Cayuga Lake were low in 1994. Dissolved oxygen concentrations remained high throughout the entire depth of the lake. Continued analysis of the potential impacts of the Lake Source Cooling system will focus during 1995 on the differences in water quality between the deep water (intake) region and the shallower (release) region. Biological monitoring of the lake's deep -water invertebrate community, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and fish was conducted during the summer and continued through November. The objective of the biological monitoring program was twofold: characterize the existing aquatic community, and identify species or life stages potentially vulnerable to the impacts of the lake source cooling proposal. Two areas of concern were identified; additional study in 1995 is expected to confirm initial findings of no significant impacts. The first is trapping of Mysis relicta, or mysids, small freshwater shrimp native to the lake. Mysids are an important food for juvenile lake trout and other fish important to the lake ecosystem, but a carefully designed intake structure is not expected to trap large numbers of the shrimp. Studies will continue into 1995 to determine more about the mysids and enable design of mitigation measures, if necessary. The second area of concern is the growth of fresh water mussels within the system and the potential impact of mussel control methods on Cayuga Lake. The LSC design must accommodate zebra mussels and their close relative, quagga mussels. A combination of materials selection, pipe sizing, filtration, and mussel control measures would be required to mitigate mussel infestation without adverse impact on the lake ecosystem. Discussions with environmental regulators and the scientific review committee A number of meetings have been held to discuss and review the study findings. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will have significant responsibility for review and approval.if the LSC concept proceeds to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and permit phase. The DEC has Lake Source Cooling Newletter #2 April 1995 Page 4 of 6 reviewed our study findings and ongoing DEC input during this preliminary work is critical to help define the issues and guide us on the likelihood of receiving an EIS and permits. A scientific review committee sponsored by the Center for the Environment (CfE) at Cornell has reviewed the study's methods and results. The committee stated that "should the new data continue to show only a very limited impact, the committee strongly endorses an exploration of the economic feasibility of the LSC project... we believe Cornell University should show leadership in imaginative ways to reduce the impact of a large institution on the environment." Engineering and Economic Feasibility Engineering consultants have been asked to help define the LSC concept and conventional alternatives utilizing chillers on campus. The conventional chiller alternative chosen for comparison to LSC includes a combination of large, electric -motor -driven centrifugal chillers with environmentally acceptable (non - CFC) refrigerants, to be located at new or existing campus chilled -water plants. Construction cost estimates and operating costs were prepared and used to develop operating costs over the next 35 years. The LSC concept was developed to define pipe sizes, plant size and configuration, plant siting and pipeline routing, and interconnection with the existing distribution system for chilled water on campus. Comparison of the initial size of the LSC, described in our first newsletter, to the conventional alternative was not favorable; we found that a campus cooling system based only on LSC was just too costly. As a result, the capacity of the LSC system has been optimized to the expected load profile of the system in the future. A combination of LSC and non -CFC on -campus chillers is now the basis for comparison to an all -conventional system. This optimized system would include using one new chiller and one highly efficient existing chiller along with the existing thermal storage tank to meet peak loads. Because cooling demands are only very high during the hottest hours of the summer, a smaller LSC capacity still captures the majority of the expected energy savings with lower start-up cost. Only the highest loads will draw on the conventional chillers. The estimated project cost is in the range of $45-50 million. If we are able to keep design and construction costs to a minimum, the combination of avoided chiller construction cost and energy savings should in the long term, offset the extra construction cost of LSC. The LSC concept would be a significant investment in the future and in reduction of energy use with its resultant negative effects on the environment. With such a high equipment and construction price tag (compared to the cost of conventional cooling), it will take years before the university can hope to break even on costs, but the investment may be worthwhile when viewed in terms of reduced ecological impact and equivalent costs over the long term. Lake Source Cooling Newletter #2 April 1995 Page 5 of 6 Plant Site Selection and Pipeline Routing To minimize the energy used for pumping lake water, the best location for the heat -exchange facility is near the lake shore at the same elevation as the lake. We have evaluated a number of locations near the south and southeast shorelines. The preferred location at this time is just north of the Cayuga Heights waste- water treatment plant along East Shore Drive. The heat -exchange facility would be housed in two buildings—a small building near the lake shore and a larger main plant on the east side of East Shore Drive. The property that the buildings would be on, even the buildings themselves, could be shared with other users because the facility will operate very quietly. We have been discussing shared - use possibilities with local municipalities, and would be interested in any other suggestions from individuals. An extension of the campus chilled -water piping will be constructed to carry the chilled water generated by LSC to the campus and bring the warmed water back to the plant for cooling. This piping is expected to consist of two 36 -inch diameter lines. From the heat exchange facility, pipes could run parallel to the west shoulder of Route 13 to the Rt. 13 overpass at East Shore Drive. From there, they could follow the west side of Lake Street on the Ithaca School District property until Fall Creek. The Fall Creek crossing could be under the bridge and then up Gun Hill through private property. After that, they could go along Lake Street and University Avenue until reaching the base of Libe Slope at West Avenue on the Cornell campus. From Libe Slope they would pass through the arts quad on their way to multiple tie-in points to the existing campus distribution system. 250 200 l50 RW 3 �d I00 50 Hospital Cayugalalt Outfall Tnywen Pllaant N Proposed Pipeline Fall Creek like Canell City �oof University Six Mile Creek Proposed siting and routing Lake Source Cooling Newletter #2 April 1995 Page 6 of 6 Installing the 36 -inch chilled -water lines to campus would probably require two construction seasons to complete because of the pipelines' long run. As the construction progresses, any area along the route would be disturbed for up to four to six weeks. Access to all residences would be maintained at all times. As with any major utility line installation, there will be some inconvenience during construction, but we would make every reasonable effort to minimize it. What's Next? Over the course of the spring and early summer, we hope to complete the study phase and recommend to the university whether to proceed to the environmental impact statement (EIS) and permit phase of LSC, or pursue conventional cooling alternatives. We are seeking continued input from the community; it is critical to our overall decision-making process. Should we decide to pursue LSC, the EIS process provides ��,any significant additional opportunities for public comment, and the public has full, formal input in whether the project can be built. Only after the university receives a final EIS approval and all required permits and property rights would we proceed to final design documents and then construction. If we then pursue LSC, we hope to complete it by the year 2000. If not, the first parts of conventional cooling alternatives could be completed by 1998. 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. At any time, you can direct comments or questions to: Henry E. Doney Director of Utilities and Energy Management Facilities and Campus Services 135 Humphreys Service Building Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-3701 Telephone: (607) 254-4790. Fax: (607) 255-5377 e-mail: lake—source@comell.edu Public -access Natural Area/Park Proposal from the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council April 11, 1995 DRAFT Common Council has designated for future parkland an area south and west of the flood control levee, and the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan shows future park land on the west side of the Inlet just across from this. The CAC reaffirms its support for protection of this area, and proposes that the City, Town, and County acquire the site, on both sides of the Inlet, for a significant new public natural area or park. Further, the CAC feels that discussions should begin concerning future use of the area. Because consideration of the commercially zoned portion of the site must wait until the Planning Board has completed its deliberations on the Wal-Mart proposal, the CAC is confining this discussion to the FW -1 zone. A BRIEF HISTORY.' The City's interest in protecting this area goes back more than a quarter century. For example, in 1968, the City's "Recreation and Open Space Plan" proposed protection of a green corridor extending from Buttermilk to the lake. In fact, the green corridor extends all the way up Cayuga Inlet Valley, taking in along the way, Treman State Park, the Sweedler Preserve at Lick Brook, Buttermilk Falls State Park, the flanks of the Inlet, Cass Park, Stewart Park, the City Golf Course, and Cornell's Biological Field Station. The City's 1977 study, "Ithaca's Southwest: a Development Study," proposed two alternatives: protect as parkland the entire site (including the commercially zoned area) or just the floodway zone (FW -1) area. In the mid-to-late '80's, Common Council and the NYS legislature approved acquiring the parcels in the FW -1 zone as substitute land for SW Park. The City has already purchased two of these parcels, and Wal-Mart proposes to build on some of the remainder. The County owns one of the designated parcels. RATIONALE FOR ACQUISITION, AND POTENTIAL USES.' The CAC believes that acquisition of the properties has merit in its own right, whether or not SW Park is alienated: • It is the last remaining large open space in the City that would be suitable for a public - access natural area or park, and thus provides a unique opportunity that must not be lost. • It is easily accessible, provided a right-of-way from route 13 is acquired. • Wheelchair access would be feasible, given the flat terrain. • The proposed Black Diamond trail and the existing trail on the levee abut the site, and the trails would be enhanced by such a natural area, as well as being an enhancement of the area. • It constitutes a crucial piece in the extensive green corridor that extends up the Cayuga Inlet valley to Cayuga Lake, and its loss would constitute a significant break in this corridor, with adverse effects on the many birds that use the site, especially during migration. • The area would be a fine complement to Buttermilk Falls State Park, providing a diversity of interesting and attractive habitats not found at Buttermilk --habitats of value in their own right as well as being ones with great appeal to tourists. In addition, views from Buttermilk's trails would be maintained. • It is one of the first sights to greet visitors entering the City from the south, and provides an attractive vista extending across the valley and up West Hill. • The wetlands that existed on the site until the early 1970's when field tiling and drainage swales were installed, could be easily restored --something the US Fish and Wildlife service would do at no cost to the City. Once scorned, wetlands are now a great attraction, especially to bird watchers who will travel long distances to visit wetlands. The levee would provide a perfect vantage point for looking out over the wetland, and a boardwalk could be installed within the wetland as resources became available. • The flood protection functions of the existing wetlands (3.4 ac.) would be enhanced by the wetland restoration, thus helping to remediate flooding problems in that section of the City. • The valuable flood plain forest (Negundo Woods --a County Unique Natural Area) could continue its expansion into the former agricultural fields. Flood plain forests are now one of the rarest ecosystems in NY State, and Tompkins County could set an example to other communities by not only protecting what little is left, but by letting it expand. Negundo Woods is remarkably rich in both plant life and wildlife. • Cayuga Inlet is already a popular place for walking, wading, birdwatching, and fishing, and such uses would likely increase if a park were adjacent to it. Canoes could be launched from the site for trips down the Inlet to the lake. A public natural area with waterfront has special value. • This is the only portion of Cayuga Inlet within the City that is unchannelled and natural. • If a site were acquired along route 13, a booth could be erected for tourists entering the City from the south, with info about tourist attractions, and educational materials about flood plains, wetlands, and wetland restoration. Currently, no such facility exists in the vicinity. • The levee provides a good buffer between the natural area and commercial uses along route 13, thus enhancing the value of the area for relieving the sense of "urban closeness." • A consultant, Gary Esolen, recently hired by the County to give advice on how to increase tourism in the County, recommended making the most of what we've got: outstanding natural and educational resources. The new natural area/park would be right in line with his recommendation. • Even without spending a dime beyond the cost of acquisition, the area would be of significant value to City, Town, and County residents. Nature is doing a fine job all by itself. While wetland restoration, trails and a boardwalk would further enhance the site, they would not be essential. -16 NOW art •'�: :•si;�: •: �1' .:•':..:•.: i,:'••%'_����•:� '��.�/ .)fir•:/' :_ ': �.�:• ;• •'.,'; .,;; :;. �'��.• ,:�.,: •:41 . •' 'rte "•l: :.'' •�" •' •. • ''• .�'.�.- ': • ::: rte. ��X•• ` •t:r♦ .. '' 'i ';,;•; ::::� "-ti''.;�:;; `, 1 � •` *rte 1*00 v i :�• 111 � j. ��� ���� �� :� �.' �.• 111 �.t,���' r ' � .t• • i •'• 'i••J• 1,11 11 parcels .purchased r ' by City in 1986 for future park designation :•� i ::., _ • other parcels listed as potential substitute parkland in Chapter 757 • 4w-60 extent of Wal-Mart project site 1 ■ R ■ extent of Wal-Mart building (Alt. SE -1) northern extent of earth fill (Alternative SE -1) FIGURE D or -9 00A o�0 1. 2 3. Outline of the Highway/Parks Department CONSERVATION BOARD MISSION STATEMENT The Town of Ithaca Highway/Parks Department function as a public steward providing snow removal, paving, yard waste collection, vegetation control, parks, trails, water, sewer, and road maintenance services. The Highway/Parks Department also. assists the Town Board and other departments with projects to be completed within the Town. The Highway/Parks Department strive to make the Town of Ithaca a very pleasant, worthwhile Town to live in. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF HIGHWAYS, PARKS AND TRAILS a. Mileage b. Cul-de-sac's C. State, County, City, Village, Campus roads d. Parks and trails e. Highway/Parks staff has not changed significantly but the workload has PUBLIC WORK SERVICES a. Brush and leaf clean up --both curb side and drop off and give away (at least 10% of our time). b. Water maintenance --fix water services and mow water rights -of -ways, tank sites and pump stations. C. Sewer Maintenance --clean sewers and repair utility access holes. d. Park construction. e. Trail construction. f. More in-house equipment maintenance. 4. COOPERATION a. How to share information. 1. Line of communication --keep open, meetings. 2. Early input in project planning. 3. Identify needs. a. Conservation b. Public Interest C. Operational b. Public Work Services. 1. CMA versus road salt. 2. Yard Waste Collection/Composting 3. Herbicides and Pesticides --minimize needed. 4. New services (not known at present issues) . not just at use, but still time, future 5. STRUGGLING FOR DEFINITION f' a. Growth of Town population and increased demand for services. b. Becoming more densely developed (transition from rural to urban) . C. Public Works Department structure being investigated. d. Doing more with less resources (improving efficiency in all aspects of our functioning), tax payers and political realties dictate that we get even better at what we do and have more diversification in talent pool and skills/training of staff. e. How we maintain our Rights-of-way. 1. Open ditch versus storm sewers. - 2. Visual impact. 3. Aesthetically appealing. f. More park -like. g. New Items 1. Larger Rights-of-way to incorporate greenways/walkways? 2. Need to decide in timely fashion before urbanization. ghk TOWN OF ITHA An CA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, May 4, 1995 '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 from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:10 p.m. 5. Old Business -Town of Ithaca Highway & Parks Departments -City/Town/County Park discussion -Earth Day Activities -Others 8:30 p.m. 6. New Business -Final Report to DEC for LEAP funding -Viewsheds in the Town of Ithaca ` -By-laws and Associate members -Celebrate Cayuga Lake -Other 9:15 p.m. 7. Member Concerns CB Members: Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Loren Taur Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, May 4, 1995 Approved: September 16,1996 PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Mary Russell, Phillip Zarriello, Cheryl Smith, Richard Fischer, JoAnn Cornish (Planner). ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs, Loren Tauer. Chairperson Janet Hawkes called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: The Environmental Management Council is doing a long-range plan on environmental issues to be included in the County Comprehensive Plan. The Conservation Board will have an opportunity to react to this. Cindy Long, a Cornell master's degree student, is the Ithaca correspondent for Central New York Environment, a bi-monthly newspaper and is willing to write articles about our work and/or concerns. Lake Source Cooling is now being scaled down to include traditional cooling sources as well as lake source. 1995 New York State Department of Conservation Conference is in Syracuse from September 30th to October 2nd. Conservation Board could plan a day trip. Statewide conference on Land Trust Alliance of New York is June 3rd and 4th, in Hudson Valley. Thank you for support for Earth Day walk at South Hill Recreation Way. We noted misuse of bicycles that were going off the trail. A meeting was held at Cayuga Mountain Bike Shop last week which addressed the problem of staying on the trail with bikers and others. Six Mile Creek Overseeing Committee is also concerned about this problem. There was a new brochure passed out, entitled "Rules of the Trail", and is available in the rack at City Hall. There was a suggestion to have this brochure made available at schools, bike shops, Woolworths, and bike rental shops. REPORT FROM STAFF: Planner Cornish stated that Conservation Board files are very incomplete and need updating. Board Members are asked to give copies of any minutes as far back as 1990 to Ms. Cornish. A cross-reference sheet is being produced for each meeting because filing is done by date, not content. New Conservation Board Members should receive packet of information used by Town, including Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, etc. Members asked to check what they have received against complete list to be sent out. Missing material will be sent to each member. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Environmental Review Committee: Committee had site visit to Candlelight Park, the former Conservaiton Board Minutes 2 May 4, 1995 Adopted 9/16/96 Cerrache property on Mecklenburg Road, development proposed by Ivar Jonson. Committee checked the wetlands, stream corridors, etc. Mr. Zarriello impressed with depth of knowledge and vision of Town Planning Staff. Development is in sketch plan stage, but developer very agreeable to stream corridor and wetland protection, cluster housing, etc. Sketch approval for 153 units has been presented to the Planning Board, and Mr. Jonson will plan cluster development with land protection. There will be ongoing discussions with Planning Staff. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: Mr. Zaniello transposed DEC's disk on regulated wetland to DXF file format which will allow Geri Tierney to work on it. Not much in Town of Ithaca, mostly in City of Ithaca except for two outlying sections. Geri leaving Town of Ithaca, a Cornell University intern will continue work for ten weeks. Parks and Open Space Committee:Has not met, but committee has given comments to George Frantz on draft document for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Report. Will be reviewed by committee and hopefully distributed by June meeting for discussion. OLD BUSINESS: Fred Noteboom, Town Highway Superintendent, can be reached at Highway Facility, 106 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, 273-1656. Compost available weekdays from 6am to 3:30pm. Mr. Noteboom will supply Conservation Board with a list of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides used by the Town of Ithaca. Town Engineers will do preliminary survey of Coy Glen Road and bank restoration on Elm Street Extension, and timetable is for work in the next year. Mr. Noteboom will share information with the Conservation Board that can visit the site. Erik Whitney was surveying in the Coy Glen area and was able to get license number of car involved in garbage dumping. He reported it and woman will be arrested. There is a long-standing illegal dump there, but not sure whether clean-up funds can be used to restore area. Mr. Noteboom will check on this and if okay, the Town can clean it up. The Conservation Board can work on facilitating this to help with water quality improvement. Mr. Noteboom said that ROTC may be willing to help with clean-up also. Chairperson Hawkes stated that there is junk dumped over bank near South Hill Recreation Way, some in the City and some in the Town. Comments on Recreation Way included numbering stations on map to coincide with narrative and also to rewrite sign at Station 8 so that people can feel that they can look for and examine fossils, but just not remove them from the site. Rich Schoch and George Frantz had a meeting regarding illegal camping in several places, shotgun shells and firecrackers, etc. Most is near the trail but on private or City land. Bikers are using a private driveway for a turnaround - Town may be able to put up signs at end of driveway for landowner. Mr. Frantz stated that bikers are tearing stiles and posts down regularly. Education of bikers may be the answer. Ithaca College Outdoor Club should be contacted to see if they are willing to adopt trail to do maintenance work. Guest editorial or other items to educate public on bike and trail etiquette could be put in the Ithaca Times and Ithaca Journal. Discussion on putting barrier fences and signs at edge of several very steep gorges near Burns Road to keep children from danger. Conservation Board needs another site visit to decide danger points. No Biking signs regularly disappear. Dogs off leashes and non -removal of dog waste also problem. Mr. Noteboom said that Conservaiton Board Minutes 3 May 4, 1995 Adopted 9/16/96 Town of Ithaca is looking at better surfacing options for trail - right now surface is crushed bank run gravel that was seeded to grass. Cinders may be an option. Mr. Fischer stated that the Recreation Way that used to be the Lehigh Valley right-of-way near Game Farm Road is very heavily used. Mr. Noteboom stated that the Town plans to resurface and regrade land near Game Farm end because of standing water. Cornell University is planning to make the wetland on the old dump property deeper for more water capacity and regrade the slope and cover the uncovered garbage. Mr .Noteboom was asked what he knew of a brush fire that was started and put out by two boys in Eastern Heights Park. Mr. Noteboom was also asked who was planting fir and pine trees on the bank in the park. They were planted on the bank near the Peregrine Hollow Development. The Conservation Board suggested that the Town tank truck go along trails and water the small trees that are stressed by the dry conditions. The City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council has made a proposal for a park in the area behind the commercially zoned parcel that Wal-Mart is considering. This is revised version and covers City owned land along the railroad embankment, Inlet Valley, Negundo Woods, and they would like to include Town land adjoining to make it a jointly administered park. The piece of land on the other side of the embankment is a wetland and is planned to be kept as open space and natural area, but has not yet been acquired by the Town. Originally, the City planned to swap land in Southwest Park for this park but there are wetlands in Southwest Park and this may cause problems with that plan. NEW BUSINESS: Celebrate Cayuga Lake Week is from July 15 to July 23, 1995. The Conservation Board has been asked to participate. The New York State Parks Commission is coordinating activities at Taughannock Park and throughout the entire Lake. Last year, we put a small article in the paper about stream drainage and how it impacts the lake. One of their suggestions was a streamside workshop or stream walk, for this year since most major inlet tributaries run through the Town. We could have an information booth or activity at Taughannock Park. We could also publicize the views of the lake from Town sites and importance of protecting the environment, etc. The Conservation Board could distribute literature about drainage too. Mr. Zarriello will contact State Parks Office for further information on dates and planned programs. Mr. Frantz will speak at the next meeting about South Hill Trial maintenance, fences, signs, etc. Money is a problem and we need to make a recommendation to the Town Board. Perhaps a volunteer work day would be a useful way to get necessary work done, especially if groups volunteer and/or adopt a trail. Bikers are heavily using a small gorge trail that has numerous rare and endangered plants. However, property owners do not care, so it is difficult to stop the bikers. MEMBER CONCERNS: Mr. Zarriello stated that FLEA (Finger Lakes Environmental Association) and the Cayuga Lake Association are concerned that Cayuga Lake levels are being manipulated by NYS Thruway Authority through the NYS Canal Authority and they are using Cayuga Lakes as a detention reservoir Conservaiton Board Minutes 4 May 4, 1995 Adopted 9/16/96 to protect property between Cayuga Lake and Lake Ontario. The systems seems to have no coherent plan and lake levels are based on the number of telephone complaints received. Right now it is being kept very low to serve as a holding area in case major rain storms cause flooding. Should the Conservation Board get involved with this in the form of a resolution that the Town can pass on to the State. Mr. Fischer thanked the Conservation Board for the card sent to his wife at the time of her operation. It was most appreciated. MEETING ADJOURNED. 8/14/96.srh Filename: CEnt12\cb\Minutes\05-04-95.min Public -access Natural Area/Park Proposal from the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council April 11, 1995 DRAFT Common Council has designated for future parkland an area south and west of the flood control levee, and the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan shows future park land on the west side of the Inlet just across from this. The CAC reaffirms its support for protection of this area, and proposes that the City, Town, and County acquire the site, on both sides of the Inlet, for a significant new public natural area or park. Further, the CAC feels that discussions should begin concerning future use of the area. Because consideration of the commercially zoned portion of the site must wait until the Planning Board has completed its deliberations on the Wal-Mart proposal, the CAC is confining this discussion to the FW -1 zone. A BRIEF HISTORY.* The City's interest in protecting this area goes back more than a quarter century. For example, in 1968, the City's "Recreation and Open Space Plan" proposed protection of a green corridor extending from Buttermilk to the lake. In fact, the green corridor extends all the way up Cayuga Inlet Valley, taking in along the way, Treman State Park, the Sweedler Preserve at Lick Brook, Buttermilk Falls State Park, the flanks of the Inlet, Cass Park, Stewart Park, the City Golf Course, and Cornell's Biological Field Station. The City's 1977 study, "Ithaca's Southwest: a Development Study," proposed two alternatives: protect as parkland the entire site (including the commercially zoned area) or just the floodway zone (FW -1) area. In the mid-to-late '80's, Common Council and the NYS legislature approved acquiring the parcels in the FW -1 zone as substitute land for SW Park. The City has already purchased two of these parcels, and Wal-Mart proposes to build on some of the remainder. The County owns one of the designated parcels. RATIONALE FOR ACQUISMON, AND POTENTIAL USES' The CAC believes that acquisition of the properties has merit in its own right, whether or not SW Park is alienated: • It is the last remaining large open space in the City that would be suitable for a public - access natural area or park, and thus provides a unique opportunity that must not be lost. • It is easily accessible, provided a right-of-way from route 13 is acquired. • Wheelchair access would be feasible, given the flat terrain. • The proposed Black Diamond trail and the existing trail on the levee abut the site, and the trails would be enhanced by such a natural area, as well as being an enhancement of the area. • It constitutes a crucial piece in the extensive green corridor that extends up the Cayuga Inlet valley to Cayuga Lake, and its loss would constitute a significant break in this corridor, with adverse effects on the many birds that use the site, especially during migration. • The area would be a fine complement to Buttermilk Falls State Park, providing a diversity of interesting and attractive habitats not found at Buttermilk --habitats of value in their own right as well as being ones with great appeal to tourists. In addition, views from Buttermilk's trails would be maintained. • It is one of the first sights to greet visitors entering the City from the south, and provides an attractive vista extending across the valley and up West Hill. • The wetlands that existed on the site until the early 1970's when field tiling and drainage swales were installed, could be easily restored --something the US Fish and Wildlife service would do at no cost to the City. Once scorned, wetlands are now a great attraction, especially to bird watchers who will travel long distances to visit wetlands. The levee would provide a perfect vantage point for looking out over the wetland, and a boardwalk could be installed within the wetland as resources became available. • The flood protection functions of the existing wetlands (3.4 ac.) would be enhanced by the wetland restoration, thus helping to remediate flooding problems in that section of the City. • The valuable flood plain forest (Negundo Woods --a County Unique Natural Area) could continue its expansion into the former agricultural fields. Flood plain forests are now one of the rarest ecosystems in NY State, and Tompkins County could set an example to other communities by not only protecting what little is left, but by letting it expand. Negundo Woods is remarkably rich in both plant life and wildlife. • Cayuga Inlet is already a popular place for walking, wading, birdwatching, and fishing, and such uses would likely increase if a park were adjacent to it. Canoes could be launched from the site for trips down the Inlet to the lake. A public natural area with waterfront has special value. • This is the only portion of Cayuga Inlet within the City that is unchannelled and natural. • If a site were acquired along route 13, a booth could be erected for tourists entering the City from the south, with info about tourist attractions, and educational materials about flood plains, wetlands, and wetland restoration. Currently, no such facility exists in the vicinity. • The levee provides a good buffer between the natural area and commercial uses along route 13, thus enhancing the value of the area for relieving the sense of "urban closeness." • A consultant, Gary Esolen, recently hired by the County to give advice on how to increase tourism in the County, recommended making the most of what we've got: outstanding natural and educational resources. The new natural area/park would be right in line with his recommendation. • Even without spending a dime beyond the cost of acquisition, the area would be of significant value to City, Town, and County residents. Nature is doing's fine job all by itself. While wetland restoration, trails and a boardwalk would further enhance the site, they would not be essential. -16- ' '.�• �• .�: ���' ?P'e`w: ' '`-.t :• Pill ve 41 ' •• ••••"•?.%'''•�:1'.'::.'::=•..moi'_.. �t�_..- ' 0 At IL r^ L.. '�.' •_ -J v'S • #4 parcels •• parcels . purchased : • by City in 1986 for future •. park designation : • other parcels listedf : t° •� •� : • D as potential substitute • . e'• parkland in Chapter 757 • • • • • w extent of Wal-Mart project site •1 •.' Pr' NUN i extent of Wal-Mart building (Alt. SE -1) '�• northern extent of earth fill (Alternative SE 1) FIGURE D 6 0�0 • C 7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. 7:45 p.m. 7:55 p.m. 8:10 p.m. 8:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, June 1, 1995 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca. NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 5. 31 9:15 p.m. 7. CB Members: Richard Fischer Janet Hawkes, Chair Eva Hoffman Jon Meigs Persons To Be Heard Report from Chair Report from Planning Staff Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee Old Business -City/Town/County Park discussion -By-laws and Associate members -Celebrate Cayuga Lake -Others New Business -Viewsheds in the Town of Ithaca -Six Mile Creek Conservation District -Other Member Concerns Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer Phil Zarriello Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes Thursday, June 1, 1995 Approved: 9/19/96 PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Mary Russell, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer. ABSENT: Jon Meigs, Phil Zarriello. STAFF: JoAnn Cornish. GUESTS: Dan Hoffmann; City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Hawkes. REPORT OF CHAIR: With regard to formation of a park/natural refuge in the Inlet Valley area of the City and Town, the Ithaca City CAC will send a resolution to the Conservation Board for approval. It states that the FW -1 zone in the southwest corner of the City is a critical environmental area that • needs to be saved as part of the green way and asks that the proposal to make a City/Town/County Park receive a fair and thorough public hearing so that merits of the proposal can be debated. We will receive a resolution from them to vote on at the July meeting. Updated map and proposal was handed out. REPORT FROM PLANNING STAFF: Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that the Wetlands Delineation Manual was mailed, but members did not receive it, so replacements will be sent. Next Town Newsletter will be sometime in the fall. The Ithacare DEIS will be presented at the Planning Board's next meeting. Plan to buy a camera for the Planning Department for region inventory pictures is under consideration. This will necessitate developing a system to catalog and store pictures and slides. COMMITTEE REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Committee made site visit to Forest Pond Subdivision on Sheffield Road being developed by Christopher Muka. They walked through the property and noted that the road crossed a substantial stream which will require a culvert or bridge as well as a wetland area that may require another bridge. Site needs on-site wetland delineation because it contains a DEC�wetland (any wetland 12 acres or larger is under DEC jurisdiction) and also is designated a unique natural area (UNA). Site is east of Sheffield Road, on the border with the Town of Enfield and near the border of the Town of Ulysses. The wetland is in all three towns, but part that is on the property appears to be larger than DEC • delineation, so on-site delineation is required. Developer is proposing 14 building sites on dry • CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE 1, 1995 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19,1996 side of the 30 acre property, but several lots encroach on the wetland. The Conservation Board feels that this wetland should have a buffer area to protect it. The developer is logging the property and Ms. Cornish checked with DEC about permits. DEC said that no permits was needed for selective cutting, but DEC must be informed of clear cutting. Land no on public water and sewer. Mr. Fischer raised a question of adequate water and the septic system capability of the land. Ms. Cornish stated that the developer may have difficulty getting water and sewer permits from the Health Department because surface water may contaminate whatever well could be drilled. Ms. Cornish sent note to the Planning Board suggesting that they not even consider this proposal until the wetland delineation is completed. The owner is the new developer unfamiliar with environmental concerns and regulations of the Town. The Conservation Board should send their recommendation to the Planning Board. Maple Avenue Parking Area: The City has begun work and the Town is to complete the part located in the Town of Ithaca. The project includes road and walkway work and a recreation way connection. Ms. Cornish stated that the project is to come before the Planning Board so the Conservation Board should comment on the project soon. She knows of no environmental problems with the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS COMMITTEE: Intern doing vegetation study for Massachusetts Land Trust has left, but may return to complete the study. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE: Tomorrow Assistant Town Planner George Frantz will give tour of sites he is recommending for area and Town Parks. Most of tour will be in the West and South Hill areas, but will include Northeast. All are welcome. OLD BUSINESS: City/Town/Coun , Park: A Resolution has been sent to all local environmental groups. Land in question corresponds with Green way Plan and also with an old plan for a State/Town/City park. Discussion to take place at next meeting. By-laws and Associate Members: Approved by the Conservation Board April 7, 1994. Name changed from Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) to Conservation Board, plus a few other changes. We have our own operating procedures by local law, but Town Board took exception to the Conservation Board having associate members as formalized structure as stated in by-laws: "associate members may be approved by quorum of Conservation Board but do not have voting rights." Town Board would rather have interested persons be known as "Friends of the Conservation Board", or some other title, but not be part of the Conservation Board. Mr. Cornish stated that the Town Board did not want associate membership for any board because of legal and logistical concerns. The by-laws that the original CAC and the Conservation Board have been operating under were approved by the Conservation Board, but were never approved • by the Town Board. The Town Board would like to approve the Conservation Board by-laws to make them official, but wants changed wording of associate member clause before we submit by- CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JUNE 1, 1995 0 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19,1996 laws for approval. The problem is with title, but not with function of interested persons who cooperate with the Conservation Board on projects. Member of the Conservation Board must live in the Town of Ithaca, but Ms. Cornish stated that she felt that associate members did not have to meet this requirement as long as they have no voting rights. Mr. Fischer suggested "non- member advisors" as a new title, but others liked "Friends of the Conservation Board". Mr. Tauer, Ms. Russell, and Chairperson Hawkes will be on committee to revise by-laws to correspond to local law and rewrite the associate member clause. Discussion to continue at the next meeting. Celebrate Cayuga Lake - July 15 through 23, 1995: The Conservation Board has been asked to participate, especially weekend events at Taughannock State Park. Since most tributaries at this end of the lake are in the Town, water education project would be appropriate. Ms. Cornish suggested fact sheets on water quality for distribution at these events, and Chairperson Hawkes will write an article for the Ithaca Journal. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: City/Town/County Park: Dan Hoffmann discussed the City/Town/County Park proposal and stated that land in question is the same as in the original proposal of 1985 and does not include commercially zoned land on Route 13. Park planned as substitute parkland for current Southwest Park. However, land needs to be secured by someone while this process • works its way through Ithaca Common Council. Alienation of parkland status is not normally done, and this does not happen unless other land is available. New York State did approve the 1985 proposal, so technically approval has been given, but realistically, a new proposal needs to be submitted. Original proposal linked to Inlet Island and Southwest park alienation, but Inlet Island has now been separated so legislation is not accurate. NEW BUSINESS: Viewsheds in Town: The Town does not have view ordinances, only a building height ordinance, so there is no means of protecting viewsheds. SEQR protection is minimal, but local protection laws would supersede SEQR. Ms. Hoffmann asked if open space law had viewshed protection, but answer was only by inference and not enforceable. Suggestion made that the Conservation Board examine ordinances passed by other government bodies, and Local Government Program at Cornell University or American Planning Association were suggested as resources. Mr. Tauer will go to Cornell University to look for information about viewsheds, conservation districts, stream buffer zones, and wetland ordinances. Town Board is not now in favor of photo contest to begin to catalog viewsheds in the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Cornish suggested that if the Conservation Board takes responsibility for the contest and has a well thought out plan, it might be allowed. Four years ago, Ms. Hoffmann requested that people send in pictures to share favorite views, but received no response. Perhaps with favorable newspaper coverage and display of photographs at central location, more people would respond. Ms. • Hoffmann will research how to include favorite view question in Reader's Choice contest in the Ithaca Times and Ithaca Journal. Mr. Zarriello will prepare a plan of action and Ms. Hoffmann CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 1, 1995 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19,1996 will also check her slides for viewshed pictures. Photo project will be a good kick-off for photo viewshed inventory of the Town. The Conservation Board will make viewshed protection an ongoing project next year and coordinate with Town efforts. Newspaper Column: Ms. Smith asked if the Conservation Board was interested in writing a regular environmental column for the Ithaca Journal on a rotating basis with other interested environmental groups. Chairperson Hawkes said Cayuga Nature Center would be interested in participating on a rotating basis. Nature Center already does regular nature education column, "Right Before Your Eyes", for the Saturday Journal. Mr. Fischer has collection of black and white pictures and drawings of nature subjects that would be helpful. Six Mile Creek Conservation District: Ms. Cornish discussed a draft document dated May 16, 1995. The Planning Committee has been discussing proposed conservation district for past year and produces a draft document. City already owns a large amount of land in the area for watershed protection. City is guidelines for development within watershed area with controls for other uses, pesticide use, etc., along with recreational and scenic considerations. Meeting with affected developers is June 19th at South Hill Elementary School. Developers and landowners not happy with proposal, so the Conservation Board participation at meeting would be valuable for environmental educational purposes. At last public meeting, public thought water quality issues were a smoke screen to cover City and Town preservation of land for recreational purposes. Ms. Hoffmann stated that water quality affects the whole lake so this district is important to all. Mr. Tauer raised point that there is no reference to boundaries of district in document text and had question about meaning of Section 1 of Local Law mentioned. Ms. Russell pointed out that a definition of "family" should be included in the document. She questioned what enforcement the Town would do on all new requirements and regulations. Ms. Cornish stated that water quality is monitored in several places and a problem could be traced to its source. Zoning officers have been consulted during document draft process. Wetland size and designation is unclear and grading could occur without supervision. Ms. Cornish stated that a map showing major wetlands is available. Ms. Hoffmann said Conservation Board Members have problems with knowing what is a wetland, so an education program for landowners is needed. There are about 30 landowners in the district; several are large property owners. Chairperson Hawkes suggested an inventory of existing structures from aerial photos because new regulations would not apply to them, and this would show what will be restricted in the future. Ms. Cornish staid that the Burns Road police shooting range on City property some distance from the stream, and monitoring station shows no adverse metal contamination in the stream. There is contaminated soil that is periodically scooped from face of shooting range, because the soils are an environmental hazard. Town will follow up on this. OTHER OLD BUSINESS: Minutes for December 1, 1994 were adopted. 0 . s a CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JUNE 1, 1995 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19,1996 MEMBER CONCERNS: None. Next meeting will be July 6, 1995. Meeting adjourned. • 0 /CbkNL/C0LLUM TEL:607-257-6220 Apr 20'95 14:29 No.002 P.02 11 Excerpt at the BYLAWS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (My computer file has them dated as 220/92 ) ,Sgctlon 1. Members The members of the Council shall consist of any environmentally interested resident of the Town of Ithaca. Interest being shown by the following criteria: 1) Regular attendance of all Council and committee meetings unless formerly excused by the Chairperson, or In the absence of the chairperson, by the Vice -Chairperson. 2) Participation on at least one committee to help the CAC achieve its goals. Meeting announcements will be mailed in informational packets. All new or reinstated members must be approved by the Town Board. No member can serve more than three consecutive two year terms. a) Prospective members must submit a resume and a letter of interest to the Membership Committee prior to their interview with the Council. Associale members, also residents of the Town of Ithaca. y-aluabla for their particular exi2ertise. c) No more than two members on the Council shall be members of other Town Boards. P BYLAWS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Approved 4/7/94 I. Establishment and Duties of tree Conservation Byard 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. Il. Membership The CS shall consist of a rRinimum 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 CS 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 sheltie wish with CS and Town Board approval. Associate members may be approved by a quorum of the CS but do not have voting rights. M. Chair The Chairperson of the CS will be nominated for a one year term by a majority vote of the C8. After confirmation by the Town Board, she/he will assume the normal duties of a chairperson, Including calling, scheduling, and canceling meetings and keeping CS 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 Ca for developing the annual work plan and membership should be scheduled to coordinate with other Town Boards. 's Vi. 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. vil. Ag&mda To the extent practical, the agenda will be set by the Board with the Chairperson adding. deleting, and organizing the agenda as appropriate. The Ume to be allctted to each Item shall be decided in advance and used as a guldeline 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 ce member may bring up issues at any meeting under the item Member Co nuns. Member Concerns and Pers h . N rd mus,. be on the agenda at every cH meeting. Vill. M ts Mirutes shall be kept at every meeting either by 3 secretary hired for tnat 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 mceting's agenda. Every effort should be made to pass minutes at the meeting immediately succeeding it X, calendar September October December Oeciian. X. Armen-drnents C8 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 officer's These bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new bylaws adopted th by 2/3 vote of the CB membership, provided that quorum is present and at a statement of intent to change the bylaws has been published in the age Of the meeting. nda W PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY Draft 5.1 May 10, 1995 Purpose DRAFT It is the purpose of the Six Mile Creek Conservation District (CD) to preserve the outstanding natural features of the Six Mile Creek Valley, as described in the report, "Six Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to Preserve" (November 13, 1990), and in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 21, 1993), and to provide a regulatory framework through which development can occur with minimal environmental impact. Foremost among its natural values and ecological importance are its diversity as a plant and wildlife habitat, its scenic views and rural character, and as an educational and recreational resource. In addition, the Six Mile Creek Valley contains large areas of steep slopes, wetlands, highly erodable soils and the City of Ithaca water supply, which must be taken into consideration in planning for future development. It is a further purpose of the Six Mile Creek Conservation District to preserve existing areas of contiguous open space, prevent unneccesary destruction of woodland areas, preserve existing and potential agricultural land and promote appropriate development densities and flexibility of design and development of land. In recognition of its natural and ecological significance, much of the Six Mile Creek Valley has been designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council as a Unique Natural Area. It is a further purpose of this Conservation District to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the area to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca. Permitted Uses In the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of the following purposes: 1. A One -Family Dwelling. A one -family dwelling occupied by not more than (a) One family, or (b) One family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger or other occupant. 