No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB Minutes 1996F INAL N C. ..... oply ................................................................................................................... TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7.30 P.M.. Thursday, January 18, 1996 ............:.................................................................. 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. Pro Tem Vote for Chair for meeting 7:35 p.m. 2. Persons to be heard 7:45 p.m. 3. Nomination and Election of Conservation Board Officers 1996 7:50 p.m. 4. ERC Committee Formation & Election of Chair 7:55 p.m. 5. Nominating Committee for New Members 8:00 P.M. 6. Report from Planning Staff 8:05 p.m. 7. Committee Reports: a. Parks & Open Space Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. View Shed Committee d. Environmental Review Committee 1. Pleasant Grove Apartments (Mailed on 1/4/96) 2. P & C Expansion (Mailed on 1/4/96) 3. Quick Subdivision (Mailed on 1/4/96) 4. Dolph Horse Farm (Enclosed) 5. Hub's Place Antiques (Enclosed) 8:45 p.m. 5. Business: 1. 1995 Annual Report 2. 1996 Plan of Work 9:00 P.M. G. Member Concerns 9:15 p.m. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs cc: Janet Hawkes Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer Phil Zarriello FIN co� MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD January 18, 1996 Approved 03/28/96 Members Present: Eva Hoffman, Loren Tauer, Phil Zarriello, Jonathan Meigs, Cheryl Smith Staff Present: JoAnn Cornish - Town of Ithaca Planner Guests: Janet Hawkes, Mary Russell, Melinda Boyer, Lois Levitan Staff member JoAnn Cornish started the meeting by informing the Board that since no chair presently exists for the Conservation Board, one has to be voted on pro tem. Eva Hoffmann volunteered to chair the meeting, all agreed. The meeting was called to order at 7:40. Persons to be heard were guests Lois Levitan and Melinda Boyer. It was suggested that members of the Conservation Board introduce themselves for the guests. Once the introductions were completed, Eva suggested that since Melinda Boyer and Lois Levitan were interested in becoming Conservation Board members, they give a brief statement about their backgrounds and interests. Melinda Boyer stated that although she has no formal educational background, she has been involved in environmental issues for some 20 years. Lois Levitan stated that she has a degree in Natural Resource and Policy Planning and thinks of herself as an environmental planner. She has been actively involved in environmental and planning issues for several years as well. Eva Hoffmann asked for nominations for Conservation Board Chair for 1996. Eva Hoffmann nominated Phil Zarriello for chair. Jon Meigs seconded the motion. In favor were: Hoffmann, Tauer, Smith, Meigs. Abstained: Zarriello Eva Hoffmann nominated Cheryl Smith for Vice Chair, Jon Meigs seconded. All in favor were: Hoffmann, Meigs, Tauer, Zarriello. Abstained: Smith Eva Hoffmann asked for members would be interested in the ERC. Jon Meigs, Eva Hoffmann, and Loren Tauer volunteered. It was generally agreed upon by the Board to wait for a full Board before appointing someone to the EMC. Phil gave a brief history of the Conservation Board to the guests who were interested in becoming CB members. Report from Planning Staff: Cornish asked members if they would like her to canvas through the local media for new members, stating that there are three openings. CB members instructed her to do so. Cornish reported that the wide angle lens which the Board had instructed her to purchase had come in, and in an unrelated matter, that the next Town newsletter was scheduled to go out in March. She will give the Board the deadline for article submission as the date draws nearer. Parks and Open Space Report: Cornish reported to the Board that a draft of the Parks and Open Space Plan would be ready for review within a week. All CB members will receive a copy for comment. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: Phil Zarriello had nothing new to report but stated that since most of the investigative work for the GIS had been done by planning staff, perhaps the direction of the committee may change somewhat, to deal more with the types of data going into the GIS. CB Minutes - 1/18/96 Page 2 Cornish reported that Geri Tierney, the Planning Intern, is taking suggestions for the GIS mapping. Some suggestions were: soil data, slopes, views and view sheds, streams and stream buffer zones, water bodies, mature woodlands, aquifers, surficial geology, depth to bedrock, watershed divides and major tree cover. View Shed Committee: Eva Hoffman informed the group that the committee had not met yet. She had received information from the State concerning ordinances and related material. A copy was given to each member. A meeting was set for Tuesday, January 23, 1996 at 10:00 A.M. ERC Report: Pleasant Grove: members expressed concern because the new proposal for the conversion of four Pleasant Grove Apartment buildings did not differ a great deal from the original proposal. Their concerns are still the same - chemical storage concerns, parking issues, close proximity to a residential area, not clear if this was to be graduate or undergraduate housing, close proximity to a UNA. Since the ERC had just been formed, Cornish offered to draft the comments for committee members to review since this project was scheduled for the January 22, 1996 Planning Board meeting. P & C: the major concern was the massiveness of the wall and its proximity to Judd Falls Road. Members suggested landscaping, windows, architectural relief and possibly lowering the roof on this side of the building to lessen the visual impact. Signage was also a concern. Linna Dolph Horse Farm: generally in favor, some concern over water quality due to manure pile. Quick Subdivision: Drainage issues were the only concern. Annual Report: Cornish will draft for Board review. Plane of Work: Because it was so late, it was generally agreed upon that everyone would comment on last years Plan of Work to see what was still applicable and what members would like to focus on for 1996. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45. A&//_4 fillip Z �be , Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. Drafted by JoAnn Cornish. 1/26/96. FINAL ................................................................................................................. N AM-1-11 TOWN OF ITHACA' CONSERVATION BOARD PY 7:30 P.M.,_ Thursday, February 1 1996 .............................................................................. ............................................... 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 Planning Staff 7:45 p.m. 3. Member Concerns 8:00 P.M. 4. ERC Committee Election of Chair 8:10 P.M. 5. CB Membership - New Members 8:15 P.M. G. Review CB Committees and committee membership 8:30 p.m. 7. CB representative for EMC and Town Planning Committee 8:40 p.m. 8. Committee Reports: a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee Update on: 1. Pleasant Grove Apartments 2. P & C Expansion 9:00 P.M. 9. Business: 1. 1995 Annual Report 2. 1996 Plan of Work 10:00 p.m. 10. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer (File Name: Starr/Stuff/®Stuff/Notices/02-01-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs FINAL (C(DPY MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD February 1, 1996 Approved 03/28/96 Members Present: Phil Zarriello;.Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs Staff Present: JoAnn Cornish - Town of Ithaca Planner Guests: Melinda Boyar Report from Planning Staff: Cornish reported that the Town is canvassing the Civil Service List for a recording secretary who will handle the minutes for all the boards. To date no one has been hired. Cornish will continue to type up the minutes for the CB until someone is hired. Cornish requested the January 18, 1996 minutes which were included in the CB packets be approved at the February 1, 1996 meeting. Cornish also informed members that she had included in their packets, The Soil and Water Conservation District News for their information. Cornish pointed out an article on spreading manure (in reference to the Linna Dolph Horse Farm which was discussed at the January CB meeting). Member Concerns: Chairperson Zarriello informed the Board that Cornell University was ready to move ahead with the Lake Source Cooling Project and that the DEC was the likely candidate for Lead Agency. Public meetings are being held on this issue and there is likely to be another public meeting in about a month. Cornell is working on public relations. Phil feels that proximity to a UNA may be a concern as well as the potential for increasing soluble phosphorous levels in the surface waters of the lake. Phil requested an updated roster for CB members to include all the current board members in the Town. Cornish agreed to supply the updates for the next meeting. In addition, Phil expressed concern over there being no closure on issues discussed at the CB meetings and on ERC reviews, i.e. Babcock and the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation District. Jon Meigs suggested staff provide Board members with a list of actions and projects still unresolved and include the list in the CB mailing. The status of the Inlet Valley City/Town/County park was questioned. Cornish reported that, to her knowledge, other than the delinquent tax parcels being taken off the public auction block, no progress has been made. Cornish stated that she would keep the Board informed of any changes. Phil reported on a Six Mile Creek meeting he had attended with Larry Fabbroni, Katie White, and Jim Hanson, among others. The sediment and flow levels were up substantially and the gauging station was damaged during the recent flood. Sedimentation and other issues concerning water supply from Six Mile Creek is being studied by the City. Phil also questioned the practice of removing gravel from the creek bed, stating that it may be doing more harm than good. Repairs are being focused on bank stabilization, cleaning the silt out of the area above German Cross Road and cleaning the sedimentation out of the silt dam. Feb 1, 1996 CB Minutes Page 2 Jon Meigs asked if there were any sites in the Town that are areas of concern as a result of the recent flooding. Should CB be looking at problem areas and making recommendations to the Town Highway Department concerning best practice mitigation measures. Elm Street Extension and Sand Bank Road were mentioned as examples. CB Membership: Phil told members that Lois Levitan, who is interested in becoming a member, could not attend the meeting but submitted a letter of intent and a resume. Melinda Boyar, another potential CB member was in attendance. Members were given time to review the resumes and letters of intent from both candidates. Melinda Boyar gave a brief description of her background and told the Board why she was interested in becoming a CB member. Eva Hoffmann made a motion to recommend acceptance of Melinda Boyar as a Conservation Board member, Richard Fischer seconded, all were in favor, none opposed. Richard Fischer made a motion to recommend acceptance of Lois Levitan as a Conservation Board member, Eva Hoffmann seconded, all were in favor, none opposed. Phil told the Board that Lois had stated to him her interest in being the CB liaison to the Planning Committee. It was generally agreed upon to recommend Lois as the PC representative from the CB. Phil agreed to take on the responsibility of being the Town representative to the Environmental Management Council until such time as it became too demanding or until another member expressed interest. View Shed Committee Report: Eva reported that the committee has met twice and has been gathering pertinent written information as well as information from the internet. Jon Meigs prepared a Viewshed Survey Form that was included in the packet for tonights meeting. The purpose of including this is to get feedback from CB members on the survey. Eva requested comments at the March meeting. - Eva also requested that CB members begin to identify their favorite views to assist in the inventory. Cheryl Smith will prepare public announcements for the local media. Eventually, after the views have been documented through maps and photos, the public will be invited to comment. December 1996 is the tentative deadline for the completion of the inventory. Eva requested members look for typical views which are representative of the character of the Town, and that capture the essence of the Town. Hopefully, this inventory will help to guide development. The origin point of the view should be accessible to the general public. Park set asides for specific views should be considered. Environmental Review Committee Report: The ERC comments submitted in the CB packets concerning Pleasant Grove Apartments were reviewed. No additional comments were made. (See ERC comments dated January 23, 1996.) Feb 1, 1996 CB Minutes Page 3 With regards to the P & C Expansion project, Eva questioned the project going before the Planning Board for Preliminary Approval and suggested it go for sketch plan review first so that the Planning Board suggestions can be entered into the design. There is concern with the massiveness of the wall which will now be much closer to Judd Falls Road. Elevations have been requested. (See ERC Comments dated February 5, 1996). Again, due to the lateness of the hour, the 1996 Plan of Work discussion was delayed until the March meeting. Richard Fischer and Melinda Boyar requested copies of the 1995 Plan of Work. Other Business: Phil reminded the Board that the Environmental Long Range Plan document submitted to the Board by the County still needs CB comments. Richard Fischer and Melinda Boyar requested copies of this as well. Richard Fischer mentioned that Bluebird License Plates are available through the state. Proceeds from the sale of these plates will go towards acquiring open space. The question was raised as to whether it was regional acquisition or state wide. Phil Zarriello suggested we put an announcement concerning this in the Town Newsletter. Adjournment: 10:15 p.m. ;2 e � Pidlip Zgrriello air Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. Drafted by JoAnn Cornish. - I The Conservation Board Meeting That was scheduled for Tonight (3/7/96) Has been CANCELLED! Sorry.for any inconvenience! TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, March 7, 1996 ::.............................................................................................................................. 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 Planning Staff 7:40 p.m. 3. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes (1/19/95 & 1/18/96) 8:00 p.m. 5. Update by Cornell Representatives on Lake Source Cooling Project 8:30 p.m. 6. Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District - Discussion and Comments 9:00 P.M. 7. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 9:30 p.m. 8. Business: 1996 Plan of Work 10:00 P.M. 10. Adjournment a Please review enclosed Six Mile Creek Conservation District documentation and the 1995 Work Plan and think about activities the Conservation Board should undertake for 1996. CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Melinda Boyar Lois Levitan (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CSStuff/Notice./03-_]-36.agd) A 6. - TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, March 28 1996 ..................................................:: .....................................................:::.::..... 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 Planning Staff 7:40 p.m. 3. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes (1/19/95, 1/18/96, 2/1/96) 8:00 p.m. 5. Update by Cornell Representatives on Lake Source Cooling Project (Tentative) 8:30 p.m. 6. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 9:00 P.M. 7. Business: 1996 Plan of Work 10:00 P.M. 8. Adjournment NOTE.- Please review the 1995 Work Plan (sent previously) and think about activities the Conservation Board should undertake for 1996. CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Cheryl Smith, Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Melinda Boyar Lois Levitan (Pile Na- Starz/Stuff/CSStuff/Notice,/0]-36-96.agd) Vice Chair TOWN OF ITHACA F1 NAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner��/yLJ RE: Conservation Board Meeting chedule DATE: April 1, 1996 Please be advised that.the regularly scheduled meeting of the Conservation Board will NOT be held on Thursday, April 4, 1996. The next scheduled meeting will be on Thursday, May 2, 1996. Agenda to follow at a later date. As always, should you have any questions or require additional information, feel free to contact me at 273-1747. FINAL .............................................................................................................................. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May. 2 1996 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. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 8:15 P.M. 4. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 8:45 p.m. 5. Business: a)Approval of Minutes (3/18/93, 9/30/93, 1/19/95, 2/2/95, 3/2/95, 11/16/95, 3/28/96 - enclosed) b) Other 9:30 p.m. 6. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Melinda Boyar Lois Levitan (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notice,/05-01-96.agd) a F tPilFtL TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD June 6, 1996 Approved: 09/19/96 PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Planner JoAnn Cornish. ABSENT: Jonathan Meigs. GUESTS: Peter Salmon. Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS CONCERNS: Chair Zarriello - The Conservation Board has a guest, Peter Salmon, who will be sitting in for the meeting to observe. Peter Salmon - I read about the Conservation Board in the Town Newsletter and the fact that there are some openings. I called JoAnn Cornish for information and she invited me to attend the meeting tonight. Chair Zarriello - In 1990, the Board began as the Conservation Advisory Council. One of the first projects was to put together an Open Space Plan for the Town. At that time it moved the Council into a Board status. The Conservation Board acts as an Advisory Board to the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Environmental Review Committee is the only mandated committee for the Board. The Environmental Review Committee reviews development plans for the Town and comments on the environmental significance. There are several other committees such as the Viewshed Committee and the Environmental Atlas Committee which are part of the Conservation Board. COORDINATORS REPORT: Planner JoAnn Cornish - The Vet School Incinerator Project at Cornell University: There were several letters written to the DEC, including Town Supervisor Cathy Valentino's, concerning this project. The Planning Department received an anonymous letter pleading for people to become involved in this project. There was also a letter about Cornell's proposed medical waste incinerator which outlines some of the concerns. It also has attached addresses to write a letter if anybody would like. I think all the responses and concerns are certainly leading to a more in-depth look at this project. Chair Zarriello - In 1992, this Board got a proposal from the Construction Fund to rebuild the Cornell Vet School incinerator. The scope of the project was to revamp what already existed. Since that time.. the Board responded and never heard back from them. The County ELIC and other groups CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE 6, 1996 also responded and did not receive a reply. Recently, Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Association, has spearheaded the drive to see what is going on. There has been some conflicting information. There was an engineering report that was produced at some point that the Town had never seen, and the Mark Wysaki from Cornell who is an Air Pollution Modeler reviewed it, and pointed out numerous flaws in the report. There were responses to his comments that were appropriate. Ruth Mahr found out that they planned to accept medical waste from other facilities such as doctors offices, Cayuga Medical Center, etc.., they were planning to utilize that facility to get rid of medical waste which is well beyond the scope of the original proposal. There was a lot of stuff going on and we never got a direct answer from the involved parties. One of the major concerns was that the State Construction Fund, in their original proposal, gave a negative environmental declaration which means they did not have to follow any of the SEQR process. The only thing they had to go through was the State Permitting process for air discharge. Planner Cornish - The State Construction Fund is exempting themselves from the SEQR process which they have the power to do. Chair Zarriello - Ruth Mahr was coordinating a group of interested parties that will meet June 12, 1996 at 7:30 in the Town Board Room. If there is anyone that is interested in learning more about this and getting involved, I would suggest coming to that meeting. Ms. Levitan - As I understand from the architect that was involved in this project, the existing facility is releasing a lot of matter. In other words, it is not doing a great job. Is the revised plan to do a better job? Is the Forest Home Association also assessing the existing structure? Chair Zarriello - The big trade offs are the stack height versus the aesthetic visual impact. The stack height as proposed is not high enough according to Cornell calculations. The proposed stack is not adequate to meet the dispersion requirements necessary to get rid of the stuff. There was a problem with the new Vet Tower being one foot lower than the proposed stack height, so there would be currents coming off the new building that would interfere with the emission of the stack. The trade off is to have a bigger stack, and many people would not want to see that either. That is why as part of the SEQR process is to look at project alternatives. Mr. Tauer - Where is Cornell proposing to build this new incinerator? Behind the new building? Eva Hoffmann - The earlier proposal Cornell came in with to replace the existing stack was to put the new stack where the existing stack is located in the back of the vet school towards Caldwell Road. Chair Zarriello - There were two letters sent out from the Town: one from myself for the Conservation Board and one from the Town's Planning Department. It is good that the Construction Fund has responded positively because the State would not be in a position to do much. Planner Cornish - Saddlewood Farms is a large development rental housing that is being proposed CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JUNE 6, 1996 for West Hill. There will be a special Planning Board Meeting on June 11, 1996, for a sketch plan presentation from Landmark America. This is going to be a very big project for the Town of Ithaca, and one that is being watched by a lot of groups. This meeting will be an informational meeting, and the Conservation Board might be interested in sitting on the meeting. The Planning Board was made lead agency for this by Town Board recommendation. Chair Zarriello - I had a phone call from Jon Meigs concerning this project, and he felt very strongly about the approach the Planning Board is taken that it is being assessed as a site plan review. The bigger issue is of rezoning agricultural and R-30 to Special Land Use District (SLUD) or a Multiple Residence (MR). These issues should be settled first. Planner Cornish - If this rezoning results in a SLUD, the Town would have some control over what happens there. It would be very specific and would become a Town law where things would be specified as to what exactly could be done there. If it results in MR, it may have a greater density. Ms. Levitan - At the last Board meeting this project was briefly discussed, so I wrote up a, memorandum in reference to this project. I did not treat the meeting the other night as a hearing. I was extremely concerned about how the marketing study avoids real issues and I am concerned that these untruths could be swallowed by people at the Board meeting. A very poor marketing study was done for this project. The marketing study was based on the concept that the percent of mobility, the number of people who move in a year equal the demand for housing. They took the mobility number and stated that 25% of the income category they are aiming for, tend to move in a given year. But then they said the Tompkins County percentage is much higher. As everyone that lives here knows, the Cornell Student market moves every year, and the 50% mobility factor is a meaningless number. The figure they use, is the figure that is justifying the building of 276 units in the Town of Ithaca. In fact, most of the people who live in the Town of Ithaca know there is a need for affordable housing to meet the needs of low income Cornell employees. What needs to be done is to look at the real demands and look at the housing market and say "do we really have a demand from the Cornell Community that want to live closer'. The Town and the County Planning Departments need to do a demand -based affordable housing needs survey. The other concerning point was that there are a couple agencies within the County that are concerned about the affordable housing issues. After discussions with Cathy Valentino, Mary Russell, and others, I am unsure if there has been any coordination about the Town's needs for affordable housing. Has there been any kind of demand survey? There has not been as far as any of these people know. I am really concerned that the affordable housing issue is being jumped on without knowing if this type of affordable housing is actually needed. The agricultural issue is another concern. A member of the Agricultural District Board (the agricultural district law does not actually protect agriculture, it is a farmers protection lav) stated that farming is tough here. It is true that the amount of land that is used for agriculture in the Northeast is declining and the reserve of agricultural products have decreased in the past decade. I have recently been seeing data that agricultural reserves have gone down in this nation and are at CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 6, 1996 a frightening low level. In the lona run, as we are talking about agricultural land and land use, there will be a shortage of agricultural land and people need to be concerned. Grain reserves in the United States are at their lowest level. Projections of the U.S. ability to export grain are way down. I think some of the laws that were put into place and some thinking about the land were because people were thinking about agriculture. I think if the Conservation Board, whose charge is to think through long term planning, really needs to say something about the long term needs for agricultural lands in the Northeast the impact on it. The argument is the land surrounding this proposal (Saddlewood) is no longer agricultural land. Alfred Eddy sold the 280 -acre large parcel across the road from this proposed project to EcoVillage with the idea that it would be continued in agriculture. There is a lot of unsettling differences about this project. What can the Town do about these issues? I am not denying that there is not a need a for affordable housing, but my feeling is that this scale is really questionable. The many people who work at Cornell and travel long distances, do so because they want to. No one can deny the fact that Cornell has many people who do not live close by and say that there is a demand that is not being met. I think that one thing the Conservation Board might want to do, both in dealing with this and other similar kinds of proposals, is to start some dialogues in the community about is "big better". The sense that I got from the Town Board is that there is something golden about growth. I think it would be good for this Board to do is a visioning process and talk to people about what they like about living in the Town of Ithaca. Planner Cornish - Ms. Levitan is right, the Town does not have a correct definition for affordable housing. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision was approved on June 4, 1996, by the Planning Board for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. One of their catch phrases was affordable housing, and the Planning Board asked what is affordable. There is no current definition, and the Planning Staff is looking into this. Saddlewood Farms is also proposed to be a gated community which means it will have some security, and probably a gate and credit card system to get into the development. I think it changes the character of the development and in my opinion it would be some what out of character for the Town of Ithaca. On Tuesday, June 11, 1996, the Planning Board will be discussing the Saddlewood Farms project, and members of the Conservation Board are welcome to come. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision did get Preliminary Subdivision Approval and is scheduled for Final Subdivision Approval on June 18, 1996. Cayuga Vista is another subdivision on South Hill that was presented to the Planning Board on June 4, 1996. This is a small 9 -lot subdivision with a wetland on the property. The portion with the wetland which had originally been proposed to be subdivided is no longer in the proposal. The Planning Board did receive a trail right-of-way across a portion of the land to go with the Park and Open Space Plan and trail system that is being proposed. This is in the future, but we did get a trail easement out of this subdivision as part of the set aside. Ithacare received Final Site Plan Approval on June 4, 1996. There were two Planning Board Members that voted against the Ithacare Project. and one of the Planning Board Members, Gregory CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JUNE 6. 1996 Bell made a very moving speech at the end urging everyone to take a good look at the view since it will be gone. The Conservation Board got the Monkemeyer subdivision proposal last month. It is on East King Road and is an 8 -lot subdivision. There is going to be a site visit on June 13, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. Everyone will be meeting at the site on East King Road. The Planning Board Members will be there also. The Coy Glen -Babcock subdivision that the Conservation Board talked about before, is on the Planning Board agenda for July 9, 1996. Mr. Babcock had propbsed deeding over 30 acres to the Cornell plantations. P&C will be in for Final Site Plan Approval on July 16, 1996. They have answered this Board's concerns. Chair Zarriello -The Mann Library -Project is about ready to break ground waiting for the State Budget to pass. There were some concerns about old growth trees and steep slopes which they seem to have dismissed. I have received the final scope of the EIS of the Lake Source Cooling, which I have not looked through yet. I will be looking through it make sure this Board's comments have been addressed. Planner Cornish - In the Town's Newsletter there was a plea for Conservation Board Members. The Viewshed Committee article was also included. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Viewshed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee_ No report. Environmental Atlas needs to get the system up and running for data base GIS map. MINUTES APPROVAL - MAY 2, 1996 Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 2, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction, seconded by Ms. Smith. On Page 5, Mr. Kanter stated "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are Lead Agency for the permits that need to be obtained.", which should read "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are responsible for issuing permits required by the project." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 6, 1996 AYES - Zarriello, Smith, Fischer, Levitan, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: The Conservation Board discussed a work plan for the Board. Planner Cornish reminded the Conservation Board that there is a budget for the Board and if any one was interested in attending any conferences or seminars, that there are funds available. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. DRAFTED on June 11, 1996 by Debby Kelley. el � FINAL .............................................................................................................................. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, July 18, 1996 TOWN HALL BOARD ROOM 126`East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607)273-1747 CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Cheryl Smith, Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Lois Levitan CC: Peter Salmon Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/07-18-96.agd) Vice Chair AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons to be heard 7:35 p.m. 2. Member. Concerhs 7:55 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 8:00 P.M. 4. Cornell Lakes Source Cooling - Update 8:30 p.m. 5. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 9:00 P.M. G. Business: a)Approval of Minutes (6/6/96, 4/20/95, 10/6/94 - enclosed) b) Other 9:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Cheryl Smith, Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Lois Levitan CC: Peter Salmon Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/07-18-96.agd) Vice Chair TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19. 1996 PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Loren Tauer, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations; Bob Bland, Environmental Engineer for Cornell University; John Himes, Project Manager from Sterns & Wheeler; Liz Vastbinder, Project Manager for Cornell University; Rob McCabe, Project Engineer for Cornell University. Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: Richard Fischer stated that Nancy Ostman from the Cornell Plantations, is the coordinator for natural areas. She is very familiar with the natural areas that Cornell owns. She is particularly concerned, along with other people who are members of the Natural Areas Committee, about the future of the South Hill Swamp, especially in view of the development going on around it. She would like to see the South Hill Swamp changed to a Critical Environmental Area rather than just an unique natural area. Ms. Ostman stated that Candace Cornell (Chairperson of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board) suggested that she come to the Conservation Board with the notion that all the unique natural areas in the Town of Ithaca should be Critical Environmental Areas such as Coy Glen is. The South Hill Swamp is probably one of Cornell's most fascinating natural areas. It definitely has rare vegetation. It has many endemic species. They are only at South Hill and no where else in the area. The closest other place that it would be found would be on Long Island or the coastal plains. It probably is a geological remainder of vegetation that has been left for ages, and the theory is that when glaciers were coming across the hills in Ithaca, this one spot was spared. There is a wide variety of vegetation in this area. It is a very shallow base up on a hill top that is very shallow to bedrock. There are some places where the bedrock is exposed, and there is a wet area in the middle of the basin called the South Hill Swamp. Around the rim is a raised area then the hill drops off to the sides all around, and the rim is very dry. Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow. The swamp is typically dry in the fall and summer, but itis very wet in the winter and the spring. There is a list of rare plants, but not only are there rare plants that it is totally a rare area of what that land is. The South Hill Swamp is behind Ithaca College at the crest of East King Road. Hospicare is right behind it on East King Road. The total area that has unusual vegetation is probably closer to 100 acres, and the key critical area is probably is 60 acres. The Committee has been concerned about protection from development and anything that threatens the area. Cornell owns about half of the really critical area at this point, which is about 45 acres. Ithaca College owns a tract of land right adjacent to the east side of the CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Monkemeyer parcel which has truly wonderful vegetation, and that site should be protected. There are wet springy areas that have rare species in them that are locally scarce. On the Monkemeyer property, 100 feet would be enough for the buffer. For the parcels to the north, a bigger buffer than 100 feet would be needed. To the east near Deer Run, Ed Holberg and his associates donated a big piece of land to Cornell, which would serve as a buffer on that side. The zoning through this area is R-15, so I would not expect large scale condominiums, but it could be very dense. Eva Hoffmann stated that the Monkemeyer parcel is zone R-30. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in previous minutes, Mr. Monkemeyer was proposing to have R-15 setbacks on R-30 lots, so he would be able to build larger one story homes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if Ithaca College and. Cornell University cooperate on how to treat this piece of land? Ms. Ostman stated that -Cornell University has tried to buy the Ithaca College property a couple times, but they have not been willing to sell. They have been master planning a road coming from King Road as an alternate entrance to the larger parcel. At this point, they have not seriously considered that, and they have been unwilling to part with what they consider a potential road into the Ithaca College property. Cornell would still be happy to buy it from Ithaca College if they were willing to sell, but we have not had that option. Cornell has asked Ithaca College to declare this a natural area, but they have refused to do that and they would like to reserve their options on it. Ms. Hoffmann asked if this is already part of the EMC's list of special areas under consideration? Ms. Cornish responded, yes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they can disregard that completely? Ms. Ostman responded, no, but it gives another level of protection for the Town to declare it a Critical Environmental Area. Ms. Cornish stated that a Critical Environmental Area triggers SEAR review automatically and it goes to the interested involved agencies. Chair Zarriello stated'that the Conservation Board should draft a resolution for the next meeting to pass onto the Town Board for recommendation, and then Ms. Ostman could give a presentation to the Town Board. CORNELL LAKES SOURCE COOLING - UPDATE: Bob Bland stated that on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, there was a presentation done for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for Sketch Plan review. When Cornell writes the Environmental Impact Statement, they are focused on the design that has some input from the Planning Board and the Conservation Board. The Planning Board does have to issue a building permit concurrent with site plan review, and there CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 also has to be a zoning amendment passed because this use would not be allowed without a zoning amendment for this parcel. At this point, that Cornell has purchased 1000 East Shore Drive which is approximately 18 acres (approximately 4 acres on the west side of Route 34 and the remainder being on the east side). Cornell is in the middle of writing their Environmental Impact Statement with the third year of data from the lake this summer to supplement the data that has been taken in the past years. We are planning to submit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Lead Agency by the end of this year, which is the DEC. The formal process is, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would be issued for public comment when the Lead Agency believes it is complete and ready for formal comment. Cornell will have sections available prior to that for a more informal review. Our intent tonight is not to talk about the lake ecology, because we have discussed it in detail three or four times before. The real intent is to go over this portion of the project. The heat exchanger facility located near the shore of the lake will cool down the new chilled water loop that goes from campus down to be cooled at 45 degrees where it goes up to serve the cooling needs where Cornell will be placing most of the chillers on campus that exist now. We will take lake water that is always 40 degrees within 200 feet down circulating once through a heat exchanger, and then discharge near the surface at 55 degrees. Some of the year that would be cooler than the discharge, and some of it will be replace of the discharge and sometimes it would be warmer. We have to go approximately two miles out in the heat exchanger facility to get the 200 feet deep, so it would be approximately 10,000 feet of pipe that we will lay for that. We are focusing on a lot of the Environmental Impact Statement and on some of the quite issues that have potential significance, and we are working with the consultants for the main generator studying the data. We are working with the center for the environment with four facility members to review that data independently. We have identified several potential impacts such as phosphorus translocation where it might be more available in the floating zone, and it might have an impact on plant growth if it was significant, but we do not believe it is. In treatment of musis, they special order shrimp that is a main portion of the food chain. It looks like that some potential, so we are working on mitigative measures to avoid shrimp. We may propose a light which would the shrimp avoids light, so the light would have them avoid the area of intake. We are studying this at this point. There are a couple other impacts, which most people consider the thermal impact. We are doing a complete thermal model of very specific to the alp region and looking at the lake light impacts, which should not show any significance. The only other potential environmental impact would be zebra muscles control, and we are addressing ways we might have to keep zebra muscles from collecting at the pipe ends for plugging them. Some of these methods may be utilized with potential environmental impact on the lake. This would all be discussed and hopefully adequate with completeness in the Environmental Impact Statement by looking at what the potential impacts are and what mitigation measures that may be required. Cornell is looking towards December 1996 to have the Draft Environmental Impact Statement after nore summer and fall studies to be complete. This would probably not be released for complete until CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 1997. The general project schedule is to have the Environmental Impact Statement finished in 1997, and get the permits from the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, and go into final design and construction for 1998. Cornell's time line would be to have this up and running in the year 2000. Liz Vastbinder pointed out on a map where the location of the proposed Cornell Lakes Source Cooling Project for the heat exchange building would be on 1000 East Shore Drive. She then pointed out the path of the pipe line for the Conservation Board. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes and the street improvements would be done at the same time? Ms. Vastbinder responded that they would be done at the same time. NYSEG is working on replacing some pipe lines under the overpass at the present time. They are replacing some of their pipes now in anticipation where the pipe line goes, so they do not have to move them or replace them at the time we come through. Chair Zarriello stated that the pipe line route on the maps supplied to each Conservation Board Member shows some of the pipe above ground and some of the pipe below ground. Ms. Vastbinder stated that when Cornell first came up with the first drawings that were supplied, they anticipated having the pipe above ground. We had discussions with the Department of Transportation, and their first reactions were that Cornell could not put those pipes above ground because a vehicle could go off Route 13 and hit the pipes. So then Cornell decided to bury them. We are still in negotiation with the schools on several different proposals, and they are trying to decide what is going to work best for them. Chair Zarriello stated at previous meetings there were talks about expansion tanks along the pipe line route. Mr. Bland stated that there would be two isolation valve sites. They would isolate various sections. One would be at Fall Creek, and the other would be on campus. Rob McCabe stated that there would be some additional need for expansion tanks within the system itself, and the plan is to actually locate them inside the current two water plants on campus to handle additional hydrologic volume. Mr. Fischer asked how deep the pipes would be in the ground. Ms. Vastbinder stated that they would be three feet deep. It will allow vegetation to grow on the top of the surface. The pipes are 42 inches around and 3/4 inch thick. Ms. Cornish stated that the water is not segmented at any time, so the danger of freezing is probably .iot a real important issue because it is constantly flowing. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that is true. Cornell would need the cooling in the winter for the research labs and computer rooms. The system would be on line year round. Lois Levitan asked what would be the public access to the boat marina. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the area is under lease to the people that were there before, and that would be an ongoing concern for a while. Cornell may be willing to consider, for the future, for a park space near the marina. Mr. Bland stated that the building would be on the east side of the road and there would be various pipe lines going across the road, and then under the north side of the marina property. The development that Cornell is proposing does not include any use at all for a park set aside. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be any changes to the marina at this point and time. Ms. Levitan asked how long does the lease last. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it is a 25 year lease that is renewable each year. All parties sit down at a table to discuss the terms of the lease, which is always open for negotiation. Ms. Hoffmann stated that during the discussions with the Planning Board and discussions with this Board before, that she never envisioned asking to have that whole piece of land as a park, so she does not think that people who love to use boats will necessarily feel that they can not use too. Ms. Vastbinder stated that George Hascup designed the building for Cornell. The designs show how the building perspective shown from the lake and views around the proposed building site. Cornell decided to put the whole facility on one side of the road. This parcel is surrounded by gorges, one of each side. We placed the building in the middle of the gorges because the pipes would be tunneling under the road to bring the pipes out to the lake for the appropriate depths. The pipes would need to be at lake level. There is bedrock on the corner of the building that would need to removed to do that. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes enters the building 40 feet below grade. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, because of the grade and the slope of the land. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the pipes are buried from the building out to the water, would they be lake level at that stretch. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they would need to blast it. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. There might be some blasting on the slope area behind the building because they is bedrock there. The parking lot of the building would be large enough for a school bus to get in and for traffic to come in to turn around. The parking area is going to be a self contain area, which would have a drainage and two shut off values in case of emergency. The building is going to be 90 feet by 130 feet. We designed it for a working ramp on the side of the building. We anticipate putting in a window so people could look inside to see what is going on. Cornell anticipate that there would be some children who would be touring through the facilities. There would be a grass walkway on the side of the building with another viewing window. Mr. Bland stated that there might be some chemicals used for cleaning the heat exchanger. There may be chemicals used to control the muscles, but Cornell has not designed or specify what kind of muscle control system it would be. There are some options or alternatives for muscle control would involve chemicals. Cornell would have it all, laid out in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of what chemicals, how to store them, and what kind of continuance. Cornell is trying to avoid chemicals for the lake, so they are looking at all reasonable alternatives. Chair Zarriello asked what materials would be proposed to build the building. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the building would be poured with deep concrete to the roof. The west and south side would be texture. Cornell is discussing how to do masonry block. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be visible from Route 34. Ms. Vastbinder stated that as people go pass the building on Route 34, there would be minimal visibility because of the steep hill in front of it. The building sets 80 feet back from the center line of the road. The berm would block most of the building. Ms. Cornish asked if the grading on the gorge side is already down where the existing access road is. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be much more grading. There is not much visual impact because of the way Cornell put the building back in the hill side. There would be some trees added to the site to blend in with the rest of the parcels around. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipe line goes up to the existing railroad grade is. Mr. Bland stated that the pipe line was changed to the northeast side to the southeast side entrance. Chair Zarriello stated that there was talk about the opportunity for a green way there. Would it interfere with that? Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell has talked to the Department of Transportation about that, because .)f the sharpness of the curve by the Route 13 over pass which the property owner was not real CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 receptive to that. Chair Zarriello asked if it could be connected at another place along there. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it might be able to if Cornell could get the right-of-way through there. Chair Zarriello asked if north of the parcel, does Lansing have a sewer line or water line there. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no, that they have their sewer treatment plant. Mr. McCabe stated that the railroad right-of-way to the south of the plant goes into private property. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Lansing trail system goes along part of it in Lansing, that some -years ago there was some talk about getting this right-of-way for continuation for the trail from Lansing to Ithaca. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the County investigated this in their trail transportation study. Mr. Bland stated that with discussions with Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter, which he stated that the green way would be more appropriate down by the road perhaps along the lake area. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she thinks it would be nice, in connection with this work being done, is some sidewalk connection between the high school and the junior high school to the youth bureau and the park. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there has been some discussions with the Department of Transportation, and they were very receptive to that idea, but the issue came up of once the sidewalks are put in who are going to maintain them. At that point, there would need to be an agreement between the Department of Transportation and the Town of Ithaca on who will be maintaining those sidewalks. Department of Transportation did not have a problem with the sidewalks being proposed, but the issue of who maintains them would need to be worked out first. Ms. Cornish stated that she has received several phone calls in regards to the sidewalk issue for students walking, and have asked the callers to submit letter to the Town Board requesting a sidewalk to be put in there. Ms. Levitan asked what steps have been taking to have this happen. Does the Town say that they would maintain the sidewalk. Ms. Cornish stated that the taxpayers of the Town of Ithaca need to put pressure on the Town Board to address this issue. Because if it is an issue of who would take over the maintain of it and perhaps the Town Board would not suggest it at this point, but it would be the way to get it going. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 JULY 1.8, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Mr. Bland stated that to some degree the sidewalks are addressed on the Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell is trying address and find out what people want, so they would know what to look for. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the soil on top of the pipe be some what warmer than typical soil in this area that if a sidewalk were built directly over this pipe, would need it perhaps not need so much care from the snow and ice in the winter. Mr. Bland stated that there would not be any measurable change. The pipes will be insulated in the ground and be at ground temperature. Chair Zarriello asked how much excavation would be done and where do they plan to put it all. Mr. Bland stated that it would be covered in the Environmental Impact Statement.. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipes coming in and out of the lake, it will be buried. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, at the water edge. Mr. Bland stated that it will be buried from the building under the road, at the lake shore it will be buried, and it would not actually emerge from the lake bottom until the lake water has ten feet of water. Ms. Cornish asked what the depth of the pipe would be at the lake shore. Mr. McCabe stated that where it enters the lake it has approximately 10 feet of cover. Ms. Cornish stated that it might be helpful to draw a section through the lake, across the road, to the building, and up the hill side. Ms. Vastbinder stated that those drawings were done last week. Chair Zarriello asked if the two isolated shut valves require any structure. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell anticipates placing them in man holes. The route right now as being negotiating with the school district was planned to put a man hole in the parking lot on Lake Street. Mr. Bland stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be inventorying pretty much detail of all vegetation being disturbed in putting this pipe line out. There would be a complete inventory of what trees that would need to be removed. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that there is one maple tree that is in the Department of Transportation right-of- way where the Finger Lakes Wrecker Service is on East Shore Drive, and the Department of Transportation said they wanted the large tree down because they do not want any large trees in the right-of-way. The property owner wants the tree there, so we have drawn the pipe line around the tree. Chair Zarriello asked what is the schedule on this project. Ms. Cornish stated that the presentation for the Planning Board on Tuesday for just for discussion on the Sketch Plan review. The next step is Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Mr. Bland asked if that would be done before the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is complete. Ms. Cornish responded; no, because we are not the Lead Agency. The determination of significance comes from DEC. Ms. Vastbinder stated that once Cornell has approval from the DEC, then they will submit their Preliminary Site Plans which would include the pipe route within the Town of Ithaca. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be large enough to meet all the exchange facility needs that Cornell is projecting. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes. Ms. Cornish asked if the time line could be defined again. Mr. Bland stated that Cornell is anticipating submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year (December 1996), and the next thing that happens is the DEC reviews it for completeness for the final scoping. After it is reviewed for completeness, the DEC will issue it for 60 days of public comment access. Chair Zarriello asked if the DEC and theinvolved agencies review it at the same time for completeness. Mr. Bland stated that Cornell was planning to submitting it to all involved agencies when they submit it to the DEC and interested parties. The DEC is the only one that does the completeness. After the completeness, it goes out for a draft comments to rewrites if necessary, and then if the draft is accepted for Final Environmental Impact Statement. At that point, each involved agencies that have to issue permits, that they need to write their own findings. Cornell is hoping for next summer to be this point, and then Cornell tries for all permits next summer or fall. Cornell will begin final design of construction until all the permits, right-of-ways, and all the land is all set. Then in 1998, Cornell will be in final design of construction which is approximately a two year period. Cornell is anticipating the year 2000 to be on line. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Cornell is building Chiller #8, to hold us to the year 2000 because of the Vet Hospital came on, so the Chiller will go in this summer and be on line next summer. This pipe line would tie into the middle of campus some where near the Art squad and tie into the center of the existing distribution system. There is not a whole lot that needs to be done, and once Cornell is tied in, they would start deconditioning the plant on Beebe Lake. There are three chilled water plants on Beebe Lake. These chillers could be converted to ozone friendly chemicals refrigerants. Cornell would be using these for peaking. MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Levitan stated that there was a letter from John Whitcomb regarding Saddlewood Farms in September 1995. She asked if Landmark America was not in front of the Planning Board last Tuesday. Ms. Hoffmann stated that was correct. Ms. Cornish stated that there has been a lot reports on the radio, but all that happened in the Planning Department was that Landmark America called and asked if they could be post -phoned for determination of significance because they could not send a representative from Landmark America. COORDINATOR & CHAIR REPORT: Chair Zarriello stated that the New York State Association of Conservation Advisory Council will be having their 25th Jubilee on October 18-20, 1996. It will be in Fishkill with guests such as Governor Pataki, Mary Tyler Moore, Peter Bruell, and Michael Sagota. There will be money in the budget for anyone that would like to attend. I have talked to Christiann Dean several occasions regarding the Saddlewood Development, and she has met with her farming friends on this issue. Some farmers are very much against this sort of transition of agricultural land, and some are for the proposal. The bigger issue is for developing better guidelines with the Town as to how farm should be developed. There are a lot of questions that were raised if the Saddlewood Farm had more answers for, and specifically how to pay for development rights and other types of mechanisms that protect farmers financial interests as well as try to maintain the Town's interest in keeping these things in farming or as open space. What I would like to propose is a committee that can work with Christiann Dean and the farming community to try and at least scope out what needs to be addressed, and from that scoping it should be developed to more of a concrete plan for future development. Things should be scope out what needs to be addressed and follow it up for a proposed Town Law. This committee should involve various members of different Boards. The Conservation Board had a discussion on this issue and were all in agreement for drafting a letter for various Boards and Committees for member participation. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 11 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Cornish stated that there has been some interest in another person joining the Conservation Board, Diane DeMuth has submitted a letter to the Town Board with a resume. Peter Salmon decided he was over committed, but would like to come time to time, but not as a member. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the resolution for the South Hill Swamp, and to have a walk through with various members of different Boards. Chair Zarriello stated that he went to the Town Board Meeting on July 15, 1996, which they unanimously passed the resolution requesting that the Vet incinerator Project be given a positive environmental declaration without any input of the full house. The Town Board did ask for written comments as part of the record. He will write his comments for the record, and submit a copy to the Board Members for review and if there would be any additional comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS: View Shed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee - Ms. Hoffmann asked if the Conservation Board Members want to hand these second drafts of the ERC comments in regards to the Saddlewood Farms Development to the Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of.Appeals as it is addressed. The Board was in agreement to send the draft to all three Boards. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the comments should be from the Conservation Board and the ERC, and she would like to see comments back before August 1st. The Board was in agreement to send the draft from both the Conservation Board and the ERC. Ms. Hoffmann stated that would be enough time because the Saddlewood Farms will be at the August 20th Planning Board meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Cornish stated that Valley Corners II Convenient Store and Gas Station (the old Bell's Convenient Store on Route 13/Elmira Road), that when the construction began on the road the tenant decided that he was not going to continue as a convenient store. It is now back before the Board because the owner came in for change of use for offices which prompted a building permit which prompted site plan review, so now they are back in front of the Planning Board so they can presume the use as a convenient store. The large issue I see is the traffic generation and curve cuts. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 12 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 The Babcock subdivision on Culver Road was approved by the Planning Board. The subdivision was given to Cornell University. The Long House Cooperative will becoming before the Planning Board for Preliminary and Final Approval. There are two extension, because they had an originally Approved Site Plan showing the building as it currently exists and now they are going to put extensions on either end. There should be no environmental impacts of this project. Approval of Minutes - Will be done at the August 1, 1996 meeting. Chair Zarriello closed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. r FINAL .................................................. N........................................................................ : ...... TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, August 1 1996 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. Member Concerns 7:45 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 7:55 p.m. 4. Environmental Review Committee Report 8:10 P.M. 5. Items For Discussion a. South Hill Swamp Discussion - Follow up b. Possible Future Conservation Districts c. Possible Future Wetland Ordinance d. Request for support of Eco Village and Tompkins County Transportation Council Joint Venture 9:30 p.m. 6. Business: a) Approval of Minutes (6/6/96, 4/20/95, 10/6/94 - distributed with 7/18 Packet) b) Other 10:00 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/08-01-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Vice Chair TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1996 PRESENT: Phillip Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Geri Tierney, Planner. ABSENT: Loren Tauer. Chairperson Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. MEMBER CONCERNS: Mr. Meigs stated that he had some concerns regarding procedures and processing for project applications, such as Saddlewood Farms. He was questioning, in part, whether procedures specified in the regulations and -guidelines were followed appropriately. If they were, there might be a better way to do it. Mr. Meigs stated that things seem rather confusing to him the way various Boards and agencies were reviewing the project. There did not seem to be a lot of coordination of this project, nor was it done in an orderly rational fashion with such a potentially significant issue as rezoning a major agricultural area, it is questionable whether it was handled properly or not. Mr. Meigs thoughts were that this subject should be discussed, not only with this Board, but perhaps the Planning Board and the Town Board as well. Ms. Cornish asked Mr. Meigs if he was speaking specifically about the Saddlewood project or development review in general. Mr. Meigs stated that he was speaking with regards to development review of the magnitude of Saddlewood Farms and the rezoning of a major resource. Ms. Cornish stated that the SEQR process had not been started yet because they were only in a preliminary phase. It did not get very far in the process, because it went to the Town Board for rezoning, and the Town Board recommended the Planning Board review it. The Planning Board Would study the proposal, and then would take it back to the Town Board with their recommendation to consider rezoning or not. This is the extent that Saddlewood Farms has gotten in the process. The Planning Staff is trying to revamp some procedures within the department as far as development review, and maybe something could be incorporated into the application package with a brief outline of procedures. The Conservation Board had a short discussion on the Cornell's Lake Source Cooling Project sketch plan review that was presented to them at July's meeting. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the Long House procedure under SEAR, that the Local Law No. 5 could not superceed the State Law, that a Type II Action could not be changed to a Type I Action by law. There cannot be a SEQR Type II Action as a Type I Action, but anything else this Board could make stricter and more precise as an unclassified Type I Action. There are specific types CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 AUGUST 1, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 of actions that are classified as Type I Actions and Type II Actions, and everything in between is an unlisted action. If it is a Type I Action it would have to go through more of an Environmental Review Process. A Type II Action is likely to have significant Environmental Impacts. The State could designate certain types of actions for special projects. An agency can add to the list from actions that are not designated by the State. The Town Law states that any project within so many feet of a Critical Environmental Area is a Type I Action, and a SEQR process must be done. The Long House will be a Type II Action under SEQR for several reasons. There would be a recommendation for the Attorney for the Town to look into this Local Law for more clarification for the Board. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the Cornell Incinerator Project. There have been some compromises made. Cornell will not be doing an EIS. They will be doing some of the work that has been asked of them as part of.a public meeting that was held June 24, 1996 and other comments that have been made by other people in the community. The current incinerator does not meet the permit requirements for pollution emission, the stack height is to low for the surroundin"g area. The concern that was raised by the model analysis was that Cornell would be changing the stack height. One of the requirements of the EIS is to evaluate alternatives, but since they are not going to do one this will not be a requirement. The Conservation Board will be following this issue for further updates. REPORT FROM STAFF: Ms. Cornish introduced Geri Tierney as the new Planner. Ms. Tierney will be helping out with the Conservation Board, and help Ms. Cornish share the responsibilities for the Board. The New York State Association of Conservation Commission Conference is October 18 to October 20. The Town Board will have to approve the amount being spent for the conference at their September meeting, so if anyone is thinking about attending they should let Ms. Cornish know ahead of time. The Saddlewood Farms project is on hold. The Environmental Review Committee should finalize their comments on this project and pass them along to the Planning Staff for the file. The Town Board has authorized two parcels in Inlet Valley for the Town to purchase. This resulted from someone noticing these parcels being on the County's auction block for delinquent taxes. The County pulled them so the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, as a joint project, could come up with funds to buy them. The Town of Ithaca is going to go ahead and purchase these parcels. The County also owns some property in this area. The City of Ithaca is looking into some parcels as part of an alienation process for Southwest Park. It will be a good buy for the Town to be used as a passive parkland. At the Town Board Meeting on August 12 at 5:45 p.m., Herbert Engman, Chair of the ERC, will make a presentation on the Framework for Long Range Environmental Planning in Tompkins County. Two members are still needed for the Conservation Board. There is one person that is interested, but CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 AUGUST 1, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 there still is one more opening. If any member of the Board knows anyone that would be interested, please have them contact the Planning Department. Concerning the meetings and notification to the public for the Environmental Review Committee: in accordance with SARA (which is the State Record Keeping Laws), the media needs to be notified 24 hours in advance. This means that the Committee needs to fax all the local media on the agenda 24 hours in advance of an ERC meeting. It does not have to be published. It is being recommendation that the ERC set aside a time each month to meet, so in January when all the Boards publish their schedules, the ERC schedule could be published at the same time. There has been a tentative schedule set up that will be discussed at the next ERC meeting to fit in with the Planning Board schedule. The Board discussed having the ERC meetings prior to the regular Conservation Board meetings. COMMITTEE REPORTS: The Environmental Review Committee is working on comments for the Saddlewood Farm project. A site visit to the South Hill Swamp will be planned after the area dries up. This should be sometime in the beginning of September. The resolution will address the issue of the South Hill Swamp being designated as a Critical Environmental Area. The Planning Committee has asked that the Conservation Board look at the Unique Natural Areas that currently exist in the Town of Ithaca, and begin to prioritize which ones they would like to see as future Conservation Districts. Since the Conservation District for South Hill was recently passed in the Town, they would like to look at other areas that they should be considering. There were four areas that the Planning Committee felt as though they would like the Conservation Board to consider. The Planning Committee thought that Coy Glen would be a good area to consider next, since there is so much information available and a lot of the work has been done for this area. This is the only Critical Environmental Area in the Town. The other three areas would be Fall Creek, South Hill Swamp, and Cascadilla Creek. The South Hill Swamp may fall into a wetland ordinance. The borders and edges of these areas are going to have to be determined some how. The Committee would like this Board to consider the next step in Conservation Districts, Critical Environmental Areas, Unique Natural Areas, and Wetland Ordinances. The Planning Staff will need to prioritize the map to see what areas are privately owned lands because that would be the most challenging part. This Board would need to look at the development in these areas. The Board had a brief discussion about the map of the Critical Environmental Areas. The Board would like to see a map showing private versus public ownership. An overview of the entire Town would be desirable, as it may be that there will be other areas that the Conservation Board could look at. The Planning Committee is trying to get people interested in the South Hill Conservation District to get them knowledgeable about why these areas are needed and why they need to be protected. The Planning Committee has looked at the Coy Glen area as the next step for a Conservation District, but they want input from the Conservation Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 AUGUST 1, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 A comprehensive look at the Town of Ithaca is another level that needs to be moved ahead also. The Unique Natural Areas were designated by the County. The Planning Committee should come with a listing of areas and priorities for designating these areas. The Conservation Board has agreed to have a meeting with the Planning Committee regarding this subject, and information will be shared with this Board. A letter was received from EcoVillage and co-signed by the Tompkins County Transportation Council. They are looking for moral and financial support for two speakers that they want to bring in. Jeff Kentworthy is a professor of Urban Environments at Murdock University in Australia. He is a co-author of various studies in Winning Back Cities. He will be speaking on Monday September 16 at the Women's Community Building. Bill McGiben is the author of End of Nature who will be speaking on Tuesday October 8 at Anabel Taylor. Both lectures are open to the public. EcoVillage and the Transportation Council is looking for sponsors to help finance and publicize events to their membership. The Conservation Board can give them support, but can not give them money. The Conservation Board decided not to do any more than give moral support for this issue. MINUTES APPROVAL: MOTION made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1994 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann, Levitan. The motion declared was carried. MOTION made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction below, seconded by Ms. Hoffmann. Page 1, bottom of the paragraph for Environmental Review Committee report it states "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting.", should read "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the June 27th meeting." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, .Meigs, Smith, Hoffmann. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 AUGUST 1, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 The motion declared was carried. The Conservation Board decided to review the June 6, 1996 minutes, and bring them back to the Board at the next regular meeting for review. The Board Members will hand in their comments and corrections for review, so they could be adjusted on the revised minutes to present at the next regular meeting. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the review of the minutes and how they would like to have the minutes produced. The Minutes Secretary job description is under discussion on how to format the minutes for the Boards. OTHER BUSINESS: The County Water Front Study moved towards refining areas of interest. Discussion groups listed likes and dislikes for proposed areas of interest. They brought comments of the discussion groups back to the session where the consultants will take the comments and merge them. There will be one more meeting where the public will be invited before the plan is finalized. The public was invited to prioritize their concerns with likes and dislikes, and they could take that information and consolidate it with the issues that are of most importance. Comprehensive Planning was generally supported. There were a lot of issues concerning economic development. The priority of the study is to create public access in appropriate locations and to preserve those areas where development is inappropriate. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. DRAFTED by Deborah A. Kelley on August 12, 1996. FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1996 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1996. PLEASE NOTE: A joint meeting of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. CB Members: Phillip Zarriello Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs CC: Diane DeMuth Lois Levitan Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 1996 PRESENT: Phillip Zarriello, Chair; Eva Hoffmann, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer, Jon Meigs, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Geri Tierney, Planner. ABSENT: Lois Levitan. GUESTS: Bob Bland, Cornell University; Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Association. Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. PLANNER REPORT: JoAnn Cornish stated that there are field trips to Coy Glen and to South Hill Swamp scheduled for next week. Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter, put together some packets with agendas for those field trips. Several Planning Board and Planing Committee members were invited in the hopes that there would be ongoing discussions during the tours to generate ideas. The second meeting date of the Conservation Board in September may not happen unless people feel they want a follow up of the tours. Phil Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Loren Tauer, and Jon Meigs will be going to the October conference. Draft Park and Open Space Plan did not make it to the Board Members because it is still between Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter and Planning Board Chairperson Candace Cornell who are doing some final editing on it. Hopefully the draft will be in the mail within the next few days, so there will be adequate time to review it before the October meeting. The Newsletter deadline is coming up. If anyone wants to submit an article, it should be handed in to JoAnn Cornish. The Town may enter into a contract with the Dewitt Historical Society. The Society has a new historian, Michael Koplinka-Loehr. They have started negotiations with the Town to have a small amount of money paid to them for services that the Town may dictate. This would be going to the Town Board on Monday September 9, 1996. The farm tours are still on the agenda for sometime this fall to visit different farms in the Town of Ithaca. As soon as a definite date is set, the Conservation Board Members will be informed. Cornell Plantations is going to hire a consultant to do a master plan of all their land holdings. Representatives will be meeting later this month. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 CORNELL VET INCINERATOR PROJECT: Bob Bland stated that he is here tonight to give information on the proposed incinerator and the current plans for the community, an advisory committee is being formed. He is not here to tell the Board the incinerator is safe or to get into a debate on the scientific risk for the air. He is here to try and answer any questions that the Board has for him. The EMC was not persuaded by the plan. They sent a letter to the Dean recommending an Environmental Impact Statement. He will be giving a presentation to the Town Board on September 9, 1996. Pathological Waste is animal remains, waste bedding, and feed stuff associated with the Veterinary College operations. As well as pathological waste coming in from the SPCA and local veterinarians. Pathological Regulated Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies. Conventional Regulated Medical Waste is waste that people typically think of from a hospital such as needles or cultures_ Cornell submitted a list of waste streams. Waste bedding is not Regulated Medical Waste. Approximately one million pounds of animal remains are rendered each year, which is turned into feed for other animals. Cows or horses are typically rendered. Currently Cornell operates the incinerator for approximately 600,000 pounds a year of animal remains and bedding. Miscellaneous pathological waste is also incinerated, which is containers of animal remains and some surgical devices that are used during animal surgery. There is no ban on plastics. Approximately 5% of total volume is miscellaneous. The manager keeps very good records of what is incinerated. Close to 100,000 pounds a year of conventional regulated medical waste is transported for incineration to a commercial service. Eva Hoffmann asked if the regulated medical waste is brought to the incinerated site, and then forwarded from there. Mr. Bland responded, yes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the waste was brought there from the local hospital and the local doctors. Mr. Bland responded, no, solely from Cornell University. A lot of it is generated from research projects. Cornell University has operated the incinerator at this site since the 1950's. The current incinerator was built in 1985, and through that. period both pathological and conventional MW have been burned in this incinerator. In 1990, the laws changed requiring new, state of the art pollution control equipment if someone was going to be burning the conventional medical waste plastics. At that point, Cornell stopped incinerating the conventional medical waste. They then shipped it off site. During 1990 and 1993, the Veterinary College of Medicine initiated a project to build a replacement incinerator to get back where they were with the incinerator burning the medical waste. The current incinerator has been kept operational over the years with upgrades and frequent maintenance. The pollution control should be installed to meet the new law requirements. Large capital projects like this are funded through the State University Construction Fund. After they are owned and built by the State University Construction Fund, they will be turned over to the College. The State University Construction Fund has lead agency status and coordinated with the other involved agencies. The CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 New York State DEC gave it a negative determination of environmental significance. Part of the rationale for the negative determination of environmental significance was that it would be for a replacement in kind, but with an upgrade status. There will be a complete permitting process that the DEC will look at solid waste and air quality. Since 1993, there have been design and bid documents by the consultants at the State University Construction Fund. Solid waste permits and air quality permits have been submitted'the DEC as part of the design and bid documents. At some point the DEC will review the completed application. When Cornell is happy with the application they will undergo public review and technical review by DEC. If everything is found satisfactory and meeting all the regulations, then permits would be issues. The State University Construction Fund will construct the incinerator over a two year period. The contractor will be responsible for getting the DEC approval to operate after the incinerator is built and it is demonstrated that it works. At a meeting on June 24, 1996, approximately 100 people attended to express their concern about this incinerator. The Dean -of the Veterinary College attended the meeting to answer any questions. He was convinced that the project should not go forward as proposed without additional attempts to address community concerns. The plan was issued by Cornell around July 30, 1996, which addressed some of the concerns and to provide documentation for the onsite incineration of disposing of pathological medical waste. Cornell's position is that there are not any practical alternative methods for disposing of pathological medical waste except incineration. Cornell promises to document alternatives. The environmental information presented to the public, even though it appears that DEC approves it. The permit review process will be postponed until this information- is available on August 7, 1996. The State University Construction Fund requested that the DEC stop their permitting review pending Cornell providing additional information. The permitting process has stopped until further notice. Cornell will document a regulated medical waste management immunization plan, and develop procedures to minimize and recycle regulated medical waste. The conventional medical waste, which Cornell currently creates, will be reviewed with a community advisory committee. Cornell would like to form the committee as soon as possible and have them involved in all of the steps. The Center for the Environment has agreed to review the scientific studies. The specs call for the contractor to test burn conventional and regulated medical waste. This would be a one year test run, and there would be a one year demonstration that Cornell could run this trouble free. The decision is based on the SEAR process. Cornell would be the lead agency, and it would have to go through the scoping. Cornell would like to replace the existing incinerator with one that has state of the art air pollution control. The new incinerator would exceed DEC requirements and meet the proposed EPA requirements, which are still under development and will not be filed until next summer. Cornell would like to build to accept conventional regulated medical waste, but not burn it unless a decision is made through the process that this would be the best alternative. This plan is not popular with the community. Cornell intends to be open and honest. The Dean of the Veterinary College will be inviting various interested parties to form this community advisory committee. The Dean has written a letter to the Town of Ithaca Supervisor Catherine Valentino to get some of her questions answered about how the committee would work. The selection process has begun, and a formal meeting will be set up for the review process. This is a highly technical area where scientists and faculty members have researched to make the determination whether or not the waste should be burned. It was suggested by the College of CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Veterinary Medicine to go through a SEQR like process. The action being should Cornell burn conventional regulated medical waste in this incinerator. The way the plan is written the determination would be made concurrently with the actual building of an incinerator that is capable of burning conventional medical waste. The future of a new incinerator is uncertain at this point, but a lot of thought has been put into it. The Conversation Board had discussed this at past meetings. Cornell does not want to operate a regional incinerator for profit to burn medical waste from all over the region. The community requested at previous meetings that Cornell not enter into an agreement to take medical waste from area hospitals or area doctor offices to incinerate. The incinerator will be built for excess capacity, but the reason being so Cornell could burn cows or horses as necessary. The protected total capacity that Cornell would generate annually is approximately 600,000 pounds, but it could vary each year. The incinerator will burn approximately 16 hours a day, and be shut off at night. The Cornell plan currently is to have public review and input, and get a DEC permit for construction, test burn regulated medical waste, and wait a year to operate on regular pathological medical waste. Cornell will let the review be done by the community advisory committee once all the information is provided, and._the review process for the incineration project is complete, permits will be applied for. Ms. Hoffmann stated that within the next four to five years that there might be some new developments brought up after the new incinerator is built. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the design would be done in such a way that it could be easily updated instead of building a new one again. Mr. Bland stated that it is never easy to upgrade a piece of equipment, and it depends on what the upgrade is. The new incinerator along with equipment to comply with all the new regulations, will take up more room than the old one.. Jon Meigs asked if there is waste of this nature or from this source that goes else where now. Mr. Bland stated that Cornell ships 100,000 pounds a year of conventional regulated medical waste that Cornell is not legally approved to burn with the existing incinerator. All pathological regulated medical waste is incinerated because it is not safe to compost or render. Ruth Mahr stated that she would like to express the. concerns of residents of Forest Home and to the whole community. The first concern was about the 177 foot smoke stack which will be at the east end of the Cornell Campus and will tower above Forest Home and the Plantations. In the Town's files from 1992, Town staff photographed the site from various perspectives and from various parts of the Town including from across the lake, and drew the smoke stack into the pictures. This smoke stack would be an intrusion on the landscape. From the bridge that is currently being replaced in Forest Home, people stand on that bridge and look up stream to see trees and water. After the incinerator is built, people will see a very tall smoke stack from that bridge. Forest Home is on the historic registry, and the bridge is being replaced according to historic standards. There is a CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 contradiction here between an industrial smoke stack and a historic community. Cornell should consider upgrading their current incinerator. A 177 foot structure would require a height variance. The Forest Home Association began to research and understand that what is happening here, is that an incinerator that was only burning pathological waste with a small component of plastics, and carcasses is going to be replaced by an incinerator that has the capacity to burn plastics as well. The Association was concerned about' burning plastics in the area. To burn plastics in Tompkins consequences involved in the burning of plastics, and that is why they are being required to put County is a very serious decision. It is not one to be taken lightly. There are very serious health so much pollution control equipment to upgrade incinerators all over the United States, anin d e particularly in New York State. The reason for this is when people burn plastics, there is a releas of toxic chemicals contained in the plastics. Much of the mercury would be passed through the stack while burning plastics, and that the DEC standards say that 50% of the mercury is trapped by the Pollution control devices. A great concern in addition to the heavy metals that are released from the plastics when they are burned, is that dioxides are produced. Maybe in large incinerators, not much of the dioxides is produced, but no incinerator is 100% efficient. There are break downs. There will be dioxides released in the air. Those that are produced in the incinerator, will be trapped in the ashes which would have to be disposed of somewhere. The Association and the Community is concerned about this project. We need to ask if it is correct morally, legally, or any other way, for Cornell to make this decision on it's own without the input from the Community? Normally the process would have assured that there would be input from the Community, but the State University Construction Fund declared that this would not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore issued a negative declaration in 1993. As a result, no Environmental Impact Statement was ever done. The title of the project on the Environmental Assessment Form stated that this project was "Rehabilitation of the Existing Incinerator". The Community was lead to believe that what the State University Construction Fund was doing, was rehabilitating the existing incinerator. What was proposed was to dismantle the existing incinerator and replace it with an incinerator of a totally different kind, one that would have the capacity to burn plastics as well as medical waste. This does have a significant impact on the environment and therefore it should have required an Environmental Impact Statement. An editorial -in the Ithaca Journal showed apparent support for the Cornell University project. The DEC will not protect the community's interest. The DEC will come in and test only once directly for dioxides before a final operating p g permit is issued for the project. The community would not know if any dioxides are being released after that testing. When an incinerator fails and shuts down, what happens is that the emissions go through a dump stack. If it fails when plastics are burning in there, the air would be polluted with the plastic chemicals. Cornell's response to the communities concerns are not adequate. What the community has asked for is an Environmental Impact Statement that would force a total review of alternative ways of disposing of carcasses and animal wastes. An Environmental Impact Statement is a terrific planning tool, which is done before a project is undertaken to determine whether the project should be undertaken. The process that Cornell is suggesting is not something of planning, but rather an undertaking as the project is being built. There are alternatives to burning plastics. Cornell is now spending $35,000.00 a year to have their plastics shipped out to have burned every month, and they are proposing a $200,000.00 study to determine whether to burn plastics in this incinerator. This does o V � CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 not make sense. Cornell should prepare a management minimization plan before a project is planned. Cornell should be looking at alternatives, and expand the study that they are proposing to the consideration of incineration of carcasses and to the incineration of plastics. The study of all the aspects should be done before the project is started. In terms of Cornell's proposal with the Citizen's Advisory Board, it will look only at plastics as it is stated now, Cornell will have the final decision about whether to burn plastics or not. It would not be a community decision. It seems that there are two democratic controls built into the process. One is the SEQR process and the other is the local building ordinance. These protect the community from harm, and give people the right to question a development proposal. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion with Bob Bland on his final comments. Cornell is trying to address all of the community's concerns. Cheryl Smith asked if any plastics are currently being burned in this incinerator. Mr. Bland responsed, yes. Ms. Smith asked if Cornell has looked into alternative sites. Mr. Bland responsed, no. The Conservation Board decided when the advisory committee is set up the committee should come back to the Conservation Board to followup on what is happening with the project. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the maps for the site visit to Coy Glen and South Hill Swamp. They should be done for the site visit and Conservation Board Members are encouraged to ask questions as needed. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Ms. Hoffmann stated that there were three projects that came to the Environmental Review Committee for review. One of them needed to be commented on, and a site visit should be set up for everyone interested. The property is on Mecklenburg Road, owned by Robin Bootie who is wishing to subdivide and build a new house with a new driveway possibly across a wetland area. Ms. Hoffmann asked if there would be a good day for a site visit to this property. The Conservation Board decided to think about it and get back to Ms. Hoffmann with a date and time. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Old 100 has changed from how it was originally proposed. When the Classen sisters turned this into an adult residential care facility, they proposed to add a new structure next to the existing house, but it was not economically feasible. Now they are just going to use the CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 building with interior changes, but they need to provide another stairway for egress from the upstairs because they are proposing to have two residents living upstairs. The proposal is to add an exterior stairway that would go from the second floor to the first floor, inside the columns on the porch next to the building. In order to do that they would need to create an opening in the roof to build an addition. There is very little flexibility in where they can locate the stairways. The Environmental Review Committee also makes comments on historical properties and aesthetics. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the stairway of the The Old 100 House and will pass their comments onto the Planning Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Conservation Board decided to meet on Thursday, September 19, 1996 to approve the minutes and discuss the procedures of how they are transcribed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD SEPTEMBER 19. 1996 PRESENT: Chair Phillip Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs. Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. MINUTES APPROVAL: MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of September 5, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 5, the middle of the paragraph where it states "The Ithaca Journal is supporting Cornell's move.", should read "An editorial in the Ithaca Journal showed apparent support for the Cornell University Project." Page 5, at the bottom of the paragraph where it states "Cornell should prepare a management immunization plan before a project is planned.", should read "Cornell should prepare a management minimization plan before a project is planned." Page 2, in the middle of the first paragraph where it states "Pathological Regulating Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies.", should read "Pathological Regulated Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies." Page 1, ABSENT shall be added with Lois Levitan. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of August 1, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 2, in the sentence of the third paragraph it should read "Ms. Tierney will be helping out with the Conservation Board." CONSERVATION BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 7. 1999 Page 1, ABSENT shall be added with Loren Tauer. Page 1, in the middle of the sixth paragraph where it states "This is far as Saddlewood Farms hot in the process.", should read "This is as far as Saddlewood Farms has gotten in the process." Page 4, in the middle of the first paragraph the name Phil McTiben should be replaced with Bill McGiben. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Tauer. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of July 18, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. Page 1, in the middle of the first paragraph under Persons to be Heard should read "along with other people who are members of the Natural Areas Committee". Page 1, in the second paragraph under Persons to be Heard where it states "The closest other place that it would be found would be the Long Island area or the coastal plains.", should read "The closest other place that would be found would be on Long Island or the coastal plains." Page 3, bottom paragraph and thereafter change Bob Land to Bob Bland. Page 2, the first paragraph which states "Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow, so it is very wet in the winter and the spring.", should read "The swamp is typically dry in the fall and summer, but it is very wet in the winter and the spring." Page 4, in the last paragraph it reads mice, which should read mysis. Page 5, in the first paragraph it should read zebra muscles instead of just muscles. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Smith, Tauer. CONSERVATION BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 7. 1996 The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Mr. Tauer to approve the Minutes of June 6, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Ms. Smith. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve the Minutes of August 3, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Tauer. Last page, in the middle of the first paragraph where it states "There is no Town ordinance again clearing land", should read "There is no Town ordinance against clearing land". A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve Minutes of June 1, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. Page 3, in the middle of the page where it states "Alienation of parkland status and this normally does not happen unless other land is available.", should read "Alienation of parkland status is not normally done, and this does not happen unless other land is available." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. CONSERVATION BOARD 4 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 7. 1996 MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve Minutes of May 4, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 2, last paragraph where it states "Compose available weekdays", should read "Compost available weekdays". Page 4, in the second paragraph where it states "Mr. Frantz will pgak at the next meeting.", should read "Mr. Frantz will speak at the next meeting." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. First page, ABSENT should be added with Richard Fischer and Jon Meigs. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion was declared to be carried. Chair Zarriello read a letter addressed to Dean Loew. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on how to modify the letter. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting. FINAL CONSERVATION BOARD/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1996 PRESENT: Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter, Planner Geri Tierney, Carolyn Grigorov, Ellen Harrison, Candace Cornell, Mary Russell, Phil Zarriello, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman The meeting started at 7:30 p.m., and everyone present introduced themselves to each other. Phil Zarriello, Chair of the Conservation Board, gave a brief description of what the Conservation Board's duties and responsibilities are. Councilwoman Carolyn Grigorov, Member of the Planning Committee, gave a brief description of what the Planning Committee's duties and responsibilities are. The Members went into discussions about the recent site visits to the South Hill Swamp area and the Coy Glen area. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter asked, after seeing the two areas, what would be the best method of protecting, and what are the things about them that need to be protected. There are several methods that could be done or there are certain ones that need to be looked into. One of the things the Conservation Board was interested in was to look at other areas around the Town that had been recommended as Conservation areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Maybe trying to set priorities for overall on how they fit together and what should be done would be an idea that should be considered. Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations, gave a brief presentation on the critical areas for Cornell University and Ithaca College properties. Ms. Ostman also discussed the Unique Natural Area on the Evan Monkemeyer property. Any construction done for housing on the Monkemeyer property, that a 100 -foot buffer would be put into place, so they cannot build close to the Unique Natural Area. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board and the Conservation Board will require Mr. Monkemeyer to come in with a detailed mapping of the site that shows his property lines. The Planning Board has asked Mr. Monkemeyer to provide a site description of what the natural areas is on his property. If Mr. Monkemeyer does not supply a sufficient detailed map, then the Boards would send it back and tell him what needs to be done. Ms. Ostman stated that the lighter green area on the map of the Unique Natural Area shows the basin that has a lot of rare vegetation in it. The Ithaca College properties have nice old forests on them. There is a core area that would be the place of historical importance, which records show rare plants for many years. The rare plants have been protected there. It is very diverse CONSERVATION BOARD/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE 2 and very interesting. It is not a consolidated piece of exciting vegetation, but there are small bits of it that suggests the site was interesting. The drainage would be an important factor for development in this area. A lot of water that comes into the basin comes from the south. The water that goes into the basin is of concern because there is no way of telling what is in the water such as pesticides, oil, salt, etc. Most of the Ithaca College property is not currently protected, but much of the Unique Natural Area is protected by individual owners. The Members had a brief discussion on the development rights and the drainage situation of the Unique Natural Areas. When the Unique Natural Area was drawn there was only a forest in sight without houses being there. Many of the trees were removed on the Deer Run Development, but they tried to leave as many trees as possible. There is water and sewer lines already established in this area. The Deer Run Development would be removed from the Unique Natural Area due to changes in the environment. The Chair of the Conservation Board and the Chairperson of the Planning Board will each write a letter to help protect the Unique Natural Area while waiting for the DEC to respond. The Members discussed resurveying the lands for protection of the Unique Natural Area. The survey would show whether there is more land that needs to be protected that would need to be considered for accrediting. The Conservation Board will look into their funds for this survey, and contact Ms. Ostman for setting up the survey. There was a discussion on the boundaries for the Unique Natural Area in regards to the density, drainage, and sloping of the areas. In summary of the discussions of the meeting is to push DEC to reevaluate the wetland status. Have Ms. Ostman do a survey if the funds are available, and supply maps of the Unique Natural Area. The Members had a discussion on how the Planning Committee and the Conservation Board will divide up the work load for the mapping and data studies. After the data has been collected, the Conservation Board and the Planning Committee will set up another meeting for further discussions. The meeting concluded at 9:30 p.m. Drafted by Debby Kelley on 10/28/96. Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes 7 November 1996 Approved: 2/6/97 Present: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith Absent: Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer Staff: Geri Tierney Guests: Anne Pitkin Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. No persons appeared to be heard. No members brought up concerns. Coordinator Report Coordinator Geri Tierney updated the CB on the outcome of Mr. Carlton Baker's request for guidance from the Planning Board last month, regarding tax parcel 58-1-14.2. Approximately seven acres of this 12.7 acre parcel fall within the Conservation Zone (which requires a 7 -acre minimum lot size); the City of Ithaca has approached Mr. Baker with the desire to purchase approximately 4 of these 7 acres, to be preserved as parkland. Mr. Baker inquired whether he could still develop one house on the remaining 3 acres, if he sold 4 acres to the City. The Planning Board responded that they could not provide a specific recommendation without more specific information about future plans for development, but did advise that clustering any development on this site might be a good option. Ms. Tierney also reported that she and Lois Levitan attended the Conference on the Environment sponsored by the New York State Association of Conservation Commissions and Environmental Management Councils. She attended interesting sessions on GIS, integrated pest management, SEQR review, and groundwater protection, and presented materials from the conference to the CB for their perusal. Chair Report Chair Zarriello reported that plans were underway to contract Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley to undertake an environmental study of the South Hill Swamp UNA, as per discussion at the 10/13/96 joint meeting of the CB and the Planning Committee (PC). If the Town Board approves a resolution to hire Mr. Wesley and Ms. Ostman at the 11/12/96 Town Board Meeting, work should start immediately. Once this study is complete, the CB will contact DEC to request re-evaluation of this area as a state regulated wetland. Chair Zarriello also reported that Tompkins County has proposed -a revision of regulations governing septic leach fields within the County. The proposed revisions weaken these regulations to EPA -based minimums, which may be insufficient particularly on leachable soils. The EMC has discussed this issue, and objects because these proposed revisions are not based on scientific criteria. Unfortunately, the CB has missed the official comment period on these proposed revisions, but should still register a comment. Committee Reports CB Chair Zarriello asked whether the Environmental Review Committee had commented formally on the Ithaca Estates Sketch Plan. ERC member Jon Meigs replied that no formal comment had been written. Coordinator Tierney indicated that no further action will happen on the Ithaca Estates project without another opportunity for ERC review, but that it would be appropriate to add a formal comment to the file now in preparation for the next round of development review. UNA Conservation As soon as Town Board approval is granted, Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley will begin the survey of the South Hill Swamp UNA. In the meanwhile, this group will consider appropriate boundaries to the Coy Glen UNA. Chair Zarriello has submitted a digital topographic image of the Town and a technical report on Riparian Forest Buffers to the CB coordinator, which may help this effort. Lois Levitan remarked that protection of the Coy Glen UNA should move quickly due to the pending, second phase of development at nearby EcoVillage. As the EcoVillage site intersects just a small portion of this UNA as drawn by Tompkins County, protection of this UNA may or may not affect plans at EcoVillage. Comments on 1996 Park and Open Space Plan Chair Zarriello asked for comments on the first part (the Analysis) of the Park and Open Space Plan presented by George Frantz at our October meeting. Several members voiced concern that the Plan's focus on both biological corridors and active recreational areas was confusing. Phil Zarriello and Lois Levitan suggested that these two types of open space be linked more closely together if they are to exist in the same document; Jon Meigs thought they should be addressed in separate reports. Lois Levitan reiterated some the written comments she submitted two weeks ago, specifically that she found the vision insufficiently clear, the analysis section needs to be pared down, and that the Town is not the most meaningful unit for analysis of park needs and supply. CB members with substantial comments who have not yet submitted them in writing will attempt to do so as soon as possible for incorporation into the evolving document. Also, George Frantz will attend our December 5th meeting to present the plan's recommendations and discuss the CB's comments on the first section. New Projects for 1997 The group discussed new projects for next year. In 1995, the group drew up a list of potential projects. The group debated whether they wished to create such a list for 1997, and how wide a scope these projects should cover. Lois Levitan feels that the group should focus tightly on their mandate to advise the Planning Board regarding development and open space issues, and should perhaps take on one relevant project in addition to development review. Other members of the group indicated that their time for CB projects was limited. The group decided to draw up a new list, using the 1995 list as a basis. Membership Reorganization Cheryl Smith submitted a letter to the Town Board indicating she will not renew her CB membership when it expires next month. The CB will be sorry to see her go, but wishes her well in her new pursuits. The terms of Eva Hoffman and Loren Tauer are also expiring next month, so they must write to the Town Board and indicate whether they wish to renew their membership. With the vacancy created by Cheryl, there are now three vacant positions on the CB. The CB will pursue new members by issuing a press release to the local media, writing directly to potential members, and perhaps hosting an open house with bagels. The CB will identify potential new members from attendance lists of local environmental meetings, such as meetings on the proposed incinerator; the CB will also contact students at Ecology House for -potential members and collaboration on projects. CB members should review the draft letter and press release for new membership and return any comments to Coordinator Tierney by next Thursday, 11/14/96. As no current members are willing to chair the ERC, the entire CB will review development proposals as a group until new members are recruited. The planning staff should circulate all mandatory and potential review materials only to Phil Zarriello; he will decide what warrants additional review. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the 9/19/96 and 10/3/96 meetings were unanimously approved with minor changes. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. (File Name: c:\Cent12\CB\11-07-96.cbm) FINAL ..................................................................................................................C.GPY( TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, January 18, 1996 ..............................................................................................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. 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. Pro Tem Vote for Chair for meeting 7:35 p.m. 2. Persons to be heard 7:45 p.m. 3. Nomination and Election of Conservation Board Officers 1996 7:50 p.m. 4. ERC Committee Formation & Election of Chair 7:55 p.m. 5. Nominating Committee for New Members 8:00 P.M. 6. Report from Planning Staff 8:05 P.M. 7. Committee Reports: a. Parks & Open Space Committee b. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee c. View Shed Committee d. Environmental Review Committee 1. Pleasant Grove Apartments (Mailed on 1/4/96) 2. P & C Expansion (Mailed on 1/4/96) 3. Quick Subdivision (Mailed on 1/4/96) 4. Dolph Horse Farm (Enclosed) 5. Hub's Place Antiques (Enclosed) 8:45 p.m. 5. Business: 1. 1995 Annual Report 2. 1996 Plan of Work 9:00 P.M. 6. Member Concerns 9:15 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Richard Fischer Cheryl Smith Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Phil Zarriello CC: Janet Hawkes COAYFMINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD January 18, 1996 Approved 03/28/96 Members Present: Eva Hoffman, Loren Tauer, Phil Zarriello, Jonathan Meigs, Cheryl Smith Staff Present: JoAnn Cornish - Town of Ithaca Planner Guests: Janet Hawkes, Mary Russell, Melinda Boyer, Lois Levitan Staff member JoAnn Cornish started the meeting by informing the Board that since no chair presently exists for the Conservation Board, one has to be voted on pro tem. Eva Hoffmann volunteered to chair the meeting, all agreed. The meeting was called to order at 7:40. Persons to be heard were guests Lois Levitan and Melinda Boyer. It was suggested that members of the Conservation Board introduce themselves for the guests. Once the introductions were completed, Eva suggested that since Melinda Boyer and Lois Levitan were interested in becoming Conservation Board members, they give a brief statement about their backgrounds and interests. Melinda Boyer stated that although she has no formal educational background, she has been involved in environmental issues for some 20 years. Lois Levitan stated that she has a degree in Natural Resource and Policy Planning and thinks of herself as an environmental planner. She has been actively involved in environmental and planning issues for several years as well. Eva Hoffmann asked for nominations for Conservation Board Chair for 1996. Eva Hoffmann nominated Phil Zarriello for chair. Jon Meigs seconded the motion. In favor were: Hoffmann, Tauer, Smith, Meigs. Abstained: Zarriello Eva Hoffmann nominated Cheryl Smith for Vice Chair, Jon Meigs seconded. All in favor were: Hoffmann, Meigs, Tauer, Zarriello. Abstained: Smith Eva Hoffmann asked for members would be interested in the ERC. Jon Meigs, Eva Hoffmann, and Loren Tauer volunteered. It was generally agreed upon by the Board to wait for a full Board before appointing someone to the EMC. Phil gave a brief history of the Conservation Board to the guests who were interested in becoming CB members. Report from Planning Staff: Cornish asked members if they would like her to canvas through the local media for new members, stating that there are three openings. CB members instructed her to do so. Cornish reported that the wide angle lens which the Board had instructed her to purchase had come in, and in an unrelated matter, that the next Town newsletter was scheduled to go out in March. She will give the Board the deadline for article submission as the date draws nearer. Parks and Open Space Report: Cornish reported to the Board that a draft of the Parks and Open Space Plan would be ready for review within a week. All CB members will receive a copy for comment. Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee: Phil Zarriello had nothing new to report but stated that since most of the investigative work for the GIS had been done by planning staff, perhaps the direction of the committee may change somewhat, to deal more with the types of data going into the GIS. CB Minutes - 1/18/96 Page 2 Cornish reported that Geri Tierney, the Planning Intern, is taking suggestions for the GIS mapping. Some suggestions were: soil data, slopes, views and view sheds, streams and stream buffer zones, water bodies, mature woodlands, aquifers, surficial geology, depth to bedrock, watershed divides and major tree cover. View Shed Committee: Eva Hoffinan informed the group that the committee had not met yet. She had received information from the State concerning ordinances and related material. A copy was given to each member. A meeting was set for Tuesday, January 23, 1996 at 10:00 A.M. ERC Report: Pleasant Grove: members expressed concern because the new proposal for the conversion of four Pleasant Grove Apartment buildings did not differ a great deal from the original proposal. Their concerns are still the same - chemical storage concerns, parking issues, close proximity to a residential area, not clear if this was to be graduate or undergraduate housing, close proximity to a UNA. Since the ERC had just been formed, Cornish offered to draft the comments for committee members to review since this project was scheduled for the January 22, 1996 Planning Board meeting. P & C: the major concern was the massiveness of the wall and its proximity to Judd Falls Road. Members suggested landscaping, windows, architectural relief and possibly lowering the roof on this side of the building to lessen the visual impact. Signage was also a concern. Linna Dolph Horse Farm: generally in favor, some concern over water quality due to manure pile. Quick Subdivision: Drainage issues were the only concern. Annual Report: Cornish will draft for Board review. Plan of Work: Because it was so late, it was generally agreed upon that everyone would comment on last years Plan of Work to see what was still applicable and what members would like to focus on for 1996. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45. /) & // A� PItfiffli'l) Z be /,Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. Drafted by JoAnn Cornish. 1/26/96. Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Proposed 1995 Plan of Work Activities Long-term and On-going Activities: (in committee and with other Boards and Departments) * Environmental Atlas and Geographic Information System (GIS) * Stormwater management ordinance * Environmental review * Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan * Tax abatement for conservation easements * Protection of Coy Glen Watershed * Wetland regulations and ordinance * Stream buffer regulations and ordinance Short-term Activities: (please prioritize 1, 2, or 3, based on your interests) South Hill Recreationway "Event" Tree planting activity (Arbor Day??) Clean-up activities (using TC Solid Waste funds) Town curbside recycle event Facilitate monitoring of birdhouses in Town parks Town park usage study/monitoring Stream quality "indicator" species demonstration Develop a citizen monitoring program for streams (schools, home, owners, civic groups, etc.) Sponsor or participate in Earth Day (25th anniversary) activities planned in the area Combined project with the Town Parks Department Streamside workshop on NPS pollution Support or participate in "Celebrate Cayuga Lake" activities in July Inform Town residents about our Board and our activities (PR) Identify important veiwshed in the town (particularly public) [suggested: photo contest, photo album, maps and descriptions, etc.] Conduct biological inventory of new parkland acquisitions _ Conduct .field studies of Town Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) to facilitate resolution to designate as Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) _ Write articles in the Town newsletter about important issues, and/or CB activities Inform the public about issues, ordinances, regulations, and policies which affect them such as, SEQR, park dedication, wetlands, stormwater management, environmental assessment, UNAs or CEAs, and others. _ Activity with wildlife such as bird banding or other (with Lab of. O or other group) Other activities (please specify): TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1783 A n n c+ n r to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to: FEE: $80.00 RECEIVED: CASH - ( ) CHECK - ( ) ZONING: For Office Use Only at S Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'E6.3t75�2' -3 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: Articles) Section(s) 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 DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: INS kax�� By filing this app (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) tion, I grant permission for 4 V s hdL b ars of the Town o Ithaca Zoning Boar of Appeals or staff to enterm prope ct in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date:�Q I�.S Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: I Print Name Here: Lit n a-1il��(,,�� Home Telephone Number: ��' ��.�7 �I ' Work Telephone Number: MR.- If constraction of work in accordance with any variances given does not coisence within 18 nonths, the variance will eraire. II Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENYiRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART 1 — Project information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant -/Spans 2. roject Na e n S. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersectionsnt , prominelandmarks, etc. or provide map): Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is Proposed Action: iyt / Ej EXPAP1SiCN U MODIFiCATiCN/ALTE.RATiON l.lJrl�l S Rev. 10/9C `escr;oe rrolect Sriefly Oncluce project purpose, present land use, current and future construction pians, and other Vie— 00 --relevant items) ",SP, V0Lr10ArVf L� 664 0-& ik— lu MCW-QAV�,q&P,. (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) i 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) LO - ZL'Acres .' 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently ? () o. n iii prapose4a action comolu wii•h axi<?inn Tnninn nr n+k— i—A YES" NO [4 If no, describe conflict brie � - --- '� e30 �� - • i 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: j i Public Road? YES NO�� Public Water? YES Q NO � Public Sewer? YES NO 4 10 What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Q Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other L(Federal, ease describe : C 4�1 b�� +iu ` es proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency State, Local)? YES ❑ NO r7-1 If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO /approval. Also, state whether thaVermit/approval will equire mo(gficati n if yes, list agency name apd permit bpGnst,� d(,sU2�al� T I 'nni Jr1r- MrUKMAl Applicant/Sppnsor Name (Printic Type): 1 RUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOVLEDGE GN Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals August 15, 1990 A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Hines, Reuning, Aron, Austen, King. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following: 4 APPEAL OF LINNA DOLPH AND DAVID DUNBAR, APPELLANTS, CHARLES GUTTMAN, AGENT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V, SECTION 18 AND 19, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF HORSES FOR HIRE AT 1457 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-23-1- 27, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. THE PETITIONERS PROPOSE TO BOARD HORSES OWNED BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS, WITH SAID HORSES TO BE RIDDEN BY THEIR OWNERS, AND THE APPELLANTS BELIEVE THIS IS A PERMITTED USE BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AS SUCH, THE PETITIONERS -ARE FIRST SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION BY THE ZONING 'BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE SAID VARIANCE REQUEST. Attorney Charles Guttman appeared before the Board on behalf of Linna Dolph and David Dunbar. Chairman Aron read from Article.V, Sections 18 and 19 of the Zoning Ordinance and offered his interpretation of its meaning. Attorney Guttman explained what he thinks the ordinance means. After further discussion, Chairman Aron asked for a motion on the interpretation. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines; Seconded by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals determines that the relevant section of the Zoning Ordinance (the keeping of animals for profit and business purposes) stands the way it is and the Board will discuss the above matter as a Use Variance. Ayes - Hines, King, Austen, Reuning, Aron. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals August 15, 1990 Use Variance Issue Attorney Guttman stated that it is their position that the Use Variance is particularly for this site. The applicants have already submitted to the Board letters and petitions, all speaking strongly in support of this use there. He said that not only is it not inconsistent with the neighborhood character but actually is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. It serves a neighborhood need there and it promotes the aesthetic and the country feel of the neighborhood. Attorney Guttman explained that for many, many years, before the applicants acquired the property, it had been used for exactly the same purpose by Mr. Page, the previous owner. Due to the illness and death of Mr. Page, the acquisition of the estate took more than the one year allowed period in order to continue the use within the one year period. The applicants acquired the property for $100,000 and despite the fact that there is a res.idence._ on_. _i.t,_,._it i.s.... a. small. ;.. res deic - which:: is _.in,, need of repair, the value of the property is as a horse farm. ---Attorney Guttman -stated that to prohibit the use as a horse farm which is what this property has always been used for, would cause great hardship and difficulty to the applicants. Chairman Aron read the criteria for a Use Variance. Attorney Guttman responded to the criteria for a Use Variance and addressed the hardship issue. Attorney Guttman referred to the petition that was signed by neighbors and submitted to the Board. The petition is attached hereto as Exhibit #4. Discussion followed regarding the environmental issues in regard to this being used as a horse farm. Attorney Guttman stated that in dealing with the question of erosion, this place has been used for a horse farm for over 40 years and Mr. Page was keeping approximately 40 horses. The applicant is proposing to keep a maximum of 17 horses. There is approximately a 7-1/2 acre pasture in the back and there will never be more than 3 to 4 horses there at a time. The horses are stabled approximately 22 out of 24 hours a day. When they are in the stable, the manure is kept in a pit that Mr. Page had when he was running it as a horse farm. The pit has what is known as a "blue clay containment dike". What that is designed for is to keep the horse manure right in one pile. The manure is removed at least once a month or more frequently if necessary. Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals August 15, 1990 Attorney Guttman stated that he has a contract from Stein Excavating who will be doing the removing of the manure. Chairman Aron opened the public hearing. Elsie McMillan, 812 Elmira Road, spoke to the Board in favor of the proposed horse farm. Pat Kennedy, 320 DuBois Road, stated that she is very much in support of this project. Mr. Francis Paolangeli, 125 Ridgecrest Road, addressed the Board. He explained how manure is removed from race tracks in the area and how it is handled. Ms. Linna Dolph spoke to the Board on her experience with horses. -- --� -After— further --d-isc-u-s-s-ion;--Chairma:r4 Aron: --closed- the -public hearing. , Chairman Aron referred 'Eo -'the- EAF- that- was 'signed; ­by Asst. Town Planner George Frantz on August 15, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit #5. Mr. David Dunbar, co-owner of the property answered questions from Board members. Environmental Assessment By Mr. Edward King; Seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board.of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance, with respect to a grant of a variance with conditions, on the matter of the appeal of Linna Dolph and David Dunbar to permit the keeping of horses for hire at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Tax parcel No. 6-23-1-27, Residence District R- 30. The voting on the Environmental Assessment was as follows: Ayes - King, Austen, Hines, Reuning, Aron. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals August 15, 1990 MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines: 7 RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a Use Variance from Article V, Sections 18 and 19 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the keeping of horses for hire at 1457 Trumansburg Road, with the following conditions: 1. that the management of the applicants or other owners of the premises be such that waste management be maintained in a proper and environmentally sound manner. 2. that no activity on the premises by reason of lack of good management be offensive or obnoxious to those in the community. 3. that in no event shall this permission exceed the period ending December 31, 1995. Attorney Guttman spoke to the Board regarding the time limit on the granting of the variance and discussion followed on the floor. The following findings were added to the resolution: 1. that the applicant has purchased the property which has a series of structures which are uniquely adapted to the use requested. 2. that there is very little economic profit for use of other activities. 3. that the purchase price was paid in contemplation of that operation. 4. that it would be an economic hardship if the land and structures cannot be used for that particular purpose. 5. that the neighborhood, while growing in residential character, still has a rural atmosphere. 6. that the proposal is not repugnant to the neighborhood and the evidence thereof is that the neighbors seem to feel that it is compatible with its existence. Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals August 15, 1990 7. that the restrictions placed on the management of the facility are such that the environmental concerns will not be overlooked. 8. that the use of the land over the past 40 years by a prior owner has been for a similar related purpose. 9. that the duration is imposed to ensure that the conditions are in fact carried out. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edward Austen. The voting on the motion was as follows: Ayes - Hines, Austen, Reuning, Aron, King. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The next Appeal on the Agenda were the following: APPEAL OF THE CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER INC., ANNE MORRISETTE, AGENT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE PROPOSED 1,300 +/- SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION ON AN EXISTING DAY CARE CENTER LOCATED AT 920 CODDINGTON ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-47-1-11.3, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. THE SPECIAL APPROVAL IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 18, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. APPEAL OF THE CODDINGTON ROAD COMMUNITY CENTER INC., ANNE MORRISETTE, AGENT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW #7-1988, AS AMENDED, "REQUIRING SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED IN BUILDINGS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA" FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A PROPOSED 1,300 +/- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION THAT SERVES AS A DAY CARE CENTER, LOCATED AT 920 CODDINGTON ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-47-1-11.3, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. Mrs. Anne Morrisette appeared before the Board and explained the proposed expansion of the building and she spoke of the safety measures that they are taking care of at this time. Mrs. Morrisette stated that the expansion is to serve several purposes. One, to help meet a growing need for day care services in the area. The Day Care Center takes children from anywhere but they do give priority to Town of Ithaca or South Hill children. She said that the plan is to tear off the existing kitchen and expand on that side 1,300 square feet. c ' 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 Having been denied permission to: FEE: $80.00 RECEIVED: CASH - CHECK - ZONING: For Office Use Only at ) 308" M C G Ka R O, �T KAc ft. n1 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. — 7 -/-/7 , 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: Articles) DEL , Section(s) g / , 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 DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) 1, MIM PRIOR FI_ Alf- Alm By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my propertyto inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant:. ro��p ,�. ® � Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: f Print Name Here: GL.E loy f/I)I R c 4 L Home Telephone Number: % 3 -/ S2 d Work Telephone Number: NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does no(t coiience within 18 ionths, the + I Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART I — Project information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) Rev. 10/90 1 . Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: G�4 �FNWiLl # U43 LLL ROWS 104' CE- 1in/T/QUOS 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): 1305 Nec— ie, tzD, .I'T Nflc&, n/, y Tax Parcel Number: G _ ?. Is Proposed Action:` 11 NE's EXPANSION f7MODIFICATION/ALTERATiON CdnITTI 1'-""fQA or- 5. Describe Project 9rietly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other I relevant items) : C6tV -r1n)tJL- 0PcP-RT/o2 O F AN71Qvc ,uscp G000s R1ket4' AiW;'P<n`r' i f3OFF MSC/t, 12 D. fi s HNoZ= 6'Fety X02 P? 4'1C1925 L I i I (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) i 6. Amount of Land Affected: initially (0-5 yrs) //.3 Acres (6-10 yrs) 11-3 Acres (>10 yrs) // 3 Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 612 2 -3o t S. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? ' YES 0 NO © If no, describe conflict briefly : /✓UY PeR 1H 17 -aa V N D c R f9 ar• t 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: i i Public Road? YES NO Public Water? YES NO ® Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Q Commercial Q Industrial E] Agriculture [] Park/Forest/Open Space F'� Other Please describe: ND2T-14 1. 1 I. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES F� NO'o If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval? YES 9 NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. (� Sc Vq R i H NC J[F� 3 � -roww x=11196,9 Zon/in16 ev-119PP&91-s 'e4 R SvR5 1 .2ba figyo I I t-tx I IrY VHA V THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) Signature C ,Z- /1/ n/ v R AEL L, Date : /"zb Z�gS u EDUY HILL INC. L-_ y $9 I W S 9 O O TOWN OF 1THACA COUNTY OF TOMPKINS STATE OF NEW YORK REMAINING LANDS OF EnoY HILL INC. S-4(.110 -- 1 Lt4ES I HEDGE SAT nNA4� 4R. SC4LGOCSLLR VCl n04aL S I I �Elllo, R. L.S, I 1 \ II I I n I w� 13 WI Y ° � I r 1 WI I _❑I Y I 31 I To AREA: I I.,b AG- I I ANTHONY CERACCHE I . < < 565/882 I � •F E e I I h I O I I T I I I '� i{ lrJ9.-�-01 w LZ UNgy52 /cuND TEL. I N.Y,S- RT. 79 LEGEND! � Ef/5r/NG Oi/✓ lLNOERGRdl1N0 TEL . ilIAR4'ER UT/L/TY PdLE O SET PEN NOTE ANY REVISIONS TO THIS MAP MUST COMPLY ';i,, ii :7• SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW. ATE DRAWN SCALE JOB JRVEYED /z/p/ BY 45,041. /-/00' 1 No. I HEREBY CERTIFY I AM A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND GEORGE SCHLECHT SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THAT THIS PROFESSION4 ENGi,U, PROFESSIONAL LAND SUAVEYO. MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY MAIN OFFICE SUPERVISION. 43 YELLOW BARN ROAD FREEVILLE, N. Y. 13068 Dale /_ �6�pi Slyyv�rtSh _ �,.,//- 607-8448837 '733.09' TorwL- j Ons I r �l. f ---Ons �EOF �lE;yY PO w�a�c C. scy4fo � 019 D 'b• o��n21 `FI61neeL � Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals December 12, 1990 FII.® TOWN OF RHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 12, 1990 1 PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Joan Reuning, Robert Hines, Edward Austen, Edward King, Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost, Town Attorney Barney. OTHERS PRESENT: C.M. Carmichael, Eveline Aron, J.B. MacIntire, Robert Kohut, Jean Leroy, Richard Shore, John Golay, Attorney Ralph W. Nash, Roger Hubbs, Frank Smith, Richard Lovelace, Loren Tauer, Jeffrey Vernon. Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and stated that all posting, publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order. The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following: ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM NOVEMBER 14, 1990) OF GLENN F. HUBBELL, OWNER/APPELLANT, REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 18 AND 19, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ANTIQUES AND SECONDHAND GOODS SHOP IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AT 1308 MECKLENBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-27-1-14.1, (RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY). SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT ANTIQUE AND SECONDHAND BUSINESSES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Mr. Glenn Hubbell appeared before the Board. Chairman Aron read the criteria from the "Use Variance" section of the Town's Zoning Ordinance and from "Zoning Decisions" of May/June 1987.. Chairman Aron referred to photos of Mr. Hubbell's property that were presented to the Board by Zoning Enforcement Officer Frost. He said that the outside of the. building in question has now been cleaned up and looks as it -should. Mr. Hubbell gave background information on his request for the variance. He said that he has been in the antique and second hand business at this location for.14 years. The main building is 200 feet by 60 feet. There is another building which is three stories and 120 feet by 36 feet. -The.main building is the one he sells from and the other building is used for storage. Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals December 12, 1990 Chairman Aron, for clarification, stated that the variance request is only for the main building. Mr. Hubbell commented that there is nothing that can be done with the building in question that would not require permission. Chairman Aron opened the public hearing. No one appeared to address the Board. Chairman Aron closed the public hearing. Chairman Aron referred to Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form, signed by Assistant Town Planner George Frantz, dated November 7, 1990 and attached hereto as Exhibit #1. Chairman Aron stated that he feels that Mr. Hubbell wishes to continue what he has done since 1976 but he does not think that Mr. Hubbell has proved any financial hardship to the Board. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Hubbell what his income is from the antique and secondhand business a year. Mr. Hubbell stated that his income on the business is $12,000.00 a year -and the lease for the storage area, which takes up 1,600 feet of the 12,000 foot building is $2,400.00.- Environmental 2,400.00. Environmental Assessment MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the Appeal of Mr. Glenn Hubbell requesting variance of the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 19, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the operation of an antiques and secondhand goods shop in an Agricultural District, at 1308 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-27-1-14.1, the Town of . Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance. Ayes - Reuning, Austen, King, Hines,. Aron. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Town Attorney Barney asked Mr. Hubbell if it would be possible to convert the building to something that would be permitted in an agricultural zone. Mr. Hubbell said that he really does not know what it would be other than raising chickens, cows, or pigs, etc. Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals December 12, 1990 Mr. King stated that he thinks Mr. Hubbell has demonstrated that he has a very substantial and valuable building here which really cannot be devoted to any permitted use that would yield an adequate return for it. He said that he thinks a building of 200 feet by 60 feet - so solidly built in that zone is an apparent economic hardship. Mr. Frost stated that when he visited the property in November, he questioned the structural integrity of the building adjacent just to the west of the main building. At the time Mr. Hubbell's son indicated that none of the general public ever goes into that building. He asked Mr. Hubbell if that is correct. Mr. Hubbell said the public does not go into that building. MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a Use Variance to Mr. Glenn Hubbell for -the continued operation of an antiques and secondhand goods shop and warehousing in an Agricultural District at 1308 Mecklenburg Road; with the following findings and conditions: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that financial hardship would be involved in devoting the use of these buildings to uses permitted under R-30 zoning. 2. That no appeared before the Board in opposition to the request for variance. 3. There shall be no outside. storage. 4. There shall be adequate parking provided off the highway for customers and policing of the parking so that customers do not constitute a hazard to the motoring public. 5. That the variance be.granted for a period of five years at which time Mr. Hubbell may re -apply for a .continuation of the variance if he so desires. 6. That the public shall be restricted to access only to the main building where the sales are conducted. 7. That there will be no -employees. The business shall be operated solely by Mr. Hubbell and family. MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner RE: Conservation Board Meeting DATE: December 19, 1994 Please be advised that the Conservation Board meeting for the month of December has been canceled. The next meeting will be on Thursday, January 18, 1996. (It was agreed that the first week in January may be to hectic for a meeting and so the meeting was scheduled for the 18th.) A meeting reminder and agenda will be sent as the date draws nearer. Chairperson Janet Hawkes has graciously agreed to attend this meeting as an ex - officio member so that the Board can wrap up any loose ends for 1995 and discuss the work schedule for the upcoming year. As a reminder, the Conservation Board will have two vacancies come January 1, 1996. If you know of any one who may be interested in becoming a member, please have them call me so that I may give them further instructions. In addition, the Board will need to nominate a new chair so you should be thinking about this as well. As always, should you need clarification or have questions, feel free to contact me at 273-1747. jc:12/19/95 TO: Conservation Board Members uvAFT FROM: Geri Tierney, Planning Intern RE: Current Status of the Town Environmental Atlas DATE: 1/16/96 During the summer of 1994, the Planning Department began to develop a computerized environmental atlas to enable quicker and more accurate assessment of environmental impacts and resource management issues. This atlas was envisioned to combine the many types of environmental data planners need into a multi -layered system, registered to the planimetric town base map and capable of producing maps of any combination of features at any scale. This atlas would be most useful if used within a geographic information system (GIS), which would allow easier data manipulation and analysis and more efficient data storage than the computerized drawing system that the Town already uses (AutoCAD). However, since the Town was already using AutoCAD, we realized we could accrue immediate benefits by creating data layers in our current system, and later transfer these data layers into a GIS system if and when it was acquired. To date, our AutoCAD -based atlas contains data layers showing 1) Unique Natural Areas; 2) delineated, regulated, and potential wetlands; 3) existing water and sewer mains; 4) tax parcel boundaries; and 5) zoning districts. These data layers have been used to create theme maps of the entire town, such as the Wetlands and Unique Natural Areas Map and the Rural Residential Study Map, as well as smaller maps showing environmental features on and near specific tax parcels proposed for development, such as the map of the proposed Buttermilk Valley Estates. We have also created maps of certain sections of the town for general planning purposes, such as the Six -mile Creek Study. We have developed a prioritized list of data elements to add to the atlas, and we soon should be adding layers depicting soils, scenic vistas, streams, and forest cover. Most of the data entered. into the environmental atlas already exists in hard -copy at the Town Hall, but the data is always checked for accuracy before it enters the atlas. When necessary, more accurate, complete or up- to-date information isacquired. The Town has included money for the acquisition of a GIS in the 1996 budget, so it is likely that GIS "software and hardware will be acquired this year. The Town has considered the pros and cons of a number of software packages, and while no final decision has been made, we have been impressed by the ESRI products, such as PC ArclNFO, ArcCAD and Arc VIEW. Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Proposed 1995 Plan of Work Activities Long-term and On-going Activities: (in committee and with other Boards and Departments) * Environmental Atlas and Geographic Information System (GIS) * Stormwater management ordinance * Environmental review * Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan * Tax abatement for conservation easements * Protection of Coy Glen Watershed * Wetland regulations and ordinance * Stream buffer regulations and ordinance Short-term Activities: (please prioritize 1, 2, or 3, based on your interests) South Hill Recreationway "Event" Tree planting activity (Arbor Day??) Clean-up activities (using TC Solid Waste funds) Town curbside recycle event Facilitate monitoring of birdhouses in Town parks Town park usage study/monitoring Stream quality "indicator" species demonstration _ Develop a citizen monitoring program for streams (schools, home owners, civic groups, etc.) Sponsor or participate in Earth Day (25th anniversary) activities planned in the area Combined project with the Town Parks Department Streamside workshop on NPS pollution Support or participate in "Celebrate Cayuga Lake" activities in July Inform Town residents about our Board and our activities (PR) Identify important veiwshed in the town (particularly public) [suggested: photo contest, photo album, maps and descriptions, etc.] Conduct biological inventory of new parkland acquisitions _ Conduct field studies of Town Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) to facilitate resolution to designate as Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) Write articles in the Town newsletter about important issues, and/or CB activities Inform the public about issues, ordinances, regulations, and policies which affect them such as, SEQR, park dedication, wetlands, stormwater management., , environmental assessment, UNAs or CEAs, and others. Activity with wildlife such as bird banding or other (with Lab of Q:. or other group) Other activities (please specify): GPS , 7 sq1 I No MPF 6c>— I 6c>— _� ______--- 1.�-�t�. - � �/_ �.�w.�c,�+.�... ✓..cam 17 1- i r S � � 1 .�a � ` 'v �► 1 � � • a- air _ _� ______--- 1.�-�t�. - � �/_ �.�w.�c,�+.�... ✓..cam 17 1- TO: CONSERVATION BOARD: ;l PHILLIP ZARRIELLO, Chair CHERYL SMITH, Vice Chair RICHARD FISCHER EVA HOFFMANN JONATHAN MEIGS_ LOREN TAUER FROM: JON KANTER, TOWN PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSERVATION BOARD 1996 SCHEDULE DATE: JANUARY 19, 1996 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following schedule of meetings for the Conservation Board for the year 1996. 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, unless otherwise noted. *INDICATES ADDITIONAL MEETING SCHEDULED ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS. THE 1996 SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: January 18 February 1 and February 15* March 7 and March 21* April 4 and April 18* May 2 and May 16* June 6 and June 20* July 18 August 1 and August 15* September 5 and September 19 October 17 November 21 December 5 and December 19* MOVED: Jonathan Meigs SECONDED: Phillip Zarriello CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DATED: January 18, 1996 C396scci 1/19/96 mb TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD C(OPY 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 23, 1996 GI ►1� 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.178, 29,300 sq. ft. in area, into two lots, one of which is proposed to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177, owned by David and Pauline Marks, and one of which is proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1- 1.179, owned by Robert and Corinne Stern. The parcel to be subdivided is located at 133 Burleigh Drive, Residence District R-15. Paul and Connie Bates, Owners; Corinne Stern, Agent. 3. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed conversion of Bldg. No. 14 in the Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments complex into a satellite maintenance facility proposed to consist of administrative offices, lunch/meeting room, and carpenter, electrical, paint, lock, glass and pipe maintenance and repair shops, and parking for up to 20 vehicles; the proposed conversion of Bldg. No. 12 into offices and storage facility for housekeeping staff, and conversion of Bldg. No. 1 and Bldg. No. 2 into temporary offices for graduate students during the course of renovations to Sibley and Tjaden Halls. The site is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 67-1- 1.1 and' 67-1-3.2, MR - Multiple Residence District. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent. 4. Consideration of Approval of Statement of Findings for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community Site Plan to consist of a 115,000 +/- square foot building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, to be 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 designated as Special Land Use District No. 7. Ithacare Center, Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent. Also consideration of setting a Public Hearing for February 6, 1996, to consider Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community. 5. Approval of Minutes: November 7, 1995 November 21, 1995 December 5, 1995 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273-1747 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, January 23, 1996 A By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.178, 29,300 +/- sq. ft. in area, into two lots, one of which is proposed to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177, owned by David and Pauline Marks, and one of which is proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.179, owned by Robert and Corinne Stern. The parcel to be subdivided is located at 133 Burleigh Drive, Residence District R-15. Paul and Connie Bates, Owners; Corinne Stern, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Friday, January 12, 1996 Publish: Wednesday, January 17, 1996 (Filename: 01-23-96.PH) q I J ) 1, I YIg Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PRO.IFCT INFORMATIYIN rT„ N, 1-1-4-A k. A --I*.-- ., , n --I__, t1__-_---% 1. Applicant/Sponsor: G,GY/h V1` 6 62 :J7�ec-cam 2. Project Name: �C�l,'•l '4-De'")J �'ICw"(f I Z - L -t 5, dL isioh, 133 )3a-)eii, h Aiwc.. 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): 3 3 a ��,-�1_g ir, Dy- - -� Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): TJ P�ucc( Pci�cc?(5 ro (Attach seoarate sheet(s) if necessary to adequateiv describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) t. 3 Acres (6-10 yrs) O Acres (> 10 yrs) Acres 7. How is land zoned presently? 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES X NO If no, describe conflict briefly: 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO Y Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO Y 10. What Is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential �' Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space _ Other Please Desc,,^'be: C4'.-tel/C KCS ��(.✓(/� /iii/��C - /✓.�/%14.I� ��l-tip-, li.- SC hi.'!S, 11. Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permittapproval. Also, state whether It will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE 5,Lei-C 6 -&Lf 5 t-ei—vl Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type) �'Dlly l�C;-;�c5 Pa- v'ie Signature: /t (G Date: Rev. 8/92 PART II - ENVIRCNMFNTGI essGCC7UciUT T., r%- A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO If yes, coordinate the review orocess and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? YES NO__,L If no. a neeative declaration may be sucerseded by another involved agency, , if anv. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effacts associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: See attached. C3. Vegetation or fauna, tis shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: See attached. C4, i'ne Town's existing clans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? ";plain briefly: See attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or relatec activities likely :o be induced by the orcaosed action? Explain briefly: See attached. Co. Long term, short terra, cumulative, or other effects not idamined in C1 - C-5? Explain briefly: See attached. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity cr ype of energy)? Explain briefly: See attached. D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff C3 other attached. (Check as applicable.) rHn r ur - ut t c: tmttva I U N UF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant_ Eacn effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie, urban or rural): (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. _Tcy%m of Ithaca Plazuling Board. Name of Lead Agency Preoarees ignature (If differlrnt from Responsible Office C'rnc7ac-a Cornell Chal.rperson Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Date: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Ace Signature of Contributing Preparer PART 11 - Environmental Assessment - Subdivision at 133 Burleigh Drive A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following: Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? None anticipated. The proposed action consists of approval for the subdivision of an existing houselot into two halves, with each half to be consolidated with an adjoining parcel. No construction or other development activity is proposed as part of this action. No significant adverse impacts to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems are expected as a result of the proposed action. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated. No aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site, or are expected to otherwise be affected by the proposed action. Given the nature of the proposed action, and the existing developed nature of the two parcels, no significant adverse impacts to neighborhood or community character are anticipated. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated given the character of the site, and the nature of the proposed action. C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? None anticipated. C5. Growth subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Long term short term cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-05? None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III - Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Reviewer: George: R. Frantz, Asst. Town Planner G 2�- Review Date: January 16, 1996 (FUename:IDEVREV S\CURREN1M33BURLY.EAF) PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, 133 Burleigh Drive. Planning Board, January 23, 1996 WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.178, 29,300 +/- sq. ft. in area, into two lots, one of which is proposed to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177, owned by David and Pauline Marks, and one of which is proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.179, owned by Robert and Corinne Stern. The parcel to be subdivided is located at 133 Burleigh Drive, Residence District R-15. Paul and Connie Bates, Owners; Corinne Stern, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on January 23, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map, No. 133 Burleigh Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S. dated December 7, 1995, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed subdivision; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. (FILENAME:\1 DEVREVS\CURRENT\133BURLY. EAF) PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval 133 Burleigh Drive Planning Board, January 23, 1995 WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.178, 29,300 +/- sq. ft. in area, into two lots, one of which is proposed to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177, owned by David and Pauline Marks, and one of which is proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.179, owned by Robert and Corinne Stern. The parcel to be subdivided is located at 133 Burleigh Drive, Residence District R-15. Paul and Connie Bates, Owners; Corinne Stern, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 23, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map, No. 133 Burleigh Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S. dated December 7, 1995, and other application materials, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on January 23, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.178, 29,300 +/- sq. ft. in area, into two lots, one of which is proposed to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177, owned by David and Pauline Marks, and one of which is proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.179, owned by Robert and Corinne Stern, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of the original or mylar copy with original surveyor's seal, certification, and signature, and four (4) copies of the plat to be signed by the Planning Board Chair prior to filing in the County Clerk's Office; UU ENA ME:\IDE VREVS\CURRENT\133BURLY.RES) Page 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval 133 Burleigh Drive Planning Board, January 23, 1995 b. within six months of this approval, conveyance of the northerly portion of the parcel being subdivided to the owners of Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.179, and delivery to the Town Planner of a copy of the deed to such owner and a copy of the communication to the Tompkins County Division of Assessment requesting consolidation of said northerly portion with Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.179; C. within six months of this approval, conveyance of the southerly portion of the parcel being subdivided to the owners of Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177, and delivery to the Town Planner of a copy of the deed to such owner and a copy of the communication to the Tompkins County Division of Assessment requesting consolidation of said southerly portion with Tax Parcel No. 72-1-1.177. (FILENAME:V DEVREVSVCURREN'I\133BURI.Y.RES) 7• Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -3- Section 37. Form of Final Plat. 1. A final plat.with the following information must be filed in the Office of the Town Engineer at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which final approval is requested. ✓ Four dark -line prints of the proposed plat. Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forms, with comments from the Town Engineer or Town Planner indicating whether the proposed subdivision is a Type I, Type II, or Unlisted action and indicating a recommendation for negative or positive declaration of environmental impacts. Highway and alley boundary or right-of-way lines, showing boundary, right-of-way or easement width and any other information needed for locating such lines; purposes of easements. Highway center lines, showing angles of deflection, angles of intersection, radii, lengths of tangents and arcs, and degree of curvature, with basis of curve data. Lengths and distances shall be to the nearest one-hundredth foot. Angles shall abe to the nearest half minute. T Highway names. Key map, when more than one sheet -is required to present plat. ✓ Accurate locations and descriptions of all subdivision monuments. NA Accurate outlines and descriptions of any areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use or acquisition, with the purposes indicated thereon; any areas to be reserved by deed covenant for common uses of all property owners in the subdivision. V Border lines bounding the sheet, one -inch from the left edge and one-half inch from each of the other edges; all information, including all plat lines, lettering, signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines. M/ Building setback lines with dimensions. Date of Plat. ✓ Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicatedtbytia heavy line, giving dimensions to the nearest one-]auhk* ed tom foot, angles to the nearest one- minute, and at least one bearing; the traverse shall be balanced and closed with an error of closure not to exceed one to two thousand; the type of closure shall be noted. 1A Location and description of all section line corners and. government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by true courses and distances. Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -4- ✓ Location, name, and dimensions of each existing highway and alley and each utility, drainage, or similar easement within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision. ✓ Location of the property by legal description, including areas in acres or square feet. Source of title, including deed record book and page numbers. ✓ Name and address of all owners of the property and name and address of all persons who have an interest in the property, such as easements or rights-of-way. ✓ Lot linesfully dimensioned, with lengths to the nearest one -hut re foot and angles or bearings to the nearest one- minute. Map Scale (1"=50' or 1"=1001) and north point. Mortgagor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s) if any, to the effect that he consents to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat. ✓ Name of subdivision, which shall not duplicate the name of any other subdivision in the country. il Name of Town, County, and State. ✓ Name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s). Name(s) and address(es) of the _subdivider (s) , if the subdivider(s) is (are) not the owner(s). V Name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic information. Date of survey. ✓ Name and seal of registered and surveyor who made the boundary survey. Date of the survey. Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting the proposed subdivision. Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision. Owner's certificate: a certificate signed by the owner(s) to the effect the he/they owns the land, that he has caused the land to be surveyed and divided, and that he makes the dedications indicated on the plat. Certification signed by the chairman or other designated official or agent of the Planning Board to the effect that the plat was given preliminary approval by the Planning Board. Reference on the plat to any separate instruments, including restrictive covenants, which directly affect the land in the subdivision. Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -5- CCU Surveyor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by a registered land surveyor to the effect that (1) the plat represents a survey made by him, (2) the plat is a correct representation of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the subdivision of it, (3) all monuments indicated on the plat actually exist and their location, size and material are correctly shown, and (4) the requirements of these regulations and New'York State laws relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied with. Tax and assessment certificate: a certificate signed by the county treasurer and other officials as may be appropriate, to the effect that there are no unpaid taxes due on the land being subdivided and payable at the time of plat approval <<a and no unpaid special assessments, and that all outstanding taxes and special assessments have been paid on all property dedicated to public use. 49 The blocks are.numbered consecutively throughout the subdivision and the lots are numbered consecutively throughout each block. Lggo The original or mylar copy of the plat to be recorded and four dark -line prints, on one or more sheets. Two copies of the county Health Department approval of the water supply and/or sewerage system. ✓ Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property, I"=1000' or 1'!-=2000' . \,j Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having non -parallel sicle lines, when required by the Planning Board. 0. Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -6- Section 38. Improvement Plans and Related Information. 1. where improvements are required for a proposed subdivision, the following documents shall be submitted to the Planning Board. Detailed construction plans and specifications for water lines, including locations land descriptions of mains, valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc. Detailed construction plans, profiles, and specifications for sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities, including locations and descriptions of pipes, manholes, lift stations, and other facilities. Highway paving plans and specifications. The estimated cost of: a) grading and filling, b) Culverts, swales and other storm drainage facilities, C) sanitary sewers, d) water lines, valves, and fire hydrants, e) paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, f) any other improvements required by -these regulations. The plan and profile of each proposed highway in the s-ubdivis-ion, with grade indicated, --drawn to a scale of one inch equals 50 feet horizontal, and one -inch equals 5 feet vertical, on standard plan and profile sheets. -Profiles shall show accurately the profile of the highway or alley along the highway -center line and location of .the sidewalks, if any. Prelimi&Final SD 6/8/95 VILLAGE OF LANSING UPTOWN RO. - TAX PARCEL NO. 72-1-1.177 - TAX PARCEL NO. 72-1-1.178 (133 BURLE3GH DR.) TAX PARCEL NO. 72-1--1.179 R.G.C.E.S. DEWTT MIDDLE SCHOOL �o- L, -m- FAST SEWQK -sTREET'ITRACA ''N;Y. OR. s/,Wsaj R -Y ■ CHRISM,=HeR I -A.. ST. c v�- R.G.C.E.S. DEWTT MIDDLE SCHOOL �o- L, -m- FAST SEWQK -sTREET'ITRACA ''N;Y. N/ .1� ao° o S 6 �'� Qi t lei � . _ -. .?a � a to n: . �h.Y o LL. a �CO� 4 'Q D Qt 6 4 / Q A `/O. ��• Q V iLE.F% Na'P EiSTI'il_ED WILL-; P47 C q F c 4 • 40 I.1. 4 BU tLL£t.(� 41 DRIVE•. Cp'� � OEVEI..ODNtEA1T SY T Ce. MLLL6iZ E1.1&(►.LEE.RS 1. \ ` , s FS e� �' ?ti �►uo su2-KE`Co¢S aA•TF-v oc'roC3E2 7,NV 19vq' SfQ "V� / �Q �i( AAO F(LE.O t(�1T0 F4PI�ttiS�°C'�util-C`f CLEQ ISS �I�f� \ U �O Q lTU4Gd Cr-ttil HCl-�oo>~ Ooe FookLo NEW A% P K01, i 13 t 33 �U SZ l,.E t Gr{ -1 DRt VE s �'••. Q, : , _ _ T4 �! oft TWAC A. T'a M. P K. t - S .eo s� ti osoo •' J �►, cps: •••... S J. 0 LANG .` -.... ,CEM"'C3 ESZ -T�. 1 q5 vlmxfV >;. �. VOK" WATT Et�1C�l LiE�.2S MWAT M LIR. AM Pgd1ERm Ln LIR. Atl CRRILti ncm 1e1011 me - . POI nes tw N corns�i'' 1 Tlrt A C- V" O aarL poomw W am � Comm hQj im Lss� LAW 2WWV OI wno.e - asumaM ArriMLs HEpMM TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: George Frantz, Asst. Town Planner�- DATE: January 17, 1996 RE: Cornell University Proposals for Pleasant Grove Apartment. Attached please find materials relating to the application by Cornell University for permission to convert two buildings at Pleasant Grove Apartments to housekeeping and maintenance facilities, and two buildings to temporary use as offices for offices for graduate students. The attached materials represent a re -submission of a proposal to convert Building No. 14 to a maintenance facility, expanded to include conversion of Buildings 1, 2, and 12 from apartment to other uses. The new submission is in response to the staff letter to Paul Whitmore of Cornell dated October 13, 1995 outlining a number of questions and issues raised by both staff and the Environmental Review Committee.(also attached) The new proposals, and the University response to the concerns raised in October, are summarized in two letters that accompany the submission. If you have any questions about this matter, please feel free to call me at 273-1747. CORNELL U N I V E R S I T Y Facilities and Campus Services James Pung December 12, 1995 Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: ' Mr. George R. Frantz Assistant Town Planner 1, JAN 81996 �r I !� . ,TINA 3 Planning, Design and Construction Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, New York 14853-3701 Telephone: 607/255-9509 Fax: 607/255-8071 Re: Appeal for building use of Pleasant Grove Buildings #1, #2, #12, #14. Dear Mr. Frantz: The purpose of the following is to describe the.proposed change of use for, Pleasant Grove Buildings #1, #2, and #14, and a relocation of housekeeping functions to Building #12. Buildings #1, and #2 are proposed to be used as temporary offices by city, regional planning and architecture students while Sibley is undergoing renovations. This . occupancy is anticipated to be for a duration of two years after which the occupants will return to a .renovated facility and Buildings #1 and #2 will revert to graduate housing. Building #1 contains eight 1- bedroom units and Building #2 has eight 2 - bedroom units. Special parking accommodations currently are not provided for city, regional planning and architecture students and none are anticipated at Pleasant Grove. Buildings #1, and #2, however, will be displacing existing parking that could be assigned. In addition parking is available in the "A" lot just to the North on Pleasant Grove Road. Building #12 is currently vacant and is proposed to house the Campus Life area Housekeeping for Pleasant Grove and Hasbrook Apartments. Currently, the housekeeping function is located in Building #2. Parking requirements for this unit is four and can be accommodated in the plan for the rear of Buildings #12 and #14. Page Two Mr. George R. Frantz December 12, 1995 JAN 8 1996 ? ;� i � Jc�fgir-vi.•r-.i., , �u,t-., i Building #14 is proposed to house the Campus Life maintenance shops for the student housing units. This facility is intended to be a satellite shop to respond to quick turn around repairs and maintenance for the 6800 students living in student housing. The majority of the students are housed within a short distance of the proposed facility with the remaining students housed at Maplewood Park - . - Apartments; College town, and an assortment of small cooperative living units. Trades people would report to this facility to punch in, receive work orders and then report to the various locations indicated on the work orders. At the end of the work day the trades people would punch out at Building #14. Other details are addressed and herewith enclosed in the response to Mr. George R. Frantz letter of October 13, 1995 requesting answers to questions on the project. Please advise at your earliest convenience and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 255-9509. Sincerely, &Ja aures Pung Architect / Project Manager cc: File Shirley Egan Chuck Jankey Scott Whitham TOWN OF ITHACA FINAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 October 13, 1995 Mr. Paul Whitmore Planning, Design, and Construction J. W. Humphreys Service Building Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 Dear Mr. Whitmore: Town staff and the Town Conservation Board's Environmental Review Committee have completed a preliminary review of the University's request for Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of Building #14 at Pleasant Grove Apartments. There are a number of questions regarding the project, specifically: What Cornell Residence Life facilities will be served by the maintenance shops proposed for Bldg. #14? In what buildings are the various maintenance shops proposed to be relocated to Pleasant Grove currently located in? - What were the criteria used for selecting this location for such a facility? What other locations were considered for this facility, and why were they not selected? Why is Residence Life not following the recent University policy of locating such facilities ifn the Precinct 7/Comell Orchards area? How many of the buildings at Pleasant Grove Apartments are still occupied, and what is the total number of units in the complex currently occupied? What are the long range plans of the University for the Pleasant Grove Apartments site and vicinity? - Given the proximity of the building to the playground area at Pleasant Grove Apartments, what provisions are proposed to protect area children from the hazardous materials used or generated by the activities commonly associated with maintenance facilities of the type proposed? What if any provisions will be made for outside storage of lumber, pipe, or other materials expected to be used in the day to day operations of the facility? 4 A site inspection late Friday afternoon, October 13, revealed that all of the parking spaces adjacent to Bldg. #14 were occupied. A total of 10 vehicles were counted in both the formal parking area and along the driveway shoulder. Who is currently using these parking spaces, and, if Bldg. #14 is converted to a maintenance facility, where will vehicles currently using these spaces park? The parking area adjacent to Bldg. #14 is used on Friday evenings during the traditional Fuertes Observatory Friday open house nights. Will the parking requirements of the proposed maintenance facility conflict with the Observatory's needs? Bldg. #14 and Bldg. #12 share a common walkway from the adjacent parking area. The walkway in front of Bldg. #14 also offers the most convenient access between the units in Bldg. #12 and the main University campus. How will deliveries of supplies and other materials to Bldg. #14 be organized to eliminate potential conflicts with residents of Bldg. #12 sharing these walkways? The difference in elevation of approximately 3 ft. between the level of the parking area and the building floor elevation proposed overhead door at the south end of Bldg. #14 would results in a ten percent gradient. What type of pavement is proposed for the connection between the parking area and the overhead door? What number, size, and type of trucks and other vehicles would be expected to travel to and from the site during a typical working day? What proportion of these vehicles would be expected to travel through the Forest Home neighborhood? How will the delivery trucks of the type and size which would normally be expected to serve the proposed facility be accommodated? The proposed parking area provides no dedicated turn around area for any trucks, and no room for trucks larger than delivery van size to turn around. Also, does the 15 ft. wide access road meet minimum engineering standards for access to a facility of the type proposed? - What measures are planned to ensure that potential impacts to the abutting Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Unique Natural Area (UNA) that encompasses Beebe Lake, Fall Creek, and the adjacent gorge walls and woods, such as runoff contaminants and erosion from the proposed parking lot, be prevented? The site plan drawing dated September 27, 1995 does not appear to accurately reflect the size and location of the parking area. Measurements taken during a site inspection on October 12 shows that the parking.spaces labeled 8 through 19 would extend approximately 10 feet beyond the existing edge of the Fall Creek ravine. Such an extension, if proposed, would require substantial fill and disturbance to the belt of woodland between the existing paved areas and Fall Creek, and represent a major intrusion into the UNA. Map TPM -1 appears to more accurately show the location of the edge of the ravine. 3 At this time the University's application is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the November 7th Planning Board meeting. However for us to be able to complete our review and make a recommendation to the Planning Board prior to that meeting, we need to have in our office responses to the above questions, and a revised site plan, by close of business on Wednesday, October 25th. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 273-1747. Very truly yours, George R. Frantz Assistant Town Planner xc: Stephen Smith, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Candace Cornell, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Mary Russell, Chair, Environmental Review Committee CORNELL U N I V E R S I T Facilities and Campus Services James Pung December 12,1995 Planning, Design and Construction Telephone: 607/255-9509 Humphreys Service Building Fax: 607/255-8071 Ithaca, New York 14853-3701 _...�-f„ ^:':x"'�^":"'sL'.:�':.a. zs�.....,.�ti•�.,v.. ,_...o; ��e..,nlv.?'.� __.-:... __ _e..,_.m.-.r._ ,. _ _ _. .,...n _ _. ...- - _..,, _. __'_ '" �-� _ _• __ ,.,,�.y:.g..:y, �_-*W�..._^'-:n^='tl�nA�:_. _ _e 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Mr. George R. Frantz Assistant Town Planner Re: Response to October 13, 1995 letter regarding the Appeal for building use of Pleasant Grove Building #14 Dear Mr. Frantz: The following is in response to your letter, dated October 13, 1995, regarding the Appeal for the conversion of Building #14 at Pleasant Grove Apartments. The responses follow the format of your original letter. • The maintenance shops proposed, to be located in Building #14 serves all of Campus Life dormitory facilities housing approximately 6,800 students. For the most part the proposed maintenance shop would be located near the= majority of the students located in west and north campus facilities. The remaining students, south. ,sll.Ha_ of �,h&a,ea are -located-,Maplewood-ParkApartmentsCal, t _ Court and various other small co-ops. • The Campus Life maintenance shops are currently located in Dickson Hall at the rear loading dock. This location has become premium program space for student services and the relocation of the maintenance. shops would free up valuable space. Also, in relocating the shops to Building #14 at Pleasant Grove Apartments, the focus of inner campus traffic of maintenance vehicles to. the shop is shifted from the center of student activities to the periphery. • The criteria used for selecting this location is partly addressed in the above responses: The present location at Dickson Hall has become premium program space for student services and the relocation of the maintenance shops would free up valuable _space. The location of the proposed maintenance shops at Building #14, Pleasant Grove Apartments is the only alternative left to providing a -satellite maintenance facility. Page Two Mr. George R. Frantz December 12, 1995 It must be stressed that the proposed facility is to be considered a satellite maintenance shop for the purpose of housing tools and small parts and is to be located near the majority of the housing units. The work is performed by Cornell shop trades people -dedicated to Campus Life and the maintenance of the housing units associated with Campus Life. Cornell- sho s continue: -to be located. a.t..Humphreys.Service Building -- - — --:P - -- - - -- - - - . --- . _ and in the Precinct 7/Cornell Orchards area. • Nine of the twelve buildings in the Pleasant Grove Apartment complex are currently occupied which represent thirty-eight occupied units. • The long range plans for the Pleasant Grove Apartments will continue to provide housing for undergraduate students. Campus Life is beginning an extensive re -roofing and maintenance programs to provide more attractive housing for at least the next ten years. The long range plan for the site includes new undergraduate mid -rise housing that will replace the outdated structures. • Campus Life intends to protect the playground area from maintenance - activities with a four foot high fence in front of building #14. Gates will be provided at the walkways and will protect children from the maintenance activities. • It is not the intention of the satellite maintenance shop to store materials outside of the building. The facility is strictly for the maintenance of the housing units and storage- of replacement parts, small amounts of materials and tools will be inside Building #14. Current parking. adjacent -to building #14 is not legal or ce itdoned and Cornell- --Office of Transportation has been. notified. The proposed plan.intends _to include designated parking areas only. • The parking requirements for building #14 will be achieved behind the building and will be available to visitors to Fuertes Observatory during the eveiung.:: • Building #12 is proposed to house the Campus Life housekeeping function. The common walkway in front of both buildings #14 and #12 share the same path. It is planned that occupants of the complex will not use this walk and will, in fact, pus through the center of the Pleasant Grove Apartment site. approach the cam • The connection between the proposed overhead door at building #14 and. the - - parking area is connected by a gravel walkway. It is anticipated that only small items will be off-loaded into the building and vehicles will off load from the road. Page Three Mr. George R. Frantz December 12,1995 • - The number of trade people reporting Building #14 is as follows: - During the hours of 7:30AM-4:OOPM nine trade people punch in, leave for duty and punch out. - During the hours of 8:OOAM-4:30PM one vehicle will park all day; eight trade people punch in, leave for duty and punch out. - During the course of the work day, it is anticipated that some trade people will return for tools and/or parts.. - The type of vehicles are pick-up truck, van style, or personal vehicles. During the summer, an additional twenty painters will be employed and, for the most part, will punch in elsewhere and report directly to the job site. These will be temporary employees for the summer only. The vehicles that travel through Forest Home would be those that service Maplewood Park Apartments or less than approximately 5% of the trips. Maplewood Park Apartments. are new building and have not required many work orders. • Delivery of small amounts of materials and parts will be accomplished with vehicles that report on a daily basis. The proposed parking area will include for vehicle turn around space for �ti-Le type and size of vehicles identified above. The 15 ft. wide access road will also meet the light weight traffic standards for pick-up truck, van style, or personal vehicles. • A review .of the project with Nancy Ostman of Cornell Plantations was favorable though a more defined parking area was desirable. Please advise at your earliest convenience and if you have any questions, please _ _ do..not hesitate _to contact meat 255-9509. Sincerely, fames Pun- Architect / Project Manager cc: File Shirley Egan Chuck Jankey Scott Whitham Pleasant Grove building #14 #12 T-1 Title Page ZM-1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Map TM- 67-1 Town of Ithaca Tax Map 67-1 TM- 66 Town of Ithaca Tax .Map 66 AR -1 AREA PLAN ana #1 #2 -'i TOWr;JF )NFCA PLANNING. ZL'NING', F.P!G;1d�'NIN. SP -1 Site Plan SP -2 PARKING PLAN TPM -1 Topographic Map FOR #12 ana #14 TPM -2 TOPO MAP FOR #1 AND #2 R30 • � F �- TOWN OF ITHACA � VILLAGE OF CAYUGA � .. ' CITY OF ITHACA HEIGHTS S � i R15 \ R15 His R30 AG ° MJ H : - R30 �!J R5 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R6 C BUSINESS DISTRICT C NOTE. TOWN OF ITHACA R9 RESIDENCE DISTRICT 119 D BUSINESS DISTRICT D Refer also to Town Of Ithaca ZONING MAP Rib_ RESIDENCE DISTRICT R75 Zoning Ordinance Article III, ,,oFip' E BUSINESS DISTRICT E Section 3, and to Town Board TOWN 'OF ITHACA o� local laws and ordinances 126 EAST SENECA ST.®i R30 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT rezoning certain areas for m IFr 404 Madditional information on ITHACA, N.Y. 14850R MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT l INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT specific boundaries. A :BUSINESS DISTRICT A AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (�( B BUSINESS DISTRICT B S SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT a 1000 2000 3000 4000 REV M:12/3/93 -I FZ_M - - 1 Zoning Map 65 _ 3314 3321 \ % 2T 6 26 23 IS �II T \ \ \ 11 - r if ( zt y 22 \\ If / — 3 2 22 y n 1( \\\ 9 1 ?D\�' 11 1� I�a� mx\ \ 221 zoj rr 7 to to 14 M ------------ g " 42 T.2 - e .o+ ' TM -66 to 1 rl Town of Ithaca Tax Map 4 66 AREA PLAN o'Xµ AREA OR PROPOS mn % a O i � J I < O tT25 .ifs Y TT- BmAbplsw � PGAO L Erm /y iMmmner I b 6 J]52 ® L�m�p•+ bl q 11 Thy HEIGM3 WUM � pia � � Si550� f PAi ! WAR AVENUE ri � � Thsu � QO Hetl/ Gi ]]0 Ail)a1Mu {lone MTW. .,oTh Z a li,�: ✓ w sal_—_ °A I 6Mm fyyyay TM F3L l.�� ` erd L -:f E � � ��R �� � _•` \ IOVA 2iZ0A 5e�p7 g35,06 ® �3,3s® I �\\ \I eddr �tfee,�f ,yfsE 1l, \��,1� FaO LrM mT500 �I�1�u «� 2� % \ \ 0 R = 35i3A / Q 3533 I15 3® \ 1 1 HyEmdeRic %mt lull Sm�v;Npu DNm � 1 Th.e I U` H3ITYAYENUE� � .,sere. DeGn u °�) � `®^ • 1�1 11 \ -- —� . 8�,1,� � �+I _ 3T� � 0 Gatlm _oma---- -vim.,- •;�ra�,�. e PLANNING. D@610N AND CONSTRUCTION ra i�Z4o:..dK ..a.•R.. LP WD SLP LP 14 _ .: : '"�:'ri.: :'. r'; }i.:::' •.15 `.: '.': '�' Q' � aiau+cis¢ vt�: '��'. s'.. i�': -: :.. •". -: ::': -._- _. .I. X12 '.� "�- \ � . GROVE MT. J _ - i SP -2 SITE PLAN=.o.-, b FOR PROPOSED PARKING w ~ GROVE APARTMENTS V� ST M -XX/ \ / \ / / ,m,^ ^ ° =. ° '�•e x 914.5 > x C. B. x g13.1 J G x 913,3 912 MAO x912.9 914.',,:•,;;N'' OS .. 6 98..8.. * e C.B. 1 J••; :. 908.8 u •912 S!i +t, x91Z.5 P• . 914.6 r x � x 912.8 }{ t f?'�Yr�t {a° rvitfy �)) 4�, •r•.il''" C. B. ••r a3ni li I 1t!1 y CB x914. OVI "�tLjf��•�,j}'E N�t;,r,^r, ,•��'di� a/ .,,rF1 ,r x �w z 91 6 9 , X L.P. 915.4 - L.P. tie dM. HYD.D. w tM S/ 915.5 fii `ryM1� x 917.2 > .n x t. 0o ao goo 16=11.. C' HYD. -a mw WMA �Yp i 915.3 'S © l��o°p Icy uR+� , 1r . x 810.3 © 916.9 x }o-A�. sl ��t iff 5 X ('• 900.9 19 \ ps x • 1`4 C.B. x 916.2 X 1MK+ 19 R � Ni rh� n'"4dY ���y� rr�11f+� � 9p\ •/ `�k'�.mak� W����� �w��'ha +1 psi pr ✓ 3� 1 � �+ \ 1,�'441� , ++916 \ x vey;du♦s�ti1�ahM17��a,a' 900.2 F tYi(n y,3 S :{0 .51 � \' t>(s A \ �( +�, • L 09 •s \ Q •a+ 911.4 1.P ` x i 890 kSANT GROVE h PARTMENTS (3100) x888.6 C� , ,��+� �+. • / zz Full Environmental Assessment Form Lake Source Cooling Project Cornell University Prepared for Cornell University Prepared by STEARNS & WHELER, LLC Environmental Engineers and Scientists One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, NY 13035 January 1996 Project No. 2720 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 .... Schematic Representation of the Lake Source Cooling Concept FIGURE 2 .... Regions of Proposed Intake and Outfall Pipes FIGURE 3 .... Proposed Pipeline Route -3- Page No. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM .......................... 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Project Contact ..................................... 10 ATTACHMENT 2 Description of Action ............................... 12 ATTACHMENT 3 General Soil Map .................................. 15 ATTACHMENT 4 Natural Heritage Program Letter ....................... 17 ATTACHMENT 5 USFWS Endangered Species Letter .................... 19 ATTACHMENT 6 Acreage Estimate Table ............................. 22 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 .... Schematic Representation of the Lake Source Cooling Concept FIGURE 2 .... Regions of Proposed Intake and Outfall Pipes FIGURE 3 .... Proposed Pipeline Route -3- 1416-2 (9/95)-7CSEQR 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially - large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. +� Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as.potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. 1 t i i . E] 1 [I DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE --Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 ❑ Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' ❑ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that my have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Office in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Date -4- Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) PART 1 --PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION 5.1 Cornell University - Lake Source Cooling Project 0 LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) 0 Cornell University,'Cayuga Lake, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County [see attached map- Figure #3] NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR [see Attachment 11 BUSINESS TELEPHONE Cornell University -- Henry Doney, Director of Utilities (607) 254 - 4790 ADDRESS acres Utilities Department -- 135 Humphreys Service Building acres CITY/PO Ithaca acres STATE ZIP CODE NY 14853 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION [ See Attachment 2 ] Please Complete Each Question --Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ®Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial NResidential(suburban) ❑Rural(non-faun) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture NOther Cayuga Lake 2. Total acreage of project area: 34.3 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area (underwater) Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) Road Right-of-Way/Residential Lawn PRESENTLY 5.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 17.0 acres 0.8 acres 3.4 acres 8.0 acres AFTER COMPLETION 3.2 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 17.0 acres 0.4 acres 5.2 acres 8.5 acres 3. What is predominant soli type(s) on project site? _ Hudson -Cayuga, Hudson-Rhinebeack and Howard -Valois Soil Associations (see Attachment 3) . a. Soil drainage: mWell drained 50 % of site NModerately well drained 50 % of site []Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? NYes []No �s a. What is depth to bedrock? 0-300 (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ®0-10% 70 % ®10-15% 25 % ❑ 15% or greater 5 % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ®Yes ❑ No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? []Yes ®No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 0-30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes ®No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ®Yes ❑ No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ®Yes ❑No According to NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program (No Federal Species) Identify each species Bird's Eye Primrose - last seen 1915 (see Attachments 4 and 5) 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ®Yes ❑No Describe Fall Creek Gorge Renwick Slope 13. Is the project site presently used by the communityor neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ®Yes []No If yes, explain Cayuga Lake is used for both open space and recreation area 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ®Yes ❑No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Fall Creek Pleasant Grove Brook Renwick Brook a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Cayuga Lake 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Cayuga Lake b. Size (In acres) 42.500 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes []No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ❑No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA -'� Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes ®No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes ®No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑Ycs ®No B. Project Description I 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 18.5 acres at Cayuga Lake b. Project acreage to be developed: 34.3 acres initially; 21.7 acres ultimately. (See Attachment 6) c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 12.6 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: 4.6 (If appropriate) (2.5 Terrestrial, 1.9 Intake, 0.2 Outfall) (Pipeline Impacts) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A % f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed 10 g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 1 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A N/A— N/A N/A Ultimately N/A N/A N/A N/A 34 I. Dimension (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; 100 width; 150 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 450 ft. - I -6- 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 17,200 cubic yards �., 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ®Yes [:]No ❑N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? Return to current land use or stable vegetation b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes ❑No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes []No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 5.5 acres. 5. Will many mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑Yes ®No (However, one tree at the City of Ithaca High School maybe jeopardized) 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi -phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 2 (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 April month 1998 year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase June month 2000 year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ®Yes ❑No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ®Yes ❑No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 60 ; after project is complete 0 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 . 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ®Yes ❑No If yes, explain Project will require existing utility relocation within proposed pipeline corridor. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount N/A b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. 14. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ®No Type N/A Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes ®No Explain N/A 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ®Yes ❑No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ®Yes ❑No a. If yes, what is the amount per month <1 tons/month. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ®Yes ❑No c. If yes, give name Tompkins County Transfer Station ; location Ithaca d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑Yes ®No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N/A tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? N/A years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ®Yes ❑No (molluscides) 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ❑Yes ®No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ❑Yes ®No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? []Yes ®No If yes, indicate type(s) Reduction in fossil fuels required to create electricity (80% reduction in electricity needs to cool campus) . 22. . If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 50-70 million gallons/day. (Peak) 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, explain N/A 1 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Villai, Board IYes ONO City, Town, Village Planning Board l3dYes ❑No City, Town Zoning Board MYes ❑No City, Countv He�;!th Department OYes ®No Other Local Agencies OYes NNo Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes INo State Agencies ®Yes ONO Federal Agencies ®Yes ONO C. Zoning and Planning Information Type Submittal Date Fill Permit,Stream Crossing,Street 11/1/96 Opening Site Plan Review 11/1/96 Building Permit,Zoning Variance 11/1/96 Cultural esources, n erwater ana Easemefft, SPDES,_Article 15,Highway Crossing 11/1/96 Aid to Navigation,Section 10, Section 401, .Prti-nn 404, Endangered Species 11/1/96 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? IIXYes ONO If Yes. indicate decision required: )Lzoning amendment Zzoning variance Nspecial use permit ❑subdivision site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan Oother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? Town District E (Commercial) and Multiple Residence 3. What is the maximum potential development of thg site if ev Ip ed as per i t d y tI�,PP re t onin ? Town District E — Commercial Operation w/Par�Ci.�ig Lot, l�utl ip�e �ic�iic� — acre int- Grnhdiyi Ginn (housing) . 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Town District E and Multiple Residence 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Large building and parking lots associated with university facilities. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? OYes MNo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? Commercial and Residential 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/ mile? MYes []No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes ONO 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ®Yes ONO a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? K]Yes ONO 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? OYes NNo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? OYes ONO D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponso Name HENRY DONEY Date Signaturey Title DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES If the action is in the o stal Area, and yo re a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 1/24/96 5 -, �, , � , , � �,�_� � : " ` , , '? - , . , . ?, � 1, -, - , 1. � �� � " I , . . �. I. , , , '. , ­, , --,,.'.', - ,,-,- -1 , . . , z ": ". - , ', �' , ! � I .. , �, . , - , :1 , , 40 � . " . , - "I I I :- j," 11 - I 1, ,." '. I . .. . � " . , � _ .� . , . 1� � 1, , , ,_ , .,., ".. , , -, , -,, . " � -. ,, " � , , - . .. ,, i, ". � , . A Q 1 - 1 Q 4 0 � Q - -, & - " 1 " � , , , i, .. . k , , I � �', J - .,� .� , . , , , , � - , :,�', �' ,,, , , , - �, 'i, . . - , '.1, � "I:j! , " " - - , , . � I � " , - , "n � I " . " - '. . � ,.: � . , , , " ", � , I , _-, , - iT,�-,� , , . � _�,, � - I . I , ,­_ � , , , *1 , " 1, X to ? � i �,4 I I �l -, ; 'T . . , A Ai I i. I -1 , , � , I _-, . I , . , " , . : ,�. , . � I ". . I- �, , , . , ,�, �-, �; , , , q q >,o 0. 1 " , � - , � ,, . , , , . - 1, " . �, , - , � , �' " " , � 1 - " . " � �� , . . . � , . - - . � , :%, � , , , _` ". �j ,- , _,,i ,,, -, I � " ,­� - . '. 1, � , . : ,,,�- , �., . � , � I I , , .�., - . ", -,- � T, , ., - '. , - 2�_ I, '. �, 4 , ":, .", - � '. � , . . . , � i, - � , , I �, , - '. , � -, - `A , �, , , �, . , �, � , I., - - 1, , . I I � , ,�� , - . ,,, ., -, , ­ , , �-, ., - t � � - I ­:�A,,'��-` - , _­. � , , 'I_ . , I , - - , I J ; I , _11- � � "i , , , ­ , -, '­ .:, I., , , �. - , I .1 * , �',_ , , , . Z,, � � � , _: " , � , , - j`_n" - �, , - . , � " � _­. 11, I ,., � - T " � !� � , , , " , � 1 11 - ;,. `­­` h - _ ,,, I * ,,, � , 11 I- , �, , .., .1 . " � ,."t, L:_ ­ , �-, - v - , , - , '� - - I '� - , _ � _� �. � �I ,,,�� � " , .1 1, -_., - ": :1 "A, � ", " -,; _ , , I , , , - , q - - ,�� . :��`,I,� ,�:'�; ,,:, ,,,--, ��,_­ ,­­ ,,,�T�� - .. - ,�.'-- _.�,��;.:� , , '. _­, I .� 'I, � !�­ " - . . , �, I 1 i'_ , , . 'I" : " , , " - , � . , , , , " I I., , ­ . �, ", " � � � ­, , "'Y'i, " 1.) " I , , ", . � ij , I . - - , - 1 & 4� -1 � , � , , ; win 0 1 - - - i -,,.,, ,, i, ',;.,. � - ,-, , ,� , , Q- - , , , , . � I ', , �,, , .., , f ; . . ; , , , , , !, �� ". r , , , - � , , . , " t, I . .1 . , . . . , � I , , - L V * -,-- . , - , , ,,�, -, - , Q, . � , , , � 010 ,a : " " Q :� '­�`i­`­",�:,,�­­ __ " � I ,,, _, % , , , , , I , , - w , �'. . ,`,_ -1. I , � � " " . . , , " - , �, , 1, I " �7. 'k , " i, ��-! �. , �. , , , , . I . , 1. ,,`;� �, ` , " , al , N " , , I, , :� , ;., :­­ ,,,, " .. , , I I, " '-2 ", , , � , , ,�5._. , =i ; � : . , , I, " � ; Ty � " � , ,_;_,". �",. , �,i� -'�, �. " ."', ,�� � � � , , , ,-� - ., , . ",� I_' , 4 . ", -, , � : " i " � , -%,4 '' - I -, , - I � ,,�, ��,,.,�', , ., I YAK . NJ � ... � I 1 ; Qjn�f . . 1� - - 2 - - 1'. 1" .".' � � �jjjj, - -,, � - � , _ , - , ; � . .. , �� - - , ! I % ,_ WAX_ . . - ,li,_" -. ­, �,� ": � , ,:::,,., ,�-,, - ,,, `�f, .,�..`., -I - �,-_,"_� - .-�, -,�. '. ,,! , _ , __ , � . - , , , . , - � ­­­ -, -, , - - t � , . , , - ­ " ,� ", , " � A", � I , - . ",_ . , ,.- , I , . . " i ; "I 'i " ;_,,: � - , , , - - i: -I- ..." � ,�, , , , � , , " �� - . , � , ­� " 4. - - 1�1_,. , " f, , . ". 'i , � , " I, 1 , ,., , - , , , , - , A", , __ , . I , , . , , � , � , - , ,:, , .. 1, . , : " _� �­ . , I . � � , I , I-. , . ,� , , - � , I . , -1, ! . r, , _� ." ,. ��_ 1. - -,", , ` " - _,� . "" _. , , _11 , , ! ,,-_- "� " � .I." " - 11 , ,-. � ,, , "il 1 � , '� ,4 " . , � - , " . , , J, ., � ,,, I - - , , � ? �', - I, '' , ", ,.. 1� ,'_� " -, , - � � : � � .., ': ;,� , I" : .�­�­ ­ , . , , .�_,,' , I , , . � . " A 0 , -,­,_�,-. ", " -, , -,." 1, �.­ �. I ,,, , -, - , - , ,."., ­ ,:1.1 'I; T, "I , , , , - -,. - - '-1, .... .. , ,_, �, , ". — -�,,I_ . ­: ;� , �11 - , . , I , � A', , " " . ! _,, '� , , � , - , ;, ­. -, i, " , . I , � , _,_1 ,__ I , , - , - - - " , '� I I '? , �, I . , ., .- " -, , - , , , , �., , .fI, " - ":�;, , ". , � I , ". ­ , I - .A 1 - - , �� ". . . � �' , " ., , , , �_ '. . I _1 � .. ,r - . . - . I �� - , I .% 'i 'IV' ,.;-- " � , . � 1�', I .I'- �* - I , , , -, �' -,.' ­ '. - , , , , : - 40 A- . -W -1, : A " - . . � , _'_ ,l , --- :,--. " - .-,. ­� - i., . 111, , , , . � �' - ,,., - , . -10% . " 'n 1 - . � , I I . - - �; -, , � . - , ,� , _ _; " , , _ - - "I � , I- - I - kj� �7,' - , � '. " ,,ii', , .,."�., 1_�L _ �, t,,!� . , , , " � � - - - . - I, .. . ," , �­ , . ", . . I , ,�T­ ,,, ­ ,.--, �, - " '. % 'I " 4 A, --, '�, ,, i"", " " -� -, :, , , ) , I . i , , � "" ' � ,�:� � - ., � � - , , - -- ­ , 740 0- . , `,v_"An � - , , , , ,-, T'�_ .- - - " , " ,,.'" " , I I- " ., � I . * .'. - � , , 1, �,",' , '. I "': ,,, �-, ,'- �;-: ­ '7 , - '_'_t ,� I 'v. ,� , . , ,.,, ` 1� - - _,,�', '. , " .1, .. � � � .1 .,� I """ 11 1:1 : - - - , , - , - , - , ",_ :T,,'-- ", ��­' ;�-"', 'k '�-�'-. J j- , " _� , _7 - ! 1 , . - � -, - , ': i )­ I - -1 I , a An : , i ., ., "I ", - _�� ". " 'I, �­­ � �, - , . - ", � , , �, :1, . �,�'. . i I" ,,: ,�. ��_ . . , - , . � - . - ", I T ,.. � . � '. ;I. --i, .:­,-­� ,� .I- _'_:'­-_ _ .. _�� " " ..,. _� — - - . i- ,,, i.. �; , " , I :_114 ,Vl� 1 ,� ,-� I , , .,", i; , -. _, "-,- :, �,�,' �. -, , � . , . , , ., , , 1:�-.'­%:, � , , , - , , �, . - I . , . , ., - % � - , - - ­: , ­­ , , � , , - , , - , , �� ;,,.,. ­­ � i4, �­ , -, - ­ L,- -, �, _j, ?w � �- p � , nyw, 4�, , � , , . I . I - , j­,,�, .. , , "�,�,­,­ : 1 ".7" 1 I i". , , , - � - , i--- ", I � _:�, ,' ` , ". - .11 �,� - , - � '.�, �,, ., 1";�'. � , I � . , , , :i, "V,�.QATQ I 4 n 4 JnA;� xx-,� - ": ""' " , , , .� - , �­­­�,� , , �_", - ,�­­ q, " � :�,,:,,i­, ", " `_,� , -I, � :. ',­',.-,-,, " " � - c, , � - , - � - --.-, -, -, - — k , . I ,:, , - � S -, k, � ". , ,,,- � -.,! -- I", _ - �, "'I.C11. �� _., g 4 - - I w � c i- q,t",q -, " ­­­", ', " . ,,� �'l �, " ", � '' __ � , - ,J',�'� So . - , , � , , - . � - , . - �� � - , , � - _ � I I , - t -4 A,1,41 ,". , , , " �- w , ', so I -q A -WoQt- Q, " I , .1 - -.1 .", - L, , , - 11 . _� .� "; � . . . , - . , -, 1, � I 11 I 11 I, 4, , :, �, �. .. " " I - I, ,,'.'i, v ',­" 1:�. I" . ­�� " �l ­ 1, W,, ,,, , �-wv 2 -1 - - " , , , ,_' -,'� � "' _�. ;. - I . �'., I *, - -,�,,,, I : :- ,! ...... 11,_�-1,11-11-- -`J;, 't,-', "I 1-:1 I _ . � ,, I , 4XI-1 , - �" 0, nvA � .1, -,i'.,� ­ -,'., ., - :00" �jw � - 1, - I "';_ _ ,.'. , , ,- , "' - " `�' I I I ,­ _,­­., � ; - -, , . " ,. I. � �­" ,-�, �� , , , , ",_ � - � �',�, -, I , - " -d , � .. � I , - . � , � :, ,` ,_� �,,,_ _',;,,� - , , � " �.,i - �;,, " � , :. , . . ­ ", ,�, �.,, - �, , " - `,�,-� . __ , , 1�� ;� "",_'-t -. �-,' , I�­` �, , , , ­: "", . .., - - � " , , , I __ , , - , , . J- , . � IT, :i", _4,:� ;r- 1, t I � " � , �,,;, - -, _ _ .1 � - � � I _, - ...' I'. . . _ �, , I - - ,,� ,.1 I " �, 1 .-'­ � ,:. i, _­-­' ,­, , � - , , - - , I I , , , - , , � . , -1 � - - `� � , "', , � ` i��,� ­ " , , .- e� , , , , I, , , j , , . I � 11 � 1�k� I", � ,I , ,,� . , ­-, : t-_ , % ., . " - I, , !, ,,� - �, , , ,,x" -, " - _ , , , , ,r-'.`i,lz_:,ll�"-_. - - 1, ., " , � ��_, ,;�_­ ", ., " " ", � - - � ,. , I , ", _., I � ; , , - , . , . - "'. '. ". , 1 _6 . ;V 1— -Z; V. ­ " ; .. z � I ,'I- , I �- - ­� , "', ; �, - �� �,',, _', , i7 , '. '__-V- "". . � I " . I . 0 - - An -. 0 NIL "o'—w-fovol. 0 - - It: __,,� - i, � � 11 '� ', .. '. "I . ; ­ , � _ ­ , - - 1, - I - - ._ ._� I . :.- � - " -j -'. I "I''. ,, 11 , . 1-1 .- I '- �, 1. - , I ." , �' I . '. - 'I,- , , i, . " . 11 � I--,,-,-- , , � _ , 'I, -, " � I �-,---,� , _ , ,� I-- . , ,:,. � ", �_l 'i, � : - I - _11�� , - I , "�. , - 'i , - , � * ,,, , -, -_� ��_� ,­-,,'� ,','..-. � ', " ";:',.- :u 1. - � - � � ; " "'. - �_. , � - I --� �-,­,, �,� , i'4'. ". - : ;; .111il, - 1, . � _ ., ,. , I I � .. - � �� . I ­,,­,'-�,��!, ". , ,, ,", co 41 Y X ! pn ..,. , . �­� I . 'I" , " , - I , : , , � � . ., .., � . , i�. '�� I � �11"i, , , -, ., : � .. � , . . - - " , � . . , , - , `.I., , ., "-. , - -,J i' t, . '1� _­� I 11 ., '.., - .": .. - " ." :', ,- , , , ,A ,-, , i I , , , , ­, . .1 , :, , _ , , - t , _ ., - �'. I , . , , .1,1-1 , , , .­' 1�� vw .=Xlolw iv; , ly , jn� !,I Q� , 1 : -A IN -P , , ,y MOO .- , �' , I, Z, > 1�50 V Qjin - �0, � " 00"jo. �ni, A 7' -% ,y . —1-0 . Of. � ­­ � .1 ., -1 � .,_ . - -, - "" "', -�, .s", , ,; _',�,,, " , ..... . � , � . ­­ . - ,-f - _-_-, 1 Q I "I . . . - 141v VIA I A " - Q y i4 � �4" YQ � _- ­_�, ­ .� ._ Z� i - , I � , . ". I , I - ��" q? Nil- ww_ . 1, �-,,, -� " ',- -," , . -, ". i'l ,�� ­�, 1 �.:, ­ � , , - I 1� 1, �,, '. - "',­..", -,�,­_,, - , , , , , . , � " � ,�---,,, _ _ , ,�� � ,I , � , - � �- " , ", , - - , � " , , � � , . I I .. - - W� - � ,. , I, " , � . ,� � ��_ , � ", ,, ,,,�, n , , . I , �� � , ;4, - --l' � _ . , - ", qr,4 , ., " I - , , . YI, " I ., , � � " ­ ll�_' " � , , , � � . I � , , . %'r,., , , " , ­�, ,..-,/,,,, , __ ., �l _- " " � �", -:1 '. , '­ �, ", ­ , , , ,�­,� ,,t.,���"",I".:"".�--,�,�,��� 'I -, " ".-i' ` , , ­ � ,j �, . I - , . ,� , . , , e , ": -.,! .. . I,-.. ',,*,. -),-�� - ,; "' ­. � , ,­ ". _ ,�,--,�.,��.����.'.-'��,,'�,,��.,�,--i-", _,� " -1, `� ,, 'T I , , "'.". - -v-,;, - , , � , _ , 1, , ­;. . -, -- -- - - ;-_ , , , , , �, " �,­,�;,., , '.. � " ,­% �,, . ­', " � - , �,�, ,­ " ­,­,,� - -, , - I , . --,, I , , �.. " _ "" , , —, , ",',`;­ , .", � , " �,f-T, ." " �- " .� - , ,,, �,- ­�`.0 I ,� _ � , " .1 I �., , ..- i 'j" "', - "', ­:, �,� Z:" ,f - ,,-��- -"- . ,,, _�� ", , , [�� ' - , 1* T ­, . ,, , � � 'I; ,,, " '.,' v, f, �� I �t�;�, " " I I I , ­ - � A , , , , � �, _,�;�, , , , . , . , �-­,b, ,� ,� I G;, ,,II:,:.j ", -, I , �'�,_ ;',;, , , , " � - , w A - � I v- v& !- -6 so � , Q, "j-,-;_ "', " ",I - �", " "I' I` ,�' �, , ,�, - " .­�' � ­ � 1 _4- , I . � , ,'' -p, n I," TM Q V", =V- � %,qnn n wyl&j: �q�"lwl I 4 r , ,,, , , . , , " _'O , �� - , I,,. , - , ,� "",-._� ,,,��- , -,� " - , I, -, � ., , - , 0- I , ;z"�-"­ "'�­ ,,, i,!, , ," r "i i. ,�� �., -, �- , " - � - - - " , - ., �� , '11. �. I , I I , ­ , '' � - 11 �,,, ,,, ,,� , " �, ""', , - 4 ", � , , y � , , ­ , t, � " - I- , . � , �!� -- , . - , , , , . � . _. � , , � ,��, � i, " . �4_�, �­� , , .l , , , , , , - � - �, ,,�-­ i-, , , , .Li ll�, " ,. -1 ­._��.­� ;�­.',r�l� ,`,,�,il-. ;,,, , �,- I"";"" ­,�,�- , , '. ., -, -, .;, , , " ,".. L _. ", ,5,,�­., ., , ­! _;�'��z: �, -, , , - , � -, , " , , " - , I , ,� �,,e - " �1��!.., �-,, �,, - "I'-.11 ,", :-, - "'...", ­�,�i�' ��, , ,,,,, ­­- ""� ,_,'', � ", . � . -, ,", � , � ' , ;l �, . "I , 'i L-'-., ��;, , - '­!., - , I , .; � 11.1 �, '.4" � ,.,'.� - �_ " , , _., : ", � , 1, -, 'O 0 h , ­­ � . , ::::: ;, - !, 1'1:11� ­,, --iI !_I­� �'%�.- - � " .-I ;I ,,- � : ,,, , I� -, %­;, -I, I : ".� � . , I , k, - , ­ I , 1, - I. ', , _;, , " �:,�_,-", �,��i4�, "f, t-.*. , :�", � ..� , - ­ , �,, � .�:14.1- - � " "' -�_ I , ", -T,,�._ , . I;L_ , �y " ":;, i" ': _� � '. i ,,�� � _._­ . , , , " L :i, , , , - ��,, �� , -, � , -, � _7: , " �, I I , , " , , � I ;�, : . - . . . ""i�,"''." ! �� I � ,� ', � . , , ­ " , ,� �� �A Z, 0 jpf A . � � ," _�o 1 � N , .- � , 1 wv � 4 son - �, ,�­ -, -,­��, - .�,.�'. . % - 1-,,� - I - A, = : k n 1, - 0 j"W7 z", - - 1 � 0. I ., I w �n C " j , �n . � , 1 "I" '' ; , .1 I � - � � ,,�,,,,,�-.,,�,,.,"�.",,,.,f�,-, ,;i,i�,­ Z,- ':_­-_� ..... .. I � lqj , 0 -W Q, - '­` � I - i. , - 1: i I �'. ."�l � ` "-- * � I "� -, " - -` ` .-,- �, , � � , ­ , t, �­" , ;''.�� 1� ,,:, ! " . " i,;,-! � �, , , , , , -, �, - , __ - `-,-,�,�`.;�­�­,�," ::�,,�.,��-,,-�-"":V-.*,�2,',,,,,,,.'�-, ­,�,- -- ,-­� �, - - '. ­ � -. ., I , __,, , �,,�,��_, ,,�",., !". "­''.." .� "; �� " ­�'.I­_ �1, 11-1 "el."ll ",'_ "'I', ­.��­ � ­. 1 ,'�,4­ ­­­­ � 11.1 , , ,._ - � 4� -,"i- . - � - ", , � - " I -- " - " " I _­ -, .,..,;�-%4, . I _ 1� 1, . -1, ,, � .. - , - , _,._-t.,..,. ,.,�'_I, ,�t, � ".. - , ­ , ',�,: , -_ . � _ 1 - 1�75W A�4%*' ., -,& . A � , . -. , ST . ,�, �l - ­- " e". , " _. , �, . - - " , -1 - , ',I - ... - - �� - -11.1 , I - j., __�,� � ,- - , � , -1 , , I 11 I" -I, , � k ­�.-.l .; , "", ", i I- ", '­­ ;_ � , . - " "., _,".., -, - , - I . . , , -,. . "., � - , � , , I -, �­' L, T,'I . . ", . � , , � -_� ,� ,'.� '� - - �p. -, ". ­,", '5, I—, t I..", - �v , - -1 1-1 - - "-,;, ,­­'� .. _­ I- ;_ it �­.l �4 ­"_,� ,:,. r , � , , , �,,'� ;,, 1,� , ,,'� �,: ,,- , - " - -,,, � - - � . , , . - .';_ .'', .. -, - . - �,­ ,,, �,­ __b " , , . � �, ,_ .", _ r '. i , _ ". T "- _. I -! .. , I �, .. I 11 . _ . -, � - ­,�­­ - , ,_� " � �, I � , _ ­ 1 - , . 1 ­,­ , ­ , . , � ,.,. - , � , � ��_ , " -r-- I , . � , �_. ii" ­`� ". . '' , -0. ;�vn �T_Q - , % , Q- , .01 5, Y 0 � � , > """. ­­,'­ 1-7, - , 71 v 10-v � �, - , " _�', . , , �, � .", , I", - � , 'I ­_' . 1. , . __­ I� , �'. 11, ��­ ",­ I - � - - 4- -.­.; .'" " .� , - -4 — % ,-_ 4 - P I _-, � 1� !-I i -n 4_ 1,-, - , , ., . py"i. 10 Q 1 ., - " W , M .P.4%> .m"Ma- ., " ". p , n 00 -y -L, " . _ 0 �� , .,y 1 Q-"4 , 7. �­ * i, , , , .j."'. :. '. , ,' �, �­ . ­ � . ". _ � -.1 �� 1."_ ,A.,- ­ , � � �_ �� � , ". - - -11- -,-,--I "k, � - '-.'),. �: -, ,"� " -, ,­ - , ," ­;,- -;, , � ,,, " . �- .1 II , "I. ­ " " --, -','.,,,.-. "­",�''!'� ' - ,,�I.` , ,� , ; '_ ""' :1'_�­`�"',­ '�" ,� .. ; _. 1,7. ,,I. � ., -- " �f� . , _, � ", , , ',''�,.­'_'. ,�, �, ,� _��', 1� _�' , ' - '" � QQ 1, - � 1 1_11,4 _ ,' � 7� 1, Tj�_­ ;, �IAQ.:� � �. . � .. :._� _t ';! - I'M � 1 W§ - w ow. 7 - ��,.,�', , 1 - 0% �% W, my"g "n, y - 1 � 1, -_ ", � . . I �, I I I" ., _;� __,,_',,'�'�t"�" ,r?`��­­­L�';�:-"�' _"­iI - "'i- my a 1 0 0 " , I I ,�._Agy- Qq"q"x - OR 1 T 0 3 " I M Q " " WNW 1 z I v p a - a ^A, � "� P_�� jj_ 1, I '_ -, '­� 11 -, I ,,�� � �, � � � "'. ", _1- ,� ­ .." , ­�­ I , ,,;,, 1, , ­,�, �­�,.?!i, t . " 1;--7111 � , ,`q'� �, I , ­��',-'�,�:, - � ',,,�.�!,K 1-11 A 4xqol` wo. Z, 4, , '' . . 1,: "., ��­ .1 ,,� ", I ", V., �­ , � , I 11 , , A, , " ­­_­' -_­­;­_,,-, -�,;;­A,Qi`I*-�`,-, - 411=902.0, ", � , '�;, �i . I , " �, , , - - � ­ , .. 'k.", ", i, :I - ��­­ �'- - " �, , , ,�.J , , , '­�,'­,�­­"._"�, � , - �� . � ,`f, � ,,',� ,,j ,�,` -, ­ , ", '?, ,� " �, 1��,­,i �, , � , , ", - - .�` . . , ...... "". . , I "'I" ­, I" ; " "'., �_� -,.,? '.1 .­ . �� ,,, , _� , , "". � Z " a�yl TVQ . ­ y . 1 1 of � - , �, �� �,- .� , ;.�-� 1: "", !��_ ,A 115 � � .Y,��V- '" Q " "IN, t� n "�VQ"" 1- '"I via 000 "t- ,, `:,� .". . "...'.'. - . � ,,, ", - ;- I , , ,i- ,',,�.,t,,7,,l , , �­, , - ", I -­��. � " ". - , , _.� Xf v 1 " 0,7�, - � :', � . . . , , - -1 l -,,w 0-` ,-Moir _ , . ".. . " , , _ - ,,", -1, � ", �, "I" ^ njo 1,4 "T� I p � - ,,4 t, , �., , . i- , ��,.;,_,.'Y , , r"', ,.',� --,� ": � - -, �_ 1. ,:,.-.. ill , """ , , , , , - ­�_,),�,, ", , " , . ..... , _­.,� .1, "nIAX-1 V " - Z,nl,, " , ,-. " - �,�'� - I ,-­',� t.�,. i-- , ---S�! , ." I � t "", �. , -,i ,_, i, � ,,, - - 'Il ,,,,�'1,11­ - - I 1, ". - , I - 11 L - , ii� , . , - ­ 4 , , , , - ,,Tl- �, " 2 A A p 1 " I w � W -N --*zm,ta-ci "010 j,, A.Q t-;, _ "L ,_, 'I, ��,,, 1, I, , , I, , 'r, '.. , � �.,'.,� z - 40 A A - � � '. it 0 � - :', ,, ", �",, "_, - , - z .,;- � " , I _ ,4 F - m , Q , , '�­­. ,i- , � - ,'�',I ,�- - I "." , ,,-- , 1. ',�',',l,__-`.,,' -4-T,.;',' -, ''I - i � ,-f,,- ,-­_�.�--;,: _ Y' �'-:"�V­,,7, ­, - � ­ !,_ ,,, - , , 1: '­, I , '­_ WX - U , n" 1, _ , , _.,. , ".,, , ,� ., Ii. ., . " � -";l � .�! � ." - :z I , , . �. ,,�­ , . �� ii '.1 � I , .� " , " ,,, ., � I ", - .., � t - 1� _­ � � , -4j,_:, ":"v ,-, ,`_� � ", , " - . "", ­� ", - , N , - , 4� , , �,�. � '. i" ,,, , I.I­ I � � , � �­ -, , - -- , ,,, , " - ,� ,,, � - ,,I ., ­ , � � " -0 . , , ­_ - " - - �­ 4 " ­ , Ii,li�� ., '' - � I ,­: _-.�T- , " , , , " , ", ": 7 . ;AP"Anno ,� X�ln , " . � 1. " t"Qq_ ,�& �� , - - Q�e % ; ,�, ,,, - . �.�z '_�;, ,�.­ ,� - i, ,, , - , * -- -� " - ." " , , " v-, , , ," " 'i , , ­� `:, � - . ;,* - ., , "', ,-, , :_;�� , � �, � Wn%"o ", t ,;., , '.':� � , . . ­�, -�: , T." . , , ,,�, .., " " � , , - �,- -, _-,,, - - - , _. '� , , I., I I I ,.-' I � � .- , � . , I'- . � . . . I I _:,� . , , , - ,.� ", , '. , , wn, l ­, I ,I , , - e"'. ",­tl -� , , -, , � _,-.,I-.-, , , ,� I " - ,��, . " � . - " , ,I ,_ll "I. 1�, _�. __ _ I I 1111.1� , ,'.,.',' 4�,�,,�, � , "_'. � , �, , ­ . I"", , , ,:, :_� , - � -. I , 1,� , A -, - , , _ :"__� ,,,�, -,. " -, __ I , " " - , " � I 1" ,, -,w , � 'i - � , - ZU " 1 � _. :,�,". ,,-,,,, :.. . '; , " - �,;, , I , - , q� � np .,� ; j, .7 1 -: I�M--*.ja "q ,�; " Z q; q a 1 nn A ,0" is �­ n I., � � � "� . _ , ", " - " , " n"'vol wo w � - �< ""; .1 ,­.'�_-,t;,�� "t I,, '. - -1 , , ,":. ,,,, 1, , _ _Q � - VM" v ­� " 'vZOW " 'it, 0 . A v I I . " - " '"' -,- SO ,-,: An".- ,-, �, " �, 1� �, l--", 4 ,� , , .111 ,. , , � ,-t -,"L, , �', 11'.1, � 11 1. - _ - �", . , . -i , , 4 __ , I . " ­� , - � - I " , .�_ . - �. Jp� � 11 , , 4,4",", 1-1;1, .1 """", ,, - ,­Z� ". , " " . , . " . il�-�4, -. � , " - ,,�41, , ,�,� ,� -.-" ,,�- - 1, �, , �' , . ll�ek­!,� -'l, . � "', �', ,-, , � -, I -;,t... - [. , -� - I, , , :,-_-�,�,_­ � " ", - ." :i'I I, ,,, e "", , , - - � .I., I , - - I , I, �� . '_!',�'­,�Il , I ,,�. 1. ,,,,, , - ". , Al"O . I �'­' ,� " , '. 1� , - , ,:,-,z - ,,- . ! I -­­ _', " ", I I . - l- , &A a "T -" ,"A ,�, - - - I lz­­­� . ,� I I., �, ­.":-,,, ,,� --: - ­,:'"',�,il ,�­,i'l-,i,;j ""I" '. ,�,l , , .;�� ,,,,,' �-, - 11 � I ­­," ", - , 1, , �, t�,; . , . '', " ." 111. 1, ­'­:�­­I I I g., , " , _', " .41'". _ _'. " , , , - , .;" . , Of Pal � Q- ,,.,,,,,,,,,,. ...... � ll�v I'll. "j- - � " I . '. � - - . ", ,� -,�',' , -,,4 1 ..., , . ',� , - �Pi,'­,i " ". �� ­ " �:,i7, , �. - I " � , 0. nq 1__", I , �­ -,. �: ,.�� , " �, !,,I,,- I,- '11,'� " ,,,­!,__,� ", -, - - ,- �jw '� , QQ -_ - - , 4�_f. �, " -1 " ,, _,_�­; _,,,,',l_l, . , i, �l I I'll 1. � '­ -, , I_ _�­,�, ,'_­ � , -,� , " t. - -l', r '­­� y I X p 0"_ a - �a "q� n" "" ", I - _Q�Q -,a ill;'t-, , 1 ". , - . Qv"j I �" I " �J- - � _ . , " ,a, , � " ,� -11 -111 . �. , � ,- -, -4 I, A, �11 � , ", -,. 1. , '� � - �4 , - - , N Q�j � 'A' - , . �, �" , � - , , A ,�_� ":, : :, , � " q � l ,, _I, , .� , 1- "' �� ," " , ` ,, , """, ,.,. - , � 7. �� v"', -. ,­ "), I " , , 11 ­ ­­�� ­�, - '- -4i . _,�_��, � "". �, , , , , , 1'��.. 1, � , -.l. - - T Q " 1 ny"! _.'N", ,P�,�� , -­ , ,,,, ­ , i --. � i, -, - I , - I - I ". �' ­­ � , �, 'r , , �:.-.­ , , I `/ � , � - "I I I ; " � � �," _ _ 1, �. ., �, , , , -i . J,,,,, _'­,%,.:' ,�", - , , -0100Q. " A ,O - a ,- - ""K, T - - . 40 -1 -_ ,- -�. ; q ,- 0 W, 7. "'ON13Z C,j, !;Y, , it , I �j,' '' I " , ". ,, , '. ,,, . , '. 11 & ,­­ I t Q"*"�, :. - - , Y. 1, � I .�,,_ -, z ­ , , ", _ - ,,- - ,, " : -�­ , ,.".' - ­, ,, , , , .�, � ,�' �',,:� '""', , - , , , ­ , " V - - , A, � , i 11 �­ ­.,.". __L, _ _, 'I"- ­j�,'� .. : �-� ,,.,.,I- -, , " , - ,,'� " , % , ". , . .-_,,-,,I, . . ,,, , -, , 1, , __ , I _ I - , ;, ­_ ,-,,;. , , 11, , ; "', !,.;� "', -'; I—* 11 I.- , � � "-"n A"01 � v �Tl " ", � , " �' � �'_ - � ", : __,� ,,�, " , n, t 0 t. �­_ , - , - , " , _ . , - ..', '' I --- I � , � -i "i ,--,i_,,_', - �. �. "', ". �' �11 I.- � . - _, , - ; . 1� - - . ­�� �4 � i, d �­ I I , 11 I � I, - :, � , - . " .'�:�` , , " , ,,�,., �" -, � "I' -� , - " , "; � -, , ,`�,, . - "i, R, 1 V�,­ A., ., ", - : ,:, ,',­ - - � . I . . � 'i . - � _ , " I , I � , I, -4� - -, . , , -, i . , , , , . ". � � - '. ; �­ i 1;1 , I , , ; �, ­ " - , ,_ , I I ',., � , . , " ",_­� .i , - ". " � " , , A4, , , , 'i _ , , � - 1, : , " ', , :,,, - . , .;-, �' - , .-- ',� ", � , � - , I -'.' '. '. ,,,, ", " - I . , ", , . _ , -�I, , - -, , . , - � .." - "I I ,I -,A, , " -`7��, �, �� ." - " ", , " � � :,. " � , ", � - , , , - , ,. o", �, , I, � � _. -,.-, � - ,,,,, �, �. -,. � _: � ,� , , ­ , , , . - ­­ ., - - -1 . . - - , '.. ;.; .- ., ,.,� "t, I ,, � , , � 1- I -­ ­ . , I- V_ -V-0; ; -, "I"­:�-, � . '� - � ", '. , , ". � ", '', _ , , - . - , -1 LAO , " . A- 0010", '� :.'' -;­ , , " I . �,,,-,� ,�t 11 , ,-T,-,-,,, , ,;, �: . I, . __ ,� :, IT ,��_,;-� -,;, , ". " ,,�,_ ";.., - t,,,;.,I -, � � ", ".,. I ,� . , ;,,,- " , - I- �,, - I " , .. :1 "I" 11-1. � ,�_ : 11 �; % zio- ", . .- 4 " - �, , . I '� ", -1 " ::,, , , �, � -, - I,, J. - i, ". ,-' . , T, Q, , IV!" 0 ­', , 1". -;-­�­,` no ,. � - - " L `� ',;, ' "' , " - ;r ,�_ '_ ,:, _; � I 1- - - - .� ' ' �% & " = I .. , - _1 _� , , - , _. �� . " - � . ,� , - ,,, � I . " ­,�i,' . , ., - , - " ­ , Q 0 f , I . XV PN��""� " ,�,. . , , " - -� -- -, I . ': , , , , ,� - � I ", - .1 ,� ,,,'i�, - 'i"', , .-; ,:" - t-4 � , ml. ',� - - ;`_ - 'i ,, - . . - . , I..", � , �`.'_,,. ,`,�'­ , ­-, ., " , �, e, � , tit, - - -_, , , - -_ -i'_;� " ­_, " �_ ,. - , , .� i,;,:,._ ­ ., , - , : , ,� .- ." ,, '. " .'. I � ,11 . e�� , . , , , ,� I - _� I � ; _,'� " 741-.- - " � , � - ..; � , - 1 � ,"',:'-0 Avvy " ��!. V -1 5 - 1-1-1 007-A I � " , - , I_ ,�,­., - % "; - w - - " A , t, * , - - . , , � , �Z v:, , , ', T? _. _t "�;_ - , , �� . J.. . � �,, � - � � , I - �2' � , "', I . .I'� , , � � . wwP,4vQl,:- -,414.1 0 1 S,i w a, -1 I , - , .', , �,._' � - , , r '.. - �� - ,,, ;, �E" � ­­ - " "', , " :,­�,' I � �, - ,,�., � �: - ", , � - Ii;'_ ­ , . .. � " .,. -L.; , . ,, , - , - , "'.",-41. � . 7'"' - . ­�,' " 11p, � � ", . - ", � ,,�,,�,',�' �, , - ­,.",_. I, . . - - - 1. __ ____ - - . V . n -, . ., -, , 4, � " - '' - . �, � y V W ,4�_, " C jmy, w"k " . 0 - NJ q I 1 - , "W j Q f, " ,- '. ,,,, " " "', '' �0;'� I �'�`_'j�`: ' ' �k_ ''.. 1, _ ­ �� ' , " ', -.1 - ��­', :,-,,,A, ,� . -, i I ,,;�­, , . , _ "'Mo, M ; ­,." ,,�� , : �,,,,,, : _ " �, � , - . -, ,., , ,�� � ,0 '. , 2 - ­ " W %. ­� N I h, , � � , ". �IT, , , . � - , , -1 __ wl-000-0 Q in I . 0 - ,4; 10 - '�""�,­I­t:_ 1� " , _�,�'_ I -, ,�% V q, � P:yy vl.l, _1,1.� - ,:::::::: ll� � , , , -0:0 ;. -1, ­ " �v , I ", . �,,� �� , L, � �­ �,�_ .." � , , 171. 1 ill " ,-,,,, ", " ,­ ,, , _Q, qQr& i - :,11 -- ,, "I A",A,-, '.1 ,l ;l 10.�, , '11;; , ,'t,,�­,,,,,,,l,.',.;"xv% -,v WT.' ." 4-1 "�"lioc A v 1-11 ,7 :,, .., ,j - �. , , E , , � . -"y V ! lwf lvwpw� 'i I � ''I'll ".. - ,., � , , . _ - ­ , - - -­ I -" , - V 0 . a �.j ,T �Ov­ 1 � �,,% "A., 1�, " 4 '' , ,,, ""'I", ­. 1 -, -01N f1pa, �C, - _�, "f '" A ,,q U." � ­ , " � __ ", - �, "" ,�."Itol�,1,�''.', -,-r- , " 1 - a I " " I 0 I `� �,_­ "V T,_ ,9 - ", 20-1 , - ,. -1 00 A , - ,��,� j , -1 ",= , S- ­­�,�;,-' ­li­ ,,,��- , _. i" , , , , ; - " N . , ,,­�-"­`­­` " -, �­ . I , . " I T �;, ,� I, 'I, � , , " , ,,�,n',^,' ��� :;'�T.?��T_ "'." ". � . , - I %,�..�,�,� ., 4 , ,:�, "I I. 1, � 4 - _-,'_­ . I T 0 1 MW v , ��, . . 'I 1, -1, . _ '' , . , -i ,,� , �:.,.� , - ''i `­` 1 ��' � ?T., - " I �,� , - ,­ _ , , , ,-. I � 1, ,-� :-�,_-,:"'l.­_,l ll:�­­ ,� - � li . '. ­ -1 �� - - , � -1 �­ - ,�', . . , "I" ,� �, ­*­ ., ,., , , �� - ­.. ".j, -,- I - 11 _; , I , '_ �,' ,7'; - 41, '" -I' __ ­­�', 1, �, .." , "..., I - , - �- �,t - ,, - -_� I. ,�.,'A " I. , ', I. - , ", _­ X` I'- . - � - . f �l , e I -�, -,, , " , .­ _ -,-_';,� " vl , I .� I ?z , ­�l ., . , 1I - . '' , I -4­iy . ng� , � ly � ' ` n '" 1 .. _ ., .. , - - Tv 11 . V - , . . I . . - , " V% � 141&0341vxa� _0-L ; , -, , . , , . � v �. ,2 - v Y, � �� , ." � ��­ -, , , " ":, ., .,, '. ;!` , , , , . � _ '. , ly� , � ." - " . ., 7 �, ,;,.:.. . -, "l,-:' 0 a - , 0, I " W, - � _ �;�­, , ;I . � _ - " ­ , �� -, I - I �l " - ­ , . , , � _� , 4,-., - " -, � .:f,:". � - " .- ", _;� � _ - I �. - . , . , �,: I 1-11, I , , : i. � � - ­� - ,,, ­­ ,��- ", - " . n A . � � a - ow x,-, -, � xo� 1 , ','.�,-�!,',, :i -I " ­:- . ,-, ­-, �­4 ,� , ': � ,% ., " . �� , ­ ': ­- :­,"', .4"E ,�i I i , - , , '­� , �; - �.,,',,,_ - �l ", � , , � , , ­," ,,, owo" A " a �l -1 , I . I :" ',�_,­ '�. , -,,-,i . _ ­,­-. , '". ­_­�,, . . , __ - - , , , * , � , ..." 1-1 ­ , 1, �,. .��,�i - ­­ 1, , -r , , �, , 1�% - ­ �­t,�, " 4,41,'.- - ., ". j-%A;ww " j- . , � I , I . I � ,, ii-�;� .,�.. -1 11�1., _� ,. , " __�, , , : " - � " ,,;--_i-- - -­ -.--, -, - q --A, w! " -''.,'. -�%".;`I � -, � , , , , I,. ­ �' - . . ;,�,_ ,N- �I� '. ,,.' --I- ;4 . - � , , - - � - ,;.ZI I. � , 2- , -_� " -"C ", n 1� , ., - � . 1, I 1_� , ,� , � .1 � I .. - � . w I— ?": _­ - �.1 _ P,.,,, :­ , ­� " , � v " :,- ��-__,:,-i, , . ­ I I` �11 � -,..I -, __,._I�� - -: ��, ! �-,,', � ­ - -,' , , �. - '�� .',,-�-', I"". ,, " ' ' . �.� '. �,�­�, '11'�. -1- , -, .- , :w � r.i, " _ _ - ..'.., .� ..". _ '? ­ ., , I, , . , -_-,C� ­ , , , , .1 I'.,' , �"_�,­ , ;,�,_ -, - � - MN . ,-- - -. - __ " ,,�, -1 �� , , ,,-,, � "4Q ,�w-.q4vylkj ,,, � - 1� , ,�,�� , � ­�,`. -, - I , 'j, : N Il. - ,:"I , ."�111. 10FIRA , . , . .�,:, i, - , V 1 Win , . ��. ­ I C � -',i L�, - �� -�­­­�,'�_­17­ ,"', ­lil.. , i j.., ,�,, _ .�::H-N �" ,, -� , -, , t''', "'.4: ',� ­ � :,liI,4 '. ll_'&--_-�;�,­ - ­ ". - - �­ — - ", .,, I., _� j �-,, � �,,._' " , ­__ �­� I ­ � ''. ,, . _ , ", , 1� ­,�,,,L"�,� �', ,�.�t.!:"_., ,;_I�_ -1 -, _ i� � __ .,�_, � .1� , � ,�� , �l �1�1 , �i, - � " '' . , '', , - _ ,,"... ­_ a ,nc,w,p_"yp,v�"0, . 1, " 1, , " , . _,t, It -, .", - " ­ I. : : - , ill ,-, e"', '' �, _%) I � � , , I ,� 'y", �,, - A '­., , "".., , ,.;-, -, " ­ L I ,­, ,,�, ,,� ,, � �LT, ":, ", � ,'�i- " Ii;i,;,` L, , ­ . _ � . ,� ,. a ITITMA­, : " ; UI .1 , , ,l. - , - -,- 1, _� .� .11 11 ,"", ;,�' - ,­,��,;, ", ll�l I'— ; ��"'�l - , ,?­­ _i��. , , , _:?��,.',�', .4 ,:,' - ", � ­ ,, " '?, I � , "'. "''.'j.'' �. , i,- I. ""',­ , - "" . . ., ,,, , , - 1,13, ,­ , ., �� ­ ,. �, - . mw�- 4"Q- �%� 1- ; M4� , --, Q "; I ­v-­qjA t -q Q " , ,-,-, , '' ��`­ �;' �; I , , . fm�_ 1 "w"y 1 A . c Wmxx-�"'A" h", n �n,,, J , ',­�,��. 1,11�­, , ­­ I ­ I ___ 1�q,r�_ to SIM am " 00 olww I ­ ,'No, jdy_j� � - vi., - My " 2- ww� M­Qf lmw_�Xh Qx",I�' . 1'1__ ii"'';!, ­,,�`,I, wy rm.,,o 1 fw nw- v , I ",, . w ; - QXQ aim IV- M IM:awly 1 - K10 M no, A A,?.., 1-1, I ,.',j�l,i' ­." " *, � " j,Q"­L",­­­-j, ­'­;,.-.,t�;�,, '..",_7 0- -"& '0-0,_"Aw A&" Qq, . W-0 Q Q - Q 1 - — , - � - Q " -, A-, — — ­ 41 �n,, N__�Tow-,wll 51020 3,4!v " � - , ,,�,,',­,� , " ". ,­' � , ,11��,� , �� .�,_ -1-11 �i�, I - ,'_­l.;;f � ­­ � .., � . 'I', � I - l '04-Q -, . , - ­'­ ­,_­ I . `!­;I_'�­;��,, j!" __w ��ljlj I : . � i _,,,�:� ",", ­­ ;� I , . " .. � " � , A-�- " , �' ",�­ I ''. 2 �­ , , "'':,: �.',.��,��­� �i, ',� , 'i � � I . -- ", - , ` ., " - " ."".", I �, ,,, I,_ I—-, � rN " .11 :",;,_,�­-�­' �'­�._ " ,, ;,, I 1, I liT- i.:��,� �11, �:� " -, - N"T -, �, -, ,,j -,i:" T. ,;-,, � -,..-" ­�­ , _�__ _�."',�"ll"'i'O.' , , " � , ,,;__l',Il__-,,__ - , E,Ci 'TT � P "I . -I " �'-;i- �­_O, I. - ­. -­,,.". _'-0, � � � ."'i "ll, � , , ,_ - , -, . - _­ ­ .: �:­�, '' , -,I�,*­ I `�, ,�;­`,, �- , PRIO ,C�,,,-ff �'­ .','4,­,,li,�;,� -.__4_:.. ,,, "4--i-, , --- I'.1ql­f-­­.I,'l. 0 -AX,,,,,,�,,,,_,,,����,��',:,--,-,.�,,.� �` �, �, ,7- S,- � , "', _ t 1, . ;.�, -,'.,T'T_�',�ljl',',l 11"I" - '' �, I �w " -,,,,,,,.,t"�"^"�,.4".,,�;��,,� ". . I . I'v''., , , , , , " � , _,r�'.­,�. _.� ,,,, ", ,-_,'', :'�. -�' ' '' ` ' 11 � 1-1 ��,,�_­ - , � -,- - -i _�'. , -, �, ­iir, - , - �,A_e� � - _ I _. ,,, ". � � �­ :_,,r,, , _-. - ."""'., - _7 , __ ­� - , , , _ � - - .,:,� - ,," , , �I `,_`__l' , _C,-� '�, 1, 0 1 4, 1, , , �,I` ­ - __ , �, I. Inn v U" -V- , 1_--,Z, � �;,!_ " , 1. , , , ,,,:l'c � 1. �. - � __ , _%�_ , ­4"�W� nx �.,M "?--- , -0 � , " I � , , -, 1, " , -­ , "­ ­,!, ni , jz � , - , - -Avwy"v- 1v V_"� A �nv 1 "w4j_ 1 ��. ,,, ,�.. " 1, - �,'. , , - I -Xl I- lv"_,_0",; -Vi, �%A­ 1-0, A, I' � 2"% k�'_-� ". , , 1. , "'' 1. "T"yj, , , , , , N, ,.:�­__,5 ", ,."t " I­� ,­ �,�." '11-',�,� ., - " `l._,., , ��, I '. � , . _T, . I, - � �,�il ", ­-, _� ._,I,­i.­. - � �..' -`� - %., t,- , " , " " .-- , � � �, "', , " �"_­ ­." _:­ - I . I " __ ..A �, r, - ��,4-,_' t _*�, , ­, - - -1 ,�� __ ­ . 1 - - -, - , ,§-- Q 11�12­ ,.'e.1. ,­",.­­ , . � .- ? ­ lf'.,", -�� - - .4. , .1 7 ., .., � �, 111".."..l.. 'i,'', -� . I I -,'if�­. I, � , j "I" --,u " Av - �,, ;f - . �,_,;, . , � ­ , - -11 __ - , � - -1 - _ , , - v � - " � �� �, -:-, "�., , ,, ', i�, �-P� , "10 �, ­­ I_ ­V, - , - � __ , " _ I .� '_11 � ''. . 1. 1, � �, I � "I'l- " " �,,, "� 'i: - ­��­ i, , ,.-. - . " - ,�,, �,, M 4 Wn-� -0 it On A tv 'e",- Q , � T�R , � A ­ %­Q`,�A- , , -. ." , `-,'­� '4 I � ,, lAt.- , , I ­,, I ,,, ,iI, - Q 11 - mi*,V"�,�� -0. �m ,, n, ,,- �, 1, �� -Z W " -&W �", ,I I - ____ � . - � ��l���I'a . NANA10, " , �.,.,­'", ll�l ,-. 01,-� A- W I -.., �.;�. 1,. - I—, 'l __,"-,`,',;'-;-i,- ,,'�_',,_�Z­,,' ,­ , " �­­� ,4, - w 0 ,, .- �I:�,_�!­,', �_ P- --i- .i ,,,,',,,�',�'�, '_t, �,­'­' � �- ", � , , , - �, , � : "� , z, _,"t- ;j- - I -1, . . -, ", 11 I � �,;, I � ly, ,_­ , ,, :, -,;,­ " I ­' .""', "", i.",'', " - �, - , �,,-,,, "", . , 'I - 1�_l 11- ,�,�­.__`,&& ov, M am -N, , - , "A, "'o � - W. " - � n, -j"',_ _'. " � ", ,­_ , ,:� " "I r, 41 - " , , ­ - I 1, ­,,­ , 1, Is 't '. . .. _., - 1, ,_�7­1.�,l " ,,-. ­_ �ql� 1-4."., 0 AMAVQ­- "-� " �.i, �­ - �:, ',�',, q ,,,,,, "', I , ­­,�' 1 ,�__,� . . , � � " �, ­ I' �� �,,, � ". �� ", , . . q.1. -11 I _ , .�� I' �4­­�i4Ii�,, -i, -­� ��-- ", t4-, 1- '�"­L��­_,�_��­ f ­:!`­�I` ­ `Z ­,'�A­,,�" .� � .L� '1`1;1� __ ,, �� q_ , I 11-1. 1-, , �11 �l �; , . %1, .'.� z ,Z "I"'.", ��, ";A " � '-."I��,!, , , ,;� �. I ­­l%Il -3 ", , ,� � , , .1 " ,,, �,; ;,�'.,7'��ty"',��'..�,.�,A­ ON-xwQQww_:,yl,:�lQ ?%�-� v" 04 " 6 �l - I ll_`.� I �I , , ­ 1��,­i,* I , _ ,J�0,""�I_lwj, ­­ "' -1 - ",. _,j , ,,, 1�4 A- - - ­�,''.­,,, �! -,,, ­,�,,­, 1% ­�`, 1 , 1� �, - ­1,,�­­/ ", .1-1 I- , ism, QN -ann WASM--i"-Q& _QQ"l�,.,:,I,­' ,'-�- ,­,�,:':, ", 111-il ,'A, 4�.�,!­.�. �",":"� 1;� . --_,.-.,,- , , . � . " " - �,-, _:I v ,* " �,­',` ", - 1, _�",'­,,,, , ., , .;',,�",�', " - _,";t'" .,�,�, - " , � , I I, " , ­ ­�.. , �, , , , " � "..,� .1 1�1 , , , i,�,�,,,,,,`,�, :Tl,l� , ., ­ - ',-, ""p-41 ".-�,j, ,0jlp,Sjt ", " "__ � "p; ,`�'_Sv� ,�� ­vl"­l, ­,,_­ , , ­4� - 4 - ­ IF .1-4 ''""" i�­I �WWVS -�--"-­ w"_""Y�yw�jg".P"""�J' " 'I " "', ­,-,i__',� "', ,,�f­�L,;,k,�'�­. ­:_­ ." II -1 ,,;,,�'..;��,��,-,�,�,,,:�i'';,�i�;"r- --,,­;�­, � - , -1 �� 'I, I ­�,, ,'� :-'.. ,-,,-t, ,,- '' �I W -V Mvlj.l=__ � � -',�, �- �,,� .1, ! " ,___,�q I !_ .0- , , - A xMil W_ %. - 1 "" - 1, Qu -&WO _000 ��, V -.,. 0 " "' I A"' " .",-m"." Q-05�jQjjv:_­_, ­ " A ��;t_ ", ._ �017 -!,ony M -0 �m 1�n� ., ", 1, ,ij ,q, " "I � 1: � - -v 0 Qj I q: As 11 W 1-01 .- J-0 , , " A , wy., w" A on __ -w 1�� 1_1 . � ". � 4,;, ,� , , ,jq ­ " , .� �', .� ,'�� ',- __'.�' I --, I - P ". n "" 1- AjOx' �1­v­ .13 0 MA & 1 ,,-I. "Y ,",. I'll ­­ - ­_ _ "..'; ;,­,.­,,�­,_ I- - " , �­ . � .1;1 I � -,r ,.,: 1, , 0 - - . � - " A�m 1. y I �,�, k.Q_,qQ � - _2�- ,� , ,� _�, � . , _11 iL" I % A,— ­,,_ -�, , . . , � - ,A �w " , , �� ", ,zt-1 ­� - . , � � , - 11, �, I ": , ',� - 7,;, _1 - " � � . 1 , �, Z, - ZV: N i'i­� I 1.1.11.�411,­ 7 . � , -, ,_ �.,.'� , 11.1. q ­,,­'­� ;, � . - Ill .1, � " , J_ I- - P * ,, �� Y� - � ,,, -� . '. , !,-­ , , , �-I�t_' I - ", -­,, ­ , , - -- - -- I ,"'. ,� , " - ­­� ,,­, i'l ., I � � , in 1 , ,"n 1 - I . ,, _ , � "a "'..­.", , e . ; . ,.,�111'1�.,,�_ -,,,,.i_-'._. , , I , I! , i -l"'.." I .1 I ,�­ ,:� �. _" _ � -_, .'.' - � ";.,,,, 't ,z "., - �, ,�- , -, - ., I, , � W"', -00 . , . . �� ""'.­", : , , T'i, �. ".: � , , , ._ - ',. " , "'I", - - *1 11 1 -, I . , _-, � -wi .�, �, _%1V % - n - A- 1-11 ,4 , ­'_ -I- - � I- I I . � ",-11, , -I' I ". I'll, I 01" _; !`,"�'.' , ", � 1, ­ 'f ,,, .� , " -, , 11;i- I , - � . - - , " 1. � - . I ..-",-. , " "', _, . � � " -�',-. , I, " , .- � , " .% � -*� %,­ - , I -1 -, , , - I - , ,, � --,I ,46 , .,.": _, X �;_. 'Li.-, -�_ -. , TO Q_ AQ 0 - - '. "' - -� I ,,I I .., -- , , -,;, 'i , . .,t- , -­��'_-­,,, I,,, ".. ;-a.-N- Q A"S`&. A V- , - - _ �5 ., -­-: I " _ ­� I - 1, � , , ,, , ­ t �_ __ --:-;,: _%:. _ " , " ­.; ---'ll ­­-� " ,, " -- --- =.A --A � � my W", 1, - 0 , � . �", -, Q,w ", ��- ­ j �� -.4 ". - �; � �,�- "."fii". �-,,'_,," --,,,* -,-'. "­_ " ". .:, _i , I ,,,, , , V's ", " , � _­ ." I , _ ­ -, , ".. .7 " ., '. ,,, : - , , " " , ­ �,'ll �,__, - , . I ,"i I'll , ; :�`, , , ". n , - r � � - - - I ; - 0 , a ­�,'_'- "I ---,I �pj I '� , ",:, """', ',� �;,� , 'i :-.'_Al-,', � �, "".1". ; ",;,�,�. ", - '-, �` 1�r�.��,:% .�,, � I,.,,;. -11_1- �ii, , ,%, '. ,­,j'�i­-,'­' ":� ­­�, I " .� . - �. � �� , ­_� . , , , .4L , 0 10 -- TQ_w _RQU 0, " :-,,�,�'� �� �, �­ � ", �, .11i­,�'�_ ., , ... � , � ....... A ,, - - -., 0 " - ..... .. . li-,'��, , -17, ,,,,, - ", I,�, .,­­ , - ­ I - - .,I A44 XQT`-� , .� , � - �-`, ,, ��.,� -�_� ��­�,'."l ,,�?� --i'v, - I i -�O,_ � � -v�x"N-l",-vo-,� 1 1 � T "I Q, - , _ - , I_ ��, IF Q " - ,V, w , -004Y, - I'll, lll� ... ... . � I . � .,_ 'k a �W>Mb E 1 " a ,� in. w l-, 4- 1 - 'v up"n , l"n. ,1�j iv -"I, " , --_­� --t,� ,'�`,,.,-,,­ __­ __ � ,',,:- Ig A, - �,�__ ;,�, . ­,", �'11, l,'�,�,�,,�;;�,,,,..,,����,'�,., i'�`�' ,,(�,' %;t;__, ;,'I,.,. 17- i��_ , � � � 1 �, "! � " .. 'i ,7! , . 1 " , , , _i,. I , �, '1�' , - 11 . I .. �, I "', ­.� , � ". , - ", ,".0, - , ,-� - , " " ,,��' t �,, ,',:��, ,j, _, , , _� , "__,�, , " ,,-,�-_:_� I ,,,,�, .1 -,,,,..,: -i":, ''_�*,­ , , , ,­*� , ,',';- ". � .11 . , . I .,�.', , ,.�,,- " I : ,�",�,�,.-,,- "� � _i _ I '_ � � '4 �- �, �� ,, I��*!, " ", ��. ,';", , ,!".-, �'.� IIZI ",`;�,� �'; , ,, ,, � �,Z,� �;, - ,�ill, �. � ..", , """"', , -�, "", , !,, -,:. , , I I 1,- - - . �T, ,, �_;�,", P, " .�,�.",11;1' �­­�­, .�, ,­,,� :1 �1. ,­­ ..'a j - �,�., , i. -1 ",", .ii,,;� ... ; '' " " _7 4, � F 0 �, -1 - ", ,-,' , �­ _J) �, ";! ,P- '' _ � - '' ., ". . ", , ,,,� _ , -ii, -11 l-,7111 � ��,�,I*"L iI­.,;l',ll 1� N __ - ,f ", , , 1. , -,�,',,;, � ", I . I I" -_ ,:. ,.­ ,:� l,l:-,i` , , I-' I'll'- '­`,�;­­�,, �" - ­ ,, , I � , . , Y " z. , , -",to I &"- - - - � 0 lm,p_ I il ,� ­ " A-, 4- � yj " ,,,, ­.,-�-­ , ,",',-,,. - ­. - ,(�` " ,:,;�,,, ': �4_ -"-NY- yi­_S� , 1-0,&A P�l I � __,,,_,,i 0-4 Alto -A " 0 �VA I __,,.�,,�y ,,­� li:, , , k ,,­­ . . ­ � , ­ � "I I I I " � I , 1,71 "i '' L,­� �l " " , , A �"w � `.,i , , ,,, - " �h , I ­­ .-,-"-'�.'-"',-"",.,.",-;L� , ,.';.' " � ", ". ��, ", ;11 fv�� Q, ...., ,�, ", ,,, ­­.­ ,,ir� � �'�!',, ''�, -,. " , " , . � - 1- qA I 1 k K (,V� 1, �a & � "O 1; 0 �vzjo"17420 A, T " -"_-�, " --Q , " Q�l iT -, 1, , , : 'I., -0 __ _ & A 'IQ wp>",�" ,4�,,K, - f 4 - ___ -L 11 0 .2 -fly 10 UWAT a pp.jy Qoy-ysol&,�",,j w �, _ _ . W yj�_ 0 7�,', � - . - _i�.., ;'. �!, ,,, . , _ _ _ , - , , , ____, ­_ 'I, �,, �'.','�i,,�,_ _�-lx_l ",_,.-T--�- k , '. - . ��_, ,., .,�­ , '11� ­­­ - ,", " , " '­�., __-1 _­iz��,�Z� i" . , , , `;�,�k' ,��'�' - , "": , "', �l ...... - �t;, , �, . " , , - , � . - "i �. . ., , � _�, �n �", - , - " ­ , , � . . ; ___ - " " _ - � I . I I , , I", - �':,,;' �', , ,�, � , ., , � , .1, v � -- �>, , � 4_ _��,�',,­ - � , .. . __ .-, . , .. � -.'�.�,`�.,',­ il, . - �, 1, .T._11. " - �411'� �;�_., ­,�,­.­:, ,,�::' Na --o j I 1, 1, , ww,,� -"Q. -W ""t �VL,. . , _.�. , 't'. . . ,_ __ , ". � -, " I .t. , , , _ I , ba.x "A, 11 '' __­ � - " ,�, q "I - � 0 j &�"v en - _j -� . , .. '' ,j,ww,"_ "�A_v - � - -0 - - _Bpwr� ow"Q�Q, ,,, ,,,, an_pl 0-,' � � ­- - I .. - - "", Y -,�. � . ­ pv= . - ­­lQlx,:Q_-lQ,w my�wj ,:, . " ", ___,--:,A�`i . - - - , I, ___ i , :i,j�*,, ", il �, �� , , . - , � -X ��' '­,� ... � � '. .. 11 �- Qq&�Wlv, ;Ql"v"l';` � I, ­,; , � , � �,*" w n , I - - , ­ "a PON 1, wibo­, �Q "", -A . "; "I'sy w-" - . - - "I " � ., �.. � " , .., 11., 1 "', """ - -, , -j- ,_�;.'­ ", � "i. j" '�. ""', ,;; "T. . �, , .. "­ - '�,',�--,--�_,` 1-1 ­�-j-�­�.,.� Ir ;-:w_,,�,_,.�_-­., f 'k� __'a, _��14.4 ., ­ ,_ �Svyw- -=� �'­"­ " � � . , t',-� ,- ­,­ - ljojn�o � , �t .1 �:�It,'.',' ,,�'.: ,,.'-,' I— �, ,7��__., - �'.. . . ,54 _ " � , " � W� I "-- A - - wn �Unm OW, 4 4Q- A, - - ". - � - t - "z §_%� wn I � 'k , , IF . � � -, ,Y��A" � ". TwAy Aon -j-, -- �Ql_"e"(f.w0_,,-pw "IMMASn' I" 0 to -"- & NO -1:t. - ;T. " � , �yw ;0 &A Q "fo.nWA-v�Q -"WK Qww VY " nn�A ,:-­` I � _ ".; x . , ., -; � ­'�­' --' J `1�1,. .11 _11'.`,�;­', ��,,�, , - �:, , ­ z �� � �,l � �id� ,_ , "., . , 0 4-04"ql0w, �,.Q ,,. _� " __ 'I'li", A_ vv " �" gym -x-- W . -- , ", - sm - -I ?""­"­T� - �,,Tv,j "r- "'.-I-, ,� qq aqooj_�� -1 "p-1 - jApjQQ jg� " "w" A- 4 A AW W MARTO , "".XXX I �'� �', - n- "W"m- _ - , - , an'. ., ,i-1.70 %,. V� 7RA �,P, '" ; , ,�,-,!,"�'11�_ I ttll�­�l ", -, , ,6� .. '"; -,,';- --;.", � I -41'' , , ---,�, � - , - ­, - ,- - � � omy��- .- , �4!� - ­ , ­:,-,_, .�­;,­,,, t . T��, ,,�,i ,;,­�:"�,­, -,--;, "_".:i,�'­ , "'. , 1, � " , "t � , _,� ;,,,� -,,-��.,,.,,.�"",�i��,�l,;.",;�,II ­',',� --­ jQl� - -i , 1, y, ,, & V Y", " 1v t ,,; I 0 jq­ W, '- A - . ­ _-, " � I � 1. � ­ " " . ,�, � � 11 � ,­� li , " � . � -1 ..... . 1, ,,�,,"_ � , I ,� ,__', _ .1 ,;, .�, �,,A.­,' ;_ �, - , � . ,�,' _­,,.- boulax,lA I " -"T", � ,..,- I . ., , ,'., ­ , I �ii ! t -ps �, ", , ". " % A, "I .--"-, ,` . ,�­ -1 ­ ; , I �' . , ", �q, -AQ -03-W-0 V x0f , � �,, �­ , " ­­;. �, q W M Thow 1;-I'T, -_l---,T4 1 .. ,,.. , �8;1'ii - t , ,,, A� " , , ,- � , ,� .'Ti � � ,� , ,,, 0 1 Q 1% , n", 7 -0 ""A AT- PA "I Q "p. py , 41 -" " -1 - on- - �,, 'Al A a, 0 ", " 1 A "'i", , " v "I n I K_ in i. - �t , -, I ��. �� � , ­-,�wv I T an J� N w -, -, - ": " *1 0 Qy� , w - � , I 111�1,��­, ,t,�;wl ­.��_z -P, 1 1- 'r , 1, . , ,,, �­ , . ,,� �_­ :;, - m ., �.� "","', ",­�,"l;I IA � .;", �, � I ,� IQ _""W�jn, ,-. "' ", ­,��_�,i��.,_ � A . , , , ,-,�,--�":"","�-"�,�.."�l,,�.�, .��,�,.',,�li,�'. �i,, I..'"_111 ", �l � ,,��i, .1,, � ,V�� , ,­*�7' " ", �, ,,� " ! g ', � ", �!" - � , ..;_ ," _. ,� ", ,,,, -"" " - � � _. �; . ., ,", , ., _ ". , - , it,. ­ - ",; - , , _wt� � , , - _ -.­-, .""', " , , - ",� � _ _ IN �,� I I 1. � 1, .1. � � ", - *: " I . - _,; � 1�'l -1 . ,e " , , , , , , , , , " �;, , _ ,I, � ­,� , 'i ,... , ,il ,I., , -, ­ n� ­- - ,'�� , ", , -1 '. , , _ ""'' - 11 ,- � �- '�-,I,­ "'­ ._, , ", i, , "", - � I - . 'il'; , "" I I,-, 1 , " - -, 11 .,i - �l . �,,, . " �f I - _? I ­ ­`�, ,­ .,'-i�", ,­,-.T,,�_,, 1-1 - - � _,�� , .,�­- �, , _ I-,; ., ", , , " ­­­ ,,, - - _`t, , " 1-1 ',­ . �, ,4 �� _ , . , , , ,'j - I , ,,,, - V. I , .1 I 1.�� I 4 , � , , , ..", � 11 , - � - � - ­ -, - , , :,!_ , '' ­., A, I '­ ''I - '. - � ,,�;�, v., -, , ', ­.� .: . _� .""i" � __ ,�-�':j , -, ,�,�'.'­�­_ , ., , 4 � ,:, �, . _lil.ill I 1- - ­ I " I I lll� ,��_,:_� � � IC : - , , -4, '. , , " '.. . , � _ 1'�­­.._ �,. , , , . . ...I., , ,�� ­­ �� , - &V Tw- I I �- "I - 1 1100 - n ,,,, I' ­ �. " ,_ '_� . " _,_ , i�­ � I-,-. -, �,�. ,Z_,­.�- ��_ , , - , : �_Q , N, _Q -,.,! , , �If, � I - I , � .:_ P&j 1 '0-1 �-. ,`QnA �Q-_ ..'i", - .,.., �L . " - � , �'­ " � 11 " ; " "" " �j 0 o 0 � - a A ,,, ,­ ,., � , ", - - " - . "'�, " I 1 � �� � - .- - -,7- 1, �, ., , ', "",7 , ", '- i�_ i �.,�'i�� �l , .."; , _ "" - _ I �,-_- , " " .. -, - . '", �, - �­., _�' i,`- - - ; --- w , � 7,i`-," —, ,, - - � - , ",.,- , , !, , _. � , _ � . _: --, -.--. .; . . ", , _: t.. - , " , � - ;�_ ".. _;,:-,.� " " - - ! �,,.: .1_1 . I c ,_ �-, ,� �,,. ", __1 1, "', � � 1 " '_ .,6 - -, ., , _ . �,�v ":'' � , . ,,, , " - � 1'�i� - - ��'. , I ��: . ;� -"-.'-* _. I _. , � , ,., , � . , , , , ­ 1: :, , , , . jo�W I ON --MM- �` Ml.n�l n v " , I., � , I .. � , , " I .. , .; .- I—. :," - :-" " , - - .; -, - , . . ­ "; ­­" I - z,-, ,'� � , "., , _ I � , �� � -.":I ­,�_ll ir__,P -, , , ;�, _�,: 'i, � ,-, .1 _', ", 'i f ",_,"', � �_ �", .�,_ � , " � ­ I - - . ", . , .- I -Q'4,- , I � I— 4. - .. " - ',7, I , _7, , �l " 1- " , I , I .11 .: 'A! -I. '. �;,,�� . , .� , - ".� , , , ", ,- �, - - ­,: ­�� -1111'' f� '': - :, � I . "I , I— ", , - "� ­� , . A�,I' � �', , -_ I " �, ? ­ ,­�; ,, , P I ,. , - ,_ , w , 11 _"-'�. 1, � - 1-�- ,­__ :': - _,� , . '�'_ .- ,-, :_-, �­��_', -, - K I Mw 0, , . "I , � ­ ,"",'. , , � '. 4, ­ ­­, , " , , 'Il, - I— , . , __ I i . - , , ,""'� ", i , �z ,.�,�, ;­,� _,*- I I � 'k_ ,'t�. J.'__,,. . , -C . "� ", - � . il, �� "' _,�-�:,.�'­ �1' � ,� ,,,,, ,,,,, � � I. - � a 'i -P, .1 -1-1 ,_1 1-1. ". � l,.11il_, - .,_­ !­'­',� �._A ­. -, ,­­� ." � i, . " " -Al-_ - . - - - 11 1. ,--.,- I ': � ,,,- ­," , qi , ,'� ­,-,',,;­-::, "' 7,; - i, -� -i", ,�,:n ' ­ I ��'-_',, j. -T , ` -, �- 1, - , ", A, � , " - - � �V- v,: , -'s ­ K x ,, L 1_� ��­�qI" , , ­­ 111; �l I _ � :1. -, " ,, I - '_�, " ,, .. .... 0 �, " ., . �i ­ ._�,.r� " .; _ . - 1 ,A:7�_ 1 , , ,� " �_' j ", �..­_�-,: 1. , � �1­ , - , " �'. , - - ", " � .. " " ", .." � � -­ - , -, � _'s� ,;" � , ­ _. 1, I , . ". ,�, . � ,-, �­ � ."i'l , - �,��: , � , ­ ,"'1-1 - j,". . - ', � ',� -- '-;�'.. ,�, , �, , " �, ", r �,­i:., ; ""41 �,�; ,.­­ " _,il", , !,.,.:,, " .". , .�: ',:-,.'­_ . - "," ., - �T. , , 11 . 4, � - ��.l _ ."i., ,"ll ,�­'� �, ,. ".'i"" � , ­ , , - _ . _ I , �., I , - ­­-, ''. -_ _�, '. I - I -1 1, , , ".. ­ . , , , - _ ,,� I _­", Al , "Q I lov n�&­ 1 ­__ ." , �� ­- I 1, -A, "I ��ll � , 111--l' - k"i ,'­ -, . �� _�` ­­­ ­:_, , , �, �._� �, _ '' . I : _ . - ,,�, ,,, "t, , , 1, v 0 ,� n � I tow AN - � -, -, ,:�, "I"'", 1,1 -la—; wx�- � in :�j; � , �_­­ ". _ �­ , , " ;"�,-.:,�:%.� - -A , , �� "-1, jy� " - , "' . i*,.! ".. . , I a _M -y.- ,,, " , _ � , � , - " ­- . ­�� I_ �, , , , - _ � ­', . , " I, _ ; , . �A, - - - _- � ";" , " "'. I'll, �, , , � _. A, I ­ _ I- � , , ., - , � , -,�': - , , , , __ , , - :, I "�� ": ti�.�, �� .--";`I � �� ,s"4'_4_ , - , 'i 11 - ­ - - ­ t- * ­ "I - - '' I �' , lll.�I­ �, � , -, -1 j - - , . , , I ,� ", -1- ,; .� 1,1., � I �,� _�;­ j, , ��,:,--_ " , �-,,. � -1 I �, �i­� , . , -��",';�". I .- " I z-'., 1_1 I.:� .1 " ", , ,''I' ", I_ , , , .-; ,., 1�1 , - ,,,p � � ,:i. � _�,.. 11 , - ", 4 �l , '... ". I I, .­,,�' � - �,;_l ,4,. . . I �, , _�'l ,­­ �-,, " ­�:4 � " " - i� ..; �, - � OA owwj'i I , , , ", , , , - , " . ., _ �... I ­ - , . ­­�,­ ­ - : .,-. , . - - , �l � � I . ,�,l , , , ". . , �'-; _- � - '! � �: ..�,-­,' "-,.' � '. " �tl,�­ .1,1-111, -I:, � wy Y " w:Aq . , , I -11 - It, - I , - 1 &A To . , �.,�'� �,', � - '- L,.- , ', , , . , , , , ,_ "". ,_� , ­ � 11 ", , - �,�, -- -I� .-,.:-, �,,.,, f ; :t ,� " t" - . V "w". a�"' _ . " " � :Q�jg&% .: .;,-! G , .: , - . -_ ', '' I �i, ,, -, ,�� .. .­�, ,�� ,- "R ow"A I A- .." . .,- Z�n ln,"!,,,�, � " , � ,:� , I , � ,.: ,:, - - . � . 0 7 . - , " ,4 , , . ,:" , , - .�, 11 I - ,., - '­­ ,."� I "" �l .- � , "­ . - , - - 1 � " 1 �. J. - ­ .- � ,_ ., � �, , � ;�t I- � - . I , ", 1, ; �0" h , �- -T A I " 1� .1 -, - � " w- p. -�- � ,,�'.�_-.,',' . , , I I� " �­,� - ". ,,-I,, , , , On ; 0 QO. e A .3 * , I, .. :1, 1, ,�: .!7,;, : -,,ll_'.Ml .;,� ��_,f. , , ,­ ll_� , , , '' '' ` 7 . � - ,_ - 'I, - ,._ , , I, ., .. _.t� -, .. �, t " , '­! I �'- �k ­- I,, , , , I I 11 .,-.,-, � , -- - ,­ -, _'l 1. , 4­1..�., Il � I " ", �,,­ , - . 11 1 . '' , . I I I' .1 . ., � '. _ - , - , , , - , . ." t, -,. I- ­ 1: � , i!, -,-- , , % - -;t.i��_­ -, �,, , " .. " -- .. -,� " . ";� , - �, - �. ,� I. -'-, �- - __,'. - I-- , � ." �.. ,-- - I 1, " j ,�, , , � -, �,, �.l - �. I. �,,, , " -- - �, " � , , . , _4, . ", , , ,!. '' :. � . " , _� � , , ,�'.� Y. , . , , �.. 1 - " n I ", I 11 . � "" '. .� 'I., Y--- :-,"i, '-, I '_ - I I � - . *,, ", -_ I 11.1 � _­, - �. � � ': . 11 . S' , 0, . - A ". :'% - .40> v jaz A �, _ i,7, Ll. .,� , - - ­.,�� _ _- :"�- -, �! ' - . 1- , , "' 1, -, , ­".. -._,�-1.11 2 _l:. ,- ,-",, �..�'., Li.,� ,� I - , I . il �, � ,,)- I . - , - , ­:" " - :&­ ­ ,; , . . , a,- a ,,7e .1 . , _­ ­ " I , , e- K,""Q"��&"wl , ,of, l , _� M " � " : y � �i­,. . " , �', I I -, � ,-;l I );,�­_ , '_� ,.,­ , , ,A , or y - . 1 " 1, -%, - -- j , '-.1y,"4v, , , , - 11 . ., � ��, , - : ' ' � I _,'�_­ , � , I _­�, ,; I., . - - � ­ � ,_ �___,� _'.. � " (;�I­­ .. � ', � � , , - '. , - , I "I', 1_.`.:, , _ I �_ , ... � , ­ � - ,,.,. - -, - � , - I.e, " , , I "; j � ", .'-,' � "_.- ..--,:- ,-,-;'- i- '7 ,. ,"." " L -m - '" ' `�,- I ',, �­­ I �_ -:i i _ .1 .,AW--,, 4? �"q­ ". ,_ , - , ,:,.l. .,,�, � " ys"Oyowl " �. I . in . , , , . , " , . 1 '" I t, - " , :. ,, - ,­., _ ,. j, - ,, ­','� I ", - �,� I I ll�jl - ., , , � , .�'. , ­ ,, ", " , . -, � , . �i - - ­ . . . � �.� i - :,� � '. , ") , , f,'"vo"T ­ SN' �l 1. �;­­- I � " _ � , �'; . � , T, �", �,� ", '_ ,,I �:l 'IfTE . " , . .., I I . li".., �,,:� , � , - , . i'i,,;,�,�, ­;,'-;,., " � ­ ,-; ,,,�­", " �­ , -, -i� ,,,- A - , , ,, ­�,,� , ­� - , , "I �_ , ,,, I - ,,, I .� � . , , . 1, , " ­ I-', " , i'-, , ,..�,- I ,, .. ,.I ,,_ " I , ', ,i.',i�,,",I. -��; Simon, Q I,� .. I �,'.il.,`;�:�ltr, A'""" ", , - licaLnix-,.�,,�.',., �:,,.-i:.`A! ,-�'-.�,."v�,�,L-.,.,-.",: _� ,-,,.'i,:_!: � _e".,�"" �, "! ',-:��, ��i -_�%� ,�- watit"tsltl!t.o�c§natlt � NSA' "� V" I" I , , ina�ntint.;��t";' ,� .:�,.­,, i ;!.,,�� ATTACHMENT 1 Please direct all inquiries about this submittal or questions related to the project to: Mr. John V. Heintz, P.E. Stearns & Wheler LLC 1 Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, New York 13035 Phone: (315) 655 - 8161 Fax: (315) 655 - 4180 e-mail: 103115.3543 @ Compuserve.com tIttIIIIIIIIIFSC. IttNtNf -r) r 1� �I 11 I -I ATTACHMENT 2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION A central chilled water system based on electrically -driven chillers has been utilized for the past 30 years to meet Cornell's process cooling, air conditioning and dehumidification needs. Recent federal air quality legislation phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons, coupled with an aging physical plant and the growth in demand for cooling of campus facilities, have created a need for Cornell to re-examine the technology used to cool the campus. Cornell University is currently proposing the use of the cold water resources of nearby Cayuga Lake as an alternative to conventional cooling of the campus. The University is calling this proposal "Lake Source Cooling." The use of cold water from Cayuga Lake as a source of cooling for Cornell is being proposed because of its potential to permanently reduce energy use for cooling by 80 percent. Currently, Cornell's central cooling system provides 40 percent of the buildings on the Ithaca campus with humidity control, cooling for computers and other research equipment, and general air conditioning. Although Cornell continually strives to reduce its use of chilled water, two factors tend to increase cooling demand. First, recently completed buildings such as the College of Veterinary Medicine teaching hospital need cooling systems. Second, changing programs of modern research and teaching frequently require renovation of older buildings and provision of cooling systems. To utilize LSC, cool water from the lower layer (hypolimnion) of Cayuga Lake would be pumped to a new heat -exchanger facility (location shown in Attachment 3). Through a heat transfer system, the lake water would then cool water used in a closed-loop cooling system for the Cornell campus. The lake water would not mix with the chilled water because the two piping loops would be separated by a heat exchanger (Figure 1). The proposed project includes the construction of a lake pumping building (85 feet x 50 feet x 25 feet high) and a heat exchanger building (150 feet x 100 feet x 34 feet high) on the west and east sides, respectively, of East Shore Drive (New York State Route 34). The buildings will be located on an 18.5 acre parcel of land at 1000 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, New York. The project would include approximately 9,000 feet of 55 -inch diameter intake piping and 900 feet of 42 -inch diameter outfall piping located in Cayuga Lake. The lake pumping and heat exchanger buildings would be connected by two 42 -inch diameter, buried steel chilled lake water lines. The project would also include the installation of two 42 -inch underground steel water lines which would extend approximately 2.4 miles from the heat exchanger building to the Cornell campus. An existing chiller (Number 7), the existing thermal energy storage system, and an additional chiller (Number 8), to be built to meet near-term campus chilled water needs, will supplement LSC during peak cooling periods. The proposed intake pipe would be situated at a depth of approximately 200 feet below the lake surface where the water remains around 4?F year-round. Following the cooling process, this water would be returned to the subsurface of the lake at a temperature of approximately 55°F (Figure 2). During the summer months, -12- this discharge water would be cooler than the lake water at the point of discharge. During the late fall, winter, and early spring months, the discharge water would be warmer than the ambient lake temperature at the discharge location, but flows would be significantly less than in summer months. The proposed LSC project has both economic and environmental benefit. If built, it is projected to reduce the campus chilled water plant's annual electricity use,by. 80 percent. This reduction would be accompanied by an equivalent decrease in waste and heat rejection associated with the generation of electricity at regional plants. Current estimates are that implementation of LSC could save 10,000 tons of coal used in regional power generating plants, based on today's conditions, in the start-up year alone (2000). This translates to a savings of 15 million kilowatt hours per year. The adverse environmental impacts of mining, transporting, and burning the coal and disposing of the ash would be reduced as well. These benefits would increase along with projected load growth, potentially doubling over the next 30 years. The present heat discharge from Chilled Water Plant I to Fall Creek at Beebe Lake would be eliminated. Another primary benefit of this project is the accelerated phaseout in Cornell's use of CFC refrigerants. The LSC project will also benefit the community in other ways. Many municipal infrastructure improvements will occur through replacement of existing piping (stormwater, sanitary sewer, culverts, etc.) with new materials, replacement of curbs, repairing roads, replacing sidewalks, and improvements on City of Ithaca school grounds. Construction of LSC will provide secondary economic benefits in the community through the use of local suppliers and services. Furthermore, LSC will be an example of environmental stewardship that will serve as an interpretative and educational tool for local schools, colleges, and the University. -13- I L,t,,j 1, 111 1 11 "I� I I 'I"Ji q 1 111' It I III I m 'ATTAC 3 If-MENT GENE" SOIL:AIA Source: SCS SOIL SURVEY, TOMPKINS COUNTY Developed on Glacial Till and Lake-Laid Materiai HC Hudson-Cayuga: Dominantly moderately well drained, heave-textured soils on moderate to steep slopes Developed on Lake-Laid Material ��� Hudson-Rhinebeck: Moderately well drained and somewhat poorly %j'1' drained. heavy-textured soils generally free o4 stones and grave: Developed on Glacial Outwash and Till �� � Howard-vaiois: Mainly well-drained, light-textured and reed-um- ' � //�� textured, gravelly soils on level, rolling, or steep 4opograp r; i. a f5 a, gr p i _ f f ;f L , h ��? i t 1 4 K 'y rt ,' . 's S i` ! '3 Y r t x " f c y � i .� t s ), ;s r ) h )` J , :r r .� t t ! ! r } �i w A } t♦ < t- `I r i f f ; i t s y` ¢ - x C K f r� ) L ~ + f A R f .. L t R 1.:y f 4�F .Q t +. : { ..� t i a. ` r f h j I r J j' ! A t j r. d: 7 s i '� " e t t Y S '1' i { �` ` 1 r x _ 7 , y ,< r £ �r �y t Y " , r. a ! I, k + 8 i ! 3 ` w 1 ; a f ! , - t. ry s r r . t ^ , q ) r 7 ✓"x r r ., ATTACTIMNT 4 7 r � { ,� y' 1 1 } ) + _.� '..4 ` , � f NA` URAL HERITAGE PROgij , V C. L TTE, v f S, ' ` i 1 4i ! t `' t }` h , `n Iq s �' t i "} { .y ; Y ,4 �" s u ; t '. S: a 'R.1 �� t 1 r i F bt. �.� f Y 4:. t t 4 }Y Gr'. l� J� ,.. ! � � ,t ,c1, x Y d s ,.�- t. 4 h t r J " 'r ; +� Y 12 k h 3 } ") '� i y �' l 4} �. J. a 6 \ t: i f '!' _ } _ .fir t F t �' iy 4 1 t d 1 �.. ri k ,� . ! < .i �� .y _ F 4ik' Y > J t f t r t t h,. S " I ,� i 9 .d i t x i.. A) i .: i I ;! 1, I , i / !{ t» r Y n I,) IA J;' f P 'J, +. S 7 S. { 4 ' £. :. .. .. t X:. '. . � r y 1" t NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 'Wildlife Resources Center Am 700 Troy -Schenectady Road (518) 783-3932 Imbow Latham, NY 12110-2400 April 10, 1995 John V. Heintz Stearns and Wheler One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, New York 13035 Dear Mr. Heintz: We have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program files with respect to your request for biological information concerning a Cayuga Lake water control project to cool the Cornell Campus, site as indicated on your enclosed map, located in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County. Enclosed is a computer printout covering the area you requested to be reviewed by our staff. The information contained in this report is considered sensitive and may not be released to the public without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program. Our files are continually growing as new habitats and occurrences of rare species and communities are discovered. In most cases, site-specific or comprehensive surveys for plant and animal occurrences have not been conductad. For these reasons, we can only provide data which have been assembled from our files. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or natural communities. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental assessment. This response applies only to known occurrences of rare animals, plants and natural communities and/or significant wildlife habitats. You should contact our regional office, Division of Regulatory Affairs, at the address enclosed for information regarding any regulated areas or permits that may be required (e.g., regulated wetlands) under State Law. If this proposed project is still active one year from now we recommend that you contact us again so that we can update this response. Encs. cc: Reg. 7, Wildlife Mgr. Reg. 7, Fisheries Mgr. Sincerely, Information Services New York Natural Heritage Program 0 �, :I ! 114.1-,1!ri, 1! w v4­,.lUFl.,i iiV R 44,yA, 1!,, "y�i ,,7. ,r , 1. J,w.', I 111 V:1.,:: i.1I4.1 1 1 ! , aI Y1 ,!,u1 111.11 a Y1 I..0 l l7 l!uu,11 1. IV. :1,! ,I LR 11.9 I!1:yulli .It Hl.11�Jlll II I.II U)11 11 ILLI UU.�II1I.1 ..�..lIII IIII I.�r i T N 1! ] ! 1 I4 Y f ( 4 lylk n, Y L 5 I i '{'. t4,' '�� 5 f ''A I - 4 i ) i S , r. S 4 i h ^�' VW �: R ^• '& , 4 2- f{ 4 .; f t y ,^C 4`_ u,s .itr ) 1 �'.. r fi _t r t" a,, w.',il ) �' :Yrt !Kno ) :x.r a 1 s ) K y f F tv j. h� la t J ., p r z; 1 Y'1 c 4 ,' KY 1 tr , t fi a - i { r i f .r .� t'7 - P 1.r r4 x• 1 a jv"3 t t �'� ;e 1 x '; r ;. r x -r, g v a 4 Pr ,Wnit ,f � 1 'r r s u 1 , q ,r Q - 1 r'p P t d x G t 1 i t 'rt Y 1. 11', K' 1, V .10. 1 4 ♦ M1 f k K ,� ti r a 1 r, i r rt_. s >' ' w y t ;j �� P l 1 ) � _r` t 'F s , s• ,r r r _ �.'t 'A r r *. t ,', T { � 1... i I t 1 r t,r ti t t7 �. r t i, h k ", { ;r 1, t 3 ', r 1 11r , / {', a i 4 A 1 t 1 w Iy tt fx �� of f S.t, ?� r !°pr .)w� .ti ,t }, .r � x. , S f -t. s n / r y R y , 1 r, Tz , S '_ y.' e 1 .a C 4 , 4 ll ":•S ii � 4 �, 1 p ! r; {i -14' p yW vvvvl'`,r Y ( / t YP£ 1 Y a x s [ 2 a 't 1-1 n,-; 1 t e c{ r n a 1 1 r 1 2 1 t',n F iy f �. 4 4 .'t r '' 't R _ & t _ x ,r < F 5. } k e t 4 / yp .P -. ti L 4 �{ i 1 L 1 - A,�'.s Y° i . , Y c s t 1 l t f kS ¢ I t F Sb f 11 , S i f .y t 1 V 2 f K" i i e r 1 . i - G k i sj id11 C ., t a .: a r 1 n F 1 z r raA r t r 1 i r "", .� l_x t,7 r.. 0 %1 k f a 3 1 E 5 If 1 f 'Hi i 4 2 -0 1 1 ♦ f "! Y t �' "" 4r r, { 1"Al '..•1 1 t' t- 1 }t F ! `.ta {' 11 1 i'.• i 1 i N ? L l y r (1. n s1 t } �' 4 r �At 1., �, 1 •1 s ;" s 1 1� 3', r. - f i . � fy a+ / r t X f r f ( , is 2 t 1 y r �, S , ,�, .x r t t d",r y f. c 4 3 K, 1. Y .A } I t 7 f Z - i 1 Y J Y �. f _- I. "' 1 f A ' fi _ 1 i t .:{ F n� 1 £ f: �. . 1, "3 a i E: c 1 K I z rt 1 '£ { e y ' 0157x -s - ,'a r F r w y x �' 'Lfi A 1'. �, .'f� _ 1 " t n.i 1 t silo, 1 I x f r+4 ;h t t' > r,.' t r �4 I t t i :r `.f 5 3_ I I-1 4 1 V A�i 1 �� l l { t S - r 1 t t 5 v l K F I. 01m, u ,1 , i, . lr r t, Y'. 1 '' { a i F 'KZ. .r •, ;`f 1 1 k Y t 1 / 4 t 4 { f'ry � µyi' } .e f 3 ,. w } e y t 4� it ,,-, k 5 f r r + J 1., x r t r -t �) k r �,TIT '< n r a.y r^ 1 1 r' 1 r r 4 ; d ,x Y - t /♦ i i -� e+ t v t ` ,' 4 u � k TT�►CI lI�IENT 5 4 t , ) a G rls Y t } .a r1 1. a n �' r ?1 j¢ 4') 1 '� Vj T. f r 't t A 1 in 1, '+ i jo it,,a .f Y 1 3 r� 1 Y d 4 y -} a - 1> 4 ',TSF 'S D - P,,ED SPECIES` ;L FI E11 X h 1 aJ 4 �l a rt tf .i Y t Y - - a E :q v +' rf .1 ati�d r t.,--",1--,4 V n h 1 d' Y 1 }.t ? . tl ::! y. yt. �4. ! i r� t "i r x ti 1 2a L f t 1 1 1 t > S 7 :, r r f' s r , i t1,,,.,',11,%,i',4 t / t ! ,S a, 8 a M 3+ - x & r4 4, ,-, ; ! ) t, i,n WT r r f 't "I 1 Y f 5 } K_ 1 t 1 "'1 ;wr.,� d �, ", 171 M ,3 i FK, 7 .�} f ti � 4 �lY iF 31 i `y It �/.,e," h s ��14"5 ,fir 1 t r 1 c 1 a p 1 < f 'i` r , I t 1 t . f, 4 " 11t a �I s ) 7 r -M.NT, a , l y f �..FI , r ti 1 .j a1 ', k n i n h 4 / a ai 1 , w i m E .p 7 1 IS —1 4 ti c '1 15 -' 6. ti� a 4s > 1 1 Y -r 1 i 'p .'.a r {1 t:: i y.' t 1:" aF , ,t•, t. r� t, r } e f 4 Y 11 _s a t f M N t . f _ .S S .� t \ x 4 ja` 1 1f 1 1_. 2 tit v a , + ail t S } Y a r r { 1 _ ,: i 7 rC L�1 ,` t� t 3 e 1 Ci P, <e 1st R; x .[ '� .) 1 1 ? a� 1 1'. AaC v' r, r t d f 4 h 1,._ 1 t.•W I,so 1 f J r Y T; - 4 5 r `x i t S Y 1 F T:_ / 1 ^ $ A 4 1 t b $ !t 4 4 "� I t `� ; S T t f o ti rtLt .✓ .< } �, %t.r xl i. F { its, �'/ 1• x} 1 ?x t .r s v Yt; M i 1 , j 4 , f i 1L 1 n t,1-1 4 v A 1 �= � ° c e v { f,i S ,I. >ti , a r t 1 1. L _' 1 - Ij 4 "f ,S f t rt \ r :. 1+ ,� r r 7 y, a` `t r; tr *.r ti � r, .-, i l,1 t ,�y +'" 1r ,," �7 7 t +,y, t+°� } r ?' �� °`` 3 1 i t t t -201 r Y t. ' 7 } 51 ° 1� Y, a i it i i� i F r ;2 r '. C 3 f AAAWW r �( t i i, . y -� 'r 11 x .' 4 1 y _ t�,: "' F. � i v }I , t y Y 1 ,�: „t ( i i.1 1 r r.. r t .,. 1 J 'f - I 1 a f r x t P , 1 r' L4 ), Y, u, 4 11 4 4A r i tY ( s 1 i.T 1 1 i 1 ! U t 'f 1 R 1 s `� 1 w, 1 , J i F f 1 i t t• r i / ( �• \ 4 -L. 1 l ,CVA y, waif v_.. .w:'1 4.51.. .. .,f .. ..a r'.. .,^A1,f", ... .;` t� :. y. ..., .. x''t i.� +� s Y. r.µ a i M .. a s. r. t. w , 1 United States Department of the Interior Mr. John V. Heintz, P.E. Project Manager Stearns & Wheler One Remington Park Drive Cazenovia, NY 13035 Dear Mr. Heintz: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 3817 Luker Road Cortland, New York 13045 April 13, 1995 TAKE�� PRIDE INv AMERICAS�� os■ � This responds to your letter of March 22, 1995, requesting information on the presence of endangered or threatened species in the vicinity of the proposed Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project, evaluating the feasibility of using water from Cayuga Lake to cool the Cornell Campus, Towns of Lansing and Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. Except for occasional transient individuals, no Federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Should project plans change, or if additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. The above comments pertaining to endangered species under our jurisdiction are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. This response does not preclude additional Service comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other legislation. For additional information on fish and wildlife resources or State -listed species, :ve suggest you contact: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 7 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, NY 13045-1090 (607) 753-3095 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wildlife Resources Center - Information Serv. New York Natural Heritage Program 700 Troy -Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110-2400 (518) 783-3932 The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Ithaca East and Ithaca West Quadrangles indicate that there may be wetlands in the project vicinity. However, while the NWI maps are reasonably accurate, they should not be used in lieu of field surveys I for determining the presence of wetlands or delineating wetland boundaries for Federal regulatory purposes. Work in certain waters and wetlands of the United States may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If a permit is required, in reviewing the application pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service may concur, with or without stipulations, or recommend denial of the permit depending upon the potential adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources associated with project implementation. The need for a Corps permit may be determined by contacting Mr. Paul Leuchner, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207 (telephone: [716] 879-4321). If you have any questions regarding this letter, contact Kim Claypoole at (607) 753-9334. Sincerely, ACTING FOR Sherry W. Morgan Field Supervisor cc: NYSDEC, Cortland, NY (Regulatory Affairs) NYSDEC, Latham, NY COE, Buffalo, NY EPA, Chief, Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch, New York, NY 20 Wv MCI 135"x,, w,I rr ,��J �iJ'L� tf�,{ r ! r � A rS� }Yl \r •fir *rril+y 5 i4,' 4J , n s � w r,g, `,,�, awet,Qif 4 'J w �`} { C J i ) '.d t JP {r g J t J 5 i t .J v Z C 1 11, i x r t 7 , k' { y :� t J ,, d _ I r. I r h 1 t t 15 a 1, f 4 GG i c £ t 6 �, f� 11 -�" f 7 ,J :", 4 S ! r - F .t ^x` t S ^t 1 tk Y i V >? F .3 a 4r C }, 4 k '�I '� 1 f G" t o t i t, r i s 3 r3r<.: t,"I I t mJ N } a 4 ,�} a �i t.J r t£ s£ ar s il 'x '� �'4 F 5 Jt >. 7 rid' } f�VA N AL� r i, a s- a r ` ' ' xr Fars 1 ^$ { �# �, a ��" \ r C- £ Y� V . a i ,� tti. �' ! r i , '3 ./ w J, 3c t G .c 1 G41 �' t y i �• d C r J t ; p t C F S x t ? - i r• I °, . . 1' x / 1 a r w" 9 i ; t r 7 x" -, ^e d p, r w ? fy f i' '.b S 1 1 .Z 1 y { E! t S y G,5 R i s,J - ro a s r y ' 4 c, a! � 'r. Y "v J s r � r� £'� c S� Y' s �� rf 1. > :`I ! 14, 0. h ti3 4 m�t .J �r i� s ! r G �' , J t it S _ G f �%' , fJ i I, y. I., ..i y - r f i e �' ; ' r.t y 9 F j,.y1. ,, $ 5+ a ON -- a :4 t f yt k i- -{ i _ t . s t,'.--. ,. i I .q I i 1 _ 6µ { b? f i i,a ! k� n k f t,, 1Q, QKYmp, :P M „r „ IT-! F o "� ti , r G i k 9 -d 5 � 'S ! (Y F 'y '+, L1. Y r, k: d fi ! J ; �V t X " l �£ d I , u i e x-` _` f M 'T 71 " } 4 c SZ J 1 - - b i ! G r7 s r r ,� .tJ > r .t a +v^ r f t y ,J t 110 t J zi '%, <,j 1. ,� `s rr " n r at c r 3..... > t !. t } f 9 i v ;i i J tcl I r } r t-�, mow}} } A .- r t r t,� J J 7 i ¢ J i. rt c t' ;r s '� y. f s -4 11 sc" t {'4' &, y G cr r r ,`a b n r* , s £wY *" r 5 Ma— j.'' .t T WWI s� '� �% t ^��. -, r I r '4 < a+ r` J? ;3{ / c i x �� y t F a 3 r f r .f ,. v i+. E _ "F T I -fit - - n., f� J �- 'i ` t s S . . 1 3 t s',. a ` r r` 1.r� a. r .Y }�„ - s a r r' f �' b r / s d b J a a a ;a L r 1> t ; `� �' 01 rk 7-. r i U n '^ �. 3 + s i x V-,7 r L 4 S fi Y . x It ATT°�- v I3MENT 6 '� I° Y+ e Ji .% `° } to V' r= wM�Si ° I' -' 1 '� F b. 'S ill7 A `i t ' } r r` ��- s r 1 ,, rw� qdnt ".I" 3 f ', £ i y. Z11 s o• _ m RF x f y � I s ACREAGE =ESTIMATE TABLE . rr J i rg J ;i r I 1 m t " ' i rr s r ,� x r &W 0,51 1 L _ � 1 F i = $ W ,, " ,' t £ f t `A 91 > tit , 4 ;, i`,' S - I.a F n� Y r Y e r ¢( s t s' "t i .i ,, y c,. w o-, — r it £ - ., h 1 $,i ' ,{ vd�v } } t £ t I V bt i t 3 V a T' ., ` 1 r p " v e 4',. r .d _ s "I ` 't ,� �F" ....; t, F^u J.r„ ,'.Jninon _0I J r', G� f -. t i• 3 r0; r r 4 t '' i+ c: r, . � y .' NOT - + I r j t e r i"b< a ,, 1 +S s 4 i J r � s c a r f > .. 4 .: C ! r r is r 1.5 5_ i Y y r 'J r- f �r rr b La ; t Ja . A Ir an , UNK r: , _ v 5 , i{ S t , ! r y S. .+ ! } 5 t, i % *FToo, ,, °4 p! i r " t t t i4 .S t,: A 1 3 i k} 14 �,, It M S t I L F .A _ 1 £ * ly y t ,, -Tou"I 0-.rid i 4.' d 'f r j ! l F J r t A !_, q Ti s �sJ 7 ,1 k W 1 -s fst5 s t t i 'i T L t q J fill t1 } }, '� 4 F t. S .t y r rl� F 4 J J[ 1� h r _ L', Lr & 4 J -1 Y f r k d.$_ _1, h J y .1 N ,—Q— :j $ *..; P:'ols 4 J t ,it k, a >- I a s r y �i 1 r s?,I r = y. _!1. h 9 Jar{ i- 4 Z., ! .. '3f if 1' a t 1 i yG'i i 4+ z r t' 3 S i ,, �k £ ' K i , 4 F �' Y 1 1 5 J } i r" R !� r t - i it i p: v it s y> r .k i;i11.i. ,k: w7Q f !:"F' r"k f s 3 7 . _ t i . 1 . r .!� F11 g 5 ) tl.. 114 sr5 R,.,,1.ry �, W,13.",C„, ,.. ., ,. .a - „ ,a.e 1 ..r, ,. :: rrlo-5 t ii�h n .9 f t7 iv, `hf r 1 -!7 r`n it 1 ri . iiia rf0'J1 Fnfi i1N ii�f 505 iii`lini Illi Y ` M. i ATTACHMENT 6 ACREAGE ESTIMATES FOR EAF CORNELL UNIVERSITY CAYUGA LSC PROJECT Roads and Pipeline - 36901.f. x 40 foot construction area width 3.4 0 Temporary impact, will be recovered. other paved surfaces Residential/ Right -of- Pipeline - 86101.f. x 40 foot width (Temporary Impact) 8.0 4.0 Temporary impact, will be recovered. Way (Grassed -typical) Pipeline - 86101.f. x 20 foot width (Permanent Easement) 4.0 Acres will be permanently maintained. Unvegetated - Rocky (1) Pipeline - 4301.f. x 40 foot width (Temporary Impact) (1) 0.2 (1) 0 (1) Temporary (Shoreline and Misc.) (2) Pipeline - 4301.f. x 20 foot width (Permanent Easement) (2) 0 (2) 0.2 (2) Permanently maintained (3) Lake Pumping Building (3) 0.2 (3) 0.4 (3) Includes frontage, fencing, parking Total 0.8 Total 0.6 walks and drives Water (1) Overhead stream crossing - 901.f. x 40 foot width (1) 0.1 (1) 0.1 4 (2) Assume dredging is not as accurate (2) Dredging - 10001.f. x 80 foot width (2) 1.8 (2) 0 as terrestrial ditching. (3) Pipeline - 90001.f. x 20 foot width (3) 4.1 (3) 4.1 (3) Intake pipe rounded to 10,000 ft. (4) 10001.f. x 80 foot width = 80,000 s.f. (4) 11.0 (4) 11.0 Total (2) + (3) 80,000 s.f. x 6 foot deep = 480,000 cubic ft. (4) Dredged spoil disposal area Deposited over a 1 -foot depth = 480,000 s.f. Total 17 Total 15.2 Meadow/ Shrub -Scrub (1) Estimate of 3.2 acres cleared and regraded at (1) 3.2 (1) 0 (1) Naturalistic site vegetation and 1000 East Shore Drive and allowed to revegitate (2) 0.5 (2) 0.5 grassed lawn. (2) Clearing for pipeline 475 l.f. x 40 feet (3) 1.4 (3) 1.4 (2) Changes to grassed right-of-way. (3) Heat Exchanger (3) Includes frontage, fencing, Total 5.1 Total 1.9 parking, walks and drives IJD/2720 01/24/96 AreaMsrmt -22- F . k, 1 . �, , , ,411 ., - �� . � ,�L �, ,� , . ". " . , ,, ! " , .., � � ,� , , I , �� "�S�l � " � . 'J .� � '1�1.1 I'� � I " J�� ,� � � ,I , I � I P, , ij 1� , L', I , - , , , - I I , , , ': . , � � , � , , , � , 11 , �, -, '' , '' , � , - 1 1� � ", ", % , ",-`,- I , ' -1 "L I 1� , � � , �11,! j� I I , I ) - r, . ,. , * !I , -,�'Ij''�l 1, '. Ill I .1 I'll, ! '111 llq�,Iu�, .4, "Iko 1 ))j � � ,- 1� , , ! �� � �, ;�. , - , - - 1 . ,.- . , I , � , - ��, f', -�,, � I �: , �, - , - � I ,,� . . 1� - I I 1'1� t, . "', , , , , , . , � I . , "; -x. � � � ,� ,� , " , ; , 1 " � � , , "'� -,� : ", " - � ',� I - � , , I - " . , o . . - � � " ., - 1, . , � �, �,�-,�L� �,i'- , -:"�,-, ` , 11 I " � " I �' `� - 7 1 - I I . , - 11 , , ;. � � �, � ; I � . ; " I , , i, I -11 , .. , , , , . -', , , I , � -, ' ' , , - , � , , � . . � . � . , . , � . I !�:,; I I ., -m � , ,�� 11 -� , � , 1, . � - - ;,,,- .' �' ' � -11 'I', ll� "I', ,��', . . I , " . I - -, � I I i . � - - - , , , " ., 1. , I , " I , , , L ".1 .- , . - , - I � I , I . r �. . . � � t-� . � .- ", ,-, , , - , . I - � , , , , t � - 1 1 1 . , . , � " . . . . 1. m � , . , � - I , , � " , ` , , , , , - , I : - - - I I , , * I � � , � , , , , , , � , , , . - , - , 11 I � , - �:.: . I , .., I , . �,- . " ,� , , I � I , . � . - I I I 1, - - I I- ; , . ." �,, . . , , , , . � I . , - - � ,,, , . . � , , ., I I � I ., - � I . � I . �:, , - I , , , " , , . I . - , , � � e � � . , � . � , � , , I , I I , 1, , . , � , , , I , I , ; 1� - , . " , , I . - . . I : �, i , " . I � , ::�-�, ., -, I" -, -, � , ." ,: '" I " , I , I � 1, , I 4- I , .., �, , - " , , � " .. .. � I -1 - I - � � , ; , " , . . , . , , . ,,, I - , , , "" � I 1. : .. . . I , I , I I I � -1 L I I I , - -1 " , I . - . , : f" , . � , - . . . � I I I i . , I , . . " � - � I , I , . I I I . � I - . , . ..: ,- � . � - , . . I I � I , , - , " , , , , � , - I - I � . L - � , , , - - - - � I � . , 11 ,- I I � - - I , � I - ,,, . , -� -_ � I I " " , � I " I I � � Z"�,� � � �-,,, � ; -, -� : , , - - , , , -1 - I .1 � , �, I , I I , .1. � � , , I I � ,� I , . , I : I - � .� L , , . , , ""� I I I � I I � :1 , , �L' ', ', ', ', , -, I I � I , �, � ,*,, 17 � , , I -" . �,� I � I I i, �, I . �-, - , . -,: � ,, . I "I �.� I � ,� , I : I :� " , - � �-, :� .,� . - , , , , ,� , I , - I , I I , I I I I - , , , ; , , � �, � I � , - - , 11 , � � , � I . I . 11 - . � - �� �l , I . � '. -, � � �� I , �-, I " , � , . � , I , , � I , . � , , . , I . � I , - - . , , , , I ,� I 'l-, � I . " I - � I . , .1 , I , , I , i- I ',I,-- I . � , , . � , , I � , I - � ,.� , , � - � I , , � . . . , � � - - � f ,-,' � - - I I : . 1, - I , , , , I ,� . � , - � - , , m . , � � , . . , . I I . . � . , . - � , I - . I 1, , . �, - � I . , I I . 1. � � - , I ! � I I I , . r .,. � , . . I - ; , , , . - ., . I I . . I I , � I " " � ; I � , . I --','� I � , I I , . , , , i , , " .1. , , !� � , I - : �,' - , - . : . � : 4� - " , I" " . , " , , , , ) - �� , �, , , ,� � 1 , , I , , ", -1, � . � , " � I �., � , . , � . , , , , � ". , , I ;, � � " � �, - , " , - : - .1 , I � I , , " � , I � 11 : . , 1, .: , , , , , , � . I I � . I � . ; I 1: � - . , I , : ­ - , . , � 1, I .1 - . , , . , , . , I . i ,� - I , , " - - I , -� -, � I . , � - . . . I v , I I . i : - , . . ; , : , � I , ., . � � . : �, : � , . I I � I I I , , , I I . , I � �. , " I � . I I . , . - I � � � I .1 - " I I , , I I � , � I , , , I �� , � ,� , ' I '. , , - 1, , � 1� .1 . ,�, I � , . ;, . � I : - I , I � - , � - -, , , � : 7 � � , �. , � , I " I . � . , , - , : , I z . , ., , �, J. ", , ." , , �� t, ' . " , , '- , ,- , . , , �_ �, _,� v � � -1 �,�� , , .�, , , � , I I I . , , 1 : � � � ' - ! -'�" , ., " - " , � , - ' : � .:: ' , I - � - , � �, , 11 " 1, I . , , - 11 , : ', �,, , " ' .. - . - , � , - � : � , : . , , I - m ,: ��; , . I . . , . I I , � I I I . � r ., I . ',� ,'� , �;- , , , I '� I � � , '� I ,r, -�,,_ 4 : . - - � - ,,� - -, ,� -,�:"" : . 1, . � I � , - I , I : I I � I � - , . r , � 'L . � � � . , , , ; . , , � " , , �, �-- .� I � " - . - -., , � , , I � - � -- � , - ; , -. � I � , I I - I I � I .1 � i . 1. I I .� , , . - , , I I � , - , � , , , I , �� , � , , - � - : , , ,,- , -, " " , I - , 1 , , , - - , , � I I I I . � . , - . , , " - , � , - �', * , , . - 1, �- . �, , I , � I ; , . I � , , � . , , , , .- 1, - I I - I , I - - . I � � I 11 I , " , , I .. � - � . I . ., I t , . : % . , �, , " '. � � I I , � , I , , � . I :, .. � - - " � 1, , , - " . . � . I , � , I � � . � � ,� - , , � � "�-, , , ., - � , " i I . , . , � , � , , - , . � , , , � I - , I , 41 � � . , � - .- , , ,- , , , , � ; i ,�, , . , " � I � I ; , , ", I , , � � , , '.. � I , � , � � , , , - � , . . , , " , ,;�� , � - �-' , - � ., , � - - '. I . , I � , I . , I �.- I I � - I . - '- I - - � � - � , �,E I , I i " � , , � . , . , . . ' � " . � - � - - � - I : , - � -, � , , " , , . � . ; : � � I , , � I I . � I , � " , . , � . . � . , . . � . I � �, L 7 1 1,� , ,� . � , . , , . - � 11.1. �. , . - T, , , , - . , . , . . . I I I . I. - . ,� , ': , . I , , � � , , ", , . , . , �, , I . � . . , , , , � , , , , 11 , I ., , ;- ',- . , , � . , I . ,- . . . � . � � ,. - , , , . � , - . I " I � I I I I., , I - . I . � I ; j I , I : I � . . " , '�Il . , , , , � - I ,�, �.,�, � "I I , % �., , " ` - , - - . , I , , , , , 1� I �, �, 11 I - 1-1 I : , , , � , , : 5 " � ,�., tll : , � , . - � , ,�, , - � ,:: � � . . , � .1 . � � - , - . I , " 1 � , I �, I - . , , - , - - - , z , � ,;-, � : I � � - '. . - , - -.� � � � .,. - , . , . . I � �11 " , - , � - , � ��"! � �, "', " .-. , � I I �� ', , , , , � , , , , � . � , ,; . , , - I., " � . . ". " : , � , - :,", , . , , , , _; ', , , - ", " -,*�:�.,,', ,-, ,, ", � " -,", , , , , , - � , " , , �, . , ,,, , , i ,,� -� ',- ,,; : , . - I � .� ; I m � , ; 11 � , , � - , , . , I . , � I * - I * L , � '. I � , , I � � � , , , - , , -, , , � I I i . I - . . -�, , , � I " , I . . , � , , - . , 1 � :�; , , , , I " I , . , . , �. I ,� ,;...-�,�-' ''. , . . 1, � I- , I ; , , �� , ,� . I . �, � - , , , " * -. � ,, , , I , �� . , ". , ,� .1 I . I I � . : � I - �, 1, , �' I I � - " . � - : - , , :1 I I - I I , � . . � � . ;, . " ,� � - I I- ,�. ,.� I - � � - - �'!, �,.:�"Il � I � . - , " � ,; �. , 11 1-1 1. , � ,". ,- � - I � ,; , , -. - . , - I � I I I I � , �� i . �� � . , , % � - . , � ; , , - , , ! , � , -I , . I I I . -� . ': . - , � C , , '. " � I , , ., . , , . � . I I - . ,., I -, - � , : , , , - , � . - , � ,� . . � . 1, ,.: - .,. ,,,,, 'I I . � , , � ,� I . - , � , . ., t , � , , , , : 'I, ." , ', - � ,. , - ., , � .1 � I , - � I I I . , . , , , I . ., -, , � i , : " I . . - , 'I., - I . � I % . I I � I I i I , , I � , . I Z. � � , � � , .", I - . I � . , , , , ,F I �:. �� 4 I � I � I '. , 11 " 1 " -, I . - , , - I , I i , � � , " - , , I , . � . I I - 1� , ��- , . . , : I , - , , , � , � � � , � � ,� - , . , , , I :-, -, ,� -j- , :, - � . - , - , I , � I- I . , , , � � . , � , ;, � , , � '. � I - � I, - ,- , I '' . - , : . , , - ��, I, " - , I .1 -� 1. ll� , :, � , . I , " "- . ' L I , . , , , , ., � - � " I - - , , . ! � , I � , , , , J, ,� : , , , , : " � , , I , I : , � , , v , , I � , �l L , I 11 : 1, � ;,'�� � I I . t I � , � � , � , , � , . � -' I � ., - � ,-., " I .- , " � � I " ., �', . ;, ,. , �;.' . � � , . � . i � -, , - � , , ", � � ... � , Nl',�,,�. il, -, ,-t, " . , � � �,,, , , , I I ; " - - " , '.. I i I., - . � . � , , � , , - , , - . , , , , - .. :, , , , ; � ,� , " , , , " I " � , ': � 1, I , . L. , I . � , . I -, t- 1. I . : - I � , , �, � I , I I , * I , I - , .-' I , -, , I , I � I . � - ' , � : I , , . o , , , � � , , - I . I �� , � '. I , � I � .L� - , - - � � , I 1. . I . . Z, �. I I I I . I �, I . I . I I I . - ! . , � 1 � , - � , , , . , , � " - I - - I - I , . - � ,�� , "I , � irl, , .. , , L - . , . I 1. , , � 11 I " , . I . I I i I , '.. , , :� ,� ', ,, � "', - . , . . � 11 � . I - ; , � � � � I I -.1 , " :, : , . � " ,,� ", �' , . � : T, , . , 1. , . � , , - , . � � I � " . � ; , , : �� 1. " �". - , - � , . I � - I � � � I , , , - � I - I , � . I . I :1 I , , I , , , � . . � , . ,� , I � I ", . . ': 1� " - , � . " . � � , . . , , � , , . i . I " - �' , , , , I - . . , � - . � 4 . � � I I , I I , I � I � I � � I � I , , . , � , � � : I . 11 , " ,� � - .� , , � " " , - - - - -1 - I I � . I � -, , - I . �. , � � � � � , , I , . , - , �l . -, , �Y I - � I I I - i, L ", , ,,, r . ] , " � , 1. � � � - , - ; , .1 . . . I- � . , , " , : � - I - � , - I �� � , , -" . � I . .. " , " � " , . , I . . � . - � - '� , . , I . , 'I , , I � I � . �. I I I � , I - . , . I ,' � , , - - - � . I � . . : , ,4 � I I , . 1; � � - , , - , � . I � � ; � � '. , I I . - � . , : - ; " , I I � I I , , - � ,;; " -, I . . - � � z , . -.. , . - , � ,� , � , . : , , i I � �,� ; , � . , , 1� � � , � , '. '. I I 11 , , , � - � , , . . . . 1; , I " , � ,_',_ L ,� � , , 'I - � I � , , , , , t � , , , � � , � , , - - � " , " -, � " . , ,� I , : - , : ;" � ,� ,� , � . � . � , , � , � , : � ,� , ,� � . 1 , . , w 1. . - , " � , , I I �� . � , , � 11 - , � . - ., , . � I - I . , . � , " ': ,, , I , , , I , I" : . , I '. I , E - , . , � � , . � -1 I , � . , * , I , . . , � I . I , . - , , � -,,� - , " - " , , " , " , , I , . I , , ., - �, I - � I . - , � , ,� I I - I " . I . � . � , , 7 1 1 . : . . � , , � . - , L 4 , , - . . . � . , I , , , , :t , � , , I I . , � '. I , I , I - �� 'I, , . ', , I . . , , , , I . �,- � , . - � , " I � I - 1^1 . , I . I . , , , . , � , . ! - I , � , ,,� � , " , E I . - - , -� 1, . , . � . � - 1. I , L e , � , . ," .1 , ,.,� � , I " �, " , . � - � , "', ., . , 7 , I , , " , -� I , I . , � , �� -: , I I , 11 I "I � , , I I I , ; , , , � I , , : , - � ,� 'T , �,` " , : , ", � � " , I , - . , , , - :,; , � , � I ,. t', , 11 ,- , . : , , - ,�,, . , � � - , , � , . � I - . - - . � � . � . , - , . - , � I � , , i . � - , � . , , I . � � . I . : : - , ': , , � , . I I 1. , . . . . , I ., . " , � , , � ': , , '�' . 1. , , , , " � �, "" � , , : I � - , , ..; I � , , - �. � , . -1 . � - I - " � , I., - . - ! � . I , I I I I I I - , I . � . , I - ; .1 , I , . -,� , , '� . .. , - , " , I I I ., � . ", ; I , � ., , � , I I , , : I � , , '. � , "I , . , " �,�": .1, - I I , � . . I I I I , I " , , I , : � 1) I � �� I � �, ; , I - I , I L , , - , - - , , , , . , . - , , , �� � , : � � , . , -; � ;, . � , � . I J - . I , , - -: �, , . , - I � ., . � , , , �, ; , , � . , " , ;' -, ; , , , ', � " � , � �., . , , , I I I " " , , � ,., .� I � � I I ., , I I I � , - I - � , . . , , , , "., . . - I I '� , , I � � � 11 * 11 11 � - , - . �� . I * . . � I ,I I � - � , : � - , - , . , , : , " - " , , � 'I I � - . , � - " � , . - . � " � " � 11 - r 1, . , I � . t i ; : , : -� " , : , , , , , 11 . , L - � � , . I I I I . 11 - ; ., � � . ", - . - I I , - c � , '- , � - �. � , �� , I , , , " � ' I',' , ' , " I , � ., � I . , , � -, , , . " I , , - I I - I . I I � �, , , , , -� � I , � I ,� I , . , , I - I � I , " . � , 11 . - , , ' ' ' ' ? - , , " - � � -, �� , � - , . I � - �. I I , . ' I , I �. I . I I . . . ' ' . . ,, . � - I . I 11 I . . 1, . , � . - , � � . . 1. . �l , . � -', I , , " , � :1-1 1, I I I . , I I - , - : � I - , � : I :1 , - - " � , . . , , � I I �, I � , , , , , I , . " ; � . � , , " , , , , - , � I - , , -, - 11 I , , , , ;, � , I - - .., ,,-�', ,�,.. , -. , , ,-, I ": ,,r,, , - . I �,;,,.,,.��:''�,,�",t,�,,,�,�,�...�,, .'� , � , ,-. " � ,,�� , , , , . I . - , I � I I I . , , - - , , . , , . , , - , � ,I . - , , �"".: , , 'i : - � . , � � - � , I . � " , , , ., , ,Z : ' � I . . , - ,:� , � , I . � - .-, , : ; : - , , , , L , ,, � I - I , � I I - I , , , , , , , , . , , . I I - I I : , . - � I . , , 1, " , , , , : , � � . . � � I � I 1: , I �- � I I I . , - - I � . I I I � I � . I I -1 � -1 I . . �', ; " e - � L-' -, , I I � � "', .�, �,� ,,,,, .1 . . . � " � . , 1 , , . I I � , , I , � I I I , , � . . _ " - ) - " . . 1, . I I � , � I ' ,, � � L,��, ' ,; ', I ' � .' I , . : � � " , - I . I I , " � ,,- I :,. I - � , " � I - , , � I " .. , I � , 1, ., ,- , , - . I . ..: � - , , I - I - I- .- I * � I I I , : , - � . , " " , 1� 1, � .--- , .1 : , � ,-, ,-. * , - , I - �� - � . , � ,; � , , . , - ; I . ,. . . . , 1, � - , - � I � 1. - I ­ : .1 I � I - , , � . I , , I , , , ", , , , , , - , . � " , � , - . . � , , . , , � , , , � , � , , � . . , , . , , � , I � I I ' '. � I , � , � I , � , �, , - , ,: , . , , ,� '. , �, , 4 � , , !'i , , , , � , . , ,:, � ; � - : � , � � , � , ,�,,, 1. - - � � � , � , I " ' IL � I kl , , ,! , ,,� � : , . , . , ,: , ' , : I , . , - � , , , - , , , . , � : I , . '. . , , I . � � ,'� L , - "' , , , , � ,� I., , " , " - - �- " ; , � , - , . ; I", I 11 � I I :: , . , - , I , - , - . , 1, � ,� . I I ,� " � � " , . � - , , " , ,,, " i �, , � , � , , ! , , , 1, , ,� . � - , " ,; , , : : , ��, " , , , � , � , . I I . I , I , " ., " , , .t : i , � , I � . , : , , , : , , � - , .� -1 . 0. � '? 11 I , I � , .1 " " " : L , " , � : . , , , - - - - " � - � - - �- � I � 1� . I I I . , , , , � � � � , , , , " � , . � I . �, I " , . ? - - '. � " , - , , . I , � - , , , , � , , I I .. � ' , - , - , � , , , I , , , � I �1, I 11 , a I . I � - : � 11 I _ , , , ' '- , L - , 11 I .1 � � . � - .. , - �, . , . . , � , � , - �,,, � . , I �� , � - , .- � � � . '': " � , . , " . , , ; , , � , . * , 1� , � . , � , " I � I . � , I - . " . - - - - � � * I � . , . , � , , - : � , , , ­ � " I � � � ,� ,. , - , - I : , , - . � . - 1. ., . I '. , : . - . - -". � I - 1. , , ... " , , -1 I . . I I, , - �: ll�' , -1 � -1 -- , ., , , I I ,: , , - - I , , , I ,,, " 1 ", , ,., - I I ­ I I �, I , ',�- .. I - . . � . I I � .. , .1 � � , , I . . - , , , , � " ., � i. 1 .� , , . I I "I, � , , I , � � I . " - I I � I - 1� , � � . . - � :1 . , I 1 , � `� , . - I I "'. ,- � I , - , , � , � - , , , � , . - . � . L '� , :, i _ , � � , , - . , - _. ,� , , , , * , � . . L ", ; , , , I , , , , , � .. , � --� - - - - - , , ''I I I , , , � . I I , - . , , � ,,, . I I I � , � , I I � , , ; , I � , , , � � , - � " , , I , - � , , - � , , . - - , �- I - � " - , 2 - , - . :� I , . , ,,. 1� � , � 11 - .' I ". - - - ,- - , , ,� , , , , , , ,� , � !, I , � I � . � I I , : : � . ,; ." - , . � , , � '! , , , I , � " , . � . , . , , , . 11 I r � I I , - , - I , , �' : � . �. 11 � ., � � ! - , , � ��, " , - , � . � �� ,,�,, :,, I - .". , , , � ,�. " , , � , . , , ;:, � - : '. , .: � � � , I .i , , , � . I , , I I � � I , . , , I I I .1 ; , � - I',- � � I I , . . , , . , " , I I I., � �,, - , I � " - I , , . I . . , � I .. . i ,- . I �, . , '. , �,� ", , " ,,, ,*', . , , . , , , , , , , �, , - , : � � , , - -1 . , - , ,- , I ,, - , , . , - , � I I � , . I , , : , , 1 4 1: , . . � , I . I . - . I : -, , , , , , , � � . � . , , � , . , , : , . , , , � � . I I I , I �, � � , I , , � - " I : - - - I z, . � I . I �6 . " � , - � , . � . ; . . 1. . . . 11 , - � . � , . � ... , . , � . I , I , 1, . � . I � " .� . . � . , � - � I , � � � � � I t - I , � I . . , � � . I,.,, .� - , , � � , , . I , I I , . " , I I ,� .1. I � � . 11 � I � I , " I � 11 , - � , , ,�, �', , , � ., . , : I . . , , , " , , , , � - , j 1, . , t I � I , ,-: , - . , I - � , ,.. , . . . I I � I . . � �, ,- � � � I - - I . I ,� . , - I I " I "I " , - - . , . ' ' - , I . .1 ; , - . . - '. . .. �, - " , .. �,, I � . " L � C . I , I - - , 7 , - I a � I - 1.71 � ,. , , , , ; , - , � . , . � - -. . I - , . : , , - � - - I . I , I � %, , I �. �. , :; - - � I � I I , , : � . . � I ; , . I , . . . . 1-� I I I I � . . I I - ,- - 1% , �, , - - , , � , - , , - , �. I , I I . � I , , . I , . . � . 1, , I , I I . , -� , � " 11 �. 1� , , - . � , I " -, I � , , . 1 1 I-, I �; , " � . I - � � . , , � I I , � I ., . , � � , , , . " . , � , . I I I � , , I " �� L ; - , , .,� ; - I I , , I . , - :-.', ",- , ; : I , ., , , : " I f '. 1� � � : " , , - , I , , 11 I I -, ", . . " , , , � , 4 " - , - I I , I . : : , � , � .. � , I :1 � �, � ; �* � � I , , , , � , , . . , � I . . � . I . I , - - � � I , I . .: . �. " . , , , I I � , ., - , , , I I , ,, - I I I . , , , � ,f I I I * , � I � , '. I � ., I '- , , � - -, ,. . � � � � . � , , � , I . I . . , I " _ I � , - � - . ,, . � - I I . . . � I , " , , , , . - - L, . I I - � . ", - I ll� I I , �-- , � ��. * I , , , I � 7 : I I . ": , I , , " I I . : 11 � ., , , 11 , " , , , � , , - - I" , " ,, � I , , , , � � , . . , . , � , ,. . I j I , i I � , � , , � ,.; , � . I 11 , ;, , � : �� ` - , � " , , ,; � - " , - '- , , , - I ,� I � I - , �, , I ,:, � ,� '! ;, I � � � - , T, - � " ! , I . . . , I - � I , , - .1 � � � I . . , , ; , � � I � . . - � , , � I I - , I - - , , , . . I I I . . , - , � I � L 11 : I , : � . - � . , I � � � , 1� I - . - �� ; - - , , " , - , , , - . , . " , I � - I , � , , . I I I , I I '. - , I , I �,, - � � . . , , � , - . I I , . '. . � , - . : I I : - ;, . . , , , . , . , - I I . I , � ., " I I , . I I � � " I - I , I , I , - I . : �, 4 . . - � - � . I I . I - " z , ,�� . . I , 'I � -� - , : �', . �,� , I . � - , � I , � , , , " 1. , I I ." , , , . . I . � . I I i I , . , - I . I � ,:- - I � � � : , , � , � � � - . , �, " I , - � , . . � , � � . : . I I � . - , . - : I , I I . . . , , � , � . . I , , , , , , , I - , � , I . " � ,- ; , m . . I , ; , " �� , , ,' ,�', '. , : � , , � . I � I ", , , , , " I . .1 , ; : ;�� , , � - - - � - .� , . - � , .. I 1, � I I . I I , , � , : , � � 11 'I- I - , , � " I - � . � . I I I - - , � " , � � I . . I , ! � , 11 '. , , , � , p - , � - - I I . � � � , - " � , � � , : - i 7 , . , . , " " I . , , , , , , , i � , , I , I I � . , " I : ,] , , I . � , I z I ] , , .1 � - I I - . , I , � - : , , , , " " - ,- - -, � - " " , , , , " , -, � � , �-,',, - .1 I . , , - , � � I - : , , , � � 1, , 11 , I , " , , ��. I I �l , � � -.,, , , . � , - ; . , �� I . � � , � � , , ; � , � , I , , , , , � � , , .. , - , , , , , - � '. 11 , . �', , , � � I I . , , I .1 : I , , * '. - , , ,. - - , � -,, . ; I . I , - . , � , I , . , � I I , - .. �, , � .. -, �. I , � � - , � � I , ., ,: , . I � : " . , , . " � � ,. � " , - . , � , ,, � � . . � , - � � I , i I - , ;, , " . I - , , , , , , ? - ; , � , . I . � I ,�, . , `;� � . , , - . � I -- , ,-, - I � , , -, , , � : , I I I � I I ! L ., I ; . , � I . � I , , , I - - I , I � : " , . I . , . - , , , , I . I I , I . . , , , , , - I I ,� . I I 11 . � I . . . . � , , � . - I I � , , , � � , - I I - I . I . , I , , : I , , - � I � - : . .�� , '. . : � , , - , , , � . .. , - , t � " , , : ,� � I � - � - I , I �". , - . . 1. ; � . " I I I " � I I I " � . � . I I I , . , I � , . I , I I , . , �� � - , , , � - - , , : , . � . , I I I - " , ,� I - , : I I : I , . . � , , I . - . , , , . �, . , I , . , � . , , , , , *, ,� � � I I � � I , . , .: � , , , , - I I . � - , , , - , - �� . .1 I " , I" - . , I , � , . , , "I I I � : , ,� � . . . , , , ., ; I , I , . .. . " - � , : - , " � - - . , .- . I -- '� I , , '� I . . - .1 . . ". � - I . �; . I , � . , I , �� - , - * - I , I , � . , � I " , -, , , - , - � � � � , . . , , . : , , :, � � � �, ,11 o .. : I - . � I " � : , � � ,� - , , , � , I � . � 1, - I . . - � I I ., , , , - , , , , , .� � I , 1 1 1 1 .. . . I . � . 11, : I , , , I - I , I -1 : � - ., � , ," I - I � . I 1� I - I � I - I , , - � , � I - , I I , I 11 � , , , - I , .1 I , - . , , � � . . - � '� ,, � I I , I I f ` I ; I , I I - � . � � i � , � . , � , , , . ; I � . � � , , t �: , I � I . . : � �, . I " ,� � � " ,,, � , �� - W , � - � � , � , � . , , . � � , �,, "', 1, .; " , 1, - ,�. - I V � , , " -,. � , 11 , , , � I, � " - , � tt ': " - -', ,� '� ".: I , " " . I , I -z. , �, , , , . � . . I I � I . I - . .. 11 . � , I . , . . , , I I I - - I , � � - , - I - - : , , I , � ,� . . . � . , , , - I I I 1. , I I . : - , � I . � I , � I , I " � I I � - I - I , , , I . , , , � .. , - - - I . , � � , " .1 , ., , , I , , , � , � � , "I , , , 1, , , I , � - � I -, , , �','� , � I � � I i, " � � - , , , , , . I , , . " I �, � I I � " ,� , , . I , - , � l , ' , , , , � -, I � . " I I , . , " , , � , , I .1 , , , - , r, , '" � , , � . . . I , ., , I I 1, . , , , � , , . - - - I � . � � I , , I ". , I .� : I , , . ., I , I , . �-, t- . . , � - � , I I � I I � ,� . - . �, I , , , I �!' � 'L , , , I . , , - I � I I � , �� i , - -, , I I �, , , . . .. , �, , . ,? �" " . � , � , � , � , ,� . , , , - , � f - I - : , : , . ,,, , � . � - . - . . - � -�, 11 , . , - , , :I , , � . , . I I I �� , � , . . , . I . � � , . � I . � . ,; �, ,- - � i. 11 - � � - - � . � j I � , I I , . � . I- . : - I I ": � � I , I . - -1 ' � L ' ' i� ' ' . 'f ' ' ' �� , ' - . � - r " ' ., - - - � I . . . . I , , . � � - �, I k I . I I ,�, , �, I 1. * �: -.11 'RE 1- � '.' '' I I I "� ". " - I - .. . .� " � I I -,, ,, ��,,,�- �� �,FIGU . � I �, , � ,� ,� , . � I . , - � � , I , , - � � I , � � I � , , i , I , - , � , ; � , -. � � I I � , -, � . -,.�i 11 �, � � ,� 11 . �. I , . , I , � . -1 I � . . � , I � - , " . - , ,� , -, . 4. - - 7 , . , I � " � I � , , , � '', I , �- I '-. I - , ,.. -% .. �,j - -1. - - . I '' � �.-. I I..' I ��-, .1 - .. I " - I -,�, , I ,-, , � � "I �.- . �. ., - , 11 -1 -, �, 1, �.,, I I ,---"... - �, -�, '', - I , I I - -,�' " '. � ". I � : , �, , Z'' , " .�, , �- - ,,, -, - �, '. � " " , I � .. " I , '�,' , " , - , 7, �, I'" I � - ., - , , � .1 .-,� , , , I ',� " � , ", - ,,, 11 , 11 � ;" �� , , - - , 1, .: " - �.' ''., . " l,' � ., - ,; ". I I - , � , . � , , . �, - '': ,� " � ... t,� �,t , ". , , , -, �'. - I '' I -1. I"..". �. -1 I I -, .. , , , ,,,.,,!-,. - . ,� ­ - "'L �, I I:. � I . : .-,,,'� , I � � , I , - , -, �L.� I I I" ,�,�,:" - �'. , ,� , , ,,-, - ': " ,�, �; I -�'.- Z�,�,� � �, I � , . . 1, .I- �-,� , ,,I , v; ;--o- , " , , i � , :, I �� I 11 , 'C�', z 11, -'',. - ,,, " 7, �., !, , , " ;: " - , - , � , - -: �. - , ", ; � I � I , , , , t - , , 1. �� , .�,- � , " ;-: ., �, .;.--, �-', " l � I , . ,�--, - � I I I I I., 1�11 '7 . I - � - "o. � .. 11 - I I , " , -, �, � , I �,� . ..-I: :. "', - -, , � -,� - ,�, -. ". - .'- - - ---, . -. .. � I ,�, I I 11 . I 1. -.. '' . ". . . 1� - I . 11, ,'� I lll� .. ''.."', . .- . � . I .11 I I . - I , " :1 � I I " e . , -' I I ,. � - : ,,� "I , " , , � - , I, . . � � � -)R�j a ,q c t -7� , .11, I _,"',- '. 1-� 1-- -,, ..:, r-: . thentati.6 pk'60itati6w6f the:L ,:,.,,,�!��iq ep � � � ke SOrce,C.�'.'Iin , , ... . �, '� . , I "', ""', ,. . I , , , � ,,, , � �$ � � 1.11 � - 'I., I " , ._ . , � � , 1. "" ,-- *o �, : , - , �,, ,- ,,-, - - " -,,,' I : , - � , � , " .. , I � , . I . I I I '"', ; ! , � '' - , � . '- -" %,� I, -,�.,­ , . -� � ,,-,,�7,' � � "." I i:�,,�. '11�,.-,: I I :,. :- �-' I , � " �,. I � , I I.- ..� , � . ,, �,.; .,� , , ", '� " � -, - � ;, 11 - � � ", . _ 110'. , - ,�,:.l,, , I '- � -, , I I I I , 1". ,,,,:,,��, " , lk, .",.,: I , 11": �- .. " �, ��- , ". I ".-I I �, � , , i I, i., 11 - _-; � , I "'.. - - - . 1, � � : . /', , � , � � . ., , " "-''l,'l";�,.,,,l � I -� I I I �,-, , ; , , �, � , , . ,: , . , , I - � ".1 -, . - , -1 � , " , 11 - �- , ,, � " � - - - :�,%,, - '- .1 ,� I- , % '. ,,- - .-, , , , I , � ''. - � I I � ,�,." � ., , , - � .. . .'. I 1. . . .., ," - ; - -� , , I !. �', - 1� . I � - - - ,�- 11 ; .,: ",-_ I." L '--! - ' ." . � , 1, �.', �.",, , , . . ". �'. I ,., 11 � " , , � � ,'l-,:.,`- I " � 1� 1',- ,l , �. ,�,� , -., .1 ­ I. . I - " -� ,. -1, " , '. �­ - , I 11 , :� I., - , , I : �r . ". - � � .q. ,�. , - ,� �.," 1� , . I -.. ­� -, 6 , '. ,� - 1� -:x � -- .-, -.-, " � - -1 I . .. - . � , , .� , , . - .- . ,: . 1, I .,-,.,I,, , . �', .- � .- - ,�;: , " --1 � - -" . " " 1.11.11 . - .,:, " � ". I , .� , . _ � � -'.. --'�-" -', , 4" - ,":,, �� - �' I .i "' " -1 . , , , � I , - 1� � , - - " -'­"�'. , I -1 " . ,� " , .- , , - -- , , � " - I ,:, '' ;, � . - !� , , , � :�, I " ,� :1 'I- ,, - 11 , , -, -.i � , , ". ,,� - ; �_,-., � , . , - ''. - - �),-, , . , , , - . , , , , .-�- � , �:,: � �'; ,,� ., L� ,,,�., -,: I - I - I I , , . I �-: ,:,�,-,:: 1 , , , , , ,', " � 1, I � . I 1-1 . � -� c 11 I ­, . �- , I., , , �, , , �, - I I - ,, . I � - I., I -il " I �', ,-, � , , - ... t . I 1. �'. , � . �' , �: -1 , - , -�:" ":-� � - "I I 'k . , , I., '' I , . � � . , , I ... - I �, %. . , . � � I . " . " �--..,, I . �' . �.: .. I - " , " L,,'. , .% , - I.,; -, ,,, .1 - '': - � ,., _ , r '. � � , �-- ..", , , . - , � - ­'. � - I : '..". .1 1� ��,�� ", ,,,,,, ,.� I �- �; .,� I --�, - - I " I - . �, �� � � � �". - I'' - I -, �` " " , , ." � - . . . I .." 1, ":-"�, '', ...'' . - . I . � I I �, I., - , 1. . ''I �1�11. I � �,' �' � ''. I I I , . I - , , -, - , , I I � ", , - - ., I I � .., � , � -. - _. - " . - � " - , , � : --- 11: , . , . I 1; - I .I.;- ,---,.,�. . I - I , .1 .. , , -,�. � I � �,-,,, � � �, I 1. '' , - , - � � I., � � - -:,., �-.,,` ,,.:,�:- I , I , ,., . .1 .� , i I I � " ""' .�, I - , I . ,� " ". .. , - 11 I � , I ., , , - 11 I 11 11 .1 ''I ;"), - I , - : �%._ �, -'. , , .1-1 : -�. 1. It., ''. I .-I. I . r , " � I - I , , , , ,., I I., , . I ". '�, 1. �, " � I , -. , ' I , � ; I I . . . , I , -, , - -:- ,� I , - I . -, 1.1% � I 7 , . . � . 11 , , . � " - , , , , , , � , , , - � 1, . � , , I - , I . � � , , I � I I -. ". I . . - " - I , , .., � � � , , - , , '. � L � ., . � I - - I- . , , " , . I , . . " , I � I . , , I I 11 , , � � - , , � , I ,..- " -- . I � . - - - - ,- �, � , Z' I �, � I I , h . i, . " , . � , � , , ,, I � � I., " , � . . I. -M-1: . . , ; e , I k . , .1 � I � - : "." �, L �.- , I I I � . . I I � , , : , , . , , .� .. I " � . �l : ,�� , - I I I , I . " � 7, . , , I I � , � � I I , , , , I I , . . - � I , I , , , 1� I �` ; � ; ,�', , I : -, �,� � , , � , � ; � � I- , , t, , , �, I -1 1. - I , � , , , - - I ': I , " - � - , - ,� , ;�7" � "I I � , - , , � , �11 . : 5 � I , I � ". , I �, ., � � , . I - z - - , - - ��, � . ,� , . , ,,�- �,�� , �. �� I ., , %, ., , ,, , � - . I I I , . . I I , � � ., i �, I : , , I , ' L . 4. � , '. " � ., . .1 � , � , , � .'� I 11 ,- , � - - � I , , , � - I ., , , , i , � ,, . � . - � , , I I � - , , � , . � I , , : � I , , 1 � , : I � : 11 I , � , , , . . , , : , % � ; ,- , , , :�: � I , � r I . . , - " � I � � , . I , I - � , . I I , � I I . -, .., � I " � � - , - - , , , L ' I . 1 . - I . I - , - , . - I 1 , , � . , I � . , . I . � , . I , � . I � I : �, - , , ,-,, � , , � 1. 1. I : I I - , - . , . . . I I - I �� , � , � , - ,.- - ., I 11 . I 11 ", , � " , - �, I ,� , - � I . � , , ,- . - � ,:� � � � � I I I , . � � , � � - � , , -, , - ; . b � : " � , , . : I , , I I - . I - I , L I I � � . , , , � , '. . , , , � . , � : � - I . I .- , , - . � , � ., , 1 7 , , , . : . I I , - - . I q . � - , ;, " �� , , , . � , � � . � � " "� - '. , . � 11 - . I , � I . , , . : I " , � , I ) , . , I ; : - � I , - , I .- - , , � � � � , , " � � � , , . , , , I I I , - - , , , , . . I I , . , I , , , , - , - - .� - , � , -, � r , ,� , , ,� . - ,� ,-� , .1 . I " , � , , - � ; I I � , . . I I 1 , , - , , , � � . , �-, . i � - � . , , . . - , ". , . . I � � I I . � .1 . , . I , I I , , I I I � .. -. , ,- I , - -:- : , � , ,� . , � 11 I I I I , , , , : I I � - � , . F . ; ., , - : . - , . , , . , , , , � � �, ,!� � � , ; . I . , I - - , , , I . I , , - -� - -. - - ': , , I I I , , , ,� 4" " � , : , - - '. 1 4, I I � , , , .1 , , I , �, ,. 3" � � I , " , , , , � I - I I , , , , , , � , - .- �:, --,�,;-,`, . , I , � , , , . , . � , . � " � , i I I . , , , , *, � ,� � : -, :""',;, �,;�,, � , �: . - ", I �, " I I 1 , , - ,,, , - , - � - - , ! � , � , . � I 1. . � , �, , , , , - . " I � ;"�4 - , . � . :� I � � , v - I , I I : , , I , 11 " � I , I , , . , L . . I . - - . . � I . - � - - - - � -,, I - � I - q - I I 1. � ,� , , . , , , , - � . �- � % � , , � " - i ,, , -, , , I , , . . , , � I . I I - � . ,* , I , , . : �, , : e, , , .1 � I I _: � , I - � - , ,:, , . I , - -- � , �, �� � , , , � I �,Il I , , 1, � , � . � . - , , - � - - , , - "I ,� . I , , , , , " , � , , , , " , , , , I I , ; , �, - - . � : . � . , , . , .- � , 7 - , I - ,-,, � � " . � I , �, , , : , � , , - - : - I . I , I , .- � , � , ,� , � " , � I - - - . , - . - I � . � I - , � , I ". :- � I ,� � , , , -, I I � - ; .1 , - -_, I � � I . I -.. f , . . " I , - . I.. , , , . . ' I 1, I - , , - �: - ., ,� , ^- , - -,.. " , , . , � - � I . - " I . � % � - , . � , � , - I � . I , - � , , .. � I � . , ' , j - I � , , , , ,, . ", '. �. 1� . � , . , I I I . " . , . � I � � , , . .� � , - , . , I - � I , I . .1 , - I � - , , - I � I � . I . -' ' . . L , 1, 4 � % - � , , � . .- , L, , I I � . - -, 1: : , - , " , - I � � , - - " , , I , , , , , I - .. , � 4 1. , , , '� , , , ; � � 14 I � I I - 1� ': I , . . I , . I ; , , �', . - - I . I . � , � � 1, � , � I - I I 11 I - I , 11 ., I � � . . � , I � . I - . . , , � - , , , 11 ' - " � ' ' � - � I - , - lj, I , �- ., - , : , , '. ,,� " - � , , , . , , :, - .1 " . I , I . ; , � � � - , . I I I � , �, , �l 1, , . �, I , I "I .1 , , ',i � ; ; " " - , , , i ; , , I ' � L', . I , 1 -, . , - ,., , - , � I , 1, I I , , : - , , � , � , , . '- ,� 1. � , , � , � , , '. I . " , - '. � ., - � � , , - � , � . � - , I I -� � : I . � ,: , ,� . ,5 , , , I " - I I , , � � , ; , , , , � , , , , . , , , , , , - : , I , , . . . I , I I . � � . I I - I I �11 � I . - , � , , : ., , � , I - : � - . � �� , - I , I I I � � � 1 4 . - I I I � . � , . , , , - , , , - , � , I : I - . ,� � �� . � � , I , , ,� I � , '. , - � ,�- , , , . . I �, , . � , , , I ,� , � � � " . � '. I , . , , I - I . I I I , - . . - .,. r , , �, , - , ': . 11 � . , - � . . , I I : . , '� - . ,� - � � � � � I � - . � . - z � . I :_ ,�. �� I : " , , : . , .1 - , -- :,- - -. �, I - % � , . -. . . , , . I I : I - , . I I , , -1 - I I -11 , , 1, - I I , , , - , I , I I ; I I I , , : - I . - ., � il , � , ; I I .. I ,- . I . . - ,. " t r - I . , I i I , � I I I I . I I , 1. � , , � , . . I - ,� : �,- , , - " , " 7 � I " � , -�, I , . - , I 1 . . , ,:, � ,. ; . , , . " , - , � �� I , Z-� ; , , � 7 , %� : , � .1 -1 � �- , � ,�' �., , , , , �' . : I I . , , - - - , I . , I I � I , , , I ,�-'� I , - � 11 I - � , ., I I �: I ,, , '� � , , , , " � - �,.� �: , , , - . . . I - , . .L � � . - I I , , . , - � i - . , - � , , .1 . � , , -, � I 11 r. , � : , � , , -.: � � 1, � i � I , " .. . � � �11 . I � � � , I I , . . I I � , - � , , t , � - --l. � I I . � � � � , . � - . . 1, I I I I ., ; - - , , , � , I , � - I - , . . ., I - - I I I , � !� . I . I 1, � , � � . � I , , I , �, , � . . I I � I , . �, I , � , , : , p . ; - . , , - � ; , , , � ,,, , ,- , , , - --� , , , , - �, I , , . , I I �.- � ,� . � � . '. ,- , . , , , . . I . � I � , . , , , - . I ­ , �- , . . � 1. . t. I , .� 1 , � � I I I I I , , " - , 1. , � � , , . . , - , I . , - , , , � -, - " � , , , " " , � � , - �� , . , . ,�_ L , , � , , I � - 1�1 I : � , -, , , , , , I , , ', ,. :. , I : , ,� " , , - , , � , , , , I � � I I :1 I , � " - - - . � , i � �, , , --, , , , , , , I , , , I " , , � , , � � :, 't �. � , "': -: � � . , � , , I - . - . � f I It . . � . , , � , � -- I '. . I - . I - "I ,� \ . � . , I , , . " , . I I . - , ; , , ., - ; - , , , � I " � , . , - � I I � � I - I � � . " I . , , � , � I I � . . " I 11 � '. , . il I.- I �� 11 � . . , , - " , . I , . ,; 1� , , , " . " , I . . . I , 1. ,�, , , � t I I I " I- , , - , - � �Z - T : " � , , , . , � " � : � , a � I � �] C , ,� , , � , � I � , " ., , . ,; � I , 7 , , , - I I 11, I . 1. I . I .-�� �-,, - I I , .. I - -', . - i I � , I � � , " , . , , . I � , , . � ; : , �, . , , � , � - . I � � I , . - � I . I t I . I , . : - , , " � � , , - � , , , I . . , , , , , , - , - , - '. , , , � , -, I . - . I � I 11 . � . I " � , " t � , , - � . I � � �� I � -, � . I I I 11 , I -1 � . , . . I I � - I - , � , , . I - I � :, , . . - . , " , , � �, .1 I � . � � , � � . I � : 1. � - I . , . . , � - , � . , , " - , , � ; - , . , , , 1. . , , I �-, , � . , � -1 . � - , � , '. , . � . ,,, I � � : : , , , , - , � � � � � I - , , , , � � . � �tl 11 I : i.� " �- I 11 I - . I :11 '. � � It 1: . I - , I . I I I , , . I .� , - I : , �, - ., , - , - - , I I I . ;_ . , , . . . I 11 � I � � I - � I , - I . � I , - I - . , � , . . � , , �, � I ,- I r L . ' I I � , , I , � I I � i " . I , . � , I , -, , � - I I - - I . - �, , . " I - - - . , , . � � , � � - - , � � , , , I �, , - '- , . , : - � , , - � I , - I , - , 1. , � I , , I , � `- , ;, � ', I L � 1. , , I- , �, I - � � - " - . . . I I , . . I .- . ; I . , � - � � , i � � � . . I � 11 .. . � ! ! . ; 1 � , - , , . I , � � - , -, , I , . I � " � , ` . , � I , I , . -, - , I - , , I � . , . , - - � � , , , , I I . - - . , - ;, ,;, , : I - � , , � � I - " : I � � I '.1 . . . . � , I , " , ` I I -, , -- , - ., , " I . - � r .. , � " - 4 I . , , , ., , ,:-"-� � lrl'� I �' , - �� , � , I . I I , � ;': -, ��, � � , , : . I . � , 1, 1. , . I . , I � -� I I I , 1. I , , � I , 1. . , " , I 11 , 11 , I . . . - I I , . - . - � , , � , " , , I , I " 11 �, . , , . , , , �� � . - , 1: - 1� I .. �L . , , , , I � , : - , , - I � I " , , , , , I � : . � , � , � " � � , . , I ,. � I � . -1 - � ;" * -I.,- I " I " I I " I � � , , , � � wl . � I : , - I I . �: �l I � 1. . I � . . . . , � . " , � I :� . I � , , I , - a . . , . I , � , I �� , I . I � 't - . � I . I � . " - . " , , -�-� - - I , ­ ." I � , , , , . . , , , - : : , ! , , � - � . I � 1: . ,� , � - : , , �- , .-,'t - � � , I : . � " � , .1 , � - � , , , � - , � I * � � , , � , I '. I , - ! - - � , � 4 11 I , . . , � I . I , , . , * , " � -1 � , �� -. �-� , , ,� � � I Ilz � , I , , , : , . . I , , , ; � , . , , � : ,,, � ��', , ; , , " -, . , . , , , , � , , . 11 , ; � I . , " , r - I . . � ,� . I I , � �t � I �, � ! � , I 4 " I , . I , . ":1 I , I , I . � I . , , - , I , 1. . �, - " � I - I , , -. � - 11 � .1. : I - I � , � I , ", � - � � , I , , I � _ , , . , ; � .. ; I � � , . ., ; % � I I � , , � 11 � � 1� , . I I : - ,� - . � L" , . � , , � . , � , �- . I I . . � � , . I I � , , . . . - , � � � � '" I 1 , , � I I I I I I � � � , . ; � , .� �� � . � ,- % , , . � " , , � " , I I I " . , � I - , � � : , , .., 1. I � i �, , '� : - -,' 1 , , " I � . I � . I � I I . I . - L , � ; I , I . � , . , I I . . , , I ,� , - I �� �, I , " I , - , ,, , , . , . , I , � � . � � : � . � - " , '. , � I . ; I I . � � " �- I I I , � I - - I . I - � . , � . I ; ,�, - , , . .1 . . � - I i ,. � , I , -1 i - I I , � I �,, I I I - f � " " , � , , , , , , ,� - �, � � � , ,� , � � , , , . � , I , I I , , , � I , , . , , , � I . � I . � - . , I � " I . I I I ,, - � , � , , , . . " - , .. ; , . , I �: . I , -1 , " - , I I , � , , � .1 � , . , , , a p , � ", I I � . �� , �: , :- � . , , , c , : � . . , , � � , i I , , , , � � , -, -� � , , . I , W,l � , � , , , � , , , - , . � -,. - � , , �- .. - I : � , � - I - , ; I � . � " . , t � - : , � � , " , - " t : - I " ; " , -�"",, � .1 - 1, I . I � I ,. - I � I , I "I ; ; " , , ', , ., � � I . ; , , � - ., : , I. I I I : � , , , , � , - , ., , , - , � ; 1� � I , , I .-,,-,,� - � � : ,� � L' I - , I " , ,z , � , � �, I I � , ,, �,, , , " I . : . . , ' , , I � � I " � ' I ;, - ' ' ' � �. � , " , , � , I . I , I � � I . � , , , jl� . - I . " , � , , . � , ,- " , .-. - " � � I ', ,,,, ." .-.." -�"" , , � . � I � - . I , I , I � -,' ,.-, , � � � � I , , � � , , . I � � 7 . , , I � , , " , I : , - - - - I I I � I . � , , � , , � � , - � �), , - , - . � I I , � . � . , , - - � . . . � I I I , � , I I , , I I . - , L , . � . � ,� � � I � 1� : . � , , � I '. , , � . , � - , � - , � - - � � � � �; , _ � : , - - _ m - � t . I � , , ! � � " - � . I , , . , I , . - �: , � , , - , I �, , . � . '. . � 1, " ,. � , , , � I . I ,. I � I � . � I I - . , . . - - - .� ,l j- - � ' L I I � . - I � I - , , � , " !, - I I , , , - - -1 � � , I , I _� . _ � , , , , � . . � , � - - . 11 I - . I , - I � � � , - , , , , � � . , � � " . . I I . , I I . 4 1 . , , . I- I I . . I � I � . I �: , , , � . , , % , . . , , , , I I I - , " " , , , , . , , %. I I , � , V , .� � � I . I . 11 . . I I I. , . , I � 1, I , , ' I . , ' I I - I I I I � . I - , , I , " I - ' � " � - I 1; I � , � 1, I I I - , � , I - ; " - , , I , � . , - . -, : 1, - I - �, � � I , � k "I " , - , , � : . , , , , � , , � . . � , � , - . , , , ; , , , , � �� �. �: ,. ';� , - . � - �, I ,-, , , , . , , - � I , . . - . � - , � , - � I , I , -, -�` , r, 1, I , � � 1, , , ;l . � , " " . , , , " , I , � I , :, �, � , � I , I , , , , � . , , "'�,�,� �!,� I , I- I �� , " I " , -.1 . , , � , , , I , I , ; " � " - . ' 'I- 1, � � � - , , , � .. , � " . , I , . , .. " i .- , - � I , , , I , : " , � , . " . , , �, ; � � -� , � � . -, � , : I I., , I L 7 , . I � , ' , I . . . - , i , , , , . � ; � I . . .� . - : , I � � � ,,, , , , I � I . , I - : : , , , " : , , , , _ % ,, , " - � � , , � ! - � I �, � . , I � , , , . I I -1 I I � - . , - I I " � " I ,�'� . , I � -, � . . , - r , , I 1� - , . , . I . I I .� . I . , 1. I � . , , - � , , , , � . , " , , - I - . , I � 1 '. ; , , ., , L � , . . . I . I , : . I j , 1. , I I - I , � � ., , , , I " - '� - I . , . , � - � - ,. : � , � , . � � I � � , , , - I � � - . I I . . , . , � I 11 � - . , � - , - ': .-' , -, . - : : , - � - , , , 7 �� ,- �, 1. I �' � I : .� - I I I- 1, " - , . - - , � . � , " � , I I I .� I - . , �, , . . , I - , � . . . " 11 � �', , . , � , � f , 11 I " ; I ,� . � I � I .: I �' - ,71 . . , " L I , , I -1 11 , , , I , � I , , , , !. " - 11 .� , , : I - � �� -, , ,, " , -",f I - '� - , , � " � , , : �,� , , . , 11, - ,-. 1. 1: :� � "I" � , I � . �' " I � . . " I I , � � , �, , � - , �', . I � -, , , , , . � , a , . � , . � - � � , , , , , I � .I- ,' , � " I , � , � , , I , - ! , I , , . , , I . I I � �, , " - - ; " I , �� , , I . , , . , 4 1 -, � , � . I- I � I � . ." . � � I , I - I . � - . . � - . � - � � I , . I . , . I I " .� - , . I ,. I . � - I , � I . � , � , , % I , I I : . . . .1 - I . , ,' * : � , '. , , - � � , ; - - '. . � - , _ L , ,� . I - I I ' 'L ' - � - I . . I , , � , � - I I � - , " I �, � . - - , � , . . . I . - � , - , : , �. ; 1� , " I I - . � � - - , , , . � , - , , , - I , - .� I � , , ., , � . . , � � � - , � � . . � ;, 11 I I � � � � , , . �r , . . , � , . � I , : ! ; . I , I , -� �, I ,- . ". z � � I , , z I , , � - ! , I L , ,;� .. , , I . . I .. IL : � ,�-" �i ! ' - - � " ,�, : , L , , k � �, " , � I , ,- � , -, , � , , , , -� ��' ` L ' '. ' � . � ' ., � I I � . ; - 1, , � � I . , , I �, I 4 , I , I � I ; .1 � , " '� , , � - . ,, �, I I � , � . ,,, � , � I ,� I , , I .., � � . , . , , , , , - " � : ; � - . , " , , I - . � . - I I . ;. � 1. , . , I : I I I . - � � . � . � � � .1 - I � I � - . 11 I - : , " � - , * I . � I , , I - - . , - - , � I I . I , . . I I . � , . - .1 � , . , : � , � I , , �' , , �, ; . , ;. " , , , � , I I � ,,� , , , ,, - , � , I I v . 11 , , � � - � I � " , -, 1, - � , , . � , � . : , , , , , , � . , , . . , . , , � , , , , � I I , , , I I I � . . � � . , I- ;, , , : , , , �. , - 1 - , 1.� . " I 1, ", -- , , I �-, 1 , ,,�, , I , , . ;, - , � ., - , , , , , �. , , a , , - � : ,c ,-. � . . , , I , , , 'I . I., 1 , � , � f - , j) , , , , " , � " . .. ; , , " I I . , �, , . I � I , � _,,, , , - , � I - , . . � . . - , -il � I I , � -, '- .: , , � � "' - ' I - '� , �' ' � : . � L .1 ,; , , , I , i -, �. , , � I . �� , I I , 11 , , , , ', 4 � , , , ,., , � " , I , , , , , , 4 , I , I � " I � - , - I , , , , , , , , , I � . , � , , . , , � . - - , - . .1 - , - , I I � I . .1 I - , , I I : . , I I - .: � : . - , � - , - , - , . , - 'i, - I , I � - . L , . , , . - � , - z � , " ,� , . , : , , , '. � - , , , � , " , I , , , , , - , � . : ,� � , ! : � . , � � , - � , �r i , " , , I I ,;, I � � , , I , % . � � - -t I )�l , . : , 11 , I 1�� . , , � � , I , , I , I I I 'If' i I CORNELL UNIVERSITY LJ BOLTON POINT WATER INTAKE \ \ M REGION OF \ PROPOSED ` z LSC INTAKE PIPE REGION OF PROPOSED LSC OUTFALL PIPE ITHACA, e WASTE WATER 0 1,000' 2,000' 3,000' 4,000' TREATMENT OUTFALL APPROXIMATE SCALE IAWWTP W:Y ROtf�C 13 CAYUGA HEIGHTS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT X,� ap x "Rs U), s 4-� < > McKin.,so , pt, M 1, v; kg �_� -4 wi[16 A PROPOS ED LSC Pt. - �� �T N 0� .7 LAKE PUMPING 714 1 *, 01, , I BUILDING 4 Li. ghto 3 N x, DY I�N CORP BRenwick i V, PROPOSED CHILLED .N . i \\,,�-NVAIER PIPING ROUTE z 'ki'AN, TREMAN ST\ 3 INE, PARK --J K . k K Golf Course' A FAL S S nog- L /Sewage(C)�) k* — 41 Fii�S 4 V� I., DISposal 0 '01 lm No!, k7r. L -i Gla' ig ' ti.; J,l, 1';� . ff,i °o / ..S I I , ! d ' � / I&j � � �000 c c; cs� a�—,t �T �t ,;,;;� z /Ih�� n u IN i tt, --]��ark 6 t r 0 L Lg uF. aUF A O SCALE: 1 2000' 0 E . z� PROPOSED LSC EAT EXCHANGER -,vv un UILDING G L lilt v W Q:X& a a SOURCE: USGS ITHACA EAST AND ITHACA WEST QUADRANGLE. CORNELL UNIVERSITY MiACA, NEW YORK GNEW & SC84M LAKE SOURCE COO NG FIGURE 3 DATE: 1/96 JOB NO.: 2720 PROPOSED CHUM WATER I PIPELINE ROUTE GO- fr,�, CO,UR C ORNELL U N I V E R S I T Y Facilities & Campus Services February 26, 1996 Mr. Raymond J. Nolan Environmental Analyst NYSDEC Region 7, Division of Regulatory Services 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, NY 13045-1090 Re: Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project Draft Proposed Scope of EIS Dear Mr. Nolan: Utilities Telephone: 607/255-6648 Humphreys Service Building Fax: 607/255-5377 Ithaca, NY 14853-3701 Cornell University has prepared a draft proposed scope for the EIS in support of the Lake Source Cooling Project. This draft scope was prepared pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Section 617.8. It is our intention to present and review this document with the NYSDEC and involved agencies on February 27, 1996. A copy of the draft scope has been distributed to involved agencies and interested ' parties on the attached distribution list. A copy of the draft scoping document will be made available at the Cornell Engineering Library and the Tompkins County Public Library. A public meeting will be held on March 12, 1996 to review the draft scope and receive public comments. It is currently anticipated that the comment period for the draft scope will be concluded on March 26, 1996 at a second meeting with the involved agencies. Please call John Heintz, P.E., of Stearns & Wheler at (315) 655-8161 if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, D Robert R. Bland, P.E. University Environmental Engineer cc: Lanny Joyce, Comell University John V. Heintz, P.E., Steams & Wheler NOLRRBOl.wpd 1 r ys Qist7ibtltiGltibi iSY """N= asi'�`��. Name Title Or aaization M.x<Address 5 A,.."�P.EonelFaic:.;K,= Ronald Anderson 836 Henshaw Road (607) 257-1238 Mayor Ithaca, NY 14850 Villa a of Ca u a Heights Jeannine Kirby P.O. Box 186 (607) 533-8896 Town Supervisor Lansing, NY 14882 Town of Lansing Don Hartill 2405 N. Triphammer Road (607) 257-0424 Mayor Ithaca, NY 14850 Villa a of Lansin Catherine Valentino 126 E. Seneca Street (607) 272-5214 Supervisor Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Candace Cornell 1456 Henshaw Road (607) 257-6220 Planning Board Chair Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Jonathan Kanter 126 E. Seneca Street (607) 273-1721 Town Planner Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1704 fax Town of Ithaca Alan Cohen 108 E. Green Street (607) 274-6501 Mayor Ithaca, NY 14850 City of Ithaca H. Matthys VanCort 108 E. Green Street (607) 274-6550 Director of Planning & Development Ithaca, NY 14850 City of Ithaca William Grey 108 E. Green Street (607) 274-6527 City Engineer & Superintendent of Public Works Ithaca, NY 14850 City of Ithaca Becky Bilderback 2024 Slaterville Road (607) 274-5560 Chair TC Planning Board Ithaca, NY 14850 Tompkins Count James W. Hanson, Jr. 121 E. Court Street (607) 274-5560 TC Planning Board Member/ Ithaca, NY 14850 Commissioner of TC Planning Dept Tompkins Count Walter Smead Division of Land Utilization (518) 474-7853 Real Property Examiner 2 Coming Tower 25th Floor (518) 474-0011 fax NYS Office of General Services Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12242 Nancy Todd Peebles Island (518) 237-8643 Program Analyst PO Box 189 ext. 262 NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Waterford, NY 12188-0189 518 233-9049 fax Gordon Reimels 3668 NYS Rt. 281 (607) 756-7072 Transportation Maintenance Engineer 2 Cortland, NY 13045 (607) 879-4310 fax NYS Dept. of Transportation Martin Violette 145 Cascadilla Park (607) 277-2699 Chair Ithaca, NY 14850 City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council Edward Cope c/o 467 Mann Library (607) 255-7981 Chair Cornell University Tompkins County EMC Ithaca NY 14853 Ed Franquemont 120 N. Cayuga Street (607) 273-6633 Executive Director Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-4816 fax Historic Ithaca Phil Zarriello 1011 Taughannock Blvd. (607) 272-8722 Chair Elect Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Byron E. Unsworth 232 Renwick Drive (607) 272-5827 Organizer Ithaca, NY 14850 Ca u a Lake Conservation Association David Kay 205 Hook Place (607) 273-2206 or Chair Ithaca, NY 14850 255-2123 City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board Stewart Stein 320 N. Tioga Street (607) 274-5434 Chair Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 274-5430 fax Tompkins County Board of Representatives Scott Heyman 320 N. Tioga Street (607) 274-5551 Administrator Ithaca, NY 14850 Tompkins Count 1 of 2 7 I I 2 of 2 G Robert W. Howarth E311 Corson Hall (607) 255-6175 Senior Fellow Cornell University CU Center for the Environment Ithaca, NY 14853 Nelson G. Hairston, Jr. E313 Corson Hall (607) 254-4231 Professor Cornell University (607) 255-8088 fax CU EcoloqV and SVstematics Ithaca, NY 14853 Ray T. Oglesby 16 Fernow Hall (607) 255-2823 Professor Cornell University CU Dept. of Natural Resources Ithaca, NY 14853 Gerhard H. Jirka Universitat Karlsruhe 49 (0) (721) 608-2201 Professor KaiserstraBe 12 49 (0) (721) 66-16-86 fax Institut Fur Hydromechanic 0-76128 Karlsruhe. Germany Ralph Manna 615 Erie Blvd. West (315) 426-7500 Regional Director, Regional Permit Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 NYSDEC Kevin Kauffman 1402 E. Shore Drive (607) 277-0660 Executive Director Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 277-3056 fax Bolton Point Water Plant Tompkins County Public Library 312 N. Cayuga Street (607) 272-4556 Ithaca, NY 14850 Cornell Engineering Library Carpenter Hall (607) 255-4144 Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Michael Scarlotta P.O. Box 1946, State Univ. Plaza (518) 443-5744 Director of Engineering Albany, NY 12201-1946 (518) 443-5509 fax State University Construction Fund Gideon Gal 900 Shackelton Point RD (607) 255-0406 Bio. Field Staff Bridgeport, NY 13030 (607)-254-4780 fax CU Dept. of Natural Resources Lars Rudstam 900 Shackelton Pt. Road (315) 633-9243 Senior Research Associate Bridgeport, NY 13030-9750 (315) 633-2358 fax CU Dept. of Natural Resources John E. Edinger 37 West Avenue (610) 293-0757 President Wayne, PA 19087-3226 (610) 293-0965 fax J.E. Edinger Associates, Inc. John Homa 50 Ludlowville Road (607) 533-8801 President Lansing, NY 14882 (607) 533-8804 fax Ichthyological Associates, Inc. Hazen Burford 5701 S. Eastern Avenue (213) 890 9369 Senior Supervising Mechanical Engineer Suite 240 (213) 888-8948 fax Nova-Industra, Inc. Los Angeles, CA 90040 Peter Veldhuizen Suite 404 Corbloc, 80 King Street (905) 984-8383 Chief Designer St. Catharines, Ontario, CANADA, L2R 7G1 (905) 984-8394 fax Gryphon International Engineering Services Inc. Dooley Kiefer 629 Highland Road (607) 257-7453 District No. 10 Representative Ithaca, NY 14850 Tompkins County Board of Reps. 2 of 2 G ENTS TABLE OF CONT PAF INTRODUCTION :1 - V R,ION,,,,. SE ATDESCRIPN SEAR SCOPING CHECKTIST 3 ` c OUTLINE OF LAIKE'SOURCE COOLING EIVIROI�MENTAL IMPACT STATEh%IENT 2 -, CHAPTER 1DESCRIPTION OF THE° PROPOSED PROJECT 1 0 .INTRODUCTION: 3 , r. t • A 1 0 1 Scope of this Document';. 3 1,0 2, General Project I;ocation 3 1,T PROJECT :PURPOS,E,_NEEDS AND BENEFITS: 3, Description of-Lake'Source Cooling (LSC).' 3 ;1 1 2 , Public Need for the Protect 3 ' l 1 3 Goals and Objectives of the Proposed Action r 3 1'14,.:Benefits of`ihe Propos&d-'Action- ' _ 3 1.2 .: LOCATION 4 s ^; 1 2 1 r Geographic Boundaries of the Pro�eci 4 1 2.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning. 4 1 3 nESIGN AND LAYOUT 4 `7 3,1 Heat ExchangerFacihtyf f 4 3 2 Pnp0Iine Corridor ;(Terrestrial) 4 133— - Pipeline Corridor (Aquatic) 4 1 4: CONSTRUCTIOI�I 4 i.4.1, Totals Construction Period Anticipated 4 142 Schedule: o,f Construction ,, 4 :1 4-3 Matenals:StoragerDurrig Cgnstructon 4 t :] 4.4: :Stora iwater Drainage Plan During Constructinon 4 1 5 'OPERATION 4 :1 5 1 Type Of Operation 4 15 2 S.chedu�e Qf Operation f 4 1 6.-`APPROVALS NEEDED. S _,JointAppl a ion s 5 1 6 2 'General Pemrt for StorTnwater Disclarges:from ConstructnonActivtnes 5 1 6 3 ,State; Pollutant Discharge Ehmmation System (SPDES) Permit 5 1 6 4 NYDEC `Water Withdrawal Registration ' 5 1 6 5 Underwater Land,Easeinent (Cayuga Lake) (NYSOGS). 5 4272OZA 6 f is Draft Version 1 • TABY.E OF CONTENTS, (continued) ' 1.6;6. ,,NYSDOT• 4ighway,Crossing Permit w _ 1 6.7. _ City of lthac'a Street Opening Permit ........ .. •. 5 5 1.6.8 Town of Ithaca Fill Permit .. S ' 1:6:9 TownTof Ithaca'�Zol ing Amendment 5 CHAPTER'2:; ENVIRONMENTAL_,SETTING AT RESOURCES, 'IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONi,AND.MITIGATING MEASURES - 2,1 ' GEOLOGY; SOILS AND TOPOGRAPh Y 5 " 2.`1-. l .'Lake- ottom. Sediments 5 2.1:2 acility Site.... ........................ 2 ,1..3 Chilled Water Pipeline Route P 6 2.2 %�GkOUND'WATER . .6 ' 2:2.1 ' Environmental Setting ... 6 2.2:2 Impacts-of the Proposed Project .......... :. ... 7 2:2.3 Mitigating" Measures w .' ... .. .' ........' .. ' 2.2:4 ' Unavoidable Impact's ...• . , 7 2.3 SURFACE.WATER:'CAYLJGA'I.AKE 7 2.3.1, Envirorimental Setting. . ..... .... 7 t 2:3;2, Thermal Characteristic ... ,. 2:3:4 : Mysis-Relieta .. ... ; . . 2:3.5 Lake:Sediments 10 2,3`.6 Zebra and Quagga Mussels.... . . . . . • 11 2.3:7 Cayuga,Lake-Fishery, .... '2.4- SURFAMWATER! TRIBUTARIES .: ... .... ; 12 2,4:1 Environmental Setting .. 12 2:4.2 `Impacts of ft'-Proposed Action .. :.. 13 2,A-3 'Mitigating Measures .... ... 13 2.4:4 Unavoidable Impacts . .... .... 13 2.5 AIR RES . `.' :...% ...... '.. ...:....'. 13 2.5:1 " 'Environmental S,ettirig, : .... • . • ...... 2.5:2 rImpa6ts`6the Proposed Action,; 13 2:5.3 1Vltigatng'1Vleasures , . • .. .... 13 2.5:4. Ona%vo idab 13, .'2- 'TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY , , :. 2,6:1 Environmental Setting . .... 13 13 2:6'.2 ' .Impacts;of the'P'roposed P:rolect '.' .. . 14 , 2.6.3 -Mitigating Measures' ........ 14 14 2`6.4_.,'Unavoidabl`e Impact's 42720ZA 6 u ' : Draft Version, l ;, i f [ t 1 ,. t - /'1 t J . J - , ". r `1 .++ . 1, .,. - : . Y , ._ T r r ( 1 1. t _ a i r / F f �4 ' rxV C TABLE OF'CONTENTS (coritmued) nn: 14 "- 4 z ,rage . _ F - SSS^ i \ 2; AGRICULTIRAL iZESOURCES, 14 .. .., q ' - - ,t#,� Y' - ••.CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONME%1TAL SETTING (HUMAN RESOIJ�2CES), �1VIPACTS V OF THE PROPOSED ACTION;`AND MI�TGATING MEASURES ;- 3j. {TRANSPORTATION SERVICEtg -14 3 _ .:l EnvitoriirientaLSeWt -',F 5. 14 3s12 Iriipacts of the Proposed Actzon 15 3 1 3` 1Vlitahng Measures 15 - 3 1:4 Unavoidable Impacts ' 15 3 2, LAND USE AND: ZONING IN PROJECT':AREA 15 3;2;IEnvironmental. S`ettmg` 15 , 3.2.2 Impacts"6f,the`Proposed Apfipy-I 3.2.3tiating,Meas - I }; 15 �' 3.244; Unavoidable Impacts: 1 s 3.3, .COMMUNITY SERVICES : 15 33;.1, Envixorimental Setting` : �� Y . ` I!5 3.3:2 Impacts. of the Proposed Action , , 15 3 133 Mit gating}Nl asures :, 15 = 3 34:Ii Ooldable Impacts 16 , 4 - DElVIOGR THTC;S \ t r 16 j 3 4.'1 Envir�nrriental Setting .._ 1 rt' r 16 ' 3141 2. Impact of the Propose'.' Action' 1 C 3 43 t gating.Measures 16 f a 3x4.4: Unavoidable Impacts j 16 , 3.5' VISUAL RESOURCES, : 16,. 3 5 Y Environmental Setting"- 16 3.5.2. IYnpacts blihe Proposed Action 16 - 3 Sti3 '4igating;Measures 16 ,r. 3,5..°4, Unavoidable Impacts 16}• J _; , t ' 1x 3 b-' HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..: , - J.6., Env ronriiental `Settzng ",° 17 3 6.2. 'Ir pacts of the Proposed Action 17 r . 1'6-3,- Mitigatingr Measures , w 17 3 6.4 Unavoidable Impacts 17 _ r: 3.7:. NOISE ?, 17 x 3 7 _I ` Environmental: Setting ; 17 3 7, Impact of the Proposed-Action r: 17 I` 3 7 :, Mitigating Measures 17 3 7.4. Unavoidable Impacts - - r.. ' fr 42t94A 6' =ri. ­ ',, Draft Version 1 , ` I L TABLE OftONTENT, _ c S(6ritinudd-) Pagg: -; CHAPTER 4ALTERNATIVES 4.4, NO, A .. ............... CTION"ALTERNATIVE,'. 1.1-, Effect on Public Nedid'. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 J7, 'L2 onlhe-EnviroftM6 ......... 4. 'if nt Aj.3 Effect on Proj e"etSponsor. .............. ..... ....... 18 -'4 2, ALTERNATIVE' CHILLER TECHNOLOGIES ,.,. 19 43 ,ALTERNATIVE EACIL ITYLO CATIONS,.-,. 18, 4.3.1 Facilities_on�East, and Wesi Sides Of Monte 34 ................. 18 4 .�:2,,' All'Facilities.on LdkqShor.e,.. ....... ......... 18 44','ALTERNATIVE` INTAKELOCAuON (DEEPER,),18 441 Effct,onMysid-Entrainme'nt. .Effect P 4�.,4.3 Effect, on -P' babilitv ofBr ink in War W�t'r r o Drawing met e 18 A,5 ALTEINATIVE_OUTFALL LOCATIONS"' 18 4.5.1 ,'At, Shoreline 18 4..5,.2':,'.At- 100 "Ft 18' 4,,6, ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE POUTE,'(BORE),- 18 ............ 4. 6'. , Eff6ct on Terrestriaesources ............. 18 -eLon'Tr� 4- 6.2, d,c IS ESed...... ....... *;6,.3,_. -6n-Cultural,kesource§ 18, �Qn p- 01 op'so'r, 4.A.4 `Effect r ed.S� 18 4.7- 'ALTERNATIVE SL�v- OF' -'L' SC ...... � ...... 18 minate Peaki4 � , -C 41. 1, Larger: Elim. & ........... 181. 4 'Smaller: Inerteas e Use of Chillers is 4.9 'REDUCE DEMAND FOR CHILLED XER COOLING, ON -CAMPUS 18 4.8,1.',Conditioning and, t n!'Cool 8 -4.82,'.1 Design Alterna Wes, ..... 18 CHAPTER.5. Ilk-REVE-kStB)LE'AND'IRRF,,TR..IEV-A-BLE,COMMITMEN-T OF' RESOURCES ...... LAND RESOURCES'. .... 5.11, %'SA6 Facility ,Parcel ,,Development ',..'. 19 19� ` IT 5.4.2. Subsurface Pipelffie:Co. idor,(Ter'ri.Isir.lal),-.-'.'.'',�, ... ......... ipe ind. (Aquati�G? ....... .5,13, 1, 19 42720Zk6 Draft Versiortl i a 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 u i. .. ,. . , 'r .r �"4 . ti t ' T` , r '" - , I ' 3 ,..J ^ L 31. , f S 3 ' � -1 ' - ", ," �l"I �, t..1 f. 1:: � - . - " ", ." : t. TABLE O CONTENTS (continued); �. 11 Paye . 5 2'1.' MATERIAL RESOURCES I1. ' 11.;19 5:3, .EI.NERGY RESQURCES 19 x ,t 5 4- -FINANCIAL RESQURCES 19 to { t f S. ..k k € � �F: 1 w CHAPTER 6. GR0'WTH INDUCING ASPECTS r, 6 1. � G , ,WTH IN DEM�N'D�FOR'"CHILLED WATER CO;OLiNG s 19 ' 6 1 1- Space Cooling 19 a�11 "6 1 2 Laboratory and"Facilrty,Cooing j1. `19. ,,r G ` - i , �' ' '4 CrHPTER 7 °EFF.ECTS QN THE CTSE AND.CONSERVAT'IOI�i3OF ENERGY t RESOi7RCLS ,. T Y Y t r3 �� .i 7 1':� HYP'OLIMNETIC WATER ASA RENEWABLE RESOURCEr. 19 7�2: `EI�RGY SAVED BYIIvIPI,EIVIEITATIQN OF,LSC1. `,. 19 7.:3 <C`rENERA ING"CAPACIT'Z' FREEI 'UP BY I1VI L�NTENTATTON�rOF LS'C 19 7 4�: CONSISTENCY;WE A THE NEW'YORk,' IATE ENERGY'PI AN . l ` r LIST OF:; �i�ECHNICAL APPENDICES. 20 :r a , LIST OF'FIGURES ANp'tABLES , .21 r -,1"..A '. t ;: , r - - „} i % .. , ,. ' k .i f i ,S ' t t J , } - 11 .. 1 I i r.i l 6 _ _ �� 1 Iy F a' #' _ sx� t t a'. % r11 . ., r x 1 i �. T 7 + r .0 11t ' . w. r a a 9 ` } ' i + .f k S - 1. .. 42720ZA 6 braft Version 1 1 '� ` ` , _ 1 �' `� �� z - . ; ' - :F , = J INTRODUCTION This document presents the proposed outline of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared for Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling project. The outline is being circulated for review as part of the scoping procedure, which is an option under New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). As defined in Section 617.8 of the SEQR regulations, the primary goals of scoping are to focus the EIS on potentially significant adverse impacts of proposed projects and to eliminate consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or not significant. The draft outline is annotated with discussions of the sources of information to be used. Investigations of the potential impact of LSC on Cayuga Lake have been underway since 1994 ' and have been used to scope the relevant aquatic investigations. Results of the 1994 and 1995 aquatic investigations are summarized in reports on file in Tompkins County's and Cornell University's Carpenter Libraries (Stearns & Wheler Interim Reports, 1994 and 1995). According to the SEQR regulations, involved agencies should provide written comments on this draft scope. The scoping process also includes an opportunity for public participation and ' comment. Written public comments should be provided to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which has been proposed as the lead agency for this project. Comments may be submitted to Raymond J. Nolan, Environmental Analyst I, Region 7, Division of Regulatory Services, 1285 Fisher Avenue, Cortland, NY 13045-1090. A public ' meeting is scheduled at Boynton Middle School, Ithaca, on March 12, 1996 to receive additional comments. The lead agency is required to provide a final written scope to Cornell within 60 days of receipt of this draft document. Once the scope is final, Cornell will proceed to prepare the draft EIS for the LSC project. n L 1 42720ZA.6 -1- Draft Version 1 17 L IDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION For the past 30 years, Cornell has used a central chilled water system based on electrically driven chillers to meet campus air conditioning and dehumidification needs. Recent federal air quality legislation phasing out the production of chloroflurocarbons (CFCs), 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 entering into a second phase of investigating the feasibility of using the deep, cold waters of Cayuga Lake for campus cooling in a process termed Lake Source Cooling (LSC). The second phase includes developing schematic designs and preparing the permits, including the draft EIS, needed to implement the project. LSC provides a means for the university to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act to phase out the use of CFC -based chillers. The system is based on a natural renewable resource and is non-polluting. Energy required to cool the campus will be greatly reduced with implementation of LSC. LSC will be designed to pipe water from a depth of 60 to 70 in in Cayuga Lake to a heat exchanger facility to be built at 1000 East Shore Drive. Water pumped from the lake water intake structure will flow into the heat exchanger, where it will cool recirculating water returning from campus. The closed chilled water loop will transport the cooled water to the Cornell campus, where it will be distributed through the existing chilled water distribution system. The lake water will be returned to Cayuga Lake through an outfall with diffuser at a depth of 3 to 4 ' in. Water temperature will increase from 4 to 5°C (40°F) at the intake to 12° C (54° F) at the outfall. At capacity (year 2044), LSC flows are projected to peak between 50 and 70 million gallons per day. The proposed chilled water transmission supply and return lines will extend approximately two miles from the heat exchanger facility to the tie-in to the existing campus chilled water ' distribution system. The proposed pipeline route is depicted in Figure 1. n 42720ZA.6 -2- Draft Version 1 M rt ke Source Cooling j. et Cornell University UL�, lagg" Proposed Pipeline Route ", ..................... ..... . . . . . ...... Cayug4,k Heights .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... li, . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... I.. .. . .. ..... Wast Wpier rye '11 Treatmiht Plant Es ........... . . . . . . . . . . . at 01 h. O NOY c. . . . . . . . . . . . Youth Jim Bureau* Stewart Park V1. slp a I Bton. oyn WMiddle % of School r 0 Ithaca High K School City of RUncoln Ithaca 6 Falls Street Ithaca Gun Villag Cayuga Heights F A too IN 0) Gun Hill 0 CIS 4' a Fm Villag Cayuga Heights CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0.1 SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1.0.2 GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION NY Finger Lakes region, City and Town oflthaca, and Cornell University. 1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEEDS, AND BENEFITS i-- 1.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF LAKE SOURCE COOLING (LSC) 1.1.1.1 Conceptual design Conceptual LSC description, including estimated peak and average volume of lake water to be cycled through the facility on a monthly basis. Estimated peak and average temperature increase in lake water to be cycled through the facility on a monthly basis. l .1.1.2 Hypolimnetic water as a renewable resource Description of the Cayuga lake morphometric and thermal characteristics. Discussion of other applications of cold water for free cooling. 1.1.1.3 Pipelines (terrestrial and aquatic) Size, location, and material of water piping (terrestrial and aquatic) . 1.1.1.4 Buildings and equipment 1.1.1.5 Intake and outfall structures Design of intake and outfall structures. 1. 1.2 PUBLIC NEED FOR THE PROJECT 1.1.2.1 Clean Air Act, resulting in the need to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 1.1.2.2 Campus demand for cooling using chilled water (current and projected). 1.1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1.3.1 Replace existing chiller capacity 1.1.3.2 Minimize the impact of Cornell on the natural environment 1.1.3.2.1 Reduce ozone-depleting chemicals 1.1.3.2.2 Decrease electricity use and associated coal use and emissions 1.1.3.3 Utilize design criteria to protect Cayuga Lake and community resources 1. 1.4 BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1.4.1 Social 1.1.4.1.1 Infrastructure improvements: roadways, sidewalks, utilities 1.1.4.1.2 Multiple use opportunities 42720ZA.6 -3- Draft Version 1 1. 1.4.2 Economic 1.1.4.2.1 Reduction in Cornell's electricity use 1.1.4.2.2 Construction -related economic benefits 1.2 LOCATION 1.2.1 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT 1.2.2 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING 1.2.2.1 Facility site 1.2.2.2 Pipeline corridor 1.3 DESIGN AND LAYOUT 1.3.1 HEAT EXCHANGER FACILITY Site plan for 1000 East Shore Drive, including size, location, and renderings of the buildings 1.3.1.1 Total site area 1.3.1.2 Structures 1.3.1.2.1 Building size and layout 1.3.1.2.2 Site plans and views 1.3.1.2.3 Materials storage 1.3.1.2.4 Stormwater drainage plans 1.3.1.2.5 Cross-section of lake piping at shoreline 1.3.1.3 Parking 1.3.1.3.1 Paved areas 1.3.1.3.2 Number of spaces and layout 1.3.2 PIPELINE CORRIDOR (TERRESTRIAL) 1.3.2.1 Volume of soil to be excavated/removed 1.3.2.2 Location and conceptual design of the Fall Creek crossing 1.3.3 PIPELINE CORRIDOR (AQUATIC) 1.3.3.1 Dimension of dredged area 1.3.3.2 Plan for dredge spoil disposal 1:3.3.3 Intake structure 1.3.3.4 Outfall diffuser 1.4 CONSTRUCTION 1.4.1 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PERIOD ANTICIPATED 1.4.2 SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION 1.4.3 MATERIALS STORAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION 1.4.4 STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN DURING CONSTRUCTION 1.5 OPERATION 1.5.1 TYPE OF OPERATION 1.5.2 SCHEDULE OF OPERATION 42720ZA.6 -4- Draft Version 1 I 11 1.6 APPROVALS NEEDED 1.6.1 JOINT APPLICATION 1.6.1.1 Article 15, Title 5. 6NYCRR Part 608 1.6.1.1.1 Disturbance of stream banks or beds (three stream crossings) 1.6.1.1.2 401 Water Quality Certification 1.6.1.1.3 Placement of fill in navigable waters (Cayuga Lake) 1.6.1.2 Article 15, Title 27, 6NYCRR 666 Wild, scenic and recreational rivers (Fall Creek crossing) 1.6.1.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Section 10 Permit (structures in Cayuga Lake) 1.6.1.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (disposal of fill in Cayuga Lake) 1.6.1.5 Article 36 6NYCRR 500 Flood Plain Management (Fall Creek crossing) 1.6.2 GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1.6.3 STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) PERMIT 1.6.4 NYSDEC WATER WITHDRAWAL REGISTRATION 1.6.5 UNDERWATER LAND EASEMENT (Cayuga Lake) (NYSOGS) 1.6.6 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF .TRANSPORTATION (NYSDOT) HIGHWAY CROSSING PERMIT 1.6.7 CITY OF ITHACA STREET OPENING PERMIT 1.6.8 TOWN OF ITHACA FILL PERMIT 1.6.9 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING AMENDMENT CHAPTER 2: NATURAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 2.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 2.1.1 LAKE BOTTOM SEDIMENTS 2.1.1.1 Environmental Setting Results of 1994 and 1996 field investigations. A separate document (Sediment Protocol, dated February 1996) has been prepared detailing the field and laboratory investigations planned.for Spring 1996 The objective of the work is to: (1) provide sufficient data to project the impacts of dredging associated with burying the LSC pipelines in shallow water; (2) file applicable permits; and (3) determine appropriate disposal options. 2.1.1.1.1 Texture (particle size distribution) 2.1.1.1.2 Chemical composition 2.1.1.1.3 Geotechnical properties 2.1.1.1.4 Earthquake potential 42720ZA.6 -5- Draft Version I 2.1.1.1.5 Bathymetry along pipeline route 2.1.1.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 2.1.1.2.1 Installation of intake and outfall pipelines along the lake bottom 2.1.1.2.2 Disposal of dredge spoils 2.1.1.3 Mitigating Measures 2.1.1.3.1 Burial of intake and outfall pipelines in shallow water 2.1.1.3.2 Plan for construction in lake 2.1.1.3.3 Dredge spoil disposal plan 2.1.1.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.1.2 FACILITY SITE Review of existing information. Results of geotechnical investigation, including borings along the terrestrial pipeline route. A contingency plan for handling any contaminated soils encountered along the pipeline corridor is in preparation. 2.1.2.1 Environmental Setting 2.1.2.1.1 Soil types 2.1.2.1.2 Physical properties 2.1.2.1.3 Chemical content of surficial soils (current conditions) 2.1.2.1.4 Earthquake potential 2.1.2.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 2.1.2.2.1 Site topography 2.1.2.2.2 Chemical content of surficial soils (post construction) 2.1.2.3 Mitigating Measures 2.1.2.3.1 Erosion and sedimentation control plan during construction 2.1.2.3.2 Site restoration plan 2.1.2.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.1.3 CHILLED WATER PIPELINE ROUTE 2.1.3.1 Environmental Setting Review of existing information. Results of geotechnical investigation, including borings along the terrestrial pipeline route. A contingency plan for handling any contaminated soils encountered along the pipeline corridor is in preparation. 2.1.3.1.1 Composition and thickness of underlying materials 2.1.3.1.2 Earthquake potential 2.1.3.1.3 Map of soil types 2.1.3.1.4 Physical properties 2.1.3.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 2.1.3.3 Mitigating measures 2.1.3.3.1 Construction and reclamation techniques to minimize subsurface impacts 2.1.3.3.2 Erosion and sedimentation control plan 2.1.3.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.2 GROUNDWATER 2.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Review of existing information. 2.2.1.1 Regional aquifers and recharge areas 2.2.1.1.1 Depth of water table 42720ZA.6 -6- J n U 11 u i i t C Draft Version 1 1 2.2.1.1.2 Seasonal variation 2.2.1.1.3 Quality 2.2.1.1.4 Quantity 2.2.1.2 Uses of groundwater (public and private) 2.2 .2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Groundwater impacts of proposed project are not likely to be significant. 2.2.2.1 Construction at lakeshore facilities 2.2.2.2 Construction along pipeline corridor 2.2.3 MITIGATING MEASURES Construction practices to minimize impacts on groundwater. 2.2.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 2.3 SURFACE WATER: CAYUGA LAKE The potential long-term LSC impacts on Cayuga Lake are a major focus of this draft EIS. In 1994 and 1995, preliminary investigations were conducted focusing on potential impacts on Cayuga Lake. This section of the DEIS will be organized by issues, reflecting the findings of the preliminary assessments that have been performed. 2.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.3.1.1 Classification and designated use 2.3.1.2 Uses of Cayuga Lake (public and private) 2.3.1.3 Watershed characteristics 2.3.1.3.1 Tributary flows 2.3.1.3.2 Hydraulic retention time 2.3.1.4 Morphometric characteristics and biotic habitat 2.3.1.4.1 Littoral zone 2.3.1.4.2 Profundal zone 2.3.1.5 Trophic state 2.3.1.5.1 Nutrients and other chemicals 2.3.1.5.2 Dissolved oxygen 2.3.1.5.3 Primary productivity 2.3.1.5.4 Food web: major species 2.3.1.5.4.1 Phytoplankton 2.3.1.5.4.2 Zooplankton 2.3.1.5.4.3 Benthos 2.3.1.5.4.4 Fish 2.3.1.5.4.4.1 Littoral zone fishery (warm water) 2.3.1.5.4.4.2 Profundal zone fishery (cold water) 2.3.2 THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS 2.3.2.1 Existing Conditions Review of existing data, including data from continuously -recording thermistors installed in Cayuga Lake as part of the preliminary investigations of LSC. 2.3.2.1.1 Heat budget and thermal profiles 2.3.2.1.2 Stratification and mixing 2.3.2.1.3 Seiches 42720ZA.6 -7- Draft Version 1 2.3.2.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action A thermal modeling protocol has been developed and was included for review in the 1995 interim report of results. This section presents modeling of the lake -wide impacts of the LSC project on Cayuga Lake's thermal characteristics (including stratification, temperature regime, and amount of ice cover) using the model CE -QUAL -W2. Data collected from continuously recording thermistors installed in the lake as part of the preliminary investigation will be used to verify the model. Once verified, the model will be used to project a 10 year record of Cayuga Lake thermal characteristics with and without the LSC project. 2.3.2.2.1 Heat budget (lakewide) 2.3.2.2.2 Stratification and mixing (lakewide) 2.3.2.2.3 Ice cover The near -field effects of the LSC return flow on lake water temperature in the region of the outfall will be projected using the mixing model CORMIX2. CORMIX2 was developed at Cornell by Professor Gerhard Jirka and is supported by EPA for analysis of mixing and dilution of outfalls. This modeling effort will be interactive with design of the outfall diffuser. The CORMIX2 projections will also be used to support an analysis of the potential biological impacts of increasing phosphorus in the region of the outfall (see Section 2.3.3). 2.3.2.2.4 Water temperature in outfall region 2.3.2.3 Mitigating Measures Outfall diffuser to minimize thermal impacts of return flow. 2.3.2.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.3.3 PHOSPHORUS AND PRODUCTIVITY 2.3.3.1 Existing Conditions Literature review of existing conditions in Cayuga Lake (updated with 1994-96 data). 2.3.3.1.1 TP and SRP concentrations 2.3.3.1.1.1 Profiles at intake and outfall regions 2.3.3.1.1.2 Seasonal patterns 2.3.3.1.2 Phytoplankton 2.3.3.1.2.1 Species list 2.3.3.1.2.2 Biomass estimates 2.3.3.1.2.3 Annual dominance 2.3.3.1.2.4 Thermal and nutrient requirements 2.3.3.1.3 Macrophytes 2.3.3.1.3.1 Species list 2.3.3.1.3.2 Biomass estimates 2.3.3.1.3.3 Annual dominance 2.3.3.1.3.4 Thermal and nutrient requirements 2.3.3.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action , Total phosphorus (TP) budget in southern lake basin, and potential impact of LSC recirculation of hypolimnetic TP (both monthly calculations during thermal stratification and annual budget). Phosphorus budget to include wastewater treatment plant outfalls (flows and TP concentrations from the Ithaca Area and Cayuga Heights treatment plants) and tributaries (Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet, using Professor D. Bouldin's data sets of total soluble phosphorus and U.S. Geological Survey flow records). An estimate of the effect on Cayuga Lake phytoplankton of the projected annual increase in TP. This estimate will be based on the empirical relationship between annual TP and chlorophyll -a 42720ZA.6 -8- Draft Version 1 concentrations. The regression developed by Professor Ray 0gelshyftom data collected in the larger Finger Lakes will be used. We will also discuss the likely impact of zebra mussels on the h phosphorus: chlorophyll relationship in Cayuga Lake (as mussels increase, chlorophyll -a per unit TP will decrease). Use of the CORMIX2 mixing model to calculate dilution plumes of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) in near -field. Calculate changes in Nitrogen: Phosphorus ratio and water temperature in outfall region to estimate whether a shift in composition of major algae species would occur (e.g., would the nutrient and temperature environment favor blue-green algae over green algae?). Calculate potential sediment oxygen demand from decomposing any additional phytoplankton predicted in the southern lake basin in response to the changed conditions from LSC. The calculation will be based on the general stoichiometric relationships between chlorophyll and total organic carbon. Stearns & Wheler will use this analysis to support a discussion of the potential secondary water quality effects of additional phytoplankton stimulated by the additional LSC phosphorus recirculation. 2.3.3.2.1 Projected changes in phosphorus load and concentration, southern Cayuga Lake 2.3.3.2.1.1 Total Phosphorus (TP) budget (monthly during stratified period) ' 2.3.3.2.1.2 Soluble Reactive P (SRP) dilution contours at outfall, monthly 2.3.3.2.2 Projected secondary effects on dissolved oxygen (DO) and associated water quality parameters 2.3.3.2.3 Projected biological impacts .2.3.3.2.3.1 Short-term (construction phase) 2.3.3.2.3.2 Long-term (operations phase) 2.3.3.2.3.2.1 Phytoplankton and chlorophyll 2.3.3.2.3.2.2 Macrophytes 2.3.3.3 Mitigating Measures Use of outfall diffuser to achieve dilution of SRP. 2.3.3.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.3.4 M17SIS RELICTA 2.3.4.1 Existing Conditions Literature review of Cayuga Lake mysid density, distribution, biology, and population dynamics, updated with data collected between 1994 and 1996 in support of LSC investigations. Specific data will include results of three survey efforts. The first of these efforts was the nighttime lakewide hydroacoustical surveys (spring, summer, and fall) conducted to estimate population density and spatial distribution. The objective of these surveys was to determine whether mysids are concentrated in the southern lake basin relative to the lake as a whole. The second effort was the diurnal surveys (dusk to dawn) conducted in the region of proposed intake in order to quantify the animals' diurnal migration pattern. These data reveal the amount of time niysids are vulnerable to entrainment. The third effort is a daytime survey in the region of the proposed intake., planned for April 1996, that will determine depth distribution during daylight conditions. 42720ZA.6 -9- Draft Version 1 Hvdroacoustical data are supplemented with net data used to verify the h droacoustical signal pP fy y and estimate biomass per unit area. Biological data will be presented from animals collected in net tows (size, sex, reproductive status). A workplan describing specific methods to be used in the 1996 mysid investigations will be circulated in April. 2.3.4. 1.1 Distribution and abundance 2.3.4.1.2 Life history 2.3.4.1.3 Diurnal migration 2.3.4.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action ' 2.3.4.2.1 Hydrodynamic field of influence at intake A mathematical model of the three-dimensional hydrodynamic flow field created by the LSC intake 2.3.4.2.2 Amount of time mysids are vulnerable to entrainment, based on diurnal migration 2.3.4.2.3 Estimated entrainment in LSC intake Estimated entrainment of mysids in response to the water intake, to be determined as follows: (a) Calculate hydrodynamic zone of influence around intake under various conditions of lake stratification, LSC pumping rate, intake configuration, and orientation. (b) Estimate the mysid population density in the southern lake basin (from the hydroacoustical and net data). (c) Estimate the amount of time mysids in the area of the LSC intake would be vulnerable to entrainment based on their diurnal migration cycle (from data). (d) Calculate the number of animals entrained by the intake per unit time (day). 2.3.4.3 Mitigating Measures Analyze the potential of design elements to minimize the entrainment of Mysis relieta using the results of light mitigation experiments. 2.3.4.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.3.5 LAKE SEDIMENTS 2.3.5.1 Existing Conditions Literature review, including available results of the 1994 cooperative sediment investigations (by Cornell University, USUS, Colgate University, Syracuse University, and the Tompkins County Planning Department). A separate work plan (sediment protocol document) has been prepared documenting the proposed 1996 field activities. Results of 1996 sampling in shallow lake region to be dredged for pipeline installation, including: (a) Sediment texture (to predict settling velocity of dredged materials). (b) Bulk content of regulated chemicals in composite sediment samples collected throughout t the dredging depth (surface to 2 to 13 m). Regulated chemicals are as defined in NYSDEC navigational dredging guidance and/or the NYSDEC guidance for screening of contaminated sediments. This analysis will be conducted by a NYS certified laboratory to support a request to dispose of the dredged material back in the lake, or to identify alternative disposal options. (c) Bulk content of chemicals in fine -textured surficial sediments (top meter), selected to represent "worst case" conditions (most recent 50-100 years, reflecting potential human impact). This analysis will be conducted by a research laboratory with documented experience in low-level analysis. 42720ZA.6 -10- Draft Version 1 2.3.5. 1.1 Results of 1994 and 1996 sedimentualit investigations q Y g 2.3.5.1.2 Results of other investigations 2.3.5.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 2.3.5.2.1 Impacts in the dredged region 2.3.5.2.1.1 Chemical impacts 2.3.5.2.1.2 Physical impacts 2.3.5.2.1.3 Biotic impacts 2.3.5.2.1.3.1 Macrophytes 2.3.5.2.1.3.2 Zooplankton 2.3.5.2.2 Impacts in the disposal -region 2.3.5.2.2.1 Chemical impacts (results of elutriate testing) 2.3.5.2.2.2 Physical impacts (turbidity) 2.3.5.2.2.3 Biotic impacts 2.3.5.3 Mitigating Measures Discussion of the need for and extent of mitigating measures to reduce impacts of returning sediments back to the lake. 2.3.5.3.1 Compliance with state and federal guidelines for sediment dredging and in -lake disposal 2.3.5.3.2 Use of silt curtains and other in -lake measures to minimize turbidity from sediment dredging and in -lake disposal 2.3.5.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.3.6 ZEBRA AND QUAGGA MUSSELS 2.3.6.1 Existing Conditions Lii,rature review of the population dynamics and life history of zebra and quagga (exotic) mussels. Results of 1995 and 1996 investigations (colonization rate, biomechanical analysis). 2.3.6.1.1 Status in Cayuga Lake ecosystem 2.3.6.1.2 Distribution and abundance 2.3.6.1.3 Life history 2.3.6.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 2.3.6.2.1 Change in habitat 2.3.6.2.2 Biofouling control practices 2.3.6.3 Mitigating Measures 11ussel control strategy for LSC (design. elements and mechanical controls to be incorporated in un effort to minimize the need for chemical controls). 2.3.6.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.3.7 CAYUGA LAKE FISHERY 2.3.7.1 Existing Conditions Literature review, including results of 1994 hydroacoustical and netting investigations. 2.3.7.1.1 Warm water fishery (outfall area) 2.3.7.1.1.1 Species list 2.3.7.1.1.2 Spawning requirements 2.3.7.1.1.3 Thermal requirements 42720ZA.6 -11- Draft Version 1 2.3.7.1.2 Cold water fishery (intake area) 2.3.7.1.2.1 Species list 2.3.7.1.2.2 Spawning requirements 2.3.7.1.2.3 Thermal requirements 2.3.7.1.3 Distribution of fish based on literature review and hydroacoustical surveys 2.3.7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action CORMIX projections of the thermal plume created by LSC return flow in the southern lake basin and interpretation of CORMIX projections with respect to fish use of the resource (spawning, migration). Hydrodynamic projections of the intake flow field and velocity contours will be developed and interpreted with respect to the potential for entrainment and impingement offish. 2.3.7.2.1 Impacts on littoral zone fishery 2.3.7.2.1.1 Thermal plume projections (CORMIX) 2.3.7.2.1.2 Effect on spawning and nursery habitat, migration pathways 2.3.7.2.1.3 Effect on winter habitat 2.3.7.2.2 Impacts on the profundal zone fishery 2.3.7.2.2.1 Hydrodynamic field of influence 2.3.7.2.2.2 Velocity in relation to swimming speed of fishes 2.3.7.3 Mitigating Measures Discussion of design parameters (size, orientation, and screening) of the intake to minimize potential entrainment. Discussion of operational constraints to minimize potential for thermal .shock to fishery during shutdown and startup. 2.3.7.3.1 Short-term (construction -related) 2.3.7.3.1.1 Timing of in -lake construction to minimize interference with biologically critical periods (spawning and migration) 2.3.7.3.1.2 Erosion and sedimentation controls during construction 2.3.7.3.2 Long-term (operations phase) 2.3.7.3.2.1 Use of an outfall diffuser to minimize thermal and gas saturation impacts 2.3.7.3.2.2 Staged start-up and shut -down protocols for scheduled maintenance during periods of low system demand 2.3.7.3.2.3 Design elements to minimize intake impacts 2.3.7.3.2.4 Stormwater management plan on lakeshore facilities 2.3.7.4 Unavoidable Impacts 2.4 SURFACE WATER: TRIBUTARIES The chilled water pipelines will cross above Fall Creek, a designated recreational river. There are two small tributaries along the proposed route. 2.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.4.1.1 Classification and designated use 2.4.1.2 Stream hydrology 42720ZA.6 -12- Draft Version ] �1 CI 1 n L 1 2.4.1.3 Existing water quality and biotic data 2.4.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.4.2.1 Short-term (construction related) 2.4.2.1 Long-term (text to dismiss as not applicable) 2.4.3 MITIGATING MEASURES Erosion and sedimentation control during construction ' 2.4.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 2.5.1.2 Air quality Existing air quality data from regional monitoring programs 2.5.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.5.2.1 Short-term (construction) 2.5.2.1.1 Changes in traffic patterns and associated air quality impacts 2.5.2.1.2 Construction vehicles, equipment, and road surfacing materials 2.5.2.2 Long-term (operations) 2.5.2.2.1 Reduction in fossil fuels burned to produce electricity 2.5.2.2.2 Elimination of CFCs 2.5.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 2.5.3.1 Minimize dust during construction 2.5.3.2 Traffic control plan to minimize congestion and delay 2.5.3.3 Chiller CFC decommissioning plan 2.5.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 2.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Map gf wildlife habitat affected by project. Analysis of the presence of regulated wetlands in the prgject area. 2.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.6.1.1 Terrestrial ecology Literature review, and field verification. Description of the vegetation currently on the facility site and along the pipeline corridor. Discussion of the potential impact on unique natural areas. 2.6.1.1.1 Species assemblages 2.6.1.1.2 Species characteristics 42720ZA.6 -13- Draft Version 1 2.5 AIR RESOURCES ' 2.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Literature review of regional climate and Ithaca air quality 2.5.1.1 Climate 2.5.1.1.1 Precipitation 2.5.1.1.2 Wind speed and direction 2.5.1.1.3 Temperature 2.5.1.1.4 Relative humidity 2.5.1.2 Air quality Existing air quality data from regional monitoring programs 2.5.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.5.2.1 Short-term (construction) 2.5.2.1.1 Changes in traffic patterns and associated air quality impacts 2.5.2.1.2 Construction vehicles, equipment, and road surfacing materials 2.5.2.2 Long-term (operations) 2.5.2.2.1 Reduction in fossil fuels burned to produce electricity 2.5.2.2.2 Elimination of CFCs 2.5.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 2.5.3.1 Minimize dust during construction 2.5.3.2 Traffic control plan to minimize congestion and delay 2.5.3.3 Chiller CFC decommissioning plan 2.5.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 2.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Map gf wildlife habitat affected by project. Analysis of the presence of regulated wetlands in the prgject area. 2.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.6.1.1 Terrestrial ecology Literature review, and field verification. Description of the vegetation currently on the facility site and along the pipeline corridor. Discussion of the potential impact on unique natural areas. 2.6.1.1.1 Species assemblages 2.6.1.1.2 Species characteristics 42720ZA.6 -13- Draft Version 1 2.6.1.2 Wetlands 2.6.1.2.1 Listed wetlands in project areas 2.6.1.2.2 Wetland characteristics in project areas 2.6.1.3 Wildlife Literature review and limited field -verification 2.6.1.3.1 Birds (waterfowl and terrestrial) 2.6.1.3.2 Others (mammals, reptiles etc) 2.6.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.6.2.1 Short-term (construction) 2.6.2.1.1 Terrestrial vegetation 2.6.2.1.2 Wetlands 2.6.2.1.3 Wildlife and birds 2.6.2.2 Long-term (operations) (Text to dismiss as not applicable.) 2.6.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 2.6.3.1 Minimize disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitat 2.6.3.2 Minimize disturbance of wetlands 2.6.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 2.7 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (Text to dismiss as not applicable.) CHAPTER 3: HUMAN RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3.1 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 3.1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Tra;t'ic impact study, to include an inventory of existing conditions: (a) Intersections, driveways, entrances to facilities, on -street parking, school drop-off points, bus stops, current or proposed construction along the route. (b) Traffic counts along route (two locations and existing City of Ithaca and NYSDOT data). (c) ? 3.1.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 3.1.3.1 Health and safety plan during construction (to be included as an appendix) 3.1.3.2 Traffic plan during construction 3.1.3.3 Timing of deliveries and service vehicles during operation 3.1.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 3.2 LAND USE AND ZONING IN PROJECT AREA 3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - 3.2.1.1 Existing conditions 3.2.1.2 Land -use plans (including waterfront study and Canal Authority report) 3.2.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3.2.2.1 Change to site facility parcel 3.2.2.2 Changes in zoning 3.2.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 3.2.3.1 Compatibility with land -use planning 3.2.3.2 Visual design to improve existing surroundings 3.2.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 3.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES 3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Description oj'existing conditions. 3.3.1.1 Police 3.3.1.2 Fire 3.3.1.3 Recreational facilities 3.3.1.3.1 Marina 3.3.1.3.2 Fall Creek 3.3.1.4 Utilities 3.3.1.5 Public water supply 3.3.1.6 Wastewater treatment 3.3.1.7 Educational institutions 3.3.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Discussion of the opportunity for the City to upgrade its infrastructure in association with LSC construction activities, and for the City schools to tap into LSC cooling resource. 3.3.2.1 Short-term (construction phase) 3.3.2.1.1 Emergency vehicle access 3.3.2.1.2. Water, gas, and sewer infrastructure interruptions in service 3.3.2.1.3 Recreational access to Fall Creek and marina during construction 3.3.2.2 Long-term (operations phase) 3.3.2.2.1 Opportunity for infrastructure improvements by others 3.3.2.2.2 Cooling provided to City schools 3.3.2.2.3 Potential leaks from chilled water pipelines 3.3.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 3.3.3.1 Compliance with applicable building and energy codes 427 0ZA.6 -15- Draft Version 1 3.3.3.2 Beneficial contributions to community 3.3.3.2.2.1 Infrastructure 3.3.3.2.2.2 Roadway and sidewalk improvements 3.3.3.3 Design methods to minimize leaks, ensure leak detection from chilled water pipelines, and facilitate prompt repair 3.3.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 3.4 DEMOGRAPHICS 3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - 3.4.1.1 Population and employment (Tompkins County) 3.4.1.2 Tax base (Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County) 3.4.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3.4.2.1 Short-term (construction phase) 3.4.2.1.1 Construction -related economic benefits 3.4.2.1.2 Employment 3.4.2.2 Long-term (operations phase) 3.4.2.2.1 Change in tax base 3.4.2.2.2 Employment 3.4.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 3.4.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 3.5 VISUAL RESOURCES x.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Description ofthe existing visual environment. 3.5.1.1 Site facility as viewed from land (West shore, Stewart Park and East Shore Drive) 3.5.1.2 Site facility as viewed from lake 3.5.1.3 Pipeline route 3.5.1.4 Fall Creek bridge crossing 3.5.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Description of the visual environment at project completion. 3.5.2.1 Site facility as viewed from land (West shore, Stewart Park and East Shore Drive) 3.5.2.2 Site facility as viewed from lake 3.5.2.3 Pipeline route 3.5.2.4 Fall Creek bridge crossing 3.5.3 MITIGATING MEASURES Design elements to minimize visual impact from lake and land. 3.5.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 42720ZA.6 -16- Draft Version 1 I 3.6 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Results of a NY Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey for the affected areas. If necessary, a Stage 1B survey will be included. Mitigating measures (if required) will be included. The scope and content of the Stage IA and Stage 1B surveys are standard. 3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.6.1.1 Facility site (Salt works and Power House) 3.6.1.2 Pipeline corridor (Ithaca Falls area) 3.6.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3.6.2.1 Facility site 3.6.2.2 Pipeline corridor 3.6.3 MITIGATING MEASURES (if necessary) 3.6.3.1 Controls on excavation 3.6.3.2 Guidelines for, materials handling 3.6.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 3.7 NOISE 3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Measurement of ambient noise levels in the project area (lakeshore facility). Review of tax maps and land -use maps to identify potential sensitive receptors in project area. Review of local ordinances to determine acceptable noise criteria. 3.7.1.1 Existing levels of noise at project site 3.7.1.2 Sensitive receptors 3.7.2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Projected noise levels with implementation of LSC, using data from equipment manufacturers and construction materials selected to meet noise reduction criteria. 3.7.2.1 Short-term (construction phase) 3.7.2.2 Long-term (operations phase) 3.7.3 MITIGATING MEASURES 3.7.3.1 Construction phase (timing, proper equipment, and contract specifications) 3.7.3.2 Operation phase (equipment selection and building materials, use of vegetation or'berms as noise barriers) 3.7.4 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVES 4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ('Text to discuss as not a viable option.) '4. 1.1 EFFECT ON PUBLIC NEED 4.1.2 EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT 4.1.2.1 Increased chance of release of CFCs to the environment 4.1.2.2 Increased electricity use as compared to proposed alternative 42720ZA.6 -17- Draft Version 1 4.1.3 EFFECT ON PROJECT SPONSOR Effect on ability to provide reliable air conditioned space for research and teaching. 4.2 ALTERNATIVE CHILLER TECHNOLOGIES 4.3 ALTERNATIVE FACILITY LOCATIONS 4.3.1 FACILITIES ON EAST AND WEST SIDES OF ROUTE 34 4.3.2 ALL FACILITIES ON LAKESHORE 4.4 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE LOCATION (DEEPER) 4.4.1 EFFECT ON MYSID ENTRAINMENT - 4.4.2 EFFECT ON PROJECT COST 4.4.3 EFFECT ON PROBABILITY OF DRAWING IN WARMER WATER 4.5 ALTERNATIVE OUTFALL LOCATIONS 4.5.1 AT SHORELINE 4.5.1.1 Effect on temperature in southern lake basin 4.5.1.2 Effect on aquatic life 4.5.2 AT 100 FT (30 M) 4.5.2.1 Effect on temperature in southern lake basin 4.5.2.2 Effect on aquatic life 4.6 ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTE (.SORE) 4.6.1 EFFECT ON TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 4.6.2 EFFECT ON TRAFFIC 4.6.3 EFFECT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.6.4 EFFECT ON PROJECT SPONSOR 4.7 ALTERNATIVE SIZE OF LSC 4.7.1 LARGER: ELIMINATE PEAKING CHILLERS 4.7.1.1 Effect on project cost and benefits 4.7.1.2 Effect on pipe size and construction needs 4.7.1.3 Effect on the aquatic environment 4.7.2 SMALLER: INCREASE USE OF CHILLERS 4.7.2.1 Effect on project cost and benefits 4.7.2.2 Effect on pipe size and construction needs 4.7.2.3 Effect on the aquatic environment 4.8 REDUCE DEMAND FOR CHILLED WATER COOLING ON CAMPUS 4.8.1 AIR CONDITIONING AND EQUIPMENT COOLING 4.8.1.1 Effect on project cost and benefits 4.8.1.2 Effect on electricity consumption and associated environmental quality 4.8.2 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 4.8.2.1 Energy efficiency 4.8.2.2 Open windows 4.8.3 COMPLIANCE WITH NYS ENERGY AND BUILDING CODES 42720ZA.6 51:11 n Draft Version I I CHAPTER 5: IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 5.1 LAND RESOURCES 5. 1.1 SITE FACILITY PARCEL DEVELOPMENT 5.1.2 SUBSURFACE PIPELINE CORRIDOR (TERRESTRIAL) 5.1.3 PIPELINE (LAKE) ' 5.2 MATERIAL RESOURCES 5.3 ENERGY RESOURCES 5.4 FINANCIAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 6: GROWTH -INDUCING ASPECTS 6.1 GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR CHILLED WATER COOLING 6.1.1 SPACE COOLING 6.1.2 LABORATORY AND FACILITY COOLING CHAPTER 7: EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES 7.1 HYPOLIMNETIC WATER AS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE 7.2 ENERGY SAVED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF LSC 7.3 GENERATING CAPACITY FREED UP BY IMPLEMENTATION OF LSC 7.4 CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY PLAN 42720ZA.6 -19- Draft Version 1 1 1 11 IJ 42720ZA.6 -20- Draft Version 1 I LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES (APPENDIX C) C-1 Water Quality Investigations 1994 -1996 C-2 Mysis investigations 1994 -1996 C-3 Photographic atlas of significant vegetative assemblages C-4 Photographic atlas of significant wildlife habitat C-5 Photographic atlas of sites of significant visual character C-6 Traffic study C-7 Archaeological investigation C-8 Hydrothermal modeling report: lakewide temperature projections, and intake flow field C-9 Summary of outfall mixing and dilution models (CORMIX inputs and projections) ' C-10 Cayuga Lake temperature data (diskette available upon request) C-1 1 Noise study C-12 Cayuga Lake sediment quality investigation C-13 Cayuga Lake phosphorus budget analysis ' C-14 Health and safety plan during construction 1 11 IJ 42720ZA.6 -20- Draft Version 1 I J �J i LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Figures Location maps: Central New York and the Finger Lakes Southern Cayuga Lake, Ithaca and campus Campus map showing cooled buildings Existing cooling infrastructure: transmission lines and chillers Projected growth in campus cooling demand LSC schematic Pipeline route from lake to campus Schematic design (site plans) Heat exchanger facility Renderings Map of Cayuga Lake with pipeline, area to be dredged, and spoils disposal site located Intake and outfall structures Pipeline through street (typical cross-sections) Energy use projections for campus cooling (with and without LSC ) Economic benefit projections Zoning in project area (facility site and pipeline route) Adjacent land uses (facility site and pipeline route) Site access Site drainage plan Land to be cleared Staging areas for construction Parking area Construction schedules Tables Area cooled, number of buildings, projections for future LSC lake water circulation projections, heat added to lake (monthly peaks and averages), through time to full capacity CFC current inventory and status of chillers Amount of fossil fuel saved by LSC and estimated air quality benefits Summary of improvements to infrastructure, City streets Operations phase: staffing plan Number of trips to facility Change in impervious cover at marina property with construction of facility, stormwater mitigation plans Approvals needed CHAPTER 2: NATURAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 1 2.1 Geology, Soils, and Topography Figures Regional geologic map (Finger Lakes region) Cayuga Lake geologic map City of Ithaca (pipeline route) geology (as available), including Fall Creek corridor 42720ZA.6 -21- Draft Version 1 Figures Regional aquifer 2.3. Surface Water: Cayuga Lake 2.3.1 Environmental setting Figures Cayuga Lal<e watershed Tables ' Morphomel.ric summary: Cayuga Lake, including hydraulic retention time 'fable of flows of Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet by month, with minima, medians and max over period of record Summary table of water chemistry results: 1994 - 1996 ' list of users of surface water Chemicals to be stored on site and containment measures 2.3.2 Thermal Characteristics ' Fi ures ' Cayuga Lake heat budget: existing conditions Cayuga Lake thermal profiles: existing conditions Cayuga Lake: hypolimnetic volume over the annual cycle: existing conditions Output from the continuous recorders at representative depths Data from the continuous recorders illustrating the impacts of seiche activity on thermal profiles Water clarity: secchi disk data over time 1994 - 96 results Light penetration (profiles through the water column) Annual heat budget with and without the project Vertical profiles of lake water temperature with and without the project Spatial distribution of the difference in temperature with and without the project for different lake depths above the intake 'rime series of lake heat budget with and without the project Projected southern Cayuga Lake ice cover with and without the project 42720ZA.6 -22- Draft Version I ' Soil types at facility site Chemical concentrations in soils at facility site Soil types along pipeline route Contaminated soils expected along the route, if any ■ Depth to water table at facility site Depth to water table along route Topography: lake bottom profiles along pipeline route ' Topography: facility site Topography: pipeline route Marina parcel topography, post construction Tables Estimated volume of soil to be excavated (terrestrial) If necessary: Contaminant concentrations in terrestrial soils to be excavated and disposal plan (regulatory disposal criteria) 2.2 Groundwater Figures Regional aquifer 2.3. Surface Water: Cayuga Lake 2.3.1 Environmental setting Figures Cayuga Lal<e watershed Tables ' Morphomel.ric summary: Cayuga Lake, including hydraulic retention time 'fable of flows of Fall Creek and Cayuga Inlet by month, with minima, medians and max over period of record Summary table of water chemistry results: 1994 - 1996 ' list of users of surface water Chemicals to be stored on site and containment measures 2.3.2 Thermal Characteristics ' Fi ures ' Cayuga Lake heat budget: existing conditions Cayuga Lake thermal profiles: existing conditions Cayuga Lake: hypolimnetic volume over the annual cycle: existing conditions Output from the continuous recorders at representative depths Data from the continuous recorders illustrating the impacts of seiche activity on thermal profiles Water clarity: secchi disk data over time 1994 - 96 results Light penetration (profiles through the water column) Annual heat budget with and without the project Vertical profiles of lake water temperature with and without the project Spatial distribution of the difference in temperature with and without the project for different lake depths above the intake 'rime series of lake heat budget with and without the project Projected southern Cayuga Lake ice cover with and without the project 42720ZA.6 -22- Draft Version I ' Monthly projected water temperature (plumes) in outfall region, CORMIX projections under defined conditions (low lake level, weak ambient currents) 2.3.3 Phosphorus and Productivity Fige TP and SRP profiles at S 11 /P4 (intake region) over annual cycle TP and SRP concentrations at P2 (outfall region) over annual cycle TP: chlorophyll -a regression for Cayuga Lake from Ogelsby, updated with recent data DO profiles Calculated areal hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rate Isotherms DO isopleths Phytoplankton species graphic of patterns of dominance of major groups (green, blue-green, etc.) Changes in phytoplankton species dominance as a function of epilimnetic temperature Macrophyte biomass southern lake basin, 1987 - 1995 Zooplankton species graphic of patterns of dominance of major groups Time series of difference in TP between the intake and outfall regions, based on 1994 - 96 data Time series of difference in SRP between the intake and outfall regions, based on 1994 - 96 data ' Southern Cayuga Lake TP budget, stratified period, with and without the project Southern Cayuga Lake TP budget, monthly during stratified period, with and without the project Estimated SRP plumes (dilution contours) from LSC outfall based on CORMIX output, monthly projections Projected TP: chlorophyll -a relationship for large Finger Lakes (Ogelsby regression), denoting 94, 95, and 96 Cayuga data points Tables Table of data to support graphic of TP budget, southern Cayuga Lake basin Phytoplankton species list Summary of thermal and nutrient requirements of Cayuga phytoplankton Species list: macrophytes Zooplankton species list Calculated maximum increases in phytoplankton production associated with LSC Calculation of water quality impacts of additional P inputs (stoichiometric) 2.3.4 Mysis redicta Figures Series of graphics of lakewide mysid distribution during surveys (append details of mysis monitoring program) Mysid diurnal migration (schematic) Graphics of hydroacoustical survey output illustrating diurnal migration at S 11 during different stratification regimes Hydrodynamic field of influence, intake, monthly projections Graphical depiction of the time spent by mysids in hydrodynamic field of influence ' Graphical depiction of experimental results: impact of light on mysis Light intensity needed to have lxl0-41ux at edge of flow field ' Tables Mysid biomass estimates from net data and hydroacoustics Calculations supporting mysis entrainment figures 42720ZA.6 -23- Draft Version 1 2.3.6 Zebra and Quagga Mussels Figures Zebra and quagga mussel population dynamics: Seneca River system "Tables Colonization of HDPE with mussels Summary of controls on biofouling organisms ' '3.3.7 Lake Fishery Figures— Bar chart calendar of spawning periods: littoral fishery Bar chart calendar of spawning periods: deep water fishery Spawning, nursery areas, and migration pathways of fish in relation to outfall plumes during critical months Projected outfall thermal plume during winter Drawing: erosion control plan for construction at facility Drawing: silt curtain (and other applicable techniques) to reduce turbidity during in -lake dredging Bar chart of critical periods for migration and spawning, in relation to planned in -lake activities Estimated peak velocity of intake water withdrawal (isovels) Intake design (screens, orientation) Tables Species list: warm water fishery Thermal requirements: warm water fishery Species list: cold water fishery Thermal requirements: cold water fishery 42720ZA.6 -24- Draft Version 1 ' 2.3.5 Lake Sediments Figures ' Lake bottom sediments: map of sampling locations for 94 and 96 work Sediment quality profiles from 94 cooperative coring program, as available Estimated turbidity plumes during lake pipeline construction, based on settling velocity of ' dredged materials Estimated water quality impacts during construction Map of macrophytes along area to be dredged Lake bottom schematic with outfall diffuser ' Lake bottom schematic with pipeline and intake -structure Drawings of expected dredging cross-sections and plan views Tables Summary of lake sediment quality investigations (detailed report appended) Results of lake sediment geotechnical analysis , Estimated settling velocity of lake bottom sediment Summary of vegetation affected by project Construction plan to minimize subsurface impacts Compliance of sediment quality with navigational dredging guideline , 2.3.6 Zebra and Quagga Mussels Figures Zebra and quagga mussel population dynamics: Seneca River system "Tables Colonization of HDPE with mussels Summary of controls on biofouling organisms ' '3.3.7 Lake Fishery Figures— Bar chart calendar of spawning periods: littoral fishery Bar chart calendar of spawning periods: deep water fishery Spawning, nursery areas, and migration pathways of fish in relation to outfall plumes during critical months Projected outfall thermal plume during winter Drawing: erosion control plan for construction at facility Drawing: silt curtain (and other applicable techniques) to reduce turbidity during in -lake dredging Bar chart of critical periods for migration and spawning, in relation to planned in -lake activities Estimated peak velocity of intake water withdrawal (isovels) Intake design (screens, orientation) Tables Species list: warm water fishery Thermal requirements: warm water fishery Species list: cold water fishery Thermal requirements: cold water fishery 42720ZA.6 -24- Draft Version 1 ' Theoretical percent saturation of hypolimnetic water with gases (monthly) and projected change in percent saturation resulting from increased water temperature through the LSC heat exchanger 2.4 Surface Water: Tributaries Fi ures Detailed drawings of pipeline crossings over three tributaries 2.5 Air Resources Figures Location of existing air quality monitoring station(s) Output of traffic studies: air emissions during construction phase with traffic delays and re- routing Tables Summary: meteorological data Short-term air quality impacts: traffic related Short-term air quality impacts: construction vehicles and materials related Summary of methods to control dust during construction 2.6 Terrestrial Ecology Figures Vegetation map (distribution of plant communities) Map of successional status of vegetation community Map denoting lakeshore points from which waterfowl surveys conducted Map of bird roosting sites Map of wildlife habitat Map of wetlands at project site and along route (annotated NYSDEC maps) Map of vegetation potentially affected by pipeline construction ' Affected wetlands :Affected wildlife habitat Tables Annotated list of vascular plants Community vegetation structure Limiting factors affecting plant communities Quality of plant community Summary of existing bird data (may be more than one table) Dominant species of wetland plant Functional value of wetland ' CHAPTER 3: HUMAN RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3.1 Transportation Services Figures Graphic of daily pattern of traffic flows at key intersections and corridors along route 42720ZA.6 -25- Draft Version 1 Change in traffic patterns at Lake Street Change in traffic patterns at facility site (more figures related to traffic are likely) Revised traffic plan for access to marina during construction Plan for emergency vehicle and residential access during construction Tables Significant traffic intersections along the pipeline route, including driveways into major facilities Results of traffic recorder devices Catalog of existing roadway characteristics Existing delays along the proposed pipeline corridor Level of service of existing roadways Estimated delays in traffic patterns during construction Change in traffic patterns during operations phase 3.2 Land Use and Zoning Figures Map of land use in the project area Map of zoning in the project area 3.3 Community Services Figures Improvements to water and sanitary sewers Improvements to sidewalks Improvements to Lake St. storm sewers Tables Description of existing infrastructure (utilities, water and sewer service etc) Recreational access to Cayuga Lake (current conditions) Estimated interruptions in water, sewer, and gas services to households and businesses along the route Summary of infrastructure improvements 3.4. Demographics Tables Population data from most recent census Employment data Tax base (existing) Construction -related economic benefits Changes in tax base (with LSC) 3.5 Visual Resources Figures Map denoting sites of exceptional visual significance (referenced to table) Photo of existing marina parcel from lake and road Site plan and renderings View of Fall Creek bridge 42720ZA.6 -26- Draft Version 1 1 Tables Description of sites of visual character (referenced to figure) 3.6 Historical and archaeological resources ' Figures Historical and archaeological resources in region of site facility (referenced to table) Map of historical/archaeological sites along pipeline corridor (referenced to table) ' Tables Historical and archaeological resources in study area (referenced to figures) 3.7 Noise Figures ' Map of potential noise receptors Daily pattern of existing noise levels in vicinity of proposed project Exterior noise contours from facility, in relation to receptors (if necessary) Tables Table of ambient noise in project area (frequency, decibels, sources etc.) Summary of noise mitigation methods 42720ZA.6 ' -27- Draft Version 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. FINAL ............................................................................................................................ �� TOWN OF ITHACA N CONSERVATION BOARD N.............................................................................................................................. 7:30 P.M., Thursday, February 1, 1996 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 Planning Staff 7:45 p.m. 3. Member Concerns 8:00 p.m. 4. ERC Committee Election of Chair 8:10 p.m. 5. CB Membership - New Members 8:15 p.m. 6. Review CB Committees and committee membership 8:30 p.m. 7. CB representative for EMC and Town Planning Committee 8:40 p.m. 8. Committee Reports: a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee Update on: 1. Pleasant Grove Apartments 2. P & C Expansion 9:00 P.M. 9. Business: 1. 1995 Annual Report 2. 1996 Plan of Work 10:00 P.M. 10. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/02-01-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs ~. F1 NAL .................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, February 1, 1996 N.............................................................................................................................. 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 Planning Staff 7:45 p.m. 3. Member Concerns 8:00 P.M. 4. ERC Committee Election of Chair 8:10 P.M. 5. CB Membership - New Members 8:15 p.m. 6. Review CB Committees and committee membership 8:30 p.m. 7. CB representative for EMC and Town Planning Committee 8:40 p.m. 8. Committee Reports: a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee Update on: 1. Pleasant Grove Apartments 2. P & C Expansion 9:00 P.M. 9. Business: 1. 1995 Annual Report 2. 1996 Plan of Work 10:00 P.M. 10. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/02-01-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs R A L MINUTES . TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD February 1, 1996 Approved 03/28/96 Members Present: Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs Staff Present: JoAnn Cornish - Town of Ithaca Planner Guests: Melinda Boyar Report from Planning Staff: Cornish reported that the Town is canvassing the Civil Service List for a recording secretary who will handle the minutes for all the boards. To date no one has been hired. Cornish will continue to type up the minutes for the CB until someone is hired. Cornish requested the January 18, 1996 minutes which were included in the CB packets be approved at the February 1, 1996 meeting. Cornish also informed members that she had included in their packets, The Soil and Water Conservation District News for their information. Cornish pointed out an article on spreading manure (in reference to the Linna Dolph Horse Farm which was discussed at the January CB meeting). Member Concerns: Chairperson Zarriello informed the Board that Cornell University was ready to move ahead with the Lake Source Cooling Project and that the DEC was the likely candidate for Lead Agency. Public meetings are being held on this issue and there is likely to be another public meeting in about a month. Cornell is working on public relations. Phil feels that proximity to a UNA may be a concern as well as the potential for increasing soluble phosphorous levels in the surface waters of the lake. Phil requested an updated roster for CB members to include all the current board members in the Town. Cornish agreed to supply the updates for the next meeting. In addition, Phil expressed concern over there being no closure on issues discussed at the CB meetings and on ERC reviews, i.e. Babcock and the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation District. Jon Meigs suggested staff provide Board members with a list of actions and projects still unresolved and include the list in the CB mailing. The status of the Inlet Valley City/Town/County park was questioned. Cornish reported that, to her knowledge, other than the delinquent tax parcels being taken off the public auction block, no progress has been made. Cornish stated that she would keep the Board informed of any changes. Phil reported on a Six Mile Creek meeting he had attended with Larry Fabbroni, Katie White, and Jim Hanson, among others. The sediment and flow levels were up substantially and the gauging station was damaged during the recent flood. Sedimentation and other issues concerning water supply from Six Mile Creek is being.studied by the City. Phil also questioned the practice of removing gravel from the creek bed, stating that it may be doing more harm thangood. Repairs are being focused on bank stabilization, cleaning the silt out of the area above German Cross Road and cleaning the sedimentation out of the silt dam. • I Feb 1, 1996 • CB Minutes Page 2 Jon Meigs asked if there were any sites in the Town that are areas of concern as a result of the recent flooding. Should CB be looking at problem areas and making recommendations to the Town Highway Department concerning best practice mitigation measures. Elm Street Extension and Sand Bank Road were mentioned as examples. CB Membership: Phil told members that Lois Levitan, who is interested in becoming a member, could not attend the meeting but submitted a letter of intent and a resume. Melinda Boyar, another potential CB member was in attendance. Members were given time to review the resumes and letters of intent from both candidates. Melinda Boyar gave a brief description of her background and told the Board why she was interested in becoming a CB member. Eva Hoffmann made a motion to recommend acceptance of Melinda Boyar as a Conservation Board member, Richard Fischer seconded, all were in favor, none opposed. Richard Fischer made a motion to recommend acceptance of Lois Levitan as a Conservation Board member, Eva Hoffmann seconded, all were in favor, none opposed. Phil told the Board that Lois had stated to him her interest in being the CB liaison to the Planning Committee. It was generally agreed upon to recommend Lois as the PC representative from the CB. • Phil agreed to take on the responsibility of being the Town representative to the Environmental p Management Council until such time as it became too demanding or until another member expressed interest. View Shed Committee Report: Eva reported that the committee has met twice and has been gathering pertinent written information as well as information from the internet. Jon Meigs prepared a Viewshed Survey Form that was included in the packet for tonights meeting. The purpose of including this is to get feedback from CB members on the survey. Eva requested comments at the March meeting. Eva also requested that CB members begin to identify their favorite views to assist in the inventory. Cheryl Smith will prepare public announcements for the local media. Eventually, after the views have been documented through maps and photos, the public will be invited to comment. December 1996 is the tentative deadline for the completion of the inventory. Eva requested members look for typical views which are representative of the character of the Town, and that capture the essence of the Town. Hopefully, this inventory will help to guide development. The origin point of the view should be accessible to the general public. Park set asides for specific views should be considered. Environmental Review Committee Report: The ERC comments submitted in the CB packets concerning Pleasant Grove Apartments were reviewed. No additional comments were made. • (See ERC comments dated January 23, 1996.) Feb 1, 1996 • CB Minutes Page 3 With regards to the P & C Expansion project, Eva questioned the project going before the Planning Board for Preliminary Approval and suggested it go for sketch plan review first so that the Planning Board suggestions can be entered into the design. There is concern with the massiveness of the wall which will now be much closer to Judd Falls Road. Elevations have been requested. (See ERC Comments dated February 5, 1996). Again, due to the lateness of the hour, the 1996 Plan of Work discussion was delayed until the March meeting. Richard Fischer and Melinda Boyar requested copies of the 1995 Plan of Work. Other Business: Phil reminded the Board that the Environmental Long Range Plan document submitted to the Board by the County still needs CB comments. Richard Fischer and Melinda Boyar requested copies of this as well. Richard Fischer mentioned that Bluebird License Plates are available through the state. Proceeds from the sale of these plates will go towards acquiring open space. The question was raised as to whether it was regional acquisition or state wide. Phil Zarriello suggested we put an announcement concerning this in the Town Newsletter. 0 Adjournment: 10:15 p.m. Pfdlip Z iello /air Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. Drafted by JoAnn Cornish. t"JOR HM COPY VIEWSHED SURVEY FORM SUGGESTIONS Map - or possibly maps - detailed enough for surveyors to locate the approximate boundaries of the view, view corridor, viewpoint, and other visible features. Map should be of a larger area than just the Town, so vistas including areas in adjacent towns can be shown. Depending on who's going to do the surveying, it might be useful for the maps to have topo info to help more accurate data recordation. VIEW -RELATED ITEMS View name(s) or designation Primary characteristic or feature of view that makes it notable Subsidiary features Owner(s) and/or occupant(s) of the properties involved Is it likely that designation of this view would result in any negative effect on the property or its owner, or on nearby property or its owner? Character of view - panoramic/long distance/focused/enclosed urban/suburban/agricultu ral/ natural Seasonal importance - Spring Summer Fall Winter Nighttime importance Significance of view itself - economic ( i.e., does it enhance a profit- making enterprise?) esthetic other Significance of components of view (intrinsic worth) Landscape type; component types Beneficiaries of view; numbers exposed - general public travelers/visitors motorists pedestrians/cycl ists/eq uestrians/ recreation ists occupants/patrons of facilities around viewpoint Known or likely changes to view, dangerous or complementary View maintenance/management actions/techniques needed/appropriate VIEWPOINT -RELATED ITEMS Name/designation & location of VP Names of owners and/or occupants of properties around and on which VP is located Is it likely that any of these properties or their occupants would be negatively affected by public use of this VP? Nature/type of VP - from road only, or station off road; from public facility or private property If off-road, capacity and activity limitations, if any Improvements/ user facilities available/desirable Accessibility via road: paved _ unpaved _ none _ " " walk/path: paved_ unpaved_ none_ H/C accessibility: Ease of access from nearest public way: On road or shoulder, or recreationway Open/direct from public way Open/indirect or difficult from public way Restricted (specify ) Availibility of parking to serve VP (presence, amount) Legal on -street or shoulder Public off-street Commercial or institutional off-street None Not needed Is there more than one VP for this view? Which is best? Which most accessible? If the VP can be seen easily from points within the view that are easily accessible, might the view need protection from users of the viewpoint? i.e., will those in view feel spied on, or will the viewers be tempted to gain direct physical access to the view site, or will the viewpoint become an eyesore? Town of Ithaca Conservation Board View Shed Committee Meeting - January 23, 1996 Present: Eva Hoffmann - Chair, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs, Staff Support - JoAnn Cornish The following were handed out for members of the committee to read between today and the next meeting: draft SEQRA copies of Part 618, Aesthetics Handbook and 618.2, Aesthetic Compatibility of Actions Undertaken, Approved or Funded by the Department, A View Protection Ordinance for the Town of Vail Colorado, The Verde River Corridor Study, Chapter 17.04 of the Scenic Overlay District for Lake Elsinore, CA, and Chapter 3 of PAS Report #399, View Protection. (Copies of the SEQRA documents were sent to other members of the Conservation Board.) It was agreed that before the next meeting, committee members should read and extract pertinent information from these documents for use in drafting up a local ordinance. Eva suggested that the committee research court cases in NYS involving views and view sheds to see if a precedence has been set. JoAnn volunteered to use the INTERNET to see if any information was available. Eva suggested that the next step for this committee is to write a draft survey to be used when taking photos for the inventory. An information sheet, with fill in the blanks, to be used in recording information to go along with the photos which committee members will be taking. Jon Meigs asked for a time line for the view shed ordinance. Eva responded by saying that there are currently no projects which require view shed protection. That it is too late for Ithacare but one view that has been discussed is the view between Ithacare and Axiohm since this is the only view left of the lake and West Hill from Route 96. There was discussion about which views to protect. It was generally agreed upon that the views which are most accessible to the public, those views which several people see on a daily basis and which are a part of the Ithaca character are the most important to protect. These are most probable views from Town Roads, Town Parks, and other public places in the Town. Jon Meigs asked what the scope of the results should be, a stand alone ordinance or as part of an already established ordinance? Additionally, should the view protection be fixed - a forever sacred type thing or will there be an assessment of the protected view every so many years? Eva responded by suggesting that there be two layers, permanent protection for some views, and for others, a continuing assessment. Eva also suggested that the committee use the Visual EAF Addendum as a guideline and as a possible basis for the view survey. JoAnn suggested that for the next meeting she would bring a map of the Town to be used as:a working map for help in locating possible views to be protected. Jon Meigs asked that it also have existing and proposed Town parks as well as existing and proposed Town trails. It was also suggested that the members of the Conservation Board be asked to help with the view inventory as well as in drafting the survey. It was agreed that the committee members will meet before the next CB meeting to draft a survey for comment by the CB. View Shed Committee Meeting January 23, 1996 Page 2 A time table was discussed. It was generally agreed that the inventory would begin as soon as the survey forms are completed and continue into the fall until the foliage is gone. This will give an all season representation for the various views. It was also mentioned that the same view should be photographed from the same point in all four seasons. Eva also suggested that in the committee's travels, photos be taken of view obstructions to be used as examples when presenting the case for a view protection ordinance. Perhaps a target date for completion could be December 1996. The following meeting dates were set for the View Shed Committee: January 30, 1996 10:00 a.m. February 13, 1996 10:00 a.m. March 5, 1996 10:00 a.m. March 19, 1996 10:00 a.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT - 1995 The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has had a productive 1995. Below is a brief summary of our most notable achievements and current projects. Currently, the Conservation Board has six members and three vacancies. Board members Janet Hawkes and Mary Russell have resigned. Janet Hawkes, due to a move outside of the Town and Mary Russell, due to her election to the Town Board. During the past year, the Conservation Board made a concerted effort to improve our conservation leadership skills and attract new membership. Members attend meetings and conferences on wetlands, environmental law, greenways, improving water quality, and creative conservation land -use regulations. Specifically, IN 1995, members attended the New York State Wetland Forum Conference, the Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Conference, and the State University of New York Forestry Conference. Members found these conferences to be productive educational experiences. Much to the disappointment of the Conservation Board members, the annual meeting of the New York State Association of Conservation Councils was cancelled for 1995. Additionally, the Conservation Board continued it's efforts in the area of public education and outreach through media publicity, public information, and by hosting an Earth Day event in which members of the Conservation Board provided walking tours of the Town's South Hill Recreation Way. The Environmental Review Committee, chaired by Mary Russell, evaluated and gave guidance on numerous proposals before the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Board. The Conservation Board, in partnership with the Town Planning and Engineering Departments, are continuing their efforts in developing an environmental atlas. The atlas project, originally suggested by the Conservation Board to the Town Board three years ago, continues to be a high priority project for the Town. The Conservation Board has assisted in determining environmental attributes and will assist in the verification of information for the atlas. Geri Tierney, a Cornell University graduate intem, is working with the Planning Department. She has begun mapping, using the Town's AutoCAD system and has prepared a GIS needs assessment survey for various departments within the Town. Ms. Tierney, under the guidance of the Town planning staff, and the Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee of the Conservation Board, is researching various GIS systems for the Planning Department. The Conservation Board participated in, and advised on, discussions for the proposed Lake Source Cooling Proposal for Cornell University. In addition, members participated in discussions with the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council concerning a City/Town partnership for a proposed park preserve/natural area in Inlet Valley. A subcommittee of the Conservation Board, along with the Town planning staff, has been writing the updated draft of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan highlights concerns about open space conservation, water quality, adequate park and recreation facilities, and other environmental protection issues. The Conservation Board strives to implement the Comprehensive Plan, and continues to offer workable solutions to these problems. G. 766 Elm Street Extension Ithaca, New York 14850 January 19, 1996 Telephone: 277-2790 Joan Noteboom, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Joan Noteboom: Having attended the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Board meeting last night, and having spoken with several CAB members about their work, I would like to express interest in being considered for appointment to the Board. I respect the work the Board has done, and the role it has come to play as liaison, advocate and advisor on a range of local environmental issues. I am a thirteen -year resident and ten-year homeowner in the Town. During this time I have been involved -- often just as an observer but sometimes more actively -- in watching the development and progression of many of the long-range planning issues that continue to absorb us today. As I review the proposed plan of work for 1995, I find that several of my `pet projects of interest' are listed as ongoing activities of. the Board. I would take both pride and pleasure in contributing to effective action on these and other related issues. Sincerely, cetc-,,_� Lois Levitan t Summary of Qualifications and Experience Relevant to Service on the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Board Lois Carol Levitan 766 Elm Street Extension Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone: 277 2790 (home) FAX (607) 255-0599 255-3033 (work) E-mail: LCL3@cornell.edu Profession Environmental Planner Recent Professional Experience December 1993 to Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University. Present Research objective: to develop a methodology and model for assessing environmental impacts of agricultural production. Ian Merwin, Scientific Mentor. Spring 1994 to Consultant to the Community and Rural Development Institute (CaRDI), Cornell University, to Present develop an edited book (Sustaining Rural Landscapes: the Critical Link Between Environment and Community), extension publications, and workshops as fora for innovative thinking linking environmental and social issues in the NE US. Fall 1988 to Spring Founding Board Member and Treasurer of the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Member of the 1995 Executive and Long -Range Planning Committees. 1990-1992 Founding Board Member of the Land Trust Alliance New York (LTA -NY), the first regional chapter of LTA, the national umbrella organization for conservation land trusts. 1989-1993 Field Research and Writing, Ph.D. Dissertation. Designed and executed qualitative field study of the extent and implications of use of the natural resources of open space lands in the Northeast US. Integrated ecological, sociological, economic and geographic methods and analysis. Research partially funded by Hudson River Foundation Graduate Fellowship for Dissertation Research. Committee Chair: David Pimentel. 1992 Technical Reviewer and Editor, Cambell's Biology, St_ udv Guide. 3rd Ed. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. 1987-1988 Research Assistant. Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of the Non -Formal Employment Sector. Qualitative study of the use of resources by rural households in Central New York. Principal Investigator: Rochelle Feldman, Cornell University Dept. Rural Sociology.. 1985-1988 Research for MS Thesis. Developed a computer simulation model to project future needs for land and resources in Costa Rica, using a range of assumptions about yields, productivity, energy use, population growth, and international and domestic agricultural and economic .policies. Committee Chair: David Pimentel; Thesis_ Advisor: Charles A.S. Hall. 1985 Consultant. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE) to develop a computer simulation model of agricultural production in Costa Rica. Tomas Schlichter, PI. 1982-1988 Teaching Assistant and Instructor, Cornell University: Introductory Biology; Introductory Biology Laboratory; Agriculture, Society and the Environment; Principles of Environmental Conservation. Education Doctor of Philosophy. Natural Resource Policy and Planning, Forestry, Forest Economics, and Rural Sociology. Cornell University. May 1994. Dissertation: The Extent and Significance of the Use of Local Natural Resources by Residents of the Mountaintop Towns of Greene County, New York. Master of Science. Natural Resources Policy and Planning, Systems Ecology. Cornell University. May 1988. Thesis: Land and Energy Constraints in the Development of Costa Rican Agriculture. Bachelor of Science. Magna cum laude. Forest Biology (Entomology and Ecology). State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 1975. University of Chicago. Two years undergraduate course work, concentration in Anthropology. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Conservation Board Members and Subcommittee Standings January 1996 Current Members: Phil Zarriello - Chair Cheryl Smith - Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Richard Fischer Loren Tauer There are currently 3 vacancies on the Conservation Board Environmental Review Committee Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Loren Tauer Parks and Open Space Committee Cheryl Smith (Candace Cornell & Janet Hawkes) Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee Phil Zarriello View Shed Committee Eva Hoffmann - Chair Jon Meigs Cheryl Smith Needed are: Environmental Management Council Rep Planning Committee Rep TOMPKINS COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEWS REAP Responsible Environmental Agricultural Planning You may have heard talk about a program known as "REAP". The REAP program evolved because of problems with water quality in New York City. Under mandate from the EPA, the City either needed to build a new filtration plant for their municipal water system or demonstrate adequate watershed protection of their drinking water supplies. In September of 1990 a set of strict regulations for agricultural operations within New York's watersheds were proposed; however this announcement was met with a great deal of opposition. In response to this opposition, a working group was formed to examine statewide concerns about the proposed regulations. This working group consisted of representatives from state and federal agencies, Cornell University, Cornell Cooperative Extension, agricultural producers, agribusiness, and the environmental community. Following a series of meetings, the working group concluded that federal and state regulations aimed at protecting public health and natural resources from the impact of agricultural nonpoint source pollution had resulted in an excessively confusing maze of programs. In addition, recent court suits and enforcement actions exposed farm operators to major costs and uncertainty as to how to deal with balancing environmental issues and maintaining economically viable agribusinesses. The REAP program was created by this working group as a voluntary program which would offer education, technical assistance, and cost-sharing for nonpoint source pollution problems. The REAP program would utilize a tiered approach to developing a Whole Farm Plan. Tier I would consist of a farm operator completing a farm practices questionnaire. In Tier II an environmental risk assessment would be completed. Tier III would consist of a certified planner and the farm operator working together to develop a workable, realistic Whole Farm Plan. This comprehensive plan would include. Best Management Practices for each "risk" identified in Tier II. The goal of the REAP program is to receive recognition by other agencies such that, if an environmental problem arose, the farmer would not be fined or have actions taken against the business if their was a REAP plan in place. The Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program and the Tompkins County SWCD are using versions of the Tier I and Tier II questionaires, and find them to be very useful for identification and enumeration of both present and potential agricultural nonpoint pollution problems. While REAP remains in the developmental stages, the District believes that this is an opportunity for the agriculture industry to be proactive in its response to the public's concern for the environment. The REAP program allows farmers to be part of the solution as opposed to being at the mercy of environmental activists and policymakers. SWCD NEWS reaches the main windbreak. This reduces the snow load and lessens damage to the branches SIX MILE CREEK WINDBREAKS and limbs of the trees in the SOX MILE CREEK windbreak. SURVEY Windbreak height is the most important factor when '• o. ° oN °° • ° °°°o determining the size of the The Tompkins County a°a downwind area to be protected. Soil and Water Conservation ° o t On the windward side, wind speed District (SWCD) will be receiving Trees — the Living Snowfence reductions can be measured funding from the Tompkins upwind for a distance 2 to 5 times County Planning Board to address the height of the windbreak. On water quality concerns in the Six In many parts of the downwind (leeward) side, wind Mile Creek Watershed. As part of Tompkins County, the constant speed reductions are measurable this process, the SWCD will be force of wind exaggerates our for a distance equal to 30 times conducting a Tier I survey of daily weather, and, at times, can y the height of the tallest trees in farmers in the Six Mile Creek make our lives miserable. A well the windbreak. For example, if Watershed to gain information designed windbreak around a the tallest trees in the break are about their operations. This Tier 1 ill d twsow e home or farmstead l th 30 tall, wind speed reductions can questionnaire is part of a step wind, provide snow drift control, be measured for 60' to 150' on the approach to whole farm planning conserve energy, enhance wildlife windward side of the break, and that we have used in the Owasco populations and improve the for up to 900' on the leeward side Watershed and is currently being overall environment. Although we of the break. Obviously, the developed on a statewide level as can most easily see the benefits density of the windbreak is also a the Responsible Environmental of windbreaks in the winter, they key factor in the windbreak's Agricultural Planning (REAP) also benefit homes and effectiveness. The more solid the program. This questionnaire will farmsteads in the summer. break, the less wind that passes be used on all farms located in the Windbreaks will slow hot, drying through it. Six Mile Creek Watershed. The winds; and the water the trees Its important to remember results of the questionnaire will give off, plus the shade they that a windbreak placed too close allow SWCD personnel to generate, provide cooling on hot to a home can cause more determine the types of summer days. problems than it will solve. In remediation, costs and Before planting, it is best general, buildings should be no subsequent funding necessary to to design and layout each row of closer than 1 00'from the protect the water quality in the Six the windbreak based on the actual windward edge of the break; and Mile Creek Watershed. Individual site. By doing so, you can best protection usually occurs 150 responses to the questionnaire will customize your windbreak for the to 250' downwind of the break. If be held strictly confidential positions of buildings, driveways, the windbreak is situated too close between SWCD personnel and roads or other features unique to to the buildings it was designed to the respondent your site. A basic windbreak has protect, it will actually cause more The District will be three to eight rows of both damage from drifting snow than if contacting landowners and conifers, deciduous trees, and there was no windbreak at all. operators to conduct this survey. shrus. Conifers an b d ifshrubs C b h It is also important to We will begin this work in should be placed on the windward remember that any gap in the January. If your agribusiness is in side with taller deciduous trees in windbreak will act as a wind the Six Mile Creek watershed and the center rows. A row of shrubs funnel, resulting in higher wind have any questions or would like on the leeward side completes the speeds in the gap. For this to schedule an appointment with des design. Spacing between rows s S i b t i reason, it is usually better to lay Tompkins County SWCD, please typically 12'- 16'. Spacing within out any passageways (such as contact our office at 257-3820. rows is usually 3'-6' for shrubs, 6'- driveways) diagonally through the 15' for deciduous trees, and 6'-20' for In windbreak to eliminate the conifers. areas of possibility of this funnel effect. sFT, exceptionally heavy snows or Trees and shrubs drifting, a row or two of shrubs available from our 1996 tree sales approximately 50' from the that work well in windbreaks "' ' windward side of the windbreak include: Balsam Fir, Fraser Fir, helps to trap snow before it Canadian Hemlock, Scotch Pine, Atlantic. Waters that flow into the Sugar Maple, Black Locust, Red Susquehanna River Basin WHOLE FARM PLANNING Oak, and American Cranberry. eventually drain into the For further information on Chesapeake Bay. windbreaks and their design, Waters from the Cayuta SPREADING please contact the District Office. Creek, Catatonk Creek and Adapted in part from the Greene County Owego Creek watersheds in the MANURE i N T H E SWCD Newsletter southernmost portions of our county all flow into the Susquehanna River Basin and on towards the Chesapeake. These watersheds comprise 18% of the WINTER It's an accepted fact that manure can contribute to water WATERSHEDS total acreage of Tompkins County. Pollution problems. Organic WHERE ®®ES Although all of the rest of the matter, nutrients and microbes can get into surface water and THE WATER G®? drainage from Tompkins County in ends up in the North Atlantic, eventually ground water. Winter does not all get there the same is a tough time to spread manure way. In the northeastern part of in an environmentally acceptable There is a lot of water in the county, we have the Owasco fashion. There are really only Tompkins County: streams, p y Lake watershed (and its Hemlock three approaches we might take; ponds, ditches, canals, wells, Creek sub watershed). These 1) explain the situation to the springs, and, of course, all of the waters drain northward into cows, and ask for their rain and snow that usually falls on Owasco Lake, and then on cooperation until spring, 2) our county. Water falls onto and towards the St. Lawrence River. construct sufficient manure flows into Tompkins County, and Seven percent our county storage facilities that you don't water flows out of Tompkins drains through this route. have to spread in the winter County. The system used to keep The other watersheds in season, or, 3) make every effort track of where the water goes is our county; Fall Creek, (and Virgil to spread in an environmentally based on drainage basins and Creek), Taugahannock Creek, acceptable manner during the watersheds. Drainage basins are r, g Creek, Salmon winter months. Since the first a made up of a series of Creek, Cayuga Inlet, Six Mile C approach has proven to be watersheds that eventually flow to Creek, Cascadilla Creek, and unreliable, and the second is very the same place. The boundaries three small, unnamed watersheds costly, we will concentrate here on of watersheds coincide with alongside Cayuga Lake all flow strategies and practices that will natural limitations (usually first into Cayuga Lake, then north minimize the ecological impact of topographic) that guide the to the Seneca river and on to their winter manure spreading. movement of naturally flowing very cold destination. Seventy Winter presents problems water. Watersheds can also be five percent of our waters take with efficient utilization of manure separated into sub watersheds this route to the sea. because there is little or no plant and these can be further Because all of our growth to utilize the nutrients. subdivided again and again. With watercourses are headwaters Also, the ground is often frozen just a little stud you could define y° (starting points) for drainageany , preventing the nutrients from the watershed boundaries for that activity which affects the levels of penetrating the soils. This can puddle in your driveway! pollution in our creeks and result in excessive runoff during Because of the geography streams ultimately impacts water spring thaw. Also, when the snow and topography of Tompkins quality for hundreds miles. gets deep, we sometimes tend to County, water flows out of our Although we each might feel that over apply manure in the fields county in both northerly and our actions contributing the closest to the barns. southerly directions. There are 12 reduction in water qualityy are In order to minimize the watersheds in Tompkins county. p y negligible, the cumulative effects potential water pollution from These watersheds flow into two of our activities can be manure spreading in the winter, different drainage basins; Seneca detrimental to water quality far we should try to follow these River Basin to the north, and from Tompkins County. For. this practices whenever possible. Susquehanna River Basin to the reason alone, we should all make 1. Spread on your drier south. Waters that flow into the every effort we can to reduce the fields whenever possible in the Seneca River Basin ultimately impact of our daily activities on winter. Apply to wetter fields only empty into the St. Lawrence water quality. during unusually dry periods to River, and then on into the North , avoid excessive runoff. 2. Reserve your flattest fields for winter spreading. Even if the ground is frozen when you spread, the chances for the nutrients to penetrate the soils are better on level ground. 3. Avoid frozen fields whenever possible. Due to differences in exposure and sunlight, fields freeze at different times. Take this into account when planning your winter spreading. 4. Apply to fields having good vegetative cover, such as hayland or pasture. 5. Leave a 'buffer zone" of undisturbed vegetation between fields that are spread and watercourses, wetlands or drainage ditches. 6. Anticipate the coming of winter, and catch up on as much spreading on marginal or risky sites before the ground freezes. 7. Don't overload the spreader to prevent manure Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District Community Corners 903 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 spilling onto road surfaces and drainage ditches. 8. If the weather gets really severe, stockpile the manure in an area that is acceptable from a standpoint of runoff control. 9. ff possible, compost manure during the winter months. 10. Consult the District about adopting a Nutrient Management Plan. A nutrient management plan specifically designed for your business helps balance your manure nutrient utilization with your soil and plant use. For example, one component of the plan will be advice on proper timing of spreading on all of your farm lands. A fully implemented nutrient management plan for your farm should balance all aspects of minimizing nonpoint source pollution with optimal utilization of manure as a farm resource. Adapted in part from the Chautauqua Co. SWCD /Newsletter Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY14850 Nonprofit Org. U.S. POSTAGE PAID Ithaca, NY Permit No. 34 Dear Ms. Noteboom, I am interested Board and understand is required if I am Melinda G. Boyar 635 Sheffield Road Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 607-272-4473 in joining the Town of through JoAnn Cornish to be considered. January 29, 1996 Ithaca Conservation that a letter of intent As I related to Ms. Cornish and the Conservation Board members at the January 18 meeting, I have been a resident of both the town and city for nearly 30 years. I came for college and subsequently chose to remain in the community, both working and raising my family. Aside from the diverse and international flavor the area holds due to the people, I was also drawn to stay because of the inherent variety and beauty this region was naturally blessed with. During the years I have lived here Ithaca has changed dramatically due to its attempts to furnish solutions for such issues as population growth, housing and business development, transportation and the like. Some solutions I have applauded, while others have caused great concern particularly when it has appeared that little respect or consideration was given to the land or the plant and animal life which lived there. As I look about the world these days it appears that in many regions a lack of attention and care is the norm. I would like to help ensure that this does not happen in this community and thus, would like an opportunity to join with other similarly motivated people to work toward this common goal. I feel progress and better living for our citizenry must be balanced fairly, but soundly, with our land and its resources and wildlife. Although I am neither a conservation/environmental specialist by profession, nor do I hold degrees within those areas, I do feel my general knowledge and sensitivity toward these disciplines and related issues would provide me with the ability to have dialogue and sensible idea exchange with those who do. Therefore, I would welcome the opportunity to contribute what I can to the Conservation Board's efforts and hope this letter will serve as an initial affirmation of my desire to do so. Sincerely, OBSOLM MEMORANDUM C(OPY TO: Candace Cornell - Chair, and Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members FROM: Conservation Board Members DATE: January 23, 1996 OBSOLETE RE: P & C Food Markets, Judd Falls Road, Building Expansion The Conservation Board (CB) appreciates the opportunity to review this application. The Conservation Board members have one major concern with regards to this project, that of the visual impact that the addition will have on the surrounding area. Bringing a 130' +/- solid masonry wall with no openings or relief to within 30 to 40 feet of Judd Falls Road may have a significant adverse visual impact. Members of the Conservation Board would like additional information to include proposed roof elevations. The CB suggest consideration be given to adding design elements to the proposed building wall boarding Judd Falls Road that would provide a more aesthetic appearance than a solid massive masonry wall. Landscaping between the building and Judd Falls Road should also be considered to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed building, A previous proposal to improve the East Hill Plaza parking lot (July 7, 1992) which was retracted by Cornell University, should be reconsidered to improve traffic, storm water runoff quality, and aesthetic appearance of the plaza as part of this proposed building expansion. OBSOLETE OBSOLETE MEMORANDUM TO: Candace Cornell - Chair, and Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members FROM: Conservation Board Members DATE: January 23, 1996 RE: Appeal for building use of Pleasant Grove Buildings #1, Y2. #12. #1-t The Conservation Board (CB) has reviewed the appeal for use of the Pleasant Grove Buildings as a satellite maintenance facilirv. The CB feels that their comments of October 13. 1995 with regard to the original proposal to convert Ivo of the Pleasant Grove apartments (#12 & #14) are still relevant to this project. Specific concerns of the CB are: 1. While the proposed use of the satelite facility does not mention storage or use of paints, solvents, and other toxic materials. these types of materials are commonly associated with the intended proposed use. Given the proximity of the proposed facility to an existing playground and to a Tompkins County Unique Natural Area (T ---NA;) the CB feels the use of potentially toxic materials should be limited and carefully regulated. 2. The common walkway between Building #14 and Building # 12 will continue to offer a convenient access between the ap=ments and the main University campus. The question of potential conflicts and hazards between delivery vehicles, maintenance vehicles, employee vehicles and pedestrian traffic has not, in the opinion of this Board, been adequately addressed. 3. The volume of additional traffic generated by the proposed maintenance, housekeeping, and office operation, in a primarily residential area, continue to be of concern to this Board, both within the site and entering and exiting the site via Pleasant Grove Road. 4. Given the proximity of the proposed project to a Tompkins County ULNA that encompasses Beebe Lake, Fall Creek, and the adjacent gorge walls and woods, the following are of concern to this Board: a. Possible storage of hazardous materials in the maintenance and housekeeping facility. b. Runoff contaminants and erosion from the parking facility and drive which serves the maintenance and housekeeping facility. c. In order to build the proposed 12 car parking area along the gorge, some grading and slope stabilization may be required. This Board would request from the applicant, a more detailed grading and drainage plan for this extremely sensitive area, together with an explanation of measures to be taken to avoid or mitigate negative impacts due to construction and subsequent usage of this area. CB Memorandum - Pleasant Grove Apartments January 23, 1996 Page 2 In general, the CB feels that the proposed use of Pleasant Grove Apartments buildings #12 & #14, as a satellite maintenance facility, is inconsistent with the present use and proposed long term use of this area. For the reasons stated above, the CB feels consideration should be given to nearby alternative sites for a satellite maintenance facility, possibly near the maintenance area for the Cornell Golf Course. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDU—V1 TO: Conservation Board/Environmental Review Committee FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning DATE: January 30, 1996 RE: Development Application Subject to Conservation Board Review. Enclosed for review by the Conservation Board, per the requirements of Local Law No.4 of 1993, are materials for the following appiication before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: Project No.: 9601186. Cornell Library Storage Facility, Palm Road (off Rt. 366) Description: Consideration of Sketch Plan for the proposed expansion of the Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell's Precinct 7, to consist of a 14,000 +/- square foot addition for storage of low circulation library books and associated office space, a new loading dock, additional parking spaces and landscaping, located on Palm Road off Route 366 on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64-1-1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District No. 9. Cornell University. Owner; Tim vlartin. Anent. Sketch Plan Review is tentatively scheduled for Planning Board consideration at the February 20, 1996 meeting. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal; please do not hesitate to contact me at 273-1747. Att. PLANNING. DESIGN AND CONRTRUCT101 J.V. IlAAREY3 sRVICE BUIDM rrMACA ICY. MEW APPROVAL DATE PLAMMa. DESIbl Ma C016 LCTION OrvROMIMAL ICICTN AM SAfr" -4-1 DRAWN _� __ _ _ - \ \ -_- <_� -�' / / - - - -mar DRAWNeY Z CKCXED BY Bc hjl1 1 a?` _ aJ . �.. ARCHEMoar /,///Ii,1111 / CIVL E1+VR I l I I'I I I I I I d i j / I 1 ILLiZL 11 JJ /r ' \\ acc 0; I SII 6 1f J_I\�Jr_ teZ / i`�� \\--moi l r llca+ �. �i------\ 1 / / I Il I� 1111 �ih /jlti // ��\\ ---�1 i srnucT �- -- lQ'��' l,/`�1 �sl.' III ��//I�1��/ \ ��----- 9//�/ ! �-ill / / ii - � 90 Rev DATE BY Descaprad Proposed o-ff I V Ip� opsel------ —;� Limit of Site , /;--- I-----_---- I ;.�/ d 1 Library Annex I. . f • 1 I0, ' I ! / ?stets►^ ` „-` „1 1 I 1� \ 1 11 I //,,, / 111 I/ / 1 V \ �1 �I! 11/,l r r,,. l�N`ii `;111! 'Irl11r1111 1 I Proposed /r/its// U l u; ! n 1 1 1f 7�--�- I'/ aa�li / l I 1 ) I ! I 11 /�i fry 1 //r'�lrNl 11 irl fir'r aAi/ /� Limit of Site ORawr+c TTTLE 1 I r I /i,/i/i /i r ri lt'r Jr t 1 / Site Plan �------------ Ir /1 /f - \ / / I I _ � \ t / rillf Iron' %I\ \� 11�11'+'1��i lll1ii11" _�- f / _-------------�y��_r ��/ - • �f \ 1 \\\y11 11 \\\\ \\\ rill I, 1 Ill/ _------------ _ BU11DI��C`�ACK�'ivt Iltl+\.\"\-___ ___zi/-- �J--- 1 , -------------- IM I. + 111111'1.;1',;+1\11\\ _'-------_-----_-_--9��---- ;i' n9� 1 11\ 11 11�};I1 11111111tillill11111I \Illi \It;t'\'''\\\`�'t�_—�____-__-- _� \ �-- I I I if r� r1111j1111 Vllllllll Illi �I 11 \+ 111�l\���==__ ���_�----- PRaec, frf 11111j1 111 III Illllk llj�ll 11\ \'11111'\•.1\\\1 _-____ --- -'-`� -_-- N Library Annex 1;11\�\II 111!1/,r�lll IIIrf1l1�1 11�1111t \\� ����------- �'i - =_�� Expansion ---=- --�� - / ..i l!`1 /! Il11111 NATURAL. AREA BOUNDARY LINE Proposed Limit of Site 1N _ 80' 0 GiOMMMM 40 80 120 Scab SCALE REFERENCE Feet LOCATION No. 57— NO. E Site Design Criteria: Library Annex Addition Cornell University e3� Facilities Planning Office For B&P approval Nov 23, 1995 1 I Background The Library Annex was designed by knton Egner and Associates and constructed in 197E Its function is to provide storage for'c,%v circulation rate library books and off -campus facilities for book conservation and ;reservation treatment. At the time of its design it incorporated leading edge technolo-.• and was designed to anticipate future expansion by addition of three more modules as shown in the diagram below: The Annex is essentially a three leve; -.•. arehouse for books. Books are accessed only by library personnel upon request. A re _`ing room exists but is used infrequently. The operation is staffed by nine peop:e-. In 1990 the trustees established that b:- the year 2000 on -campus library collections would be maintained at steady state and an:.- _uture growth would have to be accommodated off campus. By 1997 available stack expansion space will be exhausted in eight of the ten campus libraries so the need for additional off -campus space is immediate and plans are underway to add onto the Annex. The addition will incorporate technology which has matured in the fifteen years since construction of the Annex. The addition will be a single high -bay space instead of a three level space and will house thirty foot tall stacks accessible by special equipment. This will increase the storage capacity for a given floor area by a factor of one and a half times the current system. Historic Considerations The existing structure is of no historic mportance and alterations to it are not constrainer. by any special areas restrictioTzs. 1 Palm Road "— __d110n add.t.on 1 ry add hon -nnex The Annex is essentially a three leve; -.•. arehouse for books. Books are accessed only by library personnel upon request. A re _`ing room exists but is used infrequently. The operation is staffed by nine peop:e-. In 1990 the trustees established that b:- the year 2000 on -campus library collections would be maintained at steady state and an:.- _uture growth would have to be accommodated off campus. By 1997 available stack expansion space will be exhausted in eight of the ten campus libraries so the need for additional off -campus space is immediate and plans are underway to add onto the Annex. The addition will incorporate technology which has matured in the fifteen years since construction of the Annex. The addition will be a single high -bay space instead of a three level space and will house thirty foot tall stacks accessible by special equipment. This will increase the storage capacity for a given floor area by a factor of one and a half times the current system. Historic Considerations The existing structure is of no historic mportance and alterations to it are not constrainer. by any special areas restrictioTzs. 1 i Campus Store 1 Future Warehouse i Parking Reservoir UGeneral Stores i� Warehouse I --------------f f Future Street Alignment—\ 00000t�r�r�r� - -- - - ood��Q�p Setback) o-______—____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ l ------�kiag----- 1 r add. -------------- --- io Setback _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �-- '4a'u,a Area 3cunaa,y I SIEcDI _ Slope -----_--------------- �� _ _ Detention% -------------------- - - — - — - {_..'Pond EAT LL RECREgiIONWgy �= - - Cascadilla - ------__ ----- Site constraints- Setbacks are as defined in the Special Land Use District Zoning tila�o. Discussion (DRS, Facilities Planning Office observations)) The section of Palm Road which is to the north of the Annex will eventually become a major through street as Precinct Seven develops. For this reason, some care must be given to how the north facade of the Library Annex and its landscape appear from the road. This means that, even though the materials and detailing of the building system may be simple and economical, there should be a consistency in the color, cladding materials, roofline alignments, massing, and footprint. It should look like a single building when complete. Having access from Palm Road as it currently is configured is not ideal. Mon -library traffic southbound on Palm Road heads traight into the Annex parking lot and needs to look for the left turn to stay on Palm Road. It would be preferable to isolate access to the Annex driveway so that it is independent of the larger traffic pattern. In other words it i> better to place the access to the parking lot farther east on Palm Road. The area south of the building, having excellent exposure to the Cascadilla Creek yallev, is a good location for any habitable space (offices, carrels, meeting rooms, reading rooms, etc.) planned for the building. Views from the valley to such new construction sho>_tld be moderated with tree plantings sympathetic with the natural area of the valley. f Photographs- Library Annex The photographs on the followint pages were taken from the points and in the direction of' the arrows indicated in the plan view below: 0 F Bt�'A1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Board/Environmental Review Committee FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning DATE: January 30, 1996 RE: Development Application Subject to Conservation Board Review. Enclosed for review by the Conservation Board, per the requirements of Local Law No.4 of 1993, are materials for the following application before the Town of Ithaca Planning, Board: Project No.: 9601187. Ithaco Renovations at Axiohm Building, 950 Danby Road. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovation of approximately 30,000 square feet of interior space on the vacant first floor of the existing engineering and administration wing in the Axiohm facility for the relocation of Ithaco, to consist of light assembly and office space, located at 950 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 39-1-1.1, 39-1-1.2 and 39-1-1.4, "I" Industrial District. Axiohm I.P.B., Owner and Applicant; George W. Breuhaus, Agent. A public hearing on the site plan is tentatively scheduled for Planning Board consideration at the February 20. 1996 meeting. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 273-1747. Att. s jI JAN 2 6 'SG- Town Assigned Project ID Number iLJ + i i Town of Ithaca Environmental Review S(' -"O RT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PL.�ly �1�. For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATICN (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Appllcant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: erecise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc, or provide map): �1�2C) 0PC-,3gYG.� Tax Parcel Number: -k I� I - a. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSICN? MODIFICATiCN/ALTERATION? Describe project, briefly: (Inciuce project purpose, present use, current and future C onstruction plans, and other relevant items): I�stJav't o,11 alr- �KtNIS��, icJ `JIB CZt: A ���;G�) lr��a tiEw ?(`tl-i�i (Attac^ secarsis sheer(s) if neces_a^/ -o acecuataiv tescribe i;'e orcccsac 7rciect.) S. Amount of land affected: Initfaily (0-5 yrs)10J)1,Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (> 10 yrs) Acres i 7. How Is land zoned presently? I S. WIII proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES /1, NO If no, describe conflict briefly: 9. WIII proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What Is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial X Agriculture Park/Forest(Open Space Other _ Please Describe: ' 0{ Ct deux&c X g QE✓t✓'" 11. Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES )i NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/fun ing: '��' 12- Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or. approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit(approval. Also, state whether It will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OAF"MY KNOWLEDGE j AppilcanVSponso Name (Print of Type : � `4-C-L\,'l bo5,�«- % ��� �u ��— "�Cr� 2 -' /� � c t C • � �J. Signature: ,U� Date: / dGL`�l Rev. 8/92 It CD W L7 Q CL (L 0 ce co M I.— I.— LU J J O U L O K U. N Itl ' 119 7 N .a EC Ax1UHM - ITHACO Tike Co lettl Group s I• t■ A1117 EIEC Ir tAIE 11 ANI& ItS LtA611g)C—l", I,4At4A6 '.41u+1.I W bMf i. lwl IOII KY. UL (.ID) IU4-41Q PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - B X11 t3-95 X21-96 >tuulow S519S r 2 s 1 .bpd 2 6199(') D 2 o— SCI rW %/ �q- .)AN 2 6 199i; (1J Dooll SCHEDULE ' 10V E ED GLASS. PAOVIDEA►DILL HANDLE HAIDiARF VIIH 1PANICE HAROVARE (- &IOL'AL IAP E. III WI%AI NTOS • 1{' G.0 Willi lit' 01P BMD EACH 1M.11 LATCH AND AUl0MA11C CLOSER. NEW F1U311 ME TAT. PAINTED DOUSLF DOORS. S'0'.6'{'. PROVIDE LEvER O FIRE IRATEDFOYV.RAIESADEACH:SIDE/S 170 TAL STUDSL•OF•EX/STIISOIFIDORR PA 3I AOF SAADVME. DECK ABOV .I TAPE. PRIME FAINT, m NEW FLUSH I1ElAl. FAINTED DOOR. J'0'.{'1-. PROWL DF IEYER ►RI PRIVACY Oj EXISTING WALL 10 SE FIRE -RATED: EXTEND EXISTING HALL TO LRIDEASIDE QIAADMME OF EXISTING FLOOR DECK ABOVE PER WALL 1Y►E3. APPLY 1 LAYER 5/0' MER FLUSH METAL, FAINTED DOOR 11/4 MR. FIRE-RAIEDI ]'{•.0'1'. FIRRE-RATE EIYP. ORD.INO WTO EAEXTENSION 3 1DEOH EXIST INOWALL. FINIS14ED PROVIDE FULL HANDLE HARDWARE WITH10 AUTOMATIC CLOSER. PANIC HARDWARE. HMO LATCH NO H. ®OCEXISTING DOOA3TING.. PROVIDE NEW LEVER HARDWARE IN KIND 10 LELAif REL1XIOCATE ® NEW FLUSH METAL, PAINTED ►A'AOE HARDWARE. DOOR7. ]'•0' K 6'-1'. PROVIDE LEVER S m RE►LACE EXISTING DOOR WIT" NEr FLUSH 1I11E���lAl. PAINTED. IN3LLA)EO ilXi0Y 1 IDEA EEVEIRI PASSAGE HA111DWARE SA DEAGIOLLI WITHOPA41C HARDWARE lk NEW FLUSH METAL, PAINTED. INSULATED EXTERIOR DDBL. D0043 WITH P' X SO' VISION PANELS. T'•t' X 6'-1'. FAOV IDE LIVER PASSAGE HARDWARE ► DEAD 00. AE►LACE EXI ITIHo DOOR WITH1� W F1U3H METAL. FAINTED DOOR 1]/A HR FIAE•RAIEDI 3'0'.1'1' ►AOVIDE NEW LEVER HARDWARE IN KIND lO EII111H0. � \ ALL EK1/11NO DOORS 10 SI PROVIDED WITH NEW LEVER HARDWARE IN KIND 10 EXISIINO /1 p NMDWARI AEOUIRIMEN11 F01 LOCKS. ETC, TO IE VERIPIED WITH OWNER A LI Ifil J o— ._El Ej e G m o U A C7 AA mL•1 ]Li L fJ U I C1u [el • m ¢ e Afi LSQi L•] El p p Ej C e e •� O— VI •� m m CI e Ri b 1 1 b U H I AXIOHM The Co AHCSf7EC75 SITE PLAN WJl1ON 3T1QT, INA PROPOSED FLO, an t1-13-95 _12196 6 1996 LEGEND COLUTH LINE Q :DOM /PACE N"ER -p WALL 1T/f • DOOR TYPE -ro Oco I I �jj I 'W' I'm 2 6 7 cD T 1p AJ N L V. 4- 7" S4.V m Ise. r � Aj IY9 SA"J.- 4 4sA�E c AAj "if-A,-Aj PIPE 0----- 4,b FOWJ�, IV r--- Uc -A ACR 0 4L I \ `` _ . -� T\\ 'AJAL X Ar 13 g -Top %p 7o4 I-V 71) Id- Ak"'J" . - C a Ali E MT. M.Y.S-E C.. NI 1.4 V,; 10 :S E F- 3-7/ >\1.Y.5. E- CAS PiPELIPF —E-At�.EmE.Kj7- E ,(,1.4 , _ 1. . IX -7 E�. 39 E L ZZ. 10 :=EE LlGjl.! 377 L (o to TILL doxL L 0 S 202067 - SQ S 2zo- A OXJL(; oj/ -a- PPE 00' AL 7Tm"0�7- MEL R-04.FPRESEA.1-1- LAME"'. S c - I G A L D PIC-MWAY J-),k)F- A�404", Y9 )ja loprr Igo �1�� C• Y• . ROUTE C? ro B I S SE: 16s-6 SEr The Conservation Board Meeting That was scheduled for Tonight (3/7/96) Has been CANCELLED! Sorry for any inconvenience! ............................ ...................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, March 28, 1996 N.............................................................................................................................. 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 Planning Staff 7:40 p.m. 3. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes (1/19/95, 1/18/96, 2/1/96) 8:00 p.m. S. Update by Cornell Representatives on Lake Source Cooling Project (Tentative) 8:30 p.m. 6. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 9:00 P.M. 7. Business: 1996 Plan of Work 10:00 P.M. 8. Adjournment NOTE Please review the 1995 Work Plan (sent previously) and think about activities the Conservation Board should undertake for 1996. CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Loren Tauer Jon Meigs Melinda Boyar Lois Levitan (Pile Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notice./03-28-96.agd) TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert R. Bland Cornell University Environmental Engineer FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board DATE: April 2, 1996 RE: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Draft Minutes for March 28, 1996 Meeting Dear Bob: Attached please find a partial DRAFT set of minutes for the March 28, 1996 Conservation Board meeting. I have just received them from our minutes secretary and have not had time to edit or correct them. I trust they will be useful to you in draft form since the information you require will not undergo any substantive changes in content. I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Conservation Board, to thank you and Rob for bringing us up to date on the project. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 273-1747. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES MARCH 28, 1996 PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Melinda Boyar, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Loren Tauer, Jonathan Meigs. ABSENT: Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair; Richard Fischer. QUESTS: JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Bob Wen, University Environmental Engineering; Rob McCabe, Project Engineer. 1. Persons To Be Heard: Mr. Zarriello - There are some environmental books and catalogs that catch your interests, just mark it down and we can put it down for the budget. Let try to bring some closure to some of the subjects that have been before us. The recent things for us, Six Mile Creek Conservation District was forwarded from the Town Board to the Planning Board, and now that is where it sits. Ms. Cornish - There will be a public hearing in which there is quite an extensive mailing list of 150 to 200 people, which will take place in May with the Planning Board. The public will be invited to comment on that and that will be presented to the Planning Board at that time. Mr. Zarriello - Pleasant Grove Apartments which is proposed by Cornell to use part of the apartments for maintenance facility, but the Planning Board was essentially approved with our recommendations on not doing any work outside the building, no outside storage, and few other minor details for the parking area. Essentially that proposal is going through. P&C, the one we discussed with the big wall going down Judd Falls Road is going back to Planning Board for further planning on appearance for the wall. Ms. Cornish - There is wording in the resolution that proposed, so there will be discussion at the meeting on Tuesday. Mr. Zarriello - Does the Planning Board have the option to say no if they do not cooperate with those things? Ms. Cornish - No. Ms. Hoffmann - I think what we can do is ask them if they would consider to do it differently in a way that it would be more attractive and more suitable for the size. I do not think they need this addition any higher because it is just one story inside. Why do they need higher ceilings in this room, just because it is a supermarket. It is just an recommendation to them is they are willing to change. Mr. Zarriello - College Circle Apartments, 50-70 acres subdivision such part was built now they want to subdivide the undeveloped part. That is essentially going through as they requested it. For financial reasons they are subdividing the developed part from the undeveloped part. Buttermilk Valley where is that at this point? Ms. Cornish - Right now, the DEIS was deemed complete. We had a public hearing earlier this month. Public comment period end tomorrow, March 29. At which point we will begin preparing the final Environmental impact statement in response to public comments. I have received letters from DEC, Department of Transportation, State Parks, and others which are satisfied with the response from the Health Department which prompted the positive depth on that. It seems to be moving along. Mr. Wiggins has been very cooperative follow all the recommendations of both the COC and Planning Board. Mr. Zarriello - That was a significant development up on the South Hill 70 acre subdivision. Ms. Cornish - The Monterell is part of this subdivision. The wet land and the pond is one lot, and then there are 68 additional lots and an 18 acre parcel that the subdivision has started proceedings to deed it over to Buttermilk Falls State Park. That is what we were waiting for was Buttermilk Falls to actually except that 18 acres parcel, and they have dedicated 1 acre parcel for a neighborhood park which will be owned by the town. Mr. Zarriello - The reason why it was stepped on it, they are having problems with the sewer overflowing facing the hill. Ms. Cornish - I think the Route 96 improvements and the new trunk line that is being installed as part of those improvements, and the improvements that the town has already made and current negotiations between the City and the Town for future improvements, have all been taken into consideration and certainly can not expect one developer to solve that entire problem. Mr. Zarriello - The Hershfield it is not even an acre to start with, and it is being revised to a R- 15 zone, but it is going to be pieces a development path. If any one has any ideas, I would be glad to hear them. FEMALE - This is the parcel that already has a home on it? Mr. Zarriello - Yes. 2. Ongoing: Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project: Mr. Wen - We are in front of the Town's Conservation Board for several reasons. For one, the Town of Ithaca involved agency in the project which is to believed to be the Town Planning Board needs to grant site plan.approval, and the Town Board will be involved in the Zoning Manual. There are a number of other involved agencies including the City of Ithaca for a street permit, recreational river permit, the DEC, New York State Department of Transportation, and Army Corps of Engineers are all involved agencies, and we have established a number of other interested parties in this project. There has been some press about this and I think everyone has got a newsletter about this with our proposed scope. To summarize where we are at, we applied for an Environmental Assessment form back in January and a draft for permits. DEC has coordinated themselves as lead agency, so they are the official lead agency for the project which simply means they coordinate between all the other involved agencies in their seating process. It does not take any power a way from the other involved agencies, so it allows us to write only one environmental impact statement. Each involved agencies that are involved in that process writes their own findings at the end of the environmental impact statement on how they interpreter the DIS and what that means for their permit issuance. We have got a procedural process off the ground, we have established lead agencies, and we are closing into the scoping period. We actually offered and committed to do an environmental impact statement prior to the declaration where one is actually needed. We anticipated one should be required for such a project, so we have initiated the scoping process, and the DEC has a lead on it. They will close the public comment period on April 9, after having 2 meeting with involved agencies and one public meeting. We then anticipate that we will take 6 months or so to write these environmental impact statement, and submit it for a completeness review in the fall after having to go through a review by our independent scientist at Cornell. In some time in 1997, if all goes well, we will issue a find after public comment, environmental impact statement, and then go into permanent process. I will briefly go through the scope with you. Chapter one is the proposed project, to replace showers on campus with natural cold water in the bottom of Cayuga Lake. The systems now that goes to Childress will go to heater changers facility on the shores Cayuga Lake. Where the heat is projected to a one through non -contact cooling water flow, where the water is taken from the bottom of the lake, 200 feet down in the lake where it is 40 degrees F, circulate through these exchanges, and return to the lake at 55 degrees F year around. Now this process will be a seasonal, mostly following the cooling demand at campus, so it will be a high flow during the summer and a low flow during the winter. Project purpose needs and benefits, that is 1.1, why do we need it, why this time, how big will it be, and the size we are proposing and provide growth for the campus. We will talk about the location with the location being of the heat changer facility on the east side of East Shore Drive, Route 34, on the parcel that is The East Shore Green or Noah's Boat Yard which we have a purchase option on. The intake pipe will be approximately 10,000 feet to the north toward the middle of Cayuga Lake where it must be deep, running 4 or 5 foot pipe to the facility, non -contact with the chilled water, and discharged in about 12 feet of water. The pipes will run along Route 13's right a way, back behind houses in Cayuga Height Waste Water Treatment Plant, Lowery Construction building and behind some more houses. Then on to under pass of Route 13 into school district property along side of the road, possibly along the road in the service station, to Fall Creek under the bridge, up to Lake Street to campus, and then up through the R squad. This will all be buried pipe, supplied and returned. None of these detailed designs have been available yet because we have not done final design engineering for the building, but part of the environmental impact statement is to do all the engineering to flush out the details that are necessary to write the environmental impact statement. Mr. Meigs - I am curious why the exchange units are not further up the lake? Mr. Wen - There is several reasons, one would be availability of the land, this land was for sale. Two would be the terrain as you go up the way you get more into cliffs and less road access. It is more economical to run by the lake piping than the land piping. Mr. Zarriello - The close new pipe, is that just water or is there anything added to that? Mr. Wen - It is mostly just water. There is some chemical additive that it is not environmental bad. You would want to keep it contained in the loop system. We will go through all this design layout construction, how long construction period anticipated, scheduled construction, and how we will actually operate the plan, and on the last of that chapter section we will be discussing all the permits needed. Everything in your packet is actually spelled out more in detail for you. The ground water is not a really a big issue here, but the search water is. We will be circulating up to 59 gallons a day in the proposal which is 31,000 to 32,000 gallons per minute at max a piece, and we have been studying this for a couple years which we do not think there is no significant negative environmental impact statements. The thermal discharge will be quite significant as far as an input into the lake given the main input. We will be doing a complete model of all thermal characteristics to actually prove that it will have significant impact on the thermal structure of the lake, ice cover, and average temperatures of the lake. The theorem had phosphorus and productivity. The issue there happens to be that when this thermal climb sets up, the algae in the upper waters are phosphorus. There is natural curing or from various inputs natural man made whether it would be run off from the tributaries, creeks, or sewage discharges. Phosphorus is here which is a limiting factor in the productivity of the algae. They will use it here, but because of the light does not penetrate, they will not be using it here. We will be transferring water from the bottom of the epilimion to the top moving phosphorus through this. The potential is for more algae to grow, so we will study this to see the significant effect. We will be doing continuing studies throughout the summer to get additional data to finalize this. Once fall comes around and the surface water has cooled down to 40 degrees and becomes well mixed. It is mixed half the year during the winter. The fourth issue there is, mycelioid which is a fresh water shrimp we will be studying. During the day they hang out in the deeper water because they avoid light and stay in dark to avoid feeding fish because they can not see them. We think we can locate this so that during the day they are actually on the bottom in deeper water and not in our thermal intake bed. During the night they swim up towards the top of the thermal climb. Lake sediment issue, the pipe will be dragged where it is shallow mainly to keep it from being hazardous for navigation. Where the natural water depth is less than 10 feet, this would be below the surface so the lake bottom does not protrude into the boats. Ms. Hoffmann - Why will you be trenching there? MALE - If we just lay the pipe in the bottom of shallow water it will stick up. Ms. Cornish - So it will be an initial trenching operation there during construction. MALE - The zebra muscles and the quadra muscles are the concern of fowling our plates and we will have to use some methods to control the muscles. The focus of sections are how methods that we use to control muscles does not have environmental impact because we are going to add some chemicals. We are designing the system to avoid minimize use of conventional chemical control methods for muscles. Our first line of defense to design the system so the materials are not to productive to growth and keeping them from growing, and then we will go to some type of mechanical cleaning whether it will be roto -rooter or mechanical scuba divers, and finally only use as necessary chemical methods. We will be specifying all of those as part of our speedy permits. One good thing is the cold water, although they will grow very slowly, it will be to our benefit. The pipe will probably be HPDP which is pretty smooth itself. Eventually, even teflon, will fowl, but we will be looking at different materials. Ms. Hoffmann - The pipes in the lake will be different materials than the pipes in the ground that goes up to campus? MALE - Yes. The pipes going up to campus underground will probably be regular steel. Ms. Hoffmann - That is why you need some chemicals in the systems to help it to keep from deteriorating? MALE - Yes, plus we need chemicals that go through all the building systems, too, so it is not just this pipe it is every thing the water goes through. At last is Cayuga Lake Fishery, that being a good force of the ecosystem and the recreational resource. Luckily there is not a lot of fish hanging out there. In the winter time, when they float the lowest, is when we will find the fish down there. We are going to continue to study that. I do not think the fishery is going to be one of our major problems. Continuing down to surface water contribution, mainly the sole impact is going to be during construction as we go over Fall Creek Bridge and go through several intermittent creeks that we have to cross. Those interresources are really not an issue, although we will discuss is during construction. Trescology, this will be things like vegetation. We will probably have to remove some trees in some areas. Ms. Hoffmann - What about where the pipes will go on campus? We have not seen any maps of this yet? MALE - They will go up probably the slope right into the art's squad. MALE - Right between McGraw and White Halls on the right side of the art's squad. Directly east tying into East Avenue then up Tower Road a short way. There will be five points we will be tying into the district cooling system into campus. MS. Hoffmann - Will you have some maps that show campus and how the pipes will go on campus? MALE - Yes, we have very detailed maps. The maps will show every tree we need to disturb and everyone's driveway that will be closed during construction. Ms. Hoffmann - The pipes will be going through the two oldest buildings on campus essentially? MALE - That is our current proposed routing. We certainly will not be visible from the surface. It will be a typical Cornell utility. Ms. Hoffmann - I understand that, but what about construction? MALE - During construction we will have a trench open. It will be similar to the other steam line type projects that occur on campus previously. We try to get in and do the work as quickly as we can and get right back out, hopefully in a couple months. Ms. Hoffmann - You are not worried about any impacts on the buildings during construction then? MALE - No. Ms. Hoffmann - How big of trench will you need to dig to bury these pipes? MALE - It will have to be roughly 9 foot wide trench, but that depends on how we do it. It might require us to do some shoring, but if we have a little more space we will probably prefer on the order of about 15 feet and that will involve some shelving to meet the necessary OSHA regulations. Ms. Hoffmann - How deep? MALE - Well when we are running across country, we are proposing approximately 2 feet to the top of the pipe and the pipe will be about 4 feet in diameter, so anywhere from 6 to 8 feet. MALE - It will probably be bedded, so we are probably over excavating for bedding. May be 8 to 10 feet. Mr. Zarriello - I do not see anything on addressing where they were going to put the spools for trenching. MALE - Yes, that should be addressed. We need to clarify that, and I need to look more into this for the information. What we did with this to make it more reader friendly is to organize all the environmental setting in one section and all the possible impacts in one section, and then all the mitigation measures in another section. Then we took all the subjects, put all those settings, possible impacts, and mitigation measures all together. MALE - That topic might come into plan approval. MALE - He is thinking about the whole pipe route? MALE - Yes, and that even needs to be incorporated. We initially had the Town of Ithaca building permit which we changed to the site plan approval, but that building permit included all as well. FEMALE - How large are the parcel was your purchase on? MALE - The total parcel which is under contract is $1800 or $1900. FEMALE - This will not be very visual? MALE - Coming from Route 34 you will be able to look to the left to see the building unless we bury it. Ms. Hoffmann - Have you considered that? MALE - Well the Town Planner, Jonathan Kanter, had suggested that, but we are going to look at all the alternatives on the profiles. We will be doing some architectural rendering and visualizations on several phases. Addressocology, agricultural resources are probably not an issue at this point. Chapter three - Human. Resources, on public transportation services that will be mostly the issue during construction on how we are going to disturb traffic by coming up with alternative traffic plans. We will have to talk about what limiting traffic will actually use this during operations. Let's say there might be some semi -tractor trailer coming to deliver or some traffic engineering, so they will be some issues will need to address. I think operational traffic transportation will be pretty minimal, but during construction it could be some major disruptions for some people commuting patterns. Mr. Zarriello - Are you going to have any pumping stations? MALE - No, we are proposing to immigrate them into one building. It will be pumping to campus and back. Mr. Zarriello - Different set of pumps for pumping the lake water? MALE - Yes. FEMALE - What is the size of that building? MALE - Approximately 100 feet long, 30 feet tall, and 130 feet wide. 20,000 square feet. Basically one story which may have an upper level office. Ms. Cornish - The original proposal was to have the pump house on the opposite side of the road. MALE - One of the alternative studies was to put all the stuff on the shore line. Land use of the parcel will be when we cover existing land use and how this development may impact public access. FEMALE - What is your thinking for now for the 18 acres? MALE - This will take a small piece of that 18 acre zone. We will start with just a couple acres, but the pipe line will take some more. This project will have no impact on the use of the marina, except for putting the pipes through the north end. Cornell will buy the marina, so Cornell will be the owners. One thing we have talked about in the plans for lake action. There is a canal authority study that talks about the use of the lake. There is on multi agency study that is under way for lake access. We will be talking about the use of the parcel in relation to the plans the state canal authority suggests. I guess the short answer to what happens to this, we do not see why anything has to resolve this project. The fact that Cornell takes ownership could mean things will not change because we have no plans to change things right now. By doing this project we are not forcing any change in use of the property and we are not anticipating any, but it does not mean it will occur. I know at one point, the town was interested in buying this parcel for public access reasons, so this project here does not include future types of uses. We do anticipate becoming owners until June of 1996. Right now there are no plans for radical changes. This E zone is zoned by Ithaca which includes marina and commercial uses, but does not include zoning such as this utility plant, so zoning would need to be amended to allow this. There may be some updates allowed, as the City of Ithaca is interested in having us go through these creeks to allow them to update their utilities. FEMALE - What about the possibilities of it linking into the school? MALE - They have the same problem we do that their old sealers, as they also have air conditioning, will be obsolete, and we will be discussing that with them. Demographics, no real change in employment. Visual resources 3.5 will go into, we will look into alternatives, but we will hire an architect and will do preliminary designs for the purchase of DIS and site plan review. We will be looking at various views. Historological, we will do the New York State Stage A One Agricultural Resource Survey, and if necessary Stage B One Survey would be included. Chapter 4 on alternatives, no alternatives are described. We could build chillers up on campus, that is basically the option here. It will use a lot more electricity, for the reason this is an environmental benefit project, some of our East Shore will use a lot more electricity which will require a lot more fossil fuel combustion. We are saving 80% of the energy the chillers would take by doing this project. Alternative facility design, this is the one that we do not go into any details, so we will be talking about different profiles. Alternative outflow location, one will be from going 12 feet deep out a way from shore, and another will be to bring it out 100 feet deep, so it will give the return back to thermal climb so we are not transferring phosphorus. Turning the pipe line around, that will be just bore a hole all the way from campus down under everything to the rock. It would be a gigantic canal or tunnel, so we will look at that and probably mess with that maybe because that would be less destructive on the community as we go through, although it will not provide for some of these upgrades in the street. Alternative sizes, we will look at larger and smaller effects on both the environment and campus, and then reduce to the demand for chilled water on campus, how we could actually change our building use. There is a section here for irreversal interchoke mid resources about land. Basically parcel taken out of for further options, what the pipe lines do for that. We will talk about material energy and financial resources. Chapter 6 growth including aspects, and we will talk about how the campus may grow in demand for chilled water. I do not anticipate that will happen because chilled water is available in this manner. Effects on the use on conservation energy resources. This is pretty much the outline we have at this point. We have had two involved agency meetings where we have obtained verbal comments. We have had a public meeting where we had a sonographer to take comments from about 30 people from the members of the public. Mr. Kanter have given us some comments from the Town of Ithaca. We are going to be getting some written comments from the City of Ithaca. What we plan to do after April 9, when we get all the comments and the scope, we will propose the scope to the DEC, and they will then tell us what to do. We will send it out with description on how we responded to all the interested parties that have been on our disruption list. And then we go off and study the lake some more for the environmental impact statement. Ms. Hoffmann - Where is the intake for water for Bolton Point? It is probably outside the maps you have here. MALE - It is not as deep. They will be pretty near shore compared to Bolton Point. We will be about 1000 feet away. Ms. Hoffmann - I though about this when you talked about the alternative of letting the water out further up the lake, and there seems to be a problem with that especially if you use chemicals to maintain those pipes if you have the out flow near where intake is at Bolton Point. MALE - That is something we need to look into. Bolton Point is pretty far up. We will be modeling our out flow if there are any intermittent chemicals used. Mr. Zarriello - Bottom sediments, do you have earthquake potential? I assume you are going to over design for moderate earthquakes? MALE - The pipes will be sitting on the bottom of the lake. One of things we will be studying is how soft are the sediments at the bottom of the lake. We will try to make it neutrally buoyant. It may be weighted down by concrete collars so they will not float up. Mr. Zarriello - The pipe line route, particularly the exchange facility to the high school area, there is a greenway master plan. MALE - That would go into the land use service. MALE - The follow up on the pipe on the bottom, what is your thought of stabilizing it on the bottom from moving it around? MALE - We are trying to make it neutrally buoyant, but we are proposing to weigh the plastic pipes with concrete reinforced collars spaced on 50 foot intervals. It would depend on the specific areas it will go over, and that should settle into the sediment to some extent, and if we install enough of them it should be quite secure installation. MALE - No significant current? MALE - The current theory we have right now is that there is fairly weak currents in the lake, and probably deeper down even less so. We have the internal wave phenomenon to be concerned with that will require a little further investigation that can some forces to deal with, and that may be part of the reason we have some sub surface cliff area actual potential scowling effect with internal waves. We need to follow up on details about that. We need to make sure that any wave forces in the water itself would not be a problem as well as water hammering problems. MALE - In relation to the very slim chance of any earthquake effects or if they were any through other means, if some materials were dislodged and started an under water slide, what is the potential of that? MALE - We will need to look into that. We need to characterize our set for sediment for geotechnical engineering stability yet. MALE - You referred to the approval needed section for the Town of Ithaca site plan instead of build permitting, why is that? MALE - That is one of our first corrections. The build permit will be part of the site plan. The site plan review is necessary for the building permit. MR. Zarriello - On the closed loop pipe, you are going to cross at the Fall Creek and Lake Street Bridge, I imagine you have other crossing for your existing facility like Triphammer Bridge. Is there anything you do to assure there are not any leaks, or if there were any leaks how will it be contained? MALE - It is hard to know how much detail we need to put in. We need to look into that to determine what kind of leak and how we are going to contain it. We will be covering these issues in planning. Ms. Cornish - Are the pipes carried under the deck of the bridge? MALE - That is our current intent. That would be subject to design confirmation, but they will be tucked up under the steel graders under the bridge. Ms. Cornish - The structure of the bridge would be examined and increased if the weight of them is needed? MALE - Yes. Ms. Hoffmann - You had mentioned in front of the Planning Board, that there was another system like this one in Stockholm. Have you been able to use their experiences with materials and so on? MALE - We have a little bit. The Stockholm project will be looked into to see what some of their mistakes were and hopefully we could avoid some of them here. The only difference in Stockholm's project and the project we are proposing here is that Stockholm is using wood for their piping lines where we would be using steel pipes. We will be looking into this further. Ms. Cornish - There is a few things I would like to bring up to the Conservation Board. One is the Tompkins County Environmental Directory was put out by Tompkins County and the EMC, and it covers a wide variety of different groups, commissions, and committees in the county, and a lot of things through Cornell, but it is a handy resource. I think they are available at any county office with a fee of $3.00 each. Our secretary has requested, we are trying to get the Conservation Board minutes, background, and materials in some type of order, and she has put together this little cost estimate, and she wanted me to ask the board it she could spend $49.58 for various binders and indexes to help organize the Conservation Board. EVERYONE AGREED AT ONCE. Ms. Cornish - The other thing is, we actually have 12 sets of minutes in addition to the minutes you have before you tonight, and I wanted to have feed back from the board on how you want those presented. Some of you was not involved in the Conservation Board at the time of these minutes, and because of SARA, which the New York State Recordkeeping and Management, we have to have these minutes approved by the board by the law. So do you want a packet of these minutes to go over in your free time and we can set a dead line for approval? Mr. Zarriello - Sure. Ms. Hoffmann - Sure. Ms. Cornish - I picked up one of the New York Green Leaf brochures, and I have put into your packet tonight for your review. The other item I put into your packet is Celebrate Water Week, which cam in the mail from DEC, and I did not know if the Conservation Board wanted to take part in it, but it is in your packet for review. We have put out bids for out GIS hardware package and we are still investigating software, but it looks like we are going with the RQ with Data Automation Kit, and hopefully, we will have it up and running within the next couple months, so GIS should be able to input information. Mr. Zarriello - We got another section from Voluntary Fireman Association. Ms. Cornish - I just wanted to clarify that I went through this build application, it is actually the engineers jog, but I felt several discrepancies I went to visit the site, and there are some large discrepancies in elevations. I called the applicant, and he could not get me the corrected drawings until Monday, but since it is slated for the Planning Board on April 16, 1 wanted to give you the information for environmental review and I will give you the corrected information when I have it. Ms. Hoffmann - I would like to have a map of the county with all the names of the roads even the new ones. If any one knows where I could get one I would appreciate it. MALE - There is a map at Bora, they put out a booklet of the entire state which is detailed out. Ms. Cornish - It may be worth purchasing a booklet for each member. Mr. Zarriello - Cornell is also pursuing their Vet Tower incinerator. If they could incorporate this into their existing heat facility smoke stack opposed to building another smoke stack, if knowing they were going to push this issue, I would of incorporated it into the new building they built. That is where is stands since they have given themselves a negative declaration, so I guess they do not need to do anything as far as environmental impact goes. MS. Hoffmann - Is this the same project we reviewed a year ago? Didn't they at that time build a new incinerator because the one they had was not functioning as well as it could. Mr. Zarriello - Yes, and they have not done anything about that yet because this is part of this project to build a new incinerator and smoke stack. We really do not get an opportunity to say much more about it. I am not clear about the minutes, are we going to do all the minutes? Ms. Cornish - You have 3 sets of minutes, from various mailings that should be approved. One is from January 19, 1995, and the other two are from January and February of this year. Mr. Zarriello - So we want to do the January and February of this year first, then include the January 1995 in with the others that are backed up. Ms. Cornish - Yes. Mr. Zarriello - On the January 18 minutes, are there any comments? Ms. Hoffmann - No. FEMALE - This is a minor thing, I do not have a degree in climates as mentioned on the second paragraph, persons to be heard and quests. I do not want to be misrepresent. Ms. Cornish - Ok, so would you like to reword that? FEMALE - My degree is in Natural Resource Policy and Planning. Ms. Cornish - Correction noted. Mr. Zarriello - Any other corrections on January 18, 1996 minutes? Any one like to motion for approval of these? MALE - So moved. MALE - Seconded. Mr. Zarriello - On February 1, 1996 minutes, any comments? Ms. Hoffmann - There is a name missing on the last paragraph about who mentioned the Luba days? Ms. Cornish - Was it Richard Fischer? Mr. Zarriello - Yes, and he was going to get some follow up facts about that. I did gave you some fact about that in your pile. I have a few corrections under member concerns. On the first paragraph in the last sentence, I was a little uncomfortable the way it was stated, so changed this full fields proximity to the UNA maybe of concern as well as the potential of increasing soluble phosphorus levels in the surface of the lake. And then in the last paragraph of that page, engaging station was damaged. I do not recall saying anything about the sediment control fan failing, I do not think it was me. Cross off from "additionally" to the "cost of repairs". I do remember saying to the result of the damage. Say "the issue of Six Mile Creek as water supply as being studied by the City of Ithaca as result of sedimentation and other issues". FEMALE - I have question on Free disease, is that saying they are considering taken more water from Bolton Point residents? Mr. Zarriello - I guess on the extreme end of the spectrum, they are considering banning the city supply and just using Bolton Point as the supply, and then there is conformation between maintaining its current level of supply for the city and what it cost for the reservoir, so it is an issue being studied. Any other comments? Ms. Hoffmann - I move that we approve these minutes as changed. Mr. Zarriello - Seconded. MALE - One opposed fact of addition to the changes under the View Shed Committee Report, reference to usage for view shed survey form in that sentence is some what garbled. "The committee has meet twice and has been gathering written information as well as information of the Internet", I think that is one thought. "A View Shed survey form was included in the packet for the meeting." Mr. Zarriello - We will amend it for these changes. Committee reports: Ms. Hoffmann - The View Shed Committee, as I reported last time as what we are doing, I will not go over it again, but if any one has any comments, please feel free to comment on it. Favorite views, characteristics, and why, please pass along. Mr. Zarriello - The View Shed form suggestions, where are they going from here? Ms. Hoffmann - We are going to refine the form so we can start using it, but we wanted input from the Conservation Board. Mr. Zarriello - I would like to see the short form, maybe narrowing it down to short form process. Ms. Hoffmann - I think that would need to be done under a separate issue, but that is a good thing to do. Mr. Zarriello - Could be in short form as addressed, is there potential for good visual impact? Yes or No. Ms. Hoffmann - Yes, but this survey form is not intended to be used for the regular review process of the town. It is to be used to survey the important views of the town, so we can come up with some legislation to protect those fortunate views. Ms. Cornish - I think it maybe a spin off of that after this all said and done, if we could condense the form because then it would trigger the added layer of reviews which is probably a good idea. Ms. Hoffmann - The survey form we are coming up with now, I do not see it being used in the future as part of the process in getting applications, giving approvals, and so on. We might come up with another for that. Mr. Zarriello - I think some of the thoughts that are being carried through on this form could be incorporated into another shortened environmental form. At this point, at least trigger staff and others, to think about how that development or whatever is going to effect the visual aspects. MALE - We should put that on the next ERC work program for the next thing to do. Ms. Hoffmann - I do not think we can do that unless we have some legislation on the books that says as a town we are committed to preserving important views. Ms. Cornish - I think there is some legalities to that. We may have to go to the Town Board for approval, but I certainly think that as part of this whole process that would be a great end product for them. I may suggest that we keep it in mind as to along with the eventual end product may be in addition to our environmental assessment form. Ms. Hoffmann - It is true, in our long form, there is a question about environmental assessment form. MALE - I do not think it is inappropriate by any means, by adding something to that nature. Mr. Zarriello - This kind of goes hand in hand, and you have to address what views you want to preserve and look at the visual impact in a more comprehensive way. FEMALE - Are there been other views that have been already chosen? Ms. Hoffmann - No. FEMALE - Will the idea be to choose certain views, and then try to enact things regarding them, or are you talking on a broader scope, so you can pick the views at a later date? Ms. Hoffmann - Our idea was to do an inventory of the important views that already exist that most people know about, and as part of the inventory take photographs and slides of them, and look at legislation that other communities have, so we can come with a proposal for how one could add some laws to the books to protect them of the important views, and then we would make a presentation to the Town Board and other boards maybe on why it is important to protect these views, and hope that the town would adopt these legislation. FEMALE - What could be legislation that would be that encompassing for each view or would it have to be more specific, and therefore, do you have any views in mind? What other people are putting in their two -cents worth to say what views are important? Ms. Hoffmann - We are starting by asking this board, but I have to say we have done some work on this a number of years ago. A survey was done at that time and came up with these views that many people consider were special. We have a little information about this already, but it would be nice to get more input and have people, so we can pick out the ones that most people feel these views are the ones we want to save. The nice thing is if people write up why they like the views. FEMALE - People living in different parts of the town have different perspective on the views around the town. Ms. Hoffmann - That is right, but as we hear about all of them we can go around and see them. Ms. Cornish - The eventuality will be once these views have been given as a suggestion, that members of the View Shed Committee actually go out there with a camera and stand at a point and take and record the photograph and different information about the View Shed in which they are photographing. Ms. Hoffmann - When you use the survey form to record the information in a consistent way for all the different views, and we will take the photos with the same type of camera and lens, but in different seasons so we would have series of photos to show how the different views show. FEMALE - Are there any real public input? Ms. Hoffmann - Not at this point, but it would be nice to later. Shara wrote something up to put in the newspaper on their input. MALE - The thought was after we got the initial list, publicize that as a way to encouraging more thought and reaction to it, and depending on the reaction, it might carry into something it might be appropriate to have a forum of some sort like meeting. I think I heard you also ask what the idea what the plans for the whole thing would be. My sense would be a blanket, probably legislation perhaps one piece or separate relevant ordinances to specify that there are views that are to be protect against certainly actions, and those views listed on file probably just be named by the title in legislation with the record we are preparing with these forms that would reside in the permanent files, and would be the base line for which any change would be measured. It would certainly possible to add subsequently or delete depending on how things fill out. MALE - There are two items to review. One is, of course, is the view itself, and the other is what you call a view point. Isn't the view point that really is the most critical area to protect? Obviously, if there are no views there will be no views. MALE - Right. Ms. Hoffmann - How you place buildings and how you place trees even if they are very small, can make a hugh difference on the view. If you putting a building on flat ground and some land sloping away from it and build a house up toward the road, it is more likely to block the view than if you build it further down. I think for cases like that, if you could allow people to build closer to the lot line than they are normally allowed in order to save such a view. You can make little adjustments in the regulations to benefit everybody, and what I thinking of all in doing the studying is protecting the views from publicly assessable land, and that is mostly roads, parks and other public places like that. MALE - I could see basically having a view point at designated as such, like a view over the lake, overlook would be very useful. I am not sure a road should be served as a view point, so key points would be better. Ms. Hoffmann - I agree there should be key points, but I really think road stretches should be considered as view points. FEMALE - It comes to a point where you are protecting a view, mother nature ultimately will grow herself up, so your compromising if you save the view you may have to cut the trees ton continue to see it. Ms. Hoffmann - Right, and this is another thing which I think we could have encouraged if done more. One example I always give when I think of a view has been enhanced, Plantation Road at the stop sign to see over Beebe Lake, Cornell has created a little area with a stone wall facing Beebe Lake with some benches, and they have selectively cut up the under brush and small trees, some tree trunks are remaining through which you see the lake. MALE - That is not the view for people at the stop sign. That is for the benefit of people that are at the park. Ms. Hoffmann - Of course it is, but when you stop at the stop sign, if you go that way regularly you can stop and enjoy it every time you stop there, for a few seconds. You can see the changes during the seasons, and it is the tiny little pleasures in life that can up to a lot, I think. Mr. Zarriello - Let's go on to the environmental Review Report. Ms. Hoffmann - I do not have anything to report. Ms. Cornish - I would suggest, it is totally up to you, that you look over the information on the build permit I gave to you tonight, and if think you should meet on that, and you may feel you do not have to, but it certainly may be worth considering the media. Ms. Hoffmann - But in general for ERC review, if Mr. Zarriello gets information about projects, then it is he and staff get together and decide to see if it is worth ERC review, and then you send the papers on to us? Ms. Cornish - That's right, but I did not with this one only because of the time frame was so short, and if you did decide to review then you would at least have the information to review it. I hope the system is working where you get them, and then recommend whether it is worth ERC review. Mr. Zarriello - Yes, it is working. What are we going to do this year? FEMALE - I was just thinking of what the View Shed Committee is trying to do, and I have worked on very similar things my land trust list. The question you come to is how do go about doing this with legislation? Before you were commenting on the implementing growth, but I forgot to ask you then at the point the EcoVillage site plan was forced through. The Town Board, at that point, was saying that "well yes this is not the process we should be using, but we do not have any other process", and we promised we were going to make another process, but I have not heard of anything happening since then. I think if any of the individual goals that you brought up are actually implement the data is absolutely sensible to figure out. What frame work makes things go to which lists? It seems to me that I would like to see that on some level in part of plan action in coordination with others who might see this. I hate to see all this effort go into the View Shed. Ms. Hoffmann - Would you like to join the View Shed Committee. You would not be an official member, but as an advisor? MALE - Not at this time, but I feel passionately about that part in the effort of the views. Mr. Zarriello - There must be some financial sediment should be down, but they should down. The reason people suffer by it because people pay less property tax and people get money for honoring property tax system where it is more income based, and then they are penalized for subdivide and developing, and that is when they get hit with property taxes than before. The system is reversed from the way the system works now. This is an reasonable way to approaching this. If we build the town out by the way the town is zoned, is that the way we want to end up with? Ms. Cornish - That is right, but what I am saying that the process you can implement and enforce this would be through zoning, and that would be the tool you would use. May be it is going to take rewriting the zoning to sort of direct the piece of development not going to happen. Is that what you were saying? MALE - Well, I think there are certain things like that, and maybe that is where it comes out under where educating the people in town about what the board is all about, and talk about some of the relations. I agree with you about if zoning were built up. MALE - Do you have economic model in mind or something that is being currently used some place in the change in senate system. MALE - It is in legislation right now. Mr. Zarriello - Well, if there is some regulation to ease property tax burden by taking some school tax off, but it really is from different perspectives. It is from the perspective that property taxes are simply too high in many places, and it would help in terms that people would not be forced to sell property just to pay taxes or ease property tax, but my line of thought here was to reverse the whole process, so it is not a bad incentive to have property, but a disincentive to subdivide it. MALE - You are talking more large tracks of land? Mr. Zarriello - I am talking about even a half acre that is subdivided into two. MALE - I would not think that the motivation there is property taxes as much as it is a financial gain being able to sell. Mr. Zarriello - That is when you kick in the tax issue, the town or city, when they get tax revenue from that sale because it would disincentive to do that. The incentive to sell to relieve the property tax. Ms. Hoffmann - That depends on where it happens. If it happens along roads, like Trumansburg Road where there is bus services and other facilities that make it suitable area for people to live, and close into the city or where people work, then maybe it is not so bad if land is subdivided and people build to live, but is it happens way out where there is no water and sewer and people have to drive their cars long distances to get to work and so on, and then maybe that is areas where you do not want this to happen. One needs to make sure there is a system that encourages development where someone wants to live. Mr. Zarriello - I would not preclude zoning or some other planning issues, but I am approaching this from a financial perspective as well. Why are properties subdivided, and I hear often that it is because they need to ease the property tax. The way it is structured, we are encouraging that process of subdivision by the way property tax are done. Ms. Hoffmann - It is often farm land. Mr. Zarriello - Yes, it is farm land or other open spaces. FEMALE - Actually it is well designed conservation easement legislation tied in with tax relief from that. Mr. Zarriello - Has any one compassionate enough to come up with any thing to do this year? Ms. Hoffmann - One of the things, if we need to do it any more, is to do any additional work on how to protect the stream corridor as part of finishing off Six Mile Creek protection area. Mr. Zarriello - Six Mile Creek or beyond to include the Storm Water Management? Ms. Hoffmann - We need to do some additional work on that. I think that should be high on the list. MALE - I remember for voting for the Environmental Atlas and GIS as top priority. Mr. Zarriello - It looks like this year might be the year it might finally happen. A year ago or so, I put together a list of GIS coverages and attributes, and it was followed up by some work Geri Tierney did, and I am wondering if we need to revisit that? Ms. Cornish - I think that is a good idea. She has come to us, at staff, and have asked for some input, and so I gave her the input I have gotten from this board and taken back to Geri. I think that would probably be a great idea, and that would also get some direction for her. Mr. Zarriello - That might be high of many on the list for the atlas and the integration of the GIS into planning activities. MALE - Environmental Review Committee is certainly one we need to continue with. Keep that on the priority list. I would vote for priority for protect of Coy Glen Water Shed. FEMALE - Has anything happened to Coy Glen to protecting the water shed? Mr. Zarriello - There is a couple things. One was Babcock was going to give land to Cornell, 100 acre parcel that was all in the gorge of Coy Glen, but I am not sure where it stands. Ms. Hoffmann - It part of getting approval of his subdivision land. Ms. Cornish - But he did not have a specific subdivision in mind, and this was some kind of guarantee for future development. We have not heard back from him since the initial discussions. Ms. Hoffmann - This group did something even more major when it came to Coy Glen, and that is some of the members wrote up a hugh report about Coy Glen and how to protect it. I do not know what happened to that. Ms. Cornish - I think it came to the Conservation Board for editing and commenting, but then it stopped. Although Candace has mentioned it from time to time. FEMALE - It was mentioned in the article in the papers, about Candace won an award for an article on Coy Glen. Ms. Cornish - Yes, Candace did receive an award on that particular article about Coy Glen. FEMALE - A number of people who live in Coy Glen say they never heard of it. Ms. Cornish - Because it was never released for public comment. FEMALE - It caused a little stir actually. Ms. Hoffmann - I never heard of the comments that we provided and if it was incorporated. I think it would be nice to bring it back. Mr. Zarriello - The county master plan for environmental long range plans, a 29 page document. They have asked for comments, and that is another thing we need to address, and we should put on our activity list environmental long range plan. MALE - The need to comments on some of the counties or the need to duplicate it at a local level? Mr. Zarriello - Well I guess preliminary just to get comments back to the county on what we think of this and how this could be changed or approved. I have not read it myself, and we need to see how the Town of Ithaca fits in to the long range and how we see their plan fitting into our thoughts of how it should be in long range plan. Ms. Cornish - I will call the county to see where it stands with them, but it is probably good for this board to review, and to see how it could be implemented or changed to the town level. MALE - The View Shed Review Committee should be moved up the list. A number of these short term activities that are no longer appropriate, there are several which are worth while and keep on the list, but just leave them alone for the meantime. Mr. Zarriello - I agree that a lot of these activities is being overlapping other agencies or developing citizens on monitoring programs for streams, that is being done by the Cayuga nature center. The only thing I can see doing here is breaking up some of what we got into resolving unfinished business like Coy Glen and the parks and open spaces. Ms. Cornish - Yes, Candace had started it and reformatted it for us, and we got the first copy of it yesterday. It should not be long before this board will have it. Mr. Zarriello - The county's long range environmental plan, those are all just tying up loose ends here. The View Shed and Environmental Atlas are pretty big issue, and I think the Environmental Atlas is the starting point to all of these other issues. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: JONATHAN KANTER - DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FROM: TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD RE: PROPOSED SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT DATE: MARCH 11, 1996 In response to the to the most recent draft of the proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, (2/2/96) the Conservation Board has the following questions and comments: 1. Members of the Conservation Board continue to be in favor of the boundary alternative which places the proposed boundary 500 feet from the South Hill Recreation Way. 2. Members of the Conservation Board question why the northern boundary line excludes Commonland but does not exclude the lots on Penny Lane or the developed lots to the west of Burns Road where Burns Road intersects the proposed boundary. 3. SECTION 50E. The Conservation Board questions the rationale for requiring all accessory buildings other than garages to be confined to the rear yard. CB members feel that the side yard should be considered as a possible location for accessory buildings, lot size permitting, to prevent visibility of the buildings from the Recreationway. 4. SECTION 50J., 2. Members of the Conservation Board question the use of using watercourses carrying water six (6) months out of the year. The CB questions who makes this determination and suggests that specific principal perennial stream channels be indicated on the map and referred to in the local law. Additionally, the CB suggests that stream buffers, wetland buffers and flood boundary zones be indicated on the map. In general, members of the Conservation Board are pleased with the most recent draft of the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. Attached is a marked up copy of the 2/2/96 draft on which members of the Conservation Board have made a few suggested changes in wording. C©NSHRIM ON 0 0 ° M MMMMRS UD -E ` SS 11= (As of 3/96) Phillip Zarriello, Chair 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 272-8722 W * 266-0217 ext. 3014 F * 266-0521 Jonathan Meigs 235 Culver Road Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 273-6431 W * 274-6550 Eva Hoffmann 4 Sugarbush Lane Ithaca, New York H * 273-2389 Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair 104 Skyvue Road Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 272-0112 Richard Fischer 135 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 273-2077 Lois Levitan 766 Elm Street Extension 14850 Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 277-2790 Melinda Boyar 635 Sheffield Road Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 272-4473 (Pile Na— Starr\CBStuff\CBDietri.Lac) Loren Tauer 211 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 H * 277-4732 W * 255-4402 MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD February 1, 1996 Approved 00/00/00 Members Present: Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs Staff Present: JoAnn Cornish - Town of Ithaca Planner Guests: Melinda Boyar Report from Planning Staff: Cornish reported that the Town is canvassing the Civil Service List for a recording secretary who will handle the minutes for all the boards. To date no one has been hired. Cornish will continue to type up the minutes for the CB until someone is hired. Cornish requested the January 18, 1996 minutes which were included in the CB packets be approved at the February 1, 1996 meeting. Cornish also informed members that she had included in their packets, The Soil and Water Conservation District News for their information. Cornish pointed out an article on spreading manure (in reference to the Linna Dolph Horse Farm which was discussed at the January CB meeting). Member Concerns: Chairperson Zarriello informed the Board that Cornell University was ready to move ahead with the Lake Source Cooling Project and that the DEC was the likely candidate for Lead Agency. Public meetings are being held on this issue and there is likely to be another public meeting in about a month. Cornell is working on public relations. Phil feels that proximity to a UNA will be a concern as well as the increased phosphorous levels in the lake. Phil requested an updated roster for CB members to include all the current board members in the Town. Cornish agreed to supply the updates for the next meeting. In addition, Phil expressed concern over there being no closure on issues discussed at the CB meetings and on ERC reviews, i.e. Babcock and the proposed Six Mile Creek Conservation District. Jon Meigs suggested staff provide Board members with a list of actions and projects still unresolved and include the list in the CB mailing. The status of the Inlet Valley City/Town/County park was questioned. Cornish reported that, to her knowledge, other than the delinquent tax parcels being taken off the public auction block, no progress has been made. Cornish stated that she would keep the Board informed of any changes. Phil reported on a Six Mile Creek meeting he had attended with Larry Fabbroni, Katie White, and Jim Hanson, among others. The sediment and flow levels were up substantially and the gauging station was washed out during the recent flood. Additionally, there is a large amount of debris, many trees are down and the gate at the sediment control dam failed. As a result of the damage and subsequent cost of repairs, the issue of water supply from Six Mile Creek vs Bolton Point is being studied. Phil also questioned the practice of removing gravel from the creek bed, stating that it may be doing more harm than good. Repairs are being focused on bank stabilization, cleaning the silt out of the area above German Cross Road and cleaning the sedimentation out of the silt dam. 'S. f Feb 1, 1996 CB Minutes Page 2 Jon Meigs asked if there were any sites in the Town that are areas of concern as a result of the recent flooding. Should CB be looking at problem areas and making recommendations to the Town Highway Department concerning best practice mitigation measures. Elm Street Extension and Sand Bank Road were mentioned as examples. CB Membership: Phil told members that Lois Levitan, who is interested in becoming a member, could not attend the meeting but submitted a letter of intent and a resume. Melinda Boyar, another potential CB member was in attendance. Members were given time to review the resumes and letters of intent from both candidates. Melinda Boyar gave a brief description of her background and told the Board why she was interested in becoming a CB member. Eva Hoffmann made a motion to recommend acceptance of Melinda Boyar as a Conservation Board member, Richard Fischer seconded, all were in favor, none opposed. ' Richard Fischer made a motion to recommend acceptance of Lois Levitan as a Conservation Board member, Eva Hoffmann seconded, all were in favor, none opposed. Phil told the Board that Lois .had stated to him her interest in being the CB liaison to the Planning Committee. It was generally agreed upon to recommend. Lois as the PC representative from the CB. Phil agreed to take on the- responsibility of being.the Town representative to the Environmental Management Council until such time as it became too demanding or until another member expressed interest. View Shed Committee Report: Eva reported that the committee has met twice and has been gathering pertinent written information as well as information from the internet and a Viewshed Survey, Form which was included in the packet for the meeting. The purpose of including this is to get feedback from CB members on the survey. Eva requested comments at the March meeting. Eva also requested that CB members begin to identify their favorite views to assist in the inventory. Cheryl Smith will prepare public announcements for the local media. Eventually, after the views have been documented through maps and photos, the public will be invited to comment. December 1996 is the tentative deadline for the completion of the inventory. Eva requested members look for typical views which are representative of the character of the Town, and that capture the essence of the Town. Hopefully, this inventory will help to guide development. The origin point of the view should be accessible to the general public. Park set asides for specific views should be considered. Environmental Review Committee Report: The ERC comments submitted in the CB packets concerning Pleasant Grove Apartments were reviewed. No additional comments were made. (See ERC comments dated January 23, 1996.) } Feb 1, 1996 CB Minutes Page 3 With regards to the P & C Expansion project, Eva questioned the project going before the Planning Board for Preliminary Approval and suggested it go for sketch plan review first so that the Planning Board suggestions can be entered into the design. There is concern with the massiveness of the wall which will now be much closer to Judd Falls Road. Elevations have been requested. (See ERC Comments dated February 5, 1996). Again, due to the lateness of the hour, the 1996 Plan of Work discussion was delayed until the March meeting. Richard Fischer and Melinda Boyar requested copies of the 1995 Plan of Work. Other Business: Phil reminded the Board that the Environmental Long Range Plan document submitted to the Board by the County still needs CB comments. Richard Fischer and Melinda Boyar requested copies of this as well. ????????? mentioned that Bluebird License Plates are available through the state. Proceeds from the sale of these plates will go towards acquiring open space. The question was raised as to whether it was regional acquisition or state wide. ????? suggested we put an announcement concerning this in the Town Newsletter. Adjournment: 10:15 p.m. Water Week Activities Drinking Water Taste Contests Co-sponsored by DEC and the NYS Department of Health, county -level contests pit public water supplies against each other for citizens to determine which has the best tasting water. Winners compete at regional taste -offs during the summer, then regional winners compete for the state title during the State Fair at Syracuse in late August. Celebrate! Water Week is a great time to'take part in a stewardship activity to protect a local waterbody. During Water Week, DEC will sponsor tree plantings to shade streams and prevent soil erosion. For information about organizing a stream corridor protection project in your area, contact your county Water Quality Coordinating Committee. For more information about Water Week events, Water Stewardship or suggestions about where to find watershed - related information, contact DOW Public Participation Section, DEC. 50 Wolf Road. Albany NY 12233-3501. 'Jorw Wates„eds Celebrate Water Weel 969 # 1IwJad AN'Aueg1V altld a6eisod'S'n u01Jez1ue610;U0Jd-u0N o,� S,aie 4e J+ 1: May 5-111996 D4 �^ ■ccY��e E8EV-098V1 AN VOVH.LI IS V03N ZS 3 9 Z T a0F.l:jo1 UO'exM I„30 u o„ (8LtiTZ-) I II IIII 11 I III I I IIII I I I I 105E-EEZZ l AN 'Auegld AIML PeOH lloM 09 Jat8/N 10 uolslnla uol}LNBSUOO IE;u9wu0J1nu3 to luewpudaa aje;8 �iOA WN New York Watersheds Planning Tools ynr.�.;J\��. ' Lend a helping hand to New York's waters: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), with the help of other agencies and sponsoring organiza- tions, continues its multi-year Water Week campaign focusing on New York's watersheds. This year's Water Week theme. Watershed Planning Tools provides information about gathering and using data to diagnose problems and make decisions that will help New Yorkers develop action plans for their respective watersheds. How to get information packets: DEC will distribute information packets for Water Week in March 1996; the packets provide valuable information about watersheds, watershed plan- ning tools and stewardship that recipients can use all year-round. To provide materials only to the people who really want them. DEC will distribute information packets in the following ways: ♦ Pick up a packet at your regional DEC headquarters (in the state agency listing in your telephone book), or at one of the DEC Environmental Education Centers at Stony Kill, Delmar or Sherburne. • Your county Water Quality Coordinating Committee will also have packets to hand out; contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District office for information. ♦ As supplies last, you can also obtain packets by calling the DEC Division of Water Public Participation Section at (518) 485-8743. Request a watershed packet and leave your name and address. Or send the address panel of this flyer to Water Week, NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY 12233-3501. Packets will be batch mailed at the end of each week. View of Storm King from the Hudson (lower Take part in water stewardship: Many classes, businesses. Hudsr\n River drainage basin, mid -19th century) local governments and organizations are working in their communities to by Francis Augustus Silva. protect and improve our waters. Groups are making the commitment to our waters and demonstrating stewardship by taking part in activities such as planting trees to stabilize streambanks and shade waters, stenciling "Don't dump!" messages on storm drains, holding water aware- ness fairs, monitoring water quality, or cleaning up a beach. To be recognized for your group's stewardship activities, send a brief report about what you are doing to Water Stewardship, NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-3501. Your project may be at any time of the year, not just during Water Week. It can include work done under other programs, such as 4-H, River Watch or Save Our Streams. Be sure to include the name of your group, a contact person, mailing address and daytime phone. If possible, include press clippings and photographs that we can keep. In return, you will receive a certificate of recognition and a handsome poster depicting the lower Hudson Watershed. Posters are made possible by the contributions of many agencies and professional organizations. A small version of the poster is included in the watershed information packet. OVER FOR MORE.,.. E- HewYork Re.Lmf Presents New Opportunities for Enhancing Community Forests esus CO-SPONSORED BY: • NYS Department of Environmental Conservation • Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County • City of Ithaca. Department of Public Works - Streets and Facilities REGISTRATION: Prepaid - $8.00 with the return of the attached form (includes lunch and resource materials). At The Door - $10.00 DIRECTIONS: Rte 13 to Dey Street exit. First right on West Lincoln Street. One block to Cornell Cooperative Extension. Parking on Willow Ave side. 615 Willow Avenue; (607) 272-2292 o� zn cCN. ; n �g cuR rt o � y n o S. 0 z CD n O Cn o' ■ HewYork = ReLw- - - Presents iti pportun for Enhaa nci.ng . � Forests Thursday April 18, 1996 CORiNEL.L COOPER.aM-E EXTE\SIO\ OFTO�tP[.'INS Cou,vn, [TI-Laca, N� 615 WiL -ow ANTNUE (607) 2-72-2292 New ®pportunities for Community Forestry! Do you live near a state highway that has trees along it? If so, the NYSDOT Tree Maintenance by Contract program could benefit you. Learn about this new tree removal, pruning, and replacement program from D.O.T. landscape architects. Big Tree Searches are fascinating, fun, and educational The three that will be presented are -privately funded, community-based, and free to participate in. The combination of math and botany is great for students of all ages. Do you know of a cham- pion tree in your community? If you do not live in one of the three coun- ties in Region 7 with a Big Tree Search, learn how to start one! If you do live in one of these counties, find out how to become more involved. Ithaca Tree Works is an urban forestry partnership which includes Cornell University's Urban Horticul- ture Institute, New York State Elec- tric and Gas Company, and the City of Ithaca. It is an ongoing experiment to find better and more economical ways to plant trees along community streets. Various treatments of bare root trees will be explored. AM 8:30 Registration and Coffee/Tea 9:oo Welcome and Introductions Hon. Alan J. Cohen, Mayor, City of Ithaca Chad Covey, Regional Forester, NYSDEC Bruce Robinson, Volunteer Coordinator New York ReLeaf 9:30 1996 Tree Maintenance Program of the NYS Depart- ment of Transportation Doug Bartow and Mary Clements, Landscape Architects for the NYSDOT 10:30 Break 10:45 Big Tree Searches of Region 7 Oswego County - presented by Diann Jackson of the Rice Creek Field Station Onondaga County -presented by Don Robbins, City Forester, Syracuse and Michael Grimm, NYS Arborists Association Big Tree Searches of Region 7 Continued Tompkins County - presented by Duncan Hilchey, Farming Alternatives Program of Cornell University and Ruth Yarrow of the Cayuga Nature Center Noon Lunch - provided PM 1:00 Ithaca Tree Works Dr. Nina Bassuk, Director, Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University 1:45 Participate in Planting Bare Root Street Trees Coordinated by Andrew Hillman, City Forester, Ithaca 3:00 Wrap Up and Evaluation Preview of State Conference New York ReLeaf is a statewide program under the direction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservations Bureau of Forest Resource Management. Volunteer Coordination is provided by Bruce Robinson Consultants. Funding has been supplied through the U.S. Forest Services Urban and Community Forestry Program. Planning Committee Members: Amanda Barber • Nina Bassuk • John Clancy • Chad Covey • Marsha Guzewich • Sue Sisinni Jack Stevens • Pat Tobin • Barbara Vorlop For more information: Andy Hillman (607) 272-1718 • Chad Covey (607) 753-3095 • Peter Frank (518) 457-7370 • Bruce Robinson (716) 665-5477 REGISTR nim ❑ Yes, Please register me for the New York ReLeaf Workshop on April 18th. I am enclosing the $8 fee. Please make your check payable to: New York State Forest Practice Board ❑ Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the April 18th workshop. Please send more information on New York ReLeaf. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE/ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBERS: DAY ( ) EVENING ( ) Please send this Registration form in an envelope evith your payment to: Chad Covey, Regional Forester NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, NY 13045-1090 ROUTES WITHIN THE TOWN OF ITHACA SCALE■ Iwo 4000' BASE MAP OR4WN BY "-A. 0. REIVISEO: MARCH 14, 1996 R041TES.,0WG STATE ROUTE COUNTY ROUTE TO4YN ROAD ' C/TY ROAD ' CAYUG4 HEIGHTS ROAD J TOWN OF ITHACA H MAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner�j(/}t/1 �J RE: Conservation Board Meeting Ychedule DATE: April 1, 1996 Please be advised that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Conservation Board will NOT be held on Thursday, April 4, 1996. The next scheduled meeting will be on Thursday, May 2, 1996. Agenda to follow at a later date. As always, should you have any questions or require additional information, feel free to contact me at 273-1747. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 2, 1996 ..............................................................................................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. TOWN HALL BOARD_ ROOM 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607)273-1747 7:30 p.m. 7:35 p.m. 7:55 p.m. 8:15 p.m. 8:45 p.m. 9:30 p.m. CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Melinda Boyar AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard 2. Member Concerns 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 4. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 5. Business: a)Approval of Minutes (3/18/93, 9/30/93, 1/19/95, 2/2/95, 3/2/95, 11/16/95, 3/28/96 - enclosed) b) Other 6. Adjournment Chair Cheryl Smith, Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs Lois Levitan (Pile Name: Starr/Stuff/CSStuff/Notices/05-02-96.agd) Vice Chair TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996 Dear Resident: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at 7:35 P.M. on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on the following matter: Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by establishing the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, to be located generally between Coddington and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and Town of Danby and Town of Dryden boundaries; generally following the established R-30 Residence District boundaries and either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the right- of-way of the South Hill Recreationway and railroad grade, as shown on a map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96). The Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public. hearing. The Public Hearing will be held in the Town Board Meeting Room, the entrance of which is located on the west side of the Town Hall. Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: April 23, 1996 0 � 0 00 b � FIJI IS o' SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TOWN OF ITHACA 0 �.+ y,., s� r. (tom (. • �l i / ' iill� 4 . SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT VAMOVI • To preserve the outstanding natu- ral heritage of the Six Mile Creek Valley, including its ecologically important and diverse plant and wildlife habitats, high quality I aquatic environment, and scenic open spaces and panoramic views; • To protect the large expanses JW " Z of steep slopes, highly erodiblesoils, fragile slopes, and wetlands to safe- guard the City of Ithaca water supply; • To prevent the unnecessary destruction of contigu- ous woodland areas, large tracts of open space, and agricultural lands used by wildlife as biological corri- dors; • To provide a framework to minimize environmen- tal impacts from future development through the use of appropriate densities and design flexibility; and • To preserve the celebrated natural features and scenic beauty of this area to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca. WHAT This proposal will amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by establishing a new Conservation Dis- trict. The proposed district is currently zoned as R-30 Residence District, which allows one and two-family houses on lots of at least 30,000 square feet. (R-15 and The areas currently zoned R-30 within the Six Mile Creek Valley, between Coddington and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and Towns of Danby and Dryden boundaries. The southwestern boundary will be either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the South Hill Recreationway right-of-way. HOW By regulating the permitted uses and densities and by including specific development standards as follows: 1) USES: Most uses currently allowed in R-30 would bepermitted in this district with an emphasis placed on sound agricultural and forestry management. 2) DENSITY: The current R-30 District requires a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet, and depending on availability of public sewer, may result in lot sizes of between 1.5 and 2 acres, based upon approval by the County Department of Health. The proposed Conser- vation District would require a minimum lot size of 7 acres. 3) CLUSTERING: The Planning Board would be authorized to require clustering of residential units in the Conservation District (as is now authorized for all subdivisions in R-30, R-15 and MR Districts). For proposals on the southwest side of Six We Creek, the Planning Board would encourage clustering of resi- dential units between the former railroad grade and Coddington Road. iakc�� DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Buildings and other structures would not be al- lowed on: slopes 25 percent or greater, on or within 100 feet of wetlands, within 50 feet of the centerline of any watercourse carrying water six months out of theyear,orwithin 200 feet of the 100-YearFlood Boundary of Six We Creek and Reservoirs. Other guidelines for development include: • Preserving existing native vegetation whenever feasible; • Siting guidelines to preserve scenic vistas; • Encouraging open space linkages to preserve wildlife habitats and biological corridors; and • Preparing a stormwater managementplan when- ever appropriate. 5) PARK AND RECREATION SET -ASIDES AND FEES IN LIEU: Because of the reduced residential density in the Conservation District and the many existing recreational opportunities in the Six Mile Creek Valley, itis anticipated that, in most cases, there will be no need for mandated parkland reservations or fees in lieu thereof. Prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart- ment. If you have any questions, please callJonathan Kanter, Director of Plannning, at (607) 273-1747. APR -24-1996 15:35 TOMPKINS PLANNING/ITCTC 607 274 5578 P.01/01 James W. Hanson, Jr. Commissioner of Planning DEPAR;TMEAU—.OF PLANNING •�. iZP;.EastCoa,Ft,Street .' �> I•Ie+�g.xpr3c MEMORANDUM M. Municipal Board Members in Tompkins County Telephone (607) 2745560 FAX (607) 2745578 FROM: Rebecca Lubin; Circuit Rider Planner, Planning Federation Coordinator Tompkins County Department of Planning DATE: April 24,1996 RE: SEQRA Workshop Videos Available SEQRA REVISIONS: The New Amendments & Their Effects The workshops on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are available for loan from the Tompkins County Planning Department. The whole program runs approximately 4 hours and is available on two tapes. These workshops were videotaped on Wednesday, March and Thursday, March 21. Tape 1, is the March 20 session and includes introductory discussion of SEQRA and the new revisions. Speakers include David Church, Executive Director of the New York Planning Federation, Art Giacalone, Esq., and staff from the Department of Environmental Conservation. (Running time approximately 2 hours). Tape 2 contains two taped sessions from March 21. In Session I, Art Giacalone, Esq. presents and overview of the SEQRA process, including the key steps involved in administering and managing the SEQRA reviewprocess. (Running time approximately hour). Session 11 is a question and answer session from March 21. All of the workshop participants answer questions both previously submitted and taken from the floor about the SEQRA process and revisions. (Running time app-oximately I hour). The tapes are available from Tompkins County Planning Department, 121 East Court Suet, Ithaca, NY. For additional information please contact the Planning Department at 274-5560 t_, Recycled paper TOTAL P.01 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENEGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: TOWN OF ITHACA BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND STAFF FROM: BETTY F. POOLE, DEPUTY TOWN CLERK/ DATE: APRIL 24, 1996 RE: 1996 SPRING NEWSLETTER ITEMS I will soon be in the process of formulating the Town of IthacaaIs 1996 Spring Newsletter. I am anticipating May 20, 1996 as the mail out date. I would appreciate any items you may wish to have included in the Newsletter be provided to me no later than Friday, May 10, 1996. If you should have any questions please let me know. I appreciate your forthcoming assistance— s U MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD September 30, 1993 Approved 00/00/00 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Cheryl Smith, Dick Fischer, Phil Zarriello GUESTS: Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town Planner) ABSENT: John Whitcomb, Eva Hoffmann, Celia Bowers Candace opened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. 1. Report of the Chair: None 2. Environmental Aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: Candace stated that last week talked to David Klein and discussed the idea of the Environmental Atlas. If this is the pleasure of the board, no funding is available this year. Possible to squeeze it out of the planning staff budget if necessary but there really isn't a budget for it and Candace doesn't feel she wants to volunteer to do it on her time. She really feels that a consultant is necessary to put it on the GIS system. She feels it should be put off to next year and a budget request be submitted with an Environmental Consultant or "in-house" assistance. This is unless this year it appears to become a priority then the CAC can request funds from the Town Board. Phil stated he thinks there is a lot of overlap in the area with the county is doing to scouting to get GIS put together to provide information that you don't normally get which should give a good data base to work from. Dan said that the Town is participating in the mapping project by NYSEG and the county. As promised for months, there will be a digital base map (planimetric base map) for the town by the end of September 1993. It will include all roads, buildings, physical features that are discernable. Primary mapping scale of the Town of Ithaca, flight was flown to be able to map accurately of 1 to 200. County mapping is at 1:400 level of detail, City mapping that overlaps, somewhat, with the town is at 1:50. There will be a digital map with accurate representation of roads and primary buildings, most of the vegetation (i.e., trees), water courses. Phil asks if attributes are included. Dan confirmed. Mapping system is the intergraph produce, he put into the Town Engineering budget for 1994 a microstation which is integrative project. Town will transfer to AutoCADD, which is currently in-house and he has some expertise. The efficiency for the type of mapping needed is lacking because it isn't as accurate. The files get too large. AutoCADD does have database capabilities. File structure does not do well with large geographical areas. There are also problems translating to AutoCADD. The City has bought an interstation. It will be a common platform with NYSEG, City and the State DOT. Candace asked what the equipment was called. Dan said that microstation is the intergraphic system for most computers. Microstation is the software that will work on PCs. Phil said that intergraph is hardware dependent. Dan said that there will be digital mapping capability and the Town mapped digitally operable probably by July 1994. Operationally means debugged, etc. Dan said he was a little concerned about the counties interaction and capability. They are still using map graphics, which is a MacIntosh system. Nobody else is using it in the state. County Planning Department has a contract with the Assessment Department to do a digital tax map. This has been started. They wish to get the overlay onto the planimetric base map, which will be 90% of developing the map, then linkage from tax parcels for attributes. Tax parcel numbers, it was agreed, should be the lowest common denominator as the geographic connection points. Polygons will be linked to those numbers. Candace asked of the time frame which the system will be up and running. Dan said he will recommended to the Town Board that these project be done in-house. There is the capability, resources and the staff. If it isn't done in-house it won't be developed to is fullest -ability. September 30, 1993 Conservation Board Minutes Page 2 Dan said at the moment they are using a work-study program from Cornell and there is one student who is going through all the maps in the file and developing a Lotus database for the maps. This is going very well. He spoke to a lot of students regarding the GIS system and they have all expressed an interest in it. Dan stated he felt it would be about three years before the system is ready, considering one person is working on it. It is very labor intensive (manual labor). He came to this conclusion because the county started on its Watershed Mapping project about three years ago, and it is still being worked on. Phil stated the GIS system is very time consuming, he has used it for a job in Pittsburgh, and a lot of it is quality control and to be sure the information put in is accurately. Candace asked CAC members if they felt comfortable putting it off until next year. Dan wanted to add that the Environmental Atlas is going to take time but if the CB would like to put together a format, exactly what the CAC wanted to see in there, development of that could be done ASAP so that the staff who look at different hard and software can decide the format. Candace said there is a good list already. Phil moved to put off an Environmental Atlas until such a time that the Town is ready to provide digital information (expected in July 1994) unless there is an emergency, seconded by Dick, passed unanimously. Candace mentioned a form she had passed out regarding objectives. The one objective that received the most priority from the board was to minimize of adverse environmental impact resulting from development and an integrated system of Parks and Recreational Facilities throughout the Town, including undeveloped open spaces, with linkages between various parts of the system between pathways, such as pathways, streams corridors, trails and utilities right of way. These were the top priorities each receiving 4 votes. Candace read the other priorities of the board: Protection of natural resources, selected open space and environmental sensitive areas and unique natural areas (3 votes), fair distribution of cost and benefits of open space (3 votes); protection of water and air quality and to keep impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and drainage to a minimum (2 votes). This is without John, Celia and Eva's input. Candace stated that the last priority was about the actions in questionnaire #2, there were 3 votes for the first action which is support private sector efforts from significant environmental areas and coordinate these activities with the Towns Comprehensive Planning Program where applicable. Second was to'investigate mechanisms to protect environmentally sensitive areas as part of an amended zoning ordinance. Prepare an open space plan for the protection and preservation of the most important open spaces, compile and maintain an environmental atlas, and maintain a watershed plan, consider establishing and maintaining conservation usage programs, consider the critical environmental areas (2 votes). Consider the use of incentive zoning, consider applying for authority under Section 46A for the docks, boats, and moors. These are the priorities of the CB. Phil asked for Dan and Floyd how they viewed the Comprehensive Plan and how they were going to take it on in general. Floyd said that in the plan, Chapter 5, a list of priorities are provided. One of the items that is a priority is "investigate mechanisms to protect environmentally sensitive areas as part of an amendedzoning ordinance. " That will be worked on as the Town Planning Department works on a zoning ordinance. Part of the problem is at the end of the year Dan and Floyd develop a work -plan the Supervisor looks at and the Town Board approves it. They make the final decision about what needs to be worked on for the upcoming year. Recently they were given the task of working with Transportation Planning with the Public Works Committee. Other priorities including zoning ordinance. He needs to get ideas because if there isn't money available then it can't be done. This is all part of a work plan. The transportation plan involves all types of transportation, including automobiles, buses, bicycles routes, paths, stream corridors, etc. Floyd stated that he and Dan both sit on the Committee for the Planning Committee on the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization), and Shirley sits on the Policy Committee (who makes the decisions). They need to come up with a transportation plan for the whole metropolitan area. This includes the City of Ithaca, most of the Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing, New York State, and Tompkins County. This plan needs to be done by the end of next year. It needs to be presented to the public roughly around June. Dan and Floyd stated that all the priorities are interlinked and it is not a matter of starting one Ili September 30, 1993 Conservation Board Minutes Page 3 and finishing it and starting another. They are all connected in some way. As far as the environmental issues are concerned, when you are looking at environmentally sensitive areas, you should be producing the Environmental Atlas at the same time. Candace asked CAC members if it makes sense to ask the Town Planner what priority the fair distribution of cost and benefits of open space, which is one of the CACs priorities are, would be covered under. Phil stated that this may be something the Town Board might have to address. The Town Planners may have recommendations but it is a Planning Board issue. Dan said it would be part of the zoning ordinance. Candace mentioned that in Chapter 5 the Town has decided that the six priorities are: rezone, capital improvements program, transportation program, investigate mechanisms to protect environmentally sensitive areas, finish Cornell generic environmental impact statement, and come up with an official highway map. Mike Ocello is working on the highway map, we are currently doing the Cornell GIS, Dan will do the capital improvement program, everyone is working on the transportation program, and everyone will be working on the zoning issue because the Comprehensive Plan is done. What Candace was trying to say is that one of the issues of the CAC was protection of natural resources, open space, sensitive areas, and unique areas. As she understood it was considered a priority in the zoning section. Will it be addressed anywhere else? Phil said the question would be "what do you consider adverse environmental impact and are you going to allocate staff time to minimize that?" Dan stating that he could give examples: Zoning ordinance - if you are going to block out areas of environmental significance to prevent development you put an ordinance on it. Other than through the specific regulations to block out large areas minimizing the impact is all done in the CEGA Review of development projects of the Planning Board and the Town Board may be behind, i.e., infrastructure development. Candace said the reason the CAC needs to do this is to figure out where they wish to concentrated their efforts for the next year, i.e., water quality, storm water runoff, watersheds, etc. Phil stated that he found things such as erosion and sedimentation as an issue and he would like to see the watershed issue address and ironed out so there is some direction. Also, habitat fragmentation to preserve areas are becoming "piece-mealed" and are losing wildlife. He asked Floyd his opinion. Floyd said that this is an area where the CAC could be helpful. When the Town Planners do the zoning the CAC can have their input. Environmental Atlas - Dan stated that there is the technology to map it now but there isn't the field information. Candace asked then when the field work is done will it be done with the electronic GPS (Global Positioning System). Dan said that these things weren't available but the county was talking about obtaining one or two units. He stated the prices are dropping on these now (approx. $700). He stated that they take signals from satellites, coordinates that, processes it, and in a matter of minutes gives a grid point (latitude, longitude, elevation) within a meter. Dick asked how the biological information was put in. Dan explained that, for example, you were doing a whether map inventory and you were in a wetland area, you go to the center of the area and you get the coordinates. It involves field work and possibly consultants. Candace stated that the atlas really has to be done but, as discussed earlier, it isn't possible at this time but at least the CAC can get together a wish list together. Candace asked Cheryl what her top priority was and Cheryl stated that she hasn't seen a copy of the Comprehensive Plan. Cheryl wanted to know what good it would do to ask Floyd or Dan when it isn't their decision to make. Candace stated that if the CACs number one priority was protection environmentally sensitive areas and how the CAC was going to go about doing it and then ask Dan or Floyd how they had planned to do it, maybe it could be interfaced. Dan stated this was basically through the Zoning Board. This basically says how land is to be developed, how much open space is going to be undeveloped land. Dick asked if the Comprehensive Plan was pass. It was passed on September 21st. He asked of the various boards in the Town, which board will get the first injunction to do this. Dan stated the Planning Board. Floyd stated that the GEIS has got to get done. Dan is working on the capital improvement plan (Town Hall facilities, water and sewer utilities, roads, parks). Phil asked when ideas were put together and submitted for the next year. Floyd stated they should be submitted to the November board meeting and a decision usually by December. Budgets are submitted in August. Candace said that as far as environmental issues are concerned, they need to be addressed under zoning and subdivision. What specific ways would these be dealt with? Drainage ordinance, wetland ordinance? Are these considered under the zoning ordinance. Floyd said no. It would be under Local Laws, i.e. i September 30, 1993 Conservation Board Minutes Page 4 road specification (state, town and county). The problems with sedimentation are mainly from the streams. Candace said that on page 2 of the questionnaire of priorities for action was "investigate mechanism to protect environmentally sensitive areas as an amended zoning ordinance." How is this going to be done in a zoning ordinance (wetlands, slopes, soil, mature forests). Floyd stated they he doesn't know what is going to be done yet. Candace wanted to know what the Conservation Board can do to get some action. Floyd said the more information that they have the easier it would be to get the Environmental Atlas going. Everything is going to help. Cheryl brought up the problem with flooding at her house on Pine Tree Road. When development begins on Peregrine Hill the situation will be worse. The water is a problem with a heavy rain or a snow melt as it is. Floyd suggested that when they have a public meeting on Peregrine Hill she ask that question. Dan said that storm water management is a problem they have had. Any subdivision that is requiring a road to be built, there is a storm water retention ordinance. What they don't have is a Comprehensive Watershed Analysis to identify the problem areas. Dan stated that the ordinance they have now have to be rewritten, its too specific. It tries to put all the design details into the ordinance which he feels is inappropriate. It needs to be rewritten, and that is one of his tasks, to put the intent and the design criteria from a standpoint of frequency of floods, etc. Candace said that the CB can help with the storm water management and also the wetlands issue. Candace brought up the stream corridor issue and where that would fit in and Floyd stated it would be under the Zoning ordinance because it cannot be done stream by stream. Cheryl asked about air quality, and people burning trash in their yards. Is this a zoning issue? Dan said it was a State ordinance but the State doesn't have the resources to enforce it. Phil had a list of actions the CAC was interested in and wanted to share: 1) review and redraft the storm water management plan; 2) start gathering information for the GIS system, i.e., existing wetland data; 3) habitat fragmentation, what are critical areas and sizes (Dick may be interested in this in as far as bird life is concerned); 4) regulations Candace closed this session by asking about the GIS training. Dan stated that it was at the Sheraton on Monday and Tuesday and cost to the public is approximately $55.00. Dan gave a copy of the schedule to Candace. 3. Persons to be heard: Candace stated that Cheryl is participating in the trash -lite program of the county and asked her to tell everyone about it. Cheryl stated that she really doesn't know too much about it. She was at P&C at Judd Falls on two different mornings and only one person spoke to her. It is set up in P&C near the salad bar and it informs the public on how to cut down on trash. She went through a training session and found it quite useful. Education is the key. 4. Member Concerns: Candace asked the CAC members what direction they wanted to head in on the above subject. Phil stated that they shouldn't get too involved until after November. Next CAC Meeting: Candace will call. Meeting Adiourned Drafted by Karen Moore. 4- MINUTES�� TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, March 18, 1993 Approved 00/00/00 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Celia Bowers, John Whitcomb, Phil Zarriello GUESTS: Floyd Forman (Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), Bruce Brittain ABSENT: Dick Fischer, Eva Hoffmann Candace opened the meeting at 7:17 p.m. REPORT OF THE CHAIR ERC Review Protocol a. The CB ' Chair will receive all applications within five days of the Engineering, Building and Planning Department's receipt. b. The Chair of the CB will determine if it should be given to the ERC. The ERC then decides the appropriate action for review. C. If so, there will be 15 days for review. Conference Notices a. The Planning Board set up three public informational meetings: the Northeast Meeting, Tuesday, March 9th; Ellis Hollow Community; NCR on South Hill, March 23rd; Westhill Meeting at the Hospital, April 6th at 7:30 p.m. . b. Planning Board EPOD Meeting: The entire meeting was dedicated to public speakers. Jim Hilker proposed to replace additional legislation, such as the EPOD or the Comprehensive Plan with education. He developed a proposal and has sent it via mail to Candace. C. Earth Day: CAC was interested in any Earth Day activity (April 22nd). Dick Teller from the Cayuga Nature Center is coordinating media event. Candace will be writing articles to Ithaca Journal. d. Phil agreed to distribute lead paint brochure. MEMBERS CONCERN a. John expressed the need to increase CAC membership. b. Phil reported on the Water Quality Strategy Southern Cayuga Lake Task Committee. In a couple months there should be a good deal of information regarding water issues, including Cayuga Lake basin, spreadsheets, etc. showing what information is available and who has it for future reference. C. Dan reported on NYSEG GIS map project. -W - WETLAND POLICIES: Candace stated there was another copy of the wetland policy that has more detail. Candace stated that as of 1992 California lost 91% of its remaining wetlands. Phil stated that the document wasn't really a policy, it basically described the mechanisms needed. He suggested stating something regarding no net loss of wetlands. John continued to say that if that was the case, the next step would be to describe what a wetland was. Celia also suggested that the CAC needs to identify where the wetlands are in the Town before writing a policy. John concurred stating that it is important to know what it is that is had before trying to protect it. Candace stated that for now the CAC should work with what is written, considering that the mechanisms for the policy, and come up with the policy later. In order to get information regarding existing wetlands, permission from property owners will need to be obtained. This will take time. Candace stated that the policy should be devised first, and then locating existing wetlands will follow. ` John questioned what would happen when someone walked into Town Hall with an application. Candace stated that, on page 2, there is a section regarding this. The first thing is to inform prospective land buyers that there may be wetlands that they are getting into. The second thing is to inform people who already own the land, who have subdivision approval going in, they need to be informed. The third thing is the people who have owned the land for a while and decide to develop it further. How is this information going to get to these people? If this information isn't available, the land owners can experience financial disaster. Candace continued that in the document the following mechanisms were described: 1)Some protective wetlands and other sensitive features already exist in the Town subdivision approval process and SEQR regulations. However, Town officials must be responsive to environmental issues to assure that they are adequately addressed during the application process; 2) The staff personnel, members of the lead agency, or members of the CAC knowledgeable in wetland hydrology, hydrophic vegetation, hydric soils, must make early visits to the site under consideration to verify the accuracy and completeness of the application. The CAC has to come up with a way to inform local engineers, surveyors, bank appraisers, and attorneys that the Town Environmental Review process will carefully scrutinize applications through the Planning and Engineering Departments for accuracy. There needs to be a way for them to inform their clients. Floyd continued to state that a wetland needs to be described. If a person has a 5' x 5' wet spot in their field that never dries up it could be considered a "wetland." The word wetland needs to have a specific definition. Candace continued to state that the document has five steps, the first four steps are things that can be implemented instantly. The fifth step calls for a wetland ordinance and in the ordinance the wetlands are classified in the Town. Dan stated that there should be standards that people visiting the site can judge the wetland. If it is a low level wetland then they can say no problem. If it is valuable wetland, then it can go from there. Candace stated that the DEC has over 450 different classifications of wetlands. These do not all apply to the Town of Ithaca. The Town of Ithaca has approximately 4 categories with subsets, for a total of maybe 8 classifications. So, from these 8 categories, a determination could be made as to importance. Floyd brought up the problem of staff time. This will be very time consuming. How much time will be spent on this. Candace stated that what is needed is someone who is knowledgeable enough to go out and look at the wetland and make a determination. Candace continued: Before site plan or subdivision permit is granted, the applicant should supply the building inspector, Planning Department and Town Engineer with proof of wetlands that are not going to be impacted and if they are going to be impacted, the applicant will have to go for permits. This will be up to the developer. He will have to check to be sure that wetlands are not be impacted. If they feel there is a possibility they will need to contact the Army Corp., talk to them and they will either say it is okay, over the phone, send a letter or they will ask you to apply for a blanket permit. 