2. A two-family dwelling, but only in the following circumstances and subject to WORKING COPY DRAFT the following restrictions: (a) In single-family dwellings existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, a second dwelling unit may be added, provided that such unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. (b) On vacant lots without further subdivision potential, existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, a two-family dwelling may be constructed, provided that the second unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. (c) In the above circumstances, a two-family dwelling shall be occupied by no more than two families and each dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling shall be occupied by not more than one family. 3. Garden, nursery or farm, including a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land. Any such stand shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street line, in such a manner as to permit safe access and egress for automobiles, and parking off the highway right-of-way. 4. Forest Management and other forest resource uses, including the harvesting of timber in conformance with environmentally sound forestry practices, provided that logging of more than one acre of contiguous land shall require the submission of a forest management plan to and approval by the Planning Board. Such a plan shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the area to be logged, what percentage of trees will be cut, the method of cutting and removing trees, and how the land will be restored (e.g., through reforestation, agriculture or otherwise). 5. The following uses, but only upon receipt of special approval for same by the Planning Board notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 46 of the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Church or other places of worship. (b) Public, parochial and private schools, daycare center and nursery school. (c) Golf course, except a driving range or miniature golf course. (d) Publicly owned park or playground, including accessory buildings and WORKING COPY DRAFT' improvements. Special approval for the above uses shall only be granted if it can be demonstrated that: the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Conservation District, as enumerated in Section 1 of this local law; the proposal provides adequate measures to control stormwater runoff and minimize erosion and sedimentation; the project shall include adequate measures to protect surface and groundwaters from direct or indirect pollution; where public sewer and/or water systems are not available, adequate on-site sewage disposal and/or water supply systems can be provided that will not adversely impact the water quality of nearby waterbodies, streams or wetlands, and will be adequate to serve the proposed use and any reasonably anticipated expansion thereof; the traffic load resulting from the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Conservation District; and parking facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed use, are adequately buffered to minimize visual and noise impacts on surrounding areas, and are designed to minimize the increase in impervious surfaces on the site. 6. In the Conservation District, no non-agricultural building shall exceed thirty- four feet in height from the lowest interior grade nor thirty feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, and no structure other than a building shall be erected or extended to exceed thirty feet in height. Permitted Accessory Uses Permitted accessory uses in the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District shall include the following: 1. Accessory buildings customarily incidental to the above permitted uses. 2. Office of resident musician, engineer, teacher, lawyer, architect, accountant, computer professional, or member of other recognized profession (as in R-30). 3. Customary home occupation, such as home cooking, dressmaking, carpentry, (etc., as in R-30). 3 WORKING COPY DRAFT 4. Wildlife rehabilitation operation as defined and regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 184, provided that no noise, dust, disorder, or objectionable odor is experienced (as a result of that use) beyond the immediate property where such use is conducted, and that no more than 3 additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed. 5. Day care homes and group day care facilities. Accessory Buildings In the Conservation District, any non-agricultural accessory buildings other than garages may not occupy any space other than the rear yard. The total lot area covered by non-agricultural accessory buildings may not occupy more than 1,000 square feet of any required rear yard and shall be not less than 50 feet from any side or rear lot line. Non-agricultural accessory buildings shall in no case exceed 15 feet in height. Yard Regulations In the Conservation District, yards of at least the following dimensions are required, unless otherwise specified: Front Yard - Not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings immediately adjacent. However, the front yard shall not be less than 50 feet or need it be greater than 75 feet. Rear Yard - Not less than 200 feet in depth. Side Yard - Each not less than 50 feet. Perimeter Buffer/Setback Areas - Notwithstanding the above minimum yard requirements, during the subdivision approval process, the Planning Board may require increased setbacks around the perimeter of the original parcel(s) proposed to be subdivided beyond the above minimums wherever said Board determines that such increased setbacks are warranted by topography, the nature of existing vegetation, the relation to neighboring properties and land uses, preservation of rural character, and other such similar factors. The Planning Board may prohibit the location of roadways, driveways, parking lots, recreational facilities, buildings and other structures or improvements within the above required buffer areas, and may require the installation of such landscaping, fencing, berming, or other features as the Planning Board may determine appropriate for buffer screening purposes. Such perimeter buffer/setback area, if required, shall be delineated on the final subdivision plat, along with a notation of any restrictions or conditions that have been established by the Planning Board. WORKING COPY If Lot Coverage No nonagricultural building or buildings on a lot, including accessory buildings, roads, driveways, parking areas, or other paved areas shall be erected, altered, or extended to cover more than fifteen percent of the, total lot area. Projections described in Section 66 are not to be included in computing the percentage of lot coverage. Size of Lot and Density of Development Lots in the Conservation District shall meet the following minimum requirements: 1. The minimum lot area shall be 7 acres; and 2. In a new conventional subdivision (i.e., any proposed conventional subdivision which has not received final approval as of the date of enactment of this local law), the maximum gross residential density shall be 0.143 dwelling units per acre (1 dwelling unit per 7 acres). In order to calculate the maximum permissible number of lots or dwelling units, the total gross site acreage is multiplied by 0.143; and 3. In a new cluster subdivision (i.e., any proposed cluster subdivision which has not received final approval as of the date of enactment of this local law), the maximum gross residential density shall be 0.171 dwelling units per acre (1.2 dwelling units per 7 acres). In order to calculate the maximum permissable number of lots or dwelling units, the total gross site acreage is multiplied by 0.171. This represents a 20% density increase over that permitted for conventional subdivisions. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of this local law, "Permitted Uses," the above density limitations do not apply to single-family dwellings existing at the time of the enactment of this local law in which a second dwelling unit is to be added, or on vacant lots without further subdivision potential existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, where a two-family dwelling is to be constructed. 5. The minimum lot width at the street line shall be 300 feet; and 6. The minimum lot width at the maximum required front yard setback line (75 feet) shall be 300 feet; and 7. The minimum lot depth from the highway right-of-way shall be 450 feet. WORKING COPY DRAFT Clustering 06 The Planning Board is hereby authorized by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to require clustering of residential units as outlined in the Town's Subdivision Regulations, where clustering will further the purposes of the Conservation District, subject to the following additional requirements: 1. The use of clustering shall result in a permitted number of dwelling units which does not exceed the number which could be permitted if the land were subdivided into lots conforming to the minimum lot size and density requirements of the Conservation District. 2. Dwelling units in a clustered development may be, at the discretion of the planning board, in detached, semi-detached, or attached buildings. 3. No more than four semi-detached or attached units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure, nor shall that structure be more than three stories high, including the basement or cellar. In any event, no building shall be more than thirty-four feet in height. 4. Where feasible, on the southwestern side of Six Mile Creek (i.e., on the Coddington Road side of the Conservation District), dwelling units shall be clustered between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road, in order to preserve the natural characteristics of the lands adjacent to Six Mile Creek and the City Watershed properties. In such cases, the same number of dwelling units that could have been built on that portion of the parcel between the former railroad grade and Six Mile Creek under the above density requirements shall be transfered to the portion of the parcel between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road. This provision shall not apply to parcels which are situated entirely between the former railroad grade and Six Mile Creek. Additional Requirements and Restrictions 1. The following [uses and] activities are specifically prohibited in the Conservation District: a. The discharge, or disposal of, or any form of underground injection of, any hazardous material, toxic substance, or radioactive material. b. The disposal of toxic substances or hazardous materials by means of discharge into a septic system. c. The open storage of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, artificial fertilizers, or manure. WORKING COPY In DRAFT d. The use of septic system cleaners which contain toxic substances or hazardous materials. e. The importation for dumping or disposal of snow or ice collected from roadways or parking lots into or within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland or watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year. f. The open storage of chloride salts, nitrate salts or other highway de-icing chemicals within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland or watercourse carrying water six months out of the year. g. The location of buildings or structures on slopes of 25 percent or greater, with a minimum horizontal slope length of 25 _feet, and on highly erodable soils. h. Filling or dredging of wetlands. Wetlands, for the purposes of this local law, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. 2. No buildings, structures, paved areas, grading, excavation, or other such disturbance or storage of construction equipment or machinery shall be located within 50 feet of the centerline of any watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year, or within [one] two hundred [(100)] (200) feet of the 100 -Year Flood Boundary of Six Mile Creek and Reservoir, identified as "Zone A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Ithaca, N.Y., Panel 25, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, within the Conservation District. In the case of residential subdivisions, whether conventional or cluster, the no disturbance zone as defined above shall be increased if the Planning Board determines that such an increase is necessary to protect water quality or to minimize the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. No disturbance as listed above shall be located within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland. During the subdivision or site plan approval process, where there is evidence of a wetland, the Planning Board may require a wetland delineation study to determine the potential impacts of development or disturbance on siad wetland. 3. The storage and land application of manure shall follow established [U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service] U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service management standards. Minimum conditions for storage of solid manure are a pad of concrete and a leachate collecting system. The manure IWORKINO COPY WA DRAFT storage system should be designed to prevent animal waste from entering any stream or water body. 4. Vegetation and Landscaping a. Preserve existing natural vegetation to the extent practicable. b. When landscaping is required by the Planning Board to enhance buffer areas, to replace existing vegetation, or otherwise, native plant materials should be used to the extent practicable. 5. Scenic views, in particular those with viewing points from adjacent roads and from Six Mile Creek and the Gorge, should be preserved using practices such as the following: a. Avoid the siting of buildings or structures on ridgelines or hilltops. Buildings should be sited below the crest or ridgeline of hills to preserve a natural topographic and vegetative profile. b. Retain existing vegetation to the extent practicable. c. Retain existing stone walls, fences and other features in open meadows. d. Regrading should blend in with the natural contours and undulations of the land. e. Buildings proposed to be located within significant viewing areas should be screened and landscaped to minimize their intrusion on the character of the area. Building materials and color scemes should harmonize with their setting and be compatible with neighboring land uses. f. Where possible, buildings and structures should be located on the edges of open fields and in wooded areas to minimize visual impacts. g. In particular, consider visibility of proposed buildings or structures from public trails within the Six Mile Creek valley. Mini nize visual intrusion on views from those areas. 6. Wildlife habitats and biological corridors should be preserved. Open space linkages should be encouraged to accomplish the above. Open space and conservation easement areas shall be designed with massing and linking as guiding principles. Open space and conservation areas should be contiguous both on site and off tract. 7. Common open space areas should be permanently preserved through conservation easements, deed restrictions, dedication to the Town, State or WORKING COPY DRAFT conservation organization, or such other means as determined to be appropriate by the Planning Board. 8. Roads and driveways a. Roadways shall follow existing contours to the extent practicable to minimize the impact of cuts and fills. b. The number of driveways accessing public streets shall be kept to a minimum. The appropriate use of common driveways is encouraged. The maximum number 'of dwelling units served by a common driveway shall be four. 9. Drainage a. The Planning Board may require the preparation and submittal of a stormwater management plan, to be approved by the Town Engineer, for proposed special approval uses [, regardless of location in the Conservation District,] and for proposed subdivisions. [involving land within 200 feet of the centerline of any watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year, or within 200 feet of the 100 -Year Flood Boundary of Six Mile Creek and Reservoir (as described in "Additional Requirements and Restrictions" above).] b. Retain existing natural drainageways where possible. c. In cases where a retention basin will be required, a landscaping plan shall be prepared and submitted for the Planning Board's approval. Basin landscaping materials that enhance wildlife habitat shall be used to the extent practicable. 10. Lighting a. Street lighting shall be provided only where site-specific safety conditions warrant. b. Where street lighting is required, its location, type, and intensity shall be subject to the Planning Board's review and recommendation to the Town Board for approval. 11. Whenever a subdivision of land is proposed in the Conservation District, the non -buildable areas listed above, including wetlands, slopes 25 percent or greater, and streams/watercourses and setbacks, shall be delineated on the preliminary and final subdivision plats. Park and Recreation Set -Asides and Fees in Lieu Thereof W DRAFT The provisions relating to the reservation of parks and recreation land, or fees in lieu thereof, in Section 22 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations shall be waived in the Six Mile Creek Conservation District, since the purpose of the Conservation District is to preserve the open space and passive recreational opportunities in the Six Mile Creek valley. For comparison purposes, revisions in Draft 5.1 are shown as follows: Brackets [ ] indicate deletions from Draft 5.0. Boldface indicates additions to Draft 5.0. McName c\p1ngcomm\cdist5-1.res to WORKING COPY 7:30 P.M. Thursday, July 6,- 1995 TOWN HALL BOARDROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca,. NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 AGENDS 7:3Q, p.m,_ t-, Persons_ To. Re H-eard. 7:35. p.im- 2- Report_ from. Cham 7:45 p,tn._ 3.. Report fro -m-, Planning Staff 7:_55_ p.m.. 4_._ Committee- Reports.:_ a-. Environmental Review- Cnm-mittee- U. Eniviron 1 ental tiL1dJ/�dJ l V111111111GG Q., Parks, and Open Space Committee 8:,10 poll- 5 .. R u. s. i i)-e_s s -(vitt//Town/County. Park re.solution- -1),w� arm n��ucla e rnternwers -Six bile. Creek Conservation District_ -Views_heds, in, the Town_ of Ithaca. -Qth_ers 9:15 P-111- 6., Member Concerns CB Members. - Richard_ Fischer_. Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair- C':hPrvl- S_rni_th- Eva H-oflan L iloren T filler Jon Meigs, Phil Zarriello Dater._ June. 29,_ 1995 TO:_ Cons-errvatlofi_ Bo_ai_d. feinhzf� Frons:- Janet. E._ Hawkes-,- Chair Con -se vati_on- Boar -d_ Wetbg, July- 6, 1-494 i-300pil Town Hall Enclosed_ is. a_ resolution frons the. City of Ithaca- CAC regarding- the- creation- of a- City-Town/County- park in- tl,e Inlet- v-111�v- area. They- would - like iiS to CoilSiiiEi aSSI till rZSoIULIoil at our ° iilcetiilg. Please read the copy_ of the Six Mile geek Conservation District_ proposal di-strib ted- for the. la -,4 meeti-ria-. Comments, from, the. C-R- need- tp- he, VIT lvl vvarllGU LU Ula Pllllllllllg' L.V111111itlee aS Soon as posslut vv e pl"arl lv spend.. some_ ot. the- meeting_ working_ on_ our- comments._ Reminder that_ on_ July_ 5-,- as_ m -embers- of the. Town- of Ithaca- Conservation Rnard- xxfe- ha-IrPall hPPr� in��g-t-Prl- to attPearl ti�P T -n ra iv�c (;'n��v�ti� r---__� a Environmental 4LAnagernent Council ineeting at the transportation center. It would be great if you could attend. - L Look- forward_ to- seeing_ you all- an-- Thur_s_day evening._ eteas-e- call- me_ at - if yn''- earn- attend �a mp.in--2-d-g. encl.. Resolution in Support of the Public Access Southwest Natural Area Proposal Whereas, the entire FW -1 zone in the southwest corner of the City of Ithaca constitutes a crucial, highly diverse centerpiece in the extensive green corridor that extends up Cayuga Inlet Valley to Cayuga Lake; and Whereas, its loss would constitute a significant break in this exceptional corridor, with adverse effects on migrating birds and other wildlife; and Whereas, this is the last remaining large, open, undeveloped space in or adjacent to the City that would be suitable as a new intermunicipal public -access natural area; and Whereas, the proposed Black Diamond Trail and the existing trail on the levee abut the site, and these trails would be enhanced by such a natural area, as well as being an enhancement of the area; and Whereas, the area already is used for recreation, especially along Cayuga Inlet, and would afford significant new opportunities for biking, canoeing, hiking, bird watching, fishing, and picnicking; and Whereas, this area would be a fine complement to Buttermilk Falls State Park, providing a diversity of interesting and attractive habitats not found at Buttermilk, including Cayuga Inlet, wetlands, and Negundo Woods (a significant flood -plain forest and a Unique Natural Area, so designated by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives) --habitats of value in their own right as well as being of great appeal to tourists; and Whereas, keeping the area natural would protect the view -shed from Buttermilk Falls State Park Park; and Whereas, the area would be easily accessible to City and Town residents on public transportation or by foot or bicycle, provided a right-of-way from Route 13 is acquired; and Whereas, if set aside as parkland or natural area, would enhance the wetlands watershed of Cayuga Inlet and remediate flooding problems long associated with this area; and Whereas, Gary Esolen, the consultant recently hired by the County to give advice on increasing tourism in the County, recommended making the most of what we've got: outstanding natural and educational resources; and Whereas, the natural area would be of significant value to the City, Town, and County even without spending anything beyond the cost of acquisition; now therefore be it Resolved, that the supports the permanent protection of this natural area and encourages the acquisition of the area by the City, Town and County. a Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes Thursday, August 3, 1995 Approved: September 19, 1996 PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer. ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Mary Russell, Phillip Zarriello. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), JoAnn Cornish (Planner). PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. Meeting called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairperson Janet Hawkes. REPORT FROM CHAIR: Chairperson Hawkes attended an Environmental Management Council (EMC) meeting to represent the Conservation Board. She has a copy of an Environmental Long Range planning document that EMC will try to put into the County Comprehensive Long Range Plan. Attached to the document are position papers written by members of the EMC and others on various topics, but nothing written on water quality, open space, or Viewsheds. The EMC would be happy to receive position papers by Conservation Board Members on these or other topics for inclusion in the report. At the EMC Meeting, Bob Back stated that the Malloryville Bog near Freeville in the Town of Dryden is again threatened by gravel mining on adjacent land. Malloryville Bog is a bog/fen swamp with may rare orchids and other features. The gravel pit has been defeated at least three time, but a new proposal is before DEC now. Mr. Beck requests that the Conservation Board help fight, either as a Board or individually. Friends of Malloryville Bog has been formed to focus attention on the problem. Mr. Tauer asked if the Town of Ithaca has ever supported the conservation of this site. Chairperson Hawkes stated that she was unsure, but thought it a good idea, and suggested that presentation be given to Bob Beck at the September meeting to acquaint the Conservation Board with the area. REPORT FROM STAFF: Planner Cornish distributed the Development Review Log and will distribute it at future meetings. Ms. Cornish stated that any member can comment or red -flag any item for discussion. She also distributed a Scenic Resources report from the County that was done in the 1970's. These is information about Viewsheds in the Town Open Space Report from 1991 and many of the scenic views are already classified and prioritized. This report would be a valuable starting point for any further work on Viewsheds by the Conservation Board. The Ithacare controversy shows that protection of views is an important issue and more work needs to be done to be sure that the list is complete. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 AUGUST 3, 1993 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Planning staff is in the process of putting a five year capital plan together for the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Kanter stated that he would like to have a parks and open space acquisition fund included in the plan. There is a great deal of interest in this by various Town boards. Work needs to be done to find ways to gather funds by grants, taxes, fee in lieu of parkland funds (if passed), bonds, etc. to show fiscal impact on the Town. He envisions an accumulating fund that would be available for acquisition of property. Development and maintenance of parkland is a separate section of the capital plan. The fee in lieu of parkland is a separate section of the capital plan. The fee in lieu of parkland proposal will be returned to the Town Board for discussion and a public hearing date will be set for September. An earlierproposal based the fee on the value of the development according to zoning district of land. Different fees were established per dwelling or per lot and some fees were fairly high per lot. The Town Board sent it back to the Codes and Ordinance Committee for review. The new proposal is a straight fee of up to 10% based on purchase price of assessed value of the land before improvements, not a per lot fee. This will result in lower fees paid by developers. Ms. Cornish explained the fee in lieu of parkland proposal as money paid into a fund by a developer instead of meeting the requirements that the developer set aside 10% of the parcel as parkland, trails, or other public land. The money could then be used to purchase land in other areas of the Town. These funds would go hand in hand with Parks and Open Space Plan that will be in place and which will prioritize acquisition, areas of protection, etc. In theory, this will be an organized approach to 20 -year plan for parks and open space. To implement this, the Town Board will need to determine a need for parkland in development area with help of the Parks and Open Space Plan, and then the Planning Board will look at the site to determine if the site is appropriate for a recreation or open space area. If not, then the fee could be assessed and collected upon site plan approval. This is not expected to bring in large sums of money because it is only an alternative option. Chairperson Hawkes asked how this fit with the ERC and/or Planning Board asking developers to set aside sensitive land areas as open space, as well as asking for a parkland dedication. Since sometimes this amounts to more than 10% of the site, will a developer be able to say, "Your 10% is that swamp or slope over there that you want to save. Director of Planning Kanter said that the Planning Board felt that they would have more options rather than less with the proposal because now they will have a fee schedule to use. Conservation Board Members can send comments about the proposal to the ERC members if they wish to do so. The Planning Committee is also working on a subdivision regulation amendment that would give the Planning Board additional guidance on which lands could or could have be built on in a development, such as steep slopes, wetlands, sensitive soils, etc. The proposed amendment states that the Planning Board can require a developer to do site assessment on these types of areas and identify them on the site plan so that Planning Board members could CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 AUGUST 3, 1993 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 determine if the lands should be excluded from buildable property on site. Once the wording of the amendments has been completed and sent to Codes and Ordinance Committee. The Conservation Board will be able to comment on it. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Environmental Review Committee: Mary Russell wrote a letter to the Planning Board with Conservation Board comments for Ithacare. This letter is to be included as part of the public record on the Ithacare DEIS. Basically, the letter states that the Conservation Board would like the Planning Board to look at the extension of the scenic overlook as a mitigation, and also, during another site review, they should look at siting the building more to the left and further down the slope, as well as moving the residential units to the rear. This would help protect the panoramic viewshed of the lake. Because the viewshed is so important, the Conservation Board makes a one-time recommendation that building on a steeper slope could be possible with proper storm water control. Also, if the building is moved lower and the overlook is extended with the he fill from excavation, the viewshed is better protected. Ithacare is looking at what the ramifications of moving the building lower on the slope via overlays on existing photos. Ithacare is concerned about the cost of the building, as well as costs of additional surveys. Discussion concerning the Mann Library Annex in Precinct 7 of Cornell University. Part of the area is the old closed dump. This property was supposed to be properly closed, but debris is sticking out through the surface. There is a steep slope and also a low quality wetland nearby. Cornell Univeristy's original proposal was to remove soil from the wetland and improve the holding capacity. The soil would be used to cover the garbage on the slope. Drainage would also be added. The Conservation Board, Planning Board, and Town Board were all concerned that no provision was made for water retention on the flat area of the site to mitigate silting and protect nearby Cascadilla Creek from runoff. The new proposal is for swapping wetlands and construction of a new wetland at another site on the property to control runoff. This is feasible, especially if the top layer of soil from the old wetland is transferred to the newly built one so vegetation can remain the same. As negotiated between Cornell University and the Town, any new development that is considered for the site would require an individual water retention feature for storm water for each new building. Cornell University is hoping to begin work this fall, but this may not happen. The Conservation Board should continue to monitor this project. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: No report. Parks and Open Space Committee: Tour completed of half of the Town parks and open space. New tour in September. Planning staff working on costs for five-year and twenty-year plans for acquisitions, etc. Figures being compiled for development of different types of parks, maintenance, staffing, equipment, etc. The Public Works Committee is pleased with progress on Parks and Open Space Master Plan and impressed with the amount of detailed and useable information available. A CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 AUGUST 3, 1993 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 NEW BUSINESS: Resolution in Support of the Public Access Southwest Natural Area Proposal. JoAnn stated that proposal was discussed at the City of Ithaca Parks Commission meeting, and part of the City's concern is cost of maintaining this area, even though it will be a natural and not a developed area. Except for the cost factor, the City is in favor of the proposal but would prefer area to be referred to as a nature preserve, not a park. The land is question is sizeable and part will be State parkland, part will be County land, SW4 and SW5 is City owned, and some of the land is in the Town. Some land parcels will need to be purchased. (Meeting adjourned for short executive session) Discussion centered on justification of first three sections of the proposal. Chairperson Hawkes explained that those referred to a different map and corresponded with Greenway Coalition's biological corridor plan of having a connector between the Inlet and Cass Park. Ms. Cornish suggested that "crucial", "highly diverse", "centerpiece", etc., are too strong and not completely correct. The Black Diamond Trail will follow the railroad tracks to Robert Treman State Park with a spur to Buttermilk Falls State Park and can be building regardless of outcome of the Southwest Natural Area proposal. Since this is an on-going proposal, the Conservation Board has time to change language in the first three items of proposal before endorsing it, and time for examination of recommended recreation activities to be sure they are appropriate with area land use concerns. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter will make a revision and counter- proposal before September's meeting. Conservation Board members should contact him with any other concerns. NOTE: Other items on the agenda were tabled to allow discussion of the following: Six Mile Creek Conservation District: Discussion centered on May 16th Conservation District proposal that was used at a public information meeting on June 16th that Mary Russell, Eva Hoffmann, and Chairperson Janet Hawkes attended. Public comment was evenly divided between support for the conservation district and opposition to restriction of private land use. Mr. Kanter stated that most of the proposed conservation district is in an R-30 District, single-family residential, with 30,000 square foot minimum lot size. At the June 16th meeting, much comments was concerned with regulations on use of existing homes, i.e.. additions, improvements, etc. along Coddington Road. Subsequently, the Planning Committee has proposed a 200 -foot buffer along railroad right-of- ways as a compromise. This would include most of the undeveloped land, steep slopes, sensitive soil areas, and most of the land that adjoins the City watershed land, and would exclude as many existing houses as possible. The Planning Committee also discussed changing zoning in the area because of septic problems. The Committee would like the Town to have a town wide rural residential single-family zone with larger lots in areas where there is no public water and/or sewer available. Some areas have public water, but no sewer lines. J CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 AUGUST 3, 1993 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Chairperson Hawkes stated that by moving the proposed district lines, many stream headwaters have lost protection and water quality will suffer. Streams outside conservation districts need buffer zones around them. Town Board thinks that the need is to get something in place that will protect the area, and then continue to improve water quality later. There will be additional town wide water source protection in the proposed amendment to the subdivision regulations, which has similar wording to the conservation district proposal. A suggestion was made to include a narrative description of the conservation district boundaries in the proposal. Also, a definition in needed for a "family", but Mr. Kanter said this is already defined in the Town's Zoning Ordinance and would apply here. The Conservation Board felt that a paragraph stating that all existing Town codes and laws still apply to the conservation district and would be useful for clarity. Chairperson Hawkes asked if it is feasible to identify major wetlands within the conservation district. Mr. Kanter responded that there are not many wetlands in the conservation district because of the steep slopes, but maps are available. An EPOD (Environmental Protection Overlay District) is a way of regulating steep slopes through complicated regulations and mapping, but this met with resistance from the public. Mr. Kanter said it was better to leave wetland regulation to site analysis as it becomes necessary, because of public fear and perhaps inaccurate or incomplete mapping. Enforcement of regulations and restrictions on this large area was discussed and City and Town enforcement officers will work together to try to prevent violations. Conservation Board members felt that the responsible agency(s) for implementation and enforcement and its responsibilities and powers should be included in the document for clarity. Implementation would mostly occur during the site planning and approval process. Follow up on regulations is vital and perhaps the Conservation Board has a role here. The real purpose of conservation districts is to control density of undeveloped land and what people do to existing houses and property. There is a UNA (Unique Natural Area) in the district but area boundaries were delineated from aerial photos and may not be accurate. SEQR will still apply for area protection. The rear of property has already been protected by a conservation easement with the Finger Lakes Land Trust. The City of Ithaca is trying to get conservation easements or purchase land that abuts the water. The Planning Committee is about to send a proposal to the Codes and Ordinance Committee for a legal review, then it will go to the Planning Board and be recommended to the Town Board. The Conservation Board will have other opportunities for comment. MEMBER CONCERNS: Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked for discussion of environmental review process and zoning related actions, especially the variance given to retirement facility in the Old One Hundred property. He felt this was done without the proper level of environmental analysis. Chairperson Hawkes had concerns about failure of protection of the Critical Environmental Area on Elm Street Extension. The house had burned down and was removed, new septic was installed, but the Conservation Board was not informed until the owner had asked for a height variance -much too late in the process. This should have been reviewed before removal of the existing house. This means other agencies (Fire Department, Health Department) are not respecting the concept of critical environmental areas. The Conservation Board makes sure all 9 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 AUGUST 3, 1993 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 agencies notify the Conservation Board in these instances. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that the Old Hundred would have been on development review and it came before the Planning Boar at Mr. Kanter's request for site plan review. Use variance, which produced the major changes, was already in effect and site plan review was limited to minimal areas. Mr. Kanter stated that the process for use variances should be changed to parallel special approval requirements and, at least, require Planning Board approval. Special approvals must go to the Planning Board for substantial review and then recommendation goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Only positive recommendation receive approval. Use variances, which can make more substantial changes than special approvals, are not required to get Planning Board review and usually do not do so. This can even be a major changes such as allowing commercial use in a residential zone. A review of the referral process to ERC is in order. Chairperson Hawkes requested that she and Board Member Mary Russell receive a list of use variances by mail as they come in so that timely action can be taken. Board Member Smith asked about a developer who owns -property and would like to subdivide it. At what point does he/she need to come to Town before beginning work on the property. There is no regulation against clearing and surveying, but grading and filling or road building need approval. There is no Town ordinance against clearing land, but there is a fill/excavation ordinance permit process. This is not very well known, even by contractors. Chairperson Hawkes stated that a program at the Cayuga Nature Center concerns the registry of large trees with the help of foresters, Cornell University, and center staff. After the larger trees in the county are registered, EMC might be willing to forward information to municipalities, etc., so that these trees could be protected. This is a public awareness process to start municipalities thinking about forest land preservation. Planner Cornish stated that Fred Noteboom from the Town Highway Department asked the Conservation Board to help design road improvements in the Coy Glen area of Elm Street Extension this fall. He will keep the Conservation Board informed and would like the Conservation Board to help with meeting to inform the public and help answer questions about environmental concerns. The meeting will be in the winter; and one year construction to begin in the spring. The road is being undercut and excavating, filling, and drainage will be substantial. The Public Works Committee will also be involved. Chairperson Hawkes will call Mr. Noteboom to set up a site examination for the Conservation Board. Material on by-laws and associate membership will be mailed. Please read material on Viewsheds from Ms. Cornish and review the 1991 Open Space Report information. Please bring suggestions for methods of identifying all Viewsheds in the Town to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Hawkes duly adjourned the meeting. TOWN OF IXUACA- 7:30 P.M. Thursday,. August 3,. 1995 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.nL_ L__ Persons. To. Be. Heard. 7:35. p.m._ 2__ Report- from Chair 7.:.45 p. -m.. 3.._ Report_ from_ Planning-. Staff. 7:55. p,m__ 4._ Committee Reports: - a. En-vironmental- Review Committee- b. Environmental- Atlas/4"Us Coilllllittee c.. Parks- and. Open Space Committee 9:10 p.nL. 5._ B_us-imess_ -C:i-ty/-Tow_n/Cour-ty Park resolution- -}3y -laws and- Associate members -Six Mile. Creek Conservation District.. -Viewsheds_ in- the. Town_ of lthaca_ -Othecs- 9:_1.5 p.m... 6._ Member Concerns CR Members: - Richard Fischer_ Mary Russell anet awkes; Chair Cheryl- S-rpith- Eva ofllllan L Yloren Taller Jon Meigs. Phil Zarriello Date:. July . 28,__ 1.995: To:: Conservation_- Board. Member&, From:_ Janet. E.- Hawkes.,_. Chair Be:_ Conservation_ Board. Meeting_ August- 3., 1-994- _ /,.JV1J111 Io n riall As.- you have- already heard,_. the. July meeting-- was__ -cancelled. because of lack of a- quorum Only thr-_ee people could-- make it that- evening-. Nou everyone +-v,.... �1.. +,. •i"'Lc-..«�.-1 ��. k...+- T- 1� 1:. 'l1- l,a..�... 1a' +.-. +. +1a «1... ...1.. %ail al�cuu ilcli� Yllul�'ay, out i vellcvc we will 'avc cilougll to gel ullVUgll so= of the businPw before- the. Board Enclosed.. with the July agenda_. was.. a-. resolution from the. City of Ithaca_. CAC regarding- the creation- of- T. City/Town/County- park- in-- the Inlet Valley. area. They would like us to consider passing this resolution at our CB_ meeting._ Please._ read- it- over_ prior.. to_ the.. meeting and come. prepare -d.. to Please_ read the. copyof.. the_ Six- Mile.. Creep Conservation__ District_. pro-posaL distributed at the June meeting. Comments from- the CB- need to-- be lor-Afard-C;U" to 1uC riallllillg CV111111111GG a3 soon a3 possible. vv c plan to spend some. of the meeting... working_ ,on our comments.. L taolL forward_ to.. seeing. you. on.. Thursday evening._ COPY To: Mr. Stephen Smith and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Mary Russell, Chairperson, and the Members of the Environmental Review Committee, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithacare Center Senior Living Community Date: July 25, 1995 , The ERC members thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. ERC members felt more detail could have been provided in the alternative site analysis and the overlook extension as visual impact mitigation sections of the dEIS. The ERC strongly supports the extension of the scenic overlook by the applicant as a mitigation measure in this instance. We applauded the attention given to stormwater control and so i I erosion mitigation as well as the attention given to avoidance and buffering of the wetlands area. We support further -protection of the wetlands area by shifting the parking areas as mentioned in section V.C. 2. The parking areas nearest the pond should 'be closely scrutinized for their impact on this wetland. The Alternative B.3. Site Plan seems to afford the greatest protection to both the scenic view and the wetlands area. The ERC concurs with the suggestion made by Eva Hoffmann at the SEAR Public Hearing on July 18,, 1995 that the Planning Board explore with the applicant the possibility of a further reduction in visual impact by moving the Alternative B.3. building footprint approximately 50 feet further west (downslope). While still avoiding the wetlands area, this would cause the building to impinge on a steep slopes area. The ERC would ordinarily recommend avoidance and buffering of steep slopes. The ERC members would like to emphasize that this is an extremely situational and site specific recommendation .peculiar to these circumstances where there is -a tradeoff of environmental impacts. But if the builder is required to take the necessary mitigating measures to control drainage and erosion both during and after construction, this may be a way the impact on the scenic view can be further reduced while avoiding erosion damage to the steep slopes. The appropriate -design and engineering measures as well as. the increase in the amount of sewage pumping will undoubtedly result in greater costs to the applicant. We strongly recommend that the Planning Board investigate viewshed protection regulation as a matter of Town -wide concern. Without a policy or ordinance it is very difficult both to quantify an impact on a scenic vista and to formulate a response. Scenic views are clearly a valuable asset to Town citizens and should be protected. MAP 6: SCENIC RESOURCES Rey Description: This map delineates the points from which scenic views may be experienced, not the view itself. * Panoramic Landscape View: 120° or greater angle of vision with a minimum of one mile unobstructed view. * Distance Landscape View: minimum 101 view angle with a minimum of three miles unobstructed view. * Scenic Road: routes with roadside natural or cultural interest present as spectacular views, tranquil or active natural environs, crown cover or forest at least a half -mile long, interesting structures of high aesthetic value, etc. Implications: The nature of a proposed development within the context of a scenic view somewhat determines whether it would be considered an asset, merely compatible or acceptable, or destructive to that view. Such judgements cannot be made in advance. Sources: Brown, Raymond; Cole, Ernest; Howard, Richard. Appraisal of Potential Outdoor Recreation Developments in Tompkins County. U.S.D.A. and Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, New York. April 1967. Ni, James Fu. Unique Natural Resources of Tompkins County. M.S. Project Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. June 1973. 28 pages. Tompkins County Scenic Roads Committee. Scenic Roads in Tompkins County, New York. Ithaca, New York. June 1969. 28pp . TOWN OF ITHACA SCENIC RESOURCES -Scale in miles 0 1 2 KEY MAP NO. 6 DATE: 6/74 Panoramic Landscape View Distance Landscape View "' ♦ Scenic Road Prepared by: Tompkins County.Department of Planning Ithaca, New York 14850 PENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 26, 1995 The following is a list of proposed land subdivisions or development projects for which an application has been received. These proposals are subject to Planning Board review under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, or other Town Laws. For more information contact the Planning Department at 273-1747. Project No.: 9506161. 930 Danby Road. Proposed Subdivision, South Hill Retail Complex. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for -the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-9, +/- 3.6 acres total area, into 4 lots, located at 930 Danby Road, I -Industrial District. ICS Development Partners, Owner, Jagat P. Sharma, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: August 1. 1995. Project No.: 9506163. St. Catherine Circle. Proposed Two -Lot Subdivision, St. Catherine of Siena Church. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-10, 10+/- acres in area, into two lots of 0.35 +/- acre and 9.65 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 302 Saint Catherine Circle, Residence District R-15. Saint Catherine of Siena Church, Owner, Paul Hesler, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: August 1, 1995. Project No.: 9506164. 1083 Danby Road. Proposed Addition, Sam Peter Furniture. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition of a one-story, +/- 1,620 sq. ft. warehouse addition to the rear of the Sam Peters Furniture store, located at 1083 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-5, Business C District. Sam Peter, Owner/Applicant Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: _August 1, 1995. Project No.: 9507165. 205 & 207 Westview Lane. Modification Of Lot Line. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed modification of the lot line between Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 58-2-39.611 and 58-2-39.612, a.k.a. 205 and 207 Westview Lane within the "Grandview Subdivision", for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted March 4, 1986, Residence District R-15. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Elizabeth K. Miles, Owners; Philip S. Winn, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: August 15, 1995. 2 Project No.: 9503151. Sesame Street. Proposed Leonardo Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 'Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo Land", proposed to consist of modifications to the lot lines of Lots No. 2,3,4,5 and 6,. a.k.a. Tax Parcel Nos. 37-1-20.3, -20.4, -20.5, -20.6, and -20.7, for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on April 4, 1995; modifications to the lot lines of Lot No. 10, a.k.a Tax Parcel No. 37-1-20.10, for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted on April 4, 1995; modifications to the lot lines of Lot No. 9, a.k.a Tax Parcel No. 37-1- 20.12, for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted on April 4, 1995; modification of the easterly lot line of Tax Parcel No. 37-1-20.2 for the purpose of adding land to Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6; and subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37-1-20.11, 1132 Danby Road, into two lots, together with modifications to the alignments of Sesame Street, an existing public road, and Allison Street, a proposed public road shown on the subdivision plat approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on May 16, 1978, and further, consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 37-1-20.8, a.k.a Lots No. 7 and 8 on the above referenced plat, for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval was granted on April 4, 1995, said properties comprising +/- 23.8 acres total, located on the West side of Danby Road at Sesame Street, Residence District R- 15. Clara Y. Leonardo, Richard M. and Mary Lee Park, Charles W. and Sandra J. Firenze, and Joseph M. and Marlea Anne Leonardo, Owners; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Status: Project received Preliminary Subdivision Approval, with conditions, on April 4, 1995. Tentative Town Board Date: August 7, 1995. Tentative Planning Board Date: August 15. 1995. Project No.: 9103046. NYS Route 366/Dryden Road. Proposed Rezoning Cornell University Precinct 7. . Description: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to the proposed rezoning of 4271 acres, comprising those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 63-1-10, 63- 1-11, 64-1-1 and 64-1-2, bounded by NYS Rte. 366 on the north, Game Farm road on the east, Cascadilla Creek on the south, and Judd Falls Road on the west, from Residence District R-30 to Special Land Use District. Cornell University, Owner, Lewis Roscoe, Agent Status: Pending. Tentative Public Hearing Date: August 15, 1995. Project No.: 9309115. Danby Road (900 Block). Ithacare Senior Living Community. Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Senior Living Community, proposed to consist of a +/- 115,000 sq. ft. building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, located on the west side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to Ithaca College, on that 28 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.3 for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on March 1, 1994, Special Land Use District No. 7., Ithacare, Inc, Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent. Status: Planning Board held a SEQR public hearing on the D/EIS for the project on 18, 1995, closed the public hearing and set July 28 as the deadline for receipt of written comments on the D/EIS. Tentative Date For Next Planning Board meeting: August 15, 1995. 41 Project No.: 9507166. 130 Crest Lane. Sketch Plan, Proposed 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-3.2, 4.5 +/- acres in size, into two lots, 0.36 +/- acre and 4.14 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 130 Crest Lane, Residence District R-15. Erickson, Loucks, Koplinka-Loehr Partnership, Owner/Applicant; Eugene Erickson, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: September 5, 1995. Project No.: 9507167. 137 & 139 Whitetail Drive. Modification Of Lot Line. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed modification of the lot line between Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 44-1-150 and 44-1-151, a.k.a. 137 and 139 Whitetail Drive and located within the "Deer Run Subdivision" Phase =, for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted June 19, 1990, Residence District R-15. Richard K. Charsky, Iain D. Boyd and Kathryn Boyd, Owners; Deer Run Investors, L.P. Applicant; Edwin A. Hallberg, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: September 5, 1995. Project No.: 9507168. 25 Renwick Heights Road. Modification Of Lot Line. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 3,816 sq. ft. from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-25.1, located at 25 Renwick Heights Road, for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 17-3-6.2, located at 256 Renwick Drive, Residence District R-15. Francesca Verdier, Owner; Paul R. Dawson, Applicant. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: September 5, 1995. Project No.: 9507169. 1046 & 1048 Danby Road. Modification Of Lot Line. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-12.1, located at 1048 Danby Road, for purpose of consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 39-1-12.2, located at 1046 Danby Road, Residence District R-9. Janette McCord and Ronald Scarofile, Owners/Applicants. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: September 5, 1995. Project No.: 9504152. Woolf Lane. Sketch Plan, Proposed Westwood Hills H Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed "Westwood Hills II" subdivision, proposed to consist of 20 lots, with +/- 1,650 linear feet of public road, and extension of public water and sewer, located on the north side of Woolf Lane on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 23-1- 11.112, 12.92 +/- acres total size, Residence District R-15. Timothy Ciaschi, Owner/Applicants. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. 4 Project No.: 9505159. 12 Judd Falls Road. Proposed Ryder Truck Rental. Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ryder Truck Rental and storage operation as an adjunct business of Judd Falls Paint and Hardware, located at Judd Falls Plaza, Town of Ithaca tax parcel Nos. 62-1-1.121, 62-1-2.2 and 62-1-3.2, Business District C. M. Susan and Scott Hamilton, Owners/Applicants. Status: Project received Preliminary Site Plan Approval on June 20, 1995. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9503150. Mecklenburg Road (1200 Block). Sketch Plan, Proposed Candlelight Park Subdiv. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed "Candlelight Park" subdivision, proposed to consist of 153 lots, with +/- 2.3 miles of public road, public water and sewer, and +/- 9.7 acres of proposed park and open space, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte. 79) just west of the City of Ithaca/Town of Ithaca boundary on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.12, 95 +/- acres total size, Residence District R-15. Anthony Cerrache, Owner; Ivar & Janet Jonson, Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Status: Planning Board has requested submission of a sketch plan for a cluster subdivision which would preserve open space and stream corridor resources on the site. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9410142. Danby Road (1100 Block). Buttermilk Valley 70 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 'Buttermilk Valley" cluster subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 36-1-4.2 and 36-1-6, 74+/- acres total, into 70 lots, approximately 4,150 linear feet of road, approximately 20 acres of permanent open space, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R-30, Special Land Use District S-1. Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, Owners/Applicants. Status: Planning Board made Positive Determination of Environmental Significance on December 6, 1994; DEIS Scope approved January 17, 1995. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9407137. Bostwick Road (100 Block). First Assembly of God Church, Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed First Assembly of God Church, to consist of a 21,226 +/- sq. ft. structure containing a sanctuary, offices, classrooms and multipurpose room, with parking for 200 vehicles, to be located on the south side of Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Five Mile Drive on that portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-1 shown as Lot No.2 of the Glendale Farm Subdivision for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted on April 19, 1994, Residence District R-30. First Assembly of God Church Owner, Rev. Robert N. Lovelace, Agent. Status: Granted preliminary Site Plan Approval on 9/6/94; Applicant has applied for ZBA review of request for Special Approval and height variance. Tentative Public Hearing Date: To Be Announced. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday,' September 7, 1995 TOWNHALLBOARDROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 27.3-1747 AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:15 p.m. 5. Business -City/Town/County Park resolution -By-laws and Associate members -Six Mile Creek Conservation District Niewsheds in the Town of Ithaca -Others 9:15 P.M. 6. Member Concerns CB Members: Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello Date: August 28, 1995 To: Conservation Board Members From: Janet E. Hawkes, Chair n Re: Conservation Board Meeting September 7, 1995 7:30pm Town Hall Once again there is a packed meeting this month. Please read over the enclosed materials. The Environmental Long-range Plan, is a draft working document of the County Environmental Management Council. They are looking for input and for additional position papers. The enclosed by-laws reflect the changes suggested in concept by the Town Board. We will be discussing these and hopefully forwarding an approved version to the Town Board for their approval. For your information, the enclosed map shows the location of the proposed City -County -Town Preserve in the Inlet Valley area. We will be looking at a revised resolution at the meeting and it will be referring to this area. I look forward to seeing you on Thursday evening. Please call me at 272- 1126 if you are unable to attend. Thank you. DRAFT REVISIONS FOR THE BYLAWS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD September 7, 1995 I. 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, through Local Law #4 of the year 1993, (known as a local law For the Redesignation of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council as the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board), 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. H. Membership The CB shall consist of three and a maximum of nine residents of the Town of Ithaca who demonstrate interest in conservation issues. They will be nominated by the CB and approved by the Town Board. All of 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 wishes with CB and Town Board approval. 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 in a timely, manner. IV. 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. Support for the CB Individuals, agencies or organizations can work cooperatively with the CB on specific projects. While engaged in specific projects with the CB, these individuals, agencies representatives or organization representative can freely participate in appropriate CB meetings, committees, and discussions but will possess no voting rights. Draft Revisions of the CB Bylaws September 7, 1995 Page 2 VI. Committees In order to accomplish its reviews, the Board may create one or more subcommittees made up of at least three of its members to which subcommittee the function of reviewing development applications may be delegated. The vote of a majority of the members of such duly constituted subcommittee shall be necessary to forward any reports or recommendations to any referring entity. Other committees will be formed by the CB as needed to accomplish its annual work plan. VII. 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 -organization meeting of the CB for developing the annual .work plan and membership should be scheduled to coordinate with other Town Boards. VIII. 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. IX. 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 meeting. X. 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 meetings agenda. Every effort should be made to pass minutes at the meeting immediately succeeding it. Draft Revisions of the CB Bylaws September 7, 1995 Page 3 XI. Amendments These bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new bylaws adopted by a 2/3 vote of the CB membership, provided that a quorum is present and that a statement of intent to change the bylaws has been published in the agenda of the meeting. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, September 7, 1995 Approved: September 19,1996 PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Loren Tauer, Cheryl Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Phillip Zarriello, Mary Russell, JoAnn Cornish (Planner II). \. ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs. Chairperson Janet Hawkes called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. REPORT FROM CHAIR: Chairperson Hawkes stated that EMC had passed a resolution in support of a Town/City natural park in Inlet Valley near the proposed Wa1Mart site. She also asked that any comments regarding the County Long Range Environmental Plan be submitted to her, that the language needed to be edited. The Conservation Board Meeting for November will be held on the 16th at 7:30 p.m. REPORT FROM STAFF: Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that due to the availability of excess funding, Geraldine Tierney was able to be rehired in the Planning Department as an intern. Ms. Cornish stated that there will be a Conference in Syracuse on October 2nd and 3rd, 1995. It is the NYS Geographic Information Systems Conference. If any member of the Board is interested in attending, please advise Ms. Cornish. The deadline for the Town Newsletter is September 18, 1995, please submit anything of interest. Ms. Cornish will buy two cameras for the Planning Department a 35mm and a Polaroid. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz is currently working on Chapter 5 of the Parks and Open Space Report. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Environmental Review Committee (ERC): Mary Russell stated that ERC had reviewed the Cornell University Precinct 7 Dump Site Project. They will be regrading with top soil; no wetland restoration is planned. Cornell University will monitor runoff from the site. The McGuire Gardens proposed development for a Family Fun Park; raises questions of stability on the land since the land is already over 60% fill. The Six Mile Creek Conservation District boundary has been modified to show the railroad bed, as the new boundary. Excluding houses and yards; 7 acres total lot size is being proposed. The plan is support of the Codes and Ordinance Committee recommendation. The Conservation Board needs to submit comments on this proposal soon. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 NEW BUSINESS: Town/City Park Resolution - southwest was approved as a park by State Legislature in 1985; City Conservation Advisory Council wants the Conservation Board to support the resolution of public access to South West Park and other Inlet Valley parcels. Chairperson Hawkes read the resolution with changes. Eva Hoffmann moved the approval of the resolution. Motion was seconded by Phillip Zarriello. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. By-laws of the Conservation Board - Changes were made to the by-laws by Janet, and they will be presented to the Board at the next meeting for review and comment. Six Mile Creek Conservation District - Final Draft of the proposed district will be mailed to the Conservation Board Members. Viewsheds - Eva Hoffmann will present slides of views in Ithaca. The Conservation Board will try to get Viewshed Inventory in the 1996 Budget. MEMBER CONCERNS: Phillip Zarriello commented on the Six Mile Creek Water Shed. Board Members were advised that on Saturday, September 23, 1995, "Celebrate Our Green Earth" will be held at Cayuga Nature Center from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Environmental Long Range Plan Table of Contents I. Environmental Vision Statement ............ ........... page 1 II. Quality of Life Recommendations ...................... page 3 III. Environmental Issues and Objectives .................... page 5 Position Papers: A. Natural Resource Inventory .......................... page 9 B . Biological Corridors ............................... page 14 C. Open Space Protection Tools .......................... page 17 D. Low Impact Transportation Options ..................... page 27 jff. Public Participation ................................ page 29 Tompkins County Environmental Vision Statement The overwhelming majority of Americans - at least 65% - consider themselves environmentalists. Given the degree of environmental activism in Tompkins County, that percentage is probably higher. What do environmentalists, that is to say the great majority of Tompkins county residents, really want? The citizens of Tompkins County want an environment at least as good and enjoyable as the one we have enjoyed in our lifetimes. "It's a beautiful area" is heard by us when we travel to other parts of the state, country and world. It is stated by students who decide to stay in the area, often times working far below their level of training just to be able to afford to stay here. "It's a beautiful area" is given as the reason by senior citizens for their return to Tompkins County to live out the rest of their lives. We want Tompkins County to remain beautiful. Hard core environmentalists may say that scenic vistas and pretty scenes are not important in the long-term survival of the biodiversity upon which the earth depends. Hard core business people may say that housing and jobs are more important than views. But nature's beauty often creates the first stirrings of desire to protect the environment from further degradation and stimulates the casual visitor to return as a tourist or otherwise become a new contributor to the economic prosperity of the area. Most importantly, for those who care to look, nature's beauty daily inspires our thinking and positive mood and adds inestimable value to our quality of life. We want Tompkins County to continue to help provide us with healthful food. Tompkins County is not a major food -producing county. Yet, residents greatly appreciate the high quality fresh food which is available. This is evidenced by the popularity of the farmers' markets, u -pick farms, roadside markets, and home and community gardens. For commercial farms to remain active, they will need financial incentives, protection from developmental pressures, and assistance in protecting the environment from the unintended effects of pesticide and fertilizer use and soil erosion. Increasing recognition of the value of a healthful diet of fresh foods will increase the demand for locally -grown produce. We want Tompkins County to retain its biodiversity. Almost all Tompkins County residents are currently within a reasonable distance of a park, state or municipality -owned land, or private property where we can observe nature's forces at work, including wild creatures going about the essential business of survival. However, as we divide the land for housing and other purposes, smaller tracts of natural areas fail in their attempt to provide food, cover and water for all components of the ecosystem. Therefore, we must protect not just individual species or small, isolated patches of land, but connected natural parcels of sufficient size to permit the native species to prosper. The survival of all species is not just important to those individuals, but to the web of life itself. As studies in chemical engineering are discovering, the human life-saving drugs of the future may be found in the natural world we manage to save today. We want to be able to walk, run, bicycle and watch nature in a safe, convenient manner. Not everyone can take the better part of a day to drive to a natural area to enjoy the outdoors. We want local greenways, trails, and pathways that provide a safe way to get outside, and even, where feasible, get us to the store for groceries and other essentials. We know that exercise, in addition to a proper diet, will keep us healthy; opportunities must be provided for us to conveniently exercise. Just as important, we need access to the outdoors to refresh our minds and enhance our mental health. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 1 We want a clean, safe environment. Water is abundant in Tompkins County and that abundance often helps flush away our human -generated waste and chemicals. However, the earth has a limited capacity to cleanse itself from these environmental insults. We need controls on chemicals which threaten our water. We need techniques to prevent soil erosion and resulting siltation. We want controls on herbicide and road salt use. We also want clean air. While we can not directly control all the air that we breath, we can minimize our contribution by reducing driving of automobiles, eliminating backyard burning of trash and soliciting and monitoring clean industries. A clean environment will be a rarity in the 21 st century, and investments now will assure Tompkins County's reputation as a wonderful place to live and work. We want transportation options. Many more county residents would be eager to commute to work and other destinations by bicycle or by foot if there were safe ways of doing so. We want roadways to have sufficient space to permit bicycles to travel safely. We need linkages with public transportation to eliminate long or especially difficult portions of the commute. We want long, connected bike and walking paths for recreation and exercise. Our residents - and tourists - are increasingly active, and communities which offer extensive opportunities for outdoor life will be more competitive in the years ahead. We want to continue to enjoy small town and rural life. One of the remarkable advantages of Tompkins County is that residents can enjoy the amenities of the City of Ithaca and the intellectual stimulation our educational institutions, yet in ten minutes time be enjoying a country atmosphere. That advantage can be easily lost. We want information to be provided to the surrounding municipalities to help them make appropriate land -use decisions to assist in the retention our rural county nature. That information must include development patterns, unique natural areas, housing options, greenways potential, water and sewage line possibilities, scenic vistas, economic development opportunities, prime farmland, tourist assistance, watershed management, and much more. Tompkins County is of sufficient size to be able to provide the staffing and equipment to assist the smaller municipalities by providing this information for their use. Without assistance, land use decisions lead to the haphazard destruction of the quality of rural life we hold dear. We want public participation to continue to be high priority for Tompkins County. Long-term protection of the environment is possible only through the wisdom of the county's leadership and the support of the county's citizens. We are fortunate in having in place representative bodies to reflect the views of the entire county in the Board of Representatives, the Environmental Management Council and the Planning Board. These are valuable but not sufficient when considering the decisions which will determine the future health of our environment. Therefore, we want an on-going process that involves Tompkins County citizens in the environmental decision-making process. With our elected government and our citizens working together, we may provide for future generations the joy of nature that we find so essential in our lives. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 2 Quality of Life Recommendations Residents of Tompkins County currently enjoy a high quality of life compared to people in other regions of the United States. One of the dominant attributes that adds value to life here in Tompkins County is our healthy and remarkable environment. Specifically, the abundance of unique natural resources as well as the clean air, water, and land benefit all residents. Cayuga Lake and numerous parks and trails are well known attractions that provide residents and tourists with readily accessible recreational activities. The myriad of farms, woodlands, wetlands and other ecosystems dispersed throughout the County constantly remind us that we live in a healthy environment. During this time of growing global concern for environmental protection, Tompkins County seems separate from other regions where the issue of the environment has become a legal and health necessity rather than a quality of life issue. Part of our good fortune is the sheer luck of "central isolation" and part is due to the wisdom of our ancestors, who provided us with'an impressive number and quality of parks, farms and woodlands. In either case, the residents of Tompkins County benefit from the environment in many ways. First, the community enjoys our natural resources, beautiful scenic vistas, and clean environment on a daily basis. Second, residents profit economically from our surroundings. The two higher education institutions are the County's largest source of income, and our clean and scenic environment helps both institutions attract thousands of students. The second largest source of income is the tourist industry. Although tourists are attracted to the County for a number of reasons, the beautiful natural resources and healthy environment are the primary factors that keep the tourist industry alive and growing. Our environment and the high quality of life that results from living in a healthy environment are therefore crucial elements of our community that should be given important consideration in all long range plans. It is imperative that future development occur in the context of sustaining current levels of environmental health and quality of life. To protect our vital natural resources and safeguard our futures, all development must reflect responsible stewardship of the land, and take into account both our population growth, and our industries. The EMC recommends that the County: 1. recognize the components of our high quality of life. 2. accurately assess each quality of life component. 3. consolidate quality of life information in one comprehensive report for town and village officials, community organizations, and businesses throughout the County. 4. strive to integrate business into community projects that help protect our high quality of life. 1 . Recognizing the components of our high quality of life. These include qualities such as a healthy economy; readily available and affordable recreation activities; a safe community; closeness to nature; and healthy living conditions. By recognizing those qualities that enrich and vitalize our lives, their full contribution to our community's well-being becomes clearer. In addition, decision -makers are better able to weigh the importance of environment stewardship and understand the ramifications of irresponsible environmental behavior. The haphazard building of roads and dwellings and uncontrolled population growth in some areas of the County, can negatively affect all residents and eventually deteriorate our high quality of life. 2. Assessing each quality of life component. Only by accurately assessing each individual element will we be able to protect them adequately from unsustainable development or undesirable deterioration. These qualities include factors such as a clean Lake Cayuga; maintained and accessible parks, trails, and scenic vistas; isolation from multi -lane or heavily congested Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 3 highways and throughways; safe drinking water; the proper collection and treatment of waste water; and ability to dispose cost-effectively of solid and hazardous waste; and an environmentally - aware community that works together to solve environmental issues. 3. Consolidating this quality of life information in one comprehensive report for town and village officials, community organizations, and businesses throughout the County. By explicitly identifying what constitutes and contributes to our high quality of life, people will be more willing to devote the time, money and energy to preserving and enhancing our surroundings. In addition, this information will help officials develop a long range vision for the communities. 4. Striving to integrate business into community projects that help protect our high quality of life. Businesses offer the community a source of expertise, funding, and support that most organizations and local governments cannot afford. By working together on environmental issues and projects, both the County and business benefit. The County can facilitate this mutually beneficial relationship by providing all businesses with this comprehensive report of quality of life elements and highlighting environmental projects that need support. A newsletter could be distributed stressing the benefits that companies will receive if they participate. These benefits could include free promotion opportunities with the local newspapers, better community relations, higher morale and a more productive work force. Projects that could benefit from business support include the creation of new parks and trails, the upkeep of overused parks and trails, the development of a Scenery Classification System, and the identification of Unique Natural Areas. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 4 Environmental Issues and Objectives The EMC has identified the major environmental issues the County Comprehensive Plan should address, and has recommended some objectives for the county to adopt. We list these issues and objectives in the following section. Please note that we do not consider this to be a completed document; rather we recognize that additional information must be gathered which may lead to more specific objectives, and that new environmental objectives may arise. Each objective is followed by a parenthetical year, which we suggest as a target date for achieving said objective. Environmental concerns are present in many components of the comprehensive planning process, including natural resources, transportation and land use, so these concerns should be integrated into the relevant components of the Tompkins County planning document. Environmental protection will best be achieved by an integrated plan which considers environmental impacts concurrently with other goals. The structure of this document reflects this integrated view, as we have categorized environmental objectives into sections covering natural resources and the environment, development, and transportation. On specific issues, we have attempted a more thorough review and include these discussions as Position Papers within this document. These Position Papers address the development of a natural resource inventory, a plan for biological corridors and greenways, tools for open space protection, low impact transportation options, and public participation. I. General Objectives 1) The County should encourage cooperation among local municipalities on matters of environmental planning. The County should support and publicize mechanisms to facilitate this cooperation, such as the proposed Tompkins County Planning Federation. (1996) 2) The County should provide information on the value of environmental conservation and the link between a healthy environment and a healthy economy to the public and to local municipalities. In particular, the County Comprehensive Plan should dispel the myth that economic health must be traded for environmental conservation and stress the link between a healthy environment and the county's education, agriculture and tourism industries. The Monroe County comprehensive plan includes a simple analysis of the current land availability and projected future needs to show that there is no need to develop environmentally sensitive land in the foreseeable future as there is more than enough suitable land available. An analysis of this sort in the Tompkins County plan would be useful. (1996) II. Natural Resources and Environment A. Open Space and Natural Areas 1) The County should complete a Natural Resources Inventory as outlined in Position Paper 1. This would serve as baseline information for many important environmental planning and decision- making processes, including the designation of suitable and unsuitable areas for development suggested below under Land Use and Growth Management. This inventory should include Unique Natural Areas and Critical Environmental Areas, wetlands, forested areas, old-growth forests, floodplains, water bodies and streams including DEC classifications, current and future water supply storage and recharge areas, steep slopes, prime agricultural soils, active farmland, parks and public lands, trails, conservation easements, and air and water quality data. (1998) 2) The County should identify and encourage the preservation of contiguous natural habitats within the county by adopting a biological corridor plan as outlined in Position Paper 2. Preserving Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 5 contiguous habitats will protect the health of our native wildlife and plants by allowing wildlife movement and plant dispersal. (1996) 3) The County should disseminate information regarding open space protection tools to local governments and encourage their use. A draft document identifying such tools is included as Position Paper 3. The County should provide technical support services in the form of training, technical assistance and funding to local governments seeking to implement these tools. (1996) 4) The County should provide for parks within easy reach of County residents, and increase public access to Cayuga Lake. Our current town and state park systems are suffering from overuse and many municipalities do not have the resources to provide park facilities. (2010) 5) All lands owned or acquired by the County should be evaluated carefully for their environmental value, including value as parkland and wildlife and plant habitat. (1995) B. Agriculture 1) The County should identify all high-quality farm land and develop tax incentives and land conservation strategies to keep those lands available for farming purposes. (1997) 2) The County should investigate whether current State tax policies force area farmers to shoulder an undue percentage of public school funding, and if so, how this situation might be remedied. (1997) 3) The County should identify particular agricultural sectors and geographic regions within the County where the use of Best Management Practices would significantly improve environmental quality, and encourage use of such practices. The County should work together with Cornell Cooperative Extension to provide information and training to farmers in these sectors and regions regarding the environmental value of Best Management Practices and the technical application of these practices. (1998) C. Water Quality 1) The County should compile water quality monitoring data for major streams, lakes, aquifers and other water bodies. The County should support watershed management to prevent further degradation of these water bodies, and restore impaired areas. (1999) 2) The County should set a goal of "swimmable quality" water that is both clear and contamination - free at the south end of Cayuga Lake. This would require protection of major tributaries from degradation due to agricultural runoff and development, close monitoring of sewage discharges, and control of silt disturbance by power boats. (2010) 3) The County should encourage the development of farm soil and water conservation plans which protect water resources from runoff containing soil and pesticides (including herbicides). (1999) 4) The County should require least toxic management of county -owned buildings, lawns, turf - grass areas, right-of-ways, and parks. The County should encourage least toxic management of private and local government areas and facilities including lawns and golf courses, by providing information and training. In particular, the County might work cooperatively with local lawn care companies and lawn chemical merchants to encourage least toxic management and prevent misuse of pesticides (including herbicides). (1996) D. Air Quality 1) The County should monitor local air quality data and seek to prevent air quality degradation. Toward this end, the county should assess the air quality impacts of proposed development projects. (1998) Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 6 2) The County should encourage non- and less -polluting transportation options such as the use of public transportation, car-pooling, bicycling and walling. More specific recommendations for increasing bicycling and walking transportation are outlined in Position Paper 4. (2000) E. Noise Abatement 1) The County should assess the noise contribution of current and future transportation and development projects, and mitigate excessive noise. Mitigation measures might include tree plantings along major roads. (1999) F. Hazardous Waste 1) The County should identify and monitor all current and past hazardous waste producing, handling and disposal sites within the County. The County should carefully consider the siting of future facilities in relation to current and future public water supply, and Unique Natural Areas. (2000) 2) The County should provide a dependable, regular and convenient household hazardous waste disposal system. The lack of such a system encourages the improper disposal of these items and subsequent environmental contamination. (1995) II. Land Use and Growth Management A. Development 1) The County should identify and clearly designate areas most suitable and unsuitable for development, based on a variety of criteria including topography, soil suitability, ecological value, agricultural value and present patterns of development. As the County attempted one version of this in the 1976 Environmental Image document, this objective might begin by reviewing and updating the Environmental Image document. (1998) 2) The County should support compact development and cluster zoning, and discourage sprawl and strip development in order to protect environmental amenities. Toward this end, the County should carefully consider the implications of selling County -owned lands. (1995) 3) The County should work cooperatively with the County Economic Development Office to attract environmentally friendly development, and to direct new development to appropriate sites. (2000) B. Transportation 1) The County should encourage the use of non- and less -polluting transportation options such as bus, bicycle and pedestrian travel, especially for commuting to work, as outlined in Position Paper 5. Toward this end, the County should create bicycle lanes when replacing or repairing roadways and create separate paths connecting County greenways and abandoned railways. (2005) 2) The County should encourage traffic reduction by encouraging compact development and discouraging sprawl and strip development, as suggested above under development. (1995) 3) The County should require careful assessment of the environmental impact of new road construction near environmentally sensitive areas and into undeveloped areas. (1995) 4) The County should discourage the pollution caused by excessive road salt by developing a minimum salt plan and investigating alternatives. (1996) 5) The County should identify scenic highways for inclusion in state and federal scenic highway programs. (2005) Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 7 III. Utilities 1) The County should discourage the extension of water and sewer lines into areas unsuitable for development. (1997) 2) The County should encourage water and energy conservation, waste reduction, recycling and composting by providing information and educational services. (1997) 3) The County should continue to ban the spreading of septage and municipal sewage on land. The County should investigate options for biological treatment of septage and sewage. (2000) 4) The County should discourage the placement of high tension power lines near residential communities and schools, and where necessary, design power lines so that potentially hazardous electromagnetic fields are not created. (The geometry of power line can markedly affect the strength of the electromagnetic field). The County should require that power lines on County right-of-ways be designed not to create potentially hazardous electromagnetic fields. (2000) Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 8 Outline for a Natural Resource Inventory for Tompkins County (Position Paper A) INTRODUCTION To plan for the future of the environment in Tompkins County, residents face two fundamental questions: "What kind of a County do we want?" and "What kind of a County can we get?" The "Environmental Vision Statement" (part 1 of this report) addresses the first of these questions. As we discuss in that section, residents of Tompkins County are fortunate to live in a region rich in natural resources. The continued quality of our lives, and our children's lives, depends to a great extent on the health and stability of the land and the environment around us. In addition to playing a large role in defining the character of the County, many ecosystems (such as forests) enhance the air and water quality available to residents, and support the intricate web of life of which we are an important part. Answering the second question, "what kind of a County can we get?" requires that we recognize our ability to change our landscapes, to conserve what we decide is valuable, or to irreversibly alter what might be essential in the future. The presence of the valuable resources and cherished landscapes of Tompkins County reflects decisions people have made in the past and is a tribute to the stewardship of the County's land owners. Their efforts have maintained the character of the County that is enjoyed by all who live in and visit this area. To decide what kind of a County we can get we also must acknowledge that we face levels of population growth, urbanization, and development pressure greater than previous generations; as a result, deciding what to preserve increasingly takes on dimensions of "how much?" and "to what extent?" In order to decide how much and to what extent we want preserve our natural resources, given the associated competing interests, we need to address a third question: "What kind of a County do we have?" A natural resource inventory answers this question; it is simply a status report of critical elements of the environment, a description of the ecologically significant features within the area of concern (i.e., Tompkins County). The main purpose of a natural resource inventory is to inform residents' and planners' thinking about what kind of a County we want and what kind of a County we can get. Without knowing the extent and pattern of natural resources in the County, it is difficult if not impossible to plan for their protection, nor for the closely linked question of appropriate development. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County conduct a natural resource inventory as part of its long range environmental planning process. PURPOSE OF THE TOMPKINS COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY The purpose of the Tompkins County natural resource inventory is to help County and municipal planners manage growth and development in an ecologically and socially responsible manner. It will assist in the decision-making processes relevant to activities such as: • Voluntary land protection • Planning and developing greenbelts and biological corridors • Land use regulation • Land acquisition • Tourism Development • Site plan development • Permit review • Assessing the impacts of projects on adjacent sites • Planning to avoid project impacts on sensitive adjacent sites Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 9 • Evaluating the economic benefits to a community of preserving open space The natural resource inventory will foster wise and environmentally responsible land use decisions about issues such as: • Protecting natural resources, open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and Unique Natural Areas for present and future generations. To protect these areas adequately requires attention to the areas of explicit concern, and to activities and land uses in surrounding areas. Buffer zones will generally be necessary between areas appropriate for higher levels of use and those targeted for protection. The extent of the buffer may vary, and for some unique natural areas appropriate land use in the entire watersheds may be critical to meet ecosystem protection goals. • Channeling development away from areas within the County that are most likely to be harmed by such development, and towards areas that are most appropriate for development. • Protecting water and air quality by minimizing impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and drainage by protecting: (1) stream corridors; (2) designated 100 -year flood plains; (3)wetlands; (4) steep slopes; (5) woodlots; and (6) Cayuga Lake and its shore. • Saving taxpayers and developers unnecessary development costs during all phases of site selection, planning, and construction, by steering development away from environmentally unstable areas with potential for flooding, silting, or erosion. The natural resource inventory will also: • Support the comprehensive planning process, including policy formation and planning relating to the environment, natural resources, agricultural land use, parks, and recreational areas. • Assist all applicants and reviewers of development proposals in environmentally sound planning. s? • Aid the County in developing land use regulations. w • Guide the County in the designation of green belts and biological corridors to prevent habitat fragmentation and protect biological diversity. The natural resource inventory will be used primarily by people and committees responsible for making decisions that pertain to land use; this audience includes: • Landowners • Developers • County Board of Representatives • Environmental Management Council • Building permit applicants • County Planning Staff • Comprehensive Planning Committee • County Planning Board • Site plan designers This report will help the County Planning Department to conduct a natural resource inventory. It recommends how to structure the inventory, and it identifies the questions that -planners will need to address at the outset in order to produce a useful, robust document. DEFINING THE TASK OF PRODUCING A NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY To create the natural resource inventory, project staff will need to: •k1dentify all open areas in the Tompkins County. Long g g Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 10 • Identify the highest valued environmental resources in the County. • Augment existing natural resource databases. • Produce reports and hard -copy maps of key information contained in the database to make that information readily available to towns and citizens. First, however, project staff will need to face some difficult decisions. For example, the natural resource inventory will identify the important ecological resources that give the County the special character cherished by its residents. Project staff, with input from appropriate agencies including the EMC (which has the production of an open space plan as part of its stated responsibilities), will need to decide which ecological resources are important and which are not. Although some plans rely exclusively on physical characteristics such as slope, gradient, and soil type, using such methods obviously ignores an essential goal of the inventory: to identify those ecological and environmental resources that give the County its special character. The EMC recommends that the project staff begin by considering the following set of questions: • How many (and which) aspects of the environment should be included? • What level of spatial resolution is required (what level is useful; what level is optimal)? • Is the same level of information required for each town? • What information already exists at the Town and County levels? • How much effort should be devoted to each town? We recommendoi%m answers to some of these questions below, but we are not in a position to answer all of them. We want to stress the importance of considering all of them seriously in the course of developing a natural resource inventory for Tompkins County. How many (and which) aspects of the environment should be included? The EMC recommends that project staff use the following list as a starting point and exclude features included in this list only if their exclusion can be well - justified. • Critical Environmental Areas (CEA) • Endangered and significant wildlife habitats • Unique Natural Areas (UNA) • Flood plains and wetlands • Ponds • DEC -Classified Streams A, B, C, and Ct, and their corridors • All DEC -Classified Streams D or "intermittent," and their corridors • Current and future public water supply storage and recharge areas • SCS Class I and II (prime) agricultural soils • SCS Class III agricultural soils • Steep slopes (>15% grade) • Mature forest (5 acres or larger) Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 11 • Old Growth forest • Active farmland • Buffer zones between land uses • Buffers (areas within 100 feet) to UNAs, CEAs or State Parks • Aquifer and recharge areas • Air and water quality The residents and institutions of Tompkins County need to establish priorities for conducting a natural resource inventory. The task of completing a comprehensive, thorough natural resource inventory is simply too large to undertake and complete fully in the next year or two. However, it is clearly an important task for long range planning and one that we must address. One option is to identify items that will be included now and those that will be less relevant to near-term planning decisions but will be added later because of their relevance to decisions anticipated in the future. What level of detail is required? The level of detail included in a natural resource inventory can vary in a number of ways. For example, with regard to land use, we can choose the degree of spatial resolution to use; do we need to know whether a 0.25 acre forest is present or do forest patches become important to include only if they are 2 acres or larger? Information can also vary in terms of accuracy; do we need to know the location of a stream to within 1 meter, 10 meters, or 100 meters? Detail can also vary in terms of the number of land use categories we include. For planning purposes, one criteria of spatial accuracy to consider is the ability to identify tax parcels upon which particular features lie. The level of accuracy needed for features close to parcel boundaries may be higher than the level needed for features which clearly lie within a particular parcel. The EMC suggests that the team which conducts the natural resource inventory adopt, at a minimum, a level of detail sufficient to identify unambiguously the tax parcels corresponding to natural resource boundaries 95% of the time. As a last example of how detail can vary, consider air and water quality. Do we have measurements or air and water quality at those times and places where we expect them to be worst, or at those places where we expect air and water quality to be declining or improving? Project staff should avoid simply relying on current, easily accessible information without first seriously considering how much information - and exactly what information - is critical, relatively important, and less important to create a solid picture of the current state of the environment in Tompkins County. Is the same level of information required for each town? Because the various towns within Tompkins County differ substantially in their physical and cultural character, the EMC expects that different kinds of information - and different amounts of information - will be needed for different towns. However, because the goal of County -wide planning is to assist in the development and implementation of a collective vision for the County, the EMC recommends that the natural resource inventory include core set of information common to all towns. The EMC recommends that project staff, in conjunction with representatives of each town, consider the following attributes of a town in deciding what type and extent of information may be needed. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 12 • urban/rural character. • extent of agriculture • extent of wealth • degree of self-sufficiency compared to degree of commuting elsewhere for work What information already exists? The EMC recommends that project staff begin by listing in one place the environmental information available from all relevant sources, including: • the County GIS system and other data sources within the County Planning office. • each town within the County (to be gathered by contacting key people within each town). • appropriate contacts at academic institutions. • relevant commercial institutions. • relevant state and federal government institutions (e.g., USGS, NOAA, FWS, EPA, DEC) FORMAT OF THE INVENTORY The EMC recommends that project staff develop the inventory to meet two goals: information flexibility and information accessibility. Substantial environmental data for Tompkins County currently resides on the County's Geographic Information System (GIS)1. A GIS is a logical tool for compiling a natural resource inventory because it: (1) retains spatially explicit information; (2) facilitates manipulating, tabulating, extracting, and combining information; and (3) can produce easily understood visual displays (maps) of information. The EMC recommends that project staff use a GIS as the primary repository of information for the natural resource inventory.2 The drawback of using a GIS is that the expense and complexity (or in some cases perceived complexity) of the technology severely limits accessibility of the information. We consider it imperative that the key information be made easily available to citizens and town governments. An example of such readily accessible information is the Tompkins County Outlook, and the EMC recommends that project staff use it as a starting point in considering how to make a GIS -based natural resource inventory widely accessible. In addition to being widely accessible, it is important to provide town planning bodies with some ability to manipulate the information. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County meet this need in two ways. First, the EMC recommends that the County make available to towns a series of key data layers, on mylar, in large format, to enable town residents and governments to conduct their own overlay exercises, and explore the combinations themselves. Second, the EMC recommends that the County have in place an explicit and well-publicized service to make additional, specific overlays and natural resource information available to towns and citizens actively participating in planning (formally or informally) upon request. 1 A GIS is a database that includes spatially explicit references for the information it contains. 2 Some members of the EMC's Long Range Planning Committee have substantial experience and familiarity with GIS systems. In our judgment, using a GIS system - at least for the purposes we describe here - need not impose an undue financial burden on the County Planning Department. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 13 A Biological Corridor for Tompkins County (Position Paper B) The Need for a Bioloaical Corridor Plan As the population increases in Tompkins County, the landscape is progressively divided by roads, shopping centers, farms, channelized streams and urban districts. This continual development noticeably changes the plant and animal communities by fragmenting their remaining natural habitats into increasingly smaller isolated patches. Aerial photographs of the county dramatically illustrate the patchwork of managed lands neatly divided along private ownership and political boundaries. Occasional "islands" of woodlands, wetlands, stream corridors, and gorges break up the regular patterns. As wildlife patterns are splintered, the dynamics of our local ecosystem are severely altered, reducing both the diversity of species and their population sizes. It is imperative that Tompkins County protect its valuable ecosystems while there is still time. Conservation trends in New York State to date have been to set aside specific areas for forest protection or game management. This method is effective in protecting only targeted species and does not help other plants and animals outside the protected area. Environmentalists, conservation biologists, and the public at large are now asking planners to pay more attention to the impact of development on all native wildlife species. For that reason, wisely planned biological corridors are an attractive option to attempt to preserve intact biological systems. Plan Overview Biological corridors are thoroughfares, often narrow, allowing for the safe passage of animals and the genetic exchange of flora and fauna between habitat blocks. Stream corridors provide riparian connections for some species movement. Biological corridors, however, must have greater acreage to provide functional biodiversity of all native species. These corridors serve as linkages between fragmented habitats and preserve biodiversity by allowing for the physical interaction of species and their genetic material over time. Biological corridors are not a panacea for our environmental ills. Indeed, they are still somewhat controversial regarding their effectiveness. The ideal for biodiversity protection would be very large parcels of land, numbering in the tens of thousands of acres, free from intensive human intervention. However, the ideal is unlikely to be reached in a county as highly developed as Tompkins. Therefore, a biological corridor system, connecting smaller, existing parcels and making the whole greater than the sum of their parts, seems the best, most practical alternative. Biological corridors cannot abruptly stop at political boundaries. For that reason, Tompkins County must take the lead in identifying appropriate biological corridors and collecting the information for towns and other municipalities with land use authority to make informed decisions. The county is also in the best position to work with adjoining counties to ensure the viability of larger biological corridors. No designated biological corridor now exists as such in Tompkins County, although one has been proposed for the Coy Glen watershed by the Town of Ithaca. However, the county is blessed with great potential for wildlife corridors by virtue of state and municipal parks, state forest and wildlife management areas, and large institutional land holdings that include undeveloped land and designated natural areas. The Finger Lakes Land Trust protects over 1330 acres of land in Tompkins County by holding conservation easements or title to donated lands. A number of greenways exist in the county and the Tompkins County Greenways Coalition has developed a county -wide plan which could be easily blended with a biological corridor plan. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 14 The biological corridors being proposed follow natural features such as major creek corridors or ridgetops, or are connections between large tracts of protected lands such as state forests. Also emphasized are connections between sites known for their abundance of wildlife. The biological corridors would connect environmentally important areas such as flood plains, major streams, wetlands, gorges, steep slopes (over 15%), Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas, important geological formations, important wildlife habitat and other designated natural areas. The corridor in the southern part of the county would parallel parts of the Finger Lakes Trail connecting Connecticut Hill, Robert Treman State Park, Lick Brook, Michigan Hollow in the Danby State Forest, Shindagin Hollow State Forest, and Potato Hill State Forest. Other corridors would connect the four Finger Lakes State Parks (Buttermilk Falls, Robert H. Treman, Treman Marina and Taughannock Falls), Coy Glen, Six Mile Creek, Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Thomas Road Wetlands and Cornish Hollow. Potential collaborators to assist the county with the development and implementation of a biological corridor plan are talented and many: other municipal planners, the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, the Greenways Coalition, the Finger Lakes Land Trust, NYS Parks, Cayuga Trails Club, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Cornell Plantations, Cayuga Bird Club, and many others. Recommendations Tompkins County should establish a biological corridor plan. The plan should be developed with public input, both to increase the'quality of the plan and to increase public awareness about the fragile nature of our remaining ecosystems. The following steps should be followed: 1. Charge the Environmental Management Council with the responsibility for establishing a committee to develop the plan in close cooperation with the county Planning Department. 2. List potential partnerships within the Tompkins County community and the resources for assistance with biological and legal research, community dispute resolution, and publicity. 3. Refine the reasons and goals for creating the corridor system. 4. Establish a system to monitor progress 5. Solicit concerns of the community regarding a biological corridor 6. Review legal issues pertaining to the establishment of a biological corridor with the county attorney, the Cornell Plantations, and the Finger Lakes Land Trust. 7. Identify all land owners potentially included with the corridor, discuss the details of the plan, and seek their support. 8. With private landowners' permission, visit affected properties to confirm the value and location of proposed corridor boundaries. 9. Solicit participation of all interested parties and inform all of draft and final plans. 10. Produce accurate maps of the biological corridor. 11. Identify any potential costs for implementation of the plan and seek appropriate funding. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 15 12. Develop appropriate protection measures for the corridor. 13. Develop an outreach plan to educate the general public about the biological corridor and to encourage volunteers to maintain and protect the corridor. 14. Design and implement long-range monitoring to help ensure success and to modify goals and implementation strategies as necessary. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 16 Methods of Growth Management and Open Space Protection (Position Paper C) Many methods of conserving significant natural, cultural, and historical open space resources are currently used in communities throughout our country and the world as the awareness of global degradation spreads. There is a vast array of techniques employed in combinations tailored to maintain the character of the municipality. These tools include comprehensive planning, public acquisition, conservation easements, zoning, local land use regulations, and state and federal land use regulations. There are many sensitive mitigation measures that can be required by a community to protect its significant ecological, cultural, and historical features. Below are descriptions of the most common tools and techniques used in our area. A. BASIC PLANNING The traditional combination of tools for growth management include: • Community planning entails a comprehensive plan for the foreseeable future. The comprehensive plan may include specific small area plans such as a commercial corridor, directions for future housing and infrastructure, transportation systems, and preservation of important open space of ecological, historic, and recreational importance. • The development of standard municipal land use regulations including zoning ordinances, environmental, building, and public health review standards, and subdivision ordinances. • Capital improvement planning and budgeting which schedule future investments in public facilities such as streets, sewer and water lines, and future municipal park acquisition programs. The growth management process of a town should be a synthesis of the community's goals, objectives, and policies with in depth analyses of projected growth trends. The growth management tools utilized need constant reevaluation and refinement to follow changing market and environmental conditions. B. SPECIFIC GROWTH MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES 1. LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS Local regulatory controls provide for additional levels of review for the public, and local, State, and Federal governments before development can proceed. These review processes enable the public to re -direct or restrict development on a particular site to minimize damage to the character of the town or its environment. The authority for local land use planning and regulation is derived from the states' authority, granted by the U. S. Constitution and clarified by the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and numerous Supreme Court decisions, to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. States have delegated substantial portions of this regulatory authority to local governments. Some of the most influential regulatory techniques for managing growth are put forth in local zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and other innovative techniques outlined below: a) ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning is the most commonly used local tool for regulating land use. Zoning ordinances determine the location of land uses, the dimensional characteristics of permitted uses such as placement of structures on lots, minimum lot sizes and setbacks, development density, certain landscape features, signage, and traffic circulation. Specific zones may be created for the protection of areas of environmental significance or prime agricultural land. Open space protection within zoning ordinances may include, for example, a mandatory 10% reservation for park space in new Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 17 subdivisions and a provision that allows the Planning Board to require clustered subdivisions. A comprehensive plan should be developed to realistically plan for the future of each town in the County. Until further protections are enacted, however, current zoning provides little protection of open space areas. OVERLAY ZONES For sensitive areas, overlay zoning regulations apply additional regulatory criteria to the underlying conventional zoning district necessitating additional levels of review before a project or development can be approved. Many municipalities create historic overlay districts and floodplain zones using area designation of the National Flood Insurance Program (see position paper E). An Environmental Protection Overlay District (EPOD) is a zone of specific environmentally sensitive areas, such as steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridors that are important to keep in open space or large lot use.3,4 The review criteria of EPODs are designed to minimize adverse effects on the sensitive resource for the integrity of the natural environment and the public's safety and welfare. EPOD legislation is most effective in agricultural and moderate -density residential districts such as R15 and R30 zones where development has been minimal. Despite the additional environmental review and the resulting permit process, EPODs do not provide absolute protection for sensitive areas. CONSERVATION DISTRICT ZONING The creation of conservation zoning provides comprehensive protection for fragile environments and is most appropriate in large areas with important combinations of environmentally sensitive features. There are a number of areas in the County that would be appropriate for conservation zoning districts. Likely areas for this treatment would include large tracts that have combinations of rare plants and animals, representative old growth trees, unique geomorphology, and important stream corridors. These potential conservation zones are susceptible to degradation by pollution from nearby developments, recreational over -use, destruction of sensitive habitats, and the presence of highly erodible soils that could easily be destroyed resulting in lowering the water quality of the stream corridors. The important difference between EPODs and conservation district zoning is that EPODs are designed to protect a specific environmental feature while conservation districts encompass large combinations of habitats and features. AGRICULTURAL ZONING Agricultural zoning encompasses a wide variety of techniques used in farmland preservation that are highly variable in scope and effectiveness. The four basic types are: • Exclusive agricultural zoning • Cluster zoning • Performance based zoning • Large lot residential zoning • Sliding Scale Zoning Other non -zoning techniques often include purchase or transfer of development rights, various easement programs, local tax incentive programs, and the New York State Agricultural District classification. Exclusive agricultural zoning and performance based zoning are described below. 3 Mark A. Chertok, Sive, Paget & Riesel Associates. The Multi -Tiered Regulation of Wetlands, presented at the Association of Towns 1991 Annual Meeting, February 1991. 4 Daniel Riesel and Chertok, Mark A., Sive, Paget & Riesel Associates. An Analysis of Steep Slope Regulation for the Association of Towns 1991 Annual Meeting, February 1991. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 18 The other techniques are described in various sections of Chapter IV due to their versatility as forms of land use regulation. EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL ZONING 5 Exclusive agricultural zoning strictly controls or prohibits uses unrelated to agricultural operations such as non-farm dwelling units. A "farm" is defined according to economic or other performance standards. PERFORMANCE BASED ZONING Performance based zoning is usually based on standards such as land use compatibility and soil quality. This technique is most commonly used in rural areas lacking sophisticated planning and administrative capabilities facing immediate and intense developmental pressures. The effectiveness of this zoning is dependent on the thoroughness of the established performance standards and must be tailored for the specific municipality. The community must also have the planning machinery for reviewing the adequacy and accuracy of site plans and subdivision proposals. LARGE LOT ZONING Large lot zoning sets minimum lot sizes that usually range from five to 50 acres each. If used in conjunction with other land use regulations tools, this can be an effective method of maintaining rural settings by limiting development density and providing open space. However, if large lot zoning is over -relied on, the net effect to community is land consumption and inefficient low- density sprawl. INCENTIVE ZONING Incentive Zoning gives a developer permission to build at greater density or building height in exchange for community benefits, such as preserving open space and/or providing affordable housing for lower income families. SLIDING SCALE ZONING Sliding scale zoning is a special district in a zoning ordinance applicable to agricultural areas. It permits a decreasing proportion of subdivision lots as the size of a parcel increases. For example, in a prime agricultural district, two dwelling units might be allowed on ten acres of farmland while four subdivided units might be permitted on a forty acre farm. The rationale is to allow the sale of lots to subsidize the farm while preserving the greatest amount of prime farmland.6 b) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Subdivision regulations are widely used to regulate development. For example, in the Town of Ithaca, these regulations include many standards regarding subdivision design, topography, public utilities, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, storm water management, and safety access. The Town of Ithaca requires subdivision proposals to set aside 10% of the land for use as public park or open space. Since these areas cannot be developed at a future date, they are protected as parks in perpetuity. In general, these "pocket parks" are too small to protect habitats or environmentally sensitive areas. However, they provide valuable open space for recreation or as land -use buffers within developments. 5 Mantell, Michael A., Harper, Stephen F., and Luther Propst. 1990. Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth management Strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 6 Draft of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, Ithaca, New York. 1992. Chapter IV. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 19 c) SITE PLAN REVIEW This is the normal process a Town Planning Board engages in whenever it considers a Business, Industrial, Multiple Residence, or R5 residential zone proposal. During the review process, the Planning Board evaluates the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)7 assessment, prepared by the Town staff and the developer, and considers any applicable local laws and zoning restrictions. d) CLUSTERED SUBDIVISIONS AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Clustering and PUDs allow flexible layout design and concentration of the development in higher densities on the most appropriate portions of the subdivision parcel. Clustering provides the same number of dwellings as traditional lot layouts while preserving more open space. Clustering and PUDs can limit development encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas, preserve farmland, and reduce the necessity and overall cost of additional road construction, utilities, and public services. As a result, these layouts effectively reduce housing costs and can be used to promote affordable housing. e) TOWN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW LAW8 A local version of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Regulations may be adopted by individual towns. This would require that most proposed development activities in the Town require that boards considering approval or action must first make a determination of environmental significance. Environmental Assessments of proposed actions would then be reviewed by staff and by the CAC's Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The ERC's recommendations are then forwarded to the appropriate boards. Some of the local environmental review considerations may be more stringent than those of the NYS SEQR law. f) CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA DESIGNATION (CEA)9 Environmentally important areas can be designated as a CEA under Article 8 of New York's Environmental Conservation Law. All projects in CEAs are considered Type I Actions (they are likely to be environmentally significant and require a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), public comment, and intense review). Although a designation of CEA does not guarantee protection, it ensures thorough scrutiny during review and allows for ample public comment of the Environmental Impact Statement. Sections of Coy Glen comprise the only designated CEA in the Town of Ithaca at this time. g) DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS AND IMPACT FEES "Development Exactions" is a generic term encompassing mechanisms by which communities require dedication of land or facilities or payment of fees in lieu of land or facilities. Exactions can be "dedications," "linkage requirements," "mandatory tithing," and "mitigation requirements." Exactions are either mandated in development regulations or negotiated on a case-by-case basis in rezoning or special permit negotiations. Subdivisions developers may be required to provide on- site infrastructure including roads, parks, sewers and drainage facilities. If the required parks would be inadequate or inefficient, the community could accept a comparable fee to be used in more sensible settings. 7 The State Environmental Quality Review Act: The SEQR Handbook. January 1983. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Regulatory Affairs. 8 Environmental Review Regulations, Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 8, 1988. 9 The Town of Ithaca Town Board designated the first and only CEA in the Town by a resolution passed on October 19, 1978. The CEA encompasses especially environmentally sensitive areas in Coy Glen that will automatically necessitate a Type I action under SEQR for any work proposed in that area. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 20 i Recently, impact fees have been required from developers to finance an expanding variety of public facilities and services. The fees imposed on the developer are usually based on a uniform formula rather than by negotiation. Impact fees are especially useful in financially troubled communities to assist in connecting large-scale development infrastructure to current facilities, establish affordable housing, support police and fire protection, fund the expanding school system, improve transit, and establish parks and day care facilities required by increased off-site pressures on the established community. h) TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)10 TDR permits all or part of the density potential of one tract of land to be transferred to a noncontiguous parcel, even if these two parcels have different ownership. The development rights become a separate article of the property, which can be sold to a landowner whose property is better suited to greater densities. After selling the development rights, the land owner retains title and all other rights to the land. These remaining rights permit farming, forestry, some recreational uses, and other low impact uses. The owner may sell or exchange the title on the open market at anytime. This technique is advantageous for owners of land with restrictive development constraints can. continue with their current land use. Since the development rights are only a portion of the property value, this type of acquisition is economical for municipalities with limited land conservation funds. i) PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) PDRs are a more expensive land protection measure than a TDR 'but are also effective. Instead of transferring development potential to another parcel, the potential rights are purchased outright by the municipality. PDRs are especially effective if the municipality has designated certain areas as highly valued open space and are unable to purchase the land out -right. j) SPECIAL PARK DISTRICTS Residents can petition to establish a special park district for their neighborhood to acquire and maintain open space. The cost of acquisition and maintenance is added to the taxes of the nearby residents. Inactive park districts are useful when open space is of primary value to these adjacent landowners. k) CITY AND STATE OWNERSHIP State ownership of land within the Town is primarily in the form of park land. The City of Ithaca owns a significant amount of land in the Six -Mile Creek Valley to protect its water supply. No major change in the land use of any of these properties is anticipated. C. ACQUISITION Public ownership is the most widely used form of open space protection at this time. Land owned by public entities should be managed not only for the public benefit but also for the protection of its sensitive ecosystems. Unfortunately, many public lands, such as State Parks, are showing the effects of human overpopulation. The over -use of many parks is resulting in serious degradation of indigenous plant and animal species and their habitats. It is critical to acquire more public lands and establish programs for sensible public land maintenance. Occasionally, problems arise when governments change their policies of land protection. A local example was the proposed sale of the Hector Land Use Area in the 1980's. Local citizens 10 Natural Resources Inventory, 1990. Town of Perinton, New York, prepared by the Perinton Conservation Board, Chapter 3. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 21 presented a strong case to the government for keeping these lands under Federal protection. The land was not sold and became the Finger Lakes National Forest. Funding for land acquisition is often generated by local property taxes, sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, bond issues, and qualifying state, Federal, and local government grants. 1. FEE SIMPLE AND LESS -THAN -FEE -SIMPLE INTEREST ACQUISITIONS The ownership of land has numerous components including the right to control access to the land, the right to develop the property, mining rights, and hunting rights. If a single person owns all the rights to a piece of property it is called "fee simple." However, the rights to a property can be divided and owned separately by different parties. Each portion of these rights is called a "less - than -fee interest." Local governments generally acquire fee simple ownership of properties needed by the community for uses such as parks, schools, and landfills. Fee simple ownership provides the greatest number of rights to a parcel of land but is also the most costly mode of ownership. In addition to the considerable purchase and benefit costs, fee simple acquisition by municipalities completely removes the land from the tax rolls and can result in significant maintenance costs. Many municipalities and land trusts can only afford the alternative partial rights ownership of land by "less -than -fee interest" rather than full ownership in fee. In this way, the municipality or conservation organization can purchase the development rights to a property for its preservation while allowing the other owner(s) to use of the land for hunting or access. 2. DONATIONS OF LAND An extremely valuable resource for open space preservation is the donation of land for public protection by generous landowners, industries, and institutions. Land gifts can be in the form of direct donations or testamentary gifts to the conservation organization or municipality. These lands can also be earmarked by the donor to be sold to generate funds for other land acquisition. 1 l 3. ESTABLISHING A TOWN LAND BANK12 Many municipalities across the state and country have established land banks to accumulate funds for land acquisition. Section 247 of the NYS General Municipal Law allows municipalities to acquire interest and rights in real property for the preservation of open spaces. Land acquisition funds can purchase or transfer development rights, or buy outright a property with important open space value to the community. It is important to have a rational connection between the source of revenue and an open space conservation program. One possible connection is a real estate transfer tax. 13 Taxes levied on sales of unimproved land that is slated for development can be used to purchase other lands that could be permanently slated for open space uses. In some municipalities in the State, there is a sales tax on the transfer of developed land to obtain revenue in order to conserve the remaining open space for the benefit of the entire community. Developers could contribute to a land acquisition fund in lieu of donating the required 10% set-aside of land. Other methods for generating funds for land acquisition include establishing endowments by the sale of less valuable public lands, imposing impact fees on public services for new development, 11 Stephen J. Small. 1990. Preserving Family Lands. P.O. Box 2242, Boston, MA. ISBN 0-9624557-0-9. 12 Nantucket Land Bank Commission, 18 Broad Street, Nantucket, MA. (508) 228-7240. 13 City Ordinances of Boulder, Colorado Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 22 creating special tax districts with localized real estate taxes, and using a small percentage of sales taxes. 14 Occasionally, grants from the State, Federal, and the private sector are made available for land acquisition programs. Flexibility built into the system will inherently be more beneficial to the entire community. D. EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS Privately protected open space are valuable additions to maintaining the rural character of communities. Because the land remains privately controlled, there are often limitations regarding its public use. The greatest benefit is providing undisturbed habitats for local plant and animal species. 1. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Voluntary conservation easements for open space conservation have been used successfully in New York State and are become increasingly more common in the current economic climate. New York State law defines a conservation easement as "an easement, covenant, restriction or other interest in real property .... for the purpose of preserving or maintaining the scenic, open, historic, archaeological, or natural condition, character, significance or amenities of real property ..." It is a voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or other qualified organization, in which the landowner places restrictions on the use of his or her property in order to protect the natural values of the land. The easement can be designed in a variety of ways to meet the needs of both grantor and grantee. The easement becomes a permanent part of the land title, recorded by the County Clerk, to ensure the continued protection of the land. Future owners must comply with all terms of the easement. The landowner retains most rights to the land including the right to sell, lease, transfer, or mortgage. The land owner can use the land in any way that is consistent with the established easement consistent with local regulations. The landowner benefits by permanently preserving the land and financially by reduced income taxes, estate taxes, and property taxes. Three very active private organizations, the Finger Lakes Land Trust.15 The Trust for Public Lands,16 and the Nature Conservancy,17 are prominent local agencies that establish conservation easements with local landowners. 18 2. PERMANENT DEED RESTRICTIONS Permanent deed restrictions are a strong form of voluntary private protection and can be placed on properties to prohibit or limit development. These restrictions are passed on to future owners within the deed to the property. 14 Sylvia Lewis. April 1990. The Town That Said No to Sprawl, pp. 14-19, Planning. 15 Finger Lakes Land Trust, P.O. Box 4745, Ithaca, NY 14852-4745. (607) 838-3590. 16 Trust For Public Lands, 82 Second Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. (415) 495-4014. 17 The Central NY Nature Conservancy, 315 Alexander Street, Rochester, NY 14606. (716) 546-8030. The Nature Conservancy Regional Office, 1736 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12203. (518) 869-0453. 18 Russell L. Brenneman and S. M. Bates. 1984. Land -Saving Action. Island Press, Covelo, California. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 23 3. CORNELL NATURAL AREAS AND LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM Cornell University, part public and part private, owns and maintains many valuable areas of significant environmental importance in the Town and neighboring communities. Many of these sites, designated as Cornell Natural Areas (CNA), are ecologically fragile and are restricted for educational purposes and are not officially open to the public. 19 4. PRIVATE PRESERVES Private preserves can be established by institutions and individuals in order to protect specific tracts of land. The Nature Conservancy owns the Eldridge Preserve on South Hill and allows public access. There are no other privately owned preserves in the Town at this time. 5. NEW YORK STATE EASEMENT PROGRAM The State of New York has a highly under-utilized permanent voluntary easement program that provides landowners State tax benefits. 6. FEDERAL EASEMENT PROGRAM Granting a conservation easement lowers the value of the property which can be claimed by the landowner as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes. This program only applies to permanent easements. The New York and Federal Easement Programs can be incorporated in the voluntary conservation easement program outlined in Section D-1. 7. LEASES AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS Leases and management agreements are flexible legal instruments that can be tailored to satisfy the landowner and the party leasing or managing the property. In many cases, the second agent is a Land Trust, such as the Finger Lakes Land Trust. These agreements provide temporary control or influence over a property without the expense of ownership. Leases specify an amount of time that the second party oversees the land, while management agreements specify the terms and restrictions under which the landowner continues to manage the property. Both devices are recorded in the land records and remain in force for their full term even if the land changes ownership. 8. RIGHTS -OF -FIRST -REFUSAL Rights -of -First -Refusal is an arrangement between a landowner and a second party in which the landowner agrees that if he receives a legitimate offer from a third party to buy the property, he will notify the second party in order to allow them to make an offer on the land. Land trusts accept purchase or accept donations of Rights -of -First -Refusal to facilitate land acquisition. If a potential buyer with conservation intentions for the property makes an offer, the land trust may decide not to exercise its right -of -first -refusal. To strengthen the land trusts' legal position, there is usually a written contract for right -of -first -refusal prepared by a lawyer at a minimal cost. 9. DONATION OF BARGAIN SALE In addition to municipalities or land trusts purchasing land for conservation purposes at its full fair market value, land can be acquired through generous donors at highly reduced rates or gratis. Donation is the option of choice for conservation because it affords the donor numerous and substantial tax benefits. the selling price of bargain -sale properties are substantially below fair market value and may give the seller tax benefits as well as direct cash payment. 19 Use of the Natural Areas of Cornell Plantations. Cornell Plantations Natural Areas Subcommittee, One Plantations Road, Ithaca, NY 14850. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 24 E. EXISTING STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO TOMPKINS COUNTY RESIDENTS 1. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC), STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) PERMIT PROGRAM The SPDES program is designed to eliminate the pollution of New York waters and to maintain the highest quality of water possible in the interest of the public health and enjoyment of these resources, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and industrial development in the State. New York law requires that a permit be obtained before the following activities may be undertaken: • Construction or use of an outlet or discharge pipe ("point source pollution") of wastewater discharging into the surface waters or groundwater of the State. • Construction or operation of disposal systems such as sewage treatment plants. • Changes of bulkheads into streams, rivers, and lakes. No SPDES permit is required for a facility whose total discharges to the groundwater are less than 1,000 gallons per day of sewage wastewater containing no industrial or other non -sewage wastes. However, such discharges from cesspools or septic systems will require approval from the appropriate municipal or county health departments. Other DEC permits or other agency approvals may also be required depending on the individual situation. 2. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATERWAYS AND WETLAND PERMITS20 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has jurisdiction over all navigable waters in the United States under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.21 In Tompkins County, the USACE requires permits for dredging, drilling, filling, and other activities involving Cayuga Lake and its inlets. The USACE also has regulatory authority for all wetlands in the United States. Land owners must obtain a permit from the USACE before altering a wetland of less than 12.4 acres. The Permit process requires a land owner to go through an additional review process to prove that the project benefits outweigh the negative consequences. Therefore, this permit process does not prohibit the alteration of wetlands. The USACE will often grant a letter of permission (a Blanket Nationwide Permit) for projects that require filling less than an acre of wetland. For larger projects, they may require an independent wetland delineation paid for by the landowner. 3. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) WETLAND PERMITS The DEC has jurisdiction for wetlands 12.4 acres or greater. Permits are available for projects that will not significantly impact on these areas. The DEC regulations also apply to projects involving hazardous or solid waste materials, the location of liquefied natural gas and petroleum gas facilities, and any mining activities. 4. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM In order to qualify and maintain eligibility for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Towns may adopt local laws to control the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers and to regulate land use in flood -prone locations (identified by the 20 Article 24 and Title 23 of Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law, NYS Department of Conservation. 21 Thomas J. Schoenbaum and R.H. Rosenber. 1991. Environmental Policy Law. The Foundation Press, Inc., Westbury, N.Y., pp. 236-291. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 25 NFIP). The NFIP is not meant to prohibit development in flood -prone locations, but to establish minimum standards with which development must comply. 5. NEW YORK STATE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS Many active agricultural lands in the County are designated New York State Agricultural Districts. New York State's Agricultural District Law was enacted in 1971 to provide farmers with some relief from property taxes and to limit the number of restrictions a municipality can place on agricultural practices. Agricultural districts help to preserve farming as a viable economic activity, thereby maintaining land in active agricultural use. Land in agricultural districts can easily be withdrawn by its owner and developed. Therefore, it is not a reliable long-term protection of open space. F. LOW IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES Low -impact development causes minimal disturbance to the land and little need for mitigation measures. Cluster development with environmentally sensitive low impact construction concurrent with efficient energy and waste systems is highly desirable. Low impact mitigation measures can also involve building away from sensitive areas while incorporating any special features in the landscaping layout of the minimally developed site. An example would be an office building designed to include an artificial pond in front of an office building that overflows into a naturally existing wetland. These aquatic features provide an attractive landscaping features and an enjoyable wildlife habitat. Employees could utilize these areas for relaxation and picnicking. If the system is designed correctly, with collector troughs, the wetland could also process the oil run-off from the parking lot as well as semi -processed sewage generated from the office building. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 26 Transportation Options for Tompkins County (Position Paper D) The EMC recognizes that bicycle and pedestrian travel enhance environmental quality. Establishing a network of bicycle and walking trails in Tompkins County will encourage county residents to use non-polluting transportation options to commute to work, complete their errands, and travel to social engagements. This network will also benefit the local economy by encouraging tourists to visit the area. The County should promote this network of planned and existing trails (the Circle Greenway, Cornell Plantations trails, South Hill Recreation Way and the Finger Lakes Trail) to county residents and tourists. Several organizations within Tompkins County are currently working on components of such a network. The Tompkins Coalition for Bicycle Transportation (TCBT) has proposed a county -wide system of bikeways using principal and secondary roads focused on transportation to and from the urbanized center of Tompkins County. This bikeway system would allow residents to bike or walk to the urban center of the county from most of the surrounding population centers. The TCBT bikeway map displays both a recommended direct route and a recommended indirect route between most of the outlying population areas and the urban area. Principal routes tend to be direct and have safe wide shoulders, but are shared with heavy automobile traffic. Secondary routes tend to use narrow back roads which are not as direct, but have relatively lighter automobile traffic. The map does not yet address the potential trips from one outlying area to another. The Greenways Coalition is studying the potential to create greenways, some of which may be used for pedestrian walk ways. These greenways would lie between: outlying areas and the urban area, two outlying areas, and points within the urban area. Some greenways, such as those within the county's urban core, will be widely used and appreciated by the public, as is the South Hill Recreational Trail. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has the charge of overall transportation planning in the central urbanized area, and will likely expand to the entire county in the near future. The enabling legislation from ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) establishes the MPO, and also requires planning for alternative transportation modes to qualify for federal funding. The 20 year Long Range Transportation Plan is nearing implementation. These private and public agencies, along with the county planning department, will be the main players in determining the role of alternative transportation in Tompkins County. Public participation should be encouraged at all stages of the planning process. The EMC can serve as a environmental monitor, and supply input to the evolving MPO plan. The EMC recommends that: 1. the county encourage coordination of transportation planning with land -use planning. Future development should be encouraged in those areas with existing infrastructure (roads, water, and sewer), and away from environmentally important lands such as the Unique Natural Areas (UNAs). 2. the County incorporate the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians into the initial stages of highway improvement planning. Most of the principal highways leading into the urban area will undergo transportation improvements in the next several years. It is much easier and cheaper to establish a bikeway or pedestrian walkway while the road project is still in the design process. Retrofitting a road to have a bikeway or highway is much more costly. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 27 3. the County establish incentives for multiple occupancy vehicles and for using low -impact transportation options such as public transit, bicycle, and foot travel. Curb lanes should be widened to accommodate bikers by restriping the lane boundaries along existing multi -lane roads. The County should collaborate with the County's large employers to provide positive incentives for their employees to use non- and less -polluting transportation options. 4. the County actively support mixed -mode development to encourage foot and bicycle travel. People are more likely to bike or walk to work and other destinations if the distance is five miles or less (biking) or two miles or less (walking). Current planning and zoning laws may need to be amended to allow for residences and service facilities near workplaces. 5. the County coordinate local greenways plans and bike networks so that adjacent communities will have convenient links. Several towns and villages (such as the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Lansing) are already preparing local greenways networks. 6. the County discourage high-speed roadways which directly connect the outlying areas. Safe bicycle or pedestrian travel is impossible on these highways. Instead, the county should encourage back road connections or greenways which provide incentives for non- and less -polluting modes of transportation. 7. the County use a portion of the hotel room tax dollars already targeted for County transportation improvement to improve low -impact transportation options in the ways discussed above.22 22 A percentage of all money paid as hotel room fees in Tompkins County is currently targeted specifically for transportation in the County. Long Range Planning - DRAFF for EMC Review, Page 28 Citizen Participation in Long Range Planning for Tompkins County (Position Paper E) ummary of Recommendations: This document puts forth four primary recommendations concerning citizen participation in long range planning for Tompkins County: (1) Tompkins County should devote substantial thought and effort to citizen participation in long range planning; (2) Citizen participation should extend well beyond traditional opportunities for public comment on previously prepared documents, and should involve active recruitment of citizens likely to represent key stakeholder groups; (3) The staff charged with preparing a long range plan for Tompkins County should give careful thought to how extensive the citizen participation process be, and for which decisions it should be employed; and (4) At the outset, staff should define clearly how results of a citizen participation process will be used, and they should communicate those decisions to citizens involved in the process. Explanation and Rationale for Recommendations: 1)Tompkins County should 'devote substantial thought and effort to citizen participation in long range planning Three lines of reasoning argue for developing and implementing a strong citizen participation process in long range planning. First, a long range plan should reflect the vision of a community's desires for where it wants to grow and how it wants to work in the long term. The EMC's'Long Range Planning Committee has drafted a vision statement for the environment in Tompkins County, and the LRPC believes this vision statement is a good starting point. However, given the diffuse nature of contemporary communities, including Tompkins County, government agencies and associated planning institutions cannot accurately represent the vision of their constituents without asking them directly. It is much better to ask - and be reasonably certain that the County has a clear picture of the community's vision - than simply to assume agency staff know that vision. Second, including more people in the process of policy formation will result in more strongly reasoned arguments. This outcome can stem both from having more information and from having arguments subjected to greater scrutiny - and more types of scrutiny - than would occur in a less inclusive process. Third, failure to include affected individuals and communities early in the planning process often results in poor support for policies - and in strong opposition to policies - when agencies begin to implement them. To achieve effective development and implementation of public policy requires an effective citizen participation process. To sum up, a strong citizen participation effort should improve policy formation in terms of: (1) soundness of arguments; (2) completeness of information; (3) breadth and strength of support; and (4) accurate representation of community visions. 2) Citizen participation should extend well beyond traditional opportunities for public comment on previously prepared documents, and should involve active recruitment of citizens likely to represent key stakeholder groups. 