3) The applicant must demonstrate a reasonable attempt to design site plan or subdivision provisions to avoid the wetland or integrate it into the wetland. To facilitate these procedures it is necessary for the Town Building Inspector or key planning or engineering personnel to be trained in the basics of wetland identification. Dan stated that a sentence should be added to paragraph two stating that if a Town officials feel the wetland will be impacted due to development the applicant should be informed to contact certain agencies (DEC, Army Corp.). Before any site plan or subdivision or building permit is granted, the applicant will supply the building inspector with proof that the wetland is not being impacted. Candace said that the document will be typed again, under the headline of Guidelines, and the comments and suggestions made will be incorporated. A copy will be sent to George, Floyd and Dan. A vote was taken to accept the document with editorial changes, and to forward to the Ithaca Town Board for Review, seconded by Phil Zarriello. The MOTION was passed unanimously. 5. Forest Home Drive: Presentation by Bruce Brittain of the Forest Home Drive Improvement Association, discussed the New York State Scenic Road Program. The NYS Scenic Road program is a voluntary program sponsored by the NYSDEC and the Dept. Transportation. The goal is to preserve and enhance beauty along NY roads. The State provides guidelines for maintenance. It is cooperation of homeowners, Town, and State. Bruce is looking for a recommendation from the Town Board to make Forest Home Drive, in the Town of Ithaca, a scenic road. John asked what the advantages would be to the Town and the residents. Bruce stated residents would try to keep it attractive and help build pride. The CB can made a recommendation but the Town Board makes the ultimate decision. The one lane bridge in Forest Home is going to be reconstructed so designation should be soon as it will effect bridge design. John proposed a resolution: Whereas the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to Article 49 of the Environmental Conservation Law, is empowered to designate scenic highways in the state and Whereas, the public highway known as Forest Home Drive within the Town of Ithaca extending from the City of Ithaca to the Town of Dryden exhibits exceptional scenic quality and passes through an area of significant regional importance, and Whereas, a study has been undertaken by the Forest Home Improvement Association which assesses the scenic quality of and documents the cultural, historic, ande�rphic features of said highway corridor. Now Therefore. Be it Resolved that the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council hereby recommends that the Town oflthaca Town Board support the nomination of the portion o Forest Home Drive which lies within the Town of Ithaca as a scenic road in the NYDEC Scenic Roads Program. Seconded by Phil. Pass unanimously. 4. Meeting Adjourned: No time given. O MINUTES TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD Thursday, January 19, 1995 Approved 00/00/96 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, 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. A light 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 500 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. 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. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M. Thursday, February 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. 7:35 p.m. 2. 7:45 p.m. 3. 7:55 p.m. 4. 8:10 P.M. 5. 8:30 p.m. 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 -Wa1Mart DEIS -Earthday Activities -Others Member Concerns Jon Meigs Mary Russell Cheryl Smith Phil Zarriello WORKING COPY TOWN OF ITHACA WORKING COPY CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 1995 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 II; Rich Schoch, Parks Department; Fred Noteboom, Highway Department; Bill Hilker, Burns Road, Ithaca; George Frantz. Mary Russell opened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard: Mr. Noteboom - I hope to be coming to a few more Conservation Board Meetings because I feel there should be more communication between the Highway Department and the Conservation Board. I think we should be working together and really view our right-of-way along highways as open spaces. What can we be doing differently with them? How can we be handling them? Hopefully we can get ideas and some direction. I do not feel a highway has to totally cut down the landscape. We need highways and we are trying to do the best we can with them. Chair Hawkes - I think it is helpful when our Environmental Review Committee will ask developers for storm water runoff plans, road cut plans, and all the other engineering plans since we do not have the capacity or the capability to really judge 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 this, and we feel there must be a way to maintain our right-of-way to be more practical and cost efficient. We really do not have the answers and we also feel that if we get more dialogue we will have some answers. Mr. Zarriello - What is the right-of-way along a town road? Mr. Noteboom - All new right-of-way are sixty feet, and the old ones 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. Chair Hawkes - Mr. Noteboom, could we put you on the next agenda to give an overview of the Highway Department concerns? Mr. Noteboom - Yes. Mr. Zarriello - Could you present some of your ideas on problem areas E CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 MARCH 2, 1995 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 - At the January 5, 1995 meeting, Mary Russell was nominated as Vice Chair. We need to vote on this. A vote on the nomination for Mary Russell for Vice Chair was as follows: Chair Hawkes - aye; Mr. Zarriello - aye; Ms. Smith - aye; Ms. Russell - aye. Chair Hawkes - We went to the Farming for the Future Conference in Syracuse. It was a very informative conference. Greg Watson who is Regional Director of Nature Conservationists, spoke on land use, quality of water, and other issues. There is a Greenway meeting on March 25. Wet Land Forum is sponsoring a meeting on the March 6 and 7. The Environmental Management Council asked us for two volunteers from the board to help them with Unique Natural Area Report. 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 a survey. Our New York State Association of Conservation Commissions had their board of directors meeting they sent a plea and a sample letter to George Pataki, Governor, to keep the Local Environmental Assistance Program. We may want to send a letter in support of this. Ms. Cornish - I checked our records to see how much we have received from LEAP Reimbursement and it seems to be on an average of $1300 to $1500 a year. That is a substantial amount for this board. 3. Committee Reports: Ms. Smith - Since our last meeting the Environmental Review Committee met to discuss Wal-Mart and comments that were going yo be submitted from the Town to the City of Ithaca Planning Board. 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 or CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 MARCH 2, 1995 for retail stores they could drop their parking by about 400 spaces which converts to 1.8 acres. MALE - You mentioned that the Wal-Mart site was adjacent to a 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, some privately owned, and one parcel has been marked for a park for some time now. The Planning Board did review the letter and there were 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 to the City. I have another issue for Coy Glen Area about a septic 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 this for the future. The fact that 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 do 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 given a building permit, and it was based on the fact that they were only going for a height variance, so if in fact they built that foundation, and for some odd reason, the Zoning Board decided not to give the height variance, they could always modify their plans. That was how it was done. It goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals next week. 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 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 Cloy 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 is going to go into Coy Glen. Mr. Noteboom - I am not sure if this is an appropriate time to bring q% CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 this up or not, but being it is Coy Glen, slipping into the gorge there, and sometime address that. We have to go in there and see do. Once we look at the area, we will bring you for further discussion. MARCH 2, 1995 Elm Street Extension is we are going to have to exactly what we need to the information back to Chair Hawkes - That is an area we have been particularly interested in. We initially talked to some of 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, and it does not have a trail where most of our bigger gorges are part of the state park system and have trails. Coy Glen is one area we have targeted and we are working with the Finger Lakes Land Trust to try and protect it and to get some conservation easements. We were hoping critical environmental area designation would protect it somewhat, but obviously it does not. Mr. Zarriello - The Environmental Atlas and GIS Committee have discussed a needs assessment for the GIS system. 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 of 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 and who was an active farmer, was very concerned about farm practices and maintaining farms in this area, so she Chaired 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 Chairing that committee. There was some concern because she is not a member of the Conservation Board. Loren Tauer is filling the vacancy, but now that Candace Cornell has resigned, we may have another 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. PIF CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 MARCH 2, 1995 Chair Hawkes - Very consistent with the conference we went to on 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 and 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 a 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 in on the Conservation Board meeting? Mr. Zarriello - I suggest we nominate her if sh-e 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 be 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. A vote on the motion was as followed: Chair Hawkes - aye; Mr. Zarriello - aye; Ms. Russell - aye; Ms. Smith - aye. Nays - none. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 MARCH 2, 1995 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 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 she had suggested she be an associate member. 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 written 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 speak together at more than just 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 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 Earth Day activities and there is a dead line, I would like to discuss it more. We will more at the April meeting. Part of the Environmental Review, at 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 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 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 MARCH 2, 1995 on the EcoVillage land not the First Residence Group land, will be preserved and there will not be a 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 of 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 Earth Day, 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 croase to run a stroller down it or for 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 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 timed in such a way 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. Mr. Frantz - I like the idea of an open house or open trail, and maybe some type of clean up on the lower trail. I am surprised how much use the recreation way gets, especially at the western end. When we designed the turf grass surface, I envisioned a little 1 or 2 foot wide bare path down through' the middle of it, but what has evolved are two separate and distinct tracks. 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. Chair Hawkes - That same week we have also been invited, although we CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 MARCH 2, 1995 do not have any kind of exhibit to participate with on Saturday's at the Art's Squad, it is something to think about. Ms. Smith - I think we might be short of persons to do both things. Chair Hawkes - Right, I agree. If we have some information, we could just put it on the Environmental Management Council's table which is the overall body that represents us. 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 would only require publicity and actually showing up on that day. MALE - Have you notices any area to be cleaned up? 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 be 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 is there would be a problem controlling the species that are growing there. Ms. Smith - Then who would supply the flowers? Mr. Schoch - The Parks 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 o -f? Mr. Frantz - Most of the planting, I think is seeding. There are some bare spots on a couple trails. Sprinkling grass seed or wildflowers seeds. Chair Hawkes - Are there any interesting plantings at the entry way? Mr. Frantz - We did include plantings at the entry ways, but there are 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 could incorporate it if a person wants to plant some thing on the trail since you are asking people to come and be on the trail. 4. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 MARCH 2, 1995 Chair Hawkes - If you want to involve the public you can have a spring wildflower walk or something where you identify and look, but not touch. 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? Mr. Frantz - Some of them are. Chair Hawkes - Maybe we can make one special event, like have 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 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 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 Stearns and Wheler 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 members, that you ever remember? Mr. Zarriello - No, I think that nine is the limit. K_ CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 Chair Hawkes - What is your thinking? MARCH 2, 1995 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 would be here. Jonathan Kanter usually is here, but the office is swamped with Wal-Mart plans, Jon Meigs is also on tour 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, an we can not change that but we can have as many associate members as we want. Ms. Cornish - I can look into that, 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 of recycling, what is the status of that? Ms. Cornish - The newsletter article is due on Tuesday. I told Betty Poole I would have the re -use event article to her. Mr. Kanter is concerned with the Scenic View Photo Contest. He would like to have the Conservation Board discuss it more and come up with a more specific plan and a more specific focus for it. Mr. Zarriello - An idea was to maintain a photo journal album os 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 a view protection ordinance 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. No other concerns, so on April agenda meeting, Fred Noteboom will be joining us. We will be having two new members. Richard Schoch will present a slide show on the Parks Department. Chair Hawkes adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 1. 2. 3. WORKING COP` TOWN OF ITHACA WORKING COPY CONSERVATION BOARD NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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, 620 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. 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 4. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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 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. 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 to pay for it, some bonding issues, and we really do expect to have a draft for review soon. 5. Business: CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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 yet. 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 EAE Addendum from the SEAR, 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. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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. 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. F CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 Mr. Meigs - Too far out. It is not where other businesses are. 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 N. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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. 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 Iq Y CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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 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. .Q CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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 other people do. 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. I - CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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. 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 minute 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 6. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 NOVEMBER 16, 1995 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. 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 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.. b2dm� L: q11 qlf(, - hi, - TOWN OF ITHACA DRAFT DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES MARCH 28, 1996 PRESENT: Phillip Zarriello, Chair; Melinda Boyar, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Loren Tauer, Jonathan Meigs, JoAnn Cornish, Planner Staff Support. ABSENT: Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair; Richard Fischer. GUESTS: Bob Bland, University Environmental Engineering; Rob McCabe, Project Engineer. Called to order at 7:40 p.m. 1. Persons To Be Heard: Mr. Zarriello - If there are some environmental books and catalogs that catch your interests, just mark it down and we can put it down for the budget. Let's try to bring some closure to some of the subjects- that have been before us. Six Mile Creek Conservation District was forwarded from the Town Board to the Planning Board, and now that is where it sits. Ms. Cornish - There will be a public hearing in May. There is quite an extensive mailing list of 150 to 200 people. The public will be invited to comment. Mr. Zarriello - Pleasant Grove Apartments proposed by Cornell, to use part of the apartments for a maintenance facility. The Planning Board has approved it with our recommendations: not doing any work outside the building, no outside storage, and a few other minor details for the parking area. P&C, the one we discussed with the big wall going down Judd Falls Road is going back to the Planning Board. Ms. Cornish - There is wording in the resolution that is proposed, so there will be discussion at the meeting on Tuesday on the appearance of the wall. Mr. Zarriello - Does the Planning Board have the option to say no if they do not cooperate with those things? Ms. Hoffmann - I think what we can do is ask them if they would consider to do it differently. In a way that it would be more attractive and more suitable for the size. I do not think they need this addition any higher because it is just one story inside. Why do they need higher ceilings in this room, just because it is a supermarket. It is just a recommendation to them if they are willing to change. Mr. Zarriello - College Circle Apartments, 50-70 acre subdivision. A part was built, now they want to subdivide the undeveloped part. That is essentially going through as they requested it. For 4k a CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT financial reasons they are subdividing the developed part from the undeveloped part. Buttermilk Valley where is that at this point? Ms. Cornish - Right now, the DEIS was deemed complete. We had a public hearing earlier this month. Public comment period ends tomorrow, March 29. Mr. Zarriello - That was a significant development up on South Hill, a 70 acre subdivision. Ms. Cornish - Latourelle is part of this subdivision. The wetland and the pond is one lot. Then there are 68 additional lots and an 18 acre parcel to be deeded to Buttermilk Falls State Park and an one acre parcel for a neighborhood park which will be owned by the town. Mr. Zarriello - The reason why it received a Positive Declaration is that they are having problems with the sewer overflowing in the City. Ms. Cornish - The Route 96 improvements and the new trunk line that is being installed as part of those improvements, and the improvements that the Town has already made and current negotiations between the City and the Town for future improvements, have all been taken into consideration and certainly we can not expect one developer to solve that entire problem. Mr. Zarriello - The Hirshfeld subdivision is not even an acre to start with, and it is being revised to a R-15 zone. It is going to be piece meal development. If any one has any ideas on this subject, I would be glad to hear them. FEMALE - This is the parcel that already has a home on it? Mr. Zarriello - Yes. 2. Ongoing: Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project: Mr. Bland - We are in front of the Town's Conservation Board for several reasons. For one, the Town of Ithaca is an involved agency in the project. Town Planning Board needs to grant site plan approval, and the Town Board will be involved in the Zoning approval. There are a number of other involved agencies including the City of Ithaca for a street permit, recreational river permit, the DEC, New York State Department of Transportation, and Army Corps of Engineers are all involved agencies, and we have established a number of other interested parties in this project. There has been some press about this and I think everyone has gotten a newsletter about this with our proposed scope. To summarize where we are at, we applied for an Environmental Assessment form back in January and a draft for permits. DEC has coordinated themselves as lead agency, so they are the official lead agency for the project which simply means they coordinate between all the other involved agencies in their review CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT process. It does not take any power away from the other involved agencies, so it allows us to write only one environmental impact statement. Involved agencies that are involved in that process write their own findings at the end of the environmental impact statement on how they interpret the DEIS and what that means for their permit issuance. We have gotten the procedural process off the ground. We have established lead agencies, and we are closing in on the scoping period. We actually offered and committed to do an environmental impact statement prior to the declaration where one is actually needed. We anticipated one should be required for such a project, so we have initiated the scoping process, and the DEC has a lead on it. They will close the public comment period on April 9, after having 2 meetings with involved agencies and one public meeting. We then anticipate that we will take 6 months or so to write the environmental impact statement, and submit it for a completeness review in the fall after having to go through a review by our independent scientist at Cornell. Some time in 1997, if all goes well, we will issue a find after public comment, environmental impact statement, and then go into the permanent process. I will briefly go through the scope with you. Chapter one is the proposed project, to replace chillers on campus with natural cold water from the bottom of Cayuga Lake. The systems now that goes to chillers will go to a heat exchange facility on the shores of Cayuga Lake. Where the heat is projected through a non -contact cooling water flow, where the water is taken from the bottom of the lake, 200 feet down in the lake where it is 40 degrees F, circulate through these exchanges, and return to the lake at 55 degrees F year round. This process will b'e seasonal, mostly following the cooling demand at campus, so it will be a high flow during the summer and a low flow during the winter. We will talk about the location of the heat exchange facility on the east side of East Shore Drive, Route 34, on the parcel that is Noah's Boat Yard which we have a purchase option on. The intake pipe will be approximately 10,000 feet to the north toward the middle of Cayuga Lake where it must be deep, running 4 or 5 foot pipe to the facility, non -contact with the chilled water, and discharged in about 12 feet of water. The pipes will run along Route 13's right of way, back behind houses in Cayuga Heights Waste Water Treatment Plant, Lowery Construction building and behind some more houses. Then on to an underpass of Route 13 into school district property along side of the road, possibly along the road in the service station, to Fall Creek under the bridge, up to Lake Street to campus, and then up through the ARTS squad. This will all be buried pipe, supply and return. None of these detailed designs have been available yet because we have not done final design engineering for the building, but part of the environmental impact statement is to do all the engineering to flush out the details that are necessary to write the environmental impact statement. Mr. Meigs - I am curious why the exchange units are not further up the lake? IL CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Bland - There are several reasons, one would be availability of the land, this land was for sale. Two would be the terrain. As you go up the lake, you get more into cliffs and less road access. It is more economical to run by the lake piping than the land piping. Mr. Zarriello - The closed new pipe, is that just water or is there anything added to that? Mr. Bland - It is mostly just water. There is some chemical additive, but it is not environmental bad. You would want to keep it contained in the loop system. Everything in your packet is actually spelled out more in detail for you. The ground water is not a really a big issue here, but the surface water is. We will be circulating up to 59 million gallons a day in the proposal which is 31,000 to 32,000 gallons per minute maximum for each. We have been studying this for a couple years. We do not think there is a significant negative environmental impact. The thermal discharge will be quite in significant as far as input into the lake. We will be doing a complete model of all thermal characteristics to actually prove that it will have no significant impact on the thermal structure of the lake, ice coverage, and average temperatures of the lake, -the thermal climb, phosphorus, and productivity. The issue there happens to be that when this thermal climb sets up, the algae in the upper waters are phosphorus. There is natural curing, from various inputs, natural and man made, whether it would be run off from the tributaries, creeks, or sewage discharges. Phosphorus is here which is a limiting factor in the productivity of the algae. Because the light does not penetrate, they will not be using it here. We will be transferring water from the bottom of the epilimion to the top moving phosphorus through this. The potential is for more algae to grow, so we will study this to see the significant effect. We will be doing continuing studies throughout the summer to get additional data to finalize this. Once fall comes around and the surface water has cooled down to 40 degrees and becomes well mixed. It is mixed half the year during the winter. The fourth issue there is, mysisrelictor which is a fresh water shrimp we will be studying. During the day they hang out in the deeper water because they avoid light and stay in dark to avoid feeder fish because they can not see them. We think we can locate this so that during the day they are actually on the bottom in deeper water and not in our thermal intake bed. During the night they swim up towards the top of the thermal climb. Lake sediment issue, the pipe will be buried where it is shallow mainly to keep it from being hazardous for navigation. Where the natural water depth is less than 10 feet, this would be below the surface so the lake bottom does not protrude into the boats. Ms. Hoffmann - Why will you be trenching there? Mr. Bland - If we just lay the pipe in the bottom of shallow water it will stick up. T CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Cornish - So it will only be an initial trenching operation during construction. Mr. Bland - Yes. Mr. McCabe - The zebra muscles and the quaga muscles are the concern of fowling our plates and we will have to use some methods to control the muscles. The focus is the method that we use to control muscles does not have environmental impact because we are going to add some chemicals. We are designing the system to avoid conventional chemical control methods for muscles. Our first line of defense is to design the system so the materials are not to productive to growth and keep them from growing. Then we will go to some type of mechanical cleaning whether it will be roto -rooter or mechanical scuba divers, and finally only use as necessary chemical methods. We will be specifying all of those as part of our DEC permits. One good thing is the cold water, although they will grow very slowly, it will be to our benefit. The pipe will probably be PVC which is pretty smooth itself. Eventually, even teflon, will fowl, but we will be looking at different materials. Ms. Hoffmann - The pipes in the lake will be different materials than the pipes in the ground that goes up to campus? Mr. McCabe - Yes. The pipes going up to campus underground will probably be regular steel. Ms. Hoffmann - That is why you need some -chemicals in the systems to help it to keep from deteriorating?. Mr. McCabe - Yes, plus we need chemicals that go through all the building systems, too, so it is not just this pipe it is every thing the water goes through. At last is Cayuga Lake Fishery, that being a good source of the ecosystem and the recreational resource. Luckily there is not, a lot of fish hanging out there. In the winter time, when they float the lowest, is when we will find the fish down there. We are going to continue to study that. I do not think the fishery is going to be one of our major problems. Continuing down to surface water contribution, mainly the sole impact is going to be during construction as we go over Fall Creek Bridge and go through several intermittent creeks that we have to cross. Those interresources are really not an issue, although we will discuss is during construction. Trescology, this' will be things like vegetation. We will probably have to remove some trees in some areas. Ms. Hoffmann - What about where the pipes will go on campus? We have not seen any maps of this yet? MALE - They will go up.probably the slope right into the ARTS QUAD. 4 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. McCabe - Right between McGraw and White Halls on the right side of the ARTS QUAD. Directly east tying into East Avenue then up Tower Road a short way. There will be five points which we will be tying into the district cooling system into campus. Ms. Hoffmann - Will you have some maps that show campus and how the pipes will go on campus? Mr. McCabe - Yes, we have very detailed maps. The maps will show every tree we need to disturb and everyone's driveway that will be closed during construction. Ms. Hoffmann - The pipes will be going through the two oldest buildings on campus essentially? Mr. McCabe - That is our current proposed routing. They certainly will not be visible from the surface. It will be a typical Cornell utility installation. Ms. Hoffmann - I understand that, but what about construction? Mr. McCabe - During construction we will have a trench open. It will be similar to the other steam line type projects that occur on campus previously. We try to get in and do the work as quickly as we can and get right back out, hopefully in a couple months. Ms. Hoffmann - You are not worried about any impacts on the buildings during construction then? Mr. McCabe - No. Ms. Hoffmann - How big of a trench will you need to dig to bury these pipes? Mr. McCabe - Roughly 9 foot wide, but that depends on how we do it. It might require us to do some shoring, but if we have a little more space we will probably prefer on the order of about 15 feet and that will involve some shoring to meet the necessary OSHA regulations. Ms. Hoffmann - How deep? Mr. McCabe - Well when we are running across country, we are proposing approximately 2 feet to the top of the pipe and the pipe will be about 4 feet in diameter, so anywhere from 6 to 8 feet. It will probably be bedded, so we are probably over excavating for bedding. May be 8 to 10 feet. Mr. Zarriello - I do not see anything on addressing where they were going to put the spoils for trenching. Melinda Boyar - How large is the parcel you put a purchase offer on? CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Bland - The total parcel which is under contract is 18 or 19 acres. Ms. Hoffmann - This will not be very visual? Mr. Bland - Coming from Route 34 you will be able to look to the left to see the building unless we bury it. Ms. Hoffmann - Have you considered that? Mr. Bland - Well Town Planner, Jonathan Kanter, had suggested that, but we are going to look at all the alternatives. We will be doing some architectural rendering and visualizations for several phases. Chapter three - Human Resources, public transportation services will be on issue during construction. I think operational traffic transportation will be pretty minimal, but during construction it could be some major disruptions for some people's commuting patterns. We will look at this. Mr. Zarriello - Are you going to have any pumping stations? Mr. Bland - No, we are proposing to integrate them into one building. It will be pumping to campus and back. Mr. Zarriello - Different set of pumps for pumping the lake water? Mr. Bland - Yes. Ms. Cornish - What is the size of that building? Mr. Bland - Approximately 100 feet long, 30 feet tall, and 130 feet wide. 20,000 square feet. Basically one story which may have an upper level office. Ms. Cornish - The original proposal was to have the pump house on the opposite side of the road? Mr. Bland - One of the alternative studies was to put all the stuff on the shore line. Land use of the parcel will be when we cover existing land use and how this development may impact public access. Ms. Boyar - What is your thinking for now for the 18 acres? Mr. Bland - This will take a small piece of that 18 acre zone, a couple acres, but the pipe line will take some more. This project will have no impact on the use of the marina, except for putting the pipes through the north end. Cornell will buy the marina. There is a Canal Authority study that talks about the use of the lake. There is a multi agency study that is under way for lake access. We will be talking about the use of the parcel in relation to the plans the CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT State Canal Authority suggests. Cornell has no plans to change things right now. We are not forcing any change in use of the property, but it does not mean it will not occur. Zoning would need to be amended to allow a utility plant in an E zone. Ms. Levitan - What about the possibilities of it linking into the school? Mr. Bland - They have the same problem we do with their old chillers, as they also have air conditioning, which will be obsolete. We will be discussing that with them. Demographics, no real change in employment. Visual resources we will look into alternatives, but we will hire an architect and will do preliminary designs for the DEIS and site plan review. We will be looking at various views. Historological - we will do the New York State Stage A One Agricultural Resource Survey, and if necessary Stage B One Survey would be included. Alternatives - no alternatives are described. We could build chillers up on campus, that is basically the option here. We are saving 80% of the energy the chillers would take by doing this project. Discussion ensued concerning alternative facility, design, demand, change in building use and public agency comments. Ms. Hoffmann - Where is the intake for water for Bolton Point? It is probably outside the maps you have here. Mr. Bland - It is not as deep. They will be pretty near shore compared to Bolton Point. We will be about 1000 feet away. Ms. Hoffmann - I though about this when you talked about the alternative of letting the water out further up the lake, and there seems to be a problem with that especially if you use chemicals to maintain those pipes if you have the out flow near where intake is at Bolton Point. Mr. Bland - That is something we need to look into. Bolton Point is pretty far up. We will be modeling our out flow if there are any intermittent chemicals used. Mr. Zarriello - Bottom sediments, do you have earthquake potential? I assume you are going to over design for moderate earthquakes? Mr. Bland - The pipes will be sitting on the bottom of the lake and we will be studying how soft the sediments at the bottom of the lake. Are we will try to make it neutrally buoyant. It may be weighted down by concrete collars so they will not float up. Mr. Meigs - The follow up on the pipe on the bottom, what is your thought of stabilizing it? CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. McCabe - We are trying to make it neutrally buoyant, but we are proposing to weigh the plastic pipes with concrete reinforced collars spaced on 50 foot intervals. It would depend on the specific areas it will go over, and that should settle into the sediment to some extent, and if we install enough of them it should be quite secure installation. Mr. Meigs - No significant current? Mr. McCabe - The current theory we have right now is that there is fairly weak currents in the lake. We have the internal wave phenomenon to be concerned with. We need to follow up on details about that. We need to make sure that any wave forces in the water itself would not be a problem as well as water hammering problems. Mr. Meigs - If some materials were dislodged and started an under water slide, what is the potential of that? Mr. Bland - We will need to look into that. Mr. Tauer - You referred to the approval section for the Town of Ithaca site plan instead of a build permit, why is that? Mr. Bland - That is one of our first corrections. The building permit will be part of the site plan. The site plan review is necessary for the building permit. Mr. Zarriello - On the closed loop pipe, you are going to cross at the Fall Creek and Lake Street Bridge, I imagine you have other crossings for your existing facility like Triphammer Bridge. Is there anything you do to assure there are not any leaks, or if there were any leaks how will it be contained? Mr. Bland - We need to look into that to determine what kind of leak and how we are going to contain it. Ms. Cornish - Are the pipes carried under the deck of the bridge? Mr. Bland - That is our current intent. That would be subject to design confirmation, but they will be tucked up under the steel ginders under the bridge. Ms. Cornish - The structural integrity of the bridge would be examined and increased if needed? Mr. Bland - Yes. New Business - Committee Reports Ms. Cornish - The Tompkins County Environmental Directory was put out by Tompkins County and the EMC. It covers a wide variety of r CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT different groups, commissions, and committees in the county, and a lot of things through Cornell. It is a handy resource. They are available at any county office with a fee of $3.00 each. We are trying to get the Conservation Board minutes, and materials in some type of order. Our secretary, Starr Hays, has put together a cost estimate, and she wanted me to ask the board it she could spend $49.58 for various binders and indexes to help organize the Conservation Board materials. EVERYONE AGREED AT ONCE. Ms. Cornish - The other thing is, we actually have 12 sets of minutes in addition to the minutes you have before you tonight. I wanted to have feed back from the board on how you want those presented. Some of you were not involved in the Conservation Board at the time of these minutes, and because of SARA, which is the New York State Recordkeeping and Management guidelines by law, we have to have these minutes approved by the board. Do you want a packet of these minutes to go over in your free time and we can set a dead line for approval? Mr. Zarriello - Sure. Ms. Hoffmann - Sure. Ms. Cornish - I picked up one of the New York Re -Leaf brochures. I put it into your packet tonight for your review. The other item I put into your packet is Celebrate Water Week, which came in the mail from DEC, I did not know if the Conservation Board wanted to take part in it, but it is in your packet for review. We have put out bids for our GIS hardware package and we are still investigating software, but it looks like we are going with ACR View and the Data Automation Kit. Hopefully, we will have it up and running within the next couple of months, so we should be able to input information. Mr. Zarriello - We got another application from Voluntary Fireman Association. Ms. Cornish - I just wanted to clarify that I went through this there were application, it is actually the engineers job, but I felt several discrepancies. I went to visit the site, and there are some large discrepancies in elevations. I called the applicant, and he could not get me the corrected drawings until Monday, but since it is slated for the Planning Board on April 16, I wanted to give you the information for environmental review and I will give you the corrected information when I have it. Ms. Hoffmann - I would like to have a map of the county with all the names of the roads even the new ones. If any one knows where I could get one I would appreciate it. MALE - There is a map at Bora, they put out a booklet of the entire CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 11 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT state which is detailed out. Ms. Cornish - It may be worth purchasing a booklet for each member. Mr. Zarriello - Cornell is also pursuing their Vet Tower incinerator. If they could incorporate this into their existing heat facility smoke stack as opposed to building another smoke stack, if knowing they were going to push this issue, I would have incorporated it into the new building they built. That is where is stands since they have given themselves a negative declaration, so I guess they do not need to do anything as far as environmental impact goes. MS. Hoffmann - Is this the same project we reviewed a year ago? Didn't they at that time build a new incinerator because the one they had was not functioning as well as it could. Mr. Zarriello - Yes, and they have not done anything about that yet because this is part of this project to build a new incinerator and smoke stack. We really do not get an opportunity to say much more about it. On the January 18 minutes, are there any corrections made and noted? Motion for approval of January 18, 1996 minutes and seconded. Mr. Zarriello -,On February 1, 1996 minutes, any comments? Ms. Hoffmann - I move that we approve these minutes as changed. Mr. Zarriello - Seconded. Committee reports: Ms. Hoffmann - The View Shed Committee, as I reported last time as what we are doing, I will not go over it again, but if any one has any comments, please feel free to comment on it. Favorite views, characteristics, and why, please pass along. Discussion took place on the survey form and a possible shortened form to be addressed in the review process. Mr. Tauer - We should put that on the ERC work program. Ms. Hoffmann - I do not think we can do that unless we have some legislation on the books that says as a town we are committed to preserving important views. Ms. Cornish - I think there are some legalities to that. We may have to go to the Town Board for approval, but I certainly think that as part of this whole process that would be a great end product for them. I may suggest that we keep in mind that the eventual end product may be an addition to our environmental assessment form. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 12 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Boyar - Are there views that have been already chosen? Ms. Hoffmann - No. Ms. Boyar - Will the idea be to choose certain views, and then try to enact things regarding them, or are you talking on a broader scope, so you can pick the views at a later date? Ms. Hoffmann - Our idea was to do an inventory of the important views that already exist that most people know about, and as part of the inventory take photographs and slides of them, and look at legislation that other communities have, so we can come with a proposal for how one could add some laws to the books to protect the important views. Then we would make a presentation to the Town Board and other boards maybe on why it is important to protect these views, and hope that the Town would adopt this legislation. When you use the survey form to record the information in a consistent way for all the different views, and we will take the photos with the same type of camera and lens, but in different seasons so we would have series of photos to show how the different views show. FEMALE - Has there been any real public input? Ms. Hoffmann - Not at this point. Cheryl wrote something to put in the newspaper. Mr. Meigs - The thought was after we got the initial list, publicize that as a way to encouraging more thought and reaction. It might trigger a forum or some sort of meeting. I think I heard you also ask what the plans for the whole thing would be. My sense would be blanket, legislation perhaps one piece or separate relevant ordinances to specify that there are views that are to be protected against certain actions, and have those views listed on file. Mr. Meigs - There are two items to review. One is, of course, is the view itself, and the other is what you call a view point. Isn't the view point that really is the most critical area to protect? Obviously, if there are no view points there will be no views. Mr. Zarriello - Let's go on to the Environmental Review Report. Ms. Hoffmann - In general, for ERC review, if Mr. Zarriello gets information about projects, then he and staff get together and decide if it is worth ERC review, and then you send the papers on to us? Mr. Zarriello - Yes, it is working. What are we going to do this year? Has any one given any thought to our 1996 work program? Ms. Hoffmann - How to protect the stream corridor as part of finishing off Six Mile Creek Conservation District. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 13 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Zarriello - Six Mile Creek or beyond to include the Storm Water Management? Ms. Hoffmann - We need to do some additional work on that. I think that should be high on the list. Mr. Meigs - I remember voting for the Environmental Atlas and GIS as a top priority. Mr. Zarriello - It looks like this year might be the year it finally happens. A year ago or so, I put together a list of GIS coverages and attributes, and it was followed up by some work Geri Tierney did, and I am wondering if we need to revisit that? Ms. Cornish - I think that is a good idea. She has come to staff, and asked for some input. I gave her the input from this Board and I hope this additional input gave her some direction. Mr. Meigs - Environmental Review Committee is certainly one we need to continue with. Keep that on the priority list. I would vote for protection of Coy Glen Water Shed as a priority. FEMALE - Has anything happened in Coy Glen to protecting the water shed? Mr. Zarriello - There are a couple of things. One was Babcock was going to give land to Cornell, a 100 acre parcel that was all in the gorge of Coy Glen, but I am not sure where it stands. Ms. Hoffmann - It is part of getting approval of his subdivision land. Ms. Cornish - But he did not have a specific subdivision in mind, and this was some kind of guarantee for future development. We have not heard back from him since the initial discussions. Ms. Hoffmann - This group did something even more major when it came to Coy Glen, some of the members wrote up a hugh report about Coy Glen and how to protect it. I do not know what happened to that. Ms. Cornish - I think it came to the Conservation Board for editing and commenting, but then it stopped. Although Candace has mentioned it from time to time. Ms. Hoffmann - I never heard of the comments that we provided and if it was incorporated. I think it would be nice to bring it back. Mr. Zarriello - The county master plan for environmental long range plans, a 29 page document. They have asked for comments, and that is another thing we need to address, and we should put on our activity list. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 14 MARCH 28, 1996 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MALE - The need to comments on some of the counties or the need to duplicate it at a local level? Mr. Zarriello - Well I guess preliminary just to get comments back to the county on what we think of this and how this could be changed or approved. I have not read it myself, and we need to see how the Town of Ithaca fits in to the long range and how we see their plan fitting into our thoughts of how it should be in long range plan. Ms. Cornish - I will call the county to see where it stands with them, but it is probably -good for this board to review, and to see how it could be implemented or changed at the town level. MALE - The View Shed Review Committee should be moved up the list. A number of these short term activities are no longer appropriate, there are several which are worth while to keep on the list. Mr. Zarriello - I agree that a lot of these activities are being overlapped with other agencies. The only thing I can see doing here is resolving unfinished business like Coy Glen and the Parks and Open Spaces Plan. Ms. Cornish - Yes, Candace has started editing it and reformatting it for us. We got the first copy of it yesterday. It should not be long before this board will have it. Mr. Zarriello - The county's long range environmental plan, those are all just tying up loose ends here. The View Shed and Environmental Atlas are pretty big issue, and I think the Environmental Atlas is the starting point to all of these other issues. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Phillip Zarriello, Chair Conservation Board DRAFTED: 4/11/96 by Debby Kelley /�T/e . Attention: Governor George E. Pataki; Senator Joseph Bruno, Majority Leader; and Assemblyman Sheldon Silver, Speaker: We, the below signed, urge you to come together in support of property tax relief before the end of the 1996 Legislative Session. As New Yorkers, we demand and take pride in a strong, fully -funded public education system, equitably supported through fair taxes. However, the onerous cost of ever -rising property taxes is forcing senior citizens out of their homes, heavily burdening farmers and businesses, discouraging much-needed infrastructure development, and preventing thousands of young families from owning their first home. Currently, there are several strong property tax relief bills awaiting approval in the Legislature. Chief among these bills is the School Property Tax Reduction Act (A.3957/ S.2397) sponsored by Assemblyman Marty Luster and Senator Charles D. Cook. This bill immediately reduces property taxes by an average of 5% per year. As an incentive to reduce property taxes, the bill increases school districts' core operating aid by 10%, if at least half of that increase is used to lower local school taxes. We cannot wait any longer for relief. The time for study is over. We know the problem all too well. The time for action is now. Please return to: Assemblyman Marty Luster, 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 by May 30th. signagnaw .,,(Printed)na.(printed) address Please return to: Assemblyman Marty Luster, 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 by May 30th. MEMO TO: Jonathan Kanter, Dan Walker, Phil Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish, George Franz, Eric Whitney, Mike Ocello FROM: Geri Tierney DATE: 4/24/96 RE: GIS Database Plan As Phil has suggested, I've updated his outline of the GIS database. This document outlines the data themes we plan to create in GIS format, as well as the attributes of each we'd like to include in the attached tabular database. Please glance through this document at your convenience, and note any errors, omissions or comments. Please make sure that all data and associated attributes that you would like to use in GIS format are included here. GIS Database Plan -4/24/96 Data Themes I. Political Municipality Boundaries Tax Parcels Zoning Districts Zoning Overlay Districts Election Districts Agricultural Districts Open Space Census Data H. Infrastructure Roads Water Sewer Storm Sewers Other Utility Lines Buildings Trail/Bike Routes Toxic Release Inventory Facilities III. Resource Hydrology Flood Plain Topography Soils Land use Vegetative Cover Unique Natural Areas/CEAs Aquifers/Public Water Supply Scenic Views Pollutant Releases/Measurements Theme I. Political Municipal Boundaries Tax Parcels Zoning Districts Polygon Zoning Overlay Dist. Election Districts Polygon Agricultural Dist. Polygon Open Space Census Data II. Infrastructure Roads Feature Attributes Line None Polygon Identification Number Address Owner Owner's Address Appraised Value Use (Res., Indust., Ag.) Permits Violations Type Polygon Type Type Polygon Link to Supp. Dbase Minimum Lot Size Allowed Use Minimum Setback Miscellaneous SLUD Conservation District Type (incl. park, private, cemetery, FLLT) Income Class # individual's # school -aged children Line Name Owner Maintainer Surface Type Drainage Type Water Line Pipe size Pipe type Installation Date Contractor Point Valves Hydrants Supply Tanks Pumping Stations Polygon Area served Sewer Line Pipe size Pipe type Installation Date Contractor Point Pumping Stations Manholes Polygon Area served Storm Sewers Line 'Pipe size Pipe type Installation Date Contractor Slope Apron or wing walls Other Utility Line Line Type (power, gas, etc.) Right of way size Misc. Buildings Polygon Parcel id Address Owner Use Permits Rail Lines Line Status (active, abandoned, converted) Grade Trail/Bike Routes Line Type TRI Facilities Point Name (Toxic Release Inventory) Address Toxics III. Resource Hydrology Polygon Type (lake/pond/wetland) Name Classification Source of data Water Quality Vegetation Line Name of Stream Channel Type Channel Width Classification Flood Plain Polygon Topography DEM Elevation Line Contours Polygon Slope Aspect Soils Polygon Code Name Classification Hydric Permeability Land use Polygon Use Density Crops Vegetative Cover Polygon Type Dominant Species Approx. Age Ownership Health Unique Natural Areas Polygon Name Unique Features Species Present Aquifers/Public Water Supply Polygon Scenic Views Point Viewpoint Polygon Viewshed Pollutant Releases/Measurements Point Location Pollutant names/conc. I PENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS Town of Ithaca Planning Board April 29, 1996 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.: 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: Awaiting completion of and acceptance of F/EIS. Tentative Planning Board Date: arch 7, 1991 Project No.: 9512183. P & C Food Market, Judd Falls Road, Proposed Expansion Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the East Hill Plaza, P & C Food Market located on Judd Falls Road in the Town of Ithaca. The proposed project involves expansion of the existing store by 8970 +/- sq. ft. and the conversion of 580 +/- sq. ft. of an existing entrance way into office space. Expansion and conversion will facilitate renovating the floor layout and eliminating a 29 space parking lot, widening the existing concrete sidewalk, adjusting the center line of the road, curb removal and replacement, and relocating a water main. Said facility is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.121, corner Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Road, Business District C. Cornell University, Owner; The Penn Traffic Company, Applicant, David Herrick, T.G. Miller P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, Agent. Status: Pending Tentative Planning Board Date: May 7, 1996 Project No.: 9604195. Campus Road. Cornell University Track and Soccer Facility. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Plan and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the construction of a Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other apurtenances. The proposed facility is to be located on portions of Tax Parcel No's. 67-1-13.2 and 63-1-8.2, or that portion of Alumni Fields in the Town of Ithaca and bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: May 7, 1996. 4- 2 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: Preliminary Site Plan Approval granted 2/6/96. Tentative Date For Next Planning Board meeting: May 7, 1996. Project No.: 9601186. Palm Road (off Rt. 366). Cornell Library Storage Facility. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell's Precinct 7, to consist of a 14,000 +/- square foot addition for storage of low circulation library books and associated office space, a new loading dock, additional parking spaces and landscaping, located on Palm Road off Route 366, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64-1-1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9. Cornell University, Owner, Tim Martin, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. 1-4 F Project No.: 9511178. Culver Road. Proposed 2 -Lot Subdivision, John Babcock Lands. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-1-14, 101+/- acres in size, into 3 lots, 70.2 +/- acres, 29 +/- acres, and 1.8 +/- acres in size respectively, the latter two of which are proposed to be transferred to Cornell University for consolidation with Tax Parcel No. 31-1-3.2, a.k.a. Coy Glen Natural Area, located on the north side of Culver Road approximately 1,500 ft. northwest of its intersection with Bostwick Road, Residence District R-30. John B. Babcock, Owner, Dana A. Batley, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9511177. 1229 Trumansburg Road. Lakeside Nursing Home, Inc. Renovations. Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for proposed modifications at Lakeside Nursing Home, 1229 Trumansburg Road/NYS Rte. 96, said modifications to consist of interior renovations, new building entrance court and pedestrian facilities, courtyards and other landscaping, and 50 additional parking spaces, Residence District R-15. David E. Barlow, Owner; John Barradas, William Downing Associates, Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced. Project No.: 9504152. Woolf Lane. Sketch Plan, Proposed Westwood Hills II 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. 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. 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 3 4 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.: 9511179. Vista Lane. Modification of Original Cluster Subdivision. Description: Consideration of a Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 39-1-25.2 and 39-10-1, 13.55 +/- acres in size, into 12 lots, with proposed public road and water and sewer infrastructure, located at Cayuga Vista subdivision, Vista Lane, Residence District R-9. Dell L. Grover and Edward Mazza, Owners; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., Agent. Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board 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 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Members - Town of Ithaca Planning Board FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Planner DATE: May 23, 1996 RE: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Viewshed Committee Attached, please find a Town of Ithaca Viewpoint Survey Form. This form was prepared by the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Viewshed Committee for the purpose of recording information on a specific location from which a view may be seen (viewpoint) as well as the view itself (the viewshed). The Viewshed Committee is currently using this form to inventory views in the Town of Ithaca. When the inventory is completed, the views will be prioritized in order of importance. The Viewshed Committee has asked for public input through articles in The Ithaca Journal and The Ithaca Times. To date, the response has been minimal. The Viewshed Committee will continue to seek input from the public. Also attached is an excerpt from The Environmental Image report, prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department (6/74), illustrating potential scenic resources in the Town of Ithaca. Att. JC/srh File Name: c:\1Files\1StafflToAnn\P1anBd\Viewshed.mem (Comp #15) .r TOWN OF ITHACA VIEWPOINT SURVEY FORM This form will record basic information on a location (viewpoint) from which a view of importance to the Town of Ithaca may be seen.. Since views are often visible from several points, additional forms should be completed for each such viewpoint; all viewpoints for a particular view, taken together, define a viewshed. Viewsheds may be discontinuous areas, due to blockage by natural or manmade features. After identifying a view, the surveyor should determine the viewpoint from which it is seen at its essential best. Subsidiary viewpoints should be listed on the same form, and separate forms completed for each. Care should be taken, when identifying subsidiary viewpoints, to insure that the essential features of the view are the same, without significant addition to, or elimination of principal view elements. Such additions/eliminations may constitute a separate view. In describing a viewpoint, surveyors should define the focal cone, containing only the essential view, and the framing cone, containing features on *the immediate periphery of the view, or behind it, which highlight or detract from the view. =r - Survey date 1. View name or designation 2. Viewpoint name/designation 3. Primary or Subsidiary Viewpoint 4. If Subsidiary, name of Primary Viewpoint 5. If Primary Viewpoint, name(s) of any Subsidiary Viewpoints: 6. Viewpoint location 7. Direction of view 8. Viewpoint description: 9. Viewpoint ownership: Public or Private 10. Ownership/use/occupancy of adjoining properties: 11. Viewpoint description/major features as seen from this Viewpoint: Spring- Summer- Fall- Winter - 12. If Viewpoint for stationary use? If so, approximate number and location of parking spaces most suitable for viewer use 13. Are. spaces on public or private property ? 14. Is Viewpoint handicapped -accessible from parking? 15. Features/characteristics of focal cone (Indicate whether each complements (+) , detracts from (-) , or is neutral (0 ) to view) 16. Features/characteristics of framing cone and/or background (some indication) Additional comments: TOWN OF ITHACA VIEW SURVEY FORM Survey date 1. View name or designation 2. General description, including principal characteristics and/or features. 3. Location of view 4. Character of view: natural rural urban other 5. Type: panorama landscape natural feature urban feature developed area focused enclosed 6. Importance to Town:, tourism attraction general visual amenity customer/tenant amenity Additional comments: (ftlana­ Cs\start\stuff\C9stuff\vlarpoin.fm) VIEW NAME OR DESIGNATION: VIEW POINT NAME OR DESIGNATION: DATE OF PHOTOGRAPH: TIME PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN: WEATHER CONDITIONS: ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE TYPE OF CAMERA TYPE OF LENS TYPE OF FILM SURVEY COMPLETED BY: UHYSICA < ` c�.i r t 't.r,�� :.. rr',�'c 'r; -r -s• W50 3r ' rfVevt yY -,c rt..J t� fie. "- r ,rtFk' c e. .aL�y- P•:•. .a y lrMUry 1. _ �- �{i '�r'ra�i�r.4 i y. y •Y�..��M_.r Rr G•`S,�(�� .F it �.61 j trr{{c�-.,,1yn� � �„ �.1 � 0 4 w � , ' t UIVII--yKItVS. 4E �UCJI�f,k-1 -.UUt- IF-Ht7—M=LNltjl C� �i�1�1 .,� K�i;J�JIC�';* '4? r4. 'e,.c. _ .•� r!r- "'a:r st ht• 34 ��, -u,:�y ..� ♦ ,s'.kz e+ +-Ky Wim.•' u^ s ..' .y .a ''-y, '�'.�.�• +' 7_4 iw.r i•r;'�+ ':•Tts z. et.w �n'c.°..?.t_.r� y t '�, 7"�,. .{'t'�c. ,:rr r.•• LLM z"r �l_ d ".r z 7 - „ �tif�� i-'�r�Y'- "'-�•' ;3"�__ e �a s i^ air rlar'�e t '4 b�S.. �-tr«.. 'fes r -'�. k�l.n 7 .x;,'r'r r Y ,'>�'�'1s'ji Zr `vrr.r_,Wp 2'-w> � l,r.+,¢_ .tr' J..n. �f�rw•i: �Y�f•�w.�. y1 �sY�e.�C"� Ass- . r!� - -C +...r r .cot. 'S;,I t ^.d -•*i J- - r '+A a. ,r r �,c���,. .�� ^r i- •q ,-. .1s•'z`3. S' +P 7tr'i' ..� �,,• rr,}�� _� •t�'r�� ,.i.,� �r�s �"a`G s„��'�iN�r C�'4,y ? � �• vsz't'ht� '., . 'Y^�; td-lniik"�r s<+y;�Lr}rr';r ..•]`^^L."a't�'r�a trr.Li4T�t't ii ' r' v .0 �.r.{' 1 •rYSt-ro°as. �:�rc J-¢i•i.�,=+`YRS1,.e:,"�. > •s 1Y h rr o M '`•� ,�,-•}��(�'.�'b�" t"�^ r�"I�v�^�•rt��S�d"`rC��`'�s;�.'yw ^r�M`'� s`_*��ti*^`=�rr��,��'i. i n ti" jarm r� -6 " Ec, _-, a r x � � u -j '+ cri.?' - z �•g"ir^ f ���$'` a f •Y-.rs '7u d"-<�4'`c34i '•..-.i� �.` � r� �,�' � +�, >S NS`'Ati y r44 ,.#. ,.q.y3t��.G"f"���+�"4 .st+, � `fie �".HF'r'.`�'�"•Y"S ^r+��.�'';����a�{�I�^in�'F�yj��.,,S�,,ma '+^ � F � - rz� x *. t :.a'' ?. r .! +, v�'�c'� t�t � r':� .4'. �"�{ ,•C5 4 +. �r� 33''..�-L' .'�' �!1+v 4,s ] VI `^.R* 0�� N -- I `{mow•\\` �� tea{{ Y .4GE ASE M L 4 •ari*r a:. � _5 Y M_ ar j ' .p ° t � 1 -t' r � F rtiwa �` xrr)-^L�.C�� ���' ♦ = tt S+K °�i rr a � S �� h tib, � �, 3��� c-� _. ,F i �F: �r ,+�. s�'rC. � �'" �'�Y� 8•.t}7'�r� }i._'f Plti a ) r ,�,;*�r�* � .��."¢:�`��'.F..�•'ts� �z• r '"iy .3' a�'^! ] ��'hy �r *`+;.l.�*�.vfi-t rE�?.4r "5t .N's, `_J'• /r-`ew �G '<t _ `' q'.w. tl��'�'�' _} ew t _ 2 � �v *. rrtrr ., u Y1`.�tls7�.F�'F �,,rr.3y �i+ti<:" 1'� <v lr-+�•ar's� j�`�-' � �{1•'.t ky.� y ��[,,;��'` fiy ,,�.4'�a � �_ Ys� .rt '<� r•„}�.1'),F yr'�' 1�J�+fit f � �`i+����� �_1h,�d`t,7�ny-�4r���rwS'^Ct'\z r++4.yYay� ,;t �'•.. rj. s s <' �� rY� �J �'�wif a:n"`•V�' 1t �r}}�+ �. �. ver? r,ir'4 ?��+•+rLgl "\7'my���i i r q�+.+��^��p } a '.� ., i irE ` ��5lr'rle-_ r,; .a�it�. t .... �~......... .. raa••r �., i .. r:=:wK.nr....r. M�.{r. .n..;41•�.vF;+.'.. i;'rrt:� K��'�,v:�id-c'i"�r rrik'.. frf.'t:S{'.t�.:.f'� .�'�r i 4�e•i .1 ���TNir� TOWN OF ITHACA SCENIC RESOURCES -Scale in miles 0 1 2 KEY MAP NO. 6 DATE: 6/74 Panoramic Landscape View Distance Landscape View �so 'W s Scenic Road Prepared by: Tompkins County Department of Planning Ithaca, New York 14850 MAP 6: SCENIC RESOURCES Kev Description: This map delineates the points from which scenic views may be experienced, not the view itself. * Panoramic Landscape View: 1200 or greater angle of vision with a minimum of one mile unobstructed view. * Distance Landscape View: minimum 100 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. DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES i JUNE 6, 1996 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION WARD JUNE 6, 1996 PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Planner JoAnn Cornish. GUESTS: Peter Salmon. Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS CONCERNS: Chair Zarriello - The Conservation Board has a guest, Peter Salmon, who will be sitting in for the meeting to observe. Peter Salmon - I read 'about the Conservation B ;ard in ti ie TvVA-1 Ncvv'siatier anu tic fact that there are some openings. I called JoAnn Cornish for information and she invited me to attend the meeting tonight. Chair Zarriello - In 1990, the Board began as the Conservation Advisory Council. One of the first projects was to put together an Open Space Plan for the Town. At that time it moved the Council into a Board status. The Conservation Board acts as an Advisory Board to the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Environmental Review Committee is the only mandated committee for the Board. The Environmental Review Committee reviews development plans for the Town and comments on the environmental significance. There are several other committees such as the Viewshed Committee and the Environmental Atlas Committee which are part of the Conservation Board. Planner JoAnn Cornish - The Vet School Incinerator Project at Cornell University: There were several letters written to the DEC, including Town Supervisor Cathy Valentino's, concerning this project. The Planning Department received an anonymous letter pleading for people to become involved in this project. There was also a letter about Cornell's proposed medical waste incinerator which outlines some of the concerns. It also has attached addresses to write a letter if anybody would like. I think all the responses and concerns are certainly leading to a more in-depth look at this project. Chair Zarriello - In 1992, this Board got a proposal from the Construction Fund to rebuild the Cornell Vet School incinerator. The scope of the project was to revamp what already existed. Since that time, the Board responded and never heard back from them. The County EMC and other groups also responded and did not receive a reply. Recently, DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE,6, 1996 Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Association, has spear headed the drive to see what is going on. There has been some conflicting information. There was an engineering report that was produced at some point that the Town had never seen, and the Mark Wysaki from Cornell who is an Air Pollution Modeler reviewed it, and pointed out numerous flaws in the report. There were responses to his comments that were appropriate. Ruth Mahr found out that they planned to accept medical waste from other facilities such as doctors offices, Cayuga Medical Center, etc.., they were planning to utilize that facility to get rid of medical waste which is well beyond the scope of the original proposal. Loren Tauer - Cornell would do that on a fee basis? Chair Zarriello - I am sure Cornell was looking at it for a money making deal. Mr. Tauer - That would probably raise some tax implications for Cornell as far as being a not-for-profit organization. Chair Zarriello - There was a lot of stuff going on and we never got a direct answer from the involved parties. One of the major concerns was that the State Construction Fund, in their original proposal, gave a negative environmental declaration which means they did not have to follow any of the SEQR process. The only thing they had to go through was the State Permitting process for air discharge. Planner Cornish - The State Construction Fund is exempting themselves from the SEQR process which they have the power to do. Chair Zarriello - Ruth Mahr was coordinating a group of interested parties that will meet June 12, 1996 at 7:30 in the Town Board Room. If there is anyone that is interested in learning more about this and getting involved, I would suggest coming to that meeting. Ms. Levitan - As I understand from the architect that was involved in this project, the existing facility is releasing a lot of matter. In other words, it is not doing a great job. Is the revised plan to do a better job? Is the Forest Home Association also assessing the existing structure? Chair Zarriello - The big trade offs are the stack height versus the aesthetic visual impact. The stack height as proposed is not high enough according to Cornell calculations. The proposed stack is not adequate to meet the dispersion requirements necessary to get rid of the stuff. There was a problem with the new Vet Tower being one foot lower than the proposed stack height, so there would be currents coming off the new building that would interfere with the expression of the stack. The trade off is to have a bigger stack, and many people would not want to see that either. That is why as part of the SEQR process is to look at project alternatives. DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JUNE 6, 1996 Mr. Tauer - Where is Cornell proposing to build this new incinerator? Behind the new building? Eva Hoffmann - The earlier proposal Cornell came in with to replace the existing stack was to put the new stack where the existing stack is located in the back of the vet school towards Caldwell Road. Chair Zarriello - There were two letters sent out from the Town: one from myself for the Conservation Board and one from the Town's Planning Department. It is good that the Construction Fund has responded positively because the State would not be in a position to do much. Planner Cornish - Saddlewood Farms is a large development rental housing that is being proposed for West Hill. There will be a special Planning Board Meeting on June 11, 1996, for a sketch plan presentation from Landmark America. This is going to be a very big project for the Town of Ithaca, and one that is being watched by a lot of groups. This meeting will be an informational meeting, and the Conservation Board might be interested in sitting on the meeting. The Planning Board was made lead agency for this by Town Board recommendation. Chair Zarriello - I had a phone call from Jon Meigs concerning this project, and he felt very strongly about the approach the Planning Board is taken that it is being assessed as a site plan review. The bigger issue is of rezoning agricultural and R-30 to Special Land Use District (SLUR) or a Multiple Residence (MR). These issues should be settled first. Planner Cornish - If this rezoning results in a SLUR, the Town would have some control over what happens there. It would be very specific and would become a Town law where things would be specified as to what exactly could be done there. If it results in MR, it may have a greater density. Ms. Levitan - At the last Board meeting this project was briefly discussed, so I wrote up a memorandum in reference to this project. I did not treat the meeting the other night as a hearing. I was extremely concerned about how a marketing job avoids real issues. How untruth could be swallowed by people. A very poor marketing study was done for this project. The marketing study was based on the concept that the percent of mobility, the number of people who move in a year equal the demand for housing. They took the mobility number and stated that 25% of the income category they are aiming for, tend to move in a given year. But then they said the Tompkins County percentage is much higher. As everyone that lives here knows, the Cornell Student market moves every year, and this is a meaningless error. The figure they use, is the figure that is justifying the building of 276 units in the Town of Ithaca. In fact, most of the people who live in the Town of Ithaca know there is a need for affordable housing to meet the needs of low income Cornell employees. What needs to be done is to look at the real demands and CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 6, 1996 look at the housing market and say "do we really have a demand from the Cornell Community that want to live closer". The Town and the County Planning Departments need to do a demand base affordable housing needs survey. The other concerning point was that there are a couple agencies within the County that are concerned about the affordable housing issues. After discussions with Cathy Valentino, Mary Russell, and others, I am unsure if there has been any coordination about the Town's needs for affordable housing. Has there been any kind of demand survey? There has not been as far as any of these people know. I am really concerned that the affordable housing issue is being jumped on without knowing if affordable housing is actually needed. The agricultural issue is another concern. A member of the Agricultural District Board (which is not part of the agricultural protection law, it is a farmers protection law) stated that farming is tough here. It is true that the amount of land that is used for agriculture in the Northeast is declining and the reserve of agricultural products have decreased in the past decade. I have recently been seeing data that agricultural reserves have gone down in this nation and are at a frightening low level. In the long run, as we are talking about agricultural land and land use, there will be a shortage of agricultural land and people need to be concerned. Laws that went into effect about 20 years ago, resulted in people becoming fearful about something that has not come about yet. Grain reserves in the United States are at their lowest level. Projections of the U.S. ability to export grain are way down. The U.S. may run out of the ability to feed the world. I think some of the laws that were put into place and some thinking about the land were because people were thinking about mobile cycles and agriculture. I think if the Conservation Board, whose charge is to think through long term planning, really needs to say something about the long term needs for agricultural lands in the Northeast the impact o. � it. The argument is the land surrounding this proposal (Saddlewood) is no longer agricultural land. Landmark American stood up there and stated a mis truth about this project demand. Alfred Eddy sold the 280 -acre large parcel across the road from this proposed project to EcoVillage with the idea that it would be continued in agriculture. There is a lot of unsettling differences about this project. What can the Town do about these issues? I am not denying that there is not a need a for affordable housing, but my feeling is that this scale is really questionable. The many people who work at Cornell and travel long distances, do so because they want to. No one can deny the fact that Cornell has many people who do not live close by and say that there is a demand that is not being met. I think that one thing the Conservation Board might want to do, both in dealing with this and other similar kinds of proposals, is to start some dialogues in the community about is big better. The sense that I got from the Town Board is that there is something golden about growth. I think it would be good for this Board to do is a visioning process and talk to people about what they like about living in the Town of Ithaca. CONSERVATION BOAR® MINUTES 5 JUNE 6, 1996 Planner Cornish - Ms. Levitan is right, the Town does not have a correct definition for affordable housing nor does the Town have a demand number for that. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision was approved on June 4, 1996, by the Planning Board for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. One of their catch phrases was affordable housing, and the Planning Board asked what is affordable. There is no current definition, and the Planning Staff is looking into this. Saddlewood Farms is also proposed to be a gated community which means it will have some security, and probably a gate and credit card system to get into the development. I think it changes the character of the development and in my opinion it would be some what out of character for the Town of Ithaca. On Tuesday, June 11, 1996, the Planning Board will be discussing the Saddlewood Farms project, and members of the Conservation Board are welcome to come. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision did get Preliminary Subdivision Approval and is scheduled for Final Subdivision Approval on June 18, 1996. Cayuga Vista is another subdivision on South Hill that was presented to the Planning Board on June 4, 1996. This is a small 9 -lot subdivision with a wetland on the property. The portion with the wetland which had originally been proposed to be subdivided is no longer in the proposal. The Planning Board did receive a trail right-of-way across a portion of the land to go with the Park and Open Space Plan and trail system that is being proposed. This is in the future, but we did get a trail easement out of this subdivision as part of the set aside. Ithacare received Final Site Plan Approval on June 4, 1996. There were two Planning Board Members that voted against the Ithacare Project, and one of the Planning Board Members, Gregory Bell made a very moving speech at the end urging everyone to take a good look at the view since it will be gone. This long battle is over with for the Town. The Conservation Board got the Monkemeyer subdivision proposal last month. It is on East King Road and is an 8 -lot subdivision. There is going to be a site visit on June 13, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. Everyone will be meeting at the site on East King Road. The Planning Board Members will be there also. The Coy Glen -Babcock subdivision that the Conservation Board talked about before, is on the Planning Board agenda for July 9, 1996. Mr. Babcock had proposed deeding over 100 acres to the Cornell plantations. P&C will be in for Final Site Plan Approval on July 16, 1996. They have answered this Board's concerns. DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 6, 1996 Chair Zarriello - The Mann Library Project is about ready to break ground waiting for the State Budget to pass. There were some concerns about small growth trees and steep slopes which they seem to have dismissed. I have received the final scope of the EIS of the Lake Source Cooling, which I have not looked through yet. I will be looking through it make sure this Board's comments have been addressed. Planner Cornish - In the Town's Newsletter there was a plea for Conservation Board Members. The Viewshed Committee article was also included. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Viewshed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee - No report. Environmental Atlas needs to get the system up and running for data base GIS map. MINUTES APPROVAL - MAY 2, 1996 Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 2, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction, seconded by Ms. Smith. On Page 5, Mr. Kanter stated "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are Lead Agency for the permits that need to be obtained.", which should read "The DEC at this ;point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are responsible for issuing permits required by the project." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Smith, Fischer, Levitan, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: The Conservation Board discussed topics to investigate for what to discuss at the meetings and other future meetings as well as a work plan for the Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 JUNE 6, 1996 Planner Cornish reminded the Conservation Board that there is a budget for the Board and if any one was interested in attending any conferences or seminars, that there are funds available. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. DRAFTED on June 11, 1996 by Debby Kelley. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, June 6, 1996 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 7:30 p.m. 1. Persons to be heard .7:35 p.m. 2. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 8:15 p.m. 4. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 8:45 p.m. 5. Business: a)Approval of Minutes (5/2/96 - enclosed) b) Other 9:30 p.m. 6. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/06-06-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD TOWN OF ITHACA THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1996 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Philip Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Jonathan Meigs, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Lois Levitan. ABSENT: Loren Tauer, Melinda Boyar, Eva Hoffmann. Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. 2. MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Cornish - Introduced Debby Kelley as the new Minutes Secretary for the Conservation Board. Chair Zarriello - I received a letter from Melinda Boyar on her resignation from this Board due to other interests. (A copy of this letter is attached as an exhibit.) Ms. Boyar's resignation creates a second vacancy, and the Conservation Board is allowed to have up to nine members. Chair Zarriello stated that Marty Luster has started a campaign petition for taking the school portion of the property tax off the property tax assessment. There are several benefits to this with one being the most regressive and certainly the least representative form of tax and may not have any bearing on a person's ability to pay tax. - This could have some positive effects on Open Space, and often times properties are subdivided because of the property tax being high. Portions of land are sold to help pay the remainder of taxes. Moving away from property tax it is a very passive way of preserving Open Space. I am passing out copies of petitions for people to sign and get back to me by May 30, 1996. 3. COORDINATOR & CHAIR REPORTS: Ms. Cornish - The Final Environmental Impact Statement has been drafted for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision proposal, and it will be going before the Planning Board on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, for acceptance and review. The Environmental Review -Committee has the new information that the P&C Food Market has submitted with changes to the facade and landscaping for the Tuesday, May 7, 1996 meeting with the Planning Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 MAY 2, 1996 The Final Site Plan Approval for Ithacare and the Public Hearing for Six Mile Creek Valley are scheduled for the May 7, 1996 meeting with the Planning Board. I spoke to Katie White concerning the Environmental Long Range Plan, and she stated that it has gone to the County Health and Environmental Review Committee. It will be going for full Board acceptance next week, and then it will be distributed to the public. The notice for the Town's Newsletter deadline is Friday, May 10, 1996. The Conservation Board might want to discuss what type of article they would like to submit. Ms. Smith - I think the Board should put the Viewshed article in the Newsletter. Ms. Cornish - The Viewshed article has been in the Ithaca Times and the Ithaca Journal. Mr. Kanter - The County Water Front Planning Study, which both the Town and City of Ithaca are both participating in with Tompkins County, along with the Chamber of Commerce and Cornell University, has scheduled a meeting for Saturday, May 18, 1996 at the Ithaca Youth Bureau building, to get input from different interest groups that may have either recreational, resource protection, or economic interest in the Cayuga Lake Water Front area. This will not be a comprehensive planning study like a master plan, but an enhancement study to try and focus on a few workable, doable projects that could be done in the water front area over a relatively short period of time, with some recommendations on doing more long term planning for the Water Front area. Mr. Meigs - It will be a very worth while product that will take an overview of various separate activities and ideas that people have had in recent years for water front projects, and look at existing conditions and potentials in an attempt to, from those inputs, drive a coordinated approach to water front use of the lake within the County. This would be beneficial in that respect, and would point people's attention to the water front as a resource for the County. Mr. Kanter - This would be a planning study trying to .come up with some real opportunities for public access such as the potential Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project, and what opportunities that might have for some partnerships for public access or park and recreation that could be used on that site. The City had some very specific things they wanted to do over a long period of time, and this might get some interests renewed in some of those activities and projects. The study area goes up both sides of the lake into Lansing and Ulysses, but the real focus area of the study is the concentrated areas developing around the lake. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 MAY 2, 1996 Chair Zarriello - The County has been the sponsor of the study? Mr. Kanter - Yes, and the Coordinator. It is a very limited funded study by each of the participants to help get a consultant. Mr. Fischer - Who are the consultants on the study? Mr. Kanter - Trowbridge. Ms. Levitan - Would this be a presentation of the study? Mr. Kanter - It is an early part of the study. It would be a presentation of what the overall intent of the study is; but it is more intended to get public participation at an early point. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Department has been getting some supportive comments from people on the way the proposal for Six Mile Creek has evolved. Mr. Kanter stated that Landmark America/Saddlewood Farms, a 276 -unit proposal across from EcoVillage on Mecklenburg Road has submitted an application for rezoning. There will be a discussion at the Town Board meeting on Monday May 13, 1996, on this issue. The petition is pretty general. There is a sketch plan of the project in the petition. The property is currently zoned agricultural and a small piece of it is R-15. The proposal is for either Multiple Residence or Special Land Use District. Ms. Levitan - What are some of the problems that are going on with this proposal? Mr. Kanter - The developer feels there are certain other things about it that are desirable for this density and type of development. Nearness to the City, the "availability" of sewer and water to this area, and the possibility of extending public transportation to the site, (there is not public transportation there now). The big part of the proposal deals with low income housing units which they are trying to get through the State's Low Income Housing Credit Program. It would be about 40% low income, and 60% market rate, split for rental apartments on the property. The Comprehensive Plan shows it as agricultural, so it would be a big issue for the Town Board to deal with, and whether they think it would be a good idea to rezone the area. The Town Board would decide whether there is any merit to the proposal then they would decide to forward it on to various Boards for recommendations. If they find no merit to this proposal they can deny it. The Town Board has no legal commitment to look at a rezoning. The Town Board is the authority that would legislatively rezone the property and that is the proposal. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 MAY 2, 1996 Ms. Levitan - If this proposal is not rejected at the first meeting, what kind of investment does the perspective developers put into this project? Mr. Kanter - The Planning Department has discussed that with the Town Board, and we were very specific with them, this is something that tends to happen with these kind of proposals. The Town Board was aware of that and was very interested in keeping any kind of costs up front to a minimum, not leading the developer on falsely. There is not very much investment in this project yet. There is a part on the Environmental Assessment Form that says very little about the situation and they have a very rough sketch plan at this time. They have done a fairly long market study which was the basis for determining whether they could or could not pursue the project in this area. The question would be, if the Town Board decides to refer it on, how much more detail should be asked for when it goes to the Planning Board for consideration. The Planning Board likes to see very detailed development of the project during review. Ms. Levitan - At what point does the public receive information on what is happening and when is public comment and input welcomed? Mr. Kanter - It would be at the point where the Town Board decides to refer it somewhere. If the Town Board does not refer it, then there would be no need for public comment because it would not happen. If it needs to be referred, it would go to the Planning Board for review. After the Planning Board reviews this proposal they would refer it back to the Town Board with their recommendations. There are two other potential projects for low income housing credits in other parts of the Town. One is for 104 -units on the Raponi site on Coddington Road near the Ithaca College entrance. The second one is for 160 -units on the former Auble property at the intersection of Danby Road and King Road. Ms. Smith - Is there some sort of statistic that project the growth of Ithaca? Mr. Kanter - The projections over the next 10 to 15 years are that the population growth will pretty much stabilize. What growth will occur would probably be focused outside of the City of Ithaca because the City is already well developed and there are a lot of large open areas in, the Town of Ithaca and in the surrounding areas. The Board had a discussion on what EcoVillage's opinions were on Saddlewood and if EcoVillage could benefit from this. Chair Zarriello - A letter was received from Ruth Mahr in reference to Cornell University's Vet School incinerator project saying there is a negative declaration on this project even though it does effect the environment. I would like to know what CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 MAY 2, 1996 the Board's authority or what the Town could do as an involved agency to sway that so the alternatives to an incinerator project like this would be considered? Mr. Kanter - The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are the Lead Agency for the permits that need to be obtained. The EAF and.the SEAR review that Ms. Mahr was referring to were the ones that were done back in 1993 when the State Construction Fund did it. DEC has indicated to Ms. Mahr and I that the State Construction Fund had not done a coordinated review. Ms. Mahr had sent a letter with details and concerns to DEC. I had talked to Ray Nolan from the DEC Cortland office, and after receiving Ms. Mahr's letters, he sent a request to Albany to redo the air modeling study, which is going on now. DEC was interested in the letter from Ms. Mahr and decided to redo the study. Chair Zarriello - Does this change the status of the SEQR process? Mr. Kanter - DEC is doing their own SEQR process since it was not a coordinated review back in 1993. They will be doing their own Environmental Assessment Form. DEC is working on draft permits for Air Quality and waste disposal. When the draft permits are ready they will distribute them to the public and Town for comment. I asked Mr. Nolan if DEC would be setting up a public information meeting at that point. He said only if enough public comments are received during that review process indicating concerns with the proposal. Mr. Kanter stated that Medical waste being burned at the facility is an issue. It was not burned in the old incinerator, but apparently the proposal is to make it into a pathological and medical waste burning facility with expanded capacity, which raises all sorts of questions on where the medical waste would be coming from. Cathy Valentino, the Town Supervisor, is very interested in this problem, and I think we are going to have a letter from Supervisor Valentino to DEC indicating that the Town is interested and concerned about this problem and would like to participate in the review process. 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS: b. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE - Mr. Kanter - Evan Monkemeyer subdivision proposal on East King Road which is called "Ithaca Estates Subdivision" will be a nine lot subdivision. It will involve a new road that will be coming off East King Road. It has sewer and water available for connection. It is an R-30 district. Mr. Monkemeyer would like to have this rezoned to R-15 district so he could lay out the lots in a slightly different way than R-30 will allow. I suggested to Mr. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 MAY 2, 1996 Monkemeyer that the Planning Board would like to see a concept plan of what would happen on the back part of the undeveloped site for future development, and the Planning Board has a process where he can get preliminary subdivision approval for the whole and then get a phased final approval for different uses as he goes along. This is a sketch plan only at this point. No further report for the Environmental Review Committee at this time. a. VIEW SHED COMMITTEE - Ms. Smith - The Committee met last week and used the survey in taking photographs of views along Mecklenburg Road. Ms. Cornish - This was a test session to see how the survey and camera worked. The Committee took some compass reading's from the point in which photographs were taken. Ms. Smith - George Frantz gave the Committee some pictures from the South Hill Trail. The next time we try a photo session we will try out there. Ms. Cornish - I have received a few responses from the article in the paper, and phone calls from the Chamber of Commerce. Once the Committee has completed the survey and picked out some of the best views, they would like them on discs to use in their tourism package on the World Wide Web. I will be keeping in contact with them throughout this process. No further report on the View Shed Committee at this time. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS/GIS COMMITTEE - Chair Zarriello - Myself, JoAnn Cornish, Jonathan Kanter, Geri Tierney, and Daniel Walker, met a couple weeks ago to have a working session on GIS and how to implement it in the Town. Mr. Kanter - Part of the discussion in general was to get a more organized approach on setting the whole GIS process up. A few things to be careful about is who actually uses and operates the system, and how the data is handled in the system. Also, trying to identify other resources available on information because there is a lot of other data to look into. The Computer equipment will be set up soon. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 MAY 2, 1996 No further report on the Environmental Atlas/GIS Committee at this time. 5. OTHER BUSINESS: a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Mr. Meigs made a motion to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1993 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Ms. Smith. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Meigs made a motion to approve the Minutes of September 30, 1993 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Ms. Smith. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Meigs made a motion to approve the Minutes of January 19, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Ms. Smith. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes of February 2, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Mr. Meigs. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 MAY 2, 1996 The motion was carried unanimously. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes of March 2, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction. On Pages 2 and 3, Ms. Smith did not give the Environmental Review Committee report, but Ms. Russell did, seconded by Mr. Meigs. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes of November 16, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction by adding Jonathan Meigs to the list of those present, seconded by Mr. Meigs. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Meigs made a motion to approve the Minutes of March 28, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Mr. Fischer. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Meigs, Fischer, Smith. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The Board had a discussion on the format of the minutes. They all agreed that there is too much verbatim on the minutes. 'JoAnn Cornish will discuss with Joan Noteboom on the format to try to cut down on the minutes to summarize them to a few pages. 6. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Rim 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, NY 14850 May 14,1996 Raymond J. Nolan New York DEC, Division of Regulatory Affairs 1285 Fisher Ave. Cortland, NY 13045-1090 Dear Mr. Nolan 1 understand you are pursuing the DEC interest and concerns regarding the proposed Cornell University Veterinary incineration facility. I am writing to express my concern that this project has received inadequate environmental review. I am also deeply concerned about the manner in which this project has proceeded. The New York State Construction Fund is both the sponsor of this project and the self designated lead agencyfor the SEQR review. This is a classic case of the fox be ing in charge ofthe chicken coup. The NYS Construction Fund has made a mockeryof the SEQR process bydeclaring a negative environmental impact forthis project. A project of this nature can pose a significant impact on air qualityand the visual character of the area. The SEQR laws were enacted to ensure projects such as this are open to public discussion, that project alternatives are considered, and if the project proceeds, it is done with the minimal possible impact on the environment. Bydeclaring a negative environmental impact, the NY Construction Fund has excluded the public and has lim ited the opportunityfor careful environmental review. Further, I understand much of the initiai environmental work is Flawed (comments by Mark Wysocki, February, 1993) and the sponsor has misrepresented the true scope of the project (letter by Ruth Mahr to Jonathon Kanter, Ithaca Town Planner, April 3, 1996). The Town of Ithaca, to my knowledge, has never had the privilege of reviewing any environmental assessment related to this project other than a short (2 page) draft EIS (personnel conversation, Jonathon Kater, May 9, 1996 and my experience as member of the Conservation Board), but after reading Mark Wysocki's comments recently, he made reference to at least a 49 page environmental engineering report. The Town of Ithaca residents could be significantly affected bythis project and deserve to be kept informed and involved, neither of which have happened. I urge the DEC is the strongest terms to do whatever it can to reverse the negative declaration so the project is subject to a full environmental review that is open to the public. Sincerely, Phillip Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board cc. Ruth Mahr : Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca MEMORANDUM TO: Betty Poole FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner, Staff Support for Conservation Board RE: Town Newsletter Submission DATE: May 8, 1996 TOWN COMPILING LIST OF FAVORITE SCENIC VIEWS The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board is compiling an inventory of scenic views and vistas in the Town. The Board is looking for public input for the project. Please help us by letting us know if you have a favorite view. It can be a view from a spot in the Town (preferably from a spot accessible to the public) such as the panoramic view toward South Hill from the intersection of Snyder Hill Road and Pine Tree Road, or it can be a view of a certain place such as a waterfall or gorge. Views that can be enjoyed frequently by members of the public as they go about their daily activities are particularly important. Anyone with a suggestion for a scenic view or vista located within the Town should call JoAnn Cornish, Planner at 273-1747. BOARD MEMBERS NEEDED The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board is looking for Town residents to fill two vacant board seats. The Conservation Board, in conjunction with other boards and committees, advises the Town on environmental matters, reviews development proposals, assists with the drafting of environmental protection regulations, and participates in community outreach and educational programs. Membership is voluntary and has a term of two years. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is looking for a Town resident to fill one vacancy. Duties of board members include hearing, and taking action on appeals in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board has the power to grant use variances, area variances and special approvals. Membership is compensated and has a term of five years. Anyone Town resident interested in applying for a seat on the Conservation Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals, should send a letter of intent to Joan Lent Noteboom at Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y. or call the office directly at 607-273-1721. J C_ r f C ,T_ - Alert! Letters Needed about Cornell's Proposed Medical Waste Incinerator The State University Construction Fund is planning to build a new medical waste incinerator at the Cornell vet school. Instead of burning just animal remains and bedding as is the current practice, the plan is to burn regulated medical wastes as well. Medical wastes are largely plastics. When incinerated, dioxin and toxic heavy metals are produced as by-products. Some dioxin will be emitted, even if the best available technology is used. No environmental impact analysis has been done. The lead agency, the State University Construction Fund, merely declared that the proposed incinerator would produce no significant environmental impact and no public controversy! Public involvement is critically needed at this point. Before final decisions are made, a full review should be conducted, including a study of alternative disposal methods and sites. Letters are needed to urge Cornell to produce an environmental impact statement and invite public review before final permits are issued by DEC. Letters should be sent to: Dr. Hunter R. Rawlings III Mr. Ray Nolan The Editor President DEC Ithaca .ourral Cornell University 1285 Fisher Ave. 123 W. State St. Ithaca, NY 14853 Cortland, NY 13045 Ithaca, NY 14850 Many questions remain unanswered: • There are alternatives to burning medical wastes. Vet schools in Madison, WI and Davis, CA and hospitals in Albany, NY autoclave rather than incinerate their medical wastes. Is this an option here? • If incineration is the best option, have other sites been considered? • Is waste reduction part of the proposal? What efforts will be made .to minimize Cornell's production of medical wastes, especially plastics? • Will Cayuga Medical Center's medical wastes be incinerated on the Cornell campus in the future? • How much will the incinerator cost to build and operate? Are there cheaper alternatives? • What will be the visual impact of the proposed 177 -foot high smokestack? ' m FINAL j� OF IT 9 TOWN OF ITHACA O ¢� 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 May 17, 1996 Raymond J. Nolan New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Division of Regulatory Services 1285 Fisher Avenue Cortland, New York 13045-1090 Re: Cornell University Veterinary College Incinerator Dear Mr. Nolan: I am writing to express the Town of Ithaca's concern regarding the potential environmental impacts and planning implications of the proposed Cornell University Veterinary College Incinerator. Over the past several weeks, thanks in large part to the research and legwork of Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Improvement Association (FHIA), a number of potential issues and concerns have been identified which I believe require very close attention by your department, and should involve full public involvement and participation. I understand that DEC is now reviewing the proposed Incinerator project in conjunction with air quality and solid waste permits that would be required, and that DEC will have to conduct its own environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and make a determination regarding the significance of any environmental impacts. The Town of Ithaca had indicated concerns when the State Construction Fund conducted its own environmental review in 1993. Although a process of public participation and input was initiated at that time, for some reason, that process was never adequately advanced, and I believe that opportunities for public input by the Town of Ithaca government, the Forest Home community, and other interested. groups were cut short. One of the Town's concerns is that the location of the facility is very close to an established residential neighborhood, and in the midst of a growing part of the Cornell University campus. The area certainly should not be characterized as a rural one. In fact, Precinct 7 (containing the Cornell Orchards), directly to the south of the proposed Incinerator, was recently rezoned by the Town as a Special Land Use District in recognition of the future campus expansion anticipated by Cornell University. The original environmental assessment conducted by the State Construction Fund should have investigated alternative sites for this project. I Raymond J. Nolan May 17, 1996 Page 2 believe that it is not too late for DEC to require such an investigation as part of its environmental review. Air quality, and accompanying public health, are really the central concerns associated with this project. I am very glad to hear that DEC, as part of the permit review process, has initiated a new air quality modeling study. The Town looks forward to seeing the results of that study. The concern remains, however, that the modeling study should be very specifically focused on the local conditions within which the facility will be operating. That includes the use of local climatological data, local topographic and microclimate conditions, and most importantly, the recognition of the location of an urbanized area and population concentration in the vicinity of the project. Related to both of the above concerns is stack height. If the facility is located at the proposed site, it is imperative that the stack is high enough to properly disperse emissions away from developed areas. At the same time, it must be recognized that the higher the stack, the larger the visual impact on surrounding areas will be. A preliminary photographic analysis done by Town of Ithaca staff in 1993 clearly demonstrates that even the currently proposed stack height of 177 +/- feet would be highly visible from a number of surrounding vantage points, and that the visual impact could be significant. The information Ruth Mahr has unveiled regarding the conversion of the current facility, which is a characterized as a pathological incinerator, to a medical waste incinerator, is alarming to say the least, and certainly warrants the closest possible scrutiny. Such a change was obviously downplayed during the State Construction Fund's environmental review in 1993, and should trigger a closer look at the potential environmental impacts by DEC, as well as full public participation by the community. Not only does the change to a medical waste incinerator involve the obvious air quality considerations that Ruth Mahr has raised, but also, as aptly put by Ruth, should be a public policy issue, and could have long-term implications about how medical wastes are disposed of county -wide. This is a solid waste planning and policy issue that requires full public involvement. I understand that you have indicated that DEC will be distributing the draft permits and its own Environmental Assessment Form to the Town of Ithaca, Forest Home Improvement Association, and other interested groups for public comment. I would urge you at this point, prior to the issuance of the draft permits, to take the above concerns into consideration, and open up the environmental review process for full public involvement. This is a project that has important implications for the community, and should receive the hard look that SEQR requires and that appears to Raymond J. Nolan May 17, 1996 Page 3 be warranted for this project. Please keep me informed of the status of your review. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca cc: Commissioner Michael Zagata, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Ralph Manna, Regional Permit Administrator, D.E.C. Assemblyman Marty Luster Beverly Livesay, Tompkins County Board of Representatives James Hanson, Jr., Commissioner, Tompkins County Planning Department Hunter R. Rawlings, III, President, Cornell University David Stewart, Director of Public Relations, Cornell University Gregg F. Travis, Director, Statutory Office for Capital Facilities, Cornell University Town of Ithaca Town Board Candace Cornell, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Phillip Zarriello, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Improvement Association Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, Town of Ithaca v,� Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering, Town of Ithaca June 3, 1996 Dear Neighbor, Plans to build a new medical waste incinerator at the Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine continue. No environmental impact analysis was done, and there has been almost no opportunity for public input concerning potential impacts or. possible alternatives. Public involvement is critically needed. You do not need to be opposed to the incinerator to get involved -- the point is that there is still too much that we do not know. Before permit decisions are made, a full environmental review needs to done, including a study of alternative disposal methods and sites. If the proposed plan is as safe as its proponents claim it to be, they should welcome an. environmental impact study as a demonstration of their good faith to the people of the Ithaca area. The public information meeting in 1992 raised more questions than were answered concerning effects on the environment and ultimately our health. You can become involved by sending a letter to the three addresses listed on the enclosed "Alert!". Request that an environmental impact study be done now. Then give a copy of the "Alert!" to three of your Ithaca area friends and urge them to write also. Oar voices must be heard -- please take action immediately t i r I +I N ` `fl �• Y. i l ` ,( x J :./ I r� `I �t •� b�/,- p 'f } ,. �,� _ I�� Yr Ile )ill /�y �I ,I t (_ �.,5\ ;y<��tv 1., I1 �' ���r r" yl ,r •r ,_ ' �. I, V _ \I / / - ♦�Tl�� ���1( •.\. l � _ L.. 1- .41i � J1 \ _ rT, � C ) � r R^ i \, I�.� I' Y r1, I� 6 r Y ,. �`�'r ./ 4 ' r( ,r :V-(•� -tel �. - - _ 1 y' 1 �V i f1( � •.L,`� �), `�� ( .,� � !-•1. /�. )C 'f� '�' i '` -�` ` l �-.ad`. \/, a, ,as:J � 7 r•t l' �� / 4 , .( r - 4 t �r1 i � � -` ( } r�i.:•.`.',•'•..•^C':: :v%�`'�j:: ! '1% t x: t:$ 'J � J �I, . 'an R a -0 J ,y�n -Re uotorsated Pro r s� i � S �cr-, � `� ,r�, � � `"� 1 ' tsi' / l : �' , ,. -� � x:. . l ..,G.y.. - A _ '� � . ,.�'.:.•:•,,:a:.. � �, cC � � � .�, J - � \ ��J' l..l �( •F • •) i � (J` 4 ! � r,� I l.�l :. . .�� (-c �` t Y J :. ,1 4 � 9 Ylk, i ,`°J r 1� f ,) t . f _ ,lel �� e C � i •-" 11, ! r -" , � l � � l ' � � I I. ,. J . r � . i . �'! r. �. <^- LOCA ViIETLAND PF OTECTION.; ; Waterfron#`Revrtalization-Coastal,Areas!a`nd r j `' Adrrondack Park Agehcy:Act �, `. ;AGRICQLTUR' L STABILIZATION AND ) �� i tThe Freg6water Wetia' Act allo�nrsaiocal go�ernmerits`to�: Inland• Waterways Act �. � ,,,� , - - � x, � � l'he APA Act �prot-'cts wetlands by'regulatind activities rin`or CONSERVATION SERVICE'(ASCS,)_ t assurr'e jurisdiction forregulating wetlands once DEC has- _Uridar,this Act, the NYS Department 'of State (DOS') . - near, we ds That pose :the threat 'of. a'd�%rse, impact, ,� AS S adrjair�istersthe 1990federal Farm Biq,`�nihich includes'1 filed arnap. for -their areas. Very few localities have done o �� administers the coastal pF gra, containingpolicies town ch <rr,' �hcluding a tivities,such�asrthe subdNision of. land., the letlands'.Reserve and the Swampbd�ter programs. �L. .� v r - /%st r� ' 1 r - r,' ! S r. 1 ! � ' Coun �ASCS a ents are_ best able I'to nswer; wetland , to date:.However, localrgovernmegts may protectwetlarids ; �sfate agenciestnusr conform. ,�Also,�the federahCgastal = o �.t _ 1 ty g ! ` n er a urate `local ordi�ances. C' ntac our 'fora Zone,Ma a eni�nt 'c 're vires notice of corisistenc with '� `', U.S. ARMY�CORP .OF %ENGINEERS CORPS ti questions to t�ieae ro rams and can rovide>aerial, fr d� , u_ d r ., 1? . �. (! , Y.� g. , � t q Y, : ' r .. q - to . � rP g . gyp, governmerit'�oifiee for-` eneral didanc and information, the state oastal� one rr�ana ement� Ian: The�NYS'D,QS' Tfie Cor s of -En' ineers has uri ictiory over actio ties ir1! 'land, cro' tos. ` ASGS:, 315 -4�3=5176.; - 9✓,I g, e. �, ;r4 . 9 - P _ p g. y�� J ( P) PP (.>) . applipation. forms for Ibpal .zoning (prograrh§,Jreview (Of Coasaf Zone •Manag'emef�t program, rev�ev3s project T° :�. �,waters�.of lie United States, mcludmg wetlands,"uhder,the:` - r�, wetlah& aps, assistance, N ith 'wetland delineations`, an'd� i ,cgrisi tehcy NYSD / :,x,;(518)-47.4'-'6 0. -} following"legislation: �. ry �,� =' > ��SO�L CONST RVATIOf� SERVIC � (SCS) � ' 1 1, �' .,.;- ��. l• -.`� 1. '�'., 0 s-°.'�' ' ` '1 : � �.n-!,. � �; � � � 1 r j �' rJi,.., r�� - _ , l / .r\ r. .. Lr i explanation of permitted uses: In,cifies,br villages, call tfe I r �' fir• ;, ��-':�, r, <• SCS field offces'in;most counties providetechnical support r �nt�nicipal office to ri3ach,the appropriate, person: =Nevir�York Statce Ca�astal EFosion Hazard: Areas' Law �� Clean Water Act �- Section 404a��„ : r fors the ASCS programs,` they. conduct.anrzetland- inventories ,;), � ' , t I•^ � � � ' � ✓ � � 1, , `This`progam rgulates�actiyitas,On��ce' ainlandsalongthe ' ' This sectibn'of the;Act.regulatdischarges"to waters of . and 4ra4�e� wetland determinations for ,,the �Swarnpb�ser �r coastal ;fresh' arid'-saltirters` o the- state; .arid identifies United 5tates�includ�ng#filling, soil moverrierit; and the pl'ace� r `prograrri. '';.The° ERA, 'Corps; 'arid ` SSS lace- evelopf g,.` ' NEW $7P Sl?ATE D.EPARTMENT� OF .� t �. ' _ ' �u 9' I )'� J' s.. ENVIRON ENTALrCONSERVATION ;(DEEC) Natural/Protectiv6 Features, and Structural`;- .azarc�Ar'-as,, M6nt ofterfain�pilings in"Wetlands; and estnbl'shes'a po�mt ,procedures to ll6w.farmers o rely n `written.SCS wetland r DECtregulato'y tlands,�maps argil"orated at appropriate along' bse.coasts 9n Coas'tal.Erosiorr�Ha�ard Area Mads. (' ' ' ' �.� ropram�to ens reg that- such discharges, comply,: with juras;dictiona�l ' etermmations;as'th�fiirraf'ferferal g�overnmen ' �courity, town,,arjd clerk -offices".'Contact*the:appropriate' DEC Bu?ea of Flood 73T! 57,315. �� environmental-repuirements.� Discharges of-dredged�or.fip, position �on,t es xtent of •Section 4b4,CleanMaterlAct r N- r. w.� �, �' �' `material re regulated foall��niaters and �nietlands're'gardiess juisoicf iq'(i:� SCS fdentificationslare nota s`u stitate for_ YS regional,DE�-office for°general guidance apd, int rmation; y ; / v . �,',appl'icatioh'forms�`a"Jd reulew of wetland` maps. D,EC'also} Use;'and PrQte�t�n;=ofi jJVaters Pro�rarrii = �' �� , ' ! - o "size., Pre=approved general or riation�ride pen'hifs may be�. V11e'tl rid Maps, ,SCS'' (315) 423-5521.; wet I : � . • , .. � . _ `� � -, i t,, / , (- ': f , L . � . /. �" . �` �� n... .. � 1 ; . ,/ ,. , a l . � > �-1. (' . �i �: r (•� , t. l . . G , F ,, )� � � ; > h .cur ducts wetland tlelineafi ns. See the�Contacts.UsItfora" . ,his program ,regulates. activities that occur in or near Vailabl,e for ° sp'ecifae .tumor activities,' n; retlah' is. �� > ; �' � 1� a t- n p d �r L / cogn county listing of. phonenumbers, ; �- :navigable and,protec�ed waters, of_thle Mate.. Regglated' S Compensatory,mitigation is.only�accepted_fnr-unavoidablb U.S,. FISH AND(WiLDLIFE' SERVICE�(USFVIjS t _ activites-inrlud- ariy'akiiterafion or exca�ration;of the bed,or �, losses underzthe f6deral,prograrti:, Tfie,'.Corps adrririisters.� USiF1NS�fieldofficesmNewYorkassist thwet�aridrestorafion' % Freshwater Wetlands Acct . �, , banks of the..Wlliway, incl ding'a jacent'�wOtlarids: ��. �' ,� s the federal permit rograrii r: ', j ,{ , ��. plans and maria 'erment'questions. , he �1SFV�IS field office �,. n - �.' This A tpre�se . es,protects;land conserares those�fre hwater ( _ l reviews, �federaf ermit I a kati ns'and r late,d miti -anon 5 , ��,...F .�p�� pP; �? J wetlan s in�the'stte that�are.greater tban,l2.tacres in sizo,� Uniform'Proced"uresAct', rr '� ) �� , °Rivers andHarbor Act of 1899,- Sectjon 10! - . plans,land participates in' onSultations wrth_other resource 1 _ aridan �smalfer'wettands;of u usual local.irn ortance: An� � ;�This�Act Stantlartidi e5 rocedures fore rocessing'�DE.Cs ,.r �.,�, This section:of,the�Act re dlates an kfivi .that cts the. `� -a encl'esre ardin t1i'reat6hi edorentlan eredwildlifes a ies° � y p , '. . a p ��� �. ,� ..� ' 9 y: 9 9 9 g ��pi adjacent 'area 'of 1.00,feet is also protected ttor provide •a majors, regulatory permits. It assures fast y and complete ; r, , coursed locatiofi and capacity of ra riavigable 'water',, It issues issues, ,of t#ie ,federal ,Endangered Sdecies Aet): if ` r " : ` ��, fbVi `' establis es timetables , and;encoura� es public ,!�' r6 o ulates!ally"activities that. take lace 4n 'on above or' buffe zone tolthe w tland The Freshwater Wetlands Act e e s, h , " p �g p _ , USFWS: 60`7 53-9334. �. rants the adminfstr:tion-of wetlands withi th°e: Adirb'n ack ,�. participation in, permit review Viand. de�+is`on making.! 1 'underneath navigable,waierg.� Eacli Corps distnc'ti7iaintains . 'grants' ..,J',, .����.� .� _.,�. _ %.� /..r e� .Y� L� � -t ,,r. s ',,r .. , `,,-! � � � :. ! - . 1�:' Park to the APA.: Wetlands over one acre rn size,tor any sine: t _` : Y i. I a , Irs . of,��nav,igable ww ters" ;regulated,,;un0gr �Sectlbn 10.,° o r � ... , ,�Z . 4 �.,� r C LINTY tOIL'A D'WATr�R CONSERVATION` wetlands adjacent to dpcn water aro :regulated within the r . S,tat6,�E iiironmdnt,61.,Ouch �R view Aet',(S�QRA) 1, � � ,Coastal waters,pajor'r ivers,�t e urge Canal; andthe Greet < � t ,� t �,.. DISTRICTS (SWCD) r ` Adi Qndack Park., t �,' _� �' `''' �� ."The provisions=of the:Uniform.PFo educes --Act require that ' <<r rLal�es are ezarnplesrof�navigableryvaters�. '�� r �• ` "r. t.. :r. �! ')t , r .. ?these ist is are-" rt li i n for errr�itscannobe,considere om� lete , `�'� �� �` �' d , pa tir>er� with QAC,$ an ,SCS in assisting app cat o s C��, P 'Con act theCo s; district'offic 'in NewtYork Cl ,` Baffato, or, the-lo-dal'commu'hi Kiri arti6pl r and'i wo kin `;with co ties' # '�- unless certairi're ui ements of SE,QRA have been met. This. ,� -, q t-.Pittsbur h for info, ation,, about th'ese.Jeddralyre' uta ions -in ro ectin their lnatpraP're m rces. They enerall t� have' Ti'dal�Wetl$'rids Ac �� n _ , •' J' g 9 � ,, 0 � � U y g ,y., This Act preserves, and protests wetlands (salt; marshes, initially. inVolves the filing,by the applicant o ,a completed, ' s. , �� 3, „ - , - t ti� . , , i (see,G ntac s Lrs. Permit;applicationsor Corp "This: cp,ies of mformatiorr�Such :as(DEG app; sdtsurweys, and ` :flats et :now-orformerl connect dtotida�waters. Adjacent Environmental,As e sment or`m;( 'AF)� More,comple ��, � �_ >> r, _ .. , ' :K ,y� 7�, � " � • • r ,Yl .• ,_ acti`v'ities scan be. obtained,frorri tie Coips or fromregioo�ial , aen�l"photographs. For SWCD cont is (518 457-3738 ,areas -within 0Q,feet (6h,,50 feat inAow YorkCity) of tidal' r� projgcts(,m8y requires . mane. lengthy and ;detailed �. - -� . _ 'w` lain �e also also--�}ride the Act. - �" Ehvirbrioae tai Im act Statement EIS). �C offi es: i" �. Q- i et r ds• a p eT t p ( I, 1 '� � '� - �1 ; / ,t �• '� int . o �� � . ,) � �1 �, i;l',� ,� - °� ,EN1�IR NNiENTA PROTECTION''AGENCY E A COUNT -Y) AND LOCAL�NVIRONMENTAL ?. l r �7�.:$� O �.4.�, Vt/ater Quality Carti icatk NE�lV YORK TATE-KC RACK PARK AGENCY _� " �.,� 1l�li liin tfie�Seetiori 4p4,l ro car ,� PA dev0'10 "the�enyiron , ,�MANAGENiENT, CONiMIS�k6N8i - Secfidh-401, of the federal lean jurat r Act'requit � astate 1lVithin tf e��Adirondack Park, the Adirohdack=Park Age ° c t ��° rq - ��, i I , .. - }.. Y mental guidelines by IwNch permit- applications muss b Toes6 local review,�bodies develop resource and other local certification that a federal�Sermit (see the: Qorps;secfion a APA ,admi�riisters ,the YS _Freshwater V1/etfands Act and s/ ', r , ( ) �,. _ �evaluated;ravj'e prop`se'dperrrjits,rnayprofiibitdischarges� land;usoplansand�recgmr end�regulatoryordinanceetot'he, > ✓ g) q �,� ' g �,,) �, follawin meets staidwater uali standards as a condition he "APA Act,' both, of which regulate activb6slih o� near ,F.� z _ ` frith` uhacce table-' doers im ' cts 404[c] , establishes "local governingbody. They m y also . orkwith iocafplanning . ofthe`fe eral a mit' rovaT.�i� stcas�esDEGadrriinisters ; ortiorisofcounties`I in ` l �' �' p� ,� ` lei g P ` � )'�a' d p. r .app im91 wetlands Vlletland'rriaps fdrr#hose p , y , g Y,_ funs ctional, scope 5 of, waters ?df 'the Unit4d States rid � , or zoning staff irr, a�c�mmistenng local land use laws. i water'q li certification.. Water ,quality -certifications are �� within -the Adiron"a k,Park are Ioaated,atAPA hea quarters , � �� ' � � � /�� ;t � � �; �;. p ,.., .. ` mterpr�ets Section_ 4d4 exemptions- ER,A, and,th'e ,Corp required 1cJrll actions under regulatory,a thorny of Section' end intowh a court cYerko�ffice� of affeoted muhici `alines: r r � n tYP ) share enfo cetne faLthority. EPA Region2)264-5 70:.- �:. 404' of the 'fode'fal, Clean Water, , ct�, �•� - ; , C n 1 )� APA.'> (51 &) 891-4050.-" Y.Ir . r r � � � i f lI �`�'� > � t ) _t .z�' � t. (`- � -, ? �✓, S 1 :f �, S �re ... � 9� ;fir � ;r ) ,� � �" 7�� \ , ' ,r. "I . �°(;17i � fi� v��� ;' • d) � , I -t , ' .: � J � .� .� � `r � /;� � � • j � .� ,� � - s � •:� � "r � �, ,� i u s i � "r / — + 4 ;J' �r , I,. o j - ".. , " � . >" yJ 1 ,.1' / i. 1.�> `�y,, ;` f �Y �a . ' ' 'Jr ��° .. 1 ` ' �t-i' �S �" �_ r�. -. - f '1'' . S: }: 4) �� ( wj b { .:•� J i� _ �� �• •� S� T • .. .f -' � r ''F !. ".{, . ' � < � 4 �°� _ ter ti- .', �•r JWI�+<� `(, . I_ :i ,7 r yl 1' � "' � . �r ' ''` Adjacent Area (New York State): � i, Regulated Activity (New York State): adjacent'arda, means those, areas of land -or water that are any form of draining, dredging, excavation, or reining, either outside a wetland, and within` 100 feet, (or 300 feet in tidal directly or indirectly; any form of `dumping or filling, either ` wetlands; 150 feet in, New York City in tidal' wetlands),, directly or indirectly; erecting any structures, constructing measured horizontally, from the boundaryof the wetland. roads, driving � pilings, or placing any other obstructions DEC may,establish ,an adjacent area broader than , 100 feet whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the water;,any 5 ` where neces`sary'' to protect and presence a:`,r`eshwater form of pollution, including,, but not limited to, ,installing a wetlands septic tank, running a sewer outfall, ,discharging sewage ` Mitigation: y treatment or other, liquefied wastes into or so as to drain into mitigation. refers ,to the avoidance and minimization of a wetland; or any'other. activity that'substantially impairs any detrimental impacts. and compensation for the loss of s of the several functions or benefits of wetlands. These are subject to regulation whether or not they occur wetlands and their.functions. It is,required in the Corps, permit activities process if alternative siting and efforts to reduce impacts still; ,upon the wetland itself; if 'they impinge upon or otherwise result in wetlands loss., � � ` � _ � substantially affect the \wetlands and are located, within the - • _ 'subdivision National' Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI): ; ' adjacent area. in the Adirondack Park, of land within wetlands is a regulated activity: = NWI maps show the location and. type of wet)ands, in the United States. NWI `maps ,are not a• substitute for NYS Swampbuster: Wetlands'Maps or federal wetland jurisdiction. NWI mapping a provision of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and, hasbeen undertaken with the use of aerial photo technology, ",Trade Act of,1990 (1990, Farm -Bill) that denies eligibility for and not all mappings' have been-ground-truthed. The NWI ,all U.S. Department of Agriculture farm program benefits to , maps can be overlaid upon U;S.Geological Surveytopographic any person who converts'a wetland by draining, dredging; M aps. Both ofthese map` types can be purchased through ,filling, leveling, or any other means after December 23,1985: the NewYork distribution center, at (607)256=650, or through Wetlands (federal): the national office at 1 -800 -USA -MAPS. = -_those areas that are, inundated'or saturated -by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration ,to support, and r_ ?`�'�:l `•'•' may';`:::::, that under normal circumstances do -support, a prevalence - °pically ; 0. 4' C of vegetation tyadapted for 'life- in saturated .soil ` Fi y. conditions. Wetlands 9 include swamps, bogs, marshes, and A . ✓ w me ws. et meadows. F� ntl W w York Stat Wetlands (New e r•: - m r I n ... in i t mi - I n rid sub a �ed a ds su ort aquatic c o se a a ds�a - PP q 9 g aquatic vegetation; b) containing the remnants of any vegetation that is not aquatic or semi, aquatic that has died peri use of etcon t i s over a suffi ientIY Ion9 o ma'ximumProvided that such wet con i ions do nof -exceeded a Navigable Waters federal seasonal water depth of 6ft. and that such conditions can all presently, historically, and be expected to persist indefinitely barring human intervention; reasonably potential navigable waters and all waters subject r c) lands and water substantially enclosed by aquatic or semi - to the ebb and flow of the -tide up to mean high water in tidal aquatic vegetation\as_per a) and b); and' d) the waters water and up to ordinary high water in freshwater areas., overlying the areas set forth in a) and b) and,the lands,,' Ordinary High Water Mark (federal): , underlying 'c). the point on the bank or shore to which the presence and Wetlands Reserve Program-'- rogram:-action actionof surface water is so continuous as to leave'a distinct a voluntary program,, piloted in a number of states including mark- by erosion, destruction or prevention of terrestrial NewNork, authorized through the 1990 Farm Bill ,offering vegetation, predominance of aquatic vegetation, or other landowners a chance to,receive payments -for restoring and easily recognized characteristic. The OHWM defines the protecting wetlands on their farms, bed of a lake, river, or stream. Modify Your Project Desi n Or -Location Com Iete,,Permit A `lications( �- -STEP , g STEP p pp If -'Necessary , Remember that you rnay.need permits from two A. -Make and!use a, checklist of laws that affect , lormore regulatoryagencies, and thateachpermit- your property. must be approved before you begin. Violation of B+ ,Look for design alternatives thatavoidwetlands. Minimize these permit requirements is cause for enforcement actions the project scope knd`its adverse impacts. by local, state, and/or federal authorities which,may impose fines and require compensation. ' C. If the project design. can't, be altered, to -comply with , applicable regulations, try to change, the location or, investigate an alternative use for the property. ' JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS (DEC AND, CORPS { 1 Outside the Adirondack Park, a'joint DEC/Corps application procedure is in place forwetland permits.,'Applicationto DEC is sufficient; a copy ofthe,application will' automatically be forwarded by DEC to the -Corps. The Corps will -then begin its processing. of the application. For,wetlands which the Corps, but not the DEC,'- has' EC,`has jurisdiction, applications to the regional Corps, office are required. For applications inside the Adirondack Park, separate applications `toI/the APA and the Corps are required. `J , I , l A. -Include, scale drawl+n s, cross-sections,', property descriptions, proposed .. construction timetables, descriptions ofconstruction techniques, photographs, permits'fees; and othersupplementary,materials as necessary. To expedite r review of your proposal include a set of drawings on 8.5" by 11" size paper. B. All w enough lead time inyour project to accommodate date permit processing (see Permit Reviewpage.8) and -An Potentalmodificationsor ,Y special conditions required in the regulatory process. 1, NEW YORK STATE FRESHW, ATE R VETLANDS" MAPS, The DEC has mapped the approximate boundzaries of,ah freshwater wetlands of 12.4 acres or'more in New York. In some, cases, these maps include smaller wetlands of unusual local importance, and within the Adirondack Park the maps include wetlands down to the one acre threshold and all wetlands adjacent to open water. These maps are used to determine the presence of freshwater wetlands on particular properties. Copies of maps are available for review at local government clerk's offices, DEC regional offices, and at the APA headquarters for those counties within the AdirondackPark. TO PURCHASE MAPS: DEC provides an Order Form for obtaining specific,maps from Syracuse Blue Print Co., Inc., 825 Genesee St., Syracuse, NY, 13210. Maps are $2.00 each plus shipping. L / �'} � / ,� - � � .. � � > , , J l \ 1. � � l ,V . �/� f �_ 0 v �'1 1 \ _ • FEDERAL LEVEL r STATE LEVEL' The Corps review process normally is'c6ncluded within 60 When' a project application is declared complete, the review t days of receipt,df,a'cdmplete application. During this time; C,process begins. For minor projects', a decision should be ✓ the Corps issues, a public notice, solicits,public and agency, made within 45 calendar days. Major project reviews can • ^comments for 30 days evaluates -the proposed action', and', take up to 90 days if no public hearing is held, and up to 60, B E F,O R E' YOU BUY B E.FO R E •YO -U ,BUILD c issues a decision. If a public hearing -is held, the decision days after the close -of a public hearing.' Time frames may •1) 1 / n Are you buying undeveloped land?` Building a home, a retail center, or marina?'How about a driveway or an addition to your process `is lengthened. Where a - be' suspended by mutual agreement of DEC and the controversial action is proposed or applicant, by enforcement actions, or by SEQRA reviews. cabin? In each case, the presence, of wetlands, may, affect where•and whether you build., buy, or develop:^In New York and - 'throughout'the United States, Wetlands are protected, on publicrand private property'. ` where an EIS is required, the r { r J - -perm P i process may s , t Y ?