'Citizen participation processes can take many forms. Traditionally, government agencies have conceived of citizen participation as inviting comments on draft documents or on general topics under discussion. These forms of public involvement typically require individuals not already integrated with, and committed to, the policy formation process to exercise considerable initiative. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 29 To provide informed comments on a draft document requires an individual to attain an unrealistic degree of literacy and familiarity with planning. This observation probably accounts, at least partially, for the observation that many persons who appear to hold strong opinions about public policy do not involve themselves in the policy formation process at an early stage.23 In any case, traditional citizen participation strategies often meet with a limited response, suggesting to coordinating agencies that other forms of citizen participation are appropriate, useful, and needed. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County adopt alternative, and more extensive forms of citizen participation in developing of a long range plan. Alternative forms of citizen participation include: focus groups, in-depth personal interviews, task forces, mail surveys, telephone surveys, and group interviews. Each has its particular strengths and weaknesses; consequently, different aspects, and phases, of policy formation benefit to varying degrees from each strategy. For example, group interviews and open-ended telephone surveys can be useful for identifying the range of concerns that exist in a community.24 Because it is usually unrealistic to conduct large numbers of group interviews, this technique does not provide a quantitative estimate of how many persons hold a particular view. Mail surveys enable planners to identify how a relatively large number of people perceive policy options and issues related to a narrow range of questions. A typical strategy employed by policy analysts is to conduct a series of open-ended telephone interviews to identify the range of ideas in the community of interest and then to implement a broad-based mail or telephone survey to acquire an estimate of the percentage of the population supporting particular policy options. A common criticism of this process is that it does not allow most participants the opportunity to interact or to modify their views based on new understandings of how other citizens view the issue. An alternative model is to rely primarily on citizen task forces, which give a small group of people extensive opportunities to interact -with each other and with the constituencies that each member of the task force represents. Task forces also provide project coordinators with the opportunity to educate task force members about relevant technical material, historical information, relevant financial matters, and so forth. A primary weakness of citizen task forces is that they do not provide strong information about what the community as a whole desires. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County begin planning its citizen participation process for long range planning by considering these two models. Many citizen participation processes provide the public with considerably more guidance than do requests for comments on a document or issue, both in terms of content and time commitment. For example, it is far easier for people to respond to a series of questions addressing their attitudes towards including bicycle lanes on major roads than to respond to a request for comments on the "Draft Long Range Plan for Transportation in Tompkins County." Moreover, the agency soliciting comments can target a particular point in time - and hence in policy formation - and can have realistic expectations of receiving useful feedback within the agency's planning time frames. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County provide sufficient education and guidance to citizens to enable them to participate effectively in the process of long range planning. 23Participation at town meetings is less limited, but that forum occurs late in the policy formation process, by which time the framework for discussion has already been determined and many options discarded. It also does not provide much time for thoughtful reflection. 24 Open-ended survey questions leave the respondent considerable room to answer as s/he wishes, without constraining the answer to particular choices or categories. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 30 3) The staff charged with preparing a long range plan for Tompkins County should give careful thought to how extensive the citizen participation process be, and for which decisions particular citizen participation methods should be employed. Comprehensive long-range planning will include numerous decisions. Some will affect the entire county; others will impact primarily a given town, neighborhood, or road. Tompkins County ought to consider the range of citizen participation options available at each point in the planning process. For example in general terms we may decide that it is most important to devote resources to citizen participation early in the planning process, to gain insight into the community's vision prior to writing numerous document drafts. Similarly, we may decide that we want to devote considerably less effort to public involvement during the middle stages of developing the Plan, and that we want to implement a moderate citizen involvement program as drafts of the Plan are released. More specifically, at some points we may wish to request that persons from a particular community form a short-term task force to provide informal feedback as we develop one section of the plan. At others, we may want to conduct a single group interview with members of the agricultural community to make sure we have not overlooked information or attitudes in that community as we develop a section on best management practices. At others we may decide that implementing active citizen participation programs is neither feasible nor particularly necessary. The EMC recommends that staff coordinating the long range plan utilize, at a minimum, the following criteria for deciding when to employ citizen participation strategies, and to what extent: 1) What are the potential consequences of deciding NOT to implement an active public involvement program at a particular point in time? 2) Is the risk of strong disagreement sufficient to justify the expense of time and resources now, in order to avoid wasting time and resources developing a plan - or a part of the plan - that could lack sufficient support?25 3) Can we alter or reverse the particular decisions at a later point in time without affecting many other components of the Plan? 4) How much time and money would various citizen participation strategies require? 5) Would we expect particular segments of the public to have unusually strong concerns about a particular component of the plan, and do we believe that those peoples' views should carry particular weight? 6) Under which circumstances do the persons developing the Long Range Plan feel confident that they already know the community's preferred vision, and under what circumstances are they less certain? 7) For which types of decisions is particular education required for participants' input to be considered meaningful? 8) To what extent to the developers of the Plan view themselves as "the voice of the public," and to what extent do they view themselves as having a responsibility to act in what they believe to be the public's best interest, even when this differs from public expression?26 Decisions about when to employ citizen participation efforts, and to what extent, should reflect the agency's goals in policy development and should take a long-term view. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County develop a citizen participation strategy using a framework that allows for different types and extent of participation at different points in the planning process. 25 Of course, this question begs another: what do we consider sufficient support? At some level, sufficient support means sufficient to have confidence that the County will carry through with the Plan. At another it means achieving sufficiently broad consensus that we believe the entire County is more or less behind - and in agreement with - the Plan. 26 A classic argument, for example, is that technical decisions should be made only be people with substantial technical training because only they can understand the various options with sufficient depth to make informed, thoughtful judgments. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 31 11 1 4) At the outset, staff should define clearly how results of a citizen participation process will be used, and they should communicate those decisions to citizens involved in the process. Agencies sometimes exhibit a reluctance to conduct extensive citizen participation programs because they fear that by expanding citizens participation efforts they necessarily relinquish their decision-making authority. They fear that they will be obliged to follow some or all of the suggestions they receive, no matter how well- or ill-informed they appear, and they fear that citizens will be angry if they do not do so. In fact, the agency adopts no obligation to follow citizen recommendations or preferences unless the agency specifically states it will do so. The agency retains the mandate and responsibility for making the final decision based on its best professional judgment. Information received via citizen participation constitutes simply one kind of information that enters into that decision-making process. All agencies, including the Tompkins County Planning Department, that are considering how to use citizen participation strategies, must recognize that it is up to them (not the citizenry at large) to define how public input will be used. If, in fact, an overwhelming majority of citizens disagree with the agency staff s best professional judgment regarding a particular decision, then it is much better for the agency to be aware of this discrepancy before issuing a decision than to find out afterwards, by way of poor compliance or strong public criticisms of agency policy. Knowing about such disagreements beforehand enables the agency to respond to public concern prior to issuing a final decision. Possible responses include: (1) discussions with key opposition groups to explain agency reasoning and, if possible, to reassure opposition groups about intended and likely consequences of the pending decision; and (2) educational activities to increase public literacy about an issue. The most likely route by which an agency can unintentionally weaken its decision-making authority via citizen participation is to neglect to state clearly, from the outset, how it will incorporate citizen input into its ultimate decision-making process. Conducting citizen participation activities without a clear statement that the input will be used as part of a larger decision-making process could set the stage for citizens to believe that they have been given more power than the agency intended. To preclude such an occurrence, agencies should: decide clearly how they intend to use the results of a citizen participation process; state this decision clearly at the outset; and respond candidly to inquiries about how public input will be used. The EMC recommends that Tompkins County: (1) develop criteria to decide how it will use the results of citizen participation activities involved in long range planning; (2) prepare a statement explaining how the results of citizen participation activities will be used in developing the long range plan; (3) communicate that statement clearly to all citizens who begin to participate in the planning process and (4) communicate any changes in this policy as clearly and early as possible, along with explanations for why these changes have occurred. Some members of the EMC have expertise in citizen participation for environmental policy formation, and work with faculty at Cornell University who have more extensive experience in this area. The EMC suggests that these people be used as key resources in developing a citizen participation strategy for long range planning in Tompkins County. Long Range Planning - DRAFT for EMC Review, Page 32 TOWN OF ITHACA MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Planner DATE: September 11, 1995 RE: Six Mile Creek Conservation District Non -buildable Land Subdivision Regulation Amendment C�Op�7 In response to the discussion of the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation District which took place at the CB meeting on the 7th. I am sending the most recent draft to you along with the sketch of the proposed boundaries. My records show this is the draft that was sent in the August mailing, but to avoid any confusion, I am mailing it out again. This draft is currently being reviewed by the Codes and Ordinances Committee and will be discussed at their meeting on September 13, 1995. The Codes and Ordinance Committee will take a look at the legal and technical aspects of the document. After Codes and Ordinance takes a look at the document, it will be passed on to the Planning Board for a public hearing and subsequent recommendation to the Town Board. The Town Board will review the document, hold a Public Hearing, and either enact the Conservation District or not. Should members of the Conservation Board wish to make comments on the draft, it should be done as soon as possible. I spoke with Jonathan about the report prepared by the CAC for the Six Mile Creek Valley in 1991. Jonathan assured me that this report was used as a basis for the Proposed Conservation District. At the request of the Town Board, the Planning Committee took a hard look at the report and revised it into the draft you now have before you. If anyone would like a copy of this report as well, please give me a call and I will provide you with one. I have also attached a copy of the Non -buildable Land Subdivision Regulation amendment since this issue was also raised at the meeting. In addition, I asked Jonathan the definition for Rural Residential. Jonathan stated that there was no definition to date and that the Planning Committee was trying to come up with a definition. We will keep the Conservation Board informed on this issue. If I can be of any further assistance or if you require additional information, do not hesitate to call me. PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY Draft 6.0 August 9, 1995 PuMose It is the purpose of the Six Mile Creek Conservation District (CD) to preserve the outstanding natural features of the Six Mile Creek Valley, as described in the report, Six Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to Preserve" (November 13, 1990), and in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 21, 1993), and to provide a regulatory framework through which development can occur with minimal environmental impact. Foremost among its natural values and ecological importance are its diversity as a plant and wildlife habitat, its scenic views and rural character, and as an educational and recreational resource. In addition, the Six Mile Creek Valley contains large areas of steep slopes, wetlands, highly erodable soils and the City of Ithaca water supply, which must be taken into consideration in planning for future development. It is a further purpose of the Six Mile Creek Conservation District to preserve existing areas of contiguous open space, prevent unneccesary destruction of woodland areas, preserve existing and potential agricultural land and promote appropriate development densities and flexibility of design and development of land. In recognition of its natural and ecological significance, much of the Six Mile Creek Valley has been designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council as a Unique Natural Area. It is a further purpose of this Conservation District to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the area to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca. Permitted Uses In the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of the following purposes: 1. A One -Family Dwelling. A one -family dwelling occupied by not more than (a) One family, or (b) One family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger or other occupant. 2. A two-family dwelling, but only in the following circumstances and subject to the following restrictions: (a) In single-family dwellings existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, a second dwelling unit may be added, provided that such unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. (b) On vacant lots without further subdivision potential, existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, a two-family dwelling may be constructed, provided that the second unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. (c) In the above circumstances, a two-family dwelling shall be occupied by no more than two families and each dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling shall be occupied by not more than one family. 3. Garden, nursery or farm, including a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land. Any such stand shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street line, in such a manner as to permit safe access and egress for automobiles, and parking off the highway right-of-way. 4. Forest Management and other forest resource uses, including the harvesting of timber in conformance with environmentally sound forestry practices, provided that logging of more than one acre of contiguous land shall require the submission of a forest management plan to and approval by the Planning Board. Such a plan shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the area to be logged, what percentage of trees will be cut, the method of cutting and removing trees, and how the land will be restored (e.g., through reforestation, agriculture or otherwise). 5. Public water supply. 6. The following uses, but only upon receipt of special approval for same by the Planning Board notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 46 of the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Church or other places of worship. (b) Public, parochial and private schools, daycare center and nursery school. (c) Golf course, except a driving range or miniature golf course.] 2 W Publicly owned park or playground, including accessory buildings and improvements. Special approval for the above uses shall only be granted if it can be demonstrated that: - the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Conservation District, as enumerated in Section 1 of this local law; - the proposal provides adequate measures to control stormwater runoff and minimize erosion and sedimentation; - the project shall include adequate measures to protect surface and groundwaters from direct or indirect pollution; - where public sewer and/or water systems are not available, adequate on-site sewage disposal and/or water supply systems can be provided that will not adversely impact the water quality of nearby waterbodies, streams or wetlands, and will be adequate to serve the proposed use and any reasonably anticipated expansion thereof; the traffic load resulting from the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Conservation District; and parking facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed use, are adequately buffered to minimize visual and noise impacts on surrounding areas, and are designed to minimize the increase in impervious surfaces on the site. 7. In the Conservation District, no non-agricultural building shall exceed [thirty- four] thirty-eight (38) feet in height from the lowest interior grade nor [thirty] !hjML-six (36) feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, and no structure other than a building shall be erected or extended to exceed thirty feet in height. Permitted Accessory Uses Permitted accessory uses in the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District shall include the following: 1. Accessory buildings customarily incidental to the above permitted uses. 2. Office of resident musician, engineer, teacher, lawyer, architect, accountant, computer professional, or member of other recognized profession (as in R-30). 3 I Customary home occupation, such as home cooking, dressmaking, carpentry, (etc., as in R-30). 4. Wildlife rehabilitation operation as defined and regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 184, provided that no noise, dust, disorder, or objectionable odor is experienced (as a result of that use) beyond the immediate property where such use is conducted, and that no more than 3 additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed. 5. Day care homes and group day care facilities. Accessory Buildines In the Conservation District, any non-agricultural accessory buildings other than garages may not occupy any space other than the rear yard. The total lot area covered by non-agricultural accessory buildings may not occupy more than 1,000 square feet of any required rear yard and shall be not less than 50 feet from any side or rear lot line. Non-agricultural accessory buildings shall in no case exceed 15 feet in height.. Yard Reeulations In the Conservation District, yards of at least the following dimensions are required, unless otherwise specified: Front Yard - Not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings immediately adjacent. However, the front yard shall not be less than 50 feet or need it be greater than 75 feet. Rear Yard - Not less than 200 feet in depth. Side Yard - Each not less than 50 feet_ Perimeter Buffer/Setback Areas - Notwithstanding the above minimum yard requirements, during the subdivision approval process, the Planning Board may require increased setbacks around the perimeter of the original parcel(s) proposed to be subdivided beyond the above minimums wherever said Board determines that such increased setbacks are warranted by topography, the nature of existing vegetation, the relation to neighboring properties and land uses, preservation of rural character, and other such similar factors. The Planning Board may prohibit the location of roadways, driveways, parking lots, recreational facilities, buildings and other structures or improvements within the above required buffer areas, and may require the installation of such landscaping, fencing, bermi.n& or other features as the Planning Board may determine appropriate for buffer screening purposes. Such perimeter buffer/setback area, if required, shall be delineated on the final subdivision plat, along with a notation of any restrictions or conditions that have been established 0 by the Planning Board. Lot Coverage No nonagricultural building or buildings on a lot, including accessory buildings, roads, driveways, parking areas, or other paved areas shall be erected, altered, or extended to cover more than fifteen percent of the total lot area. Projections described in Section 66 are not to be included in computing the percentage of lot coverage. Size of Lot and Density of Development Lots in the Conservation District shall meet the following minimum requirements: 1. The minimum lot area shall be 7 acres; and 2. In a new conventional subdivision (i.e., any proposed conventional subdivision which has not received final approval as of the date of enactment of this local law), the maximum gross residential density shall be 0.143 dwelling units per acre (1 dwelling unit per 7 acres). In order to calculate the maximum permissible number of lots or dwelling units, the total gross site acreage is multiplied by 0.143; and 3. In a new cluster subdivision (i.e., any proposed cluster subdivision which has not received final approval as of the date of enactment of this local law), the maximum gross residential density shall be 0.171 dwelling units per acre (1.2 dwelling units per 7_acres). In order to calculate the maximum permissable number of lots or dwelling units, the total gross site acreage is multiplied by 0.171. This represents a 20% density increase over that permitted for conventional subdivisions. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of this local law, 'Permitted Uses," the above density limitations do not apply to single-family dwellings existing at the time of the enactment of this local law in which a second dwelling unit is to be added, or on vacant lots without further subdivision potential existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, where a two-family dwelling is to be constructed. 5. The minimum lot width at the street line shall be 300 feet; and 6. The minimum lot width at the maximum required front yard setback line (75 feet) shall be 300 feet; and 5 7. The minimum lot depth from the highway right-of-way shall be 450 feet. Clustering The Planning Board is hereby authorized by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to require clustering of residential units as outlined in the Town's Subdivision Regulations, where clustering will further the purposes of the Conservation District, subject to the following additional requirements: 1. Dwelling units in a clustered development may be, at the discretion of the planning board, in detached, semi-detached, or attached buildings. 2. No more than four semi-detached or attached units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure, nor shall that structure be more than three stories high, including the basement or cellar. In any event, no building shall be more than thirty-four feet in height. 3. Where feasible, on the southwestern side of Six Mile Creek (i.e., on the Coddington Road side of the Conservation District), dwelling units shall be clustered between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road, in order to preserve the natural characteristics of the lands adjacent to Six Mile Creek and the City Watershed properties. In such cases, the same number of dwelling units that could have been built on that portion of the parcel between the former railroad grade and Six Mile Creek under the above density requirements shall be transfered to the portion of the parcel between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road. This provision shall not apply to parcels which are situated entirely between the former railroad grade and Six Mile Creek. Additional Requirements and Restrictions 1. The following activities are specifically prohibited in the Conservation District: a. The discharge, or disposal of, or any form of underground injection of, any hazardous material, toxic substance, or radioactive material. b. The disposal of toxic substances or hazardous materials by means of discharge into a septic system. c. The open storage of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, artificial fertilizers, or manure. d. The use of septic system cleaners which contain toxic substances or hazardous materials. D e. The importation for dumping or disposal of snow or ice collected from roadways or parking lots into or within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland or watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year. f. The open storage of chloride salts, nitrate salts or other highway de-icing chemicals within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland or watercourse carrying water six months out of the year. g. The location of buildings or structures on slopes of 25 percent or greater, with a minimum horizontal slope length of 25 feet, or on highly or severely erodable soils. h. Filling or dredging of wetlands. Wetlands, for the purposes of this local law, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. 2. No buildings, structures, paved areas, grading, excavation, or other such disturbance or storage of construction equipment or machinery shall be located within 50 feet of the centerline of any watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year, or within two hundred (200) feet of the 100 -Year Flood Boundary of Six Mile Creek and Reservoir, identified as "Zone A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Ithaca, N.Y., Panel 25, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, within the Conservation District. In the case of residential subdivisions, whether conventional or cluster, the no disturbance zone as .defined above shall be increased if the Planning Board determines that such an increase is necessary to protect water quality or, to minimize the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. No disturbance as listed above shall be located within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland. During the subdivision or site plan approval process, where there is evidence of a wetland, the Planning Board may require a wetland delineation study to determine the potential impacts of development or disturbance on said wetland. 3. No buildings, structures, or storage of construction equipment or machinery shall be located within 100 feet of the centerline of the South Hill Recreation Way. 4. The storage and land application of manure shall follow established U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service management standards. Minimum conditions for storage of solid manure are a pad of concrete and a 7 leachate collecting system. The manure storage system should be designed to prevent animal waste from entering any stream or water body. 5. Vegetation and Landscaping a. Preserve existing natural vegetation to the extent practicable. b. When landscaping is required by the Planning Board to enhance buffer areas, to replace existing vegetation, or otherwise, native plant materials should be used to the extent practicable. 6. Scenic views, in particular those with viewing points from adjacent roads and from Six Mile Creek and the Gorge, should be preserved using practices such as the following: a. Avoid the siting of buildings or structures on ridgelines or hilltops. Buildings should be sited below the crest or ridgeline of hills to preserve a natural topographic and vegetative profile. b. Retain existing vegetation to the extent practicable. c. Retain existing stone walls, fences and other features in open meadows. d. Regrading should blend in with the natural contours and undulations of the land. e. Buildings proposed to be located within significant viewing areas should be screened and landscaped to min;m;ze their intrusion on the character of the area. Building materials and color scemes should harmonize with their setting and be compatible with neighboring land uses. f. Where possible, buildings and structures should be located on the edges of open fields and in wooded areas to minimize visual impacts. g. In particular, consider visibility of proposed buildings or structures from public trails within the Six Mile Creek valley. Minimize visual intrusion on views from those areas. 7. Wildlife habitats and biological corridors should be preserved. Open space linkages should be encouraged to accomplish the above. Open space and conservation easement areas shall be designed with massing and linking as guiding principles. Open space and conservation areas should be contiguous both on site and off tract. E. S. Common open space areas should be permanently preserved through conservation easements, deed restrictions, dedication to the Town, State or conservation organization, or such other means as determined to be appropriate by the Planning Board. 9. Roads and driveways a. Roadways shall follow existing contours "to the extent practicable to minimize the impact of cuts and fills. b. The number of driveways accessing public streets shall be kept to a minimum. The appropriate use of common driveways is encouraged. The maximum number of dwelling units served by a common driveway shall be four. 10. Drainage a. The Planning Board may require the preparation and submittal of a stormwater management plan, to be approved by the Town Engineer, for proposed special approval uses and for proposed subdivisions. b. Retain existing natural drainageways where possible. c. In cases where a retention basin will be required, a landscaping plan shall be prepared and submitted for the Planning Board's approval. Basin landscaping materials that enhance wildlife habitat shall be used to the extent practicable. 11. Lighting a. Street lighting shall be provided only where site-specific safety conditions warrant. b. Where street lighting is required, its location, type, and intensity shall be subject to the Planning Board's review and recommendation to the Town Board for approval. I2. Whenever a subdivision of land is proposed in the Conservation District, the Planning Board may require that the non -buildable areas listed above, including wetlands, slopes 25 percent or greater, highly or severely erodable soils and streams/watercourses and setbacks, be shown on the preliminary and final subdivision plats. Park and Recreation Set -Asides and Fees in Lieu Thereof The provisions relating to the reservation of parks and recreation land, or fees in lieu N thereof, in Section 22 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations shall be waived in the Six Mile Creek Conservation District, since the purpose of the Conservation District is to preserve the open space and passive recreational opportunities in the Six Mile Creek valley. Additions to May 16, 1995 Draft are in Boldface and Underlined. Deletions from May 16, 1995 Draft are in [brackets]. RleName a\p1ngcomm\cdist6-0ses 10 N %i I. fOtit��►��h�/��Ifll/1� !g:'ngRV S- �iii�n • ����;��`� / • Ow- 1 OWNEDCITY C3PRoPosED Ceti"SEPIV7�710 'V' D i,5 .k ic ICI -5 SIX MILE CREEK and VICINITY CITY WATERSHED AREA THA 8/8/90 TOWN PLANNO G i DEPTH Revised 126 E. SENECA ST. Sheet 1THACA. N -Y. 14850 OF 1.000 FT 0 le 500 FT 1.000 SCALE 5 lei I 0 P`'3c SIX MnX CREEK WATERSHED STUDY Student Research Results Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department Cornell University Spring 1995 COPy Water Supply History * 1902 30 foot Dam constructed on Six NMe Creek to create Lower Reservoir -;i- * 1903 Typhoid epidemic in Ithaca. Alleged cause was unsanitary conditions along streambank. Water Filtration Plant was designed and completed within 5 months. * 1911 60 foot Dam creates Upper Reservoir in response to increased water demand. * 1925 Silt Dam constructed upstream to accumulate silts in sediment pond so as to lengthen life of reservoir which was f fling with sediments. * 1995 Sediment removal from Sediment Pond ongoing. Water Quality * Data from the Water Filtration Plant records from 1915 -1994 show gradual improvement and consistent high quality of water in Six NOe Creek Bacteria abundance and Turbidity decreased while Alkalinity increased. Hardness and pH levels remained -constant. Sedimentation of Reservoir * Since its construction the Upper Reservoir has lost 50% of its storage capacity due to siltation. * Six NUe Creek delivers approx. 1295 tons of silt annually. With the Silt Dam sluice open, the Dam is 72% efficient, when it is closed the system is 80% efficient, allowing approx. 260 tons of silt into the reservoir annually. * Silt Dam sluice is currently open to drain sediment pond for removal of silts. Landowner Survey 20 landowners with permanent residences on Six Mile Creek were interviewed by ✓ telephone and property visits. * All of the landowners had experienced streambank erosion on their roe The � property. m'• majority (12/20) were concerned and considered this a problem. The remainder felt erosion was a natural process and did not merit excessive concern. * One half of the landowners felt that nature played the biggest role in erosion, although 5/20 felt that man had a large effect on erosion in Six Mile Creek. * The majority of the landowners were unaware that the City was excavating sediment from the impoundment area. Several of those who were aware felt that the City was "mining " the creek and this was in large part a cause of the erosion and muddiness of the creek. *Approx. 1/3 of those surveyed were unaware that a Citizen's Task Force had been established regarding the erosion and sedimentation problems of Six Mile Creek residents. 1/3 of the landowners expressed interest in attending meetings of the Task Force. Flood History * July 1935 43 people killed, Est. damage of $40 million. Cayuga Lake level at 386.5 feet above sea level, Flood Stage is 385 ft above sea level. * Oct. 1955 Minor flooding, limited damage. Six Mile Creek filled to top of retaining walls. * June 1972 Tropical Storm Agnus causes Cayuga Lake to rise to record of 387.8 ft. Six Mile Creek maximum flow at 5360 ft3/secPres. Nixon declares Tompkins County a Disaster Area * July 1976 Maximum flow of Six Mile Creek at 6150 ft3/sec. Bridges and portions of Route 79 swept away. * Oct. 1981 Maximum flow of Six Mile Creek at 7600 ft3/sec. Est. damages of $1.25 million. Dryden Center under 4 ft of water, Tioga and Meadow Streets under water. * April 1993 Cayuga Lake level at 387 ft., est. damages at $1 million. Top's and Wegman's parking lots under water. Land Use Effects on Peak Flow. A computer program designed by several of the students assessed the effect of shifting land use patterns from agricultural to residential and commercial in the Six NMe Creek Watershed. Their program predicted * a 30 % increase in the amount taken up by residential use from 1990-2030, using current population growth predicted by the NYS Dept. of Commerce and U.S. Census data. * a 50% increase in impervious areas in the watershed using average lot sizes for a variety of residential, commercial and industrial structures, * these increases would result in a 5% increase in peak flow in the next 40 years. Suggested Amendments to Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations to Better Define Non -Buildable Land June 27, 1995 (Revised 8/9/95) ARTICLE V ADDITIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CLUSTERED AND CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISIONS Section 31. Minimum Gross Area in Clustered Subdivisions 1. The minimum gross area for any clustered subdivision proposal shall be five acres. Clustered subdivisions are permitted only in any residential, agricultural, or conservation district of the Town of Ithaca. [Agricultural lands must first be rezoned to a residential designation before a clustered subdivision plan may be brought before the Planning Board for review.] The Planning Board may not require a subdivider to prepare a cluster plan for lands in an R9 Residence District. 2. The area of the subdivision required to be reserved by the developer for open space shall not be [more than ten percent] less than thirty percent of the gross area, and may include the park and recreation set-aside specified in Article IV, Section 22 of these regulations, if so required by the Planning Board, and shall contain in any event a parcel with an open area of at least 10,000 square feet. 3. At the time of preliminary approval, it shall be determined whether or not the subdivision to be considered shall be a cluster design. When the subdivider presents to the Planning Board a traditional subdivision plan, the Planning Board may approve a preliminary plat for a given number of units, contingent upon all or part of those units being clustered in a final plat acceptable to the Planning Board. 4. When the subdivider proposes to develop a portion of the property as a traditional subdivision and a portion as a clustered subdivision, the Planning Board may approve, modify and approve, or disapprove the [pro]portions of the project and locations which shall be developed traditionally or being clustered. 5. In the event the Planning Board approves a traditional subdivision paln at the preliminary subdivision hearing, the subdivider shall have the option of submitting a cluster plan prior to final plat approval. In this case, the Planning Board shall schedule a public hearing prior to final subdivision approval in order to consider the cluster proposal. Section 32. Number and Location of Dwelling Units Permitted in Conventional and Clustered Subdivisions 1. The number of dwelling units permitted in a conventional or clustered residential subdivision may in no case exceed the number otherwise permitted, in the Planning Board's judgement, by the applicable sections of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board may restrict the subdivider to a lesser number of dwelling units if, in the Planning Board's judgement, particular conditions of the site, including, but not limited to those listed below, warrant such restriction. [Notwithstanding the foregoing, the density of dwelling units in a clustered development shall not exceed 3.5 dwelling units per gross acre in a Residence District R15 or 2.3 dwelling units per gross acre in a Residence District R30.1 2. To determine the location and number of dwelling units permitted in a conventional subdivision or to be clustered pursuant to Section 281, the Planning Board may require the subdivider, as part of the sketch plat review process, to prepare a conventional subdivision plat which meets all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision regulations, and Town of Ithaca highway and open space regulations. 11 3. For purposes of determining the location and/or number of dwelling units or lots in a conventional or clustered subdivision, the Planning Board may exclude areas from the sketch plat which, in its opinion, are unsuitable for construction of the proposed housing because of excessive slopes, poor drainage, or other considerations which may be injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, as specified below. In addition, areas required for streets and/or utilities shall not count toward buildable land in clustered or conventional subdivisions. (a) Slopes of twenty-five percent or greater, with a minimum horizontal slope length of twenty-five feet; (b) Highlv or severely erodable soils; (c) Wetlands* and wetland buffers (areas within one hundred feet linear distance of any wetland); (d) Stream corridors, including areas within fifty feet of the centerline of any watercourse carrying water six months out of the year, and areas within two hundred feet of any 100 -Year Flood Boundary that has- been established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Town of Ithaca. 4. Where there is evidence that any or all of the unsuitable (non -buildable) areas listed in section 3 above are present on the proposed subdivision site, 2 the Planning Board may require the preparation of a site analysis map during the sketch plan process to identify the extent and nature of those areas. In addition, where there is evidence of a wetland on the proposed subdivision site, the Planning Board may require that a wetland delineation study be prepared to determine the potential impacts of development or disturbance on said wetland. 5[4] Additional considerations which the Planning Board may use in order to limit the location and/or number of dwelling units or lots which may be developed in any conventional or clustered subdivision include but are not limited to: (a) will such a development be substantailly and materially injurious to the ownership, use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity or neighborhood; (b) will such a development impede the orderly development of land in the vicinity or neighborhood, and will such use be appropriate in appearance and in harmony with the existing or intended character of such land in the vicinity or neighborhood; (c) will the street system and off-street parking facilities handle the expected traffic in a safe and efficient manner and not place an undue burden on existing roads; (d) will the natural surface drainageways continue to work effectively; (e) are water and sewerage or waste disposal facilities adequate; (f) is the environmental quality of the proposal, in terms of site planning, design, and landscaping, compatible with the character of the neighborhood; are there adequate measures to protect water quality and minimize impacts of erosion and sedimentation; [g] (h) are lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities sufficient for the proposed activities; [h] (i) what effect will the density of such conventional or clustered construction and use have on the appearance and maintenance of open spaces in a neighborhood. will such a development negatively impact any Unique Natural Area, as designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, on or contiguous to the site in question. 3 6[5] The number of units allowed in any conventional or clustered subdivision shall not exceed the number determined by the Planning Board as shown on the sketch plat. The Planning Board may allow the subdivider to cluster the permitted number of dwelling units in detached, semi-detached, attached, or multi -story structures. 7[6] In a clustered subdivision, no more than six semi-detached, attached, or multi -story dwelling units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure, nor shall that structure be more than three stories high, including the basement or cellar. Distances between structures in the clustered subdivision shall be no less than thirty (30) feet. No building shall be more than three stories. In any event, no building shall be more than thirty-eight (38) [thirty- four (34)] feet in height. Section 33. Buffer Zone Requirement in Clustered Subdivisions (Existing text remains unchanged) Section 34. Regulation of Exterior Characteristics in Conventional and Clustered Subdivisions (Existing text remains unchanged) Section 35. Restriction of Unrelated Persons in Clustered Subdivisions (Existing text remains unchanged) *Note: Definition of "wetlands" will have to be added. Definition will be same as that in Town of Ithaca Wetlands Guidelines (June 7, 1993). For comparison purposes, proposed changes in existing Subdivision Regulations are shown as follows: Brackets [ ] indicate deletions from existing text. Boldface with underline indicates additions to existing text. McName cA1staff\jon\subregs2zes 4 Town of Ithaca Planning Department COPY TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, at its meeting of September 7, 1995, approved, in concept, the Resolution in Support of the Public Access Southwest Natural Area Proposal with the following changes noted in italics: Resolution in Support of the Southwest Natural Area Public Access Whereas, the entire FW -1 zone in the Southwest comer of the City of Ithaca constitutes a crucial, highly diverse centerpiece in the extensive green corridor that extends up Cayuga Inlet Valley to Cayuga Lake; and Whereas, its loss would constitute a significant break in this exceptional corridor, with possible adverse effects on migrating birds and other wildlife; and Whereas, this is the last remaining large, open, undeveloped space in or adjacent to the City that would be suitable as a new intermunicipal public -access natural area; and Whereas, the area is already used for recreation, especially along Cayuga Inlet, and would afford significant new opportunities for biking, canoeing, hiking, bird watching, fishing, and picnicking; and Whereas, this area would be a fine complement to Buttermilk Falls State Park, providing a diversity of interesting and attractive habitats not found at Buttermilk, including Cayuga Inlet, wetlands, Negundo Woods (a significant flood -plain forest and a Unique Natural Area, so designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council) --habitats of value in their own right as well as being of great appeal to tourists; and Whereas, keeping the area natural would protect the view -shed from Buttermilk Falls State Park; and Whereas, the area would be easily accessible to City, Town, and County residents on public transportation or by foot or bicycle, provided a right-of-way from Route 13 is acquired; and Whereas, if set aside as preserve or natural area, would enhance the wetlands watershed of Cayuga Inlet, help remediate flooding problems long associated with this area and enhance water quality of Cayuga Lake, and (Eliminate next whereas completely) Whereas, the natural area would be of significant value to the City, Town, and County even without spending anything beyond the cost of acquisition; now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board supports the permanent protection of this natural area and encourages the acquisition of the area by the City, Town and County. is 10/24/95 Resolution in Support of the Public Access Southwest Natural Area Fmpesal - Whereas, the entire FW -1 zone in the southwest corner of the City of Ithaca constitutes a crucial, highly diverse centerpiece in the extensive green corridor that extends up Cayuga Inlet Valley to Cayuga Lake; and Whereas, its loss would constitute a significant break in this exceptional corridor, withPo�'�_ adverse effects on -migrating birds and other wildlife; and Whereas, this is the last remaining large, open, undeveloped space in or adjacent to the City that would be suitable as a new intermunicipal public -access natural area; and Whereas, the proposed Black Diamond T.a.il and the existing trail on the levee abut the site, and these trails would be enhanced by such a natural area, as well as being an enhancement ^1F the *pn; ar:d Whereas, the area already is used for recreation, especially along Cayuga Inlet, and would afford significant new opportunities for biking, canoeing, hiking, bird watching, fishing, and picnicking; and Whereas, this area would be a fine complement to Buttermilk Falls State Park, providing a diversity of interesting and attractive habitats not found at Buttermilk, including Cayuga Inlet, wetlands, and Ne -undo Woods (a signif c t flood- aip LfojsLa.d a Unique Natural Area, so designated by the Tompkins County ' )—habitats of value in their own right as well as being of great appeal to tourists; and Whereas, keeping the area natural would protect the view -shed from Buttermilk Falls State Park k'Ac; and Whereas, the area would be easily accessible to City � TownAr�esidents7�n public transportation or by foot or bicycle, provided a right-of-way from Route 13 is acquired; and 10 �p2vf- Whereas, if set aside as gid or natural area, would enhance the wetlands watershed of Cayuga InI-�d,�re:nediate flooding problems long associated with this area an h � Whereas, Gary Esolen, the consu recently hired by the County to give advice on -C-�L increasing tourism in the County ecommended making the most of what we've got: outstanding natural and educa • nal resources; and Whereas, the natural area would be of significant value to the City, Town, and County even without spending anything beyond the cost of acquisition; now therefore be it Resolved, that the /2 permanent protection of this City, Town and County. _ supports the area and encourages the acquisition of the. area by the �c+ I.VI II I I W u7w I 1l111 J\4rJ FIGURE 14 TOTAL P.02 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, October 5, 1995 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. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:15 p.m. 5. Business -Six Mile Creek Conservation District -By-laws and Associate members -Cornell Special Land Use District (SLUD) -Board Membership -Others 9:15 p.m. 6. Member Concerns CB Members: Richard Fischer Mary Russell Janet Hawkes, Chair Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffman Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello DRAFT DRAFT REVISIONS FOR THE BYLAWS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD September S, 1995 I. Establishment and Duties of the Conservation Board The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (hereafter referred to as the CB) was established, in 1993, by the Town Board of Ithaca, by Local Law #4, Redesignating the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council as the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. The purpose of the CB is 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 three and a maximum of nine residents of the Town of Ithaca who demonstrate interest in conservation issues. Members shall be nominated by the CB and approved by the Town Board. Once approved, members 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 wishes with CB and Town Board approval. III. Chair The chairperson of the CB will be nominated for a one year term by a majority vote with a quorum present. (See voting, Section 8.) 