� \: DS? - -extend to several :,><.,:;� ::;::;«::::; I -°' , � - �": (� �/HY PROT,ECT WETLANDS . � _ �IHEREt DO` I 'GO,FROM .HERE . months or more. , '�c. f You ma have grown u "thinkin th°at the best wetlandwas Will wetland re ulations affect our project? You can find out „•' y' 9 up'thinking g, Y P 1 u one converted to another use, drained for;agriculture or filled 'through discussions with local officials, the staff of the -New " 'r'` for develop pent. Bu t'wetlands.contribute!positively to the, York StateDepartmentofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC), .;° .. >k.... If EPA, .USFWS, or NMFS exercise their option to,elevate a social., economic, and.environrnental,heaith of our nation in the New York,Stat4AdirondackPark Agency'(APA),the U.S. �� ` • ' permit, decjsion to.the national level, under Section 404(q), ' many ways: Army, Corps ,of Engineers (Corps), and the information 1 , ;:.;>: J ' z, resented here. Let this fact sheet be our guide. Glance , _:••::::.:: the decision. may be •delayed by 30 to 60; days. IF EPA - �l P Y decides to" exercise its Clean 'Water Act' Section '40,4(c) ♦ gy filtering pollutants, nutrients, and sediments; wetlands through it.once to, see 'how it's organized-- then use it-asi a , authority to,denyor restrict use of a site, for placement of fill ' protect water quality in lakes,, Livers, streams,'and wells. reference as ,you buy property, design your project,' and material, . the Corps cannot issue a permit. The 404(c) prepare permit applications. process involves public. participation and ossibl "hearin s, ®,By storing runoff from heavy rains and' snow melts, and could take up to 6 months. P y g wetlands reduce flood damage. t �` SI ®. B actin asshor line buffets, wetlands protect a ain'st-' �l :;::::.:..:..:::,,:.:': ;..::.::.:.::.:.::.;.::•::.:->. ::..::.::..:.::.:.::::.:.:-.,:.,..:..:..'.: :;;:.::;:.:•:.:.:;:;:.::;:::;.:<:::::.:::::<:.: >::<:.: <:::::::;>:;::::.. y, II and Proc ess Ing P roc edures for re erosion � from Wavessand cu ,rreni . At the state level, tl er m " J 1 1 7 1 , (rmiis are governed d in New York provisionsis o fvetIan d Pe ®r6 Y providing esse isIh bitat rfish, waterfowl, f w l, and otherr the Uniform Procedures Actand'its implementing regulations -n 'animals, wetlands rovide'recreational oPPortun• 'esfor :.:::,..:;:::.::....::: : receipt fan ::_:<::::< ^ sof ec .. - - �::<;::::�:::::::::::_>:><::}:>`:��;�: -. <...............:.. ,.......•......................................... 6NYCRR Part 621. Wlt in, 15 da p visitdrs nd contribute, to local 11 Y r Idents and I e es � ( ) � stat a it contains all the :zk<< application;, DEC will .determine whethereconomies. informationn needed to begin, review. iew. If the, application ication s , , , he eg uIato rY Afta its staff end an notice ®, Through h nutrientt eX P ort wet a dss uP : 'r�will s orthefood chainincomPletet on whichend'- detailing what wit life fi rles andshellfish ries deP s•r•.' n inv nds sport fishing; commercial ,r and shellfish industrie andcontribute ute to local economies.s. >`t United I I1 S tat B providing be e uali of life private property. e ' v alues a d IPen spaces, w tIand �enh EPAW nceEnvir Environmental IPoecto Agency' .v' yy" ,'...', J ( . yy�l i • �.�� ••:�T.: X: "i F till r EPARe Region 2; 2WM - , WPB 1�6 4- 17 J : • J .! J :•. N+. ::;rr.<G..:�:.'.:i.. ::: i:5:%::;.:n•%:iv::: :'vv:i'. Man of theseval values 'were not wideI ar c ate it h Publication 902-F 93 00 `r>'�<""• ...:,. hafo f the nation's-�� 7 n 0 B the more than I 1 , . 190sad8 a- Y - - .,9 Revised Feb rua July 3. Re sed x y ;'>%'•<ii i:i•;Jj,`::i/':Y'Y'.:i''��/ii::il+:;::;:::�:Jf�`yii:%, : marshes,rshes swamps, bo s and prairie potholes were gone. Th concept tfor this brochure originated with and was first implemented b Y•rhe Wisconsin The need to stop wetland landloss was critical • medi t e. r } } - _tate andfederal governments P"rtment of Natural Resources. We (hank that agency for kindly Pravidina their Local sresponded b creating :.:s:::..:::.,..:'.<�,.'.::,: �:,.,.:.�.'..:..:'�:..:•..:,:.:::::.,:.:::: ::.....r.:,>:.:..::.::...:,.<.,.:.:.�.....: . .:. ,...:.::..:.:..:. ' their own regulatory Pr,o ram materials for our use. We also thank Washrngton State Department of Ecologyfor use n e >;<:::::::,<::<;:;::::.:::...::..::.:::..,:...:.;.....:::...,:...::;.:...::...::.:::.:.:........:.;:..,•..::.......::,:.,:::..,::..:.::...,.:...:..:...:<,.::...:...:....::.:...::"...:,'.:..�.<...�:.'..:.,.:.:.:..:..::..:.'..:..:. Printed 5' 0 the illustrations f ust ations o P "-}•. g vJX r recycled a PPer *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994-0-512-974 ����a. - Cee, pb-� 15y-iidn�z,�a� %c�� Gs�cc�a� 91 q ccs�- �Z5-/ - 5/2, -Z `13 _��� TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, July 18, 1996 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. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 8:00 p.m. 4. Cornell Lakes Source Cooling - Update 8:30 p.m. 5. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 9:00 P.M. 6. Business: a)Approval of Minutes (6/6/96, 4/20/95, 10/6/94 - enclosed) b) Other 9:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Peter Salmon Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/07-18-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD JULY 18. 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19. 1996 PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Loren Tauer, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations; Bob Bland, Environmental Engineer for Cornell University; John Himes, Project Manager from Sterns & Wheeler; Liz Vastbinder, Project Manager for Cornell University; Rob McCabe, Project Engineer for Cornell University. Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: Richard Fischer stated that Nancy Ostman from the Cornell Plantations, is the coordinator for natural areas. She is very familiar with the natural areas that Cornell owns. She is particularly concerned, along with other people who are members of the Natural Areas Committee, about the future of the South Hill Swamp, especially in view of the development going on around it. She would like to see the South Hill Swamp changed to a Critical Environmental Area rather than just an unique natural area. Ms. Ostman stated that Candace Cornell (Chairperson of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board) suggested that she come to the Conservation Board with the notion that all the unique natural areas in the Town of Ithaca should be Critical Environmental Areas such as Coy Glen is. The South Hill Swamp is probably one of Cornell's most fascinating natural areas. It definitely has rare vegetation. It has many endemic species. They are only at South Hill and no where else in the area. The closest other place that it would be found would be on Long Island or the coastal plains. It probably is a geological remainder of vegetation that has been left for ages, and the theory is that when glaciers were coming across the hills in Ithaca, this one spot was spared. There is a wide variety of vegetation in this area. It is a very shallow base up on a hill top that is very shallow to bedrock. There are some places where the bedrock is exposed, and there is a wet area in the middle of the basin called the South Hill Swamp. Around the rim is a raised area then the hill drops off to the sides all around, and the rim is very dry. Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow. The swamp is typically dry in the fall and summer, but it is very wet in the winter and the spring. There is a list of rare plants, but not only are there rare plants that it is totally a rare area of what that land is. The South Hill Swamp is behind Ithaca College at the crest of East King Road. Hospicare is right behind it on East King Road. The total area that has unusual vegetation is probably closer to 100 acres, and the key critical area is probably is 60 acres. The Committee has been concerned about protection from development and ianything that threatens the area., Cornell owns about half of the really critical area at this point, which s about 45 acres. Ithaca College owns a tract of land right adjacent to the east side of the CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Monkemeyer parcel which has truly wonderful vegetation, and that site should be protected. There are wet springy areas that have rare species in them that are locally scarce. On the Monkemeyer property, 100 feet would be enough for the buffer. For the parcels to the north, a bigger buffer than 100 feet would be needed. To the east near Deer Run, Ed Holberg and his associates donated a big piece of land to Cornell, which would serve as a buffer on that side. The zoning through this area is R-15, so I would not expect large scale condominiums, but it could be very dense. Eva Hoffmann stated that the Monkemeyer parcel is zone R-30. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in previous minutes, Mr. Monkemeyer was proposing to have R-15 setbacks on R-30 lots, so he would be able to build larger one story homes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if Ithaca College and Cornell University cooperate on how to treat this piece of land? Ms. Ostman stated that Cornell University has tried to buy the Ithaca College property a couple times, but they have not been willing to sell. They have been master planning a road coming from King Road as an alternate entrance to the larger parcel. At this point, they have not seriously considered that, and they have been unwilling to part with what they consider a potential road into the Ithaca College property. Cornell would still be happy to buy it from Ithaca College if they were willing to sell, but we have not had that option. Cornell has asked Ithaca College to declare this a natural area, but they have refused to do that and they would like to reserve their options on it. Ms. Hoffmann asked if this is already part of the EMC's list of special areas under consideration? Ms. Cornish responded, yes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they can disregard that completely? Ms. Ostman responded, no, but it gives another level of protection for the Town to declare it a Critical Environmental Area. Ms. Cornish stated that a Critical Environmental Area triggers SEQR review automatically and it goes to the interested involved agencies. Chair Zarriello stated that the Conservation Board should draft a resolution for the next meeting to pass onto the Town Board for recommendation, and then Ms. Ostman could give a presentation to the Town Board. CORNELL LAKES SOURCE COOLING - UPDATE: Bob Bland stated that on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, there was a presentation done for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for Sketch Plan review. When Cornell writes the Environmental Impact Statement, they ,3re focused on the design that has some input from the Planning Board and the Conservation Board. rhe Planning Board does have to issue a building permit concurrent with site plan review, and there CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 also has to be a zoning amendment passed because this use would not be allowed without a zoning amendment for this parcel. At this point, that Cornell has purchased 1000 East Shore Drive which is approximately 18 acres (approximately 4 acres on the west side of Route 34 and the remainder being on the east side). Cornell is in the middle of writing their Environmental Impact Statement with the third year of data from the lake this summer to supplement the data that has been taken in the past years. We are planning to submit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Lead Agency by the end of this year, which is the DEC. The formal process is, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would be issued for public comment when the Lead Agency believes it is complete and ready for formal comment. Cornell will have sections available prior to that for a more informal review. Our intent tonight is not to talk about the lake ecology, because we have discussed it in detail three or four times before. The real intent is to go over this portion of the project. The heat exchanger facility located near the shore of the lake will cool down the new chilled water loop that goes from campus down to be cooled at 45 degrees where it goes up to serve the cooling needs where Cornell will be placing most of the chillers on campus that exist now. We will take lake water that is always 40 degrees within 200 feet down circulating once through a heat exchanger, and then discharge near the surface at 55 degrees. Some of the year that would be cooler than the discharge, and some of it will be replace of the discharge and sometimes it would be warmer. We have to go approximately two miles out in the heat exchanger facility to get the 200 feet deep, so it would be -approximately 10,000 feet of pipe that we will lay for that. We are focusing on a lot of the Environmental Impact Statement and on some of the quite issues that have potential significance, and we are working with the consultants for the main generator studying the data. We are working with the center for the environment with four facility members to review that data independently. We have identified several potential impacts such as phosphorus translocation where it might be more available in the floating zone, and it might have an impact on plant growth if it was significant, but we do not believe it is. In treatment of musis, they special order shrimp that is a main portion of the food chain. It looks like that some potential, so we are working on mitigative measures to avoid shrimp. We may propose a light which would the shrimp avoids light, so the light would have them avoid the area of intake. We are studying this at this point. There are a couple other impacts, which most people consider the thermal impact. We are doing a complete thermal model of very specific to the alp region and looking at the lake light impacts, which should not show any significance. The only other potential environmental impact would be zebra muscles control, and we are addressing ways we might have to keep zebra muscles from collecting at the pipe ends for plugging them. Some of these methods may be utilized with potential environmental impact on the lake. This would all be discussed and hopefully adequate with completeness in the Environmental Impact Statement by looking at what the potential impacts are and what mitigation measures that may be required. r'ornell is looking towards December 1996 to have the Draft Environmental Impact Statement after ,pore summer and fall studies to be complete. This would probably not be released for complete until CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 1997. The general project schedule is to have the Environmental Impact Statement finished in 1997, and get the permits from the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, and go into final design and construction for 1998. Cornell's time line would be to have this up and running in the year 2000. Liz Vastbinder pointed out on a map where the location of the proposed Cornell Lakes Source Cooling Project for the heat exchange building would be on 1000 East Shore Drive. She then pointed out the path of the pipe line for the Conservation Board. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes and the street improvements would be done at the same time? Ms. Vastbinder responded that they would be done at the same time. NYSEG is working on replacing some pipe lines under the overpass at the present time. They are replacing some of their pipes now in anticipation where the pipe line goes, so they do not have to move them or replace them at the time we come through. Chair Zarriello stated that the pipe line route on the maps supplied to each Conservation Board Member shows some of the pipe above ground and some of the pipe below ground. Ms. Vastbinder stated that when Cornell first came up with the first drawings that were supplied, they anticipated having the pipe above ground. We had discussions with the Department of Transportation, and their first reactions were that Cornell could not put those pipes above ground because a vehicle could go off Route 13 and hit the pipes. So then Cornell decided to bury them. We are still in negotiation with the schools on several different proposals, and they are trying to decide what is going to work best for them. Chair Zarriello stated at previous meetings there were talks about expansion tanks along the pipe line route. Mr. Bland stated that there would be two isolation valve sites. They would isolate various sections. One would be at Fall Creek, and the other would be on campus. Rob McCabe stated that there would be some additional need for expansion tanks within the system itself, and the plan is to actually locate them inside the current two water plants on campus to handle additional hydrologic volume. Mr. Fischer asked how deep the pipes would be in the ground. Ms. Vastbinder, stated that they would be three feet deep. It will allow vegetation to grow on the top of the surface. The pipes are 42 inches around and 3/4 inch thick. "As. Cornish stated that the water is not segmented at any time, so the danger of freezing is probably iot a real important issue because it is constantly flowing. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JULY 18, 1996 0 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that is true. Cornell would need the cooling in the winter for the research labs and computer rooms. The system would be on line year round. Lois Levitan asked what would be the public access to the boat marina. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the area is under lease to the people that were there before, and that would be an ongoing concern for a while. Cornell may be willing to consider, for the future, for a park space near the marina. Mr. Bland stated that the building would be on the east side of the road and there would be various pipe lines going across the road, and then under the north side of the marina property. The development that Cornell is proposing does not include any use at all for a park set aside. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be any changes to the marina at this point and time. Ms. Levitan asked how long does the lease last. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it is a 25 year lease that is renewable each year. All parties sit down at a table to discuss the terms of the lease, which is always open for negotiation. *Ms. Hoffmann stated that during the discussions with the Planning Board and discussions with this Board before, that she never envisioned asking to have that whole piece of land as a park, so she does not think that people who love to use boats will necessarily feel that they can not use too. Ms. Vastbinder stated that George Hascup designed the building for Cornell. The designs show how the building perspective shown from the lake and views around the proposed building site. Cornell decided to put the whole facility on one side of the road. This parcel is surrounded by gorges, one of each side. We placed the building in the middle of the gorges because the pipes would be tunneling under the road to bring the pipes out to the lake for the appropriate depths. The pipes would need to be at lake level. There is bedrock on the corner of the building that would need to removed to do that. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes enters the building 40 feet below grade. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, because of the grade and the slope of the land. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the pipes are buried from the building out to the water, would they be lake level at that stretch. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they would need to blast it. 0 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 18, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. There might be some blasting on the slope area behind the building because they is bedrock there. The parking lot of the building would be large enough for a school bus to get in and for traffic to come in to turn around. The parking area is going to be a self contain area, which would have a drainage and two shut off values in case of emergency. The building is going to be 90 feet by 130 feet. We designed it for a working ramp on the side of the building: We anticipate putting in a window so people could look inside to see what is going on. Cornell anticipate that there would be some children who would be touring through the facilities. There would be a grass walkway on the side of the building with another viewing window. Mr. Bland stated that there might be some chemicals used for cleaning the heat exchanger.. There may be chemicals used to control the muscles, but Cornell has not designed or specify what kind of muscle control system it would be. There are some options or alternatives for muscle control would involve chemicals. Cornell would have it all laid out in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of what chemicals, how to store them, and what kind of continuance. Cornell is trying to avoid chemicals for the lake, so they are looking at all reasonable alternatives. Chair Zarriello asked what materials would be proposed to build the building. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the building would be poured with deep concrete to the roof. The west and •south side would, be texture. Cornell is discussing how to do masonry block. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be visible from Route 34. Ms. Vastbinder stated that as people go pass the building on Route 34, there would be minimal visibility because of the steep hill in front of it. The building sets 80 feet back from the center line of the road. The berm would block most of the building. Ms. Cornish asked if the grading on the gorge side is already down where the existing access road is. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be much more grading. There is not much visual impact because of the way Cornell put the building back in the hill side. There would be some trees added to the site to blend in with the rest of the parcels around. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipe line goes up to the existing railroad grade is. Mr. Bland stated that the pipe line was changed to the northeast side to the southeast side entrance. Chair Zarriello stated that there was talk about the opportunity for a green way there. Would it interfere with that? Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell has talked to the Department of Transportation about that, because Of the sharpness of the curve by the Route 13 over pass which the property owner was not real • CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 receptive to that. Chair Zarriello asked if it could be connected at another place along there. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it might be able to if Cornell could get the right-of-way through there. Chair Zarriello asked if north of the parcel, does Lansing have a sewer line or water line there. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no, that they have their sewer treatment plant. Mr. McCabe stated that the railroad right-of-way to the south of the plant goes into private property. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Lansing trail system goes along part of it in Lansing, that some -years ago there was some talk about getting this right-of-way for continuation for the trail from Lansing to Ithaca. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the County investigated this in their trail transportation study. Mr. Bland stated that with discussions with Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter, which he stated that the green way would be more appropriate down by the road perhaps along the lake area. SMs. Hoffmann stated that she thinks it would be nice, in connection with this work being done, is some sidewalk connection between the high school and the junior high school to the youth bureau and the park. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there has been some discussions with the Department of Transportation, and they were very receptive to that idea, but the issue came up of once the sidewalks are put in who are going to maintain them. At that point, there would need to be an agreement between the Department of Transportation and the Town of Ithaca on who will be maintaining those sidewalks. Department of Transportation did not have a problem with the sidewalks being proposed, but the issue of who maintains them would need to be worked out first. Ms. Cornish stated that she has received several phone calls in regards to the sidewalk issue for students walking, and have asked the callers to submit letter to the Town Board requesting a sidewalk to be put in there. Ms. Levitan asked what steps have been taking to have this happen. Does the Town say that they would maintain the sidewalk. Ms. Cornish stated that the taxpayers of the Town of Ithaca need to put pressure on the Town Board to address this issue. Because if it is an issue of who would take over the maintain of it and perhaps the Town Board would not suggest it at this point, but it would be the way to get it going. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 JULY 18, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Mr. Bland stated that to some degree the sidewalks are addressed on the Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell is trying address and find out what people want, so they would know what to look for. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the soil on top of the pipe be some what warmer than typical soil in this area that if a sidewalk were built directly over this pipe, would need it perhaps not need so much care from the snow and ice in the winter. Mr. Bland stated that there would not be any measurable change. The pipes will be insulated in the ground and be at ground temperature. Chair Zarriello asked how much excavation would be done and where do they plan to put it all. Mr. Bland stated that it would be covered in the Environmental Impact Statement. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipes coming in and out of the lake, it will be buried. •Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, at the water edge. Mr. Bland stated that it will be buried from the building under the road, at the lake shore it will be buried, and it would not actually emerge from the lake bottom until the lake water has ten feet of water. Ms. Cornish asked what the depth of the pipe would be at the lake shore. Mr. McCabe stated that where it enters the lake it has approximately 10 feet of cover. Ms. Cornish stated that it might be helpful to draw a section through the lake, across the road, to the building, and up the hill side. Ms. Vastbinder stated that those drawings. were done last week. Chair Zarriello asked if the two isolated shut valves require any structure. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell anticipates placing them in man holes. The route right now as being negotiating with the school district was planned to put a man hole in the parking lot on Lake Street. Mr. Bland stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be inventorying pretty much detail of all vegetation being disturbed in putting this pipe line out. There would be a complete inventory of 40what trees that would need to be removed. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that there is one maple tree that is in the Department of Transportation right-of- way where the Finger Lakes Wrecker Service is on East Shore Drive, and the Department of Transportation said they wanted the large tree down because they do not want any large trees in the right-of-way. The property owner wants the tree there, so we have drawn the pipe line around the tree. Chair Zarriello asked what is the schedule on this project. Ms. Cornish stated that the presentation for the Planning Board on Tuesday for just for discussion on the Sketch Plan review. The next step is Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Mr. Bland asked if that would be done before the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is complete. Ms. Cornish responded, no, because we are not the Lead Agency. The determination of significance comes from DEC. Ms. Vastbinder stated that once Cornell has approval from the DEC, then they will submit their Preliminary Site Plans which would include the pipe route within the Town of Ithaca. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be large enough to meet all the exchange facility needs that •Cornell is projecting. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes. Ms. Cornish asked if the time line could be defined again. Mr. Bland stated that Cornell is anticipating submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year (December 1996), and the next thing that happens is the DEC reviews it for completeness for the final scoping. After it is reviewed for completeness, the DEC will issue it for 60 days of public comment access. Chair Zarriello asked if the DEC and the involved agencies review it at the same time for completeness. Mr. Bland stated that Cornell was planning to submitting it to all involved agencies when they submit it to the DEC and interested parties. The DEC is the only one that does the completeness. After the completeness, it goes out for a draft comments to rewrites if necessary, and then if the draft is accepted for Final Environmental Impact Statement. At that point, each involved agencies that have to issue permits, that they need to write their own findings. Cornell is hoping for next summer to be this point, and then Cornell tries for all permits next summer or fall. Cornell will begin final design of construction until all the permits, right-of-ways, and all the land is all set. Then in 1998, Cornell will be in final design of construction which is approximately a two year period. Cornell is anticipating the year 2000 to be on line. 40 • CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Cornell is building Chiller #8, to hold us to the year 2000 because of the Vet Hospital came on, so the Chiller will go in this summer and be on line next summer. This pipe line would tie into the middle of campus some where near the Art squad and tie into the center of the existing distribution system. There is not a whole lot that needs to be done, and once Cornell is tied in, they would start deconditioning the plant on Beebe Lake. There are three chilled water plants on Beebe Lake. These chillers could be converted to ozone friendly chemicals refrigerants. Cornell would be using these for peaking. MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Levitan stated that there was a letter from John Whitcomb regarding Saddlewood Farms in September 1995. She asked if Landmark America was not in front of the Planning Board last Tuesday. Ms. Hoffmann stated that was correct. Ms. Cornish stated that there has been a lot reports on the radio, but all that happened in the Planning Department was that Landmark America called and asked if they could be post -phoned for determination of significance because they could not send a representative from Landmark America. OCOORDINATOR & CHAIR REPORT: Chair Zarriello stated that the New York State Association of Conservation Advisory Council will be having their 25th Jubilee on October 18-20, 1996. It will be in Fishkill with guests such as Governor Pataki, Mary Tyler Moore, Peter Bruell, and Michael Sagota. There will be money in the budget for anyone that would like to attend. I have talked to Christiann Dean several occasions regarding the Saddlewood Development, and she has met with her farming friends on this issue. Some farmers are very much against this sort of transition of agricultural land, and some are for the proposal. The bigger issue is for developing better guidelines with the Town as to how farm should be developed. There are a lot of questions that were raised if the Saddlewood Farm had more answers for, and specifically how to pay for development rights and other types of mechanisms that protect farmers financial interests as well as try to maintain the Town's interest in keeping these things in farming or as open space. What I would like to propose is a committee that can work with Christiann Dean and the farming community to try and at least scope out what needs to be addressed, and from that scoping it should be developed to more of a concrete plan for future development. Things should be scope out what needs to be addressed and follow it up for a proposed Town Law. This committee should involve various members of different Boards. The Conservation Board had a discussion on this issue and were all in agreement for drafting a letter for various Boards and Committees for member participation. • CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 11 JULY 18, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Ms. Cornish stated that there has been some interest in another person joining the Conservation Board, Diane DeMuth has submitted a letter to the Town Board with a resume. Peter Salmon decided he was over committed, but would like to come time to time, but not as a member. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the resolution for the South Hill Swamp, and to have a walk through with various members of different Boards. Chair Zarriello stated that he went to the Town Board Meeting on July 15, 1996, which they unanimously passed the resolution requesting that the Vet incinerator Project be given a positive environmental declaration without any input of the full house. The Town Board did ask for written comments as part of the record. He will write his comments for the record, and submit a copy to the Board Members for review and if there would be any additional comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS: View Shed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee - Ms. Hoffmann asked if the Conservation Board Members want to hand these second drafts of the ERC comments in regards to the Saddlewood Farms Development to the Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals as it is addressed. The Board was in agreement to send the draft to all three Boards. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the comments should be from the Conservation Board and the ERC, and she would like to see comments back before August 1st. The Board was in agreement to send the draft from both the Conservation Board and the ERC. Ms. Hoffmann stated that would be enough time because the Saddlewood Farms will be at the August 20th Planning Board meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Cornish stated that Valley Corners II Convenient Store and Gas Station (the old Bell's Convenient Store on Route 13/Elmira Road), that when the construction began on the road the tenant decided that he was not going to continue as a convenient store. It is now back before the Board because the owner came in for change of use for offices which prompted a building permit which prompted site plan review, so now they are back in front of the Planning Board so they can presume the use as a convenient store. The large issue I see is the traffic generation and curve cuts. 0 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 12 JULY 18, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 The Babcock subdivision on Culver Road was approved by the Planning Board. The subdivision was given to Cornell University. The Long House Cooperative will becoming before the Planning Board for Preliminary and Final Approval. There are two extension, because they had an originally Approved Site Plan showing the building as it currently exists and now they are going to put extensions on either end. There should be no environmental impacts of this project. Approval of Minutes - Will be done at the August 1, 1996 meeting. Chair Zarriello closed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. • 0 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, July 18, 1996 :: ................ .......................................................... ....................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. 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. Member Concerns 7:55 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 8:00 P.M. 4. Cornell Lakes Source Cooling - Update 8:30 p.m. 5. Committee Reports a. View Shed Committee b. Environmental Review Committee 9:00 P.M. G. Business: a)Approval of Minutes (6/6/96, 4/20/95, 10/6/94 - enclosed) b) Other 9:30 p.m. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Peter Salmon Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/07-18-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs r rung "uvreorvnrversuy rnutograpny . Franklin M. Loew, right, dead of the College of Veterinaiy Medicine; talk's with John P. Wolff '96, a #own of Ithaca board member who has expressed concerns about -the new incinerator project; during Monday night's meeting in Morrison Nall. Residents question and seek review of incinerator plans By Roger Segelken If foes and proponents of the planned Additional public comment, veterinary medical waste incinerator agree on one thing, it is that construction of the - will be seriously consid- facility is not necessarily a done deal — at ered when the project least not in the form proposed in 1992. reaches the "draft permit" Speakers from the audience of about stage, said Raymond J. 100 in the 4-1/2 hour Morrison Hall meet- Nolan, environmental ing June 24 quizzed Cornell and State University Construction Fund (SUCF) analyst for the DEC. officials, consultants and state environ- mental regulators on an array of points. Among them: records from Syracuse and Albany, rather • Meteorological and demographic as- than on data from the university -operated sumptions used to computer -model the weather station .on Game Farm Road. facility, which is designed to destroy both Lawrence Doueet, environmental con - pathological waste (such as large animal sultant and engineer, said federal Environ - remains) and regulated medical waste (in- mental Protection Agency (EPA) and state cluding contaminated plastic implements). Department of Environmental Conserva- • Effects on humans and the environ- tion (DEC) procedures require that data ment of dioxins — chlorine -based com- from National Weather Service operations. bustion by-products— even though state- —such as in Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse of -the -art pollution scrubbers are imor- — be used in the air-quality modeling. Use porated in the 177 -foot -high smokestack. of any other data would render the EPA • TheVeterinary College;scommitment computer model invalid; he said. ` to recyclingas much plastic laboratory and , :. Additional public ,comment twill be clinical waste.as possible, and its due;con- , seriously considered when the . project sideration of alternatives to incineration. reaches the "draft permit" stage, said • The state's track record in,monitor- Raymond J. Nolan, environmental apa- ing similar incinerators at other medical .:: lyst in'the DEC's Division of Regulatory. facilities. Services. Nolan said it would be possible Mark Wysqcki, a Cornell mel orolo-: ,, i to: rescind, the declaration- of negative gist, asked why, the. incinerators. com-• ; . environmental impact issued •by. SUCF, puter-modeling was based on weather the incinerator's"sponsor and "lead" . agency, but that rescission would require relevant; new information. Several speakers, including Ruth Mahr, president of the Forest Home Im- provement Association, demanded an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider all impacts, as well as the availability of alternatives to incinera- tion and alternative sites for the facility. Mahr; who has spent the last three months gathering data to fight the incinerator, argued that the project's title as a reha- bilitation "was misleading and threw people off track." SUCF's directorof consultant design, Chris Marcella, said the label was appro- priate five years ago, in early planning stages, when a $500,000 retrofit of the existing incinerator seemed possible. He said that his agency is trying to overcome bureaucratic obstacles to renaming the . $2 million to $3 million project what it is: new construction. "We want alternatives (to incinera- tion) laid out and costed out,".Mahr said.. "That bespeaks an environmental impact statement: Incineration tries to get the bugs out of petri dishes," the Cornell alumna said, "by putting dioxins in the air." "I'm hearing things tonight that make me want 'to take a deeper look at this," said Veterinary Dean.Franklin M. Loew, mod- erator.for the• informational meeting and dean since September 1995. "I can assure you this will not be the last meeting." Cdo.. L�-l1�lIGLE ..Jut1� 2�� q(O V, r DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 1 JUNE 6, 1996 TOWN OF ITHA CA CONSERVATION BOARD JUNE 6: 1996 PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Planner JoAnn Cornish. GUESTS: Peter Salmon. Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS CONCERNS: Chair Zarriello - The Conservation Board has a guest, Peter Salmon, who will be sitting in for the meeting to observe. Peter Salmon - I read about the Conservation Board in the Tvrrn Nevvs1Vetter and ti ie 10%..t that there are some openings. I called JoAnn Cornish for information and she invited me to attend the meeting tonight. Chair Zarriello - In 1990, the Board began as the Conservation Advisory Council. One of the first projects was to put together an Open Space Plan for the Town. At that time it moved the Council into a Board status. The Conservation Board acts as an Advisory Board to the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Environmental Review Committee is the only mandated committee for the Board. The Environmental Review Committee reviews development plans for the Town and comments on the environmental significance. There are several other committees such as the Viewshed Committee and the Environmental Atlas Committee which are part of the Conservation Board. COORDINATORS REPORT: Planner JoAnn Cornish - The Vet School Incinerator Project at Cornell University: There were several letters written to the DEC,,including Town Supervisor Cathy Valentino's, concerning this project. The Planning Department received an anonymous letter pleading for people to become involved in this project. There was also a letter about Cornell's proposed medical waste incinerator which outlines some of the concerns. It also has attached addresses to write a letter if anybody would like. I think all the responses and concerns are certainly leading to a more in-depth look at this project. Chair Zarriello - In 1992, this Board got a proposal from the Construction Fund to rebuild the Cornell Vet School incinerator. The scope of the project was to revamp what already existed. Since that time, the Board responded and never heard back from them. The County EMC and other groups also responded and did not receive a reply. Recently, IV CRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE 6, 1996 Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Association, has spear headed the drive to see what is going on. There has been some conflicting information. There was an engineering report that was produced at some point that the Town had never seen, and the Mark Wysaki from Cornell who is an Air Pollution Modeler reviewed it, and pointed out numerous flaws in the report. There were responses to his comments that were appropriate. Ruth Mahr found out that they planned to accept medical waste from other facilities such as doctors offices, Cayuga Medical Center, etc.., they were planning to utilize that facility to get rid of medical waste which is well beyond the scope of the original proposal. Loren Tauer - Cornell would do that on a fee basis? Chair Zarriello - I am sure Cornell was looking at it for a money making deal. Mr. Tauer - That would probably raise some tax implications for Cornell as far as being a not-for-profit organization. Chair Zarriello - There was a lot of stuff going on and we never got a direct answer from the involved parties. One of the major concerns was that the State Construction Fund, in their original proposal, gave a negative environmental declaration which means they did not have to follow any of the SEQR process. The only thing they had to go through was the State Permitting process for air discharge. Planner Cornish - The State Construction Fund is exempting themselves from the SEQR process which they have the power to do. Chair Zarriello - Ruth Mahr was coordinating a group of interested parties that will meet June 12, 1996 at 7:30 in the Town Board Room. If there is anyone that is interested in learning more about this and getting involved, I would suggest coming to that meeting. Ms. Levitan - As I understand from the architect that was involved in this project, the existing facility is releasing a lot of matter. In other words, it is not doing a great job. Is the revised plan to do a better job? Is the Forest Home Association also assessing the existing structure? Chair Zarriello - The big trade offs are the stack height versus the aesthetic visual impact. The stack height as proposed is not high enough according to Cornell calculations. The proposed stack is not adequate to meet the dispersion requirements necessary to get rid of the stuff. There was a problem with the new Vet Tower being one foot lower than the proposed stack height, so there would be currents coming off the new building that would interfere with the expression of the stack. The trade off is to have a bigger stack, and many people would not want to see that either. That is why as part of the SEQR process is to look at project alternatives. w M DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARDVINUTES 3 JUNE 6, 1996 Mr. Tauer - Where is Cornell proposing to build this new incinerator? Behind the new building? Eva Hoffmann - The earlier proposal Cornell came in with to replace the existing stack was to put the new stack where the existing stack is located in the back of the vet school towards Caldwell Road. Chair Zarriello - There were two letters sent out from the Town: one from myself for the Conservation Board and one from the Town's Planning Department. It is good that the Construction Fund has responded positively because the State would not be in a position to do much. Planner Cornish - Saddlewood Farms is a large development rental housing that is being proposed for West Hill. There will be a special Planning Board Meeting on June 11, 1996, for a sketch plan presentation from Landmark America. This is going to be a very big project for the Town of Ithaca, and one that is being watched by a lot of groups. This meeting will be an informational meeting, and the Conservation Board might be interested in sitting on the meeting. The Planning Board was made lead agency for this by Town Board recommendation. Chair Zarriello - I had a phone call from Jon Meigs concerning this project, and he felt very strongly about the approach the Planning Board is taken that it is being assessed as a site plan review. The bigger issue is of rezoning agricultural and R-30 to Special Land Use District (SLUD) or a Multiple Residence (MR). These issues should be settled first. Planner Cornish - If this rezoning results in a SLUD, the Town would have some control over what happens there. It would be very specific and would become a Town law where things would be specified as to what exactly could be done there. If it results in MR, it may have a greater density. Ms. Levitan - At the last Board meeting this project was briefly discussed, so I wrote up a memorandum in reference to this project. I did not treat the meeting the other night as a hearing. I was extremely concerned about how a marketing job avoids real issues. How untruth could be swallowed by people. A very poor marketing study was done for this - project. The marketing study was based on the concept that the percent of mobility, the number of people who move in a year equal the demand for housing. They took the mobility number and stated that 25% of the income category they are aiming for, tend to move in a given year. But then they said the Tompkins County percentage is much higher. As everyone that lives here knows, the Cornell Student market moves every year, and this is a meaningless error. The figure they use; is the figure that is justifying the building of 276 units in the Town of Ithaca. In fact, most of the people who live in the Town of Ithaca know there is a need for affordable housing to meet the needs of low income Cornell employees. What needs to be done is to look at the real demands and A DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 6, 1996 look at the housing market and say "do we really have a demand from the Cornell Community that want to live closer". The Town and the County Planning Departments need to do a demand base affordable housing needs survey. The other concerning point was that there are a couple agencies within the County that are concerned about the affordable housing issues. After discussions with Cathy Valentino, Mary Russeil, and others, I am unsure if there has been any coordination about the Town's needs for affordable housing. Has there been any kind of demand survey? There has not been as far as any of these people know. I am really concerned that the affordable housing issue is being jumped on without knowing if affordable housing is actually needed. The agricultural issue is another concern. A member of the Agricultural District Board (which is not part of the agricultural protection law, it is a farmers protection law) stated that farming is tough here. It is true that the amount of land that is used for agriculture in the Northeast is declining and the reserve of agricultural products have decreased in the past decade. I have recently been seeing data that agricultural reserves have gone down in this nation and are at a frightening low level. In the long run, as we are talking about agricultural land and land use, there will be a shortage of agricultural land and people need to be concerned. Laws that went into effect about 20 years ago, resulted in people becoming fearful about something that has not come about yet. Grain reserves in the United States are at their lowest level. Projections of the U.S. ability to export grain are way down. The U.S. may run out of the ability to feed the world. I think some of the laws that were put into place and some thinking about the land were because people were thinking about mobile cycles and agriculture. I think if the Conservation Board, whose charge is to think through long term planning, really needs to say something about the long term needs for agricultural lands in the Northeast the impact on it. The argument is the land surrounding this proposal (Saddlewood) is no longer agricultural land. Landmark American stood up there and stated a mis truth about this project demand. Alfred Eddy sold the 280 -acre large parcel across the road from this proposed project to EcoVillage with the idea that it would be continued in agriculture. Thee is a lot of unsettling differences about this project. What can the Town do about these issues? I am not denying that there is not a need a for affordable housing, but my feeling is that this scale is really questionable. The many people who work at Cornell and travel long distances, do so because they want to. No one can deny the fact that Cornell has many people who do not live close by and say that there is a demand that is not being met. I think that one thing the Conservation Board might want to do, both in dealing with this and other similar kinds of proposals, is to start some dialogues in the community about is big better. The sense that I got from the Town Board is that there is something golden about growth. I think it would be good for this Board to do is a visioning process and talk to people about what they like about living in the Town of Ithaca. DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JUNE 6, 1996 Planner Cornish - Ms. Levitan is right, the Town does not have a correct definition for affordable housing nor does the Town have a demand number for that. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision was approved on June 4, 1996, by the Planning Board for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. One of their catch phrases was affordable housing, and the Planning Board asked what is affordable. There is no current definition, and the Planning Staff is looking into this. Saddlewood Farms is also proposed to be a gated community which means it will have some security, and probably a gate and credit card system to get into the development. I think it changes the character of the development and in my opinion it would be some what out of character for the Town of Ithaca. On Tuesday, June 11, 1996, the Planning Board will be discussing the Saddlewood Farms project, and members of the Conservation Board are welcome to come. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision did get Preliminary Subdivision Approval and is scheduled for Final Subdivision Approval on June 18, 1996. Cayuga Vista is another subdivision on South Hill that was presented to the Planning Board on June 4, 1996. This is a small 9 -lot subdivision with a wetland on the property. The portion with the wetland which had originally been proposed to be subdivided is no longer in the proposal. The Planning Board did receive a trail right-of-way across a portion of the land to go with the Park and Open Space Plan and trail system that is being proposed. This is in the future, but we did get a trail easement out of this subdivision as part of the set aside. Ithacare received Final Site Plan Approval on June 4, 1996. There were two Planning Board Members that voted against the Ithacare Project, and one of the Planning Board Members, Gregory Bell made a very moving speech at the end urging everyone to take a good look at the view since it will be gone. This long battle is over with for the Town. The Conservation Board got the Monkemeyer subdivision proposal last month. It is on East King Road and is an 8 -lot subdivision. There is going to be a site visit on June 13, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. Everyone will be meeting at the site on East King Road. The Planning Board Members will be there also. The Coy Glen -Babcock subdivision that,the Conservation Board talked about before, is on the Planning Board agenda for July 9, 1996. Mr. Babcock had proposed deeding over 100 acres to the Cornell plantations. P&C will be in for Final Site Plan Approval on July 16, 1996. They have answered this Board's concerns. bn DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 6, 1996 Chair Zarriello - The Mann Library Project is about ready to break ground waiting for the State Budget to pass. There were some concerns about small growth trees and steep slopes which they seem to have dismissed. I have received the final scope of the EIS of the Lake Source Cooling, which I have not looked through yet. I will be looking through it make sure this Board's comments have been addressed. Planner Cornish - In the Town's Newsletter there was a plea for Conservation Board Members. The Viewshed Committee article was also included. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Viewshed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee - No report. Environmental Atlas needs to get the system up and running for data base GIS map. MINUTES APPROVAL - MAY 2, 1996 Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 2, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction, seconded by Ms. Smith. On Page 5, Mr. Kanter stated "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are Lead Agency for the permits that need to be obtained.", which should read "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are responsible for issuing permits required by the project." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Smith, Fischer, Levitan, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: The Conservation Board discussed topics to investigate for what to discuss at the meetings and other future meetings as well as a work plan for the Board. r DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 JUNE 6, 1996 Planner Cornish reminded the Conservation Board that there is a budget for the Board and if any one was interested in attending any conferences or seminars, that there are funds available. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. DRAFTED on June 11, 1996 by Debby Kelley. All, O TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4401> OThursday, 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. 1 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 '°R 4. f 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 100 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 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. r� .% 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 1896 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 TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, October 6, 1994 Approved: PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Janet Hawkes, Cheryl Smith, Phillip Zarriello, JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner). ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs, Mary Russell. Chairperson Janet Hawkes opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: None. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR: Recording Secretary Karen Moore has sent in her resignation. Will check with her about status of the minutes. Candace and Janet will attend NYS Conservation Advisory Board Conference in Glens Falls next weekend. Meeting times will be the first Thursday of the month hereafter. REPORT FROM STAFF: New Town Planner II JoAnn Cornish introduced herself. She has a BS in Environmental Science and a BLA in Landscape Architecture from Syracuse University and has done graduate work and has experience in regional planning. She is an Ithaca native with two children. Will be working with George Frantz on the Parks and Open Space Plan and the Environmental Atlas. Worked with Cornell on GIS draft. Town of Ithaca Parks and Open Space Plan - George Frantz discussed the first part of the Basic Inventory Section for the Parks Plan. Section D is mostly done, but consolidating the information from many sources will be a major job. Assessment of each town park needs to be done for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with list of deficiencies and priorities for each park. Discussion centered around informing the public about accessibility ratings, etc., after deficiencies area corrected. Mr. Frantz Stated that compliance with ADA is 900 thought process and 10i modifications to facilities. DRAFT Conservation Board Minutes 2 October 6, 1994 DRAFT ** DRAFT.** DRAFT For Section E, need to see what adjacent Towns and Villages are doing. Lansing has a community park and Cayuga Heights has Sunset Park plus an undeveloped tract of land. Need to find out if Town has responsibility to provide parks and recreation for village residents. The Town has two budgets - town -side section of budget for all town residents including village residents and part -town section for expenditures and services for residents outside Village of Cayuga Heights. If Parks Department is in town -wide budget, park planning and upkeep may need rethinking. Town of Ithaca has license from Cornell University for Tareyton Park and East Ithaca Recreation Way. Land owned by Cornell University. South Hill Trail is partly owned by Town plus private land with easements. Town Planner Jonathan Kantor has knowledge of status of general purpose land adjoining Eastern Heights Park. Second section needs review and update of policies in the 1984 plan. Payment of money in lieu of land needs addressing by the Town Board. Mr. Frantz hopes for a draft in December. The Town Board acts on yearly recommendations from the Parks Department for what needs to be done, rather than neighborhood input. Recommendations and evaluation should begin on 5 -year parks capital improvements plan for longer range planning for new and existing park needs, based on current and future population. The Conservation Board did a simple survey of the Town, with maps by quadrants, of all existing parkland and open spaces in Town to find where needs are. Population densities and user group information was not included. West Hill has no parkland in the northwest area. Land Trust has map of all their easements. There is a need for Town owned soccer and ballfields and facility upgrades in several areas of Town. Comparison with national standards will show necessity for this. Town is forced to use overloaded New York State parks plus Lansing Park because of the land of facilities. State Park trail and facility maintenance needs improvement. Fee in lieu of land money could be put in a long-term park acquisition and development fund. Town Supervisor Shirley Raffensperger told Mr. Frantz that the Town Board had adopted policy in the past stating that the Town was not to have large parks. Need to investigate this policy. Work will continue in committee to draft report and work on above issues. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting Adjourned. \.srh Framework for Long Range Environmental Planning in Tompkins County Prepared by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council February, 1996 Introduction Approximately two years ago the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council established the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) in response to long range planning discussions within Tompkins County government. The EMC's intent has been to support the county's efforts and to provide the Tompkins County Board of Representatives with informed advice on the environmental component of any comprehensive long range plan which may be developed. The EMC has adopted the result of the committee's work --the Framework for Long Range Environmental Planning for Tompkins County. We provide in this document a framework for developing an environmental long range plan for Tompkins County. It is, in effect, a detailed guidance document for the development of such a plan. It includes recommendations about what kinds of information to include and what questions to address. It also includes general recommendations about what the county should do. It is the hope of the EMC that the Planning Department, the Board of Representatives and the EMC will work together to complete the details of the plan in the months which lie ahead. The Framework starts with a vision of the future for the environment of Tompkins County and ends with a recommendation that a vision and a plan be adopted with the full participation of the citizens of Tompkins County. In between is discussed the quality of life in the County and the specific environmental issues. More detailed position papers are presented on a natural resource inventory, biological corridors, transportation options and citizen participation. Each section of the report, including the position papers, contains recommendations. We look forward to what we expect to be exciting discussions on the future of the natural environment in Tompkins County. Acknowledgments The Long Range Planning Committee: Candace Cornell Peter Penniman Herb Engman (chair) Geri Tierney Noel Gurwick Nick Vandam Kate Kelley -Mackenzie Robert Wesley EMC Chair: Ed Cope EMC Coordinator: Katie White April, 1996 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................1 TOMPKINS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL VISION STATEMENT.................................2 QUALITY OF LIFE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES...................................................... 6 ................................................................................... 6 ......................................................... 6 :lei, , , ,��� , C. Water Q.a D. Air i_a E. Noise Abaiement WasteF. Hazardous A. i R. on i rim I POSITION PAPERS A. OUTLINE FOR A NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY ....12 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1 2 PURPOSE OF THE TOMPKINS COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY .........................12 DEFINING THE TASK OF PRODUCING A NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY ........................14 How many (and which) aspects of the environment should be included?.......................1 S What level of detail is required? .......................................................................15 Is the same level of information required for each municipality?...............................16 What information already exists?......................................................................16 FORMAT OF THE INVENTORY ..............................................................................17 B. A BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY......................................18 9W. 1=1 111.1m ml NEW -11 R141 llyillcp-�- .. W-915 10 1 D I ♦ ► ' C. TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY...................................21 D. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN LONG RANGE PLANNING FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY . 2 3 Page 1 Tompkins County Environmental Vision Statement Planning for the long term future of the environment in Tompkins County requires that we develop a clear vision of what kind of natural world we want - for ourselves and for generations to come. This vision statement expresses what the EMC believes to be the wishes of a large majority of Tompkins County residents and forms the foundation for the recommendations which follow in this report. 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" people say to us when we travel to other parts of the state, country and world. Students state the same thing as they 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" declare the senior citizens as they return to Tompkins County to live out the rest of their lives. A healthy environment is more than beautiful, of course. A well -protected environment adds to our mental and physical well-being and adds to the economic prosperity of the county. It is hoped that a shared vision of what most people want for our environment will lead to a common purpose: assuring for future generations a natural world full of diversity, a full complement of native plants and animals, and beauty and wonder. Tompkins County must remain beautiful. Nature's beauty often creates the first stirring of desire to protect the environment from further degradation. Hard core environmentalists may say that scenic vistas are not important in the long-term survival of the biodiversity upon which the earth depends, but natural beauty can bring people of very different points of view together in the common cause of environmental protection. Hard core business people may say that housing and jobs are more important than views, but the natural charm of the county encourages residents to remain and stimulates the casual visitor to return as a tourist or to settle in the county, becoming a new contributor to the economic prosperity of the area. Most importantly, beautiful views, meandering streams, dark forests, open. farms and deep gorges daily- inspire our thinking and positive mood and add inestimable value to our quality of life. Tompkins County must 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 will increase the demand for fresh, locally -grown produce. Tompkins County -must retain its biodiversity. The survival of all species is important to the web of life itself. If one element is removed, often other parts of the natural world suffer. As studies in chemical prospecting are discovering, the human life-saving drugs of the future may be found in the natural world we manage to save today. However, as we divide the land for housing and other purposes, smaller tracts of natural areas can no longer 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 ecosystem to survive. The natural world must be accorded its right to prosper independent of its current or potential use to humans. Greenways, biological corridors, parks, private lands protected by conservation easements, and other strategies should be employed to provide proper protection of our land and waters. Tompkins County residents must be able to walk, run, bicycle and watch nature in a safe, convenient manner. It should not be necessary to 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 Page 2 to get outside, and even, where feasible, get us to the store for groceries and other essentials. If another fuel shortage develops, proper planning now will allow us to still travel inexpensively via bicycle, wheelchair or by foot. 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 natural world to refresh our minds and enhance our mental health. Tompkins County residents must enjoy 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. Wetlands and their value for water filtration, flood prevention, and wildlife and plant habitat must be protected. Controls are needed on chemicals which threaten our water. Techniques are needed to prevent soil erosion and resulting siltation. Inappropriate land uses must be avoided. Controls are needed on herbicide and road salt use. Trees not only provide beauty; they cleanse and cool the air. Our forested landscape should be preserved and enhanced. We also want clean air. While we can not directly control all the air that we breath, we can minimize our contribution to pollution by reducing driving of automobiles, eliminating backyard burning of trash and soliciting and monitoring clean industries. Energy efficiency, including increased use of solar energy and other non-polluting technologies, should be encouraged. A clean environment will be a rarity in the 21st century, and investments now will assure Tompkins County's reputation as a wonderful place to live and work. Tompkins County residents must have 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. Tompkins County residents must be able 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 of our educational institutions, yet in ten minutes time be enjoying a country atmosphere. That advantage can easily be lost. We want information to be provided to the surrounding municipalities to help them make appropriate land -use decisions to assist in the retention of 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, tourism 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, poor land use decisions can lead to the unintentional destruction of the quality of rural life we hold dear. Tompkins County. Long-term protection of the environment is possible only through the wisdom of the county's citizens and the leadership of the county's elected representatives. We are fortunate in having in place representative bodies to reflect the views of the entire county in the Board of Representatives and the Environmental Management Council and other advisory committees. These are valuable but not sufficient when considering the decisions which will determine the future health of our environment. Therefore, there should be an on-going process that involves Tompkins County citizens in the environmental decision-making process. With our citizens, elected government, and a multitude of talented advisory and private organizations working together, we can provide for future generations the joy of nature that we find so essential in our lives. Page 3 Quality of Life Recommendations Residents of Tompkins County currently enjoy a high quality of life. One of the predominant attributes that adds value to life here in Tompkins County is our healthy and remarkable environment. Specifically, the abundance of unique natural resources aswell 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 economically profit 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. Two other major sources of income are agriculture and tourism. 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. Responsible stewardship will ensure that we protect our vital natural resources and safeguard our own futures. We recommend 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; a 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 as well as understand the ramifications of irresponsible environmental behavior. Haphazard building of roads and dwellings, and uncontrolled population growth can have unanticipated effects on 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 Page 4 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 highways and throughways; safe drinking water; the proper collection and treatment of waste water; and ability to cost-effectively dispose 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, various 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 synergetic relationship by providing all businesses with this comprehensive report of quality of life elements that highlight.environmental projects that need support. A newsletter could be distributed stressing the benefits that the 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, and the identification of Unique Natural Areas. Page 5 Environmental Issues and Objectives In this section, the EMC identifies the major environmental issues the County Comprehensive Plan should address, and recommends some objectives for the county to adopt. We also suggest a target date for achieving each objective, and include this date in parentheses following the objective. Additional information may lead to new or more specific objectives, and the EMC stands ready to assist in gathering or interpreting that information. Environmental concerns are present in many components of the comprehensive planning process, including natural resources, transportation, and land use. 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. Numerous organizations have resources that could contribute to achieving the objectives identified in this document. The EMC has assembled key information about environmental organizations in Tompkins County in the Environmental Directory, and we suggest that the County take advantage of these organizations in long range environmental planning efforts. We have reviewed selected issues more thoroughly than most and include these discussions as Position Papers within this document. These Position Papers to date 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) Encourage cooperation among local municipalities on matters of environmental planning. The County should support and publicize mechanisms to facilitate this cooperation, such as the new Tompkins County Planning Federation and the EMC. Encourage the EMC, the Tompkins County Planning Department, Planning Advisory Board, and Planning Federation to communicate with the municipal boards, attend town meetings, and stay current with municipal boards' activities. The local government newsletter that the Planning Department intends to produce will assist with this communication. (1996 and ongoing) 2) Provide information to the public and to local municipalities on the value of environmental conservation and the link between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. In particular, the County Comprehensive Plan should dispel the myth that economic health must be traded for environmental protection and stress that a healthy environment underlies the county's many prosperous industries, including education, agriculture and tourism. 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 and ongoing) 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 A. 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 Page 6 Unique Natural Areas and Critical Environmental Areas, wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, streams including DEC classifications, stream corridors, current and future water supply storage and recharge areas, forested areas, old-growth forests, steep slopes, prime agricultural soils, active farmland, parks and public lands, trails, conservation easements, and air and water quality data. Much of the baseline information for this effort may already be available through the County Geographic Information System. (1998) The County should update this inventory on a continuous basis, with a comprehensive review and summary at least once every five years. At set intervals, the County should present summary information on the status and trends of natural resources in the County to the Board of Representatives, municipal planning boards, and other relevant institutions. These periodic presentations could also serve as a basis for discussion, planning, evaluation, and goal -setting. 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 B. I Other institutions in Tompkins County have completed much of the groundwork for planning a system of biological corridors.in the region, and the County should work closely with these institutions to take advantage of their efforts and expertise, and to avoid duplicating effort. Preserving 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. 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 and greenways within easy reach of County residents, and increase public access to Cayuga Lake. Our current municipal and state park systems are suffering from overuse and many municipalities do not have the resources to provide park facilities. (2010) 5) The County should carefully evaluate all lands that it owns or acquires for their environmental value, including value as parkland and wildlife and plant habitat. The County Draft Land Policy Plan indicates an intention to do so in 1996. (1996) 6) The County should encourage protection of Unique Natural Areas, and other natural or open areas. Relevant tools include working with land trusts, encouraging the use of conservation easements, and appropriate tax incentives. Work with land trusts could include public/private partnerships to fund acquisition of lands, where appropriate. (1996) 7) The County should discourage activity that significantly damages UNAs (e.g., off-road and 4 - wheel drive vehicles, mountain bikes, horses, disturbance of groundwater and surface water flow in nearby areas). (1997) 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. Apparently Agricultural District 9 (which includes the eastern part of Tompkins County) is being reviewed in 1995, and the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board has been charged with tPosition Paper B includes a discussion of the potential theoretical environmental problems with biological corridors and the reasons that those problems are unlikely to apply in Tompkins County. Page 7 writing an agricultural viability plan. The County should use the results of these efforts to inform its review of agriculture in the context of comprehensive natural resources planning. (1997) 3) The County should identify particular agricultural sectors and geographic regions within the County where the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) 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 BMPs and the technical application of these practices. One example of a BUT would be fencing stream corridors to minimize the impact of cows on stream habitat and downstream water quality. (1998) C. Water Quality The EMC recognizes that the Tompkins County Planning Department has completed a Water Quality Strategy Plan and recommends that relevant components be evaluated and included as appropriate. 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. (1996) 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 erosion, agricultural runoff and development, close monitoring of sewage discharges, and control of silt disturbance by power boats. Erosion, in particular, has been identified as a major problem in the Cayuga Lake watershed and should receive close scrutiny in planning for improved lake water quality. (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, County roads and bridges, and parks, both for the direct environmental benefits and as a model for other land owners and land managers. (1996) 5) The County should encourage least toxic management of private and local government areas and facilities including lawns, roads, and golf courses, in part by providing information and training. In particular, the County might work cooperatively with local lawn care companies, lawn chemical merchants, and homeowners to encourage least toxic management and prevent misuse of pesticides (including herbicides). The County should also work with municipal highway departments and private utilities to find alternatives to spraying road and utility right-of-ways. (1996) 6) The County should preserve wetlands and floodplains located in areas where water quality preservation, water quality improvement, or flood control is a concern. (1996)2 7) The County should encourage sound water quality management in urban areas. Possible tools include giving special attention to management of road and parking lot runoff. (1996) 2There are other reasons to protect wetlands having nothing to do with water quality or quantity, and we address them . elsewhere. Page 8 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. It could also provide - or coordinate the provision of - information on the air quality impacts of various home heating options. Such information could include information on clean - burning wood or coal stoves, for example. (1998) 2) The County should encourage non- and less -polluting transportation options such as the use of public transportation, investment in non -diesel buses and dual -fuel fleet cars, car-pooling, bicycling and walking. More specific recommendations for increasing bicycling and walking transportation are outlined in Position Paper C. (2000) 3) The County should encourage municipalities to respect existing information (such as information about negative health effects of bum barrels) and laws that enable them to protect air quality. Apparently, some fire departments continue to permit (or engage in) burning for demolition, without regard for the attendant air quality impacts. (1996) 4) The County should provide or arrange for education about the environmental and legal reasons for engaging in environmentally responsible behaviors (such as alternatives to burn barrels and the use of clean -burning stoves). These educational efforts should be focused on relevant audiences including municipal government agencies and individual homeowners. (1996) 5) The County should consider enacting its own clean air laws, as allowed under the Federal Clean Air Act, for such activities as the removal of exterior lead paint. (1998) 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) 2) The County should encourage reductions in on-site noise generation, for example on Cayuga Lake. Power boats have increased in both number and size over time, with attendant noise impacts to adjacent private and public areas. One step the Sheriff's Department should take is to enforce motor boat noise limits on Cayuga Lake. (1996) 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. (1996) III. Land Use and Growth Management A. Development 1) The County, in particular cooperation with municipal governments, 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. (1997) Page 9 2) The County should support compact, multi -use 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. By including the land use intentions of land buyers as criteria to influence decisions about sales of County - owned lands, the County can prevent strip development and can exert considerable influence over emerging land use patterns. (1996) 3) The County should direct its economic development efforts to attracting environmentally friendly development, and to guiding new development to appropriate sites. The County should also work to help all industries dispose of waste in appropriate ways, and adopt energy-efficient technologies. (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 C. Toward this end, the County should create bicycle lanes and sidewalks 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. (1996) 3) The County should require careful assessment of the environmental impact of new road construction near environmentally sensitive areas and into undeveloped areas. (1996) 4) To discourage pollution caused by excessive road salt and roadside herbicide application, the County should develop a plan for minimum road salt use, -eliminate the use of all road -side herbicides, and investigate alternatives to road salt for winter road maintenance. (1996) 5) The County should identify scenic highways for inclusion in state and federal scenic highway programs. (2005) IV. 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, educational services, and appropriate financial and non- financial incentives. (1997}. 3) The County should continue to ban the spreading of septage and municipal sewage sludge on land. The County should investigate options for using constructed ecosystems to treat septage and sewage. (2000) 4) Evidence is mounting that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with power lines cause biological effects in humans. Therefore, the County should: discourage the placement of potentially hazardous EMFs near residential communities, particularly near schools. The County should also require that the safest possible designs of power line configurations be incorporated in the planning phase of new power line construction and existing line modification. Key design safety features may include shielding EMFs and designing power line geometry to minimize EMF strength. The County should also require that power lines and microwave towers on County right- of-ways be designed not to create potentially hazardous electromagnetic fields. (1996) Page 10 Ener -1) The County should encourage alternative energy use and production (e.g., by solar, wind) and energy conservation practices (as stated in N-2). Examples of alternative energy use by the County could include the use of electric vehicles, compact fluorescent lights, and efficient heating. The County could also offer tax exemptions for alternative energy production. (1996) 2) The County should encourage implementation of energy conservation practices and explore alternative energy options. The County should work closely with municipalities to achieve this objective. (1997) 3) The County should establish criteria for periodic evaluations of energy use by government and the private sector. (1998) 4) Encourage the use of incentives (i.e., demand-side management) for public utilities and industries to conserve energy in the County as a whole. (1998) Page 11 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 realistically achieve?" The "Environmental Vision Statement" (part I 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 high quality natural resources. The continued quality of our lives, our children's lives, and their 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 realistically achieve?" 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 or highly desired 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 to 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 supply information that will aid deliberation (by residents, planners, and others) 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: • Site plan development • Permit review • Assessing projects' impacts on adjacent sites • Planning to avoid project impacts on sensitive adjacent sites Page 12 • Protecting natural resources, open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and Unique Natural Areas for present and future generations. • Voluntary land protection • Planning and developing greenbelts and biological corridors • Land acquisition • Tourism development • Evaluating the economic benefits to a community of preserving open space • Land use regulation • Protecting water quality by minimizing impacts from erosion, sedimentation, and drainage. • Protecting stream corridors; designated 100 -year flood plains; wetlands; steep slopes; woodlots; and Cayuga Lake and its shore. • Enhancing public interest in and awareness of the County's natural resources. The natural resource inventory will inform deliberations about natural resource management and will foster wise land use decisions because it will: (1) show persons involved of the decision- making process what resources exist; (2) illustrate trends in how those resources have changed over time; (3) enable people to see and understand the relationships between activities at one place and impacts at other (possibly nearby) places. The inventory will enable citizens and planners to see how to channel 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. Similarly, by steering development away from environmentally unstable areas with potential for flooding, silting, or erosion, it will enable taxpayers and developers to avoid unnecessary development costs during all phases of site selection, planning, and construction. The benefits of explicitly addressing particular areas of concern and of understanding them in the context of surrounding land uses cannot be overstated. To protect valued natural resources adequately often requires attention 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. A natural resource inventory, if well-developed, will allow this kind of analysis. Using such analyses, the natural resource inventory will also: • Assist all applicants and reviewers of development proposals in environmentally sound planning. • Support the comprehensive planning process, including policy formation and planning relating to the environment, natural resources, agricultural land use, parks, and recreational areas. • Aid the municipalities in developing and refining zoning regulations, mobile home park ordinances, subdivision regulations, and other land use regulations. • Guide the County in the designation of green belts and biological corridors to prevent habitat fragmentation and protect biological diversity. Page 13 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 • Land trust boards and staff • County Planning Staff • Comprehensive Planning Committee • County Planning Board • Site plan designers • Municipal government staff • NY DEC staff 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: • Define and identify all open areas in Tompkins County. • Define and 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 municipalities 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 relative to others. 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 municipality? • What information already exists at the Municipal and County levels? • How much effort should be devoted to each municipality? • How can information be acquired, and how was existing information acquired? We recommend 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. Page 14 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. The ordering of features in this list is NOT intended to imply any sequence of priority. • Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) • Endangered and significant wildlife habitats • Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) • 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) • Old Growth forest • Active farmland • Buffers (the size of which may vary tremendously according to land use types and site- specific geology and biology) to UNAs, CEAs, State Parks and other sensitive areas • 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, if Page 15 technically feasible, a level of detail sufficient to identify unambiguously the tax parcels corresponding to natural resource boundaries 95% of the time.3 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 municipality? Because the various municipalities 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 municipalities. 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 municipalities. The EMC recommends that project staff, in conjunction with representatives of each municipality, consider the following attributes of a municipality in deciding what type and extent of information may be needed. • urban/rural character. • extent of agriculture • extent of public and privately owned forested land • extent of open space • extent of lake frontage and access • degree of self-sufficiency compared to degree of commuting elsewhere for work • water availability and quality What information alre& 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 municipality within the County (to be gathered by contacting key people within each municipality). • appropriate contacts at academic institutions. • relevant commercial institutions. • relevant state and federal government institutions (e.g., USGS, NOAA, FWS, EPA, DEC) • reports of relevant research, such as those concerning potential lampricide application in Cayuga Lake, and hearings from major project permit reviews. 3 The resolution of current iDNA boundaries on maps may preclude this possibility unless UNAs are remapped at • greater than existing resolution. Page 16 • existing or proposed municipal plans or surveys. To the extent known, this list should indicate the accuracy of each data set and the scale at which it occurs (where appropriate). 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)4. 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. 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 municipal governments. An example of such readily accessible information (although produced at a much cruder scale that we believe is necessary for a Natural Resource Inventory) is the Tompkins County Outlook, a publication of the County Planning Department consisting of a bound series of maps showing key features of Tompkins County, imposed upon a common base map. The EMC recommends that project staff use the Tompkins County Outlook 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 municipal 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 municipalities a series of key data layers, on mylar, in large format, to enable 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 municipalities and citizens actively participating in planning (formally or informally) upon request. 4 A GIS is a database that includes spatially explicit references for the information it contains. Page 17 A Biological Corridor for Tompkins County (Position Paper B) Introduction To A Bioloeical Corridor Plan As the human 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, more isolated patches., As wildlife patterns are splintered, the dynamics of our local ecosystem are severely altered, reducing both species diversity and population sizes. It is imperative that Tompkins County protect its valuable ecosystems while there is still time. Past conservation efforts in New York State have been dominated by forest protection or game management. These approaches are effective in protecting targeted species, but may not help other plants and animals. Environmentalists, conservation biologists, and other citizens from all walks of life are now asking planners to pay more attention to the impact of development and other land uses on all wild species. Corridors can help protect biological diversity, populations and interdependence while allowing appropriate development and other land uses. Wisely planned biological corridors are a sensible option in the attempt to preserve intact biological systems. Plan Overview Biological corridors are thoroughfares that allow for the safe passage of animals and the genetic exchange of flora and fauna between habitat blocks. Corridors also increase the aggregate area available to the affected plant and animal populations. Many stream corridors already provide riparian connections for some species movement. Biological corridors are designed to increase the types of connections to provide functional biodiversity of all wild species. Biological corridors are not a panacea for our environmental ills, but they are a positive and attainable method of conservation for Tompkins County. They are still somewhat controversial regarding their effectiveness. Indeed, some argue that wildlife corridors may have a negative impact on the natural environment by providing new opportunities for contact between previously isolated populations or by allowing nonnative species to enter an area. While this concern may have been valid in some places, it seems unlikely to. be a problem in Tompkins County because it is proposed not to connect previously separate lands, but to maintain and restore current and historic linkages. The ideal for biodiversity protection would be very large parcels of appropriate land, tens of thousands of acres in size, 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 relatively small, existing parcels and making the whole greater than the sum of its parts, seems a reasonable, attainable and thus 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 in Tompkins County, although the Town of Ithaca has proposed one for the Coy Glen watershed. However, the county is blessed with great Page 18 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 1400 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 countywide plan which includes both biological corridors and trails. The biological corridors being proposed follow natural features such as major creek corridors or ridgetops, or connect large tracts of protected lands such as state forests. The proposal emphasizes 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 include: other municipal planners, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, Greenways Coalition, Finger Lakes Land Trust, NYS Parks, Cayuga Trails Club, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Cornell Plantations, Cayuga Bird Club, university ecologists, and many others. Previous work by these groups should be built upon, not duplicated. 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 or another knowledgeable organization with the responsibility for developing the plan in close cooperation with the county Planning Department and other interested parties. 2. List potential partnerships within the Tompkins County community and determine the resources which can provide assistance with education, biological and legal research, community dispute resolution, and publicity. 3. Refine a statement of reasons and goals for creating the corridor system. 4. Review legal issues pertaining to the establishment of biological corridors with the county attorney, the Cornell Plantations, and the Finger Lakes Land Trust. 5. Identify all land owners potentially included with the corridors and invite them to participate in the development of the plan. 6. With private landowners' permission, visit affected properties to confirm the value and location of proposed corridor boundaries. 7. Solicit participation of all interested parties and inform all of draft and final plans. 8. Produce final maps of the biological corridors. Page 19 9. Identify any potential costs for implementing the plan and seek appropriate funding. 10. Develop appropriate protection measures for the corridors. 11. Develop an outreach plan to educate the general public about the biological corridor system and to encourage volunteers to maintain and protect the corridors. 12. Design and implement long-range monitoring to help ensure success of the corridors and to modify goals and implementation strategies as necessary. Page 20 Transportation Options for Tompkins. County (Position Paper Q Bicycle and pedestrian travel are the modes of transportation that most enhance environmental quality. They are the two major non -fuel consuming, non polluting forms of transportation in the United States. Millions of Americans bicycle or walk for a wide variety of purposes: commuting to work, as part of their jobs, shopping, visiting friends, and recreation. For these citizens, bicycling and walking are important, and in some cases the primary, means of transportation. Despite hilly terrain and the challenge of the weather, Tompkins County is a popular and viable community for bicycle and pedestrian travel. This popularity is not surprising given the high degree of environmental concern in the area. Environmental benefits of bicycling and walking include conserving roadway and residential space, saving energy now used to build, service and dispose of motor vehicles, and avoiding noise, speed, and pollution resulting from the internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine also requires an over -reliance on fossil fuels, which require huge energy expenditures for extraction, transportation and processing. The environmental benefits of bicycle- and pedestrian- friendly transportation systems are even greater than they might originally seem because these forms of transportation are most often used for short trips, distances over which motorized vehicles are particularly inefficient and environmentally problematic. Establishing a bicycle and walking network 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 planned and existing network (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 population centers of the county from most of the surrounding areas. The TCBT bikeway map displays both a recommended direct route and a recommended indirect route between most of the outlying areas and the population centers. 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 planning greenways, some of which may be used for pedestrian walk ways. These greenways would connect points between and within outlying areas and urban areas. Some greenways, such as those within the county's largest urban core, will be widely used and appreciated by the public, as is the South Hill Recreational Trail. The Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council, the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), has the charge of overall transportation planning in Tompkins County. 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 complete, as is the Transportation Trails/Corridors Study. The Bike Plan is scheduled for completion in May, 1996. 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 Page 21 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 walkway is much more costly. Urban street design should consider bicycle needs and should include bicycle lanes and traffic calming techniques. Pedestrian considerations should include sidewalks, crosswalks and traffic light signals. 3. The County establish incentives for multiple occupancy vehicles and for using low -impact transportation options such as public transit, bicycle, and foot travel. Sufficient knowledgeable staff should be provided so that these options receive adequate consideration in the planning and implementation processes. 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. Bicycle racks on buses and appropriate parking and shelter for bicycles should be provided. 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 development to improve low -impact transportation options in the ways discussed above.5 8. The County advocate for using less polluting alternative (to gasoline) fueled vehicles, especially for mass transit and fleet vehicles. 5 A percentage of all money paid as hotel room fees in Tompkins County is currently targeted specifically for development in the County. Page 22 Citizen Participation in Long Range Planning for Tompkins County (Position Paper D) -- Summary 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. Page 23 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.6 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.? Because it is usually unrealistic to conduct large numbers of group interviews, this technique is not the best method for estimating how many persons in a municipality 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, and deciding which elements of each to prioritize. A successful effort will probably fall somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. 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 a draft long range transportation plan. 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. 6Participation 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. 7 Open-ended survey questions leave the respondent considerable room to answer as s/he wishes, without constraining the answer to particular choices or categories. Page 24 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?8 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?9. 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. 8 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 cant' 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. 9 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. Page 25 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 staffs 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. Page 26 TOWN OF ITHACA fl, HAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner DATE: July 22, 1996 TO'"" RE: Materials from July 18, 1996 Conservation Board Meeting Enclosed please find several items of interest that were handed out at the meeting last Thursday, July 18, 1996. These items include: 1.) A DRAFT MEMO from Eva Hoffmann to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Town Board concerning the proposed Saddlewood Farms Development. Eva has requested that you read this memo and if you have comments, return to her or to this office no later than Friday, July 26, 1996 for preparation of a final draft. 2.) Information on the South Hill "Swamp" from several sources. Nancy Ostman from the Cornell Plantations attended Thursday's meeting. Nancy, along with Conservation Board member Richard Fischer, addressed the Board asking that members consider making a recommendation to change the status of the South Hill Swamp from a Unique Natural Area to a Critical Environmental Area. A visit to the site is being considered for all interested board members including Town Board, Planning Board, and Conservation Board. Richard Fischer will draft a resolution for the next CB meeting and plans for -a site visit will be discussed further at that time. 3.) An article from the 6/18/96 Ithaca Journal concerning the EIS for the Vet School Incinerator. Phil Zarriello will follow up with a letter to the DEC and copy appropriate persons. 4.) NYSACC News - Summer 1996 If you have any questions with regards to this or any other Conservation Board matter, please feel free to call me at 273-1747. Also, mark your calendars for the next . CB meeting, Thursday, August 1, 1996. Hope to see you there! j D4AJ41 -fb'l £(ZC owX.Jl G6 G.M.a.CVV-1, MEMO July 1, 1996 'fir I e C'P� To: Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals From: Eva B. Hoffmann, for the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Subject: Initial comments on the Saddlewood Farms developments plans (Project no. 9604196) The ERC appreciates having the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We concur with the decision that the Town Planning Board should serve as the agency for SEORA review of the Saddlewood Farms project. We respectfully submit the following comments to aid the various involved Town boards in their review of this proposal. The proposed development poses many significant and direct environmental impacts, Foremost of which is the loss of prime agricultural land. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (TCP) recognizes that farming creates economic benefits in terms of local food production, tourism and by contributing to the aesthetic quality of the community. In recognition of these benefits, the TCP clearly states the goal of enhancing agricultural viability and preservation of agricultural land. The Saddlewood Farms development, as proposed, maintains a token amount of agriculture in the form of an orchard, but in general eliminates the possibility that most of this land could ever be farmed again. Most disturbung is the precedent this development would set for agricultural land development within the Town, and especially on West Hill where most of the Town's'remaining agricultural lands are located. -a- 26 iq Entering the Ithaca area from the west, the Town is graced with spectacular scenic vistas of the Cayuga Lake valley and surrounding hill sides. The proposed development on the present site location would likely spoil one of the most spectacular vistas along Route 79, a .busy east -west thoroughfare. A large development such as this near the ridge line of West Hill would also significantly detract from the scenic views as they now can be seen from East and South hills looking west. A good example of how this type of development can affect the appearance of the landscape is the Deer Run development on South Hi 11 as seen from Route 79 and other roads on East Hi 11. The resulting development pattern would degrade the community character that the TCP is attempting to conserve and strengthen, and that is contrary to one of the objectives that Town residents most strongly suggested in their responses to the Town -wide survey done for the TCP. The environmental impacts of the action would be exponentially magnified by the direct loss of the visual and open space amenity that the TCP and The Agricultural zone designation are intended to protect. This represents a serious challenge to the very concept of environmental protection and land use planning, and calls into question their validity, and the Town's commitment to improving the quality of life for all who have an interest of any sort in the community. In addition to the direct environmental significance of this project, the ERC and the Conservation Board (CB) have several general comments related to the procedural aspects of, and the question of need for, development of this type in the Town of Ithaca. With regard to procedure, we are concerned about the fast track this project is taking, because of the time constraints Landmark America (LA) is operating under to acquire funding from the NY State Income Housing Tax Credit Program. While we commend the Town's effort to accommodate LA, we feel the Town may not have adequate time to thoroughly and thoughtfully review the project and still enable LA to begin construction as early as has been requested (originally by July 29, 1996). We urge the Town not to make hasty decisions with regard to this project which has such far-reaching significance to the community, not just in the Town, but in the City of Ithaca and other nearby municipalities as well. The question of need for this development is also an important concern. The driving consideration appears to be the aspect of providing "affordable housing". We wonder if LA's proposal would be given the same consideration it is now getting, if "affordable housing" were not part of the development plans. We suspect not, and thus feel the question of need is significant to the decision making process, and ultimately whether the development ought to proceed in its present form. Lois Levitan's letters to the Town, dated May 9, and10, 1996, raise many good questions with respect to the market analysis. Further, while the TCP recognizes the need to promote "a diverse high quality, affordable, and attractive place for people to live", the TCP also implies this should be owner occupied housing. The TCP defines housing as affordable if "occupants spend 1/4 or less of their total income for it". This development is for rental property only, and with proposed rents set at 30% of gross income for the "affordable units". The ERC and CB feel that the market analysis, on which this project is based, needs to be more thorough and accurate before the Town can be expected to be able to make a sound judgment about whether the need for the development, as proposed, exists. While it seems premature to make detailed comments about the proposed site plan, until the greater issues already discussed have been resolved, we would like to briefly point out some concerns: 1. There is excessive pavement and too many roads needed with houses located only on . one side of each road. 2. There appear to be many more parking spaces proposed than would ordinarily be required by the Town, resulting in excessive paving. 3. The evergreen plantings shown along the southern and eastern parts of the property would form year-round barriers blocking the scenic views from Route 79. 4. A fruit orchard, which requires a lot of pesticide and herbicide treatments, seems inappropriate so near the residences of this proposed development. 5. We are concerned about how the drainage from the site with all the houses and paved surfaces will be handled, and especially how it might affect the land to the east and the creek on the property. We feel the project, as presently proposed, presents a win -lose situation for the Town, LA and the Eddy family. If the development proceeds as planned, LA and the Eddy family will obtain what they desire. The Town may gain some "affordable rental housing", but would lose both prime agricultural land and one of the more spectacular and visible scenic vistas, and would also set a bad precedent for future development in the Town. The Town carries the responsibility with this project, to determine how agricultural lands can and should be developed. Fortuitously, the Town also has a unique opportunity in that the property immediately. to the east of the proposed development is also presently for sale. This property is currently zoned R-15 and has existing water and sewer service, making it more compliant with the TCP than the proposed site. The property is also situated below the ridge line of the hill and would offer better protection of the scenic views. Given this situation, we think the LA proposal could be turned into a win-win situation for all parties. The developer could purchase both the Eddys' property and the property to the east. The Eddy family would obtain what it wants, the Town could realize "affordable housing" without compromising other goals and objectives, and LA would still have a very nice site for development. The prime agricultural land would remain available for agriculture and could be leased by LA for such purposes. We hope the Town will fully consider this opportunity as it considers the proposed development. South Hill "Swamp" Preservation Strateg CORNELL UNIVERSITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 602 r reser J • 1 ru w ul lury TA'S: Randall Barnes Spring 1995 Project Description: South Hill "Swamp" preservation strategies, Town of Ithaca, New York Background: Within the Town of Ithaca, exists a unique environmental resource, the South Hill "Swamp". This upland wetland, owned by Cornell University and managed by the Cornell Plantations Natural Area Committee, has been at the heart of rigorous study and discussion. The following is a brief description of the South Hill "Swamp" printed in the Cornell Plantations Quarterly in 1983, written by Nancy Ostman, Director of the natural areas for the plantations. Protecting a Small Natural Area: A High -Risk Enterprise Nancy Ostman . South Hill Swamp has been known since the 1800s as a unique botanic area. Plants unusual to the Finger Lakes region can be found there, as well as plants that are rare in New York but more common on the coastal plain or in more -southern states. Climatic changes occurring during glaciation may have spared this remnant of a now largely extinct vegetation type. The swamp proper is a forest of swamp white oaks (Quercus bicolor). The wet portion is centered in a shallow bowllike depression on a broad, flat hilltop. In 1960 Cornell acquired a 5.7 -acre tract in the core of this 50 -acre basin. The tract includes wetland swamp and upland (dry -land vegetation. Water drains from the south and west into the depression. Downward percolation of the water is prevented by the shallowness of the soil (fifteen to forty cm.) over bedrock and by an impervious clay layer between the soil and rock. Over -land water flow toward the north and east is inhibited by the extreme flatness. The water seeps slowly out, collecting in the swamp. The Quercus bicolor swamp is a wetland recognized by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It is the only known local example of forest where Quercus bicolor is abundant and dominates the canopy. This species, like many others in the area, is dependent on seasonal swampy conditions. Thus any developments that alter the drainage. into or out of the swamp threaten the species' survival. Because the soil on the rim of the depression is thin (ten to twenty cm.), it tends to become very dry in mid to late summer. Thus the rim exhibits not wetland, but dry - land, vegetation. Numerous plant species rare in New York are found on the drier portion of the land, in open shrubby habitat. The flora of South Hill Swamp includes the male berry (lyonia ligustrina), the red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), the swamp shadbush (Amelanchier intermedia), a coastal plains violet (Viola fimbriatula), and bluets (Houstonia caerulea). Large portions of these plant populations occur outside Cornell's holdings, closer to the rim of the basin, where the soil is shallowest. Protecting only that small portion that occurs within the Cornell preserve is not likely to be sufficient to maintain these isolated populations. George C. Eickwort, a professor of entomology at Cornell, studies a very uncommon bee, Melitta americana, that is associated with the unusual dry -land plants. He reports that South Hill is the only location in the immediate Ithaca vicinity where this soil - nesting bee occurs, and that it would be very adversely affected by alteration of soil conditions. In these same open areas the prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) nests in low grasses. This warbler apparently is found in only one other locale near Ithaca. One of the concerns of ornithologists is that cats form the increased housing nearby could easily decimate this vulnerable ground -nesting population. It has been twenty-three years since Professor Robert Clausen purchased a small segment of South Hill's unique habitat for Cornell. He knew even then that the parcel was too small to maintain, within its boundaries alone, the area's natural populations of rare plants. Before that purchase, and subsequently, the basin area had been protected only by the lack of development on adjacent land. Projects had been proposed near the site, but in each such instance the members and friends of the Cornell Natural Areas Subcommittee proclaimed the uniqueness of the basin and explained at town board meetings the necessity for protective measures. Attempts were made in 1972 to work with a corporation planning a large development on the site to the east of the swamp. Those liaison attempts largely failed, but so did the development, to the relief of concerned naturalists. The dumping on, and scraping of, the adjacent land that nonetheless occurred was described by Clausen as the "catastrophic annihilation of what was once a unique.natural association of plants and animals." A ten-year respite followed. Then in June and December of 1982 two separate developments were proposed on adjacent property, including part of the area critical to the swamp's preservation. The first proposal was withdrawn. In December Cornell's efforts to seek cooperation with the second developer appeared to bear fruit. The fortuitous result has been the addition of six acres to the University's holdings, which will serve as a buffer and prevent quantitative and qualitative changes in drainage into the swamp. Cornell also acquired an option to purchase seventeen acres surrounding the swamp on three sides. Acquisition of perhaps thirty additional acres would be needed to ensure full protection of the swamp. South Hill Swamp differs from other Cornell natural areas in its small size and its close proximity to a town. But the most critical factor has been the lack of a buffer zone to protect the unique parcel from human impact. Indeed the entire area has yet to obtain federal protection, even though the uniqueness of its habitat has been well defined. Certainly holding a small natural area has been, and continues to be, a high-risk venture. The early acquisition of the core acres with the limited funds then available resulted in documentation of the unique flora and fauna and a community feeling of vested interest. This served as a platform for the defense of the entire basin. All of these factors contributed to the current interest in, and continued existence of, the area's unique aspects. Yet the basin's future remains uncertain. Thus far the flora and fauna at South Hill Swamp have proven resistant to recent changes in the vicinity caused by farming and development. However, it is still likely that any development within the basin itself will result in rapid destruction of this natural area. SOUTH HILL SW,AMF Site Description: Natural forest, forest brush, wooded wetlands. Elev. 1250-1270 ft. Area: 57 a. Location: N of East King Road; approx. 0.6 mi. E of jun c. Rt. 96B, E. King Road. Access easiest from pipeline right of way; follow it N 100 yds. to swamp edge. Greater part extends E and NE from this point. Ownership: CU, Pr. Man-made Changes: Past logging, pasturing, farming, draining. Clearing and drainage disruption by pipeline on W, Beacon Hills construction to E. Some trash dumping in past. Fencing. Natural Features: _Geology: Bedrock of Sonyea group shales exposed on Beacon Hill Property. Soils: LnC, LnD, VbB, EcA, TeA, LtB Water bodies: Water table is exposed in form of small shallow ponds, dry in summer. Drains into both Inlet and 6 Mile Creek. Vegetation: White oak -n. red oak -hickory, swamp white oak, pitch pine. Unique combination of western and coastal plain species. NYSPNP-9 species. Andrews' # - 22,10 - some rare species sphagnum moss. *Ragged fringed orchis (Habenaria lacera(Michx.)R.Br.), *yellow star grass (Hypoxis hirsuta(L.)Coville), *pine weed, orange grass (Hypericum gentianoides(L.)B.S.P.), *arrow -leaved violet (Viola sagittata Ait.), *dwarf cherry (Prunus pumila subsp. susauehanae(Willd.)Clausen), *red ch okeberry (Pyrus arbutifolia(L.)E11.), *swamp white oak (Ouercus bicolor Willd.), *burr oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.), *bluets (Houstonia caerulea L.), *maleberry (Leonia ligustrina(L.)DC.), *pussytoes (Antennaria fallax Greene), *frostweed aster (Aster 2L- losus Willd.), huckleberry (Gavlussacia baccata(Wang.)K. Koch), *buttonbush (Cevhalanthus occidentalis L.), *four-leaved milkweed (Asclepias quadrifolia Jacq.), black cnokeberry (Pvrus melanocarpa (Michx.)Willd.). Some of species accounts from Clausen (1969). Best example of pitch pine woods in county. Fauna: Normal for area. *Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor Vieillot) only current breeding locality known for county; ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus L.), black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia L.), ring-- necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) . Large numbers of white- tailed deer. Activities: Botanical research, nature study, hiking, hunting, trail bike riding. Reason for Selecting Site: Known for almost 100 years as one of most in- teresting botanical areas in central New York. Comments: Cornell owns 5.7 acres of the swamp. Includes area with dwarf cherry and maleberry, the most unusual plants there, but includes only half swamp and little of the oak -pine wet hummocks to N. The whole swamp and pitch pine woods totals some 50+ acres and -should be preserved. It is unique. Both Beacon Hills and the pipeline right of way have de- graded the area - if Beacon Hills becomes active and implements its full development plan, the swamp will be severely affected. Z Statement Prepared for the Ithaca Town Board 5-21-73 All of Cornell's designated natural areas are valuable, indeed irreplacable, tracts of land that have been set aside because of their unique topographical features and unusual plant -animal associations. South Hill Bog is of special interest to us because it represents perhaps the northernmost example of a costal prairie plant association; the area largely resembles (on a small scale) the costal plain of New Jersey. Several plants add to the uniqueness of the Bog including: Pitch pine (Pinus rigida), Prairie Willow (Salix humilis), New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus americanus), Black Oak (Quercus velutina) and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). In addition to these species there are several interesting and unique oak hybrids as well as several hybrid associations of Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) and willow (Salix sp.). Bluets (Houstonia caerulea) are common in the Bog but are rare in -this region outside of the bog. The same can be said for Male Berry (Lyonia ligustrina) and several others (see attached sheet). We are aware that the Bog area is small (about 5.7 acres) and is likely to be viewed simply as "waste land" by any developer. Too often this has been the pattern of urban development and valuable areas have been destroyed. Obviously we hope to avoid such a catastrophe in this instance. Since the Bog is small in size, any change in the drainage pattern or topography of adjacent areas would likely have an adverse effect on the flora of the Bog. For this reason we are particularly concerned about the proposed Beacon Hills development project which is currently under consideration. In addition to the obvious damage which will arise from an enhanced drainage of the surrounding area, there exists the problem of trespass which is likely to occur when the buildings become occupied. Many of the bog plants are quite fragile and susceptible to trampling. For this reason we would need concrete assurance of limited or no access by Beacon Hills residents. In view of the importance of this natural bog area to Cornell and its scientists, we ask that a proper delay be enforced so that our experts may carefully evaluate the Beacon Hills plan and provide explicit recommendations regarding drainage, trespass, mosquito control, salt runoff, and herbicide -pesticide use on adjacent lands. Prepared by Milo Richmond Chairman, Subcommittee on Cornell Natural Areas South Hill Swamp, Ithaca, N. Y. Flora Species found nowhere else in Cayuga Lake Basin, but restricted to South Hill 1. L.yonia ligustrina, Male Berry. A shrub. South Hill is the only locality for it in the Cayuga Lake drainage and also the northwesternmost known occurrence. 2. Prunus pumila ssp. susquehanae, Dwarf Cherry. A low shrub. Very rare. Only locality in Finger Lakes Region. 3. Carex incomperta, a perennial sedge, characteristic of the Coastal Plain, in our area restricted to the South Hill Swamp. 4. Carex glaucodea, also a perennial sedge of the Coastal Plain and Great Lakes, restricted in our area.to South Hill. Species found at only one other locality in the Cayuga Lake drainage besides South Hill 1. Rubus signatus, a dewberry with double flowers. A rare triploid. 2. Carex folliculata, a perennial sedge. Scarce species which are well represented on South Hill 1. Pyrus arbutifolia (Aronia arbutifolia) — Red Chokeberry 2. Amelanchier intermedia — Swamp Shadbush 3. Houstonia caerulea — Bluets (winter -annual or weak perennial) 4. Antennaria parlinii — Parlin's Pussy's Toes Noteworthy swarms of hybrids found on South Hill Willows, Salix, studied in 1953 by Dr. Charles Beck, now of the University of Michigan. Oaks, Quercus bicolor x macrocarpa, studied in 1957'and 1958 by Dr. William Burger, presently Curator of the Herbarium of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Blueberries, Vaccinium, studied about 1935 by the late Dr. W. H. Camp, then of Ohio State University. Blackberries, Rubus, studied in 1951 by Drs. John Einset and Robert T. Clausen., of Cornell University. The woodland adjacent to the South Hill Swamp is characteristic of the pine -oak barrens of coastal New England or of the Coastal Plain of New Jersey. R. T. Clausen May 18, 1973 6/« '�.ir. ,..•,'. //���� !. •F"y�F`.��.�� V:'�tv-1tR.-y, 3, 1_4tkl moi•+• �:::,�:, ^i�:;':" i ;' • ' Af , r" •i 3 nl�;e By JOHN YAUKEY fi ' 14.1: ,¢ Y Towrwlstaff yeighbors { c r.�; ITHACA�; til }A�full �fVery,g6 ge�11eC�: Environmental Impac'ti n aStatement on;a controversial EIS>is the: o: r1%" medical waste incrneratothe , z " �� state: .proposes tPAU.. ld . .,Way, tO begun , 1 527'Y.'z N .l. �. r°•r:s �- f Cornell Unryersrty rs;not ari "o ti n'des rte re Bated' a nests' 'reI110Ve. Sbm&l bd P .Q._: P R a� 4 .r:. r n from the coznmunrty,'farone tYle�( ]iiestions �•V C' �l ? ";!,►:F=`^^9�!•zr(1sT L (,fr y3 > state officals sand Tuesday °r n - The -Tom Co-- Boas r have '& of Representattve�;{Tuesday'; :<r�t L::.•� 'Town.' nrght;.repeated acaon•.�the Tthaca�,"; ��,� •--'.,,�1�-an`?<< yTown.Board;had�undertakeri, w -Mz West Hfll res 1rlonday,.m a'sking'the,;mt�ate t0 �, lt".`,:ar(,.r -Nr ' L•:i'7 t;produceian'.F.IS on a s �T, w ,,projectq . � ,million,ould re uire,•,th few other•'thmgs struction;of, a 177-foot'en J;IASONKOSKVJouthalStatf�` k li i,.. yet to 'be.:worked,:'out with stack= for the high` altituc y �' :"-,Cornell;:but nota,full;ElS,,;;said ,.penal of burned particle v� : Reynolds ; NYSACC aeuo. President's Message Last month, both NYSACC and NYSAEMC had Board of Directors meetings which I at- tended. I left Long Island, going first to Millbrook in Dutchess g County, back south to Katonah and Tarrytown, and north again to Albany. In making these trips I was struck, as I always am, with Joy Squires the diversity and beauty of this state we live in. And it makes me proud to be president of a state- wide organization that works hard to preserve some of the things that are best about our state. Of course the hot topic of conversation was the 25th Anniversary of our first Conference on the Environment. Barbara Kendall, Dutchess County's EMC Director and coordinator of the Conference brought us up to date on Conference plans centering on the theme, "Successes of the Past and Tools for the Future". Stimulating and informative workshops will be presented following three tracks: environ- mental tools, water resources for the future, and land use management trends. We expect that the keynote speakers will be enlightening, and know that the selection of tours will meet the needs of NYSACC members. Choose between Dutchess County's Waste to Energy Facility and Materials Recovery Facility, a tour of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Vanderbilt historic homes, a hike on Breakneck Ridge, and our ever popular boat trip: this time a riverboat cruise on the NYSACC aeafa 168 Parkway Drive Syracuse, NY 13207 Summer 1996 Hudson. NYSAEMC and NYSACC share in planning, re- sponsibilities, and finances, working together under the di- rection of the Dutchess County EMC. In preparation for this very special anniversary Confer- ence, there are some very specific things we need from NYSACC members. • Most important of all, we need your attendance on October 18, 19, and 20 at the Holiday Inn in Fishkill for our anniversary Conference. We need the sharing, network- ing, and the discussion of events over these many years. • Next, remember to fill out and return the questionnaire you have recently received. We intend to use the history portion to compile a directory of members. Other ques- tions will be tabulated and graphed in order for us all to have a better picture of member CACs. • Included in this newsletter is a NYSACC Award Applica- tion. How about applying for an award on this anniversary year? In memory of Margery Sachs, NYSACC has created an Environmental Service Award which will be given to an individual who exemplifies the qualities of environmental concern and service that were part of Margery. This award will recognize outstanding service to the community in which the individual lives. Please send your nominations to me at the NYSACC address or to 17 Clarissa Lane, East Northport, NY 11731. Please make time in your busy schedule to help NYSACC highlight the "successes of the past and tools for the future." Joy Squires President, NYSACC NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID SYRACUSE, N.Y. PERMIT NO. 287 NYSACC New York State Association of Conservation Commissions � Get out the silver: October 18-20, 1996 The New York State Association of Conservation Com- missions and the New York State Association of Environ- mental Management Councils invite you to come to the Twenty Fifth Anniversary Conference on the Environment. The theme of this year's gathering will be "Celebrating 25 Years of EMCs and CACs in New York State". Conferees will be both celebrating the successes of a quarter century and looking at tools to help one another protect our local environ- ment into the future. The conference is lo- cated in Dutchess County, NYSACC in the heart of the Hudson Valley, at the attractive and spacious Holiday Inn in h Fishkill, where Route 9 and v j I-84 meet. Our invited speakers %' 4 include Governor George j Pataki, Peter Berle, DEC Commissioner Michael 1971-1996 Zagata, and local celebri- ties including Mary Tyler Moore. So mark your cal- endar now. The workshops are organized on three tracks: • Environmental Tools • Water Resources for the Future • Land Use Management Trends To register, you must call the hotel directly and tell them you are with the New York State Conference on the Environ- ment. You may phone the hotel directly, at 914/896-6281. The special room rate of $68 for a single or $75 for a double room is available if you register by September 30. The conference registration fee is $55, and includes the program, all work- shops; continental breakfast on Saturday, and several tours. Meals and special tours of historic homes and a boat cruise on the Hudson River are extra. A registration form will be published in the next issue of NYSACC news. If you wish to register early, please contact conference coordinator Barbara Kendall at the address below for a registration form. Barbara Kendall Dutchess County EMC P.O. Box 259 Millbrook, NY 12545 914/677-8223 x126 Exhibitors who would like to participate in the trade show should also contact Barbara. The Conference Committee will be publishing a com- memorative journal. If you would like to take an ad in the journal, please write to: George Priois Suffolk County EMC Happauge Office Park P.O. Box 6100 r Iry 1 1- nnnn NYSACC aeca, Aft News From = DEC: Water Bulletin is Washed Away The Department of Environmental Conservation is no longer publishing the Water Bulletin. DEC has consolidated all of its bulletins and newsletters into a department - wide newsletter, New York Environment, which provides a broader view of DEC activities. Water Bulletin subscribers will be automatically added to the mailing list for New York State Environment. If you wish to be added to the list, contact DEC Media Services 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233-4500 DEC Environmental Education Camp For Youth Begins 50th Summer Youngsters from ages 12-17 are eligible to participate in the Environmental Education Camps sponsored by DEC. This is the 50th year that the camps are being conducted. Eight week-long sessions will be held beginning on June 30, at Camp Colby in Saranac Lake, Camp DeBruce in Livingston Manor, and Camp Rushford, in Caneadea, Allegany County. Summer camp applications may be obtained by writing to DEC Camps, Room 507, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233- 4500 or by calling (518) 457-3720. NVCACC Uri The Board of Directors accepts with regret the resignation of Dorothy Stamp, Janet Hawkes, and Janet Hollocher. We welcome John Osborne of East Fishkill in Dutchess County to our Board. John is working hard on the Conference. He suggests that we use e-mail for quick communication be- tween members. His address is efishkil@emi.com. Summer 1996 A Review Land Use in America Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan Island Press, 1996 Paper, $26.95 340pp. This book looks at how Americans have used land in the past 25 years and lays out a ten part agenda to improve land use in the next century. Authors Diamond and Noonan, who are, respectively, senior partners in a Washington, D.C., law firm and chairman of the Conservation Fund, enlist Vermont C.nNiprnnt- 14mn aryl T1Pan and former EPA administrator Wil- liam Reilly as well as planners, conservationists, mayors, CEOs, farmers and policy advocates to help examine why land use planning hasn't kept up with other environmental progress. The book reviews the progress that Florida, Colo- rado, Long Island, and California have made since being profiled by Reilly in 1973 in a similar study. The authors conclude that two key issues plague planning: property owners' fear of government and the political com- plexities inherent in 34 million landowners controlling 1.3 billion acres of land. Americans' preference for individual choice and decentralized decision-making, they say, must be balanced with environmentally and fiscally sound growth management. The bottom line: no community retains its character by accident. -Reprinted with permission from Common Ground, the bi- monthly newsletter of the Conservation Fund. Common Ground is available by writing to Yvonne Marie Romero, The Conservation Fund, 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 1120, Arlington, VA 22209. Ed Griffin -Nolan, Editor Joy Squires, NYSACC President Newsletter Office 168 Parkway Drive Syracuse, NY 13207 NYSACC Office P.O. Box 1532 Huntington, NY 11743 (516) 368-6949 NYSACC ww,6 is published three times per year. CACs are encouraged to submit press releases, general infor- mation about CAC activities, articles, artwork or photog- raphy to the editor, Ed Griffin -Nolan, 168 Parkway Drive, Syracuse, NY 13207. For additional copies of NYSACC aea.,a and address changes, contact Joy Squires at the NYSACC office. Vol. 22, No.1 NYSACC aeum, Annual NYSACC Project Award Entry Form 1996 Name and address of Conservation Board (CB) or Conservation Advisory Commission (CAC) Phone PROJECT CATEGORY: Action [ ] Education [ ] Research [ ] PROJECT INFORMATION: (Please attach a 250 -word abstract: project description; why it should be considered for an award; volunteer time versus professional time spent; cost and sources of funds. Please attach copy of final report, if any. Also, to help complete a news release if you should win, please attach a 150 -word background on your CB or CAC: Include date CB or CAC was initiated,numbers of board members and of paid staff; urban, suburban, rural; three most significant accomplishments.) SEND SUBMISSIONS TO: Carole Wilder 278 Waldo Street Copiague, NY 11726 Include two self-addressed postcards for use in acknowledging receipt and notifying you (prior to the Annual Conference) whether you win or not. Awards will be presented at the 25th anniversary conference. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: 1) Form and attachments must be complete. 2) CB or CAC must be a paid member of NYSACC at date of submission. 3) Entry must be postmarked no later than September 20, 1996. 4) Same entry must not have won NYSACC award during previous three years. NYSACC ae ' to Summer 1996 vol. 22 No.1 NYSACC aeav, 3 The Green Drummer Stops, Beating After more than four years of operation, Greenworking is coming to an end. The database developed in these years of networking among -;environmental` groups throughout the state has been passed on to Environmental Advocates. Envi- ronmental Advocates now publishes a monthly "Green Sheet" which will be mailed to all Green Drummer subscribers. To get on the list, write to TheGreen`Sheet 353 Hamilton Street Albany, NY 12210 email: gsheet@envadvocates.org. Wetlands Conference The Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy and the Association of State Wetland Managers are sponsoring a National Science and Public Policy Symposium in July. Entitled "Wetland `96': Forming Fair and Effective Partner- ships", the Symposium will be held from July 9-12 at the Key Bridge Marriot in Washington, D.C. There will also be a Computer Fair, Workshop, and Train- ing Session on Improving Communication and Analysis: Wetland .Floodplain and River On -Line Services and GIS Applications held at the same time. Registration for nonmembers is $135 and should be mailed to The Association of- Wetland: -.Managers P.O. Box 269, Berne, NY 12023-9746.°For more information, call 518/872- 1804. 1996 Migratory --.Bird Stamp and Print Features- the Loon "Adirondack Awakening", a print by art teacher Len Rusin of North Tonawanda, is featured on the Migratory Bird Program's stamp and print for 1996. Proceeds from the sale of the prints, stamps, .posters, and pins go to protect and manage wetland habitats in New York State and Canada.. In the eleven years of its existence, the stamp and print sales have raised more than two million dollars. To order, call Migratory Bird Print and Stamp Program at DEC. 1-800=325-2370. News from NYSAEMC NYSACC Board Members The New York State Association of Environmental Man- agement Councils, Inc., has been meeting bi-monthly in various locations around New York.State, most recently on May 20th in Albany. We have been working on a newsletter and have a new editor, Carolyn Long.from Tompkins, County. Hopefully we will publish it three times a year... ' . - Our board members sit on various state committees and we have recently been asked to participate on a Biomass- Bioenergy Advisory Board associated with Syracuse Univer- sity, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. We continue to keep in contact with the Environmental Business Association working on a Brownfield education program for `New York. State... - Individual EMCs have been busy and are producing some wonderful programs. Onondaga County has�been assisting in the Brownfield Grant Syracuse received, Monroe County is celebrating its 25th anniversary, Tompkins County recently completed its 1996 Environmental Directory, and Chemung. County is managing a Household Hazardous Waste Program. ,What has been keeping the board busy is planning for the fall conference. Barbara Kendall at the Dutchess County EMC is coordinating the conference and she keeps us up to date on her progress. We are looking forward to seeing all our. old friends in October. Lee,Hanle Younge President, NYSAEMC OFFICERS President Joy Squires 17 Clarissa Lane . East Northport, NY 11731 516/368-6949 (h) 516/351-3330 '(fax) Vice President Simon Skolnik 53 Greenville Road . Katonah, NY 1.0536 914/232-9457 (h) 203/327-0330 (o) 203/323-1295 (fax) REGION I Carole Wilder 278 Waldo Street Copiague, NY'l1726 516/842-1966 (h) REGION II (vacant) REGION III Ann Brandt 14 Evergreen Lane Woodstock; NY 12498 914/679-8328 (h) 914/679-5540 (o) 914/679-7915 (fax) Annette Kaicher 5 Seymour Place White Plains, NY 10605 914/948-6024 Rosemary Kait McKinley 29 Marion Avenue a Mount Kisco, NY 10549 914/24178419 (h) Carl Kling 22 Annadale Street Armonk, NY 10504 914/273-9274(h) 914/273-8009 (o) 914/345-2452 (fax) Secretary Donald Duger 6086 Whiting Road Ext. Jordan, NY 13080 315/689-6361 (h) 315/652-1085(o) 315/65271088 (fax) Treasurer Patricia McConnell 131 Big Island Road Warwick, NY 10990 914/651-4555 (h) Steven Otis 26 Lynden Street Rye, NY 10580 914/967-8152 (h) 914/921-0221 (o) 518/455-2031 (fax) John Osborne 370 Rt. 376 Hopewell Junction, NY 12533 REGION VI Stacy,Hammill 19 Goodrich Street Canton, NY 13617 REGION. VII: (vacant) REGION VIII Mary Ann Gregory 50 Churchill Place Big Flats, NY 14814 607/562-8292 REGION IX Frank Bermel, Jr. 11507 Cary Road Alden, NY 14404 716/937-7324 IX vm vu iv m NYSAEMC PRESIDENT Lee Hanle Younge 425 Pennsylvania Elmira, NY 14904 607n34 -4453(o) 607/562-3988 (h) NYSACC waw. is published three timesja year by the New York State Association of Conservation Commissions. The next issue of NYSACC Kent will be mailed in late August. Please send submissions to the editor by August 15, 1996. E NYSACC aecoa Summer 1996 Local CACs Protect Open Space, and (Nater Resources Huntington's Park called Huntington Youth Rangers. Students, upper elemen- tary through high school age, are choosing their parks. A Stewardship Program series of meetings will be held over the next year covering Expands topics of broad interest, such as local wildlife and Huntington's habitats. Students will be expected to attend the meetings, to The Town of Huntington Conservation Board, chaired by Joy Squires, is expanding its highly successful park steward- ship program. This program asks citizen volunteers to be the "eyes, ears, and the mouth" for the town's 110 active and passive parks. Conceived as a way to assist the Parks and Recreation Department with what is an often overwhelming task of combating litter and vandalism, this programs asks stewards to walk their chosen park, fill out inspection forms, report problems and concerns to the Parks Department, and to attend spring and fall stewardship meetings. Recently, a new component has been added by Town Councilman Steve Israel. Although the stewardship program included some student stewards, Israel proposed a program monitor their park, keep a log of visits and think about what can be done to improve the park and its specialized resources. Finally students will select a park project that will enhance the Park and, under Town supervision, make it happen. The Conservation Board, with the Department of Parks and Recreation, administers the Park Stewardship Program. The Board will also be actively involved with the Youth Rangers, both in meeting participation and by providing assistance with student park plans. If copies of Huntington's Park Stewardship and the Youth Ranger Programs would be helpful to you, please contact Joy Squires, Huntington Conservation Board, 100 Main Street, Huntington, NY 11731. Woodstock Environmental Commission Sounds a Wigroing about Fuel ranks Speaking at a Town Board meeting in May, Woodstock Environmental Commission Chairwoman Ann Brandt sug- gested that it was time for town residents to pay careful attention to the condition of their underground fuel tanks. The Commission conducted a survey five years ago in which they discovered that nearly 200 fuel tanks lie buried beneath the earth in locations that could adversely affect the drinking water supply. The area in question goes beyond the normal "wellhead protection area" because, as Brandt ex- plained, the aquifer serving the town extends as far north as Greene County, and homeowners must be vigilant beyond the ground around their wellheads: Fuel tanks that leak can be both costly and dangerous, and few insurance policies cover the cost of cleanups. DEC officials typically determine if a cleanup is needed, and to what extent. Cost for contaminated soil classified as "non- hazardous" can run as little as $65 per ton, while "hazardous" soil containing PCBs, lead, or other known contaminants may cost twice as much to excavate and dispose of safely. In addition, replacing the faulty fuel tank with an above ground tank can cost between $500 and $750. To prevent such costly and hazardous problems, fuel companies were encouraged to add an additive to No. 2 fuel oil which emulsifies moisture that has condensed in the tank, allowing it to be burned along with the mixture. r Vol. 22, No.1 NYSACC aeao. Syracuse Moves Closer to Completing open Space Inventory The City of Syracuse CAC met in June to discuss research on the Open Space Inventory, which was developed in the 1970s and then shelved for years. This is a first step toward getting the Open Space Inventory approved, which would lead to the creation of a Conservation Board in the city of Syracuse. According to CAC member Lee Gechas, "The inventory, when completed will have indexed every parcel of open space within the city, public and private. The process in- volves the inspection of every site and recording of pertinent data to better determine and guide appropriate use and non use of each parcel. This data, once entered into the city computers and GIS system, will prove to be an invaluable tool in planning for the city. Stored data and color coded maps will be a key tool for city planners, developers, parks, neighbor- hood groups and indeed a core element for a master plan for the city of Syracuse. 5 volved in FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, August 1, 1996 :: ................ ..............................................................................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. 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. Member Concerns 7:45 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 7:55 p.m. 4. Environmental Review Committee Report 8:10 p.m. S. Items For Discussion a. South Hill Swamp Discussion - Follow up b. Possible Future Conservation Districts c. Possible Future Wetland Ordinance d. Request for support of Eco Village and Tompkins County Transportation Council Joint Venture 9:30 p.m. 6. Business: a) Approval of Minutes (6/6/96, 4/20/95, 10/6/94 - distributed with 7/18 Packet) b) Other 10:00 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/08-01-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1996 PRESENT: Phillip Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Geri Tierney, Planner. ABSENT: Loren Tauer. Chairperson Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. MEMBER CONCERNS: Mr. Meigs stated that he had some concerns regarding procedures and processing for project applications, such as Saddlewood Farms. He was questioning, in part, whether procedures specified in the regulations and guidelines were followed appropriately. If they were, there might be a better way to do it. Mr. Meigs stated that things seem rather confusing to him the way various Boards and agencies were reviewing the project. There did not seem to be a lot of coordination of this project, nor was it done in an orderly rational fashion with such a potentially significant issue as rezoning a major agricultural area, it is questionable whether it was handled properly or not. Mr. Meigs thoughts were that this subject should be discussed, not only with this Board, but perhaps the Planning Board and the Town Board as well. Ms. Cornish asked Mr. Meigs if he was speaking specifically about the Saddlewood project or development review in general. Mr. Meigs stated that he was speaking with regards to development review of the magnitude of Saddlewood Farms and the rezoning of a major resource. Ms. Cornish stated that the SEAR process had not been started yet because they were only in a preliminary phase. It did not get very far in the process, because it went to the Town Board for rezoning, and the Town Board recommended the Planning Board review it. The Planning Board would study the proposal, and then would take it back to the Town Board with their recommendation to consider rezoning or not. This is the extent that Saddlewood Farms has gotten in the process. The Planning Staff is trying to revamp some procedures within the department as far as development review, and maybe something could be incorporated into the application package with a brief outline of procedures. The Conservation Board had a short discussion on the Cornell's Lake Source Cooling Project sketch plan review that was presented to them at July's meeting. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the Long House procedure under SEAR, that the Local Law No. 5 could not superceed the State Law, that a Type II Action could not be changed to a Type Action by law. There cannot be a SEQR Type II Action as a Type I Action, but anything else this Board could make stricter and more precise as an unclassified Type I Action. There are specific types CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 AUGUST 1, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 of actions that are classified as Type I Actions and Type II Actions, and everything in between is an unlisted action. If it is a Type I Action it would have to go through more of an Environmental Review Process. A Type II Action is likely to have significant Environmental Impacts. The State could designate certain types of actions for special projects. An agency can add to the list from actions that are not designated by the State. The Town Law states that any project within so many feet of a Critical Environmental Area is a Type I Action, and a SEAR process must be done. The Long House will be a Type 11 Action under SEQR for several reasons. There would be a recommendation for the Attorney for the Town to look into this Local Law for more clarification for the Board. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the Cornell Incinerator Project. There have been some compromises made. Cornell will not be doing an EIS. They will be doing some of the work that has been asked of them as part of a public meeting that was held June 24, 1996 and other comments that have been made by other people in the community. The current incinerator does not meet the permit requirements for pollution emission, the stack height is to low for the surrounding area. The concern that was raised by the model analysis was that Cornell would be changing the stack height. One of the requirements of the EIS is to evaluate alternatives, but since they are not going to do one this will not be a requirement. The Conservation Board will be following this issue for further updates. • REPORT FROM STAFF: Ms. Cornish introduced Geri Tierney as the new Planner. Ms. Tierney will be helping out with the Conservation Board, and help Ms. Cornish share the responsibilities for the Board. The New York State Association of Conservation Commission Conference is October 18 to October 20. The Town Board will have to approve the amount being spent for the conference at their September meeting, so if anyone is thinking about attending they should let Ms. Cornish know ahead of time. The Saddlewood Farms project is on hold. The Environmental Review Committee should finalize their comments on this project and pass them along to the Planning Staff for the file. The Town Board has authorized two parcels in Inlet Valley for the Town to purchase. This resulted from someone noticing these parcels being on the County's auction block for delinquent taxes. The County pulled them so the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, as a joint project, could come up with funds to buy them. The Town of Ithaca is going to go ahead and purchase these parcels. The County also owns some property in this area. The City of Ithaca is looking into some parcels as part of an alienation process for Southwest Park. It will be a good buy for the Town to be _used as a passive parkland. At the Town Board Meeting on August 12 at 5:45 p.m., Herbert Engman, Chair of the ERC, will make a presentation on the Framework for Long Range Environmental Planning in Tompkins County. • Two members are still needed for the Conservation Board. There is one person that is interested, but CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 AUGUST 1, 1996 0 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 there still is one more opening. If any member of the Board knows anyone that would be interested, please have them contact the Planning Department. Concerning the meetings and notification to the public for the Environmental Review Committee: in accordance with SARA (which is the State Record Keeping Laws), the media needs to be notified 24 hours in advance. This means that the committee needs to fax all the local media on the agenda 24 hours in advance of an ERC meeting. It does not have to be published. It is being recommendation that the ERC set aside a time each month to meet, so in January when all the Boards publish their schedules, the ERC schedule could be published at the same time. There has been a tentative schedule set up that will be discussed at the next ERC meeting to fit in with the Planning Board schedule. The Board discussed having the ERC meetings prior to the regular Conservation Board meetings. COMMITTEE REPORTS: The Environmental Review Committee is working on comments for the Saddlewood Farm project. A site visit to the South Hill Swamp will be planned after the area dries up. This should be sometime in the beginning of September. The resolution will address the issue of the South Hill Swamp being . designated as a Critical Environmental Area. The Planning Committee has asked that the Conservation Board look at the Unique Natural Areas that currently exist in the Town of Ithaca, and begin to prioritize which ones they would like to see as future Conservation Districts. Since the Conservation District for South Hill was recently passed in the Town, they would like to look at other areas that they should be considering. There were four areas that the Planning Committee felt as though they would like the Conservation Board to consider. The Planning Committee thought that Coy Glen would be a good area to consider next, since there is so much information available and a lot of the work has been done for this area. This is the only Critical Environmental Area in the Town. The other three areas would be Fall Creek, South Hill Swamp, and Cascadilla Creek. The South Hill Swamp may fall into a wetland ordinance. The borders and edges of these areas are going to have to be determined some how. The Committee would like this Board to consider the next step in Conservation Districts, Critical Environmental Areas, Unique Natural Areas, and Wetland Ordinances. The Planning Staff will need to prioritize the map to see what areas are privately owned lands because that would be the most challenging part. This Board would need to look at the development in these areas. The Board had a brief discussion about the map of the Critical Environmental Areas. The Board would like to see a map showing private versus public ownership. An overview of the entire Town would be desirable, as it may be that there will be other areas that the Conservation Board could look at. The Planning Committee is trying to get people interested in the South Hill Conservation District to get them knowledgeable about why these areas are needed and why they need to be protected. The Planning Committee has looked at the Coy Glen is area as the next step for a Conservation District, but they want input from the Conservation Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 AUGUST 1, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 A comprehensive look at the Town of Ithaca is another level that needs to be moved ahead also. The Unique Natural Areas were designated by the County. The Planning Committee should come with a listing of areas and priorities for designating these areas. The Conservation Board has agreed to have a meeting with the Planning Committee regarding this subject, and information will be shared with this Board. A letter was received from EcoVillage and co-signed by the Tompkins County Transportation Council. They are looking for moral and financial support for two speakers that they want to bring in. Jeff Kentworthy is a professor of Urban Environments at Murdock University in Australia. He is a co-author of various studies in Winning Back Cities. He will be speaking on Monday September 16 at the Women's Community Building. Bill McGiben is the author of End of Nature who will be speaking on Tuesday October 8 at Anabel Taylor. Both lectures are open to the public. EcoVillage and the Transportation Council is� looking for sponsors to help finance and publicize events to their membership. The Conservation Board can give them support, but can not give them money. The Conservation Board decided not to do any more than give moral support for this issue. MINUTES APPROVAL: MOTION made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1994 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann, Levitan. The motion declared was carried. MOTION made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction below, seconded by Ms. Hoffmann. Page 1, bottom of the paragraph for Environmental Review Committee report it states "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting.", should read "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the June 27th meeting." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith, Hoffmann. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. - • CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 AUGUST 1, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 The motion declared was carried. The Conservation Board decided to review the June 6, 1996 minutes, and bring them back to the Board at the next regular meeting for review. The Board Members will hand in their comments and corrections for review, so they could be adjusted on the revised minutes -to present at the next regular meeting. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the review of the minutes and how they would like to have the minutes produced. The Minutes Secretary job description is under discussion on how to format the minutes for the Boards. OTHER BUSINESS: The County Water Front Study moved towards refining areas of interest. Discussion groups listed likes and dislikes for proposed areas of interest. They brought comments of the discussion groups back to the session where the consultants will take the comments and merge them. There will be one more meeting where the public will be invited before the plan is finalized. The public was invited to prioritize their concerns with likes and dislikes, and they could take that information and consolidate it with the issues that are of most importance. Comprehensive Planning was generally supported. There were a lot of issues concerning economic development. The priority of the study is to create public access in appropriate locations and to preserve those areas where development is inappropriate. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. DRAFTED by Deborah A. Kelley on August 12, 1996. 0 FINAL CO.. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, AugMst 1, 1996 ........................................................................................................:: 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. Member Concerns 7:45 p.m. 3. Coordinator & Chair Reports 7:55 p.m. 4. Environmental Review Committee Report 8:10 p.m. 5. Items For Discussion a. South Hill Swamp Discussion - Follow up b. Possible Future Conservation Districts c. Possible Future Wetland Ordinance d. Request for support of Eco Village and Tompkins County Transportation Council Joint Venture 9:30 p.m. G. Business: a) Approval of Minutes (6/6/96, 4/20/95, 10/6/94 - distributed with 7/18 Packet) b) Other 10:00 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/08-01-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs 07/24/96 WED 14:05 FAX Z� �G IM002 COPY LANDMAIRKANMICA � 130 PARK STREET • P.O. BOX 3879 • PORTLAND, ME 04104.207-TT2-3399 • FAX 207-M-8990 July 24, 1996 Jonathan Kanter Town Planner. 126 Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Saddlewood Farms Dear Mr. Kanter, This letter is to formally withdraw Landmark America L.L.C. from its scheduled appearance before the Planning Board on August 20, 1996. This is due to a variety of reasons. At this time, we are not pursuing approvals for Saddlewood Farms Apartment Homes. Thank you for all your time and effort. l look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Michele Devine Development Coordinator MMD/ad ICORNELL U N I V E R S I T Y 840 Hanshaw Road • Ithaca, N.Y. 14850-1548 • ( • Fax (607) 257-6, AU6 11996 NEWS S E R V I C E • http://wwwnews.comell.edu FOR RELEASE: July 31,1996 I I — Contact: Jacquie Powers 1 TGWN t3f iTtiACA Office: (607) 255-5678 PLANNING ZONING ENGINEERING Home: (607) 273-8905 E-mail: jkp3@cornell.edu Cornell acts to respond to community concerns about Veterinary College incinerator upgrade ITHACA, N.Y. — Officials at Cornell University yesterday (July 30) offered to create a Community Advisory Committee to participate in additional review processes, not required by state regulations, that will help guide design and construction of an upgraded replacement incinerator for the College of Veterinary Medicine. Cornell's proposal, to the Forest Home Improvement Association and other community organizations, was made in response to concerns expressed at a June 24 community meeting on the proposed incinerator upgrade. At that meeting, Cornell and state officials briefed the public on the status of the project and responded to questions and concerns, particularly relating to the proposed incineration of regulated medical waste, including plastics. "The university and the College of Veterinary Medicine have been determined, from the beginning of this project in 1991, to protect the health and safety of the members of this community — not only the residents of surrounding neighborhoods but also the thousands of our students, faculty, staff and visitors in close proximity to the facility. We are determined to accomplish this objective while simultaneously meeting our statewide responsibilities for both animal and human public health," said Franklin M. Loew, dean of the college. "We are offering these additional processes in good faith and in acknowledgment of the serious concerns of members of our communities. We, too, are committed to ensuring the safety and welfare of the community." The action steps Cornell has volunteered to take in constructing a state-of-the-art incinerator to replace its existing, decade -old incinerator, include: • The university proposes the creation of a Community Advisory Committee to participate in the development and implementation of additional review processes. Committee membership would include but not be limited to representatives from the Forest Home Improvement Association, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives, the Ithaca Town Board, and Cornell environmental staff. The Community Advisory Committee would be actively engaged in reviewing the scope of the proposed new studies, their findings, and the opportunities for public examination and discussion of those findings. Cornell liaison for the Community Advisory Committee will be Robert R. Bland, P.E., University Environmental Engineer. -more- • Cornell will develop a formal decision-making process based on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. The subject for this review would be the proposed action: "incineration of conventional Regulated Medical Waste (c-RMW) in the proposed College of Veterinary Medicine incinerator." The action is based upon the assumption that the incinerator will be built as proposed and will incinerate pathological waste and animal remains classified as RMW. The option to incinerate plastic -based c-RMW will be the action that is evaluated. An analysis will be written by a consultant retained by Cornell. Faculty from the Cornell Center for the Environment will be asked to review the scientific validity of the analysis. The College of Veterinary Medicine will develop the analysis, issue findings, and make a decision either to implement the action or pursue alternatives. • Cornell recognizes community concern about the air -model methodology, based on data from the Syracuse area, used in environmental assessment of the proposed project. To assess the relevance of the Syracuse data, the State University Construction Fund (SUCF), the lead agency on the project, will compare the model results using local Game Farm Road Weather Station data to the model based on Syracuse data and discussed with NYSDEC. "We understand that the local Ithaca data may or may not be accepted for the formal permit application considered by the Department of Environmental Conservation, but we believe that this information may be useful to the department as well as to the university and the local community in further evaluating the ambient air quality aspects of the project," the Cornell statement said. • SUCF will re-evaluate the use of the "urban" versus "rural" designation used to characterize the topography in the model. It is important to note in this regard that the principal change from a rural to an urban designation is not the consideration of how many people may be affected by the anticipated emissions but rather the size and scale of surrounding physical structures and their potential impact on wind flows. • SUCF will forward all information on air quality modeling to NYSDEC for its review and will ask NYSDEC to postpone its determination that the air quality permit application is complete until NYSDEC has had an opportunity to examine this additional meteorological data and to consider whatever changes may result from the utilization of an "urban" designation in the air quality model. -more- • The College's review of existing technologies has determined that incineration is the only available, practical method of disposal for the College's pathological wastes and for those animal remains that are now classified as Regulated Medical Waste - remains that are either known to be or may possibly be infected and dangerous to humans. A written statement of this analysis will be prepared and made available to the public. The nature and volume of this material, is such that no alternative disposal mechanism allowed in New York State is as safe and appropriate as incineration, especially for the individuals who must come in contact with the material. • Cornell will support the current permit applications that provide for the incineration of RMW, but concurrently will review the College's alternatives to incineration of conventional RMW. This review will be undertaken in consultation with local residents and public officials. If it is determined that better alternatives are available, then c-RMW will not be included in the incinerator waste stream even though such a practice might have been permitted by the state. • Cornell will continue to document an inventory of RMW sources and prepare an RMW Waste Management and Minimization Plan to assure that RMW is generated and handled according to regulations and also to protect workers and the public, and to minimize generation of RMW. -30- i THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE'S PROPOSED REPLACEMENT INCINERATOR PROJECT: A REPORT TO THE CAMPUS AND THE COMMUNITY Over the last several months, increased community concern has been expressed in reference to the plans for the construction of a replacement incinerator to serve the College of Veterinary Medicine. These concerns led Cornell President Hunter R. Rawlings III to ask the new dean of the College, Franklin M. Loew, DVM, Ph.D., to schedule a public meeting on the evening of June 24, 1996 at which interested members of the community would have the opportunity to share their concerns and perspectives with representatives of the College, the State University Construction Fund, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the engineers for the project and their environmental consultants. The meeting was well attended and, from the University's perspective, resulted in a helpful dialogue concerning several important issues of concern. Dean Loew concluded the meeting by assuring the participants that their substantive comments not only had been heard but would be addressed and that there would be further opportunities for public involvement in the weeks and months that lie ahead. From the earliest consideration of this project in 1991, the University and the College of Veterinary Medicine have been determined to protect and secure the health and safety of the members of this community — not only the residents of surrounding neighborhoods but also the thousands of our students, faculty, staff and visitors in close proximity to the facility. We are determined to accomplish this objective while simultaneously meeting our statewide responsibilities for both animal and human public health. This paper reviews the current status of the project and describes the additional steps the University intends to initiate over the next several months to address a number of issues that have arisen during the course of discussions with local residents and members of the university community. It describes the recent history of waste disposal at the college, reports the current state of the project, outlines the major concerns expressed by members of the community, and delineates the process the University proposes to follow to address these concerns. The creation of a community advisory committee involving local public officials and neighborhood association leadership to work closely with the University in the next steps of its analyses is proposed. Ift 2 BACKGROUND 1. The Waste Stream The waste material handled by the College of Veterinary Medicine originates primarily from Cornell, but it also includes pathological waste from the Tompkins County SPCA, veterinary clinics, area animal control officers, and animal -related programs at Ithaca College. These materials are generally classified into two categories: pathological waste and Regulated Medical Waste, with strict definitions of each determined by public health officials. Pathological waste consists of animal remains, waste animal bedding, waste animal feedstuffs, and other similar materials. The average daily amount incinerated in 1995 was 1,850 pounds, or almost one ton per day. In addition to the local providers mentioned already, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets periodically request the diagnosis and/or disposal of animal remains. On the other hand, Regulated Medical Waste (RMW) consists of material that may be dangerous to human health. It is usually comprised of such items as "sharps;' "cultures and stocks of infectious agents," and other plastics involved in clinical and research activities. Some animal remains may contain potential human pathogens and therefore are classified as RMW. The average daily amount of this material in 1995 was 250 pounds. Prior to 1990, this waste was incinerated in the College of Veterinary Medicine's existing incinerator, in compliance with the rules and regulations then applicable. Starting in 1990 and continuing today, RMW is transported off-site for destruction by a licensed private contractor. Between the years 1992 and 1995 the College also utilized an alternative technology of autoclave - and -grind to dispose a portion of the RMW generated by the College. This alternative was discontinued in 1995 due to increased maintenance and operating cost. 2. The Need to Replace the Existing Incinerator As Soon as Possible The current incinerator was built in 1985. It is an essential component of the teaching, research and public service responsibilities of the College. While it was appropriate for its time, it is now reaching the end of its useful life. Substantial improvements are now possible in the control of air pollution, and the University believes it must be at the forefront of new technology that will substantially improve the environment. For example, the current facility incinerates waste material and destroys pathogens with 3 high temperature and good combustion, but does not have air -pollution control equipment. In addition, from an energy conservation standpoint, there is no waste heat recovery, so valuable heat is lost up the stack. The College's review of existing technologies has determined that incineration is the only available, practical method of disposal for the College's pathological wastes and for those animal remains that are now classified as Regulated Medical Waste — that is, those remains that are either known to be or may possibly be infected and dangerous to humans. A written statement of this analysis will be prepared and made available to the public. The nature and volume of this material is such that no alternative disposal mechanism allowed in New York State is as safe and appropriate as incineration, especially for the individuals who must come in contact with the material. Substantial changes have occurred in incinerator technology in recent years that make possible the incineration of the College's other Regulated Medical Waste in a similarly safe and appropriate manner, with future emissions estimated to be only a small fraction of what had been the case prior to 1990, when all of this material was incinerated by the existing facility. DESIGN OF THE REPLACEMENT FACILITY The planning, design, renovation and construction of facilities on behalf of the four statutory colleges at Cornell is the responsibility of the State University Construction Fund (SUCK Cornell has had an excellent working relationship with the Fund over the years, and its projects have been widely acclaimed for meeting their objectives in an effective and environmentally sensitive manner. Although the Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca has requested that the University consider the incineration of human hospital waste from non - Cornell generators, the permitting applications for this project are based on the destruction of materials from only the sources identified earlier in this paper. A new round of permit applications incorporating opportunities for public notice and comment would be required in the future to accomodate such a request. The draft design documents and Air Quality Modeling (AQM) discussed below are available for inspection by contacting Gregg Travis, Director, Statutory Office of Capital Facilities at Cornell. The design exceeds the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) standards for time and temperature to achieve required destruction of all pollutants. It is designed to meet or exceed the proposed United States 0 4 Environmental Protection Administration (USEPA) standards for air pollution control. Complete stack testing for all regulated pollutants of concern will occur on start-up, and the facility will not be permitted to operate unless all applicable standards of performance are met. Continuous emissions monitors for carbon monoxide, oxygen, opacity and temperature will serve as indicators to assure that the incinerator is operated to achieve optimum pollutant control. Regular reports of these monitoring systems will be forwarded to NYSDEC. Upon any failure of the system's air pollution control devices, the waste loading hopper will be locked to prevent additional loading of waste. The Air Quality Model was undertaken to provide important data for the SUCF's environmental impact assessment and to support the NYSDEC air permit application. Conservative assumptions were made concerning the waste stream and effectiveness of the air pollution control equipment. Even though the University has no plans to accept human hospital waste with its heavy plastic components, the model assumes that conventional hospital - type Regulated Medical Waste is to be incinerated 24 hours per day, 365 days per year at the design rate of 500 lbs. per hour, or 12,000 lbs. per day. In fact, the incinerator will operate only 16 hours per day, and the actual rate of conventional Regulated Medical Waste (c-RMW) incineration is anticipated to be about 250 lbs. per day, or about 2 percent of the model. The potential concentrations of possible air pollutants of concern were determined on a short term and on an annual basis for humans breathing the air downwind of the incinerator at the location of highest theoretical concentration. To meet the data quality objectives required by the NYSDEC and USEPA, Syracuse and Albany meteorological data were required to be used in the analysis. Results of the analysis showed that all pollutants of concern were well below the standards set to protect human health and the environment. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT The replacement of the existing incinerator was recognized from the start as requiring environmental assessment, and the SUCF assumed lead agency status for this review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This designation was endorsed by the State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and at the time was endorsed by interested local parties. It should be noted that SEQRA specifically contemplates public agencies with responsibility for the construction of a project having this lead agency role, because they are frequently the entities most able to bring all of the pertinent information to i 5 bear on the consideration of the project. Ample opportunity is provided under the statute for public evaluation of the project at several stages of the process. Following the standards established in SEQRA, the State University Construction Fund prepared an environmental assessment of the project and issued a negative declaration that the incinerator, as proposed, would have no significant adverse environmental impacts. This finding was based on the determination that the project is a replacement of an existing incinerator and the environmental impact of concern — the air emission impact on air breathed by humans — will be subject to a full regulatory and public review to determine if the project protects human health and meets established standards set to protect the environment. This determination has been endorsed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Two required permit applications have been submitted to NYSDEC: a solid waste permit and an air emissions permit. Both permits are required to construct and operate an incinerator, and to operate an RMW treatment facility. These applications are undergoing NYSDEC review to determine if they are both complete and ready for technical and public review. After the permit applications- are determined to be complete and ready for review, there will be a 30 -day public comment period and a technical review by the DEC. This includes review of the ambient air quality impact analysis, which is part of the air permit application, to determine if the applications and the proposed operation protect human health and the environment and will be consistent with all applicable regulations. In the event that new regulations are promulgated by USEPA, the administration of these new requirements most likely will be incorporated into the DEC regulations and permits. ISSUES OF COMMUNITY CONCERN: NEXT STEPS The University and the SUCF recognize that important substantive questions have been raised by members of the community, including local residents and public officials. These matters need to be addressed. We do not believe, however, that a reversal of the negative declaration and the initiation of a Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are the only means for securing this objective. We believe that this project is effectively a replacement for an existing facility of the same type, that substantial opportunities for environmental review are available through the forthcoming permitting processes, and that the data submitted to the' Department of Environmental Conservation are accurate and in conformance with all applicable state rules and regulations. We further agree 4k T with the Department of Environmental Conservation's determination that the questions that have been raised to date do not support the initiation of a lengthy and expensive Full Environmental Impact Statement when alternative mechanisms are available to analyze the principal concerns. We recognize the community concern about the air -model methodology. To assess the relevance of the Syracuse data, SUCF will compare the model results using local Game Farm Road Weather Station data to the model based on Syracuse data and discussed with NYSDEC. We understand that the local Ithaca data may or may not be accepted for the formal permit application considered by the Department of Environmental Conservation, but we believe that this information may be useful to the Department as well as to the University and the local community in further evaluating the ambient air quality aspects of the project. SUCF also will re-evaluate the use of the "urban" versus "rural" designation used to characterize the topography in the model. It is important to note in this regard that the principal change from a rural to an urban designation is not the consideration of how many people may be affected by the anticipated emissions but rather the size and scale of surrounding physical structures and their potential impact on wind flows. SUCF will forward all information on air quality modeling to NYSDEC for its review and will ask NYSDEC to postpone its determination that the air quality permit application is complete until NYSDEC has had an opportunity to examine this additional meteorological data and to consider whatever changes may result from the utilization of an "urban" designation in the air quality model. The University acknowledges that there are alternatives to the use of the proposed replacement incinerator for the destruction of plastic -based conventional RMW (c-RMW). The potential burning of plastics and related materials raises significant concerns both within the Cornell community and among our neighbors that should be addressed in detail. We will support the current permit applications that provide for the incineration for RMW, but concurrently review the alternatives to the College's incineration of conventional RMW. This review will be undertaken in consultation with local residents and public officials. If the University determines that better alternatives are available, then c-RMW will not be included in the incinerator waste stream even though such a practice might have been permitted by the State. Cornell will continue to document an inventory of RMW sources and prepare an RMW Waste Management and Minimization Plan to assure that 7 RMW is generated and handled according to regulations and also to protect workers and the public, and to minimize generation of RMW. Cornell will further investigate the capability of the replacement incinerator to incinerate c-RMW safely before completing the review process. The investigation will involve: 1) previously planned, limited testing upon start-up of c-RMW incineration to confirm efficacy of the equipment and emission levels, and 2) after the limited testing, a one year period of operation without c-RMW to demonstrate the reliability and operational characteristics of the incinerator. To accomplish this review, the University will develop a formal decision-making process based on the SEQRA process. The formal subject for this review would be the proposed action: "incineration of conventional Regulated Medical Waste (c-RMW) in the proposed College of Veterinary Medicine incinerator." The action is based upon the assumption that the incinerator will be built as proposed and will incinerate pathological waste and animal remains classified as RMW. The option to incinerate plastic - based c-RMW will be the action that is evaluated. A formal analysis will be written by a consultant retained by Cornell. The Cornell Center for the Environment will form a faculty committee to review the scientific validity of the analysis. The College of Veterinary Medicine will develop the formal analysis, issue findings, and make a decision either to implement the action or pursue alternatives. The University and the State University Construction Fund stand ready to work with the local community in the development and implementation of this additional review process. We propose the creation of a formal Community Advisory Committee for this process, whose membership would include but not be limited to representatives from the Forest Home Improvement Association, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives, the Ithaca Town Board, and Cornell environmental staff. The Community Advisory Committee would be actively engaged in reviewing the scope of the proposed studies, their findings, and the opportunities for public examination and discussion of those findings. Cornell liaison for the Community Advisory Committee will be Robert R. Bland, P.E., University Environmental Engineer. 1:3 Management of the CVM Incinerator Replacement Christopher P. Marcella Director of Consultant Design State University Construction Fund P. O. Box 1946 Albany, NY 12201-1946 (518/443-5735) Franklin M. Loew, DVM, Ph.D. Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schurman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/253-3771) Larry J. Thompson, DVM, Ph.D. Director of Biosafety Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine D2 005 Diagnostic Lab Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/253-3966) Robert R. Bland, P.E. University Environmental Engineer Environmental Compliance Office Cornell University Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/255-6643) Gregg F. Travis Director, Statutory Office for Capital Facilities Cornell University 134 Surge III Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/255-7784) q► qty OF IT� o n 21 F' 9 YOB. TOWN CLERK 273-1721 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: /— ot� FROM DA/2(�/ RE: CA Number of Pages (including cover sheet): Comments: FAX # 691�g / / O 7`� FAX $# (607) 273-1704 Ron TORN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TRANSMIT CONFIRMATION REPORT NO. RECEIVER TRANSMITTER DATE DURATION MODE PAGES RESULT 013 2724248 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY AUG 01'96 14:21 00'58TD 02 OK AUG 01'96 14:21 It -4 Coy Glen Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SlteCode IT -4 Surveyor NLO,FRW Town 11thaca Ownershiprivate, Cornell USGS Quad Ilthaca West I L a t/long 042' 027' N 07611 032' W Parcel Number 28-1 -32.2,32.3,32.4,10.412,10.413,10.42,20.2,28.52,30,28.51,29;31-1 -2,3. 2,3.1,5,6,10.1,14 Location The main portion of this glen on west hill is west of Floral Avenue and south of Coy Glen Road and south of Elm Street Extension and north of Culver Road. Two tributaries of Coy Glen are north of Elem Street Extenison, north of the bridge. Cover Type Upland forest, old field forest, open water, rock outcrops. Site Description This area includes steep -sided gorge (with stream) and hilltops which are forested. Significance This is an important botanic and geologic site. The hilltop forests, on deep gravel deposits, have uncommon communities and rare species are found. Area is noted for scarce liverworts, mosses and ferns. Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 125 Elevatlon 430 to 1120 ft. Aspect INE&SW Steep sided glen, hanging deltas, waterfalls Water Bodles Coy Clen Creek Geo[ Exposure of Genesee group shales and sandstones. Area known for excellent examples of hanging deltas now mostly destroyed by gravel extraction. Talus slopes. Large granite erratics. Potholes. Excellent examples joint plane fracturing, fossil ripple marks. Slope(%) Topographic Moisture ® Flat ® Crest ❑ Inundated (Hydric) ®0 to 10 ® Upper Slope ❑ Saturated (Wet-mesic) ® 10 to 35 ® Mid -slope ® Moist (me -sic) ® Over 35 ® Lower Slope ® Dry-mesic ® Vertical ® Bottom ® Dry (Xeric) Site Code: IT -4 Page 2 Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area HpF 65% BtF 15% HPE 3% BgC 5% Ab 2% HdD 5% HdC 0% LaB 5% Vegetation plantation, hemlock -beech forest, oak -hickory forest, Old -field forest Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) Much of the glen is forested upland. The wooded slopes above the glen are dry and in places xeric. The well -drained gravel deposits have rare plant communities. On the dripping gorge walls a great variety of liverworts, mosses and ferns are found. Some of these are locally scarce or rare. Hemlock is the dominant species in the shady gorge, but oaks and hickories are common on the hillsides above the gorge. Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Flare or Scarce Specles: Yes Flora Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Celtis occidentalis Scarce Asclepias turberosa Scarce Aureolaria flava Scarce Cypripedium pubescens Scarce Andropogon gerardi Scarce Camptosorus rhizophyllus Scarce Quercus coccinea Scarce Desmodium marilandicum Rare Desmodium rotundifollum Scarce Lespedeza intermedia Scarce Lespedeza hirta Scarce Site Code: IT -4 Page 3 Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Aster paternus Scarce Porteranthus trifoliatus Rare Solidago squarrosa Rare Fauna Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Site Code: IT -4 Page 4 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Recovery Gravel mining in areas has removed changing deltas and vegetation, infringed on gorge. Most mining has ended. t Land Use Residential, commercial (Town services such as bus fleet, coungy services), cemetery Threats to Sits uevnwprnent, lugging, iuriner gravel mining, cemetary expansion. Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Site is especially vulnerable to visitors because of steep erodible gorge sides and very shallow fragile soils on crests and outcrops. SDecial Conservation/Manaeament NeAds A greater portion of the glen needs protection. Protective Ownership ® Adequate Buffer DEC Wetland® DEC Wetland DEC Mapped O Protection Slte Code I Acreage Excellent geologic and botanical teaching area. Summary of Special Features ® Rare\Scarce Plants ❑ Rare\Scarce Animals ® Rare\Scarce Communities ® Unique Geology ® High Quality of Example ® High Esthetic Qualities Comments IT -8 South Hill Swamp Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SlteCode IT -8 Surveyor 1FRWNLO Town 11thaca Ownership private USGS Quad 11thaca East La t/ 1 o n g 042' 024' N 076° 029' W Parcel Number 43-1-4, 44-1-1 cation N of East King Road; approx. 0.6 miles E of junction Rt. 968, E . King Road. Access easiest from pipeline right of way; follow it N 100 yds to swamp edge. Greater part extends E and NE from this point. Cover Type Upland forest, wetland forest, old field forest, wet meadow, meadow, shrub thicket Site Descrliption This area includes swamp white oak forest, mixed coniferous and hardwood forest with pitch pines, shrubland and open meadow. Significance Known for almost 100 years as one of the most interesting botanical sites in the county. A rare community with numerous rare or scarce plant species, suggesting that rare floras of the Coastal Plains, is found here. Rare birds and insects are also reported for the area. Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 60 Elevatlon 1250 to 1270 ft. Aspect INA Too Feature Nearly flat upland depression Water Bodies F Glacially scoured hilltop. Slope(%) Topographic Moisture ® Flat ® Crest ® Inundated (Hydric) ® 0 to 10 ❑ Upper Slope ® Saturated (Wet-mesic) ❑ 10 to 35 ❑ Mid -slope ® Moist (Mesic) ❑ Over 35 ❑ Lower Slope ® Dry-mesic ❑ Vertical ❑ Bottom ® Dry (Xeric) Site Code: IT -8 Page 2 Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area EcA 5% Vbb 15% LnC 25% LnD 15% LaC 15% MaB 5% LtB 5 1 X6 Vegetation oak -hickory forest, mixed oak forest, hickory -white ash forest, white oak swamp forest, pine -maple old -field forest, sugar maple -basswood -white ash 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 Pinus rigida Scarce Lyonia ligustrina Rare Aronia arbutifolia Scarce Prunus susquehanae Rare Quercus coccinea Scarce Malus coronaria Scarce Viola fimbriatu/a Scarce Carex folliculata Scarce Carex glaucodea Rare Linum virginianum Scarce Hedyotis caerulea Scarce Platanthera flava Scarce Nyssa sylvatica Scarce Aronia melanocarpa Scarce Site Cade: IT -8 Page 3 Genus & species Rare\Scarce. Comments Carex incomperta Rare Fauna Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Dendroica discolor . Scarce Prairie Warbler Site Code: IT -8 Page 4 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Re:overy The area known as Chase Pond was severely disturbed by development in the early 1970's. The pipeline divided the swamp. Adiacent Land Use Residential, subdivision development, rental rests to Site Development, altered drainage of swamp Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Very vulnerable in some parts. Trampling could destroy small species. Special Conservation/Management Needs T' - prairie warber is threatened by neighborhood pets. Protective Ownership Unknown Adequate Buffer DEC WetlandDEC Wetland � DEC Mapped ❑ Protection Yes Site Code Acreage 0 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 IT -13 Mundy Wildflower Garden Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SiteCode IT -13 SurveyorL i Town 11thaca Ownership rivate Cornell USGS Quad 11thaca, East Lat/long 042° 027' N 076° 028' W Parcel Number 66-1-4,20.1,22; 67-1-8 Location Along Fall Creek, north of Plantations Road, west of Judd Fails Road, south side of Fall Creek. Cover Type upland forest, meadow, open water Site Description s The Mundy Wildflower garden is natural flood plain forest with a rich herbaceou strata. The wildflowers have been augmented. Significance Rare plants, rich flora, important botanical and birding site close to campus and town. Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 1 0 Elevatlon 830 to 880 ft. Aspect IN,E, or NA Topo Feature Floodplain along a steep slope eroded by former creek path. er Bodies Geol Fall Creek Younger terrace alluvium, glacial eratic. One of the largest glacial erratics in area; transported from Adirondacks by continental glaciers. Anorthosite is a type of granite composed almost exclusively of soda -lime feldspar. Slope(%) Topographic Moisture ® Flat ❑ Crest ® Inundated (Hydric) ®0 to 10 ❑ Upper Slope ® Saturated (Wet-mesic) ® 10 to 35 ❑ Mid -slope ® Moist (Mesic) ® Over 35 ® Lower Slope ❑ Dry-mesic ❑ Vertical ® Bottom ❑ Dry (Xeric) Site Code: IT -13 Page 2 Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area Sv 15% TgA 15% WA 15% A 15% TgB 30% Sd 10% Sh 5 Vegetation sugar maple -basswood forest, hemlock -beech forest, sycamore -cottonwood sorest, goldenrod -aster old field Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) This area is largely creek floodplain forest bounded by hemlock -beech forests on the steep hillside. Part of the very frequently disturbed flood plain is open meadow dominated by golden rods, alders and other perennials. The rich herbaceous layer is a notable feature. Wet areas along an oxbow of the creek have marsh species. Elms were formerly abundant here. Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Rare or Scarce Specles: Yes Flora Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Arisaema dracontium Rare Mertensia virginica Scarce Blephilia hirsuta Scarce Lithospermum latifolium Rare Carex grayii Rare Fauna Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Site Code: IT -13 Page 3 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Recovery Demise of elm, use of area for dumping, trails Adiacent Land Use Educational, residential, botanic garden and arboretum Threats to Site This site is well maintained as a wildflower garden Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Not vulnerable. Good paths exist. Special Conservation/Management Needs Invasive species need to be removed or limited in number periodically. Protective Ownership Yes Adequate Buffer DEC Wetland®. DEC Wetland DEC Mapped ❑ 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 This site is managed as a wildflower garden. However, the site was an important natural area with abundant and rare wildflowers present before this management change was made. IT -14 Fall Creek Corridor near flat rocks Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SlteCode IT -14 Surveyor INLO,FRWTown Ithaca Ownership rivate Cornell USGS Ouad 11thaca East I La t/ 1 o n g 042' 027' N 076° 027' W Parcel Number 65-1-1,2,3,4.2; 66-3-1,4.2,5,6,7.1.7.2,8,9,10,11,12,13,14; 69-1-1; I 68-1-9 Location Fall Creek from bridge at Forest Home Drive and Caldwell Road to town line west of Trailer Park. on Forest Home Drive. Cover Type upland forest, old -field forest, open water, rock outcrops, wetland forest, shrub swamp, wet meadow Site Description This area includes the forested slopes above Fall Creek, the floodplain forest and creek bed. Significance Fish, birds, botanical, scenic, recreation, habitat for rare salamander Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 180 Elevatlon 840 to 1000 ft. Aspect JSoutheriy Topo Feature Fall Creek valley, floodplain and creek bed Water Bodies Fall Creek, largest tributary of Cayuga Lake Geologv Flat rocks are uppermost members of Ithaca Formation. Due to their high resistence to erosion, they crop out as nearly level terrace over which the creek flows. The deeper swimming areas are breaks in this thin resistent layer with faster erosion of underlying, weaker rock. Some interesting, rare fossils have been found here. 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: I T-14 Page 2 Solis (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area TgA 55% Wa 2% Sv 15% CgA 10% CaB 2% DA 7% WiB 2% Vegetation oak -hickory forest, hickory -white ash forest, hemlock -tulip tree forest, sycamore -cottonwood forest, Rich fen, Alder thicket, shrub swamp, Old -field foxes Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) Along upper Fall Creek on these dry south facing slpes, the forest is dominated by oaks, hickories, white ash and red maple. Along the floodplain, sycamore and cottonwood are common. Older parts of the floodplain forest have rare species in the herb layer. The dry exposed bluff at top of landslide has many interesting and some scarce dry site oak woods species. At the base of the slope there are some wetlands that formerly contained small areas of high-quality rich fen. These are now fairly degraded, but restoration potential may exist. Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Rare or Scarce Specles: Yes Flora Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Aureolaria flava Scarce Lithospermum latifo/ium Rare Carex grayii Rare Pedicu/aris lanceo/a Rare Fauna Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Ambystoma maculatum Rare Ambystoma jeffersonianum Rare Site Code: IT -14 Page 3 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Recovery Timbering Adjacent Land Use Residential, golf course, arboretum, agricultural, trailer court Threats to Site North-South bypass has been slated to cross Fall Creek through this area Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Not very vulnerable in most areas. Good trails exist, but a more complete system is needed. Special Conservation/Management Needs Protective Ownership Unknown Adequate Buffer DEC Wetland ®DEC Wetland DEC Mapped Protection Site Code Acreage The siting of the exact location of the North-South bypass through this area is very important. Summary of Special Features ® Rare\Scarce Plants ® Rare\Scarce Animals ❑ Rare\Scarce Communities ® Unique Geology ® High Quality of Example ® High Esthetic Qualities Comments IT -21 Beebe Lake Woods, Gorge Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SlteCode IT -21 Surveyor NLD I Town 11thaca Ownership 1private Cornell USGS Quad 11thaca East Lat/long 042° 027' N 076° 028' W Parcel Number 67-1-3.2,4; 30-1-1.2,1.1 (city) Location This area encompasses the mature forest around Beebe Lake, from the Triphammer Bridge to the Forest Home Bridge on Pleasant Grove Road. Cover Type Upland forest, rock outcrops, open water, meadow Site Description The forest vegetation around Beebe Lake is diverse, ranging from dry -oak woods on south -facing slopes to beech and hemlock forests on cool north facing slopes and in the gorges. Significance Botanical; rare plant species, remarkable examples of mature forest. Scenic and recreational importance. Spring migrations for mayflies. Good birding site. Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 40 Elevatlon 780 to 880 ft. Aspect IN and S Too Feature Steep hillsides, gorges, waterfalls Water Bodies Beebe Lake, Fall Creek Geology Slope(%) Topographic Moisture ❑ Flat ® Crest ❑ Inundated (Hydric) ❑ 0 to 10 ® Upper Slope ❑ Saturated (Wet-mesic) ® 10 to 35 ® Mid -slope ® Moist (Mesic) ® Over 35 ® Lower Slope ® Dry-mesic ® Vertical ❑ Bottom ® Dry (Xeric) Site Code: IT -21 Page 2 Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area Mc 20% Vegetation oak -hickory forest, maple -beech forest, hemlock -beech forest, sugar maple -basswood forest Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) The old-growth forests above Beebe Lake have many very large trees and many species are found here. Spring wildflowers are abundant in some areas.. Rare plants are found on the dry forest slopes and dripping cliffsides of the gorges. Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Rare or Scarce Species:rYes Flora Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Nyssa sylvatica Scarce Ceanothus americanus Scarce Lathyrus ochroleucus Rare G4, G5, S2, S3 Primula mistassinica Rare G5, S2 Pinguicula vulgaris Rare G5, S1 Cryptogramma stelleri Rare Parnassia glauca Scarce Fauna Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Site Code: IT -21 Page 3 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Rec rants of mis torest nave been disturbed by campus development. Other areas damaged) by roads and parking. Trail maintenance causes damage to trees, acent Land Use Cornell Campus, residential, student housing. Threats to Site Campus development Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Not terribly vulnerable in most places since good trails exist. Special Conservation/Management Needs A commitment from the University to protect important Natural Areas such as this one is needed. Protective Ownership Unknown Adequate Buffer DEC Wetland ® DEC Wetland DEC Mapped Protection Site Code Acreage The Fall Creek Conservation Committee would like to see these areas protected as part of a recreational river corridor. Summary of Special Features ® Rare\Scarce Plants ❑ Rare\Scarce Animals ❑ Rare\Scarce Communities® Unique Geology ® High Quality of 'Example ® High Esthetic Qualities Comments IT -33 Cascadilla Woods and Fish Ponds Tompkins County Unique Natural Area SlteCode IT -33 I Surveyor NLO, FRW 1 Town Ithaca - Ownershiprivate Cornell USGS Quad 11thaca East I La t/ I o n g 042° 026' N 076° 027' W Parcel Number 63-1-10,11,3.2; 64-1-1,2; 62-2-2,3,4,5,6 Paralleling Cascadilla Creek between Judd Falls and Game Farm Roads including fish ponds and ravine of Cascadilla Creek and adjacent patches of forest. Mostly south of old RR right of way. Cover Type Upland forest, shrub thicket, open water, rock outcrops, meadow Site Description Forested slopes and floodplain of Cascadilla Creek. Town bike path along old RR right of way. Shrub thicket, artificial experimental ponds. Significance Some very good examples of forest in an area that is soon to be engulfed by sprawling development. Ponds important for birds. Physical Characteristics of Site Size (A) 52 Elevation1880 to 960 ft. Aspect IN, some S Too Feature Ravine and floodplain. Water Bodies Cascadilla Creek, Fish Ponds Geology Exposed bedrock of creek bed and gorge Slope(%) Topographic Moisture ® Flat ❑ Crest ® Inundated (Hydric) ®0 to 10 ® Upper Slope ® Saturated (Wet-mesic) ® 10 to 35 ® Mid -slope ® Moist (Mesic) ® Over 35 ® Lower Slope ® Dry-mesic ❑ vertical ® Bottom ❑ Dry (Xeric) Site Code: IT -33 Page 2 Soils (see appendix for list of soil names) Soil type: % area CgB 10% Wa 25% Sd 5% Sh 10% Sv 10% Vo 5% Ma 35% Vegetation oak -hickory forest, hemlock -beech forest, sycamore -cottonwood forest', white pine -red maple old field, annual dominated old field, goldenrod -aster old field, shrub thicket Description of vegetation. (Communities, Significant/Unusual Features, Species, Age, Structure, etc.) The vegetation of the forested slopes of upper Cascadilla varies considerably. areas of mature oak -hickory forest are found on south facing slopes. Sycamore -cottonwood forests with a rich herb layer are found on the creek floodplain. On north facing slopes white pine and hemlock are abundant. Rare or Scarce Species Present Presence of Rare or Scarce Species: Unknown Flora Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Fauna Genus & species Rare\Scarce Comments Small Site Code: IT -33 Page 3 Conservation Evidence of Disturbance and Potential fns Pat- Past ar Past cutting of wooded areas. Some abandoned field, an old dump site. The creek has been dammed. Severe erosion of creek banks. Adjacent Land Use Orchard, farm fields. Threats to Site Proposed development may cause erosion problems on slopes and cause further degradation of water quality. Vulnerability of Site to Visitors Some what vulnerable. Slopes are steep and erodible. Better trails are needed, though some such as bike path exist. Special Conservation/Management Needs Better trails. Good buffer between site and proposed develcoment. Protective Ownership ® Adequate 'Buffer DEC Wetland ® DEC Wetland DEC Mapped Protection Site Code Acreage Other Comments on Conservation Summary of Special Features ❑ Rare\Scarce Plants ❑ Rare\Scarce Animals ❑ Rare\Scarce Communities ❑ Unique Geology ® High Quality of Example ® High Esthetic Qualities Comments TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1996 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1996. PLEASE NOTE: A joint meeting of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. CB Members: Phillip Zarriello Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs CC: Diane DeMuth Lois Levitan Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION .. ..............................................................................................................................:: ................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1996 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1996. PLEASE NOTE: A joint meeting of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. CB Members: Phillip Zarriello Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs CC: Diane DeMuth Lois Levitan Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer . • 1 A TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5. 1996 PRESENT: Phillip Zarriello, Chair; Eva Hoffmann, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer, Jon Meigs, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Geri Tierney, Planner. ABSENT: Lois Levitan. GUESTS: Bob Bland, Cornell University; Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Association. Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. PLANNER REPORT: JoAnn Cornish stated that there are field trips to Coy Glen and to South Hill Swamp scheduled for next week. Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter, put together some packets with agendas for those field trips. Several Planning Board and Planing Committee members were invited in the hopes that there would be ongoing discussions during the tours to generate ideas. The second meeting •date of the Conservation Board in September may not happen unless people feel they want a follow up of the tours. Phil Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Loren Tauer, and Jon Meigs will be going to the October conference. Draft Park and Open Space Plan did not make it to the Board Members because it is still between Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter and Planning Board Chairperson Candace Cornell who are doing some final editing on it. Hopefully the draft will be in the mail within the next few days, so there will be adequate time to review it before the October meeting. The Newsletter deadline is coming up. If anyone wants to submit an article, it should be handed in to JoAnn Cornish. The Town may enter into a contract with the Dewitt Historical Society. The Society has a new historian, Michael Koplinka-Loehr. They have started negotiations with the Town to have a small amount of money paid to them for services that the Town may dictate. This would be going to the Town Board on Monday September 9, 1996. The farm tours are still on the agenda for sometime this fall to visit different farms in the Town of Ithaca. As soon as a definite date is set, the Conservation Board Members will be informed. Cornell Plantations is going to hire a consultant to do a master plan of all their land holdings. Representatives will be meeting later this month. .7 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 CORNELL VET INCINERATOR PROJECT: Bob Bland stated that he is here tonight to give information on the proposed incinerator and the current plans for the community, an advisory committee is being formed. He is not here to tell the Board the incinerator is safe or to get into a debate on the scientific risk for the air. He is here to try and answer any questions that the Board has for him. The EMC was not persuaded by the plan. They sent a letter to the Dean recommending an Environmental Impact Statement. He will be giving a presentation to the Town Board on September 9, 1996. Pathological Waste is animal remains, waste bedding, and feed stuff associated with the Veterinary College operations. As well as pathological waste coming in from the SPCA and local veterinarians. Pathological Regulated Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies. Conventional Regulated Medical Waste is waste that people typically think of from a hospital such as needles or cultures. Cornell submitted a list of waste streams. Waste bedding is not Regulated Medical Waste. Approximately one million pounds of animal remains are rendered each year, which is turned into feed for other animals. Cows or horses are typically rendered. Currently Cornell operates the incinerator for approximately 600,000 pounds a year of animal remains and bedding. Miscellaneous pathological waste is also incinerated, which is containers of animal remains and some surgical devices that are used during animal surgery. There is no ban on plastics. Approximately 5% of total volume is miscellaneous. The manager keeps very good records of what is incinerated. Close to 100,000 pounds a year of conventional regulated medical waste is transported for incineration to a commercial service. ® Eva Hoffmann asked if the regulated medical waste is brought to the incinerated site, and then forwarded from there. Mr. Bland responded, yes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the waste was brought there from the local hospital and the local doctors. Mr. Bland responded, no, solely from Cornell University. A lot of it is generated from research projects. Cornell University has operated the incinerator at this site since the 1950's. The current incinerator was built in 1985, and through that period both pathological and conventional MW have been burned in this incinerator. In 1990, the laws changed requiring new, state of the art pollution control equipment if someone was going to be burning the conventional medical waste plastics. At that point, Cornell stopped incinerating the conventional medical waste. They then shipped it off site. During 1990 and 1993, the Veterinary College of Medicine initiated a project to build a replacement incinerator to get back where they were with the incinerator burning the medical waste. The current incinerator has been kept operational over the years with upgrades and frequent maintenance. The pollution control should be installed to meet the new law requirements. Large capital projects like this are funded through the State University Construction Fund. After they are owned and built by the State University Construction Fund, they will be turned over to the College. The State University • Construction Fund has lead agency status and coordinated with the other involved agencies. The CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 New York State DEC gave it a negative determination of environmental significance. Part of the rationale for the negative determination of environmental significance was that it would be for a replacement in kind, but with an upgrade status. There will be a complete permitting process that the DEC will look at solid waste and air quality. Since 1993, there have been design and bid documents by the consultants at the State University Construction Fund. Solid waste permits and air quality permits have been submitted the DEC as part of the design and bid documents. At some point the DEC will review the completed application. When Cornell is happy with the application they will undergo public review and technical review by DEC. If everything is found satisfactory and meeting all the regulations, then permits would be issues. The State University Construction Fund will construct the incinerator over a two year period. The contractor will be responsible for getting the DEC approval to operate after the incinerator is built and it is demonstrated that it works. At a meeting on June 24, 1996, approximately 100 people attended to express their concern about this incinerator. The Dean of the Veterinary College attended the meeting to answer any questions. He was convinced that the project should not go forward as proposed without additional attempts to address community concerns. The plan was issued by Cornell around July 30, 1996, which addressed some of the concerns and to provide documentation for the onsite incineration of disposing of pathological medical waste. Cornell's position is that there are not any practical alternative methods for disposing of pathological medical waste except incineration. Cornell promises to document alternatives. The environmental information presented to the public, even though it appears that DEC approves it. The permit review process will be .postponed until this •information, is available on August 7, 1996. The State University Construction Fund requested that the DEC stop their permitting review pending Cornell providing additional information. The permitting process has stopped until further notice. Cornell will document a regulated medical waste management immunization plan, and develop procedures to minimize and recycle regulated medical waste. The conventional medical waste, which Cornell currently creates, will be reviewed with a community advisory committee. Cornell would like to form the committee as soon as possible and have them involved in all of the steps. The Center for the Environment has agreed to review the scientific studies. The specs call for the contractor to test burn conventional and regulated medical waste. This would be a one year test run, and there would be a one year demonstration that Cornell could run this trouble free. The decision is based on the SEQR process. Cornell would be the lead agency, and it would have to go through the scoping. Cornell would like to replace the existing incinerator with one that has state of the art air pollution control. The new incinerator would exceed DEC requirements and meet the proposed EPA requirements, which are still under development and will not be filed until next summer. Cornell would like to build to accept conventional regulated medical waste, but not burn it unless a decision is made through the process that this would be the best alternative. This plan is not popular with the community. Cornell intends to be open and honest. The Dean of the Veterinary College will be inviting various interested parties to form this community advisory committee. The Dean has written a letter to the Town of Ithaca Supervisor Catherine Valentino to get some of her questions answered about how the committee would work. The selection process has begun, and a formal meeting will be set up for the review process. This is a highly technical area where scientists and faculty members have researched to make the 0 determination whether or not the waste should be burned. It was suggested by the College of CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 Veterinary Medicine to go through a SEAR like process. The action being should Cornell burn conventional regulated medical waste in this ' incinerator. The way the plan is written the determination would be made concurrently with the actual building of an incinerator that is capable of burning conventional medical waste. The future of a new incinerator is uncertain at this point, but a lot of thought has been put into it. The Conversation Board had discussed this at past meetings. Cornell does not want to operate a regional incinerator for profit to burn medical waste from all over the region. The community requested at previous meetings that Cornell not enter into an agreement to take medical waste from area hospitals or area doctor offices to incinerate. The incinerator will be built for excess capacity, but the reason being so Cornell could burn cows or horses as necessary. The protected total capacity that Cornell would generate annually is approximately 600,000 pounds, but it could vary each year. The incinerator will burn approximately 16 hours a day, and be shut off at night. The Cornell plan currently is to have public review and input, and get a DEC permit for construction, test burn regulated medical waste, and wait a year to operate on regular pathological medical waste. Cornell will let the review be done by the community advisory committee once all the information is provided, and the review process for the incineration project is complete, permits will be applied for. Ms. Hoffmann stated that within the next four to five years that there might be some new developments brought up after the new incinerator is built. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the design would be done in such a way that it could be easily updated instead of building a new one again. Mr. Bland stated that it is never easy to upgrade a piece of equipment, and it depends on what the upgrade is. The new incinerator along with equipment to comply with all the new regulations, will take up more room than the old one. Jon Meigs asked if there is waste of this nature or from this source that goes else where now. Mr. Bland stated that Cornell ships 100,000 pounds a year of conventional regulated medical waste that Cornell is not legally approved to burn with the existing incinerator. All pathological regulated medical waste is incinerated because it is not safe to compost or render. Ruth Mahr stated that she would like to express the concerns of residents of Forest Home and to the whole community. The first concern was about the 177 foot smoke stack which will be at the east end of the Cornell Campus and will tower above Forest Home and the Plantations. In the Town's files from 1992, Town staff photographed the site from various perspectives and from various parts of the Town including from across the lake, and drew the smoke stack into the pictures. This smoke stack would be an intrusion on the landscape. From the bridge that is currently being replaced in Forest Home, people stand on that bridge and look up stream to see trees and water. After the incinerator is built, people will see a very tall smoke stack from that bridge. Forest Home is on the historic registry, and the bridge is being replaced according to historic standards. There is a CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 contradiction here between an industrial smoke stack and a historic community. Cornell should consider upgrading their current incinerator. A 177 foot structure would require a height variance. The Forest Home Association began to research and understand that what is happening here, is that an incinerator that was only burning pathological waste with a small component of plastics, and carcasses is going to be replaced by an incinerator that has the capacity to burn plastics as well. The Association was concerned about burning plastics in the area. To burn plastics in Tompkins County is a very serious decision. It is not one to be taken lightly. There are very serious health consequences involved in the burning of plastics, and that is why they are being required to put in so much pollution control equipment to upgrade incinerators all over the United States, and particularly in New York State. The reason for this is when people burn plastics, there is a release of toxic chemicals contained in the plastics. Much of the mercury would be passed through the stack while burning plastics, and that the DEC standards say that 50% of the mercury is trapped by the pollution control devices. A great concern in addition to the heavy metals that are released from the plastics when they are burned, is that dioxides are produced. Maybe in large incinerators, not much of the dioxides is produced, but no incinerator is 100% efficient. There are break downs. There will be dioxides released in the air. Those that are produced in the incinerator, will be trapped in the ashes which would have to be disposed of somewhere. The Association and the Community is concerned about this project. We need to ask if it is correct morally, legally, or any other way, for Cornell to make this decision on it's own without the input from the Community? Normally the process would have assured that there would be input from the Community, but the State University Construction Fund declared that this would not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore issued a negative declaration in 1993. As a result, no Environmental Impact Statement was ever done. The title of the project on the Environmental Assessment Form stated that this project was "Rehabilitation of the Existing Incinerator". The Community was lead to believe that what the State University Construction Fund was doing, was rehabilitating the existing incinerator. What was proposed was to dismantle the existing incinerator and replace it with an incinerator of a totally different kind, one that would have the capacity to burn plastics as well as medical waste. This does have a significant impact on the environment and therefore it should have required an Environmental Impact Statement. An editorial in the Ithaca Journal showed apparent support for the Cornell University project. The DEC will not protect the community's interest. The DEC will come in and test only once directly for dioxides before a final operating permit is issued for the project. The community would not know if any dioxides are being released after that testing. When an incinerator fails and shuts down, what happens is that the emissions go through a dump stack. If it fails when plastics are burning in there, the air would be polluted with the plastic chemicals. Cornell's response to the communities concerns are not adequate. What the community has asked for is an Environmental Impact Statement that would force a total review of alternative ways of disposing of carcasses and animal wastes. An Environmental Impact Statement is a terrific planning tool, which is done before a project is undertaken to determine whether the project should be undertaken. The process that Cornell is suggesting is not something of planning, but rather an undertaking as the project is being built. There are alternatives to burning plastics. Cornell is now spending $35,000.00 a year to have their plastics shipped out to have burned every month, and they are • proposing a $200,000.00 study to determine whether to burn plastics in this incinerator. This does CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 • APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 not make sense. Cornell should prepare a management minimization plan before a project is planned. Cornell should be looking at alternatives, and expand the study that they are proposing to the consideration of incineration of carcasses and to the incineration of plastics. The study of all the aspects should be done before the project is started. In terms of Cornell's proposal with the Citizen's Advisory Board, it will look only at plastics as it is stated now, Cornell will have the final decision about whether to burn plastics or not. It would not be a community decision. It seems that there are two democratic controls built into the process. One is the SEQR process and the other is the local building ordinance. These protect the community from harm, and give people the right to question a development proposal. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion with Bob Bland on his final comments. Cornell is trying to address all of the community's concerns. Cheryl Smith asked if any plastics are currently being burned in this incinerator. Mr. Bland responsed, yes. Ms. Smith asked if Cornell has looked into alternative sites. • Mr. Bland responsed, no. The Conservation Board decided when the advisory committee is set up the committee should come back to the Conservation Board to followup on what is happening with the project. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the maps for the site visit to Coy Glen and South Hill Swamp. They should be done for the site visit and Conservation Board Members are encouraged to ask questions as needed. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Ms. Hoffmann stated that there were three projects that came to the Environmental Review Committee for review. One of them needed to be commented on, and a site visit should be set up for everyone interested. The property is on Mecklenburg Road, owned by Robin Bootie who is wishing to subdivide and build a new house with a new driveway possibly across a wetland area. Ms. Hoffmann asked if there would be a good day for a site visit to this property. The Conservation Board decided to think about it and get back to Ms. Hoffmann with a date and time. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Old 100 has changed from how it was originally proposed. When the Classen sisters turned this into an adult residential care facility, they proposed to add a new structure next to the existing house, but it was not economically feasible. Now they are just going to use the • is CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 building with interior changes, but they need to provide another stairway for egress from the upstairs because they are proposing to have two residents living upstairs. The proposal is to add an exterior stairway that would go from the second floor to the first floor, inside the columns on the porch next to the building. In order to do that they would need to create an opening in the roof to build an addition. There is very little flexibility in where they can locate the stairways. The Environmental Review Committee also makes comments on historical properties and aesthetics. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the stairway of the The Old 100 House and will pass their comments onto the Planning Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Conservation Board decided to meet on Thursday, September 19, 1996 to approve the minutes and discuss the procedures of how they are transcribed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, September 5, 1996 ..............................................................................................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. 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. Member Concerns 7:45 p.m. 3.. Coordinator & Chair Reports 7:50 p.m. 4. Environmental Review Committee Report 8:00 p.m. 5. Items For Discussion: a. Vet School Incinerator Presentation and Update - Bob Bland b. Public vs Private ownership of land in or near Unique Natural Areas as it relates to development pressure c. Follow Up discussion on Development Review Procedures in the Town of Ithaca 9:30 p.m. 6. Business: a) Approval of Minutes: (5/4/95, 6/1/95, 8/3/95, 6/6/96 revised, 7/18/96, 8/1/96 -enclosed) b) Other 10:00 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/09-05-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs TOWN OF CA CONSERVA TION BOA DRAFT PRESENT: Char Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Planner JoAnn Cornish. GUESTS: Peter Salmon. Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS CONCERNS: Chair Zarriello - The Conservation Board. has a guest, Peter Salmon, who will be sitting in for the meeting to observe. Peter Salmon - I read about the Conservation Board in the Town Newsletter and the fact that there are some openings. I called JoAnn Cornish for information and she invited me to attend the meeting tonight. Chair Zarrieilo - In 1990, the Board began as the Conservation Advisory Council. One of the first Pi was to put together an Open Space Plan for the Town. At that time it moved the Council into a Board status. The Conservation Board acts as an Advisory Board to the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Environmental Review Committee is the only mandated committee for the Board. The Environmental Review Committee reviews development plans for the Town and comments on the environmental significance.. There are several other committees such as the Viewshed Committee and the Environmental Atlas Committee which are part of the Conservation Board. COORDINATORS REPORT: Planner JoAnn Cornish - The Vet School Incinerator Project at Cornell University: There were several fetters whiten to the DEC, including Town Supervisor Cathy Valentino's, concerning this project. The Planning Department received an anonymous letter pleading for people to become involved in this project. There was also a letter about Cornell's proposed medical waste incinerator which outlines some of the concerns. It also has attached addresses to write a letter if anybody would like. I think all the responses and concerns are certainly leading to a more in-depth look at this project. Chair Zarriello - In 1992, this Board got a proposal from the Construction Fund to rebuild the Cornell Vet School incinerator. The supe of the project was to revamp what already existed. Since that time, the Board responded and never heard back from them. The County EMC and other groups also responded and did not receive a reply. Recently, Ruth Mahr, President of the Forest Home Association, has spear headed the drive to see what is going on. There has been some conflicting information. There was an engineering report that was produced at some point that the Town had CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE 6. 1996 never seen, and the Mark Wysald from Cornell who Is an Air Pollution Modeler reviewed it, and pointed out numerous flaws in the report. There were responses to his comments that were appropriate. Ruth Mahr found out that they planned to accept medical waste from other facilities such as doctors offices, Cayuga Medical Center, etc.., they were planning to utilize that facility to get rid of medical waste which is well beyond the scope of the original proposal. Loren Tauer - Cornell would do that on a fee basis? Chair Zarriello -1 am sure Cornell was looking at it for a money making deal. Mr. Tauer - That would probably raise some tax implications for Comell as far as being a not-for-profit organization. Chair Zarrielo - There was a lot of stuff going on and we never got a direct answer from the involved parties. One of the major concerns was that the State Construction Fund, in their original proposal, gave a negative environmental declaration which means they did not have to follow any of the SEAR process. The only thing they had to go through was the State Permitting process for air discharge. Planner Cornish - The State Construction Fund is exempting themselves from the SEQR process which they have the power to do. Char Zanielo - Ruth Mahr was coordinating a group of interested parties that will meet June 12, 1996 at 7:30 in the Town Board Room. If there is anyone that is interested in foaming more about this and getting involved, I would suggest coming to that meeting. Ms. Levitan - As I understand from the architect that was Involved In this project, the existing facility Is releasing a lot of matter. In other words, it is not doing a great job. Is the revised plan to do a better job? Is the Forest Home Association also assessing the existing structure? Char Zarrielo - The big trade offs are the stack height versus the aesthetic visual impact. The stack height as proposed is not high enough according to Cornell calculations. The proposed stack is not adequate to meet the dispersion requirements necessary to get rid of the stuff. There was a problem with the new Vet Tower being one foot lower than the proposed stack height, so there would be currents coming off the new building that would interfere with the expression of the stack. The trade off Is to have a Nigger stack, and many people would not want to see that either. That is why as part of the SEQR process is to look at project alternatives. Mr. Tauer - Where is Cornell proposing to build this new incinerator? Behind the new building? Eva Hofinmm - The earlier proposal Cornell came in with to replace the existing stack was to put the new stack where the existing stack is located in the back of the vet school towards Caldwell Road. Char ZwW - There were two letters sent out from the Town: one from myself for the Conservation CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JUNE 6, 1996 Board and one from the Town's Planning Department. It. is good that the Construction Fund has responded positively because the State would not be in a position to do much. Planner Cornish - Saddlewood Farms is a large development rental housing that is being proposed for West Hill. There will be a special Planning Board Meeting on June 11, 1996, for a sketch plan presertation from Landmark America. This is going to be a very big project for the Town of Ithaca, and one that is being watched by a lot of groups. This meeting will be an informational meeting, and the Conservation Board night be interested in sitting on the meeting. The Planning Board was made lead agency for this by Town Board recommendation. Chair Zarriello - I had a phone call from Jon Meigs concerning this project, and he felt very strongly about the approach the Planning Board is taken that it is being assessed as a site plan review. The bigger issue is of rezoning agricultural and R-30 to Special Land Use District (SLUD) or a Multiple Residence (MR). These issues should be settled first. Planner Cornish - If this rezoning results in a SLUD, the Town would have some control over what happens there. It would be very specific and would become a Town law where things would be specified as to what exactly could be done there. If it results in MR, it may have a greater density. Ms. Levitan - At the last Board meeting this project was briefly discussed, so I wrote up a memorandum in reference to this project. I did not treat the meeting the other night as a hearing. I was extremely concerned about how a marketing job avoids real issues. How untruth could be swdowed by people. A very poor marketing study was done for this project. The marketing study was based on the concept that the percent of mobility, the number of people who move in a year equal the demand for housing. They took the mobility number and stated that 25% of the income category they are airing for, tend to move in a given year. But then they said the Tompkins County percentage Is much higher. As amry ne that lives here knows, the Cornell Student market moves every year, and this Is a mearftjess error. The figure they use, is the figure that is justifying the building of 276 units in the Town of Ithaca. In fact, most of the people who live in the Town of Ithaca know there is a need for affordable housing to meet the needs of low income Cornell employees. What needs to be done Is to look at the real demands and look at the housing market and say "do we really have a demand from the Cornell Community that want to live closer". The Town and the County Planning Departments need to do a demand base affordable housing needs survey. The other coag point was that there are a couple agencies within the County that are concerned about the affordable housing issues. After discussions with Cathy Valentino, Mary Russell, and others, I am unsure if there has been any coordination about the Town's needs for affordable housing. Has there been any Wnd of demand survey? There has not been as far as any of these people know. 1 am really concerned that the affordable housing issue is being jumped on without knowing if affordable housing is actually needed. The agricultural issue is another concern. A member of the Agricultural District Board (which is not CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 62 1996 W of the agricultml protection law, it is a farmers protection law) stated that farming is tough here. It is true that.the amount of land that is used for agriculture in the Northeast is declining and the reserve of agricultural products have decreased in the past decade. I have recently been seeing data that agricultural reserves have gone down in this nation and are at a frightening low level. In the long run, as we are talking about agricultural land and land use, there will be a shortage of agricultural land and people need to be concerned. Laws that went into effect about 20 years ago, resulted in people beconft fearful about something that has not come about yet. Grain reserves in the United States are at their lowest level. Projections of the U.S. ability to export grain are way down. The U.S. may run out of the ability to feed the world. I think some of the laws that were put into place and some thinking about the land were because people were thinking about mobile cycles and agriculture. I ftic if the Conservation Board, whose charge is to think through long term planning, really needs to say something about the long term needs for agricultural lands in the Northeast the impact on it. The argument is the land surrounding this proposal (Saddlewood) is no longer agricultural land. Landmark American stood up there and stated a mis truth about this project demand. Alfred Eddy sold the 280 -acre large parcel across the road from this proposed project to EcoVillage with the idea that it would be continued in agriculture. There is a lot of unsettling differences about this project. What can the Town do about these issues? I am not denying that there is not a need a for affordable housing, but my feeling is that this scale is really questionable. The many people who work at Cornell and travel long distances, do so because they want to. No one can deny the fact that Cornell has many people who do not Eve ease by and say that there is a demand that is not being met. I think that one thing the Conservation Board might want to do, both in dealing with this and other similar kinds of proposals, is to start some dialogues in the community about is big better. The sense that I got from the Town Board is twat there is something golden about growth. I think it would be good for this Board to do is a visioning process and talk to people about what they like about living in the Town of Ithaca. Planner Cornish - Ms. Levitan is right, the Town does not have a correct definition for affordable housing nor does the Town have a demand number for that. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision was approved on June 4, 1996, by the Planning Board for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. One of their catch phrases was affordable housing, and the Planning Board asked what is affordable. There is no current definition, and the Planning Staff is looking into this. Saddlewood Farms is also proposed to be a gated community which means it will have some security, and probably a gate and credit card system to get into the development. I think it changes the character of the development and in my opinion it would be some what out of character for the Town of Ithaca. On Tuesday, June 11, 1996, the Planning Board will be discussing the Saddlewood Farms project, and members of the Conservation Board are welcome to come. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision did get Preliminary Subdivision Approval and is scheduled for Final Subdivision Approval on June 18, 1996. Cayuga Vista is another subdivision on South Hill that was presented to the Planning Board on June 4,1996. This is a small 9 -lot subdivision with a wetland on the property. The portion with the wetland which had originally been proposed to be subdivided is no longer in the proposal. The Planning CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 6, 1996 Board did receive a trail right-of-way across a portion of the land to go with the Park and Open Space Pian and trail system that is being proposed. This is in the future, but we did get a trail easement out of this subdivision as part of the set aside. Ithacare received Final Site Plan Approval on June 4, 1996. There were two Planning Board Members that voted against the Ithacare Project, and one of the Planning Board Members, Gregory Bell made a very moving speech at the end urging everyone to take a good look at the view since it will be gone. This long battle is over with for the Town. The Conservation Board got the Monkemeyer subdivision proposal last month. It is on East King Road and is an 8 -lot subdivision. There is going to be a site visit on June 13, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. Everyone will be meeting at the site on East King Road. The Planning Board Members will be there also. The Coy Glen -Babcock subdivision that the Conservation Board talked about before, is on the Planning Board agenda for July 9, 1996. Mr. Babcock had proposed deeding over 100 acres to the Cornell plantations. PSC will be in for Final Site Plan Approval on July 16, 1996. They have answered this Board's concerns. Char Zanido - The Mann Library Project is about ready to break ground waiting for the State Budget to pass. There were some concerns about small growth trees and steep slopes which they seem to have dismissed. I have received the final scope of the EIS of the Lake Source Cooling, which I have not looked through yet. I will be looking through it make sure this Board's comments have been addressed. Planner Cornish - In the Town's Newsletter there was a plea for Conservation Board Members. The Viewshed Committee article was also included. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Viewshed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee - No report. Environmental Atlas needs to get the system up and running for data base GIS map. MINUTES APPROVAL - MAY 2, 1996 Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 2, 1996 by the Consprvption-Board as CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 6, 1996 written with one correction, seconded by Ms. Smith. On Page 5, Mr. Kanter stated `The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are Lead Agency for the permits that need to be obtained.", which should read `The DEC at this point is doing their own erni o mer" review of this project because they are responsible for issuing permits required by the project." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Smith, Fischer, Levitan, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: The Conservation Board discussed topics to investigate for what to discuss at the meetings and other future meetings as well as a work plan for the Board. Planner Canish reminded the Conservation Board that there is a budget for the Board and if any one was interested in attending any conferences or seminars, that there are funds available. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. DRAFTED on June 11, 1996 by Debby Kelley. DRAFT CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 1 . ` AUMST 1, 19M PRESENT: Phillip Zardello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, "Cheryt' Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Geri Tierney, Planner. Chairperson Zartiello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Meigs stated that he had some concerns regarding procedures and processing for project applcada -s, such as Saddlewood Farms. He was questioning, in part, whether procedures specified in the negWaiionns and gWdeines were followed appropriately. If they were, there night be a better way to do it. Mr. Meigs stated that things seem rather confusing to him the way various Boards and agencies were revioft the project. There did not seem to be a W of coordination of this project, nor was it done in an orderly rational fashion with such a potentially significant issue as rezoning a major agricultural area, it is questionable whether k was handled properly or not. Mr. Meigs thoughts were that finis subject should be discussed, not only with this Board, but perhaps the Planning Board and the Town Board as well. Ms. Cornish asked Mr. Meigs if he was speaking specifically about the Saddlewood project or development review in general. Mr. Meigs stated that he was speaking with regards to development review of the magnitude of Saddlewood Farms and the rezoning of a major resource. Ms. Cornish stated that the SEAR process had not been started yet because they were only in a. prekninary phase. it did not get very far in the process, because it went to the Town Board for rezoning, and the Town Board recommended the Planning Board review k. The Planning Board would study the proposal, and then would take it back to the Town Board with their recommendation to consider naming or not. This is far as Saddlewood Farms got in the process. The Planning Staff is trying to revamp some procedures within the department as far as development review, and maybe something could be incorporated into the application package with a brief outline of procedures. The Conservation Board had a short discussion on the Cornell's Lake Source Cooling Project sketch pian review that was presented to them at July's meeting. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the Long House procedure under SEAR, that the Local Law No. 5 could not superceed the State Law, that a Type II Action could not be changed to a Type I Action by law. There carrot be a SEAR Type If Action as a Type I Action, but anything else this Board could make stricter and more precise as an unclassified Type I Action. There are specific types of actions that are classified as Type I Actions and Type 11 Actions, and everything M between is an CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 AUGUST 1, IM unlisted action. If it is a Type I Action it would have to go through more of an Environmental Review Process. A Type 11 Action is likely to have significant Environmental Impacts. The State could date certain types of actions for special projects. An agency can add to the list from actions that are not designated by the State. The Town Law states that any project within so many feet of a Critical Environmental Area is a Type I Action, and a SEAR process must be done. The Long House will be a Type II Action under SEAR for several reasons. There would be a recommendation for the Attorney for the Town to look into this Local Law for more clarification for the Board. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the Cornell Incinerator Project. There have been some compromises made. Cornell will not be doing an EIS. They will be doing some of the work that has been asked of them as part of a public meeting that was held June 24, 1996 and other comments that have been made by other people in the community. The current incinerator does not meet the permit requirements for pollution emission, the stack height is to low for the surrounding area. The concern that was raised by the model analysis was that Cornell would be changing the stack height. One of the neglienlents of the EIS is to evaluate alternatives, but since they are not going to do one this will not be a requirement. The Conservation Board will be following this issue for further updates. Ms. Cornish introduced Geri Tierney as the new Planner. Ms. Tierney will helping out with the Conservation Board, and help Ms. Cornish share the responsibilities for the Board. The New York State Association of Conservation Commission Conference is October 18 -to October 20. The Town Board wi have to approve the amount being spent for the conference at their September meeting, so if anyone is thinking about attending they should let Ms. Cornish know ahead of time. The Saddewood Farms project is on hold. The Environmental Review Committee should finalize their comments on this project and pass them along'to the Planning Staff for the file. The Town Board has aulixxmed two parcels in Inlet Valley for the Town to purchase. This resulted from someone noticing these parcels being on the County's auction block for delinquent taxes. The County puffed them so the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, as a joint project, could come up with finds to buy them. The Town of Ithaca is going to go ahead and purchase these parcels. The County also owns some property in this area. The City of Ithaca is looking into some parcels as part of an alienation process for Southwest Park. It will be a good buy for the Town to be used as a passive parkland. At the Town Board Meeting on August 12 at 5:45 p.m., Herbert Engman, Chair of the ERC, will make a presentation on the Framework for Long Range Environmental Planning in Tompkins County. Mw members are still needed for the Conservation Board. There is one person that is interested, but there still is one more opening. If any member of the Board (mows anyone that would be interested, please have them contact the Planning Department. Concerning the meetings and notification to the public for the Environmental Review Committee: In CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 AUGUST 1, 1996 accordance with SARA (which is the State Record Keeping Laws), the media needs to be notified 24 hours in advance. This means that the committee needs to fax all the local media on the agenda 24 hours in advance of an ERC meeting. It does not have to be published. It is being recommendation that the ERC set aside a time each month to meet, so in January when all the Boards publish their schedules, the ERC schedule could be published at the same time. There has been a tentative schedule set up that will be discussed at the next ERC meeting to fit in with the Planning Board schedule. The Board discussed having the ERC meetings prior to the regular Conservation Board meetings. The Environmental Review Committee is working on comments for the Saddlewood Farm project. A site visit to the South Hill Swamp will be planned after the area dries up. This should be sometime In the beginning of September. The resolution YA address the issue of the South Hill Swamp being designated as a Critical Environmental Area. The Planning Committee has asked that the Conservation Board look at the Unique Natural Areas that came*exist in the Town of Ithaca, and begin to prioritize which ones they would like to see as future Conservation Districts. Since the Conservation District for South Hill was recently passed in the Town, they would Ike to look at other areas that they should be considering. There were four areas that the Planning Committee felt as though they would like the Conservation Board to consider. The Planning Committee thought that Coy Glen would be a good area to consider next, since there is so much information available and a lot of the work has been done for this area. This is the only Critical Environmental Area in the Town. The other three areas would be Fall Creek, South Hill Swamp, and Cascadilia Creek. The South Hill Swamp may fall into a wetland ordinance. The borders and edges of these areas are going to have to be determined some how. The Committee would like this Board to considerthe next step in Conservation Districts, Critical Environmental Areas, Unique Natural Areas, and Wetland Ordinances. The Planning Staff will need to prioritize the map to see what areas are privately owned lands because that would be the most challenging part. This Board would need to look at the development in these areas. The Board had a brief discussion about the map of the Critical Environmental Areas. The Board would like to see a map showing private versus public ownership. An overview of the entire Town would be desirable, as it may be that there will be other areas that the Conservation Board could look at. The Planning Committee is trying to get. people interested in the South Hi Conservation District to get them knowledgeable about why these areas are needed and why they deed to be protected. The Planning Committee has looked at the Coy Glen area as the next step for a Conservation District, but they want Input from the Conservation Board. A comprehensive look at the Town of Ithaca is another level that needs to be moved ahead also. The Unique Natural Areas were designated by the County. The Planning Committee should come with a listing of areas and priorities for designating these areas. The Conservation Board has agreed to have a meeting with the Planning Committee regarding this subject, and Information will be shared, with this Board. A letter was received from EcoVillage and co-signed by the Tompkins County Transportation Council. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 AUGUST 1, IM They are looking for moral and financial support for two speakers that they want to bring in. Jeff Kertwathy is a professor of Urban Environments at Murdock University in Australia. He is a co-author of various studies in Winning Back CRies. He will be speaking on Monday September 16 at the Women's Community Building. Phil McTiben is the author of End of Nature who will be speaking on Tuesday October 8 at Anabel Taylor. Both lectures are open to the public. Ecovnage and the Transportation Council is looking for sponsors to help finance and publicize events to their membership. The Conservation Board can give them support, but can not give them money. The Conservation Board decided not to do any more than give moral support for this issue. MOT/ONmade by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1994 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Eva Hofrmann. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann, Levitan. The motion declared was carried. M07=made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction below, seconded by Ms. Hoffmann. Page 1, bottom of the paragraph for Environmental Review Committee report it states "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting.", should read "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the June 27th meeting." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith, Hoffmann. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levtan. The motion declared was carried. The Conservation Board decided to review the June 6, 1996 minutes, and bring them back to the Board at the next regular meeting for review. The Board Members will hand in their comments and corrections for review, so they could be adjusted on the revised minutes to present at the next regular meeting. l' CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES b AUGUST 1, 1996 The Conservation Board had a discussion on the review of the minutes and how they would like to have the mh tes produced. The Minutes Secretary job description is under discussion on how to format the minutes for the Boards. The Carty Water Front Sandy moved towards refining areas of interest. Discussion groups listed likes and dekes for proposed areas of interest. They brought comments of the discussion groups back to the session where the consultants will take the comments and merge them. There will be one more meeting where the public will be invited before the plan is finalized. The public was invited to prioritize their concems with likes and dislikes, and they could take that Information and consolidate it with the issues that are of most importance. Comprehensive Planning was generally supported. There were a lot of issues conceming economic development. The priority of the study is to create public access in appropriate locations and to preserve those areas where development is inappropriate. Chairperson Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. DRAFTED by Deborah A. Kelley on August 12. 1996. rAl Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes Thursday, August 3, 1995 Approved: 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. as 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 earlier proposal 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 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. kol fl 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. 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 w 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. 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 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 again 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. srh ,fi r' ORAFr Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes Thursday, June 1, 1995 Approved: 00/00/00 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. Wetland is in all three towns, but part that is on the property appears to be larger that DEC delineation, so on-site Ak. delineation is required. Developer is proposing 14 building sites on dry 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/County Park: A Resolution has been sent to all local environmental groups. Land is 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 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 was 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 DRAFT 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-laws for approval. The problem is with title, but not with function of interested persons who cooperate with the Conservation Board on projects. Member os 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 planed 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, and this normally 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. SEAR protection is minimal, but local protection laws would supersede SEAR. 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 DR AFT 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 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 ever 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 is an D RA pr environmental hazard. Town will follow up on this. OTHER OLD BUSINESS: Minutes for December 1, 1994 were adopted. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. Next meeting will be July 6, 1995. Meeting adjourned. 09 0 O TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, May 4, 1995 Approved: PRESENT: Chairptisnn___ 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. 1* Conservaiton Board Minutes 2 May 4, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 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 iheing 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 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. Zarriello 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. Compose available weekdays from 6am to 3:30pm. Mr. Noteboom will supply Conservation Board with 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. 1% Conservaiton Board Minutes 3 May 4, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 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 R Creation 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 S 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 has a meeting regarding illegal camping in several placed, shotgun shells and firecrackers, etch. 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 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 if 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 All Conservaiton Board Minutes 4 May 4, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT this may cause problems with that plan. NEW BUSINESS: Celebrate Cayuga Lake Week is from July 15 to July 23, 1995. The Cons ervation„Jp&r-d 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 peak 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 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: Starr\Stuff\CBStuff\Minutes\OS-04-95.min EcoVillage at Ithaca A Model for Land Conservation and Sustainable Neighborhood Development ANNOUNCEMENT * Please inform your membership. * Please post in your publication(s). DON'T il4.1SS'.l! Jeff Kenworthy, PhD is a leading authority on cities. He will be speaking on Monday, September 16, 7:30 to 9:30 PM at Alumni Auditorium, Kennedy Hall on the Cornell campus. TM Jeff has spent seventeen years analyzing cities all over the world and his slides are rich with images of good transportation systems and land use planning. What cities have banned automobiles and how are they managing? What does Vancouver, Canada have in common with Stockholm, Sweden? How do cities in Asia compare with those in the West? Jeff is a lecturer on urban environments at Murdoch University in Australia. His talk is a must for anyone interested in conserving natural resources. In his own words: "Land use is inextricably linked to the transport system -- and it works ecologically and socially. Automobiles destroy contact between people and sever neighborhoods." (from a talk given at the Third International EcoCity Conference; Sponsors: EcoVillage at Ithaca and Ithaca -Tompkins Transportation Council. Cornell Sponsors include - Departments of City and Regional Planning and Natural Resources. Also the Latin Studies Program, and Alternatives Library. Anabel Taylor Hall • Cornell University • Ithaca, New York 14853 • (607) 255-8276 If Fax: (607) 255-9985 • E-mail: ecovillage@cornell.edu f. ........................................................................................................................... :::::::........................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, September 5, 1996 :::::..........................................................................................................................:: :............................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................................. 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. Member Concerns 7:45 p.m. 3.. Coordinator & Chair Reports 7:50 p.m. 4. Environmental Review Committee Report 8:00 p.m. 5. Items For Discussion: a. Vet School Incinerator Presentation and Update - Bob Bland b. Public vs Private ownership of land in or near Unique Natural Areas as it relates to development pressure c. Follow Up discussion on Development Review Procedures in the Town of Ithaca 9:30 p.m. 6. Business: a) Approval of Minutes: (5/4/95, 6/1/95, 8/3/95, 6/6/96 revised, 7/18/96, 8/1/96 -enclosed) b) Other 10:00 P.M. 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Loren Tauer Lois Levitan CC: Diane DeMuth (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/09-05-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TFRRNSM I T CONF I RMRT I ON REPORT NO. RECEIVER TRANSMITTER DATE DURATION MODE PAGES RESULT 001 607 272 4335 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY AUG 29'96 8:09 00'57 STD 02 OK AUG 29'96 8:09 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TRANSM I T Cr IAF I F'MRT ION REPORT NO. RECEIVER TRANSMITTER DATE DURATION MODE PAGES RESULT 002 6072576497 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY AUG 29'96 8:12 00'58 STD 02 OK AUG 29'96 8:12 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:60727.51704 TRANSMIT CONFIRMATION REPORT NO. RECEIVER TRANSMITTER DATE DURATION MODE PAGES RESULT 003 6072730746 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY AUG 29'96 8:14 01'15 STD 02 OK RUG 29'96 8:14 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TRANSMIT CONFIRMATION REPORT NO. RECEIVER TRANSMITTER DATE DURATION MODE PAGES RESULT 004 lIaIVBR TOWN OF ITHACA, NY AUG 29'96 8:22 00'56 STD 02 OK AUG 29'96 5:22 SIGIV Ff TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 FMX M�ESSGE TO: FROM: -STGi r r 7Gt�f S DATE: US FAX # FAX # (607) 273-1704 Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 1-12 Comments: TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1996 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1996. PLEASE NOTE: A joint meeting of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. CB Members: Phillip Zarriello Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs CC: Diane DeMuth Lois Levitan Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) Replacement Incinerator Project Definitions (simplified): Pathological Waste: pathological Regulated Medical Waste (p-RMW): conventional - Regulated Medical Waste (c-RMW) Cornell CVM waste streams (actual varies): Pathological Waste & p-RMW: c-RMW animal remains , waste bedding and feedstuffs pathological waste infected with a zoonotic organism typical hospital -type, plastic -based waste including cultures, sharps, and human pathological waste most waste bedding is composted 800,000 to 1 M lb/year of animal remains are rendered 600,000 lb/year of animal remains and bedding are incinerated on-site miscellaneous pathological -associated waste is incinerated —100,000 lb/yr of c-RMW is transported for off-site incineration For presentation TC EMC 8/7/96 (RRB) Cornell proposals to address community concerns: 1) Document that incineration on-site is the only practical method of disposal for pathological RMW 2) SUCF will prepare supplemental air quality model information to include local data and revised urban/rural input. Permit review process will be postponed until this is available. 3) Prepare a RMW Management and Minimization Plan 4) Review the incineration of c-RMW with a Community Advisory Committee: • study the alternatives to on-site incineration of c-RMW (with Center for the Environment review) • test burn of c-RMW upon start-up of replacement incinerator • one year demonstration without c-RMW • decision based on SEQRA process For presentation TC EMC 8/7/96 (RRB) Replacement Incinerator Project Status 1) Negative Declaration by SUCF 1993 2) design and bid documents prepared 3) solid waste permit and air permit submitted to DEC, not complete 4) future actions • notice of complete applications and public review • technical review by DEC • permits issue • bid, award, construct • start-up testing by contractor • DEC certificate to operate For presentation TC EMC 8/7/96 (RRB) THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE'S PROPOSED REPLACEMENT INCINERATOR PROJECT: A REPORT TO THE CAMPUS AND THE COMMUNITY Over the last several months, increased community concern has been expressed in reference to the plans for the construction of a replacement incinerator to serve the College of Veterinary Medicine. These concerns led Cornell President Hunter R. Rawlings III to ask the new dean of the College, Franklin M. Loew, DVM, Ph.D., to schedule a public meeting on the evening of June 24,1996 at which interested members of the community would have the opportunity to share their concerns and perspectives with representatives of the College, the State University Construction Fund, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the engineers for the project and their environmental consultants. The meeting was well attended and, from the University's perspective, resulted in a helpful dialogue concerning several important issues of concern. Dean Loew concluded the meeting by assuring the participants that their substantive comments not only had been heard but would be addressed and that there would be further opportunities for public involvement in the weeks and months that lie ahead. From the earliest consideration of this project in 1991, the University and the College of Veterinary Medicine have been determined to protect and secure the health and safety of the members of this community - not only the residents of surrounding neighborhoods but also the thousands of our students, faculty, staff and visitors in close proximity to the facility. We are determined to accomplish this objective while simultaneously meeting our statewide responsibilities for both animal and human public health. This paper reviews the current status of the project and describes the additional steps the University intends to initiate over the next several months to address a number of issues that have arisen during the course of discussions with local residents and members of the university community. It describes the recent history of waste disposal at the college, reports the current state of the project, outlines the major concerns expressed by members of the community, and delineates the process the University proposes to follow to address these concerns. The creation of a community advisory committee involving local public officials and neighborhood association leadership to work closely with the University in the next steps of its analyses is proposed. 01 BACKGROUND 1. The Waste Stream The waste material handled by the College of Veterinary Medicine originates primarily from Cornell, but it also includes pathological waste from the Tompkins County SPCA, veterinary clinics, area animal control officers, and animal -related programs at Ithaca College. These materials are generally classified into two categories: pathological waste and Regulated Medical Waste, with strict definitions of each determined by public health officials. Pathological waste consists of animal remains, waste animal bedding, waste animal feedstuffs, and other similar materials. The average daily amount incinerated in 1995 was 1,850 pounds, or almost one ton per day. In addition to the local providers mentioned already, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets periodically request the diagnosis and/or disposal of animal remains. On the other hand, Regulated Medical Waste (RMW) consists of material that may be dangerous to human health. It is usually comprised of such items as "sharps," "cultures and stocks of infectious agents," and other plastics involved in clinical and research activities. Some animal remains may contain potential human pathogens and therefore are classified as RMW. The average daily amount of this material in 1995 was 250 pounds. Prior to 1990, this waste was incinerated in the College of Veterinary Medicine's existing incinerator, in compliance with the rules and regulations then applicable. Starting in 1990 and continuing today, RMW is transported off-site for destruction by a licensed private contractor. Between the years 1992 and 1995 the College also utilized an alternative technology of autoclave -and -grind to dispose a portion of the RMW generated by the College. This alternative was discontinued in 1995 due to increased maintenance and operating cost. 2. The Need to Replace the Existing Incinerator As Soon as Possible The current incinerator was built in 1985. It is an essential component of the teaching, research and public service responsibilities of the College. While it was appropriate for its time, it is now reaching the end of its useful life. Substantial improvements are now possible in the control of air pollution, and the University believes it must be at the forefront of new technology that will substantially improve the environment. For example, the current facility incinerates waste material and destroys pathogens with high temperature and good combustion, but does not have air -pollution control equipment. In 3 addition, from an energy conservation standpoint, there is no waste heat recovery, so valuable heat is lost up the stack. The College's review of existing technologies has determined that incineration is the only available, practical method of disposal for the College's pathological wastes and for those animal remains that are now classified as Regulated Medical Waste - that is, those remains that are either known to be or may possibly be infected and dangerous to humans. A written statement of this analysis will be prepared and made available to the public. The nature and volume of this material is such that no alternative disposal mechanism allowed in New York State is as safe and appropriate as incineration, especially for the individuals who must come in contact with the material. Substantial changes have occurred in incinerator technology in recent years that make possible the incineration of the College's other Regulated Medical Waste in a similarly safe and appropriate manner, with future emissions estimated to be only a small fraction of what had been the case prior to 1990, when all of this material was incinerated by the existing facility. DESIGN OF THE REPLACEMENT FACILITY The planning, design, renovation and construction of facilities on behalf of the four statutory colleges at Cornell is the responsibility of the State University Construction Fund (SUCF). Cornell has had an excellent working relationship with the Fund over the years, and its projects have been widely acclaimed for meeting their objectives in an effective and environmentally sensitive manner. Although the Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca has requested that the University consider the incineration of human hospital waste from non -Cornell generators, the permitting applications for this project are based on the destruction of materials from only the sources identified earlier in this paper. A new round of permit applications incorporating opportunities for public notice and comment would be required in the future to accomodate such a request. The draft design documents and Air Quality Modeling (AQM) discussed below are available for inspection by contacting Gregg Travis, Director, Statutory Office of Capital Facilities at Cornell. The design exceeds the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) standards for time and temperature to achieve required destruction of all pollutants. It is designed to meet or exceed the proposed United States Environmental Protection Administration (USEPA) standards for air pollution control. 4 Complete stack testing for all regulated pollutants of concern will occur on start-up, and the facility will not be permitted to operate unless all applicable standards of performance are met. Continuous emissions monitors for carbon monoxide, oxygen, opacity and temperature will serve as indicators to assure that the incinerator is operated to achieve optimum pollutant control. Regular reports of these monitoring systems will be forwarded to NYSDEC. Upon any failure of the system's air pollution control devices, the waste loading hopper will be locked to prevent additional loading of waste. The Air Quality Model was undertaken to provide important data for the SUCF's environmental impact assessment and to support the NYSDEC air permit application. Conservative assumptions were made concerning the waste stream and effectiveness of the air pollution control equipment. Even though the University has no plans to accept human hospital waste with its heavy plastic components, the model assumes that conventional hospital -type Regulated Medical Waste is to be incinerated 24 hours per day, 365 days per year at the design rate of 500 lbs. per hour, or 12,000 lbs. per day. In fact, the incinerator will operate only 16 hours per day, and the actual rate of conventional Regulated Medical Waste (c -R v[M incineration is anticipated to be about 250 lbs. per day, or about 2 percent of the model. The potential concentrations of possible air pollutants of concern were determined on a short term and on an annual basis for humans breathing the air downwind of the incinerator at the location of highest theoretical concentration. To meet the data quality objectives required by the NYSDEC and USEPA, Syracuse and Albany meteorological data were required to be used in the analysis. Results of the analysis showed that all pollutants of concern were well below the standards set to protect human health and the environment. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROTECT The replacement of the existing incinerator was recognized from the start as requiring environmental assessment, and the SUCF assumed lead agency status for this review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This designation was endorsed by the State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and at the time was endorsed by interested local parties. It should be noted that SEQRA specifically contemplates public agencies with responsibility for the construction of a project having this lead agency role, because they are frequently the entities most able to bring all of the pertinent information to bear on the consideration of the project. Ample opportunity is provided under the statute for public evaluation of the project at several stages of the process. 5 Following the standards established in SEQRA, the State University Construction Fund prepared an environmental assessment of the project and issued a negative declaration that the incinerator, as proposed, would have no significant adverse environmental impacts. This finding was based on the determination that the project is a replacement of an existing incinerator and the environmental impact of concern - the air emission impact on air breathed by humans - will be subject to a full regulatory and public review to determine if the project protects human health and meets established standards set to protect the environment. This determination has been endorsed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Two required permit applications have been submitted to NYSDEC: a solid waste permit and an air emissions permit. Both permits are required to construct and operate an incinerator, and to operate an RMW treatment facility. These applications are undergoing NYSDEC review to determine if they are both complete and ready for technical and public review. After the permit applications are determined to be complete and ready for review, there will be a 30 -day public comment period and a technical review by the DEC. This includes review of the ambient air quality impact analysis, which is part of the air permit application, to determine if the applications and the proposed operation protect human health and the environment and will be consistent with all applicable regulations. In the event that new regulations are promulgated by USEPA, the administration of these new requirements most likely will be incorporated into the DEC regulations and permits. ISSUES OF COMMUNITY CONCERN: NEXT STEPS The University and the SUCF recognize that important substantive questions have been raised by members of the community, including local residents and public officials. These matters need to be addressed. We do not believe, however, that a reversal of the negative declaration and the initiation of a Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are the only means for securing this objective. We believe that this project is effectively a replacement for an existing facility of the same type, that substantial opportunities for environmental review are available through the forthcoming permitting processes, and that the data submitted to the Department of Environmental Conservation are accurate and in conformance with all applicable state rules and regulations. We further agree with the Department of Environmental Conservation's determination that the questions that have been raised to date do not support the initiation of a lengthy R and expensive Full Environmental Impact Statement when alternative mechanisms are available to analyze the principal concerns. We recognize the community concern about the air -model methodology. To assess the relevance of the Syracuse data, SUCF will compare the model results using local Game Farm Road Weather Station data to the model based on Syracuse data and discussed with NYSDEC. We understand that the local Ithaca data may or may not be accepted for the formal permit application considered by the Department of Environmental Conservation, but we believe that this information may be useful to the Department as well as to the University and the local community in further evaluating the ambient air quality aspects of the project. SUCF also will re-evaluate the use of the "urban" versus "rural" designation used to characterize the topography in the model. It is important to note in this regard that the principal change from a rural to an urban designation is not the consideration of how many people may be affected by the anticipated emissions but rather the size and scale of surrounding physical structures and their potential impact on wind flows. SUCF will forward all information on air quality modeling to NYSDEC for its review and will ask NYSDEC to postpone its determination that the air quality permit application is complete until NYSDEC has had an opportunity to examine this additional meteorological data and to consider whatever changes may result from the utilization of an "urban" designation in the air quality model. The University acknowledges that there are alternatives to the use of the proposed replacement incinerator for the destruction of plastic -based conventional RMW (c-RMW). The potential burning of plastics and related materials raises significant concerns both within the Cornell community and among our neighbors that should be addressed in detail. We will support the current permit applications that provide for the incineration for RMW, but concurrently review the alternatives to the College's incineration of conventional RMW. This review will be undertaken in consultation with local residents and public officials. If the University determines that better alternatives are available, then c-RMW will not be included in the incinerator waste stream even though such a practice might have been permitted by the State. Cornell will continue to document an inventory of RMW sources and prepare an RMW Waste Management and Minimization Plan to assure that RMW is generated and handled according to regulations and also to protect workers and the public, and to minimize generation of RMW. 7 Cornell will further investigate the capability of the replacement incinerator to incinerate c-RMW safely before completing the review process. The investigation will involve: 1) previously planned, limited testing upon start- up of c-RMW incineration to confirm efficacy of the equipment and emission levels, and, 2) after the limited testing, a one year period of operation without c- RMW to demonstrate the reliability and operational characteristics of the incinerator. To accomplish this review, the University will develop a formal decision- making process based on the SEQRA process. The formal subject for this review would be the proposed action: "incineration of conventional Regulated Medical Waste (c -RN" in the proposed College of Veterinary Medicine incinerator." The action is based upon the assumption that the. incinerator will be built as proposed and will incinerate pathological waste and animal remains classified as RMW. The option to incinerate plastic -based c-RMW will be the action that is evaluated. A formal analysis will be written by a consultant retained by Cornell. The Cornell Center for the Environment will form a faculty committee to review the scientific validity of the analysis. The College of Veterinary Medicine will develop the formal analysis, issue findings, and make a decision either to implement the action or pursue alternatives. The University and the State University Construction Fund stand ready to work with the local community in the development and implementation of this additional review process. We propose the creation of a formal Community Advisory Committee for this process, whose membership would include but not be limited to representatives from the Forest Home Improvement Association, the Tompkins County Board of Representatives, the Ithaca Town Board, and Cornell environmental staff. The Community Advisory Committee would be actively engaged in reviewing the scope of the proposed studies, their findings, and the opportunities for public examination and discussion of those findings. Cornell liaison for the Community Advisory Committee will be Robert R. Bland, P.E., University Environmental Engineer. A M Management of the CVM Incinerator Replacement Christopher P. Marcella Director of Consultant Design State University Construction Fund P. O. Box 1946 Albany, NY 12201-1946 (518/443-5735) . Franklin M. Loew, DVM, Ph.D. Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schurman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/253-3771) Larry J. Thompson, DVM, Ph.D. Director of Biosafety Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine D2 005 Diagnostic Lab Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/253-3966) Robert R. Bland, P.E. University Environmental Engineer Environmental Compliance Office Cornell University Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/255-6643) Gregg F. Travis Director, Statutory Office for Capital Facilities Cornell University 134 Surge III Ithaca, NY 14853 (607/255-7784) TOWN OF - DRAF1 CONSERVATION SOMD JULY 18, 1996 PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Lois Levkan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Loren Tauer, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations; Bob Bland, Environmental Engineer for Cornell University; John Himes, Project Manager from Stems & Wheeler; Liz Vastbinder, Project Manager for Cornell University; Rob McCabe, Project Engineer for Cornell University. Chair Zarrieilo opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Richard Fischer stated that Nancy Ostman from the Cornell Plantations, is the coordinator for natural arras. She is very farrilar with the natural areas that Cornell owns. She is particularly concerned, along with other people who are members are of the Natural Areas Committee, about the future of the South Hill Swamp, especially in view of the development going on around it. She would like to see the South Hill Swamp changed to a Critical Environmental Area rather than just an unique natural area. Ms. Ostman stated that Candace Cornell (Chairperson for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board) suggested that she come to the Conservation Board to suggest that the unique natural areas in the Town of Ithaca be changed to Critical Environmental Areas such as Coy Glen is. The South Hill Swamp is probably one of Comeells most fascinating natural areas. It definitely has rare vegetation and many endemic species, that are only at South Hill Swamp and no where else in the area. The closest place with similar characteristics would be the Long Island area or the coastal plains. It probably is a geological remainder of vegetation that has been left for ages, and the theory is that when glaciers were coming across the hills in Ithaca, this one spot was spared. There is a wide variety of vegetation in this area. It is a very shallow base on a hill top that is very shallow to bedrock. There are some places where the bedrock is exposed, and there is a wet area in the middle of the basin called the South Hill Swamp. Around the rim is a raised area then the hill drops off to the sides all around, and the rim is very dry. Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow, so it is very wet in the winter and the spring. There is a list of rare plants, and the area itself is totally unique. The South Hill Swamp is behind Ithaca College at the crest of East King Road. Hospicare is right behind it on East King Road. The total area that is unusual vegetation is probably closer to 100 acres, and the key critical area is probably 50 acres. The Committee has been concerned about protection from development and anything that threatens the face of the area. Cornell owns about half of the really critical area at this point, which is about 45 acres. Ithaca College owns a track of land adjacent to the east side of the Monkemeyer parcel which has truly wonderful vegetation, and that site should be protected. There are wet springy areas that have rare species in them that are locally scarce. On the Monkemeyer property, 100 feet would be enough for the buffer. For the parcels to the north, a larger buffer than 100 feet would be needed. To the east near Deer Run, Ed AP CONSERVAT90N BOARD MINUTES 2 JULY 18, 1996 Hoberg and his associates donated a big piece of land to Cornell, which would serve as a buffer on that side. The zoning through this area is R-15, so I would not expect large scale condominiums, but it could be very dense. Mr. F Scher handed out some information about this proposal, and Ms. Ostman is willing to answer any questions that anyone may have with regards to this proposal. Ms. Hoffrrrann asked if Ithaca College and Cornell University are in agreement on how to treat this piece of land? Ms. Ostman stated that Cornell University has tried to buy the Ithaca College property a couple times, but they have not been willing to sell. They have been master planning a road coming from King Road as an alternate entrance to the larger parcel. At this point, they are not seriously considering that, but they have been untying to part with what they consider a potential road into the Ithaca College property. Cornell wed still be happy to buy it from them if Ithaca College were willing to sell, but we have not had that option. Cornell has asked Ithaca College to declare this a natural area, but they have refused to do that and they would like to reserve their options on it. Ms. Hoffmann asked if this is already part of the FMC's list of special areas? Ms. Cornish responded, yes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they can disregard that completely? Ms. Ostman responded, no, but it gives another level of protection for the Town to declare it a Critical Environmental Area. Ms. Cornish stated that a Critical Environmental Area triggers SEOR review automatically and it goes to the interested and involved agencies. Chair Zarriello stated that the Conservation Board should draft a resolution for the next meeting to pass onto the Town Board for recommendation, and then Ms. Ostman could give a presentation to the Town Board. Bob Bland stated that on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, a presentation was given to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for Sketch Plan review. When Cornell writes the Environmental Impact Statement, they will focus on a design that has some input from the Planning Board and the Conservation Board. A building permit can only be issued after site plan approval. There also has to be a zoning amendment passed because this use would not be an allowed use in this zone (Business District E)I. At this point, Cornell has purchased 1000 East Shore Drive which is approximately 18 acres (approximately 4 acres on the west side of Route 34 and the remainder being on the east side). Cornell is in the middle of CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JULY 18, 1996 writing their Environmental Impact Statement with the third year of data from the lake this summer to supplement the data that has been taken in the past years. Cornell is planning to submit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Lead Agency by the end of this year, which is the DEC. The formal process is, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would be issued for public comment when the Lead Agency believes it is complete and ready for public comment. Cornell will have sections available prior to that for a more informal review. Our intent tonight is not to talk about the lake ecology, because we have discussed it in detail three or four times before. The real intent is to go over the site plan portion of the project. The heat exchanger facility, located near the shore of the lake, will cool the water that comes from campus to 45 degrees. The chilled water will return to campus to serve the cooling needs. Cornell will be replacing most of the chillers on campus that exist now. We will take lake water that is always 40 degrees at a depth of 200 fes, circulate it once through a heat exchanger, and then discharge it near the surface at 55 degrees. Some of the year this will be cooler than the discharge, and some of the year it M be warmer. We have to go approximately two miles out from the heat exchanger facility to get 200 feet of depth, so approximately 10,000 feet of pipe will be laid for that. We are focusing a lot on the Environmental Impact Statement and on some other issues that have potential significance. We are working with consultants for the main generator, studying the data. We are waling wth the Center For The Environment and with four facility members who are reviewing that data independently. We have identified several potential impacts such as phosphorus translocation that may have an impact on plant growth, but we do not believe it is significant. In treatment of mysis, an important main part of the food chain for juvenile lake trout, we are working on protective measures. We may propose using a light which mysids are very sensitive to, so they will avoid the area of intake. We are studying this at this point. There are a couple other potential impacts, which most people consider the thermal impact. We are doing a complete thermal model, very specific to the epilimnion. The only other potential environmental impact would be zebra muscle control. We are addressing ways to control muscles from collecting at the pipe ends. Some of these methods may be utilized having a potential environmental impact on the lake. This will all be discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The potential impacts and the mitigation measures will be addressed at that time. Comell is looking towards December 1996 to complete the Draft Environmental Impact Statement after more summer and fall studies are completed. This would probably not be released until 1997. The general project schedule is to have the Environmental Impact Statement finished in 1997, and get the pemvds from the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, and go into final design and construction for 1998. Comell's time line would be to have this up and running in the year 2000. L'¢ Vastbinder referred to a map to show the location of the proposed Cornell Lakes Source Cooling heat exchange building on 1000 East Shore Drive. She then pointed out the path of the pipe line for the Conservation Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JULY 16, 1996 Ms. Cornish asked if installation of the pipes and the street improvements would be done at the same time? Ms. Vastbinder responded that they would be done at the same time. NYSEG is working on replacing some pipe lines under the overpass at the present time. They are replacing some of their pipes now in anticipation of where the pipe line goes, so they do not have to move them or replace them at the time we come through. ChairZarrielo stated that the pipe line route on the maps supplied to each Conservation Board Member shows some of the pipe above ground and some of the pipe below ground. Ms. Vastbinder stated that when Cornell first came up with the drawings that were supplied, they anticipated having the pipe above ground. We had discussions with the Department of Transportation, and their reactions were that Cornell could not put those pipes above ground because a vehicle could go off Route 13 and hit the pipes, so Cornell decided to bury them. We are still in negotiation with the schools on several different proposals, and they are trying to decide what is going to work best for them. Chair Zarrielo stated at previous meetings there was talk about expansion tanks along the pipe line route. Mr. Bland stated that there would be two isolation valve sites. They would isolate various sections. One would be at Fall Creek, and the other would be on campus. Rob McCabe stated that there would be some additional need for expansion tanks within the system itself, and the plan is to actually locate them inside the existing two water plants on campus to handle additional hydrologic volume. Mr. Fischer asked how deep the pipes would be in the ground. Ms. Vastbinder stated that they would be three feet deep. It will allow vegetation to grow on the top of the surface. The pipes are 42 inches around and 314 inch thick. Ms. Cornish stated that the water is not stagnant at any time, so the danger of freezing is probably not a concern because it is constantly flowing. Ms. Val stated that is true. Cornell would need the cooling in the winter for the research labs and computer rooms. The system would be on line year round. Lois Levitan asked what would be the public access to the boat marina. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the area will continue to be leased to the marina. Cornell may be willing to consider, in the future, a park space near the marina. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 18, 1996 Mr. Bland stated that the building would be on the east side of the road and there would be various pipe lines going across the road, and then under the north side of the marina property. The development that Cornell is proposing does not include any use at all for a park set aside. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be any changes to the marina at this point and time. Ms. Levitan asked how long does the lease last. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it is a 25 year lease that is renewable each year. All parties sit down at a table to discuss the terms of the lease, which is always open for negotiation. Ms. Hoffmann stated that during the discussions with the Planning Board and prior discussions with this Board, she never envisioned asking to have that whole piece of land as a park. She does not think that people who love to use boats will necessarily feel that they can no longer use boats at this location. Ms. Vastbinder stated that George Hascup designed the building for Cornell. The designs show how the building is seen from the lake and views around the proposed building site. Cornell decided to put the whole facRy on one side of the mad. This parcel is surrounded by gorges, one of each side. We placed the building in the middle of the gorges because the pipes would be tunneling under the road to bring the pipes out to the lake for the appropriate depths. The pipes would need to be at lake level. There is bedrock on the corner of the building that would need to removed to do that. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes enters the building 40 feet below grade. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, because of the grade and the slope of the land. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the pipes are buried from the building out to the water, would they be lake level at that stretch. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they would need to blast it. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. There might be some blasting on the slope area behind the building because there is bedrock in that location. The parking lot for the building would be large enough for a school bus to get in and for traffic to come in to turn around. The parking area is going to be a self contained area, which would have a drainage and two shut off values in case of emergency. The building is going to be 90 feet by 130 feet. We designed it for a working ramp on the side of the building. We anticipate putting in a window so people could look inside to see what is going on. Cornell anticipates that there would be some children who would be touring through the facilities. There would be a grass walkway on the side of the building with another viewing window. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 18, 1996 Mr. Bland stated that there might be some chemicals used for cleaning the heat exchanger. There may be chemicals used to control the muscles, but Cornell has not designed what kind of muscle control system it would be. There are some options or alternatives for muscle control that would involve chemicals. Comet will have it all laid out in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, type of chemicals, how to store them, and what kind of continuance. Cornell is trying to avoid chemicals for the lake, so they are looking at all reasonable alternatives. Chair Zarriello asked what type of materials are proposed for the building. Ms. Vastbirxler stated that the building will be poured concrete. The west and south side will be textured. Cornell is discussing types of masonry block. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be visible from Route 34. Ms. Vastbinder stated that as people pass the building on Route 34, there will be minimal visibility because of the steep hi in ftnt of it. The building sits 80 feet back from the center line of the road. The berm will block most of the building. Ms. Cornish asked if the grading on the gorge side is already down where the existing access road is. Ms. Vasd*xler stated that there will be little additional grading. There is not much visual impact because of the way Cornell proposes to place the building back in the hill side. There will be some trees added to the site to blend it in with the rest of the surrounding parcels. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipe line goes up to the existing railroad grade where there has been talk of a greenway. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell has talked to the Department of Transportation, and because of the sharpness of the carve by the Route 13 overpass, the property owner was not real receptive to that idea. Mr. McCabe stated that the railroad right-of-way to the south of the plant goes into private property. Ms. Hohmann stated that the Lansing trail system goes along part of the railroad row in Lansing. Some years ago there was talk about getting this right-of-way for continuation for the trail from Lansing to Ithaca. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the County investigated this in their trail transportation study. Mr. Bland stated that in discussions with Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter, he stated that the greenway would be more appropriate down by the road perhaps along the lake. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she thinks it would be nice, in connection with this work being done, if a skdewak were built between the High School, the Junior High School, Youth Bureau and Stewart Park. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that there has been some discussions with the Department of Transportation, and they were very receptive to that idea. The issue came up of once the sidewalks are put in who is going to maintain them. At that point, there would need to be an agreement between the Department of Transportation and the Town of Ithaca on who will be maintaining those sidewalks. Department of Transportation Grid not have a problem with the sidewalks being proposed, but the issue of who maintains them would need to be worked out first. Ms. Cornish stated that she has received phone calls with regards to a sidewalk in this areafor students. She has asked the callers to submit letters to the Town Board requesting a sidewalk be constructed. Ms. Le itan asked what steps have been taking to have this happen. Does the Town say that they would maintain the sidewalk. Ms. Comish stated that the taxpayers in the Town of Ithaca need to put pressure on the Town Board to address this issue. If it is an issue of who will maintain the sidewalk perhaps the Town Board will not be in favor of this idea for now, but it would be the way to get a discussion started. Mr. Bland stated that to some degree the sidewalks are addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell is trying to address issues and find out what people want, so they will know what to look for. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the soil on top of the pipe will be warmer than typical soil in this area and that if a sidewalk were built directly over this pipe, would it perhaps not need so much care from the snow and ice in the winter. Mr. Bland stated that there would not be any measurable change. The pipes will be insulated in the ground and be at ground temperature. Chair Zarriello asked how much excavation is anticipated and where do they plan to put it all. Mr. Bland stated that it would be covered in the Environmental Impact Statement. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipes coming in and out of the lake will be buried. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, at the waters edge. Mr. Bland stated that it will be buried from the building under the road, and at the lake shore. It will not actually emerge from the lake bottom until there is ten feet of water. Ms. Cornish asked what the depth of the pipe would be at the lake shore. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 JULY 18, 1996 Mr. McCabe stated that where it enters the lake it has approximately 10 feet of cover. Ms. Cornish stated that it might be helpful to draw a section through the lake, across the road, to the building, and up the hill side. Ms. Vastbinder stated that those drawings were done last week. Chair Zarriello asked if the two isolated shut off vahres require any structure. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell anticipates placing them in man holes. The route that is being negotiated with the school district shows a man hole in the parking lot on Lake Street. Mr. Bland stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be inventorying vegetation being disturbed. There will be a complete inventory of what trees need to be removed. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there is a maple tree that is in the Department of Transportation right-of-way where Finger Lakes Wrecker Service is on East Shore Drive. The Department of Transportation said they wanted the large tree down because they do not want any large trees in the right-of-way. The property owner wants the tree there, so we have drawn the pipe line around the tree. Chair Zarriello asked what is the schedule on this project. Ms. Cornish stated that the presentation to the Planning Board was a discussion on Sketch Plan review. The next step is Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Ms. Vastbinder stated that once Cornell has approval from the DEC, then they will submit their Preliminary Site Plans which will include the pipe route within the Town of Ithaca. Chair Zarriello asked if the building will be large enough to meet all the exchange facility needs that Comell is projecting. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes. Cornell is building Chiller #S, to hold us to the year 2000 because the Vet Hospital came on, so the Chiller will go in this summer and be on line next summer. This pipe line would tie into the middle of campus some where near the Arts Quad and tie into the center of the existing distribution system. There is not a whole lot that needs to be done, and once Cornell is tied in, they will start deconditioning the plant on Beebe Lake. There are three chilled water plants on Beebe Lake. These chillers could be converted to ozone friendly chemicals refrigerants. Cornell would be using these for peaking. MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Levitan stated that there was a letter from John Whitcomb regarding Saddlewood Farms in September 1995. She asked if Landmark America was not in front of the Planning Board last Tuesday. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Hoffmann stated that was correct. Ms. Cornish stated that there has been a lot reports on the radio, but all that happened in the Planning Department was that Landmark America called and asked if they could be post -phoned for determination of significance because they could not send a representative from Landmark America. COORDINATOR A CHAIR REPORT: Chair Zarriello stated that the New York State Association of Conservation Advisory Council will be having their 25th Jubilee on October 18-20, 1996. It will be in Fishkill with guests such as Governor Patald, Mary Tyler Moore, Peter Bruell, and Michael Sagota. There is money in the budget for anyone that would like to attend. I have talked to Christiann Dean on several occasions regarding the Saddlewood Development, and she has met with her iamting Mends on this issue. Some farmers are very much against this sort of transition of agricultural ural land, and some are for the proposal. The bigger issue is for developing better guidelines with the Town as to how farm land should be developed. There are a lot of questions that were raised, specifically how to pay for development rights and other types of mechanisms that protect farmers financial interests as well as maintain the Town's interest in keeping lands in farming or as open space. What I would like to propose is a committee that can work with Christiann Dean and the farming cotmwnity to try and scope out what needs to be addressed. From that scoping it should be developed into a concrete plan for future development, and followed it up with a proposed Town Law. This committee should involve various members of different Boards. The Conservation Board had a discussion on this issue and were all in agreement for drafting a letter for various Boards and Committees for member participation. Ms. Cornish stated that there has been some interest in another person joining the Conservation Board, Diane DeMuth has submitted a letter to the Town Board with a resume. Peter Salmon decided he was over committed, but would like to come from time to time, but not as a member. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the resolution for the South Hill Swamp, and to have a walk through with various members of different Boards. Chair Zarriello stated that he went to the Town Board Meeting on July 15, 1996. They unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the Vet Incinerator Project be given a positive environmental declaration. The Town Board asked for written comments. He will write his comments for the record, and submit a copy to Board Members for review and additional comments. View Shed Committee - No report. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 JULY 18, 1996 Environmental Review Committee - Ms. Hohmann asked if the Conservation Board Members want to hand these second drafts of the ERC comm is in regards to the Saddlewood Farms Development to the Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals as it is addressed. The Board was in agreement to send the draft to all three Boards. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the comments should be from the Conservation Board and the ERC, and she would like to see comments back before August 1 st. The Board was in agreement to send the draft from both the Conservation Board and the ERC. Ms. Hoffmann stated that would be enough time because the Saddlewood Farms will be at the August 20th Planning Board meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Cornish stated that Valley Comers II Convenient Store and Gas Station (the old Bell's Convenient Store on Route 13/Elmira Road), that when the construction began on the road the tenant decided that he was not going to continue as a convenient store. It is now back before the Board because the owner came in for change of use for offices which prompted a building permit which prompted site plan review, so now they are back in front of the Planning Board so they can resume the use as a convenient store. The larger issue is the traffic generation and curb cuts. The Babcock subdivision on Culver Road was approved by the Planning Board. The land was given to Cornell University. Long House Cooperative will be coming before the Planning Board for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. There are two extensions. They had an originally Approved Site Plan showing the building as it currently exists and now they are going to put extensions on either end. There should be no environmental impacts of this project. Approval of Minutes - Will be done at the August 1, 1996 meeting. Chair Zarriello closed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. DRAFTED by Debby Kelley on July 29, 1996. Jim .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 P.M., Thursday, September 19, 1996 :: ............... ...............................................................................................................:: .................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................. 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. Approval of Minutes: (5/4/95, 6/1/95, 8/3/95, 6/6/96 revised, 7/18/96, 8/1/96, received for 9/5/96 CB Meeting) (9/5/96, 9/7/95 - enclosed) 8:30 p.m. 2. Adjournment (File Name: Starr/Stuff/CBStuff/Notices/09-19-96.agd) TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 PRESENT: Chair Phillip Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs. Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. MINUTES APPROVAL: MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of September 5, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 5, the middle of the paragraph where it states "The Ithaca Journal is supporting Cornell's move.", should read "An editorial in the Ithaca Journal showed apparent support for the Cornell University Project." Page 5, at the bottom of the paragraph where it states "Cornell should prepare a management immunization plan before a project is planned.", should read "Cornell should prepare a management minimization plan before a project is planned." Page 2, in the middle of the first paragraph where it states "Pathological Regulating Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies.", should read "Pathological Regulated Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies." Page 1, ABSENT shall be added with Lois Levitan. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of August 1, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 2, in the sentence of the third paragraph it should read "Ms. Tierney will be helping out with the Conservation Board." ::. CONSERVATION BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 7, 1996 Page 1, ABSENT shall be added with Loren Tauer. Page 1, in the middle of the sixth paragraph where it states "This is far as Saddlewood Farms hot in the process.", should read "This is as far as Saddlewood Farms has gotten in the process." Page 4, in the middle of the first paragraph the name Phil McUben should be replaced with Bill McGiben. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Tauer. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of July 18, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. Page 1, in the middle of the first paragraph under Persons to be Heard should read "along with other people who are members of the Natural Areas Committee". Page 1, in the second paragraph under Persons to be Heard where it states "The closest other place that it would be found would be the Long Island area or the coastal plains.", should read "The closest other place that would be found would be on Long Island or the coastal plains." Page 3, bottom paragraph and thereafter change Bob Land to Bob Bland. Page 2, the first paragraph which states "Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow,. so it is very wet in the winter and the spring.", should read "The swamp is typically dry in the fall and summer, but it is very wet in the winter and the spring." Page 4, in the last paragraph it reads mice, which should read mysis. Page 5, in the first paragraph it should read zebra muscles instead of just muscles. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Smith, Tauer. CONSERVATION BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 7. 1996 The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Mr. Tauer to approve the Minutes of June 6, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Ms. Smith. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve the Minutes of August 3, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Tauer. Last page, in the middle of the first paragraph where it states "There is no Town ordinance attain clearing land", should read "There is no Town ordinance against clearing land". A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve Minutes of June 1, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. Page 3, in the middle of the page where it states "Alienation of parkland status and this normally does not happen unless other land is available.", should read "Alienation of parkland status is not normally done, and this does not happen unless other land is available." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. r CONSERVATION BOARD 4 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 APPROVED - NOVEMBER 7. 1996 MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve Minutes of May 4, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 2, last paragraph where it states "Compose available weekdays", should read "Compost available weekdays". Page 4, in the second paragraph where it states "Mr. Frantz will peak at the next meeting.", should read "Mr. Frantz will speak at the next meeting." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. First page, ABSENT should be added with Richard Fischer and Jon Meigs. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion was declared to be carried. Chair Zarriello read a letter addressed to Dean Loew. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on how to modify the letter. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting. 9 •. PRESENT: Phil Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Loren Tauer, Cheryl Smith, Jon Meigs. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations; Bob Land, Environmental Engineer for Cornell University; John Himes, Project Manager from Sterns & Wheeler; Liz Vastbinder, Project Manager for Cornell University; Rob McCabe, Project Engineer for Cornell University. Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. PERSONS TO BE HEARD: Richard Fischer stated that Nancy Ostman from the Cornell Plantations, is the coordinator for natural areas. She is very familiar with the natural areas that Cornell owns. She is particularly, concerned, along with other people who are members are of the Natural Areas Committee, about the future of the South Hill Swamp, especially in view of the development going on around it. She would like to see the South Hill Swamp changed to a Critical Environmental Area rather than just an unique natural area. Ms. Ostman stated that Candace Cornell (Chairperson of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board) suggested that she come to the Conservation Board with the notion that all the unique natural areas in the Town of Ithaca should be Critical Environmental Areas such as Coy Glen is. The South Hill Swamp is probably one of Cornell's most fascinating natural areas. It definitely has rare vegetation. It has many endemic species. They are only at South Hill and no where else in the area. The closest other place that it would be found would be the Long Island area or the coastal plains. It probably is a geological remainder of vegetation that has been left for ages, and the theory is that when glaciers. were coming across the hills in Ithaca, this one spot was spared. There are a wide variety of vegetation in this area. It is a very shallow base up on a hill top that is very shallow to bedrock. There are some places where the bedrock is exposed, and there is a wet area in the middle of the basin called the South Hill Swamp. Around the rim is a raised area then the hill drops off to the sides all around, and the rim is very dry. Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow, so it is very wet in the winter and the spring. There is a list of rare plants, but not only are there rare plants that it is totally a rare area of what that land is. The South Hill Swamp is behind Ithaca College at the crest of East King Road. Hospicare is right behind it on East King Road. The total area that is unusual vegetation is probably closer to 100, and the key critical area is probably is 60 acres. The Committee has been concerned about protecting from development and anything that threatens the face of the area. Cornell owns about half of the really critical area at this point, which is about 45 acres. Ithaca College owns a track of land right adjacent to the east side of the Monkemeyer parcel which has truly wonderful vegetation, and that site should be protected. There are wet springy areas that have rare species in them that are locally scarce. On the Monkemeyer property, a 100 feet would be enough for the buffer. The parcels to.the north, a bigger buffer than 100 feet would be needed. To the east near Deer Run, Ed Holberg and his associates donated a big piece of land to Cornell, which would serve as a buffer on that side. The zoning through this area is R-15, so I would not expect large scale condominiums, but it could be very dense. Eva Hoffmann stated that the Monkemeyer parcel is zone R-30. JoAnn Cornish stated that it is zoned R-30 and R-15, and there were some multiple residence zones in there. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in previous minutes, Mr. Monkemeyer was proposing to have R-15 setbacks on R-30 lots, so he would be able to spread one story houses. Ms. Cornish said she would need to check into that for more details. Mr. Fischer handed out some information about this proposal, and Ms. Ostman is willing to answer any questions that anyone may have in regards to this proposal. Ms. Hoffmann asked if Ithaca College and Cornell University cooperate on how to treat this piece of land? CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Ostman stated that Cornell University has tried to buy the Ithaca College property a couple times, but they have not been willing to sell. They have been master planning a road coming from King Road as an alternate entrance to the larger parcel. At this point, they have not seriously considering that, but they have been unwilling to part with what they consider a potential road into the Ithaca College property. Cornell would still be happy to buy it from them if Ithaca College were willing to sell, but we have not had that option. Cornell has asked Ithaca College to declare this a natural area, but they have refused to do that and they would like to reserve their options on it. Ms. Hoffmann asked if this is already part of the EMC's list of special areas? Ms. Cornish responded, yes. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they can disregard that completely? Ms. Ostman responded, no, but it gives another level of protection -for the Town to declare it a Critical Environmental Area. Ms. Cornish stated that a Critical Environmental Area triggers SEQR review automatically and it.goes to the interested involved agencies. Chair Zarriello stated that the Conservation Board should draft a resolution for the next meeting to pass onto the Town Board for recommendation, and then Ms. Ostman could give a presentation to the Town Board. CORNELL LAKES SOURCE COOLING - UPDATE: Bob Land stated that on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, there was a presentation done for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for Sketch Plan review. When Cornell writes the Environmental Impact Statement, they are focused on the design that has some input from the Planning Board and the Conservation Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JULY 18, 1996 The Planning Board does have to issue a building permit concurrent with site plan review, and there also has to be a zoning amendment passed because this use would not be allowed without a zoning amendment for this parcel. At this point, that Cornell has purchased 1000 East Shore Drive which is approximately 18 acres (approximately 4 acres on the west side of Route 34 and the remainder being on the east side). Cornell is in the middle of writing their Environmental Impact Statement with the third _,year of data from the lake this summer to supplement the data that has been taken in the past years. We are planning to submit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Lead Agency by the end of this year, which is the DEC. The formal process is, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would be issued for public comment when the Lead Agency believes it is complete and ready for formal comment. Cornell will have sections available prior to that for a more informal review. Our intent tonight is not to talk about the lake ecology, because we have discussed it in detail three or four times before. The real intent is to go over this portion of the project. The heat exchanger facility located near the shore of the lake will cool down the new chilled water loop that goes from campus down to be cooled at 45 degrees where it goes up to serve the cooling needs where Cornell will be placing most of the chillers on campus that exist now. We will take lake water that is always 40 degrees within 200 feet down circulating once through a heat exchanger,, and then discharge near the surface at 55 degrees. Some of the year that would be cooler than the discharge, and some of it will be replace of the discharge and sometimes it would be warmer. We have to go approximately two miles out in the heat exchanger facility to get the 200 feet deep, so it would be approximately 10,000 feet of pipe that we will lay for that. We are focusing on a lot of the Environmental Impact Statement and on some of the quite issues that have potential significance, and we are working with the consultants for the main generator studying the data. We are working with the center for the environment with four facility members to review that data independently. We have identified several potential impacts such as phosphorus translocation where it might be more available in the floating zone, and it might have an impact on plant growth if it was significant, but we do not believe it is. In treatment of mice, they special order shrimp that is a main portion of the food chain. It looks like that some potential, so we are working on mitigative measures to avoid shrimp. We may propose a light which would the shrimp avoids light, so the light would have them avoid the area of intake. We are studying this at this point. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JULY 18, 1996 There are a couple other impacts, which most people consider the thermal impact. We are doing a complete thermal model of very specific to the alp region and looking at the lake light impacts, which should not show any significance. The only other potential environmental impact would be muscle control, and we are addressing ways we might have to keep muscles from collecting at the pipe ends for plugging them. Some of these methods may be utilized with potential environmental impact on the lake. This would all be discussed and hopefully adequate with completeness in the Environmental Impact Statement by looking at what the potential impacts are and what mitigation measures that may be required. Cornell is looking towards December 1996 to have the Draft Environmental Impact Statement after more summer and fall studies to be complete. This would probably not be released for complete until 1997. The general project schedule is to have the Environmental Impact Statement finished in 1997, and get the permits from the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, and go into final design and construction for 1998. Cornell's time line would be to have this up and running in the year 2000. Liz Vastbinder pointed out on a map where the location of the proposed Cornell Lakes Source Cooling Project for the heat exchange building would be on 1000 East'Shore Drive. She then pointed out the path of the pipe line for the Conservation Board. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes and the street improvements would be done at the same time? Ms. Vastbinder responded that they would be done at the same time. NYSEG is working on replacing some pipe lines under the overpass at the present time. They are replacing some of their pipes now in anticipation where the pipe line goes, so they do not have to move them or replace them at the time we come through. Chair Zarriello stated that the pipe line route on the maps supplied to each Conservation Board Member shows some of the pipe above ground and some of the pipe below ground. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that when Cornell first came up with the first drawings that were supplied, they anticipated having the pipe above ground. We had discussions with the Department of Transportation, and their first reactions were that Cornell could not put those pipes above ground because a vehicle could go off Route 13 and hit the pipes. So then Cornell decided to bury them. We are still in negotiation with the schools on several different proposals, and they are trying to decide what is going to work best for them. Chair Zarriello stated at previous meetings there were talks about expansion tanks along the pipe line route. Mr. Land stated that there would be two isolation valve sites. They would isolate various sections. One would be at Fall Creek, and the other would be on campus. Rob McCabe stated that there would be some additional need for expansion tanks within the system itself, and the plan is to actually locate them inside the current two water plants on campus to handle additional hydrologic volume. Mr. Fischer asked how deep the pipes would be in the ground. Ms. Vastbinder stated that they would be three feet deep. It will allow vegetation to grow on the top of the surface. The pipes are 42 inches around and 3/4 inch thick. Ms. Cornish stated that the water is not segmented at any time, so the danger of freezing is probably not a real important issue because it is constantly flowing. Ms. Vastbinder stated that is true. Cornell would need the cooling in the winter for the research labs and computer rooms. The system would be on line year round. Lois Levitan asked what would be the public access to the boat marina. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 7 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that the area is under lease to the people that were there before, and that would be an ongoing concern for a while. Cornell maybe willing to consider, for the future, for a park space near the marina. Mr. Land stated that the building would be on the east side of the road and there would be various pipe lines going across the road, and then under the north side of the marina property. The development that Cornell is proposing does not include any use at all for a park set aside. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be any changes to the marina at this point and time. Ms. Levitan asked how long does the lease last. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it is a 25 year lease that is renewable each year. All parties sit down at a table to discuss the terms of the lease, which is always open for negotiation. Ms. Hoffmann stated that during the discussions with the Planning Board and discussions with this Board before, that she never envisioned asking to have that whole piece of land as a park, so she does not think that people who love to use boats will necessarily feel that they can not use too. Ms. Vastbinder stated that George Hascup designed the building for Cornell. The designs show how the building perspective shown from the lake and views around the proposed building site. Cornell decided to put the wholefacility on one side of the road.. This parcel is surrounded by gorges, one of each side. We placed the building in the middle of the gorges because the pipes would be tunneling under the road to bring the pipes out to the lake for the appropriate depths. The pipes would need to be at lake level. There is bedrock on the comer of the building that would need to removed to do that. Ms. Cornish asked if the pipes enters the building 40 feet below grade. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, because of the grade and the slope of the land. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 8 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Hoffmann asked if the pipes are buried from the building out to the water, would they be lake level at that stretch. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. Ms. Hoffmann asked if they would need to blast it. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no. There might be some blasting on the slope area behind the building because they is bedrock there. The parking lot of the building would be large enough for a school bus to get in and for traffic to come in to turn around. The parking area is going to be a self contain area, which would have a drainage and two shut off values in case of emergency. The building is going to be 90 feet by 130 feet. We designed it for a working ramp on the side of the building. We anticipate putting in,a window so people could look inside to see what is going on. Cornell anticipate that there would be some children who would be touring through the facilities. There would be a grass walkway on the side of the building with another viewing window. Mr. Land stated that there might be some chemicals used for cleaning the heat exchanger. There may be chemicals used to control the muscles, but Cornell has not designed or specify what kind of muscle control system it would be. There are some options or alternatives for muscle control would involve chemicals. Cornell would have it all laid out in the Draft Environmental'lmpact Statement of what chemicals, how to store them, and what kind of continuance. Cornell is trying to avoid chemicals for the lake, so they are looking at all reasonable alternatives. Chair Zarriello asked what materials would be proposed to build the building. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the building would be poured with deep concrete to the roof. The west and south side would be texture. Cornell is discussing how to do masonry block. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be visible from Route 34. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 9 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Vastbinder stated that as people go pass the building on Route 34, there would be minimal visibility because of the steep hill in front of it. The building sets 80 feet back from the center line of the road. The berm would block most of the building. Ms. Cornish asked if the grading on the gorge side is already down where the existing access road is. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there would not be much more grading. There is not much visual impact because of the way Cornell put the building back in the hill side. There would be some trees added to the site to blend in with the rest of the parcels around. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipe line goes up to the existing railroad grade is. Mr. Land stated that the pipe line was changed to the northeast side to the southeast side entrance. Chair Zarriello stated that there was talk about the opportunity for a green way there. Would it interfere with that? Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell has talked to the Department of Transportation about that, because of the sharpness of the curve by the Route 13 over pass which the property owner was not real receptive to that. Chair Zarriello asked if it could be connected at another place along there. Ms. Vastbinder stated that it might be able to if Cornell could get the right-of-way through there. Chair Zarriello asked if north of the parcel, does Lansing have a sewer line or water line there. Ms. Vastbinder responded, no, that they have their sewer treatment plant. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 10 JULY 18, 1996 Mr. McCabe stated that the railroad right-of-way to the south of the plant goes into private property. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Lansing trail system goes along part of it in Lansing, that some years ago there was some talk about getting this right-of-way for continuation for the trail from Lansing to Ithaca. Ms. Vastbinder stated that the County investigated this in their trail transportation study. Mr. Land stated that with discussions with Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter, which he stated that the green way would be more appropriate down by the road perhaps along the lake area. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she thinks it would be nice, in connection with this work being done, is some sidewalk connection between the high school and the junior high school to the youth bureau and the park. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there has been some discussions with the Department of Transportation, and they were very receptive to that idea, but the issue came up of once the sidewalks are put in who are going to maintain them. At that point, there would need to be an agreement between the Department of Transportation and the Town of Ithaca on who will be maintaining those sidewalks. Department of Transportation did not have a problem with the sidewalks being proposed, but the issue of who maintains them would need to be worked out first. Ms. Cornish stated that she has received several phone calls in regards to the sidewalk issue for students walking, and have asked the callers to submit letter to the Town Board requesting a sidewalk to be put in there. Ms. Levitan asked what steps have been taking to have this happen. Does the Town say that they would maintain the sidewalk. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 11 JULY 18, 1996 Ms. Cornish stated that the taxpayers of the Town of Ithaca need to put pressure on the Town Board to address this issue. Because if it is an issue of who would takeover the maintain of it and perhaps the Town Board would not suggest it at this point, but it would be the way to get it going. Mr. Land stated that to some degree the sidewalks are addressed on the Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell is trying address and find out what people want, so they would know what to look for. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the soil on top of the pipe be some what warmer than typical soil in this area that if a sidewalk were built directly over this pipe, would need it perhaps not need so much care from the snow and ice in the winter. Mr. Land stated that there would not be any measurable change. The pipes will be insulated .in the ground and be at ground temperature. Chair Zarriello asked how much excavation would be done and where do they plan to put it all. Mr. Land stated that it would be covered in the Environmental Impact Statement. Chair Zarriello asked if the pipes coming in and out of the lake, it will be buried. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes, at the water edge. Mr. Land stated that it will be buried from the building under the road, at the lake shore it will be buried, and it would not actually emerge from the lake bottom until the lake water has ten feet of water. Ms. Cornish asked what the depth of the pipe would be at the lake shore. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 12 JULY 18, 1996 Mr. McCabe stated that where it enters the lake it has approximately 10 feet of cover. Ms. Cornish stated that it might be helpful to draw a section through the lake, across the road, to the building, and up the hill side. Ms. Vastbinder stated that those drawings were done last week. Chair Zarriello asked if the two isolated shut valves require any structure. Ms. Vastbinder stated that Cornell anticipates placing them in man holes. The route right now as being negotiating with the school district was planned to put a man hole in the parking lot on Lake Street. Mr. Land stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be inventorying pretty much detail of all vegetation being disturbed in putting this pipe line out. There would be a complete inventory of what trees that would need to be removed. Ms. Vastbinder stated that there is one maple tree that is in the Department of Transportation right-of- way where the Finger Lakes Wrecker Service is on East Shore Drive, and the Department of Transportation said they wanted the large tree down because they do not want any large trees in the right-of-way. The property owner wants the tree there, so we have drawn the pipe line around the tree. Chair Zarriello asked what is the schedule on this project. Ms. Cornish stated that the presentation for the Planning Board on Tuesday for just for discussion on the Sketch Plan review. The next step is Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Mr. Land asked if that would be done before the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is complete. Ms. Cornish responded, no, because we are not the Lead Agency. The determination of significance CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 13 JULY 18, 1996 comes from DEC. Ms. Vastbinder stated that once Cornell has approval from the DEC, then they will submit their Preliminary Site Plans which would include the pipe route within the Town of Ithaca. Chair Zarriello asked if the building would be large enough to meet all the exchange facility needs that Cornell is projecting. Ms. Vastbinder responded, yes. Ms. Cornish asked if the time line could be defined again. Mr. Land stated that Cornell is anticipating submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year (December 1996), and the next thing that happens is the DEC reviews it for completeness for the final scoping. After it is reviewed for completeness, the DEC will issue it for 60 days of public comment access. Chair Zarriello asked if the DEC and the involved agencies review it at the same time for completeness. Mr. Land stated that Cornell was planning to submitting it to all involved agencies when they submit it to the DEC and interested parties. The DEC is the only one that does the completeness. After the completeness, it goes out for a draft comments to rewrites if necessary, and then if the draft is accepted for Final Environmental Impact Statement. At that point, each involved agencies that have to issue permits, that they need to write their own findings. Cornell is hoping for next summer to be this point, and then Cornell tries for all permits next summer or fall. Cornell will begin final design of construction until all the permits, right-of-ways, and all the land is all set. Then in 1998, Cornell will be in final design of construction which is approximately a two year period. Cornell is anticipating the year 2000 to be on line. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 14 JULY 18, 1996 Cornell is building Chiller #8, to hold us to the year 2000 because of the Vet Hospital came on, so the Chiller will go in this summer and be on line next summer. This pipe line would tie into the middle of campus some where near the Art squad and tie into the center of the existing distribution system. There is not a whole lot that needs to be done, and once Cornell is tied in, they would start deconditioning the plant on Beebe Lake. There are three chilled water plants on Beebe Lake. These chillers could be converted to ozone friendly chemicals refrigerants. Cornell would be using these for peaking. MEMBER CONCERNS: Ms. Levitan stated that there was a letter from John Whitcomb regarding Saddlewood Farms in September 1995. She asked if Landmark America was not in front of the Planning Board last Tuesday. Ms. Hoffmann stated that was correct. Ms. Cornish stated that there has been a lot reports on the radio, but all that happened in the Planning Department was that Landmark America called and asked if they could be post -phoned for determination of significance because they could not send a representative from Landmark America. COORDINATOR & CHAIR REPORT: Chair Zarriello stated that the New York State Association of Conservation Advisory Council will be having their 25th Jubilee on October 18-20, 1996. It will be in Fishkill with guests such as Governor Pataki, Mary Tyler Moore, Peter Bruell, and Michael Sagota. There will be money in the budget for anyone that would like to attend. I have talked to Christiann Dean several occasions regarding the Saddlewood Development, and she has met with her farming friends on this issue. Some farmers are very much against this sort of transition of agricultural land, and some are for the proposal. The bigger issue is for developing better CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 15 JULY 18, 1996 guidelines with the Town as to how farm should be developed. There are a lot of questions that were raised if the Saddlewood Farm had more answers for, and specifically how to pay for development rights and other types of mechanisms that protect farmers financial interests as well as try to maintain the Town's.interest in keeping these things in farming or as open space. What I would like to propose is a committee that can work with Christiann Dean and the farming community to try and at least scope out what needs to be addressed, and from that scoping it should be developed to more of a concrete plan for future development. Things should be scope out what needs to be addressed and follow it up for a proposed Town Law. This committee should involve various members of different Boards. The Conservation Board had a discussion on this issue and were all 'in agreement for drafting a letter for various Boards and Committees for member participation. Ms. Cornish stated that there has been some interest in another person joining the Conservation Board, Diane DeMuth has submitted a letter to the Town Board with a resume. Peter Salmon decided he was over committed, but would like to come time to time, but not as a member. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the resolution for the South Hill Swamp, and to have a walk through with various members of different Boards. Chair Zarriello stated that he went to the Town Board Meeting on July 15, 1996, which they unanimously passed the resolution requesting that the Vet incinerator Project be given a positive environmental declaration without any input of the full house. The Town Board did ask for written comments as part of the record. He will write his comments for the record, and submit a copy to the Board Members for review and if there would be any additional comments. COMMITTEE REPORTS: View Shed Committee - No report. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 16 JULY 18, 1996 Environmental Review Committee - Ms. Hoffmann asked if the Conservation Board Members want to hand these second drafts of the ERC comments in regards to the Saddlewood Farms Development to the Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals as it is addressed. The Board was in agreement to send the draft to all three Boards. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the comments should be from the Conservation Board and the ERC, and she would like to see comments back before August 1st. The Board was in agreement to send the draft from both the Conservation Board and the ERC. Ms. Hoffmann stated that would be enough time because the Saddlewood Farms will be at the August 20th Planning Board meeting. Ms. Cornish stated that Valley Corners II Convenient Store and Gas Station (the old Bell's Convenient Store on Route 13/Elmira Road), that when the construction began on the road the tenant decided that he was not going to continue as a convenient store. It is now back before the Board because the owner came in for change of use for offices which prompted a building permit which prompted site plan review, so now they are back in front of the Planning Board so they can presume the use as a convenient store. The large issue I see is the traffic generation and curve cuts. The Babcock subdivision on Culver Road was approved by the Planning Board. The subdivision was given to Cornell University. The Long House Cooperative will becoming before the Planning Board for Preliminary and Final CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 17 JULY 18, 1996 Approval. There are two extension, because they had an originally Approved Site Plan showing the building as it currently exists and now they are going to put extensions on either end. There should be no environmental impacts of this project. Approval of Minutes - Will be done at the August 1, 1996 meeting. Chair Zarriello closed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. DRAFTED by Debby Kelley on July 29, 1996. 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, NY 14850 September 19,1996 Franklin M. Loew, D.V.M., Ph.D., Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schurman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Dear Dr. Loew, I would like to recognize and express our appreciation to Robert Bland who attended our last Conservation Board (CB) meeting (Sept. 5, 1996) to update the CB on the status of the Veterinary College incinerator project. We appreciate the effort to better inform the community. The CB would like you to continue to hold the permit process until information is provided to show incineration isthe onlypractical method for disposal of pathological regulated medical waste (PRMW). We expect full and fair consideration be given to alternative disposal methods, and ample opportunity is given for public review of this information before proceeding. The CB is also concerned with Cornell's proposal to build the incinerator first, and then reviewthe incineration of conventional regulated medical waste (CRMW). We feel this would biasthe decision,of howto handle CRMW. There is a growing bodyof evidence to suggest incineration of CRMW is not a desirable disposal method. It would be difficult to fairlyconsider this evidence after 3 million dollars is invested for a new incinerator. The CB feels it would be better to operate the present incinerator, even with its deficiencies, until the community concerns can be addressed. We feel that the sequence of addressing environmental concerns prior to construction, and not after, is important to be credible and ensure the best waste disposal method is chosen. Respectfully, Phillip Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Association /m C 1� 6 "Ib a/ p J &7 QY7 C�tsn /� �`i�5 ago all- i / 7 r(f5CXFYCA,', % � L #C4- rn'J•e V/'' r w i Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes Thursday, June 1, 1995 Approved: 00/00/00 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 FWA 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. Wetland is in all three towns, but part that is on the property appears to be larger that DEC delineation, so on-site . Z delineation is required. Developer is proposing 14 building sites on dry 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/County Park: A Resolution has been sent to all local environmental groups. Land is 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 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 was 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 N 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-laws for approval. The problem is with title, but not with function of interested persons who cooperate with the Conservation Board on projects. Member os 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 planed 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, and this normally 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 0 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 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 ever 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 is an environmental hazard. Town will follow up on this. OTHER OLD BUSINESS: Minutes for December 1, 1994 were adopted. MEMBER CONCERNS: None. Next meeting will be July 6, 1995. Meeting adjourned. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, September 7, 1995 Approved: PRESENT: Chairperson Janet Hawkes, Loren Tauer, Cheryl Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Phillip Zarriello, Mary Russell, JoAnn Cornish (Planner H). 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. 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. srh TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION 7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1996 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE NOTED MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD HAS BEEN CANCELLED. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1996. PLEASE NOTE: A joint meeting of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 19, 1996 at A7:30 p.m. CB Members: Phillip Zarriello Richard Fischer Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs CC: Diane DeMuth Lois Levitan Cheryl Smith Loren Tauer t Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes Thursday, August 3, 1995 Approved: 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. 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 earlier proposal 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 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. 10 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. NEW BUSINESS: Resolution in SuQport 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 .,k 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. 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 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 again 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. Notebooin 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. srh r r' TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Planner JoAnn Cornish. GUESTS: Peter Salmon. Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS CONCERNS: Chair Zarriello - The Conservation Board has a guest, Peter Salmon, who. will be sitting in for the meeting to observe. Peter Salmon - I read about the Conservation Board in the Town Newsletter and the fact that there are some openings. I called JoAnn Cornish for information and she invited me to attend the meeting tonight. Chair Zarriello - In 1990, the Board began as the Conservation Advisory Council. One of the first projects was to put together an Open Space Plan for the Town. At that time it moved the Council into a Board status. The Conservation Board acts as an Advisory Board to the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Environmental Review Committee is the only mandated committee for the Board. The Environmental Review Committee reviews development plans for the Town and comments on the environmental significance. There are several other committees such as the Viewshed Committee and the Environmental Atlas Committee which are part of the Conservation Board. COORDINATORS REPORT: Planner JoAnn Cornish - The Vet School Incinerator Project at Cornell University: There were several letters written to the DEC, including Town Supervisor Cathy Valentino's, concerning this project. The Planning Department received an anonymous letter pleading for people to become involved in this project. There was also a letter about Cornell's proposed medical waste incinerator which outlines some of the concerns. It also has attached addresses to write a letter if anybody would like. I think all the responses and concerns are certainly leading to a more in-depth look at this project. Chair Zarriello -.In 1992, this Board got a proposal from the Construction Fund to rebuild the Cornell Vet School incinerator. The scope of the project was to revamp what already existed. Since that time, the Board responded and never heard back from them. The County EMC and other groups also responded and did not receive a reply. Recently, Ruth Mahr; President of the Forest Home Association, has spear headed the drive to see what is going on. There has been some conflicting information. There was an engineering CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 JUNE 6,1996 report that was produced at some point that the Town had never seen, and the Mark Wysaki from Cornell who is an Air Pollution Modeler reviewed it, and pointed out numerous flaws in the report. There were responses to his comments that were appropriate. Ruth Mahr found out that they planned to accept medical waste from other facilities such as doctors offices, Cayuga Medical Center, etc.., they were planning to utilize that facility to get rid of medical waste which is well beyond the scope of the original proposal. There was a lot of stuff going on and we never got a direct answer from the involved parties. One of the major concerns was that the State Construction Fund, in their original proposal, gave a negative environmental declaration which means they did not have to follow any of the SEQR process. The only thing they had to go through was the State Permitting process for air discharge. Planner Cornish - The State Construction Fund is exempting themselves from the SEQR process which they have the power to do. Chair Zarriello - Ruth Mahr was coordinating a group of interested parties that will meet June 12, 1996 at 7:30 in the Town Board Room. If there is anyone that is interested in learning more about this and getting involved, I would suggest coming to that meeting. Ms. Levitan - As I understand from the architect that was involved in this project, the existing facility is releasing a lot of matter. In other words, it is not doing a great job. Is the revised plan to do a better job? Is the Forest Home Association also assessing the existing structure? Chair Zarriello - The big trade offs are the stack height versus the aesthetic visual impact. The stack height as proposed is not high enough according to Cornell calculations. The proposed stack is not adequate to meet the dispersion requirements necessary to get rid of the stuff. There was a problem with the new Vet Tower being one foot lower than the proposed stack height, so there would be currents coming off the new building that would interfere with the emission of the stack. The trade off is to have a bigger stack, and many people would not want to see that either. That is why as part of the SEAR process is to look at project alternatives. Mr. Tauer - Where is Cornell proposing to build this new incinerator? Behind the new building? Eva Hoffmann - The earlier proposal Cornell came in with to replace the existing stack was to put the new stack where the existing stack is located in the back of the vet school towards Caldwell Road. Chair Zarriello - There were two letters sent out from the Town: one from myself for the Conservation Board and one from the Town's Planning Department. It is good that the Construction Fund has responded positively because the State would not be in a position to do much. r .-I CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 JUNE 6,1996 Planner Cornish Saddlewood Farms is a large development rental housing that is being proposed for. West Hill. There will be a special Planning Board Meeting on June 11, 1996, for a sketch plan presentation from Landmark America. This is going to be a very big project for the Town of Ithaca, and one that is being watched by a lot of groups. This meeting will be an informational meeting, and the Conservation Board might be interested in sitting on the meeting. The Planning Board was made lead agency for this by Town Board recommendation. Chair Zarriello - I had a phone call from Jon Meigs concerning this project, and he felt very strongly about the approach the Planning Board is taken that it is being assessed as a site plan review. The bigger issue is of rezoning agricultural and R-30 to Special Land Use District (SLUD) or a Multiple Residence (MR). These issues should be settled first. Planner Cornish - If this rezoning results in a SLUD, the Town would have some control over what happens there. It would be very specific and would become a Town law where things would be specified as to what exactly could be done there. If it results in MR, it may have a greater density. Ms. Levitan - At the last Board meeting this project was briefly discussed, so I wrote up a memorandum in reference to this project. I did not treat the meeting the other night as a hearing. I was extremely concerned about how the marketing study avoids real issues and am concerned that these untruths could be swallowed by people at the Board meeting. A very poor marketing study was done for this project. The marketing study was based on the concept that the percent of mobility, the number of people who move in a year equal the demand for housing. They took the mobility number and stated that 25% of the income category they are aiming for, tend to move in a given year. But then they said the Tompkins County percentage is much higher. As everyone that lives here knows, the Cornell Student market moves every year, and this is a meaningless error. The figure they use, is the figure that is justifying the building of 276 units in the Town of Ithaca. In fact, most of the people who live in the Town of Ithaca know there is a need for affordable housing to meet the needs of low income Cornell employees. What needs to be done is to look at the real demands and look at the housing market and say "do we really have a demand from the Cornell Community that want to live close'. The Town and the County Planning Departments need to do a demand based affordable housing needs survey. The other concerning point was that there are a couple agencies within the County that are concerned about the affordable housing issues. After discussions with Cathy Valentino, Mary Russell, and others, I am unsure if there has been any coordination about the Town's needs for affordable housing. Has there been any kind of demand survey? There has not been as far as any of these people know. I am really concerned that the affordable housing issue is being jumped on without knowing if this type of affordable housing is actually needed. The agricultural issue is another concern. A member of the Agricultural District Board (the CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 JUNE 6, 1996 agricultural district law does not actually protect agriculture, it is a farmers protection law) stated that farming is tough here. It is true that the amount of land that is used for agriculture in the Northeast is declining and the reserve of agricultural products have decreased in the past decade. I have recently been seeing data that agricultural reserves have gone down in this nation and are at a frightening low level. In the long run, as we are talking about agricultural land and land use, there will be a shortage of agricultural lana and people need to be concerned. Grain reserves in the United States are at their'lowest level. Projections of the U.S. ability to export grain are way down. I think some of the laws that were put into place and some thinking about the land were because people were thinking about agriculture. I think if the Conservation Board, whose. charge is to think through long term planning, really needs to say something about the long term needs for agricultural lands in the Northeast the impact on it. The argument is the land surrounding this proposal (Saddlewood) is no longer agricultural land. Alfred Eddy sold the 280 -acre large parcel across the road from this proposed project to EcoVillage with the idea that it would be continued in agriculture. There is a lot of unsettling differences about this project. What can the Town do about these issues? am not denying that there is not a need a for affordable housing, but my feeling is that this scale is really questionable. The many people who work at Cornell and travel long distances, do so because they want to. No one can deny the fact that Cornell has many people who do not live close by and say that there is a demand that is not being met. I think that one thing the Conservation Board might want to do, both in dealing with this and other similar kinds of proposals, is to start some dialogues in the community about is big better. The sense that I got from the Town Board is that there is something golden about growth. I think it would be good for this Board to do is a visioning process and talk to people about what they like about living in the Town of Ithaca. Planner Cornish - Ms. Levitan is right, the Town does not have a correct definition for affordable housing. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision was approved on June 4, 1996, by the Planning Board for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. One of their catch phrases was affordable housing, and the Planning Board asked what is affordable. There is no current definition, and the Planning Staff is looking into this. Saddlewood Farms is also proposed to be a gated community which means it will have some security, and probably a gate and credit card system to get into the development. I think it changes the character of the development and in my opinion it would be some what out of character for the Town of Ithaca. On Tuesday, June 11, 1996, the Planning Board will be discussing the Saddlewood Farms project, and members of the Conservation Board are welcome to come. The Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision did get Preliminary Subdivision Approval and is scheduled for Final Subdivision Approval on June 18, 1996. Cayuga Vista is another subdivision on South Hill that was presented to the Planning Board on June 4, 1996. This is a small 9 -lot subdivision with a wetland on the property. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 JUNE 6,1996 The portion with the wetland which had originally been proposed to be subdivided is no longer in the proposal. The Planning Board did receive a trail right-of-way across a portion of the land to go with the Park and Open Space Plan and trail system that is being proposed. This is in.the future, but we did get a trail easement out of this subdivision as part of the set aside. Ithacare received Final Site Plan Approval on June 4, 1996. There were two Planning Board Members that voted against the Ithacare Project, and one of the Planning Board Members, Gregory Bell made a very moving speech at the end urging everyone to take a good look at the view since it will be gone. The Conservation Board got the Monkemeyer subdivision proposal last month. It is on East King Road and is an 8 -lot subdivision. There is going to be a site visit on June 13, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. Everyone will be meeting at the*site on East King Road. The Planning Board Members will be there also. The Coy Glen -Babcock subdivision that the Conservation Board talked about before, is on the Planning Board agenda for July 9, 1996. Mr. Babcock had proposed deeding over 100 acres to the Cornell plantations. P&C will be in for Final Site Plan Approval on July 16, 1996. They have answered this. Board's concerns. Chair Zarriello - The Mann Library Project is about ready to break ground waiting for the State Budget to pass. There were some concerns about old growth trees and steep slopes which they seem to have dismissed. I have received the final scope of the EIS of the Lake Source Cooling, which I have not looked through yet. I will be looking through it make sure this Board's comments have been addressed. Planner Cornish - In the Town's Newsletter there was a plea for Conservation Board Members. The Viewshed Committee article was also included. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Viewshed Committee - No report. Environmental Review Committee - No report. Environmental Atlas needs to get the system up and running for data base GIS map. MINUTES APPROVAL - MAY 2, 1996 CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 6 JUNE 6,1996 Mr. Fischer made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 2, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction, seconded by Ms. Smith. On Page 5, Mr. Kanter stated "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are Lead Agency for the permits that need to be obtained.", which should read "The DEC at this point is doing their own environmental review of this project because they are responsible for issuing permits required by the project." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Smith, Fischer, Levitan, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: The Conservation Board discussed topics to investigate for what to discuss at the meetings and other future meetings as well as a work plan for the Board. Planner Cornish reminded the Conservation Board that there is a budget for the Board and if any one was interested in attending any conferences or seminars, that there are funds available. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ,.. DRAFTED on June 11, 1996 by Debby Kelley. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 1 AUGUST 1, 1996 THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1996 PRESENT: Phillip Zarriello, Chair; Richard Fischer, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith, Lois Levitan, Eva Hoffmann, JoAnn Cornish, Planner; Geri Tierney, Planner. Chairperson Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. MEMBER CONCERNS: Mr. Meigs stated that he had some concerns regarding procedures and processing for project applications, such as Saddlewood Farms. He was questioning, in part, whether procedures specified in the regulations and guidelines were followed appropriately. If they were, there might be a better way to do it. Mr. Meigs stated that things seem rather confusing to him the way various Boards and agencies were reviewing the project. There did not seem to be a lot of coordination of this project, nor was it done in an orderly rational fashion with such a potentially significant issue as rezoning a major agricultural area, it is questionable whether it was handled properly or not. Mr. Meigs thoughts were that this subject should be discussed, not only with this Board, but perhaps the Planning Board and the Town Board as well. Ms. Cornish asked Mr. Meigs if he was speaking specifically about the Saddlewood project or development review in general. Mr. Meigs stated that he was speaking with regards to development review of the magnitude of Saddlewood Farms and the rezoning of a .major resource. Ms. Cornish stated that the SEAR process had not been started yet because they were only in a preliminary phase. It did not get very far in the process, because it went to the Town Board for rezoning, and the Town Board recommended the Planning Board review it. The Planning Board would study the proposal, and then would take it back to the Town Board with their recommendation to consider rezoning or not. This is far as Saddlewood Farms got in the process. The Planning Staff is trying to revamp some procedures within the department as far as development review, and maybe something could be incorporated into the application package with a brief outline of procedures. The Conservation Board had a short discussion on the Cornell's Lake Source Cooling Project sketch plan review that was presented to them at July's meeting. The Conservation Board had a discussion on the Long House procedure under SEAR, that the Local Law No. 5 could not superceed the State Law, that a Type II Action could not be changed to a Type Action by law. There cannot be a SEAR Type II Action as a Type I Action, but anything else this Board could make stricter and more precise as an unclassified Type I Action. There are specific types of actions that are classified as Type I Actions and Type 11 Actions, and everything in between is an b_ CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 2 AUGUST 1. 1996 unlisted action. If it is a Type I Action it would have to go through more of an Environmental Review Process. A Type II Action is likely to have significant Environmental Impacts. The State could designate certain types of actions for special projects. An agency can add to the list from actions that are not designated by the State. The Town Law states that any project within so many feet of a Critical Environmental Area is a Type I Action, and a SEQR process must be done. The Long House will be a Type II Action under SEQR for several reasons. There would be a recommendation for the Attorney for the Town to look into this Local Law for more clarification for the Board. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the Cornell Incinerator Project. There have been some compromises made. Cornell will not be doing an EIS. They will be doing some of the work that has been asked of them as part of a public meeting that was held June 24, 1996 and other comments that have been made by other people in the community. The current incinerator does not meet the permit requirements for pollution emission, the stack height is to low for the surrounding area. The concern that was raised by the model analysis was that Cornell would be changing the stack height. One of the requirements of the EIS is to evaluate alternatives, but since they are not going to do one this will not be a requirement. The Conservation Board will be following this issue for further updates. REPORT FROM STAFF: Ms. Cornish introduced Geri Tierney as the new Planner. Ms. Tierney will helping out with the Conservation Board, and help Ms. Cornish share the responsibilities for the Board. The New York State Association of Conservation Commission Conference is October 18 to October 20. The Town Board will have to approve the amount being spent for the conference at their September meeting, so if anyone is thinking about attending they should let Ms. Cornish know ahead of time. The Saddlewood Farms project is on hold. The Environmental Review Committee should finalize their comments on this project and pass them along to the Planning Staff for the file. The Town Board has authorized two parcels in Inlet Valley for the Town to purchase. This resulted from someone noticing these parcels being on the County's auction block for delinquent taxes. The County pulled them so the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, as a joint project, could come up with funds to buy them. The Town of Ithaca is going to go ahead and purchase these parcels. The County also owns some property in this area. The City of Ithaca is looking into some parcels as part of an alienation process for Southwest Park. It will be a good buy for the Town to be used as a passive parkland. At the Town Board Meeting on August 12 at 5:45 p.m., Herbert Engman, Chair of the ERC, will make a presentation on the Framework for Long Range Environmental Planning in Tompkins County. Two members are still needed for the Conservation Board. There is one person that is interested, but there still is one more opening. If any member of the Board knows anyone that would be interested, please have them contact the Planning Department. .'r CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 3 1 AUGUST 1, 1996 Concerning the meetings and notification to the public for the Environmental Review Committee: in accordance with SARA (which is the State Record Keeping Laws), the media needs to be notified 24 hours in advance. This means that the committee needs to fax all the local media on the agenda 24 hours in advance of an ERC meeting. It does not have to be published. It is being recommendation that the ERC set aside a time each month to meet, so in January when all the Boards publish their schedules, the ERC schedule could be published at the same time. There has been a tentative schedule set up that will be discussed at the next ERC meeting to fit in with the Planning Board schedule. The Board discussed having the ERC meetings prior to the regular Conservation Board meetings. COMMITTEE REPORTS: The Environmental Review Committee is working on comments for the Saddlewood Farm project. A site visit to the South Hill Swamp will be planned after the area dries up. This should be sometime in the beginning of September. The resolution will address the issue of the South Hill Swamp being designated as a Critical Environmental Area. The Planning Committee has asked that the Conservation Board look at the Unique Natural Areas that currently exist in the Town of Ithaca, and begin to prioritize which ones they would like to see as future Conservation Districts. Since the Conservation District for South Hill was recently passed in the Town, they would like to look at other areas that they should be considering. There were four areas that the Planning Committee felt as though they would like the Conservation Board to consider. The Planning Committee thought that Coy Glen would be a good area to consider next, since there is so much information available and a lot of the work has been done.for this area. This.is the only Critical Environmental Area in the Town. The other three areas would be Fall Creek, South Hill Swamp, and Cascadilla Creek. The South Hill Swamp may fall into a wetland ordinance. The borders and edges of these areas are going to have to be determined somehow. The Committee would like this Board to consider the next step in Conservation Districts, Critical Environmental Areas, Unique Natural Areas, and Wetland Ordinances. The Planning Staff will need to prioritize the map to see what areas are privately owned lands because that would be the most challenging part. This Board would need to.look at the development in these areas. The Board had a brief discussion about the map of the Critical Environmental Areas. The Board would like to see a map showing private versus public ownership. An overview of the entire Town would be desirable, as it may be that there will be other areas that the Conservation Board could look at. The Planning Committee is trying to get -� people interested in the South Hill Conservation District to get them knowledgeable about why these areas are needed and why they need to be protected. The Planning Committee has looked at the Coy Glen area as the next step for a Conservation District, but they want input from the Conservation Board. A comprehensive look at the Town of Ithaca is another level that needs to be moved ahead also. The Unique Natural Areas were designated by the County. The Planning Committee should come with a listing of areas and priorities for designating these areas. The Conservation Board has agreed to have a meeting with the Planning Committee regarding this subject, and information will be shared with this Board. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 4 AUGUST 1, 1996 A letter was received from EcoVillage and co-signed by the Tompkins County Transportation Council. They are looking for moral and financial support for two speakers that they want to bring in. Jeff Kentworthy is a professor of Urban Environments at Murdock University in Australia. He is a co- author of various studies in Winning Back Cities. He will be speaking on Monday September 16 at the Women's Community Building. Phil McTiben is the author of End of Nature who will be speaking on Tuesday October 8 at Anabel Taylor. Both lectures are open to the public. EcoVillage and the Transportation Council is looking for sponsors to help finance and publicize events to their membership. The Conservation Board can give them support, but can not give them money. The Conservation Board decided not to do any more than give moral support for this issue. MINUTES APPROVAL: MOTION made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1994 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann, Levitan. The motion declared was carried. MOTION made by Mr. Meigs to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with one correction below, seconded by Ms. Hoffmann. Page 1, bottom of the paragraph for Environmental Review Committee report it states "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the January 17th meeting.", should read "The Planning Board will be discussing the scoping of the project at the June 27th meeting." A vote on this motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Meigs, Smith, Hoffmann. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion declared was carried. The Conservation Board decided to review the June 6, 1996 minutes, and bring them back to the Board at the next regular meeting for review. The Board Members will hand in their comments and corrections for review, so they could be adjusted on the revised minutes to present at the next regular meeting. CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES 5 AUGUST 1, 1996 The Conservation Board had a discussion on the review of the minutes and how they would like to have the minutes produced. The Minutes Secretary job description is under discussion on how to format the minutes for the Boards. The County Water Front Study moved towards refining areas of interest. Discussion groups listed likes and dislikes for proposed areas of interest. They brought comments of the discussion.groups back to the session where the consultants will take the comments and merge them. There will be one more meeting where the public will be invited before the plan is finalized. The public was invited to prioritize their concerns with likes and dislikes, and they could take that information and consolidate it with the issues that are of most importance. Comprehensive Planning was generally supported. There were a lot of issues concerning economic development. The priority of the study is to create public access in appropriate locations and to preserve those areas where development is inappropriate. ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. DRAFTED by Deborah A. Kelley on August 12, 1996. \I o. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES Thursday, May 4, 1995 Approved• 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 anew 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. Conservaiton Board Minutes 2 May 4, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 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 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. Zarriello 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. Compose available weekdays from 6am to 3:30pm. Mr. Noteboom will supply Conservation Board with 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. 3K Conservaiton Board Minutes 3 May 4, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 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 has a meeting regarding illegal camping in several placed, shotgun shells andfirecrackers, etch. 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 col4ld 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 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 if 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 Conservaiton Board Minutes 4 May 4, 1995 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 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 peak 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 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: Starr\Stuff\CBStuff\Minutes\05-04-95.min TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner FUI- PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 RE: Draft Letter Concerning Recent Proposals for the Vet School Incinerator Project DATE: September 23, 1996 Attached please find a letter, drafted by Phil Zarriello, in response to the recent presentation and update by Robert Bland concerning the Vet School Incinerator Project. Phil would like to have input and comments on this letter from members of the Conservation Board as soon as possible. Please forward comments to Phil at 273- 9405, which is his home phone, or to me at 273-1747 or FAX at 273-1704. As always, should you need clarification or have questions, feel free to contact either myself or Phil. jc: 09/23/96 September 23, 1996 Franklin M. Loew, D.V.M., Ph. D., Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schuman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 Dear Dr. Loew: 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, New York 14850 44P 4lot ^ *1 I would like to recognize and express our appreciation to Robert Bland who attended our last Conservation Board (CB) meeting (September 5, 1996) to update the CB on the status of the Veterinary College Incinerator Project. We appreciate the effort to better inform the community. The CB would like you to continue to hold the permit process until information is provided to show incineration is the only practical method for disposal of pathological regulated medical waste (PRMW). We expect.full and fair consideration be given to alternative disposal methods, and ample opportunity is given for public review of this information before proceeding. The CB is also concerned with Cornell's proposal to build the incinerator first, and then review the incineration of conventional regulated medical waste (CRMW). We feel this would bias the decision of how to handle CRMW. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest incineration of CRMW is not a desirable disposal method. It would be difficult to fairly consider this evidence after 3 million dollars is invested for a new incinerator. The CB feels it would be better to operate the present incinerator, even with its deficiencies, until the community concerns can be addressed. We feel that the sequence of addressing the environmental concerns prior to construction, and not after, is important to be credible and ensure the best waste disposal method is chosen. The CB views this as an opportunity for Cornell University to take a leadership role in researching better methods of PRMW and CRMW. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to continued dialogue on this project. Respectfully, Phillip Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board cc: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Association Conservation Board Members (Filename: Cent121CBGncnratr.1eQ oily OF ITAL _ 9 FIN TOWN OF ITHACA A. 2104$ 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 \Ir Y - TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner RE: Draft Letter Concerning Recent Proposals for the Vet School Incinerator Project DATE: September 23, 1996 Attached please find a letter, drafted by Phil Zarriello, in response to the recent presentation and update by Robert Bland concerning the Vet School Incinerator Project. Phil would like to have input and comments on this letter from members of the Conservation Board as soon as possible. Please forward comments to Phil at 273- 9405, which is his home phone, or to me at 273-1747 or FAX at 273-1704. As always, should you need clarification or have questions, feel free to contact either myself or Phil. jc: 09/23/96 September 23, 1996 Franklin M. Loew, D.V.M., Ph. D., Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schuman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 Dear Dr. Loew: 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, New York 14850 I)-I?.A,FT I would like to recognize and express our appreciation to Robert Bland who attended our last Conservation Board (CB) meeting (September 5, 1996) to update the CB on the status of the Veterinary College Incinerator Project. We appreciate the effort to better inform the community. The CB would like you to continue to hold the permit process until information is provided to show incineration is the only practical method for disposal of pathological regulated medical waste (PRMW). We expect full and fair consideration be given to alternative disposal methods, and ample opportunity is given for public review of this information before proceeding. The CB is also concerned with Cornell's proposal to build the incinerator first, and then review the incineration of conventional regulated medical waste (CRMW). We feel this would bias the decision of how to handle CRMW. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest incineration of CRMW is not a desirable disposal method. It would be difficult to fairly consider this evidence after 3 million dollars is invested for a new incinerator. The CB feels it would be better to operate the present incinerator, even with its deficiencies, until the community concerns can be addressed. We feel that the sequence of addressing the environmental concerns prior to construction, and not after, is important to be credible and ensure the best waste disposal method is chosen. The CB views this as an opportunity for Cornell University to take a leadership role in researching better methods of PRMW and CRMW. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to continued dialogue on this project. Respectfully, Phillip Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board cc: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Association Conservation Board Members (Filename: Centl 2\CB\incnratr. let) IML Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes 3 October 1996 Approved: 11/7/96 Present: Chair Phil Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith Absent: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer Staff: Geri Tierney, George Frantz Guests: None Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. No persons appeared to be heard Member concerns Jon Meigs asked what transpired at the October 1 Planning Board meeting regarding the Baker parcel. It is a parcel partially within the new Conservation District with difficult access; Mr. Baker is considering selling part of the parcel to the City to incorporate into their watershed property. Mr. Baker appeared before the Planning Board to ask what, if any, development would be allowed on the remaining parcel if he sold part to the City. Mr. Meigs thinks the CB should have some input; Ms. Tierney will find out what transpired and report to the CB. Report from Field Trip to South Hill Swamp Jon Meigs described the recent field trip to this Unique Natural Area (UNA) led by Nancy Ostman of the Cornell Plantations. Several Town Board and Planning Board members attended, in addition to Jon, Loren Tauer, Richard Fischer and Geri Tierney. The group walked the through the wet "bowl" of the swamp, and then walked the rim of this roughly circular bowl starting from land owned by Cornell, passing onto land owned by Ithaca College. The group saw a variety of wetland and dryland vegetation associations and a spectacular view of Cayuga Lake. In Jon Meigs' opinion, the value of this UNA is well documented and we should work to protect this area. Geri Tierney added that many trip participants asked Nancy Ostman to define the boundaries of the "unique" area; Ms. Ostman said that the locally rare communities are contained within the somewhat circular "bowl" of the swamp roughly corresponding to the potential wetland outlined on the field trip map (attached). Within this bowl, the topography slopes gently downward to the center with no hydrographic outflow; the rim of this bowl is clearly defined by a steep break in topography. The current, roughly -designated boundaries of this UNA extend far to the north of this bowl; Ms. Ostman indicated that although the unique vegetation at this site is concentrated within this bowl, the area to the north contains steep slopes and high quality forest worthy of protection. George Frantz added that significant wetlands are present on the sloping land northeast of the bowl, as there are periodic breaks in the steep topography which catch water. As the parcels owned by Cornell are protected from development, the most important parcels for protection within this UNA are owned by Ithaca College, which has previously refused to sell. Parcels owned by the Monkemeyer family may also be important for protection. While the group did not attempt to view the west boundary of the UNA to see it's proximity to Evan Monkemeyer's Ithaca Estates proposal, George Frantz reported that his own investigation indicates this boundary is perhaps 200 feet east of Evan Monkemeyer's property. Coordinator Report Coordinator Geri Tierney reported the following: 1) So that the CB can best utilize her skills, Ms. Tierney reported her background. She holds an M.S. degree in Natural Resources from Cornell University, and her training and previous work experience are in ecology, environmental policy and GIS. 2) At the recent APA/NYPF conference, the Planning Staff collected a variety of written materials for CB members, which are available to pick up at this and the next meeting. 3) The Town's GIS development is progressing well; we now have a great deal of information describing the Town's tax parcels in the ArcView system, available for analysis and cartography. The CB should coordinate with Ms. Tierney to view the system and it's capabilities. 4) The Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) would like to meet with the CB to devise protection mechanisms for important areas in the Town. The CB members should report back to staff whether they can meet jointly with COC on October 17 at 7:30 pm. 5) It is time to recruit new members. We will try to fill our two currently vacant seats, and any others which open, using the local media and perhaps by sending letters to potentially interested parties. Members whose terms expire in December 1996 (Eva Hoffman, Cheryl Smith, and Loren Tauer) must write a letter to the Town Board indicating whether or not they wish to be reappointed. Chair Report Robert Bland of Cornell has invited the CB to send a representative to the Veterinary Incinerator Steering Committee. This 15-16 member group will review the proposed incinerator project to determine if it is the best solution for regulated waste disposal, but will not have authority over the matter. The Town is currently represented by Supervisor Cathy Valentino. After some discussion, it was decided to appoint Phil Zarriello as the CB representative. Letter to Dean Loew Regarding Incinerator After some discussion, the group approved the letter with changes. Staff will incorporate changes into final draft. Environmental Review Committee Report The ERC recently visited the site of the Botie-Warden subdivision on Mecklenburg Road and reports the presence of a wetland which could be affected by this proposal. They will draft written comments. 1996 Park and Open Space Plan Assistant Town Planner George Frantz presented the inventory section of the new Park and Open Space Plan. Drafts of this section were distributed to CB members for review. This plan began with efforts of CB members, and has been continued by Planning staff. The plan seeks to create an integrated, linked network of parks and recreation space within the Town, and provide adequate recreational opportunity for current and future Town residents. Staff inventoried current park and recreation space within the Town, including Town, City, State, County and privately held space. Using national standards for per capita recreation and open space needs, they compared the existing inventory to the recommended amount of recreation and open space for our current and projected future population. They found that the Town currently falls short of the recommended amount of recreation and open space, and that the existing parks are not equally distributed. The Plan individually describes existing parks and parks needed. The next section of the report, which will be distributed at our November meeting, will delineate recommendations. CB members were urged to review this section of the report and report comments back to Planning Staff by October 17 (two weeks from this meeting). ERC Committee Membership CB Chair Zarriello announced that Eva Hoffmann has decided to step down as chair of the ERC and relinquish her membership on the ERC, creating the need for a new chair and a new member. None of the members present desired to chair this committee, though Lois Levitan said she'd be willing to join the committee. Chair Zarriello suggested that in lieu of appointing a new ERC chair, the CB could attempt to rotate the environmental review projects through the entire membership. Business Chair Zarriello discussed plans for attendance at the upcoming Conservation Committee Conference with members planning to attend. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. 7771-1 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 4 October 1996 Franklin M. Loew, D.V.M., Ph. D., Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schuman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 Dear Dr. Loew: The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB) would like to recognize and express our appreciation to Robert Bland who attended our last meeting (September 5, 1996) to update us on the status of the Veterinary College Incinerator Project. We appreciate this effort to better inform the community. The CB urges you to continue to hold the permit process until conclusive information is provided to demonstrate that incineration is the most environmentally responsible method for disposal of pathological regulated medical waste (PRMV). We trust you will give frill and fair consideration to alternative disposal methods, and provide ample opportunity for public review of this information before proceeding. The CB is also concerned with Comell's proposal to build the incinerator first, and then review the incineration of conventional regulated medical waste (CRMW). We feel this would bias the decision of how to handle CRMW and fail to give fair consideration to alternative disposal methods after 3 million dollars is invested for a new incinerator. We feel that the sequence of addressing the environmental concerns prior to construction, and not after, is important to be credible and ensure the best waste disposal method is chosen. The CB views this as an opportunity for Cornell University to take a leadership role in researching better methods of PRMW and CRMW disposal. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to continued dialogue on this project. Respectfully, 4�u 1 i r Phillip Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board cc: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Association Conservation Board Members (Filename: 28plan\CB\incnratr.let) TOWN OF ITHACA HKAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Geri Tierney DATE: 9/26/96 RE: Change of Location for October 3rd Meeting Please note that the October 3rd meeting will be held in the County's Old Jail Conference Room, not at Town Hall, because the Town Board will be in session. We must vacate the County building by 9:30 pm, so 'we must be sure to adjourn by that time. The Old Jail Conference Room is located at 125 East Court Street, just one block north of Town Hall. Enter the building on the east side from the parking lot, go up the stairs to the first floor, turn right and go down the hall to the Conference Room. I'll be walking over there from Town Hall before the meeting, so if you are unsure of the location, meet in the parking lot behind Town Hall at 7:20 pm to accompany me. Please call me at 273-1747 if you have any questions. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30-9:30 pm, Thursday, 3 October 1996 OLD JAIL CONFERENCE ROOM 125 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 pm 1. Persons to be heard 7:35 pm 2. Member Concerns 7:45 pm 3. Coordinator and Chair Reports 7:55 pm 4. Environmental Review Committee Report 8:05 pm 5. Items for Discussion a. 1996 Park and Open Space Plan - George Frantz b. Field Trip Follow-up: Ideas and Priorities for UNA Conservation C. Letter to Dean Loew Regarding Incinerator d. ERC Committee Membership 9:20 pm 6. Business 9:30 pm 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Lois Levitan Loren Tauer (File Name: c:\28p1an1cb\10-03-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs TOWN OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TRRNSM I T CONF I RMRT ION REPORT NO. RECEIVER TRANSMITTER DATE DURATION MODE PAGES RESULT 004 607 272 4335 TOWN OF ITHACA, NY SEP 26'96 1432 00'47 STB 01 OK SEP 26'96 14:32 TOWU OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 TRRt-4SH I T CONF I RMRT ION REPORT NO. 005 RECEIVER WTKO TRANSMITTER TOWN OF ITHACA, NY DATE SEP 26'96 14:'34 DURATION 00'48 MODE STD PAGES 01 RESULT OK SEP 26'96 14:34 TQWH OF ITHACA, NY ID:6072731704 .r TRANSM I T CCJNF I KART I ON REPORT NO. 006 RECEIVER 6072576497 NY TRANSMITTER TOWN EOF2ITHACA'14 3E DATE DURATION 00'4STD MODE 01 PAGES RESULT • OK SEP 26'96 14,36 TOWN OF ITHACA DRAFT 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 1011 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, New York 14850 3 October 1996 Franklin M. Loew, D.V.M., Ph. D., Dean College of Veterinary Medicine S2005 Schuman Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 Dear Dr. Loew: The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB) would like to recognize and express our appreciation to Robert Bland who attended our last meeting (September 5, 1996) to update us on the status of the Veterinary College Incinerator Project. We appreciate this effort to better inform the community. The CB urges you to continue to hold the permit process until information is provided to show incineration is the only practical method for disposal of pathological regulated medical waste (PRMW). We trust you will give full and fair consideration to alternative disposal methods, and provide ample opportunity for public review of this information before proceeding. The CB is also concerned with Comell's proposal to build the incinerator first, and then review the incineration of conventional regulated medical waste (CRMW). We feel this would bias the decision of how to handle CRMW and fail to give fair consideration to alternative disposal methods after 3 million dollars is invested for a new incinerator. The CB feels it would be better to operate the present incinerator, even with its deficiencies, until the environmental concerns can be addressed. We feel that the sequence of addressing the environmental concerns prior to construction, and not after, is important to be credible and ensure the best waste disposal method is chosen. The CB views this as an opportunity for Cornell University to take a leadership role in researching better methods of PRMW and CRMW disposal. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to continued dialogue on this project. Respectfully, Phillip Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board cc: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Ruth