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 in a timely manner. IV. 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. Support for the CB Individuals, agencies or organizations can work cooperatively with the CB on specific projects. While engaged in specific projects with the CB, these individuals, agencies representatives or organization representative can freely participate in appropriate CB meetings, committees, and discussions but will possess no voting rights. VI. Committees In order to accomplish its reviews, the CB may create one or more subcommittees made up of at least three of its members. The vote of a majority of the members of a subcommittee shall be necessary to forward any reports or recommendations to any referring entity within the Town of Ithaca. Other committees will be formed by the CB as needed to accomplish its annual work plan. Draft Revisions of the CB Bylaws September 8, 1995 Page 2 VII. 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 -organization meeting of the CB for developing the annual work plan and membership should be scheduled to coordinate with other Town Boards. VIII. 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. IX. Agenda To the extent practical, the agenda will be set by the CB 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 Member Concerns. Member Concerns and Persons to be Heard must be on the agenda at every meeting. X. 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 meetings agenda. Every effort should be made to pass minutes at the meeting immediately succeeding it. XI. Amendments These bylaws may be altered, amended, or repealed and new bylaws adopted by a 2/3 vote of the CB membership, provided that a quorum is present and that a statement of intent to change the bylaws has been published in the agenda of the meeting. These amendments will be approved by the Town Board. PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY Draft 6.0 August 9, 1995 Purpose It is the purpose of the Six Mile Creek Conservation District (CD) to preserve the outstanding natural features of the Six Mile Creek Valley, as described in the report, "Six Mile Creek Valley: A Heritage to Preserve" (November 13, 1990), and in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 21, 1993), and to provide a regulatory framework through which development can occur with minimal environmental impact. Foremost among its natural values and ecological importance are its diversity as a plant and wildlife habitat, its scenic views and rural character, and as an educational and recreational resource. In addition, the Six Mile Creek Valley contains large areas of steep slopes, wetlands, highly erodable soils and the City of Ithaca water supply, which must be taken into consideration in planning for future development. It is a further purpose of the Six Mile Creek Conservation District to preserve existing areas of contiguous open space, prevent unneccesary destruction of woodland areas, preserve existing and potential agricultural land and promote appropriate development densities and flexibility of design and development of land. In recognition of its natural and ecological significance, much of the Six Mile Creek Valley has been designated by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council as a Unique Natural Area. It is a further purpose of this Conservation District to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the area to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca. Permitted Uses In the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of the following purposes: 1. A One -Family Dwelling. A one -family dwelling occupied by not more than (a) One family, or (b) One family plus no more than one boarder, roomer, lodger or other occupant. 2. A two-family dwelling, but only in the following circumstances and subject to the following restrictions: (a) In single-family dwellings existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, a second dwelling unit may be added, provided that such unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. (b) On vacant lots without further subdivision potential, existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, a two-family dwelling may be constructed, provided that the second unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%. (c) In the above circumstances, a two-family dwelling shall be occupied by no more than two families and each dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling shall be occupied by not more than one family. 3. Garden, nursery or farm, including a roadside stand or other structure for the display and sale of farm or nursery products incidental to farming and as a seasonal convenience to the owner or owners of the land. Any such stand shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from the street line, in such a manner as to permit safe access and egress for automobiles, and parking off the highway right-of-way. 4. Forest Management and other forest resource uses, including the harvesting of timber in conformance with environmentally sound forestry practices, provided that logging of more than one acre of contiguous land shall require the submission of a forest management plan to and approval by the Planning Board. Such a plan shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the i area to be logged, what percentage of trees will be cut, the method of cutting and removing trees, and how the land will be restored (e.g., through reforestation, agriculture or otherwise). 5. Public water supply. 6. The following uses, but only upon receipt of special approval for same by the Planning Board notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Section 46 of the Zoning Ordinance: (a) Church or other places of worship. (b) Public, parochial and private schools, daycare center and nursery school. [ (c) Golf course, except a driving range or miniature golf course.] 0 c) Publicly owned park or playground, including accessory buildings and improvements. Special approval for the above uses shall only be granted if it can be demonstrated that: the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Conservation District, as enumerated in Section 1 of this local law; the proposal provides adequate measures to control stormwater runoff and minimize erosion and sedimentation; the project shall include adequate measures to protect surface and groundwaters from direct or indirect pollution; where public sewer and/or water systems are not available, adequate on-site sewage disposal and/or water supply systems can be provided that will not adversely impact the water quality of nearby waterbodies, streams or wetlands, and will be adequate to_ serve the proposed use and any reasonably anticipated expansion thereof; the traffic load resulting from the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Conservation District; and parking facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed use, are adequately buffered to minimize visual and noise impacts on surrounding areas, and are designed to minimize the increase in impervious surfaces on the site. 7. In the Conservation District, no non-agricultural building shall exceed [thirty- four] thirty-eight (38) feet in height from the lowest interior grade nor [thirty] thirty-six (36) feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, and no structure other than a building shall be erected or extended to exceed thirty feet in height. Permitted Accessory Uses Permitted accessory uses in the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District shall include the following: 1. Accessory buildings customarily incidental to the above permitted uses. 2. Office of resident musician, engineer, teacher, lawyer, architect, accountant, computer professional, or member of other recognized profession (as in R-30). 3 3. Customary home occupation, such as home cooking, dressmaking, carpentry, (etc., as in R-30). 4. Wildlife rehabilitation operation as defined and regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 184, provided that no noise, dust, disorder, or objectionable odor is experienced (as a result of that use) beyond the immediate property where such use is conducted, and that no more than 3 additional persons not residing on the premises may be employed. 5. Day care homes and group day care facilities. Accessory Bui` ldinjZs In the Conservation District, any non-agricultural accessory buildings other than garages may not occupy any space other than the rear yard. The total lot area covered by non-agricultural accessory buildings may not occupy more than 1,000 square feet of any required rear yard and shall be not less than 50 feet from any side or rear lot line. Non-agricultural accessory buildings shall in no case exceed 15 feet in height. Yard Regulations In the Conservation District, yards of at least the following dimensions are required, unless otherwise specified: Front Yard - Not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings immediately adjacent. However, the front yard shall not be less than 50 feet or need it be greater than 75 feet. Rear Yard - Not less than 200 feet in depth. Side Yard - Each not less than 50 feet. Perimeter Buffer/Setback Areas - Notwithstanding the above minimum yard requirements, during the subdivision approval process, the Planning Board may require increased setbacks around the perimeter of the original parcel(s) proposed to be subdivided beyond the above minimums wherever said Board determines that such increased setbacks are warranted by topography, the nature of existing vegetation, the relation to neighboring properties and land uses, preservation of rural character, and other such similar factors. The Planning Board may prohibit the location of roadways, driveways, parking lots, recreational facilities, buildings and other structures or improvements within the above required buffer areas, and may require the installation of such landscaping, fencing, berming, or other features as the Planning Board may determine appropriate for buffer screening purposes. Such perimeter buffer/setback area, if required, shall be delineated on the final subdivision plat, along with a notation of any restrictions or conditions that have been established 0 by the Planning Board. Lot Coverajze No nonagricultural building or buildings on a lot, including accessory buildings, roads, driveways, parking areas, or other paved areas shall be erected, altered, or extended to cover more than fifteen percent of the total lot area. Projections described in Section 66 are not to be included in computing the percentage of lot coverage. Size of Lot and Density of Development Lots in the Conservation District shall meet the following minimum requirements: 1. The minimum lot area shall be 7 acres; and 2. In a new conventional subdivision (i.e., any proposed conventional subdivision which has not received final approval as of the date of enactment of this local law), the maximum gross residential density shall be 0.143 dwelling units per acre (1 dwelling unit per 7 acres). In order to calculate the maximum permissible number of lots or dwelling units, the total gross site acreage is multiplied by 0.143; and 3. In a new cluster subdivision (i.e., any proposed duster subdivision which has not received final approval as of the date of enactment of this local law), the maximum gross residential density shall be 0.171 dwelling units -per acre (1.2 dwelling units per 7 -acres). In order to calculate the maximum permissable number of lots or dwelling units, the total gross site acreage is multiplied by 0.171. This represents a 20% density increase over that permitted for conventional subdivisions. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of this local law, 'Permitted Uses," the above density limitations do not apply to single-family dwellings existing at the time of the enactment of this local law in which a second dwelling unit is to be added, or on vacant lots without further subdivision potential existing at the time of the enactment of this local law, where a two-family dwelling is to be constructed. 5. The minimum lot width at the street line shall be 300.feet; and 6. The minimum lot width at the maximum required front yard setback line (75 feet) shall be 300 feet; and 5 7. The minimum lot depth from the highway right-of-way shall be 450 feet. Clustering The Planning Board is hereby authorized by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca to require clustering of residential units as outlined in the Town's Subdivision Regulations, where clustering will further the purposes of the Conservation District, subject to the following additional requirements: I. Dwelling units in a clustered development may be, at the discretion of the planning board, in detached, semi-detached, or attached buildings. 2. No more than four semi-detached or attached units shall be permitted to be clustered in any one structure, nor shall that structure be more than three stories high, including the basement or cellar. In any event, no building shall be more than thirty-four feet in height. 3. Where feasible, on the southwestern side of Six Mile Creek (i.e., on the Coddington Road side of the Conservation District), dwelling units shall be clustered between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road, in order to preserve the natural characteristics of the lands adjacent to Six Mile Creek and the City Watershed properties. In such cases, the same number of dwelling units that could have been built on that portion of the parcel between the former railroad grade and Six Mile Creek under the above density requirements shall be transfered to the portion of the parcel between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road. This provision shall not apply to parcels which are situated entirely between the former railroad grade and Six Mile Creek. Additional Requirements and Restrictions 1. The following activities are specifically prohibited in the Conservation District: a. The discharge, or disposal of, or any form of underground injection of, any hazardous material, toxic substance, or radioactive material. b. The disposal of toxic substances or hazardous materials by means of discharge into a septic system. c. The open storage of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, artificial fertilizers, or manure. d. The use of septic system cleaners which contain toxic substances or hazardous materials. 0 e. The importation for dumping or disposal of snow or ice collected from roadways or parking lots into or within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland or watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year. f. The open storage of chloride salts, nitrate salts or other highway de-icing chemicals within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland or watercourse carrying water six months out of the year. g. The location of buildings or structures on slopes of 25 percent or greater, with a minimum horizontal slope length of 25 feet, or on highly or severely erodable soils. h. Filling or dredging of wetlands. Wetlands, for the purposes of this local law, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. 2. No buildings, structures, paved areas, grading, excavation, or other such disturbance or storage of construction equipment or machinery shall be located within 50 feet of the centerline of any watercourse carrying water six (6) months out of the year, or within two hundred (200) feet of the 100 -Year Flood Boundary of Six Mile Creek and Reservoir, identified as "Zone A" on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Ithaca, N.Y., Panel 25, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, within the Conservation District. In the case of residential subdivisions, whether conventional or cluster, the no disturbance zone as defined above shall be increased if the Planning Board determines that such an increase is necessary to protect water quality or to minimize the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. No disturbance as listed above shall be located within one hundred (100) feet linear distance of any wetland. During the subdivision or site plan approval process, where there is evidence of a wetland, the Planning Board may require a wetland delineation study to determine the potential impacts of development or disturbance on said wetland. 3. No buildings, structures, or storage of construction equipment or machinery shall be located within 100 feet of the centerline of the South Hill Recreation WU. 4. The storage and land application of manure shall follow established U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service management standards. Minimum conditions for storage of solid manure are a pad of concrete and a 7 leachate collecting system. The manure storage system should be designed to prevent animal waste from entering any stream or water body. 5. Vegetation and Landscaping a. Preserve existing natural vegetation to the extent practicable. b. When landscaping is required by the Planning Board to enhance buffer areas, to replace existing vegetation, or otherwise, native plant materials should be used to the extent practicable. 6. Scenic views, in particular those with viewing points from adjacent roads and from Six Mile Creek and the Gorge, should be preserved using practices such as the following: a. Avoid the siting of buildings or structures on ridgelines or hilltops. Buildings should be sited below the crest or ridgeline of hills to preserve a natural topographic and vegetative profile. b. Retain existing vegetation to the extent practicable. c. Retain existing stone walls, fences and other features in open meadows. d. Regrading should blend in with the natural contours and undulations of the land. e. Buildings proposed to be located within significant viewing areas should be screened and landscaped to minimize their intrusion on the character of the area. Building materials and color scemes should harmonize with their setting and be compatible with neighboring land uses. f. Where possible, buildings and structures should be located on the edges of open fields and in wooded areas to minimize visual impacts. g. In particular, consider visibility of proposed buildings or structures from public trails within the Six Mile Creek valley. Minimize visual intrusion on views from those areas. 7. Wildlife habitats and biological corridors should be preserved. Open space linkages should be encouraged to accomplish the above. Open space and conservation easement areas shall be designed with massing and linking as guiding principles. Open space and conservation areas should be contiguous both on site and off tract. 3 8. Common open space areas should be permanently preserved through conservation easements, deed restrictions, dedication to the Town, State or conservation organization, or such other means as determined to be appropriate by the Planning Board. 9. Roads and driveways a. Roadways shall follow existing contours to the extent practicable to minimize the impact of cuts and fills. b. The number of driveways accessing public streets shall be kept to a minimum. The appropriate use of common driveways is encouraged. The maximum number of dwelling units served by a common driveway shall be four. 10. Drainage a. The Planning Board may require the preparation and submittal of a stormwater management plan, to be approved by the Town Engineer, for proposed special approval uses and for proposed subdivisions. b. Retain existing natural drainageways where possible. c. In cases where a retention basin will be required, a landscaping plan shall be prepared and submitted for the Planning Board's approval. Basin landscaping materials that enhance wildlife habitat shall be used to the extent practicable. 11. Lighting a. Street lighting shall be provided only where site-specific safety conditions warrant. b. Where street lighting is required, its location, type, and intensity shall be subject to the Planning Board's review and recommendation to the Town Board for approval. 12. Whenever a subdivision of land is proposed in the Conservation District, the Planning Board may require that the non -buildable areas listed above, including wetlands, slopes 25 percent or greater, highly or severely erodable soils and streams/watercourses and setbacks, be shown on the preliminary and final subdivision plats. Park and Recreation Set -Asides and Fees in Lieu Thereof The provisions relating to the reservation of parks and recreation land, or fees in lieu I thereof, in Section 22 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations shall be waived in the Six Mile Creek Conservation District, since the purpose of the Conservation District is to preserve the open space and passive recreational opportunities in the Six Mile Creek valley. Additions to May 16, 1995 Draft are in Boldface and Underlined. Deletions from May 16, 1995 Draft are in [brackets]. FileName c:\p1ngcomm\cdist6-Ores 10 PARCEL SUMMARY INFORMATION PARCELS AFFECTED BY SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT' September 29, 1995 I. Land area within Conservation District Private Land: 438.17 acres Public Land: 636.74 acres TOTAL: 1074.91 acres II. Private Parcels Affected by Conservation District - Total Number of Private Parcels Affected: 39 - Number of Private Parcels Entirely w/in Conservation District: - Total Acreage of All Private Parcels Wholly or Partially w/in Conservation District: 724.79 acres - Total Acreage of Portions of Private Parcels Located w/in Conservation District: 438.17 acres - Total Acreage of Parcels Located Entirely Win Conservation District: 91.77 acres III. Parcel Sizes All Parcels Parcels Entirely Affected Win Cons. Dist. Min. Size (acres) 0.9 1.9 Max. Size (acres) 111.83 29.17 Mean Size (acres) 18.58 10.2 0 i In PUBLIC LAND IN SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 29, 1995 City of Ithaca Watershed Property Tax Parcel No. Size (acres) 55-1-1 544.78 48-1-9.2 26.87 48-1-11.2 17.74 48-1-12.2 27.26 48-1-13.1 0.21 Sub -Total: 616.86 Town of Ithaca South Hill Recreationway Tax Parcel No. Size (acres) 48-1-13.22 3.27 48-1-15 3.10 51-1-2 4.59 53-1-22.3 2.06 Sub -Total: 13.02 Remainder of Railroad R -O -W (not part of South Hill Recreationwa ) Tax Parcel No. Size (acres) 48-1-13.21 2.23 47-2-7 4.63 Sub -Total: 6.86 TOTAL PUBLIC LAND: 636.74 acres PRIVATE PARCELS AFFECTED BY SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 29, 1995 Approx. Exist. Acres Acres in Land Tax Parcel No. Owner Total Cons.Dist. Use 58-1-2 Morris, M & C 0.9 0.3 Vacant 56-2-10 Saatman, R & G 0.9 0.23 Vacant 56-2-11 Gillis, A & S.E. 1.62 1.08 1 Fam.Res. 56-4-1.21 Sweet, R & Sanders, J 1.8 0.2 1 Fam.Res. 58-1-1 Merrill, S 1.84 1.4 Vacant 56-2-8 Roe, P & Barham, M 1.9 0.6 2 Fam.Res. 48-1-14.313 Hilker, Wm & S 1.9 1.9 1 Fam.Res- 48-1-14.32 Soreng, R & N 2.15 2.15 1 Fam.Res. 48-1-14.311 Hilker, J & E 2.54 2.54 1 Fam.Res. 54-2-38 Apgar, BJ 4.14 2.5" 1 Fam.Res. 58-1-6.2 Paolangeli, F & J 4.17 2.1 Vacant 48-1-14.1 Street, D & H 4.29 1.1 1 Fam.Res- 58-1-32.1 Scheraga, D 4.31 2.15 2 Fam.Res. 48-1-5.4 Bascelh, A 5.54 0.5 Vacant 48-1-12.1 Heffron, L 6.74 1.3 1 Fam.Res. 53-1-11 Somero; Pakala 7.5 7.5 1 Fam.Res. 48-1-11.1 Mudrak, F & L 8.24 1.7 1 Fam.Res. 47-2-5 Farrell, H & B 8.5 1.7 1 Fam.Res. 58-1-35 Sweet, R & MV 8.8 8.8 Vacant 47-2-6.1 Rubin, D 8.98 1.3 1 Fam.Res. 58-1-36.2 Sweet, R 9.3 9.3 Vacant 56-1-1 Lowe, C 9.87 4.9 1 Fam.Res- 58-1-14.2 Baker, D & Carlton, H 12.74 12.74 Vacant 48-1-5.2 Farrell, W 13.19 2.6 1 Fam.Res- 56-2-7.1 Cleveland, B 15.48 9.8 1 Fam.Res. 48-1-4 Farrell, W 17.0 6.6 Vacant 48-1-14.62 Silsbee, R & A 17.53 7.3 1 Fam.Res. 48-1-14.4 Chutintaranond, S 17.67 17.67 1 Fam.Res. 56-4-2 Rightmeyer, R & F 18.73 13.73 2 Fam.Res. 56-4-1.22 Nut Tree Assoc. 19.31 13.31 Vacant 56-2-1.1 Battistella, R & N 23.58 16.5 Winery 51-1-3.1 Grigorov, P & S 23.7 1.4 1 Fam.Res- 48-1-14.312 Hilker, Willis & S 29.17 29.17 1 Fam.Res. 53-1-13 Sincebaugh, J 40.0 20.0 Vacant 47-2-3 Silsbee, R & A 44.2 32.5 1 Fam.Res. 58.1-1-(1-127.2) Commonlands (Total) 45.0 22.5 Townhses. 51-1-3.2 Grigorov, C 72.1 42.7 Vacant PRIVATE PARCELS AFFECTED BY SIX MILE CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT (Page 2) [Note: Parcels highlighted in boldface are located entirely within the Conservation District.] Approx. Exist. Acres Acres in Land Tax Parcel No. Owner Total Cons.Dist. Use 51-1-1 Terepka,R & Stewart,N 97.63 70.0 1 Fam.Res. 47-2-6.2 Walker, R & R 111.83 64.4 Vacant TOTAL: 724.79 438.17 [Note: Parcels highlighted in boldface are located entirely within the Conservation District.] I PENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 25, 1995 The following is a list of proposed land subdivisions or development projects for which an application has been received. These proposals are subject to Planning Board review under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, or other. Town Laws. For more information contact the Planning Department at 273-1747. Project No.: 9507174. 638 Elmira Road. Ithaca Veteran Volunteer. Firemens Assoc.. Description: .Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 0.39 ac. from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-5.2, located at 638 Elmira Road, for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 33-3-3, located at 630 Elmira Road, Business District `C'. Ithaca Veteran Volunteer Firemens Association, Owner; Robert L. Anderson, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: October 3. 1995. y FF; -'0V& -D Project No.: 9507173. 16 Judd Falls Road. Site Plan Modification, Courtside Racquet & Fitness. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Site Plan Modification of Courtside Racquet and Fitness Club for changes in proposed interior uses, relocation of an existing cooling tower, and a proposed exterior stairway, said facility located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-1-5 at 16 Judd Falls Road, Business District C., Thomas Murray, Courtside Racquet and Fitness Club, Inc.; Owner/Applicant Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: October 3, 1995. 19PPPROV60 Project No.: 9309115. Danby Road (900 Block). Ithacare Senior Living Community. Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Senior Living Community, proposed to consist of a +/- 115,000 sq. ft. building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, located on the west side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to Ithaca College, on that 28 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.3 for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on March 1, 1994, Special Land Use District No. 7., Ithacare, Inc, Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent. Status: Planning Board held a SEQR public hearing on the D/EIS for the project on 18, 1995, closed the public hearing and set July 28 as the deadline for receipt of written comments on the D/EIS. Tentative Date For Next Planning Board meeting: October 17, 1995. Y N Project No.: 9506161. 930 Danby Road. Proposed Subdivision, South Hill Retail Complex. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-9, +/- 3.6 acres total area, into 4 lots, and further Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the site plan for which Final Site Plan Approval was granted on February 7, 1995, said modifications to include changes in finished floor elevations for one or more buildings and attendent adjustments to site grading and circulation, located at 930 Danby Road, I -Industrial District. ICS Development Partners, Owner; Jagat P. Sharma, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: October 17, 1995. Project No.: 9410142. Danby Road (1100 Block). Buttermilk Valley 70 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed "Buttermilk Valley" cluster subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 36-1-4.2 and 36-1-6, 74+/- acres total, into 70 lots, approximately 4,150 linear feet of road, approximately 20 acres of permanent open space, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R-30, Special Land Use District S-1. Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, Owners/Applicants. Status: Planning Board made Positive Determination of Environmental Significance on December 6, 1994; DEIS Scope approved January 17, 1995. Tentative Planning Board Date: November 7, 1995. DE,15 ?p '8C wUb q /7T5iD 600�_/ CST YE-es10Q TO tT?+F>_ - CaFeEOTE p Project No.: 9509175. 120 Pleasant Grove Road. Building No. 14, Pleasant Grove Apartments. f C044W77; Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of Bldg. No. 14 in the Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments complex, +/- 2,450 sq. feet in area, into a maintenance facility proposed to consist of administrative offices, lunch/meeting room, and carpenter, electrical, paint, lock glass and pipe maintenance and repair shops with parking for 20 vehicles. The site is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67-1-1.1, MR - Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner, Paul Whitmore, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9507166. 130 Crest Lane. Sketch Plan, Proposed 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-3.2, 4.5 +/- acres in size, into two lots, 0.36 +/- acre and 4.14 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 130 Crest Lane, Residence District R-15. Erickson, Loucks, Koplinka-Loehr Partnership, Owner/Applicant; Eugene Erickson, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9504152. Woolf Lane. Sketch Plan, Proposed Westwood Hills H Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed "Westwood Hills II" subdivision, proposed to consist of 20 lots, with +/- 1,650 linear feet of public road, and extension of public water and sewer, located on the north side of Woolf Lane on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 23-1- 11.112, 12.92 +/- acres total size, Residence District R-15. Timothy Ciaschi, Owner/Applicants. Status: Pending. `JU 2UE� -TO 'b� SOID kD . 3 Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9503150. Mecklenburg Rd.(1200 Block). Proposed Candlelight Park Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed "Candlelight Park" subdivision, proposed to consist of 153 lots, with +/- 2.3 miles of public road, public water and sewer, and +/- 9.7 acres of proposed park and open space, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte. 79) just west of the City of Ithaca/Town of Ithaca boundary on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-13.12, 95 +/- acres total size, Residence District R-15. Anthony Cerrache, Owner; Ivar & Janet Jonson, Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Status: Planning Board has requested submission of a sketch plan for a cluster subdivision which would preserve open space and stream corridor resources on the site. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9407137. Bostwick Road (100 Block). First Assembly of God Church, Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed First Assembly of God Church, to consist of a 21,226 +/- sq. ft. structure containing a sanctuary, offices, classrooms and multipurpose room, with parking for 200 vehicles, to be located on the south side of Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Five Mile Drive on that portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-1 shown as Lot No.2 of the Glendale Farm Subdivision for which Final Subdivision Approval was granted on April 19, 1994, Residence District R-30. First Assembly of God Church Owner, Rev. Robert N. Lovelace, Agent. Status: Granted preliminary Site Plan Approval on 9/6/94; Applicant has applied for ZBA review of request for Special Approval and height variance. Tentative Public Hearing Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 93005106. Birchwood Drive. Proposed Cluster Subdivision, Lucente Lands. Description: Discussion of a Sketch Plan for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.6-70-10-3.5, 26 +/- acres total, into 46 lots, with approximately 2,550 L.F. of road, approximately 6.7 acres of permanent open space, and water and sewer facilities, to be located backlot of Sapsucker Woods Road and Briarwood Drive (unopened), Residence District R-15. Rocco P. Lucente, Owner, Stephen P. Lucente, Agent. Status: Pending wetlands delineation and reconfiguring showing standard lots. Tentative Planning Board Date: To be announced. Project No.: 9104050. Orchard Hill Road. Cayuga Lake Estates Description: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 22-2-2.2, 22-2-2.9, and 21-1-5, 57.4 +/- acres total area, into 40 lots, with water and sewer improvements and approximately 4,600 linear feet of roads. Proposed project is located off Dubois Road at the end of Orchard Hill Road, Residence District R-30. Edward J. McArdle, Owner; David A. McArdle, Applicant. Status: Planning Board made positive determination of environmental significance on 7/16/91. Further consideration pending submission and approval of an environmental impact statement Tentative Public Hearing Date: To be announced :'. AFT SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRI Local Law No. -1995 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (LIMITED MIXED USE) FOR THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRECINCT 7 WHEREAS, Cornell University has plans for long-term development of a portion of the Cornell University Campus known generally as Precinct 7 of the recent Planning Study done by Cornell; and WHEREAS, the plans are for development of this are solely for educational purposes and to further the education mission of the University; and WHEREAS, in order to assess the short and long term environmental and other effects of development of this area, the University voluntarily undertook to prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("DGEIS"); and WHEREAS, the Town, Cornell, and many residents of the Town have participated in the analysis of the proposed development and the drafting of the DGEIS; and WHEREAS, the DGEIS has now been completed and a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("FGEIS") has been prepared by the Town, taking into account the concerns and comments expressed at several public hearings on the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Town's Planning Board and Town Board have issued findings relating to the proposed development and the FGEIS which, among other matters, set forth steps to mitigate, in part, some of the potential effects of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, it has been concluded that a rezoning of the area from R-30 to a Special Land Use District would provide the most flexibility for the University to achieve its goals while preserving to the Town the ability to continue to regulate the proposed development to assure compliance with the Town's overall comprehensive plan and environmental requirements; NOW THEREFORE, in view of the recitals set forth above, the information and materials contained in the FGEIS and related findings, in furtherance of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and upon the request of Cornell University, the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended, effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. Ordinance Amended. Article 2, Section 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be and hereby is amended by adding to the permissible districts itemized in said section a district designated as "Special Land Use District No. 9" , which Special Land Use District is shown on a map entitled "Site Plan Cornell University Precinct No. 7 Town of Ithaca Special Land Use District No. 9" dated August 10, 1995, a copy of which map was filed with the Town of Ithaca +J � gNdand.Ur, wpSIuhUocallaw September 20, 199510:44am Planning Department (which map is hereinafter referred to as the "Special Land Use District Map") and which District consists of all of the lands bounded as follows: North of the centerline of Cascadilla Creek; South of the centerline of Route 366; East of the intersection of the above; and West of Town of Dryden Line. 2. Uses Pernnitted. The uses permitted in this Special Land Use District are set forth below, all of which uses shall be conducted by an educational institution or an agency or third party affiliated with an educational institution. The permitted uses are: (a) Classroom, assembly, seminar and studio buildings. (b) Offices for or associated with educational purposes. (c) Libraries. (d) Greenhouses for or associated with educational purposes. (e) Gardens, natural areas, agricultural plots and fields, and orchards for or associated with educational purposes. (f) Laboratories for or associated with educational purposes. (g) No more than one retail store which sells primarily orchard products and other products produced on or by Cornell facilities and which store is largely an ancillary activity to the Cornell Orchards. 3. Educational Uses Permitted with a Special Approval. In addition the following uses, as part of, associated with, or in support of educational purposes conducted by an educational institution or an agency or third party affiliated with an educational institution and not primarily intended for the general public, are permitted but only upon receipt of a special approval for same by the Planning Board in accordance with the procedures described below: (a) Conference centers. spedan& Or, wpSlahllacallaw Sepumber 20, 199510.44a n (b) Restaurants, cafeterias or other food service uses. (c) The following convenience, service, or business facilities provided the same are in buildings owned by an educational institution and provide services principally to the students, staff and employees of the same educational institution and are not provided primarily for the general public's use and are contained in areas of 2,000 square feet of floor area or less: (i) Bookstore; (ii) Travel agency; (iii) Bank; (iv) Parcel pick-up & delivery; (v) Printing or copying facilities; (vi) Convenience food markets. (d) Athletic, health, recreational or cultural facilities. (e) Child day care or elder day care center, medical center. (f) Maintenance, repair, servicing, utility, supply and storage facilities provided the same are owned by, and are provided solely to service, an educational institution and are not provided for the general public's use. (g) Barns and other animal handling facilities used in the furtherance of the teaching and/or research functions of an educational institution. (h) Antennae, ray domes, satellite dishes, and similar technical or scientific structures provided the same are used solely by an educational institution in furtherance of its teaching or research programs and are not permitted accessory uses set forth below. (i) Offices, laboratories, or greenhouses owned by third parties but sponsored by, affiliated with or cooperating with, an educational institution for mutual benefit. 0) Off street parking lots or garages which are not permitted accessory uses set forth below. 3 .. i specIW7&Ilr, wpSIuhUocaUaw September 20, 199510:44am 4. Other Uses Permitted with a Special Approval. In addition, the following public and quasi -public offices and facilities are permitted but only upon receipt of a special approval for same from the Planning Board in accordance with the procedures described below: (a) Post Office; (b) Fire station; (c) Local, state or federal governmental offices. 5. Accessory Uses. Permitted accessory uses shall include the following: (a) Off-street garage or parking spaces for employees, occupants, users or visitors in connection with a use permitted above, but subject to the provisions governing parking set forth in Section 7(o) of this local law and (i) Providing parking for no more than twenty cars; or (ii) Providing parking accessory to a building for which site plan approval has been obtained and the parking arrangements were shown on the site plan as so approved. (b) Parking garages primarily for employees, occupants, users or visitors to a use specified in paragraph 2 above, and located wholly within or underneath such structure or use specified in paragraph 2 above, and not occupying more than 25% of the structure's total floor area nor involving spaces for more than 20 cars. (c) Outdoor recreational areas including walkways, parks, trails, picnic tables, and other similar recreational facilities. (d) The following accessory buildings no larger than 2,000 square feet of floor area: (i) Storage sheds; (ii) Pavilions; (iii) Gazebos; (iv) Bus shelters; or 4 x � � specland.Ur, wpSluhUocaUaw September 20,199510.44am (v) Tanks. (e) Accessory uses within a use permitted above, such as employee or student cafeteria, and lunch room but not larger than 2,000 square feet in size unless included in the original plans of a structure (i) For which site plan or a special approval is being sought; or (ii) For which such approvals were previously obtained; in which event the size may be as approved by the Planning Board, even if larger than 2,000 square feet. (f) Any municipal, public, or privately owned utility facility, 2,000 square feet or less in size, necessary to the development or maintenance of utility services for a principal use permitted above. (g) Signs, associated with the above uses but only in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance or similar law as then in effect. (h) Antennae, ray domes, satellite dishes, and similar technical or scientific structures provided the same are used solely by an educational institution in furtherance of its teaching or research programs and are not more than 12 feet in height nor more than 12 feet in diameter. (i) Upon receipt of special approval from the Planning Board, any municipal, public, or privately owned utility facility, larger than 2,000 square feet in size, necessary to the development or maintenance of utility services for a principal use permitted above. 6. Overall Density Limitation No more than 4,000,000 square feet of enclosed space (including space below, at, and above grade level) shall be permitted within the boundaries of this Special Land Use District. 7. Performance Standards. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any use permitted in this Special Land Use District shall be in conformity with the following additional standards: (a) Densi : Total maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.9. FAR is building floor area above grade divided by the total ground area of the site as hereinafter defined. Ground area is any given piece of land of any size so long as all buildings on it are counted and a given piece, or any part of a piece of land is not counted more than once. For example 5 spec/m&Ur, wpSli&hUocaUawSepumber20, 199510.•44am a building one story above grade, having a ground area defined as the size of its footprint, has a FAR of 1.0. The same amount of floor space in two stories above grade, that is covering half of the ground area of the original lot, would also be FAR 1.0. The same amount of floor space in 8 stories, covering 1/8th of the original lot, is also FAR 1.0. However, a building with half the square feet of floor space placed on the same lot would have a FAR of 0.5 regardless of the number of stories into which the floor area is divided. (b) Height: Maximum height of 50 feet measured from the lowest point of grade at the exterior building wall to the highest point of the roof of the building, but excluding rooftop appurtenances such as mechanical equipment, exhaust pipes, radio antenna provided such appurtenances do not themselves exceed an additional 12 feet in height. Upon special approval of the Planning Board, the height limitation of 50 feet may be increased to a maximum of 70 feet. If the lowest point of grade at the exterior building wall is an exterior entrance to a basement, or a loading dock, or some other form of access to a basement area, or a combination thereof, and if in the aggregate such basement access and loading docks do not exceed more than ten percent (10%) of the entire perimeter of the building, such basement access or loading dock area may be excluded in determining the lowest point of grade at the exterior building wall. The Planning Board may, in its discretion, grant a special approval excluding up to an additional ten percent (10%) of building perimeter dedicated to basement access or loading docks for purposes of height calculations if it determines that in so doing (in addition to the other criteria or considerations governing the granting of special approvals) (i) the overall visual impact of the mass of the building will not be significantly increased; and (ii) the building will be adequately screened by berms, landscaping, or other methods to maintain a visual impact from all perspectives substantially consistent with the impacts that would be the result had the building been constructed without excluding additional perimeter footage from the height calculation; and (iii) the proposed use of the building requires. additional basement access and/or loading dock space; and (iv) . the increased height will not adversely affect the visual character of the general area surrounding the proposed building. (c) Ground Coverage: Total coverage of ground by structures, road pavement, parking lots and pedestrian area pavements shall not exceed 45% of the site. Total maximum 0 M W R specland.Ur, wpSlithUacaUaw Sepmxs&r 20, 1995 10.44a n ground coverage by buildings alone shall not exceed 25% of the site. (d) Road Setback: Road setbacks shall be as follows: (i) From Route 366, Game Farm Road, and any other publicly owned road, a front setback of at least 75 feet from the road right-of-way line. In addition, if a building exceeds 30 feet in height above grade, the set back from a public road shall be increased 1 foot for each one foot of height in excess of 30 feet. (ii) From a privately owned road that provides access to facilities within the Special Land Use District but which roads are not conveyed to or maintained by a governmental entity, a front setback of at least 60 feet from the centerline of such road. (e) Noise: No use shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth for the land use category stated below when measured at the boundary of the site nearest the receiving land use. Receiving Sound Land Use Category Time Level Limit Residential Use 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. 65 dBa 7 p.m. - 7 a.m. 55 dBa Natural Areas 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. 60 dBa 7 p.m. - 7 a.m. 50 dBa All Other 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. 68 dBa 7 p.m. - 7 a.m. 58 dBa For any source of sound which emits a pure tone, a discrete tone or impulsive sound, the maximum sound limits set forth above shall be reduced by 5 dBa. (f) Vibration: No activity shall cause or create a discernible steady state or impact vibration at or beyond the boundary of the site. (g) Atmospheric Emissions: There shall be no emission of dust, dirt, smoke, fly ash, or noxious gases or other noxious substances which could cause damage to the health of 7 Veckn&Ur, wpSllthllocallaw Sepumber 20, 199510:44am persons, animals, or plant life. (h) Odor: There shall be no emission of any offensive odor discernible at the boundary of the site. This standard is not intended to restrict customary agricultural practices. (i) Glare and Heat: No glare or heat shall be produced that is perceptible beyond the boundaries of the site. Exterior illumination shall be shaded and directed to prevent glare or traffic hazard on surrounding properties, and streets. 0) Radioactivity and Electromagnetic Interference: No activities shall be permitted which emit dangerous radioactivity. No activities shall be permitted which produce any electromagnetic disturbance adversely affecting the operation of any equipment outside the boundary of the site. (k) Fire and Explosion Hazards: All activities involving, and all storage of inflammable and explosive materials, shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion and with adequate fire -fighting and fire suppression equipment and devices standard in the industry and as may be required by any applicable codes, laws, or regulations. All burning of such waste materials in open fires is prohibited. (1) Vermin: There shall be no storage of material, either indoors or out, in such a manner that it facilitates the breeding of vermin or endangers public health or the environment in any way. (m) Natural Areas Protection: No new structure shall be built within a Natural Area (Cascadilla Creek Stream Corridor, McGowan Woods) as shown on the Special Land Use District Map, or within 75 feet of a Natural Area, without first obtaining the Special Approval of the Planning Board. In addition to the other criteria governing granting of Special Approvals, the Planning Board shall not grant Special Approval for such a structure unless the Board finds the proposed structure and its proposed location (i) Is related to, can be made an integral part of, and enhances the recreational or educational use and enjoyment of, the Natural Area (such as a trail, bench, or observation platform), or (ii) Is a necessary addition to a structure that had already been constructed within .the Natural Area or the 75 foot buffer at the effective date of the creation of this Special Land Use District; or (iii) In the case of Cascadilla Creek is 8 Veclmrd.11r, wpS1ithVocaUaw Sepumber 20, 199510:44am (A) Necessary to provide a pedestrian or bicycle (but not motorized vehicle) connection between the Special Land Use District and the East Hill Plaza area; or (B) Necessary to provide utility connections for water, sewer, electricity, telephone or natural gas between the Special Land Use District and the East Hill Plaza area; and in any event (iv) Accomplishes its purpose in the least intrusive manner to the environment of the Natural Area and is compatible with the natural and undeveloped character of the lands sought to be protected as the Natural Area. This last criteria is applicable to all of the construction referred to in subparagraphs (i) - (iii) above. (n) . View Area Protection: No new structure shall be built within the View Area (an area bounded on the north by Route 366, on the east by Town of Dryden line, and on the south by the a line commencing at a point approximately 2100 feet southwesterly along the centerline of Route 366 from its intersection with the centerline of Game Farm Road [which point is at the intersection of the centerline of Routs 366 and the centerline of a .service road to the Boyce Thompson research facility running southeast] and running east-southeast to the northwest corner of McGowan Woods and then easterly along the north line of McGowan Woods to the Dryden Town line) as shown on the Special Land Use District Map except (i) Roads for serving existing facilities in or adjacent to the View Area; and (ii) Upon receipt of site plan approval and special approval from the Planning Board such structures as are (A) Necessary additions to the existing Foundation Seed building; or (B) Small (less than 15 feet in height [as defined in Section 1. 4-c and 1. 4-d of the Zoning Ordinance] and, in the aggregate less than 2000 square feet in area [whether one or more buildings, the total square footage of all of the buildings will not exceed 2000 square feet]) structures and are integral to the agricultural or recreational use of the land in the View Area; or (C) Lamp posts of up to 25 feet in height provided the same are located V specland.11r, wpS1 irh Uocallaw Sepwmber 20, 199510.•44mn within one hundred feet of the existing Foundation Seed building or are street lights adjacent to a presently existing road or road approved as part of a site plan approval of the Planning Board; and in any event (D) Appropriate for accomplishing their purpose in the least intrusive manner to the view of Mount Pleasant and its environs and to the open space character sought to be protected by the View Area. Any structures constructed pursuant to site plan and special approval shall be screened by vegetation, such as shrubs, as may be approved by the Planning Board provided such screening shall not exceed 20 feet in height, not interfere with the view of Mount Pleasant and its environs from Route 366, and not interfere with the open space character of the View Area. (o) Parking: Off-street parking for vehicles and bicycles shall be provided to serve each facility constructed within this Special Land Use District which are occupied by human beings for more than four hours a day. The standards which follow are intended to provide a basis for determining a minimal amount of offstreet parking for uses that are expected to occur in the Special Land Use District. In applying these standards, the Planning Board should recognize that shared parking will be common and desirable for educational uses within the Special Land Use District because peak demands will often occur at different times. In addition, the site plan procedures listed in Section 9 of this local law provide alternative procedures for determining the number of required parking spaces based on the submission of a parking needs assessment and parking management plan. Unless the alternative procedures in Section 9 are applied, or unless another number of spaces are specified below or elsewhere in this local law or the zoning ordinance, the amount of parking to be provided shall be a minimum of (i) one parking space for each 1200 feet of enclosed space, or (ii) two spaces per three occupants intended to be assigned to the facility, whichever of subparagraphs (i) or (ii) results in the greater number of parking spaces. In the case of the following uses a minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the following schedule: Classroom, assembly, seminar and studio buildings: 2 spaces for each classroom, seminar 10 1 n r specIMS&Mr, wpSlithVoeaUaw September 20, 199510.44,m room or studio, and one space for each five seats in any large assembly room (containing more than 200 seats) not used exclusively for classroom teaching. Offices: One space for each 300 feet of office area, excluding hallways and common areas, or, where the number of assigned occupants is known, two spaces for each three occupants assigned to the facility, whichever results in the greater number of spaces. Libraries: Either (a) One space for each 300 feet of office area and one space for each 400 feet of other enclosed floor space; or (b) One space for each three occupants assigned to the facility plus one space for each eight seats assigned to public, faculty, or student reading or research areas; whichever results in the greater number of spaces. Restaurant (where service is provided to persons seated at tables): One space for each five seats. Cafeterias or other food service uses (where service is buffet or cafeteria style): One space for each three occupants assigned to the facility plus one space for each ten seats. Retail store and convenience, service and business facilities listed in Section NO of this local law and not otherwise enumerated in this section: -One space for each 200 square feet of ground floor sales space plus one space for each 500 square feet of any other floor area in the facility. Maintenance, story a and repair facilities: barns and other animal handling facilities: One space for each three occupants assigned to the facility. Greenhouses: One space for each three occupants assigned to the facility. Conference centers: One space for each guest room for overnight occupancy, plus one space for each three employees assigned to the facility, plus additional spaces for any accessory restaurant, retail, office, meeting room,, auditorium or other use, based upon the standards for those uses established in this section. Research facilities or laboratories: Two spaces for each three occupants assigned to the 11 specked. Ur, *rS1 ithVocaUaw September 20, 199510:44am facility. For the purposes of the above parking standards, the term "occupants" shall include employees, student interns, research associates, faculty, or any other person occupying the facility. The term "assigned to the facility" means those occupants normally occupying the facility on a regular basis, whether full-time or part-time. However, a student who merely attends a class on a regular basis shall not, by reason of such attendance alone, be deemed "assigned" to the facility. The number of parking spaces, the manner of construction of parking spaces, and the permitted location of parking spaces shall be as set forth in this local law. Where no specific provision is made herein, parking spaces shall be regulated as set forth in Sections 45 and 69 of the Zoning Ordinance. Where there is a conflict between the provisions of such sections and the provisions of this local law, the provisions of this local law shall control. 8. Site Pian Approval. A site plan for a proposed use must be submitted and approved by the Planning Board before a building permit may be issued, in conformance with site plan requirements set forth at Sections 46-a et. seg. of the Zoning Ordinance. Unless specifically requested by the Planning Board, property lines and adjacent public streets need not be shown on the site plan submitted if in excess of 300 feet distant from the proposed site, but shall be shown on a location map. Further, subparagraph 4 of Section 46-b shall be modified as to site plan approvals previously granted to structures in the special land use district, or to structures not required to have had a site plan approval at the time of original construction, to provide that no approval of the modified site plan by the Planning Board shall be required if the modification: (a) Involves (i) Construction of a new building or structure with a footprint of 2,000 square feet or less; or (ii) Alteration of an existing structure involving the addition or modification of less than (A) 10,000 square feet or (B) 10% of the enclosed space of any structure of greater than 20,000 square feet of enclosed space, whether on one or more stories, whichever is less; or 12 speclan&gr, wpS1hh11ocaUaw September 20, 199S 1044mn (iii) Construction or relocation of fewer than 20 parking spaces provided there is no net reduction in parking spaces; or (iv) Any maintenance or repairs not materially affecting the appearance of the site, or construction, repairs, alterations, or renovations materially affecting the exterior of a building or the site where exterior work is anticipated to cost less than $100,000 (1993 price, subject to Cost of Living Index adjustment); and in any event (b) does not alter proposed traffic flows and access; and (c) does not directly violate any express conditions imposed by the Planning Board in granting any prior site plan approval. 9. Procedures Related to Site Plans. In considering whether or not to grant site plan approval, the Planning Board (a) Shall, to the extent appropriate, utilize the considerations set forth in Section 46-d and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, or any successor statute, and, in addition, consider whether (i) The proposed project and such designated area meet the requirements of this Special Land Use District such as density, ground coverage, noise, etc. set forth above (e.g. sufficient land area should be included and designated for this site so that the proposed building(s) on the site do not exceed 25% of the site); and (ii) Adequate traffic demand management control measures exist so as to minimize or eliminate the addition of vehicular traffic on neighborhood roads used to access the proposed project in the Special Land Use District; and in any event (b) Shall, to the extent appropriate, impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community, to assure adequate compliance with all applicable provisions of this Local Law or the Zoning Ordinance, or to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse environmental effects (including traffic impacts referred to above) that may occur as a result of the approval of the site plan. (c) May authorize the required minimum number of parking spaces to be reduced to 13 specland.Ur, wpSlithllocallaw September 20,199S 10.44am a number determined by the Planning Board if the following circumstances exist: (i) The occupancy of the building or buildings is such that fewer than the number of spaces required by this local law would be needed to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of cars that will be traveling to, and/or parking at, the buildings; or (ii) Adequate traffic demand management control plans are or will be in place to assure fewer parking spaces than otherwise required by this local law will be needed at the project; and in either event (iii) The reduction in the number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site or elsewhere, will leave adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community. If the owner seeks a reduction in the required number of spaces, unless waived by the Planning Board the owner shall submit a parking needs assessment aqd parking management plan for the specific facility, demonstrating that some lesser number of parking spaces would be appropriate for that facility, taking into consideration the overall parking situation and plans for both the Special Land Use District and the overall Cornell University Campus, as well as the projected reductions in parking spaces that could be expected to occur as a result of any transportation demand management program in effect or planned by the owner. If the Planning Board permits a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, the Planning Board may impose such reasonable conditions as may, in the judgment of the Planning Board, be necessary to assure that such reduction will meet the criteria set forth above. In any event, unless expressly waived by the Planning Board, such reduction shall be subject to the following additional conditions: (v) Any space that is made available by the reduction in the required number of parking spaces may not be used for construction of any structures, other than those specifically approved by the Planning Board. (vi) Any land made available by virtue of such reduction be landscaped with grass or other vegetation approved by the Planning Board, or developed with such other amenities approved by the Planning Board as would allow relatively easy 14 specland.Hr, wpSlithlloeallaw Sepw nber 20, 199510.44am conversion to parking spaces. (vii) If, any time within five years after construction of the project is completed (completion of construction to be the date a permanent certificate of occupancy has been issued by the Town for the entire project) or at any time after completion when an application for modification of the site plan is submitted, the parking is found to be inadequate because (A) The demand for parking to serve the subject facility exceeds on more than four occasions annually the amount of parking (temporary or permanent) provided; or (B) The traffic flow creates an undesirable or hazardous condition by reason of the reduction of parking spaces; or (C) There is repeatedly undue congestion in the parking areas by reason of the reduction of parking spaces; then the owner of the project will submit to the Planning Board for its approval a plan that will eliminate the noted adverse effects resulting from the reduction in the required number of parking spaces and implement such plan within the time period directed by the Planning Board. Such plan may include increasing the number of parking spaces, creating or modifying any traffic demand management control plans, increasing public transportation, or any other corrective measures deemed appropriate by the owner. Such plan shall be presented to the Planning Board within thirty days of the notification to the owner of the existence of the adverse effects, and the Planning Board shall review and approve or disapprove (or, with the consent of the owner, modify) said plan within sixty days of its receipt. If approved, the plan shall be implemented within the time period specified by the Planning Board, but in any event within 90 days of its adoption. If no plan is submitted, or if it is not approved or subsequently implemented within the required time periods or such extended time periods as may be agreed to by the owner and the Planning Board, the owner shall install additional parking spaces up to the minimum number that would have been otherwise required by the terms of this ordinance without granting any reduction. Unless waived by the Planning Board, the granting of the requested reduction in parking shall be conditioned 'on the applicant executing an agreement in form acceptable to the Planning Board and acceptable for recording in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office agreeing to install the additional parking spaces as may be required by the above conditions. 15 F U , specim & llr, wpS1 hh Uoca/law Sepumber 20,199510:4 am In the event there is (whether before or after the five year period set forth above) any significant change in use, or a subdivision of the project site, or a sale of a portion of the site, with respect to which a reduction in the required number of parking spaces has been granted, such change, subdivision, or sale may be conditioned upon a requirement that additional parking spaces be required up to the minimum that would have otherwise been required but for the reduction granted pursuant to these provisions. (d) May, notwithstanding the provisions of this local law and Sections 45 and 69 of the Zoning Ordinance, authorize the placement of parking spaces in the front yard of any building or in a buffer area (except for any buffer area adjacent to a Natural Area) when the Planning Board finds that such location will be preferable to locations outside of the front yard or buffer area. 10. Completion or Updating of Special Land Use District Map. Without limiting the foregoing, the Planning Board may require, as a condition of approval of any site plan, that the Special Land Use District Map be completed and updated to show the approved site plan, together with all other sites that. are related to buildings in the Special Land Use District in existence on the effective date of this Local Law. 11. Special Approval. In granting Special Approval in any instance specified above, and in addition to the criteria for site plan approval, the Planning Board shall, to the extent appropriate, determine that: (a) The health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance shall be promoted. (b) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use. (c) The proposed use and the location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located. (d) Consideration has been given to minimizing adverse impacts of the proposed use upon any Natural Area or View Area. (e) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. (f) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed. 16 Vecl—&&. wpSIUhUocallaw &7M..&r 20, 199510 44. (g) The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in determining whether the effect of traffic generated by the project is so adverse as to preclude construction of the project, the Board may consider whether adequate traffic demand management control measures exist so as to minimize or eliminate the addition of vehicular traffic on neighborhood roads used to access the proposed project in the Special Land Use District. The Planning Board may impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community. 12. Definitions. For the purposes of this Special Land Use District, the following terms shall have the following meanings and shall be subject to the following procedures: (a) Site. A "site" shall be initially the area of land designated by the applicant to be allocated to a proposed project (or, in the case of existing structures, to the existing project or structure). If the applicant desires (i) After having previously obtained site plan and/or special approval to (A) Decrease or reconfigure such site; or (B) Add one or more structures to such site; or (ii) To add one or more structures to an area presently in existence for which no site plan or special approval has been heretofore obtained, the applicant may apply for a modification to the previous site plan and/or special approval and may, at the applicant's discretion, request that the site previously approved be reconfigured, enlarged, or reduced in size so that the proposed modified site with any proposed additional structures would be in compliance with the performance standards and other requirements set forth above or elsewhere in this Ordinance. The criteria applicable to the review of initial site plan and or special approval applications shall be equally applicable to the application for a modification of a site plan or site. However, in reconfiguring, enlarging or reducing the area of a site, no piece of land shall be designated as part of more than one site (i.e. no piece of land may be counted for compliance purposes for two sites). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no site shall exceed 30 acres in size, nor shall any site 17 specl-&Ilr, wpSluhUocaUaw Septmber 20, 199510:44ma include any land within a Natural Area. (b) Owned. Property is "owned" by the person(s) or entity(ies) holding the fee title to at least a 51% interest in the property, except that if the property is leased under a written, bona fide, recorded lease for a term of more than 35 years, the property shall be deemed "owned" by the person(s) or entity(ies) holding at least a 51% interest as tenant in such lease. If a requirement for a permitted use in this Special Land Use District is ownership by an educational institution, at least 51% of the interest in the property must be held by such institution to qualify (i.e. the educational institution must "own" the property). (c) Educational Institution. An "educational institution" is a corporation, foundation, or other generally recognized entity organized and operated principally for the purpose of educating persons with essentially three components: (1) a curriculum; (2) a plant consisting of adequate physical facilities; and (3) a properly qualified and accredited staff to carry out its educational objectives. The following are included as educational institutions: (i) A college or university chartered by the State of New York. (ii) A college or university or post -graduate institution providing a recognized course of study and accredited by a recognized accrediting organization. (iii) A public school operated by a state -recognized Board of Education. (iv) A private school having received appropriate approval from the Board of Regents or Department of Education of the State of New York to operate as a school - 13. Amendment of Zoning Map. The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding this Special Land Use District in the area described above. 14. Invalidity of Portion of Local Law. In the event that any portion of this local law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. 15. Effective Date. This law shall take effect 20 days after its adoption or the date it is filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, whichever is later. 18 OCT- 2-95 MON 14 -.10 0 f ^` JZ P. 02 D Possi _le suggestions to resolve issues on Cornell SLUD raised b; FHIA E. Harrison, 10/2/95 p. 13 sec 9.a.ii The suggestion that wording be changed to recognize that traffic demang management control measures are one and not the only way to minimize additional traffic in neighborhoods is well taken. The NE connector, for example, would be such a measure. The issue of cumulative vs incremental impacts of traffic seems valid. Clearly our intent all along in this process has been to provide for overall impact assessment and mitigation rather than building by building. The Use of Trip Generation Manual for university type uses does not sound triable according to Jon Kanter. There seems to be insufficient data to make projections from that source useful. Suggested reworkin. Section 9 (a) (ii) "Adequate measures, such as traffic demand management control, exist so as to minimize or eliminate the addition of vehicular traffic on neighborhood roads used to access the proposed project in the Special Land Use District, taking into account any cumulative increases which may have resulted from previous development of Precinct 7." In addition, add an additional Whereas on p. 1 (between current #33 and 4): "Whereas it is the intent of Cornell and the Town to evaluate both the individual impacts of site specific projects as well as the cumulative impacts of all development taking place on Precinct 7;" Other Changes: p. 17, Section 11. (g) I find the suggested changes to be helpful and in line with our intent, but there may be other issues which lawyerly types see as problematic. Suggested change; "The general effect.—the Board (may) SHALL consider whether adequate MEASURES, SUCH AS, traffic demand management control, (exist) so as to..." COPY FHIAForest Home Imorovement Association D. ,TE.: o c_-ro5E�t z, 15 C3 5 TO: MEM 5 ER S OF I T j4 /.\CA Towel BIRD FROM: 3RUCE 3RI'rTAlnl, cNAIR, FN 1A 77,,-\FFIc_ coMMr7"rE,= R E P ROPOS MtD C44Ar-4 4 ES To s r... vz� ® MOBL-EM: TRAFFIC MI -I GATloN MEASURE -:S IN 5L -.UD SEEM To 3E. UN" EcE5.SAP l L.Y L. I M l rE]T� To Tp E. USE- o f TRAN S Po R TAS" l O N DEMANb MAN1-\C7EME,NT (TDM) MEA,.SURES. PROPOSEb SOL-UT/or(: 5aE PSZoPOSED v�oRp/r•!c� G P ASI G ES ON f -44 ES 13 AN 17 (AT'TAcg ELS) . ® PRoaL-.EM : FOR t>P EcI AI-. fi tppgo UAL. N aaI.D To i3E. TI c N Tom! Et� up P ROP 05E -D sa-uTloN : sTREN6-04EN LAtgGUA(4c, �sEE- PRoPosE L) cH AN C7 ES orl B.6,4ES © FRO -6L -EM: TRAFFIC Ml-I'Ic7ATjoN MEA5URE5 lP4 TN E SLU D ARE- Ewt-'-,�E.D ot,l AN i l c1 IPA-rr=1� (;ROWTN IN TRAFFIC - CAUSED 3y EAcI4 ul"L�INC7. NDWEVER/ NEW �5UIL W -44S ARF - TYPICALLY rbuuL_T TO AL L -EV IATE ovEiZ- CROWI:t t rl (7j op, TO A.,LLO W EX PAN DFD (ROOM POR FUTURE C7 ROWT4}. T14c);5/ wy 411-E- 7'f -!E`( sER\/E A S ?I=.STA M Er\1-r 7t) G Ro w -r,4 N E w bUI -JbI rel 4 S T YPIcAI--L--Y pa pto-r REPRE-5Er4 7 - ANY SI GNI FI CANT C� ayslTl -j l^! ?EVS0tom! lel r=L OR TRA.FFIr AT TNS TIME- of -rPE.I r-,- c.or1STRUC-T/aN, ANI -',i -T74E-ZEFORF- THE SLUE�N'S TRAFFI c MITI 4 A.-ri o r l M EASv R as w ouc_ I] NOT BES T RIGGElZE-L>- FR0P0SEh> SOLUTION : MAK.E. U:�:1= OF THE I NSTI Tare= OF Ej,1 4rI.( EEZS (I TE.) -r;Zi P U Ehl ERA.TIOt-I MAN UAL TO PREM GT -rl4 F- NUM SER OF TRIPS 77PAsT EAcN PRO PoSEX:�, PRO j ECT 15 I I KELP( TO CAS �ZECOMMENDt IrJ THE -FOVVP4 OF I-rNACA COMPP EHEr,151vE !FLAN, P. ILL -z3, -,1-- 5 d ). TN/S COULD IBE I N 5E.RTEL rI-ITO "PRoc1=DURE S �ZEI..ATt=,D To sITE Pc NS�j cL a CSEE PRpPO�>=D Mail FtcATtoN <oN PAG E. 13). ® PROBLE-M : TRAFFIC- M17-1GgTtoN M0AWRES 1r-( TlIE SLUR ARE_3ASf=D oN THE INcREMF_I�I I M PACT of 1=Ac�4 IV EW STR.UGTU P -r--, RATHER- TNAP4 oN -rb4E- CUM(JL, ,-rlvE OP- AGGREGATE- ct-IAN6F-. 7W E- WgoL-E. Pu P-Pc)SE of -rPE-: Ca 1=15 PRocr--SS WA -S TO L.00K /-\T TSE. bIC4 P1 c-rU1R5 AND To CT E T b E YO r -I � ,6, PI ECE - M EA L_ A\ PPW-©Acq To PROBLEM SO LVI 1-1C?. ^PRO PoSEH-� c5p L -u T 1 o PQ : 1 N c0 RPO RATt- I N -TO 74E 5L -UD A N Eve! PERFo R MANcE. STAIN L� t2L� RELA,TEj] TO TRAFFIC. -rNE�- PERI=O�?NV�.NCI= STA N bA,ROS A L -R DS' r rj TNE. aL-U a AR Z 1�A�ED Otsl AC-rUI-\L, 10 RATPEJR -rk4AN Ot-1 P2ELDILTIoto!S o' - tNcREmEr!T,,,L CI44N C? >=5 . A t�oS�I�L.� �E12FoRMAN c_'E �TA�lD�TZD W O U l. -.D 't -5F= NO NET INCRE-ASE rnI CURRENT L.EVeL:S of VEN I cU L-AtZ TRAMr GotNG To OR- FKo I" i CAMPUS Ohl N IGH PASSES Tf-iROCJG N RE: 5 1 DENT/At_. NEI UI430RPoODS. MEANS of MEE7iN(� 7NIS STANDARD IrlC.LuDM,' JZEDUCTI Orl I N S, N G LE OCCUPA.N CY \/ E 41 C-L-FE�S IN CREASED U5E DF MASS TFZAr-4 n)1 T zv5EIS/ MINI- lb(-)6ES / CAR 1P001-1r/U/ VAN POOL N1� 1NGREASE� USE OF PARK -AMD - RI D>= >=AG a Tr ES, I N CFZEASE..D USE OF TRA1�1S t�ORTATI ON MODES Cv�!/�LKrnt U, �1 cYc �.I �! C��J REDUCITIot-� !nl r-)aoP-OFFS 1N,:5316N ELL) PARK.IN67 14 'A A�irc� 'iE>' LOTS bA,45E7D ON DOME Ai-*)L)PE-33 CONS-rRUGTtON of NES ROAD(5) BYPASStrIC? 'RESIDENTIAL NEICaHpiZF-f�.10DS, ETc. �E PROSLE.M = THE -RE- J S AI^REA DY Too M U cN -rPROUG;q - TRAFFIC 1N RESt Di=t�(T/,fit._ t-4EiCG4BoRHOODS PRECINCT 7' (N oTA'jLY THE FoRE5"T HOME coM M u r11 ?'Y). EX l STI t -I U T1-ZAFFIC- PP-OBL.E/"f SHOU L Z�) BE - RESOLVED 6EFORE ANY MAJOR DE,,/EL_aP- MENT 15 ALL-0wFE-D. 'P'R.OPO�ED So L-� T I©rel = °�TAb LI 3H NEW CO MM I -iTEE. To 5 -ruby AN lb 9,E50LVE. TRAr15PoRTAT10r(- RELA-TEDi�RoSLE`-1 S 1 N TN E-NoRTN - EAsT PART of THE Tows -4. ° 5vPPDR.T -rt4E- M t o S 1NTElZMUN1 CI PAL- EFFotZTS 1N TlqI S kREGAFZ►�. u I N ORDER TO Er -J 5CJ RE A-TIMELS( SOLO-rICt- Corl51DFR PuTTr>\lG A L.rM,7 Oh! THE LEVEL OP- DEVELOPMEN ( tn! PREc,NcT 7 UNTIL_ EX15"Tr>`IG PRObL.EMS ARE SATI5FACTOP-t LY FZE5oLVE..ID. +peelm1411r, -PSBA A Uw.&Ucw &7&Omber 20,199S 10 -'*da (iii) Construction or relocation of fewer than 20 parking spaces provided there is no net reduction in parking spaces; or (iv) Any maintenance or repairs not materially affecting the appearance of the site, or construction, repairs, alterations, or renovations materially affecting the exterior of a building or the site where exterior work is anticipated to cost less than $100,000 (1993 price, subject to Cost of Living Index adjustment); and in any event (b) does not alter proposed traffic flows and access; and (c) does not directly violate any express conditions imposed by the Planning Board in granting any prior site plan approval. 9. Procedures Related to Site Plans. In considering whether or not to grant site plan approval, the Planning Board (a) Shall, to the extent appropriate, utilize the considerations set forth in Section 46-d and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, or any successor statute, and, in addition, consider whether (i) The proposed project and such designated area meet the requirements of this Special Land Use District such as density, ground coverage, noise, etc. set forth above (e.g. sufficient land area should be included and designated for this site so that the proposed building(s) on the site do not exceed 25% of the site); and ® measu (ii) Adequate^ traffic demand management controlFBassums exist -so as to minimi or eliminate the addition of vehicular traffic on neighborhood roads used to access the proposed project in the Special Land Use DistricttYand in any event (b) Shall, to the extent appropriate, impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community, to assure adequate compliance with all applicable provisions of this Local Law or the Zoning Ordinance, or to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse environmental effects (including traffic impacts referred to above) that may occur as a result of the approval of the site plan. (c) May authorize the required minimum number of parking spaces to be reduced to C \ 13 r Pr -a ecfs s%al% �e e►7e✓t 4Mndqrcts r-hQ rQc_4-er i Si-+ �S c P 6ase`a on 'h -ate CGrvvn1 lr�ip Cehe�--a-�'a� Mcirluc I of Ae lhs�i-h4l-e 6f -rtqnSpor+q+i 04 nil-necrls) rped-i&Hr,wpSlirisUoeaUawSeprowber20.1995I0: 4=K In the event there is (whether before or after the five year period set forth above) any significant change in use, or a subdivision of the project site, or a sale of a portion of the site, with respect to which a reduction in the required number of parking spaces has been granted, such change, subdivision, or sale may be conditioned upon a requirement that additional parking spaces be required up to the minimum that would have otherwise been required but for the reduction granted pursuant to these provisions. (d) May, notwithstanding the provisions of this local law and Sections 45 and 69 of the Zoning Ordinance, authorize the placement of parking spaces in the front yard of any building or in a buffer area (except for any buffer area adjacent to a Natural Area) when the Planning Board finds that such location will be preferable to locations outside of the front yard or buffer area. 10. Completion or Updating of Special Land Use District Map. Without limiting the foregoing, the Planning Board may require, as a condition of approval of any site plan, that the Special Land Use District Map be completed and updated to show the approved site plan, together with all other sites that are related to buildings in the Special Land Use District in existence on the effective date of this Local Law. 11. Special Approval. In granting Special Approval in any instance speed above, and in addition to the criteria for site plan approval, the Planning Board shall, to the extent appropriate, determine that: (a) The health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance shall be promoted. (b) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use. (c) The proposed use and the location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located. (d) Consideration has been given to minimizing adverse impacts of the proposed use upon any Natural Area or View Area (e) The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or - inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. -5;*ooh fi C,q�7-E-1 J (f) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed. 16 V-danL&, wP5JUhUwaBaw Smumber 20, 199510:4 (g) The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Without ® limiting any of the foregoing, in determining whether the effect of traffic generated by the project is so adverse as to preclude construction of the project, the Board -sax- 5I1G yneCtSU,,� 5 consider whether adequatetraffic demand management control rues exist so as to 54 ch CL,5 � minimize or eliminate the addition of vehicular traffic on neighborhood roads used to access the proposed project in the Special Land Use District. The Planning Board may impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to protect the general welfare of the community. 12. Definitions. For the purposes of this Special Land Use District, the following terms shall have the following meanings and shall be subject to the following procedures: (a) Site. A "site" shall be initially the area of land designated by the applicant to be allocated to a proposed project (or, in the case of existing structures, to the existing project or structure). If the applicant desires (i) After having previously obtained site plan and/or special approval to (A) Decrease or reconfigure such site; or (B) Add one or more structures to such site; or (ii) To add one or more structures to an area presently in existence for which no site plan or special approval has been heretofore obtained, the applicant may apply for a modification to the previous site plan and/or special approval and may, at the applicant's discretion, request that the site previously approved be reconfigured, enlarged, or reduced in size so that the proposed modified site with any proposed additional structures would be in compliance with the performance standards and other requirements set forth above or elsewhere in this Ordinance. The criteria applicable to the review of initial site plan and or special approval applications shall be equally applicable to the application for a modification of a site plan or site. However, in reconfiguring, enlarging or reducing the area of a site, no piece of land shall be designated as part of more than one site (ie. no piece of land may be counted for compliance purposes for two sites). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no site shall exceed 30 acres in size, nor shall any site 17 MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Geri Tierney RE: Survey to Assess Town of Ithaca Geographic Information Needs Date: October 4, 1995 Here is the latest draft of the GIS needs survey. As you may remember, we plan to survey all the Town personnel and officials to help determine what our geographic information needs are, and how these needs can best be satisfied. This draft has changed somewhat since the version you saw last spring. Any final comments before we send this out? ► L MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Ithaca Personnel FROM: Geri Tierney RE: Assessment of Town of Ithaca Geographic Information Needs Date: October 4, 1995 As you may know, the Town of Ithaca Planning Department is currently developing an Environmental Atlas on AutoCAD and is considering investing in a Geographic Information System (GIS). While this effort is focusing on environmental data, layers of other types of information can be added to GIS to assist in other types of analysis. We would like to get some input from you so that we can best design this Atlas that may ultimately be a GIS to suit everyone's needs. Toward that end, we have designed this brief survey to assist the Town Planning Staff in identifying the appropriate format for developing this Atlas. This survey should help us identify the primary users, uses and data elements for the Atlas and for a GIS system. It is preceded by a few paragraphs describing geographic software to help you understand the capabilities of these systems if you are not currently familiar with them. If you can, please complete this survey by November X, 1995 and return to: Town of Ithaca, Planning Department, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. Please contact Geri Tierney at 607/273-1747 if you have any questions, and thank you for your help. Brief Background on Geographic Software: What is CAD software? Computer Aided Design (CAD) software allows the user to create drawings including maps. Storing and using maps on computer with CAD is more flexible than paper map storage, because CAD can adjust and overlay maps created at different scales and thus can combine features from different sources into a single map. Some CAD systems can also access some computer database systems, and create links between a drawing and database records. These links allow some limited analysis capabilities. For example, this link might allow the user to view and edit database information from a CAD drawing, and to query the database from a CAD drawing. However, most CAD systems cannot easily create new drawings to display the results of the query, as a GIS could, nor could they easily analyze the spatial relationships among mapped items. What is GIS? A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a computer system designed to assemble, store, manipulate, analyze and display geographically referenced information (i.e., data linked to a GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION NEEDS SURVEY TOWN OF ITHACA Your Name: Position: PART I: USERS 1)Do you or your staff use maps as part of your work, and if you do, how often do you use maps? Suggested answers: yes often (perhaps everyday); yes occasionally (once a week); no. 2) Do you or your staff use information related to maps as part of your work, and if you do, how often do you use map -related information? (Information related to maps might include data describing a certain geographic site, such as the ownership or use of a particular building, or the land -use or soil characteristics of a particular tax parcel). Suggested answers: yes often; yes occasionally; no. 3) How often do you think you or your staff might use an Environmental Atlas and/or other GIS data? Suggested answers: often (perhaps everyday), occasionally (once a week), never. 4) Do you think a GIS would help you in your work? 5) Please list the names of others in your office who might use this Atlas/GIS, so that we may survey them. 2 PAIN II: USES 1) Please indicate for which uses you anticipate using the Atlas/GIS, how often you currently perform this function, by what method you currently perform this function, and please rate the effectiveness of your current system from 1 (highly ineffective) to 10 (perfectly effective - no need for new system). Use _Creation of Maps (please specify themes): _Overlay of several types of information into single map "Graphic Query"- locate areas which meet certain criteria _Analysis for comprehensive planning purpose _Analysis of proposed development site: environmental features, zoning, etc. _Creation of buffers around map elements _Identification of shortest or best linear route _Track location of sewer and water lines and/or rights-of-way _Other (please specify): How Current Rating Often? System 2) If this Atlas/GIS was complex enough that a system technician had to perform this function for you, would that be better, no different, or worse than your existing situation? PART III - DATA ELEMENTS Please indicate which data elements you consider to be of primary and secondary importance to the Atlas/GIS by marling a 1 or a 2 next to those elements important to you, and leaving the others blank. Please also indicate the scale at which this information is most useful to you. (Please use any format you wish to indicate the appropriate scale, e.g., mapped at 1:24,000, or mapped at 1 inch = x feet, or accurate to within x feet). Elements _Streams and Stream Corridors _DEC Stream Classifications _100 year Flood Plains _Wetlands _Aquifers and Public Water Supply _Future Public Water Supply Sources _Slope Categories (e.g., 10-15%) _Soils in the following classes: _Highly Erodible _Prime Agricultural _Highly Stable _Hydric and Potentially Hydric _Specific Soil Types —Soil Permeability _Woodlands > 5 acres —Old -Growth Woodlands _Vegetative Cover _Unique Natural Areas and Critical Environmental Areas _Significant Wildlife Habitat _Trails and Bike Routes _Protected Areas: —Publicly -owned —Privately -owned _Conservation Easement _Cultural Open Space: Cemeteries, arboreta, preserves _Tax Parcels _Districts: _Zoning —Water/Sewer _School Election Scale 3 0 Elements _Roads and Bridges (incl. ROWs, condition, owner, and party responsible for maintenance) _Utility Lines —Water/Sewer _Gas _Electric _Active Farmland _Inactive Farmland _Toxic Release Inventory Facilities _Demographic Information (incl. population and income) _Historic Landmarks _Scenic Views _Other (please specify): PART IV: OTHER INFORMATION Scale 1) How important do you feel it is that this Atlas/GIS be easily compatible with the following systems? Please mark either a 1 or 2 for primary or secondary importance, or leave blank if not important. _County MapGrafix GIS _City GIS when and if it is developed _AutoCAD (current system of the town) _Cornell facilities (primarily Arc -Info) _Intergraph _Other (please specify): 2) Additional comments? (Please turn this page over for more space if necessary). Please return this survey no later than Friday, June 30, 1995 to: Town of Ithaca Planning Department Attention: JoAnn Cornish - Planner Il V4 (14y t I TiAL V D MEMORANDUM C A V Date: November 30, 1993 To: Town of Ithaca, Lead Agency From: Candace, E. Cornell and Phillip Zariello, Environmental Review Committee, as amended. Re: Comments on Cornell University's DGEIS Project No. 910346 The ERC believes this long-term development plan has been undertaken with a sincere interest to develop a cooperative working relationship with the Town of Ithaca for the benefit of our residents as well as Cornell University. This extensive study has been a unique and highly educational experience for both Cornell University and our Town residents. The DGEIS is a very thorough and at times exhaustive study of the possible positive and negative impacts of rezoning and developing "Precinct 7." There are three areas of concern we feel have be inadequately addressed: Construction adjacent to Natural Areas, Transportation, and Wetlands. 1) We believe an established setback of 30 feet from the drip line of trees and gorge edges is not appropriate. This setback is more than adequate for some types of construction adjacent to ecologically less sensitive natural areas (example: a one story storage facility adjacent to a grove of white pines). However, it is insufficient for other types of construction adjacent to ecologically sensitive areas (example: an eight story building adjacent to a wetland). We believe the setback needs to be variable upon site-specific conditions. If a variable set -back is not acceptable, then the non -flexible setback should be established using the "worst case scenario" -- the most sensitive natural area in Precinct 7 coupled with a construction. project of the highest magnitude of impact. 2) The traffic counts presented in the DGEIS for currently congested areas (especially the Pine Tree Road and the Forest Home areas) in the Town may not accurately represent the current situation. Other traffic counts, based on growth projections from Albany, may not be applicable to the neighborhoods potentially impacted by development in "Precinct 7." We suggest several options: a. If the Town accepts the traffic counts as presented in the DGEIS, then a supplemental EIS traffic study should be performed for every project that would increase traffic as a result of development in the study area. This might be expensive on behalf of the University and partially defeat the purpose of having a GEIS. b. If the Town accepts the traffic counts as presented in the DGEIS, then a supplemental EIS traffic study should be performed for every project that would increase traffic above an amended threshold (lower than currently established in the DGEIS) as a result of development in the study area. This might also be an expensive option for the University. c. A third alternative would be for the University to accept the traffic figures with which the Town has the greatest confidence. If these figures do not exist, the Town should supplement the existing traffic counts with new figures that reflect our current traffic situation. This new traffic study would be performed by the Town or their agent and be paid for by the University. This alternative might instill more confidence, on the part of our residents, in Cornell University's good faith in considering potential impacts on neighborhoods. 3) Lastly, we urge the University to set a precedent in this region by avoiding all negative impacts to wetlands of any size during the development of "Precinct 7." Presently, the drainage construction being performed behind the Library Annex requires the alteration of several small wetlands in the Cascadilla Creek Corridor. Projects of this sort can be designed to avoid impacting these sensitive areas. cc: Lewis Roscoe John Whitcomb Louise Raimondo Response: "The GEIS is designed to describe thresholds of development and mitigations for overall impacts rather than specific projects. Because specific projects are not known at this point in the planning process, a Generic EIS is the established format for evaluating potential overall environmental impacts of Precinct 7 development. The first phase of the GEIS project was essentially completed with the acceptance of the DGEIS by the Planning Board for public review. The completion of the draft document took over two years, and the draft evolved as an ongoing process of review and comment by the Town, the Town's consultant, Cornell University, and Cornell's consultants. The DGEIS is the culmination of many hours of hard work and negotiation on the -part of all involved to adequately address the issues surrounding rezoning and developing Precinct 7. The FGEIS addresses public comments and modifies those areas in the DGEIS that were found to be too vague or otherwise unacceptable. The Town has taken the lead role in completing the FGEIS to insure that overall development impacts have been adequately addressed. Town staff has been working with the Planning Board toward this goal. The Planning Board appointed a special committee to assist staff in drafting the FGEIS for full Board review. The Planning Board will then be responsible for completing detailed Findings on the GEIS. The Findings statement for this action, which is to rezone Precinct 7 from a. residential to a Special Land Use District or other institutional zone, if approved, must balance adverse environmental impacts against the needs and benefits of the action. Reasons supporting approval or disapproval must be given in the form of facts and conclusions that are derived from the Draft and Final EIS. They represent the framework upon which future decision-making regarding development of Precinct 7 will occur. The Town, through the site plan review process and the environmental review which will be conducted for each proposed project will address project -specific impacts at a later date. By looking at overall impacts now, we will insure that adverse impacts will not occur incrementally. 5. Comment: Consideration of requiring double -sided copies in the FGEIS and use of recycled paper. Response: The Draft EIS was printed on double -sided recycled paper, with the exception of some of the appendices. The FGEIS, being prepared by the Town will be printed on double -sided paper. The Town does not currently have a policy on the purchase of recycled paper, largely because of the higher cost of recycled paper. C. Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee 1. Comment: The proposed 30 -foot setback from natural areas is not appropriate. A variable setback based upon site specific conditions should be 10 considered. If a variable setback is not acceptable, then the non -flexible setback should be established using the "worst case scenario" -- the most sensitive natural area in Precinct 7 coupled with a construction project of the highest magnitude of impact. Response: The subject of an appropriate setback from the significant natural areas identified in Precinct 7 has been discussed in depth by the Planning Board and Town of Ithaca staff. The Cascadilla Creek corridor serves as significant habitat area and recreation area, the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Both the Cascadilla Creek corridor and McGowan Woods were identified by Tompkins County in its Unique Natural Areas Inventory. Therefore,—the corridor and McGowan Woods deserve an appropriate amount of protection. Various scenarios for protecting the corridor and the woods were examined. This issue of an adequate buffer zone for natural areas has been the subject of much discussion and debate. The Town staff and Planning Board have searched the literature and queried a number of state officials with regard to adequate setback parameters. New York State has one equivalent standard, a 100 -foot setback from state designated wetlands. When questioned on how this standard was established, it was found that the decision was not made by staff trained in conservation practices, but rather was a political compromise. Originally the setback from wetlands was proposed as 200 feet, which the legislature deemed too large a buffer area. A buffer zone of 100 feet was recently proposed to the Planning Board and Cornell, arrived at by consideration of wildlife, aesthetic concerns assumed for users of East Ithaca Recreationway located alongside Cascadilla. Creek, and water quality preservation concerns. The Planning Board, after much debate, and input from Campus Planning staff, is recommending a 75 -foot buffer zone from the established line demarcating the boundary of the natural areas be adopted, the border having been determined in the field by Cornell PIantations staff as well as Town staff, and surveyed and shown on a site map entitled "Cornell University Precinct 7 (GEIS) Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods Natural Areas Building Setback Lines, drawn by Robert H. Chiang, Planning, Design, and Construction, Comell University, and revised on March 23, 1994. This buffer zone should be established to protect the natural areas from the effects of urbanization and to provide sufficient groundwater infiltration for the vegetation in the natural areas and protection of the water quality in the Creek. Disturbance or construction within this buffer zone is limited to compatible facilities for passive recreation and enjoyment of the natural areas such as paths or paved walkways (no greater that 8 feet in width), observation areas, interpretive signage, gazebos, landscaping, and erosion and sedimentation controls and stormwater management structures. These uses within the buffer zone shall be permitted only with a Special Approval by the Planning Board. Existing uses within this 75 -foot buffer zone will be grandfathered. 2.Comment: Adequacy of traffic count information in DGEIS; possible need for additional traffic count data. Possible options: accept traffic counts, but require a supplemental EIS for every project which will increase traffic in the study area, establish an amended threshold for which such studies would be required, or have Cornell finance a study to be conducted by the Town to assess the current traffic situation. 11 ? Response: The traffic count data provided in the DGEIS is considered adequate for the purpose of identifying the potential future traffic related impacts of the proposed development of Precinct 7. Additional review of traffic and the need for traffic related mitigating measures identified in the DGEIS will occur as part of the site plan review process for individual projects in the area as provided by the proposed Special Land Use District. 3. Comment: We urge the University to set a precedent in this region by avoiding all = negative impacts to wetland of any size during the development of y Precinct 7. Presently, the drainage construction being performed behind the Library Annex requires the alteration of several small wetlands in the Cascadilla Creek corridor. Projects of this sort can be designed to avoid impacting these sensitive areas. Response: Please see Section VI.A., Comment 5 above. D. New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT): 1. Comment: Because of our Highway Permit Authority, (a State Highway Work Permit will be required for any work in our right of way in this project) the Department of Transportation is an involved agency for SEQR purposes. Please correct your GEIS to include our Department as an Involved Agency. Response: The New York State Department of Transportation is now listed as an Involved Agency. The NYS Department of Transportation as an Involved Agency is expected to be preparing its own Findings Statement with regard to traffic impacts of the proposed development in Precinct 7, as provided for under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. 2. Comment: During our initial review of the DGEIS we note the traffic information presented in Figure 2A of the Executive Summary indicated that the bulk of the traffic mitigation measures will be done at or near maximum development. From a capacity, operations, and safety perspective, it would be preferred that the planned highway improvements be staged consistent with the development rather than "kick in" all at once when a significant impact is created. Response: The Board concurs with the above comment. Road improvements to NYS Route 366, as well as to local roads impacted by the development proposed in the DGEIS can and should be programmed as development of the area proceeds. The matter of 12 Date: September 28, 1995 To: Conservation Board Members From: Janet E, Hawkes, Chair Re: Conservation Board Meeting October 5, 1995 7:30pm Town Hall Please read over and write down comments on the enclosed proposed Six - mile Creek Conservation District. In lieu of an Environmental Review Committee, the entire CB will be discussing and commenting on this important proposed zoning change. If you are unable to attend the meeting on Thursday, please forward your comments, prior to the meeting, to Mary Russell at 273-2199 (or send your comments in writing via the Planning Department or one of the CB members). Your input is very important. As a CB we need to look to the future in terms of officers and membership. It is not too soon to make plans for 1996. Please be thinking of a Town residents with concerns for the environment and who might be willing to serve on the CB. I look forward to seeing you on Thursday evening. Please call me at 272- 1126 if you are unable to attend. Thank you. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND RESCHEDULED FOR 7:30 P.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1995. PLEASE NOTE: On Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 9 :15am, Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, Fred Noteboom, will be meeting with interested CB Members to tour and discuss the proposed road work in the Coy Glen area. If interested, please contact JoAnn Cornish at 273-1747 for directions to the site. CB Members: Janet Hawkes, Chair Mary Russell Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello ! MW W {J WCMY TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND RESCHEDULED FOR 7:30 P.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1995. PLEASE NOTE: On Wet esday, , November 81995_, at 9 :15am, Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent, Fred Noteboom, will be meeting with interested CB Members to tour and discuss the proposed road work in the Coy Glen area. If interested, please contact JoAnn Cornish at 273-1747 for directions to the site. CB Members: Janet Hawkes, Chair Mary Russell Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, November 16, 1995 .............................................................................................................................. N .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. 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 from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. Parks and Open Space Committee 8:15 p.m. 5. Business: - View Shed Ordinance - Zoning Actions - Lucatelli - Proposed Improvements to Coy Glen Road - Term Expiration of Conservation Board Members - 1995 Budget Balance - 1996 Budget - 1996 Conservation Board Schedule 9:15 p.m. 6. Member Concerns CB Members: Janet Hawkes, Chair Mary Russell Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello 2. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD AL NOVEMBER 16, 1995 APPROVED May 2, 1996 PRESENT: Janet Hawkes, Chair; Eva Hoffmann, Cheryl Smith, Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Mary Russell. GUESTS: JoAnn Cornish, Planner II, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning. The Chair Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Persons To Be Heard: None. Report from the Chair: Chair Hawkes - I did go to the Empire State Forest Conference. Every 14 years, they do a federal forest inventory, 62% of New York State is covered in forest. Because of the tree demographics, there is a lot of soft timber in the higher size classes, but not a lot small timbers like seedlings and saplings. There are some issues there for the forestry industry. I talked with them in changing some of their priorities on public forests to maybe taking into account other uses for the forests. In the past, the first priorities have always been to harvest, and management of wildlife second, and recreational and other uses third. It might be easier to do locally than on a whole state basis, but it was a very good conference to see what the forestry industry and policy makers are doing in managing the forests. Ninety-three percent of the forests in New York State are privately owned. MALE - Sixty-two percent of the state is forest. Does that mean forests with soft timber? Chair Hawkes - No, that means any category. 50 to 74 percent of Tompkins County is forest. 3. Report from Planning Staff: Ms. Cornish - The planning department has finally purchased a camera, that was one request from the board. We have been approved to purchase a GIS system in the coming year, and now we are going to start looking into this more. Mr. Kanter - Lakeside Nursing Home has presented sketch plans for site improvements, primarily renovations to the existing building on Trumansburg Road. They are interested in parking expansion, circulation improvements, exterior modifications. etc... Ms. Hoffmann - Are they near the Cayuga Cliff s Development? Mr. Kanter - Yes, they are a little above the slope. The slope pretty much goes down here, but right now it is only in the sketch plan stage. The Ithacare final environmental impact statement is virtually done. It will be going to the Planning Board. Also, we are still working on getting comments from the Codes and Ordinance Committee on the Conservation District for Six Mile Creek. We are trying to set up a joint meeting for the Codes and Ordinance Committee and Planning Committee to try and plan this all out before we go to the Town Board. At the last Planning Committee meeting, Mary Russell was there and CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 gave some of her input based on some of the discussions that were also at the board. FEMALE - What was the result of that? Mr. Kanter - Mainly the discussion was about the districts boundaries and the possibility of shifting it on Coddington Road, and the Planning Committee seemed to be fairly opened to that kind of move. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee - The person is not here to report on this committee. b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee - Ms. Cornish - Geri Tierney is continuing to investigate several options, and has started to narrow them down. Map info, intergraph microstation, and arc view. Mr. Kanter - What we are looking at is PC/ARC Info possibly with ARC view added on. It would take excessive training for one or two people to get very familiar with that. It looks good for the funding. MALE - Are you still in the evaluation stage on what you will get? Mr. Kanter - We are getting closer on that, but any inputs or suggestions would be helpful. As Ms. Cornish said we have pretty much narrowed it down to ACR info. It seems to be the way other people seem to be going. The NPO through the county have already gone through the ACR Info, and they have been using that for a year now. County planning has been going back and forth, but seems to want to make a change some time. c. Parks and Open Space Committee - Ms. Cornish - We have just about finished up Chapter 5, George has been working on a purchase of development rights program. How topay for it, some bonding issues, and we really do expect to have a draft for review soon. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Business: a. View Shed Ordinance - Ms. Hoffmann - Showed pictures of different views, so one can see what housing can do to the views around the town. Most of the slides were taken from the road, so you can see what people see as they are driving into the Town of Ithaca. MALE - What was wrong with the old ordinance? Chair Hawkes - We do not have one vet. Mr. Kanter - We need an inventory first, which Ms. Hoffmann has started. FEMALE - Why do you need an inventory before you start an ordinance? Mr. Kanter - It seems to make sense to know what you want to protect before you protect it. Everyone knows that Ithaca is one of the most scenic areas around, but I think it helps to justify any formal regulations that come up so that you can identify what the resources are that you are trying to protect, and to know how to go about protecting them. FEMALE - In the ordinance you specifically mention every spot, so it is not a general statement. Mr. Kanter - That depends. It may have zoning, building rights, or views, and there are a lot of different things you can do, but again you need to identify what you really want to protect. That is why inventory and resources are a good idea, then take it to the Town Board. FEMALE - Do we have languages from another place? Ms. Cornish - Ms. Hoffmann and I have had several discussion on this. In your packet is a Visual EAF Addendum from the SEQR, and a lot of it does not apply, but it could be a starting point on assessing the visual, or if we have a GIS we could start some mapping. Any of these approaches could be a starting point. This may be a good tool to start with for the visual. Mr. Kanter - Some people have complained that the neighbor's tree is in the way. Restrictions are good, but they are only good between the two parties that made the agreements. A lot of that stuff tends to get lost over the years. FEMALE - One start we have had in the Conservation Board which has transported on to the Planning Board and site plans, is asking for landscape plans and down cast lighting. Ms. Cornish - Keep trees maintained at mature height of such and such of 15 feet or whatever, should be specified if that is the issue. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Mr. Kanter - Related to this, while working with Parks and Open Space Committee, as part of that we have been looking at is a Purchase of Development Rights Program that we should be bringing to you real soon. One of the kinds of things the Purchase of Development Rights Program can do is target scenic areas with view sheds that you want to reserve, and include those as part of the sites. They can be treated the same way as special agricultural lands or other special areas. The Purchase of Development Rights Program might be a nice supplement to inquire about the development rights of those properties. New York State has a scenic roads program, not real active now, it does not do much but designate scenic roads in the area. It does give some kind of restrictions on what the state and public agencies can do with the roadways in terms of maintenance and improvement in the road right of way, but the state does not give a lot of money to the communities to maintain the scenic roads. Ms. Cornish - Identifying those views could help in prioritizing those parcels. FEMALE - If we do this inventory, then what is the next step? Mr. Kanter - First of all, we should tell the Town Board. After we get all the information together, Ms. Hoffmann should give a presentation to the Town Board. We will try to do as much as we can this year, but it will definitely be a project for next year. MALE - For tourist reasons, we do not want trees to grow up and cover the views. Chair Hawkes - The View Shed Committee is Ms. Hoffmann, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Meigs. For a starting point we could use the resources map from the Tompkins County Planning Department of 1994. b. Zoning Actions - Lucatelli - Chair Hawkes - Zoning appeal for the construction of a convenience store at 1456 Trumansburg Road. I have asked Ms. Cornish to look into the Kyong file which was a similar proposal. Mr. Fischer - This is a terrible idea. Not a good location. Large and garish signs attracting customers. Mr. Meigs - Too far out. It is not where other businesses are. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Ms. Cornish - In the Kyong file, to summarize the location was not good and a lot of people in the neighborhood were opposed to the development. The difference with the Kyong case when compared to Lucatelli's, is that were some single family homes, some multiple family homes, and some commercial developments. The fears from neighbors were, if you let this happen, you already have the hospital and medical centers, then you allow this commercial development to come in and what is to say you are not going to allow another up the road and to continue on. Mr. Kanter - If there were any reasons to put commercial up on the Westhill, this would not be it. It is to far out, where Kyong would be a better location. FEMALE - What stage is this planning in at this point? Ms. Cornish - It is going to the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 13. It has been to the Planning Board for discussion. Mr. Kanter - It only went to the Planning Board unofficially because we as the staff felt that it was important. FEMALE - Did the Planning Board comment on it? Mr. Kanter - It ended up they asked us as planning staff to incorporate any ideas they discussed. It was things like, not in character with surrounding area, traffic generation, and the population served area was not right. Ms. Hoffmann - There was no good reason to say that there was a hardship and how could the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a variance based on what the statements say. FEMALE - Neighborhood character, the traffic, and the agricultural district. It is to far from the employment center. FEMALE - There is not any real mechanism for the Planning Board to comment on this. Chair Hawkes - We do get to comment on this because we get to comment on appeals that comes in front of the Environmental Review Committee as do Planning Proposals. Then our comments would go to the Zoning Board. FEMALE - How important is this hardship grounds? Mr. Kanter - Very important. Even if it is truly individual/personal hardship created by handicap or illness, that is not suppose to be criteria for zoning or granting variances. MALE - What are the chances this going any farther? Mr. Kanter - We do not think it will go anywhere, but we are not sure. i CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Chair Hawkes - Are we happy with this six points: 1) the neighborhood and corridor character is residential; 2) traffic; 3) the agricultural district; 4) too far from the employment center; 5) the property does not create a hardship: and 6) in order to evaluate this more, we will want to see an extended environmental assessment. Ms. Cornish - We may want to narrow it down to just the environmental issues, since the Planning Board will be addressing some of these other issues. Chair Hawkes - That would be the neighborhood character, corridor character, agricultural district, and the extended environmental assessment. Ms. Cornish - And the fact of preserving open space on Westhill. Chair Hawkes - We get to evaluate the cultural impacts. Mr. Kanter - Yes, also traffic impact. MALE - The other thing to address is the alterations in the landscaping. Chair Hawkes - Maybe this is a place to start using the new camera? Mr. Kanter - Yes, we have also ordered a polaroid, and maybe this is a good one to use. FEMALE - Maybe it is a good idea to start going out before projects are brought up for reviews. c. Proposed Improvements to Coy Glen Road Ms. Russell - COC discussed with Cornell about putting a maintenance garage in the Pleasant Grove Apartment Complex right on the edge of Fall Creek, the proposal was scratched from the list. There is also a proposal to put a radio antenna on Baker property on Bostwick Road that went to Planning Board. Ms. Hoffmann - When we heard about the changes of moving a pole in front of trees, the impact would not be a problem. We approved it. MALE - What is the antenna for? Mr. Kanter - It is for a small radio transmission tower for a satellite dish on the ground for a church broadcast. Ms. Russell - Mr. Noteboom is proposing to make quite a change on Elm Street Extension by moving the road crossing over the gorge. He is talking about putting major fill in there. We are interested in a lower impact solution. where is the fill coming from? Mr. Kanter - They will haul it in. Some of the city streets will be dug down four feet to redo the CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 road, so then they will need to dump that some where. Ms. Cornish - It should be fairly good soil because it is the sediment in the flats of Ithaca. Ms. Russell - The concern is this is a critical environmental area, it is just totally off base with the concept of the area. It was not what we expected. FEMALE - We have suggested putting a traffic counter on that road. Ms. Cornish - The City has done a traffic count down by the city line. We would check into setting counters up on how many cars pass through. FEMALE - What is Mr. Noteboom's next step on Elm Street Extension? Ms. Cornish - They have done the surveys and taken pictures of the elevations and that is in the engineering department. Mr. Noteboom said he was not sure engineering had drawn the survey. Mr. Kanter - Mr. Noteboom has notified the Planning Department requesting some assistance on some sketch designs and drawings to see how this could be done. d. Term Expiration of Conservation Board Members - Chair Hawkes - Mary Russell and I will not be members next year as we are moving on. FEMALE - Mr. Fischer will you be staying on the Conservation Board? Mr. Fischer - Yes. FEMALE - Mr. Zarriello will you be staying on the Conservation Board? Mr. Zarriello - Yes. Mr. Kanter - Maybe Mrs. Noteboom could send a letter of intent to stay on terms that expire. She will be advertising for members for board positions that have expired or vacancies. Chair Hawkes - Any prospects for Chairperson for next year? Mr. Kanter - It would be good if we had a nomination at the December meeting so you can forward that to the Town Board. Mr. Meigs - As a continuing member, I would like to nominate Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith - Thank you very much, but I do not have the knowledge that some of these otherpeople do. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Mr. Meigs - It is not knowledge. It is the ability to conduct these meetings that is important. Chair Hawkes - I will put this in the agenda for the December meeting. FEMALE - In the meantime, we should still look for new members. e. 1995 Budget Balance - Chair Hawkes - Since the New York State Association of Conservation Commissions annual meeting was not held this year, and we reserved a lot in the budget for that, we have about $1300 left. We have to make some decisions on how to use the money. MALE - When do we have to spend it by? Chair Hawkes - Close of business on December 31. MALE - We were talking about a wide angle lens for the new camera earlier. Chair Hawkes - We had also, last year, talked about the recreational literature brochures for them. I brought something from the environmental management council about doing some study on back yard burning and burn barrels. The local law, says that you can only burn paper and wood, but a lot of people are burning more than that. What that means is that potentially hazardous compounds are being released from the burning process of plastics and other garbage. MALE - Did they watch back yard burning in the Town of Ithaca? Chair Hawkes - I think from their study, they did study most parts of the county particularly the rural parts of the town. Where they did find burn barrels they did notice people burning everything. Which is the problem. MALE - I thought there was a burn ordinance where burn barrels were not allowed? Chair Hawkes - Well, that is not the case. In parts of the town it is allowed. In the next mailing of newsletters lets add the notice of "do not use burn barrels." What we need to convey is that recycling is environmentally safer. Something we had last year and we may want to of this year is support the town library with some more environmental resources to help the Zoning Board, Conservation Board, Planning Board, and the residence of the Town, so that there are appropriate resources when we are looking at environmental issues. It was very useful last year. We will wait until the next meeting for us to decide what to purchase with the reserved money, which includes burning barrel brochures, camera lens and purchase of films, books for the library, and South Hill Recreation Trail Brochures. MALE - Let's prioritize those items. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Chair Hawkes - The View Shed would be the first priority after purchasing the camera lens for the kind of work we want to do. Then burning barrel brochures. Then South Hill Recreation, and then what is left for the library. f. 1996 Budget - Chair Hawkes - In the past there has been $2000 plus $1000 for personal services. Mr. Kanter - Normally there is $2000. The Town Board approved a new minutes secretary for all the boards. A person who is basically going to transcribe the minutes from all the different meetings, but whether that person should attend all the meetings will have to be worked out. So the $1000 that is in the Conservation Board's personal services line has been for that minutes secretary. g. 1996 Conservation Board Schedule - Chair Hawkes - There was a request from Starr and the Planning Staff for scheduled meetings. Ms. Cornish - Starr put together a schedule for the Conservation Board which is basically the same as before. The first and third Thursday of every month with the second meeting scheduled optional. Chair Hawkes - It has been moved and seconded to adopt the proposed Conservation Board Schedule for meetings in 1996. 6. Member Concerns: Chair Hawkes - Are they any concerns? MALE - Received in the Planning Board packet and by going over the agenda for Tuesday, I personally have no knowledge of the sketch plans for Lakeside Nursing Home modifications, has that been before us? - Chair Hawkes - That was a sketch plan, so that would not go before us yet. Mr. Kanter just wanted to mention it to us. It is on the agenda, but nobody has seen them yet. Mr. Kanter - George should be sending it soon. Consent forms to COC have not been sent yet. MALE - There is one concern that I have for it, they are proposing a fairly substantial expansion for a parking area with considerable site work. It looks like more than what they really need. I want to note that for further consideration. Mr. Kanter - I will check into that. MALE - Also in the packet is the pending reviews register, I do not see the old folks home, Bridges CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 of Ithaca. What is the status of that? Ms. Cornish - They have a building permit. They are going ahead with their plans. MALE - Then it is all approved? Ms. Cornish - Yes. Chair Hawkes adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1783 A P P E A L to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York FEE: 80P D RECEIVED: CASH - ( CHECK - ( ) ZONING: For Office Use Only Having been denied permission to: 0 01LL F UL T A SMAS, S L 1"A U RA N -rl at 7 l F,0 ',4 !,�� Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. _ ` — � C(. 0 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article (s), Section(s) ID i , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL D=ICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) ( 5 EE ZATr/kTGH E D sHrE75) 3y filing this application, S grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning hoard f Appeals or staff to enter my operty to in ect in connection with my application. 01 ignature of Owner/Appellant: Date: �G a ignature of Appellant/Agent: 4-('!-+^'r"� Date: i rint Name Here: ANTHONY G(, M-115LAA ome Telephone Number: 273 - 3487 Work Telephone Number: IIX: If eonstractioa of work in accordance with any variances givea does not eoilence within 18 ionths. the Statement of Hardship And/Or Practical Difficulties Due to a lack of agricultural knowledge, along with no personal motivation for the intended zoning use, an "economic hardship" arises out of ownership of tax parcel 24-1- 19.11, owned by Anthony Lucatelli. Having extensive expertise in the restaurant business, resulting from participation in a respectable family operation, Mr. Lucatelli seeks a use variance that will allow the construction of a small restaurant/ convenience store on his property. To further compound the "economic hardship," Mr. Lucatelli is in possession of used kitchen equipment remaining from a previous business. In order to gain a "reasonable economic return," he feels it would be more profitable to put the equipment to good use, rather than sell each individual item in a market that might not exist. Also, several attempts were made to sell the land, but no offers met the amount still owed on the property. Finally, "economic hardship" is created, as well, by the fact that Mr. Lucatelli has been unsuccessful at finding a job due to a "tight" job market and a chronic weight problem. In an attempt to serve the community, this proposal also includes an attached convenience store that would provide the basic food staples, as well as a variety of take- out food items, for the accessibility of local residents. Oiven the close proximity (w-ithin 1-1/2 miles) of zoning districts other than the predominant residential and agricultural districts, the desire for this variance seems consistent with the future -development of the area: The current acceptance of various use groups indicates that non-residential structures have become a part of the essential character of the community. Therefore, this site seems reasonably adapted for the proposed use by the owner. • The proposed building will be designed and detailed in an attractive residential character. • The building will be located well back from the road with full landscaping. • The maximum number of employees would be 15 people. 17.12--- ���.._... 7 -p1 -TAN JbAN .GOMD fi .... 7. K 01HY m13COCK ;, Iry 1p J e34 i ANTHONY LUCAT���1 1�f" oLTAN.4-.JoAt`�94 - 1- 19.11`GON E3AS._ I�ISNo TKUMANSBUKG Wql 9- 1 .ZO: 7.97 ACRES/ • AXIS 1 INfti IKC)N PIN OR Plf p SET IKON PIN UTILITY POLE: %97" -< CUL�I- - WOOF AI"Il :..,1, A. I � PAT �: rA(Z:MAN-=:TA_l,I,MAN A�CN ITCCTS Ar>�'�LL _ - ...__�.._�._._....._ ANT G .. .._..._ / A FN1 : T 9 fl, II I Town Assigned Protect ID Number Rev. 10/SC Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHCP,T ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTiOHS Locsted in the Town Of Ithaca, Tompkins Ca unty ONLY PART I - Project Information (To be completed by Appiicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Appiicant/Sponsor: I 2_ ProjeetName: a ?SONY I,uCAT7;L1.1 CONV5NI5NGe STatR�/RcSTkUi�,�N� 3. Precise Location (Street ,address and Road Internee -"ons prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): 145& TRUMANSBUtRG Rb�p Tax Parcel Number: ZZ- - I - 4. Is Proposed Action: '�� CI c.XPAI4SZCl C MOD IFICA71CN/rL Z—RA i0N �• Cescr-�e Praject 3rterly (!nciuce project purpose, ;7r -sant sand (:e i scur-. �: current and .z, r_ cans,: 1c„on pians, and other re ievant items): TO 5Q[t P N�`�i S'fk�UC'(U � HOUSIf�G COl�VcNI�NC� STOP ANP A sMaL-L. cAFActTi A?Fr%0 ,. 70 P50Pr,F, - ?H5 PFOFFRIy a ?ASTLIRE, (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessar4 to adeeuateiy describe the proposed project.) o. Amount of Land Affected: ini oily (0-S yrs) I Acres (6-10 yrs) �- Teres (> 10 yrs) 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently ? A� - nG�"{ICUf.TURAI. biSTr'ZL�'r $. Will prcoosed action comply with exis mg zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES Q NO JJ If no, describe conflict briefly M NraPesee action lead to a request for new: i Public Road? YES Q NO Public Water? YES E] NO Public Sewer? YES Q NO 1 O. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? �--7 Residential Q Commercial [] Industrial J§Agricultc:re U Park/Forest/Open Space []Other Please describe: 1 1. Does proposed amit -action involve a oer, aooroval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency I (Federal, State, Local)? YES 0 NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: p�7E7 k� I 12. Does anv aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or aooroval? YES NO if yes, Tis; agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. I L>rRTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROYIDED ABOVE iS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Appiicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): , Signature: /i_ Date: -- I �tofZA�r: f OR 1 u , F i GAO U N FL OOK NORTH FLCVATION 0-6 ANTHONY LUCATELLI 1456 TRUMANSBURG ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (607) 273-3487 October 6, 1995 Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca Town Hall Ithaca, New York 14250 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: in connection with my application for a variance to construct and operate a restaurar_t and convenience store on my real property known as and situate at 1456 Trumansburg road, Ithaca, New York, I submit the following in support of my showing of hardship. The property cons_sts of my house and outbuilding located on 7.97 acres of land. The'real estate taxes on this property are enormous the records of the County tax department will reveal that I could not pay my real estate taxes which amounted to over $30,000.00 and my parents came to my aid. Because of my physical condition I am not readily employable and have to depend on part-time work in my parents restaurant so that my whole background for employability is in the. restaurant business. when this property was first purchased, my wife and I were the purchasers and with her income we were able to carry the property. we divorced sometime ago, I had to borrow money to purchase her interest, which money has to be repaid. I have tried to sell this real estate but have not received an Offers near what the property is worth and I would have to take a loss, which would also be a hardship. I have considered subdividing this property into several lots but decided against it since this .would clutter this area and do away with the scenic beauty on behalf of my neighbors. The drawings show that the building to be constructed is such that it would not deter from the neighborhood and its location is placed in such a position that it would not be that noticeable and it would have sufficient parking far from the highway. Page 2. Town of Ithaca Planning Board I respectfully request that the Planning Board consider my dilemma and grant my application for this use variance. All of which is respectfully submitted. Very truly yours, NOV 05 95 X e: 00PM FINAL To: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning From: Fred Wilcox Subj: Proposed use variance for Anthony Lucatelli Date: November 6, 1995 P. 1/1 Nov - 7 TOWN ;1F ITHACA Since I have feel so strongly about this issue, I thought it best that I put my thoughts down on paper. Much of what I have to say is a result of the training received at the New York State meeting of Towns held this past February. First of ail, the Planning Board has the right to investigate and comment upon anything having to do with planning and development within the town. Therefore, it is appropriate that Planning Board comments be included in the staff report to the Zoning Board of Appeah- The applicant is applying for a use variance. To grant such relief the ZBA must determine that no reasonable rate of retum is possible for any and all allowed uses of the property. Each and every use that is permitted within the zoning district by the ordinance must be examined in order to show that a reasonable rate of return can not be achieved: If the hardship hurdle is passed, then the board can examine the proposal for suitability. A. problem with the property (which the property suffers) is what determines economic hardship, not the hardship of the owner. A self created hardship is not grounds for granting a use variance. Based on these rules, the applicant has not demonstrated economic hardship. In the Statement of Hardship And/Or Practical Difficulties, the applicant or his agent starts off by stating, "Due to lack of agricultural knowledge, along with no personal motivation for the intended zoning use...". Later in the opening paragraph, the applicant/agent mentions possession of used kitchen equipment, use verses sale of this equipment, difficulty in finding employment and a chronic weight problem. None of these are defects in the property. The applicant/agent further states that, "...several attempts have been made to sell the land, but no offers met the amount still owed...". Then in the letter from Mr. Lucatelli, he says, "I have tried to sell ... but have not received an offers (sic) near what the property is worth..." These statements do not support the finding of a problem with the property. Furthermore, the applicant admits that the hardship is self created: marriage followed by divorce and the borrowing of money to purchase the ex-wife's interest. While I sympathize with the bAr. Lucatelli's circumstances, there is nothing in his application that meets the requirements for granting a use variance. I urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the appeal. Tompkins .County DEPARTMENT,& PLANNING 121 East. Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX (607) 274-5578 i J November 2, 1995 x„ _, = 'AM Mr. Andy Frost ! 0 "1 o 19 S Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street O`rti �i ,- Ithaca, NY 14850 BUILED IiN`G/'ZCN .ING Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Use Variance - Restaurant/Corivenience Store; Anthony Lucateili Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Tompkins County Planning Department has determined that the proposal, as submitted, will have a significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, and State interests. This determination of `significant impact' is based on the lack of information concerning potential impacts on traffic, community character, and the environment, as described in detail below. 1. Traffic - The proposed restaurant/convenience store has the potential to generate a significant amount of traffic. Turning movements could also be a problem. The Town of Ithaca may want to require that a traffic study be completed when considering the proposed project. 2. Community Character - The proposed restaurant/convenience store would be the first commercial use in a residential community. The impact of the commercial use on the surrounding residential neighborhood should be considered before granting the use variance. 3. En,. ironment -.'N'o environmental srudy'rias been completed for the project. A Null Environmental Assessment Form should be completed in order to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts. In addition to the above comments, the Town should be aware that this project is located on a parcel that is adjacent to an agricultural district. If the property is located within 500 feet of an active farm in the agricultural district, an agricultural data statement must be completed. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this project. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. )JmWes Sincer Hanson, Jr. Commissioner of Planning 4M faRecycled paper Research on Electric and Magnetic Fields Continues Science cannot yet provide definite answers about EMF and health effects. n important issue that contin- ues to face the electric utility in- dustry, appliance manufactur- ers, and other electricity -inten- sive industries in the United States and throughout the world is whether exposure to electric and mag- netic ainetic fields (EMF) emitted by power lines and electrical appliances may cause adverse health effects. Over the last year, news stories have focused on the publi- cation in both this countn• and in Cana- da and France of large-scale epidemio- logic studies of workers exposed to EMF on the job as well as on reports cri- tiquing and summarizing EMF research from international organizations. The release of EMF epidemiologic studies by the Scandinavian countries in 1992 and 1993, particularly Sweden, generated considerable attention throughout the world. Swedish re- searchers reported a possible associa- tion between historical Elk -IF exposure and some cancers. In response, the Swedish government stated that it would consider public policy changes and studv the costs and feasibility of EMF exposure limits for new electric utility facilities. Upon further review of the scientific literature and an investiga- tion of potential mitigation costs, how- ever, the Swedish government decided not to establish EMF exposure limits. One dilemma faced by the Swedish gov- ernment was the inconsistent results 26 Land Development/Fall 1995 By Mike Rossler, and subsequent inconclusive interpreta- tions of the Scandinavian studies. In 1992, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act. Among its many provisions, the act contains a section establishing the National EMF Research and Public Information Dis- semination (RAPID) Program. The RAPID Program authorizes a S65 mil- lion (with 50 percent of the funding to come from nonfederal sources such as electric utilities, appliance manufactur- ers, and others) five-year research pro- gram under the management of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with the National Institute of Environ- mental Health Sciences (NIEHS) re- sponsible for health effects research and a public information dissemina- Developers and builders should be aware that EMF is another factor that homebuyers may consider in the purchase decision. tion program. DOE is still looking to other organizations (such as NAHB) to contribute to the program. The RAPID Program is coordinat- ing all federal agencies' EMF research and is working in concertwith EMF re- search in the private sector to avoid unnecessary duplication. The pro- gram's goal is to consider all EMF re- search to date and to determine the risk, if any, of EMF in the context of other established health risks. An inter- im report on the status of EMF re- search is scheduled for the end of 1995. It is the sense of Congress that the fed- eral government should not take action on the EMF issue (e.g., regulations ad- dressing EMF levels) until the program is completed. It is estimated that about S23 mil- lion to $30 million is being spent on EMF and human health research each year in the United States. Much EMF health effects research has concentrat- ed on epidemiologic studies of workers and, to a lesser extent, of the general population. The studies have examined possible associations between EMF ex- posure and several health endpoints, particularly cancer. Leukemia in both adults and children has been the sub- ject of the most extensive study. Resi- dential studies have examined adults and children living in homes in which electric and magnetic fields from near- by power lines were hypothesized as a possible risk factor. Some studies have reported a small, possible association between childhood leukemia and pow- er line EMF exposure, although the adult leukemia studies have not shown an association from either power line or electric blanket sources. Occupational studies have examined various occupations and a possible rela- tionship with specific cancers. Leukemia, breast cancer, and brain tu- mors have been reported to be associat- ed with EMF exposure in some specifi- cally defined electrical occupations. Critics of these studies, however, have pointed to inconsistent results, differ- ences in comparing job classifications, failure to account for confounding fac- tors (such as exposure to solvents, smoking, and shift work), and the lack of good job -specific field measurements. Interest is growing in EMF health ef- fects research that probes the postulat- ed association between EMF and breast cancer. Beginning in 1993, annual meetings of EMF research reviews have devoted specific sessions to breast cancer research. Specifical- ly, research into the potential bio- logical mechanisms regarding the association between EMF expo- sure and breast cancer is concen- trating on experiments involving the hormone melatonin. Nfela- tonin regulates the human body's day/night cycle. Several published reviews of EMF health effects re- search have recommended specif- ic directions for future ENIF and breast cancer research. A greater understanding of the possible biological effects of EMF is a major objective of the RAPID Program research agenda. Most scientists agree that low-level ENIF is unlikely to trigger cancer, particularly because the energies imparted by such exposures are far below those that cause injury by heating body tissue or directly damaging DNA. Nonetheless, other scientists argue that disruption of normal cell growth and differentiation, which are recognized features of can- cer, may be influenced by low-level EMF. While some evidence suggests that high levels of power -frequency EMF can cause biological responses at the cellular level in laboratory studies, studies of whole animals have not shown any adverse effects due to long- term exposure. If EMF plays a role in cancer, some hypothesize that it may be as a promoter or copromoter after the cancer process is initiated by expo- sure to some other influence. The re- sults of these studies have been incon- sistent, and many have yet to be repli- cated. One issue complicating the investi- gation of EMF is the question of how to define exposure. This area of research is referred to as exposure assessment. Not only is there imprecision in the technology currently used to measure EMF levels in the field, questions also exist over what constitutes exposure and what elements the exposure moni- tors should be measuring. EMF is an extremely broad category, and scien- tists contend that any effects seen in epidemiologic or laboratory studies may depend on what elements of elec- tric and/or magnetic fields (wave length, intensity, etc.) are measured and what exposure parameters (life- time exposure, time -weighted average, or peak field levels) are investigated. Most researchers agree that a greater understanding of ENIF exposure is needed before the health effects debate can be resolved. While awaiting results from the epi- demiologic, laboratory, and exposure assessment studies, electric utilities are addressing public concern over EMF. With its commitment in excess of $22 million, the electric utility industry is the maior contributor to the RAPID Program. Further, most utilities mea- sure field levels at customer homes free of charge at the customer's request. Some utilities are also implementing field management designs on new pow- er lines where reduction in magnetic field levels can be achieved at relatively low cost. Utilities as well as local, state, and federal agencies can provide infor- mation on EivIF research. The U.S. En- vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates an EMF Hotline at 1-800-363- 2383 to answer questions about the issue. Most government activity on the EMF issue in the United States has been focused at the state and local levels. No federal limits exist. Currently, six states have estab- lished transmission line electric field limits and, of these, two have developed magnetic field limits. In 1994, 28 EMF bills were intro- duced in 12 states to deal primari- ly with public participation, liter- ature reviews, magnetic field mea- surements at schools, and re- search. None of the bills imposing EMF limits or moratoriums passed. Manv schools or school dis- tricts have requested EMF mea- surements for classrooms and play- grounds. A few have prohibited chil- dren from using classrooms and play- grounds located near power lines, sub- stations, or transformers. Only the states of New York and New Jersey have formally requested the electric utilities operating in their states to survey all transmission lines located near schools. While science cannot provide a def- inite answer to the questions concern- ing ENIF and health effects at this time, developers and builders should be aware that EMF is another factor that homebuyers may consider in the pur- chase decision. Developers, builders, and government agencies need to con- tinue to work together with utilities and the public on this highly contested issue. This includes sharing informa- tion with homebuyers so that they are informed about the latest research findings and can make their own deci- sions about the implications of electro- magnetic fields. As an environmental program manager at the Edison Electric Institute, Mike Rossler is the issue manager for risk assessment and regulatory reform issues, particularly em,ironmental regulatory policy, and is a staff liaison to the EMF Task Force and EMF Steering Committee. Land Development/Fall 1995 27 (& .yn� 6,4 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: JOAN NOTEBOOM FROM: JON KANTER� RE: TOMPKINS COUNTY PETITION OF FORECLOSURE DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1995 At your request, I have reviewed the Tompkins County Petition of Foreclosure (10/2/95), which includes properties within the Town of Ithaca that have been delinquent in tax payments. This is the County's notice to property owners that foreclosure proceedings will be commenced if the unpaid taxes have not been received by the County by January 12, 1996. Therefore, there is no immediate action on these properties, but it is a good warning of properties that may go on the auction block in the future. There do not appear to be any properties listed that would be of interest to the Town for future park or trail purposes (none are shown on the Comprehensive Plan 'Parks, Trails, & Open Space Reservations" map). The parcel which you flagged to my attention (31-2-16) owned by Allen S. Becker consists of 4.01 acres (vacant) on Five Mile Drive. The parcel is adjacent to the Lehigh Valley Railroad grade, which separates the parcel from land owned by Tompkins County (31-2-14). Part of this parcel appears to be designated as a Unique Natural Area (UNA) by the County (IT -5 Fleming Meadow). Part of the property also appears to be within a NYSDEC designated wetland. While the parcel is not up for auction yet, this may very well be one for which either the County or Town should keep an eye open. (County ownership might make sense since this parcel is across the railroad grade from another County -owned parcel.) (Attached are relevant maps and descriptions of the UNA.) There are three other large, vacant parcels on the potential foreclosure list. One is next to Buttermilk Falls State Park off of Elmira Road (35-1-25.2), separated from the park by Cayuga Inlet. This property consists of 19.18 acres, and is also owned by Allen S. Becker. The second large, vacant parcel is owned by Evan N. Monkemeyer (43-1-3.32) on East Joan Noteboom October 26, 1995 Page 2 King Road. It consists of 24.12 acres. A small part of the eastern edge of the property appears to be within a UNA (IT -8 South Hill Swamp). The third -large, vacant parcel is owned by R.L. Atkins Co. of N.Y., Inc. (47-1-4) and consists of 15 acres on the south side of Coddington Road. It does not appear to be in or near a UNA. Att. cc: John Whitcomb, Supervisor Jim Hanson, County Planning Dept. Town of Ithaca Conservation Board 3.J2 3a 3 AC: 30 AL2106 AC. CAL- 2 usrau f �} czhdr,ar 14.03 AC GL. ? . . —�rfi4 w 2i2� 2SJ' i3 +G CAI - 3 AC. CAA - CA 0" iLuan IQ2 ifi 9 .r2AC. T i f At JG RSA AIL L. _ / 2L / 2Z (� • AJ4 ACfiL, - ^ X37 ZL21� • / - 3 / 2-54 AC LtAC / �• 20 ! L •` K / x.12 is - E zu.cuL I ,� AC Y 17 AG C - 3 AC CALJL // 1t 2.2 ACCAL ' - iarnrs own 13 AC �' -( IT -5 Fleming Meadow Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SlteCode IT -5 7 Surveyor FRW 1 Town 11thaca Ownership 1private USGS Quad 11thacaWest 1 Lat/long 042° 025' N 076° 031' W Parcel Number 31 -3-2.2,3.2,16,17 Location Marsh bordered on N by Burtt Place and Marion Electric; on E by LVRR; on W by Rt. 13A (Floral Avenue); on S by higher land in vicinity of old Fleming or Inlet Schoolhouse. Formerly section to W of Rt. 13A also. Cover Type wet meadow, marsh Site Description Calcareous marsh and rich fen grading into shrub carr. Disturbed part being invaded by Lythrum and scattered large Salix trees. Significance Botanical: scarce species, marginal example of rare community. Ornithological: supports wide variety of bird species both in breeding season and during migration. Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 23 Elevation 400 ft. I Aspect Iflat Topo Feature Water Bodies Cayuga Inlet Geology glacial outwash Slope(%) Topographic ® Flat ❑ Crest ❑ 0 to 10 ❑ Upper Slope ❑ 10 to 35 ❑ Mid -slope ❑ Over 35 ❑ Lower Slope ❑ Vertical ® Bottom Moisture ® Inundated (Hydric) ® Saturated (Wet-mesic) ® Moist (Mesic) ❑ Dry-mesic ❑ Dry (Xeric) Site Code: IT -5 Page 2. Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area Ws 85% Em 5% HdA 5 % HdA 5 % HdD 5% Vegetation Plant Communities List cattail marsh, sedge -grass marsh, sycamore -cottonwood forest Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Rare or Scarce Species: Yes Flora Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Carex /asiocarpa Scarce Menyanthes trifoliat Scarce Fauna Genus & spedles Rare\Scarce Comments Telamatodytes palustris Wilson Scarce lonq-billed marsh wren Site Code. -IT -5 Page 3 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Recovery Adjacent Land Use Threats to Site Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Special Conservation/Management Needs Protective Ownership No Adequate Buffer DEC Wetland Yes DEC Wetland TW-$ DEC Mapped 23 Protection Site Code Acreage Other Comments on Conservation Summary of Special Features ® Rare\Scarce Plants ❑ Rare\Scarce Communities ❑ High Quality of Example Comments ❑ Rare\Scarce Animals ❑ Unique Geology ❑ High Esthetic Qualities - / I ) �,:_- c G y�.,,x:'}y, � / ; �: �::-. I �"p(� ;Ai �: "7 1 /I / ' /� ,/ //.,IJ} 6•'i�.%� / ��.'� •/ • ° W L _ n� S I , / , I _ ' •, • � , If' \ • ��;'7 `` ¢Jl � I... ti ,� //'' . ,/' n i I�� ♦ \O _ cuN ,N s, Q b 1,/, n r�IPN'-� o ,T •� j / r , //-'r .j� p%%�%1 i�/ i/,.�� /\ii`dp•, �• \. �' _9fi„ m ti � 1 r1 I '699 ,\00_797JI / 00 I00 �, j : ��;� 9 ` ParkReaR! i "le: f-tPark w 5 It ! ✓ '. Cala �� M'i� �`'%z' j%E 4698 u0 �.�::.;' ,y / ��.� �)11,..� i,,•.: _ ��, ��,,�: ., 1, .// •', �. Ie� \. �,• ;/ /,/.,% ej . !ih 'I' .lrifhevrvl Z IT-5`'i( i /If,� //-f��l�.�' 4697 Q� ((�/ %/ ( -.�� Jj// � I �;l J,\ � /� �/ �"./ � � (Jj/�J . �� ... i �� 4 _ � . � .,,r :' tv �. / � • �I 1' - I � i - ()ft1%�1 _1)\I Ile i'- I ', '// % < �f (• J �/� �44 ; � y�' /� / � � / 950 ,;'j'v � 1\\��• � �� �� 1 7���� ! if 11 ) �y "4 t■n°. ,ogc�, 1696 PJA cc X695 1050 �•: c< ' / r f � rr Ali F F 3S- l a.579izr u 38 . �..� rnaraa c tare rc� y. s.2 •4s36 .c Cit 3 7L3. AC Cil. 1 47 -WS .C. Cid. I 3.2 Moa ,C. 6 SS AC. 3.2 •C. CAL b.2 & 6. n .0 2., G.1 L03 AC a _ r :. AC ie. eil. :x+AC. Cti. 12 8.3i AC. CAL. .24496 iC '' ' ' � 1Z AC CAL 01 42 la 3.4 •961 AC. CAL .Arta 04 If Ra. I Park, Baf Pa i ^em�tery^_'_t_ • 51 -o C2 Ill 1 �l •�''=T�' '/rel>>,,�5/,� ,- J1 1 � - � '•� `'4'• _ ,\. i�•�i , . . '� ( ' 111 -4' _ ••�: r; — _ ��� `• .,o�_ �� j\ Il C• t Oo f�_v. J.. bN\, �,:• )) t,. � f yo -ten. � � \ � �� \ Trelnan: r� 4 °--' =� Vii\�. � �: J�' `1. \\�• --•%/ \ E?, ✓�';'�1�.� \��\. -- f. ^ `� _`iY /�.,� .• � I. .v, tI__ Imo_ �_ �_�.NELIS�_ _ i /� / � /� / � _ \ .:\-� �Zi FEET` t,! V�_�•-.t 'i;\, �.. \ .��._.n �> _ yi_: _ --'� Vii. �. _� �`�� ° .V � : �.' ._ w•i _ �-` ' 1 . � tl'• •�\� '�?{ \ �. , 1 "� � � 1 ;- �•, i, C �.�i'i � , Vit: /. � �\�.; r r Ta �-7-1-4 \ Sac-aes \ 177 7 x/," • f 111 �/ `�.. ,31 AC cry, II 2 -32 K u.3 40[ AG GAL � 3 44.2 K CAL. / / v iI 9.1 ■ M AC. CAL 4. it \ \ �4Cil . a" Z3 � � L 12 \, 2.4 AC CAL C>w AC r OF. 9 \� ' 6.31 1.62 AC 91; 55 \ O t2 141.43 AC Cad _L _ ITHACA I OANBT SPMAL DISTRICT INFCRYATION LEGEND Irpo At r130uoA:Eo MOK.TT l+4aT.I[ U■t FMCT 4 SMIOM FV aQ■ ru m. 0 -ftAt V K -------- 0 / - L. rs Ml�Cr L.Y[ �.�_ r■■C6 ��p r raft. aar.cr l.4 Om aWc■ .woer 'r tot d A�■[.tn o..o.F���� law u■a ���� uarr nracr u.a —�L-- OM im +iar4■ alOCf y..T Qq[. aSr■I.r L.4 . .... .. ... .... .� __.. —0..w Par-cr IN fr G..nO W. •K TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1995 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND RESCHEDULED FOR 7:30 P.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1995. CB Members: Janet Hawkes, Chair Mary Russell Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, December 14, 1995 N..............................................................................................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607)273-1747 NAT SIR 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Report from Chair 7:45 p.m. 3. Report from Planning Staff 7:55 p.m. 4. Committee Reports: a. Environmental Review Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. View Shed Committee 8:15 p.m. 5. Business: - Coy Glen Land Transfer - Budget Distribution - 1995 Annual Report - 1996 Plan of Work - 1996 Election of Officers 9:15 p.m. 6. Member Concerns CB Members: Janet Hawkes, Chair Mary Russell Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello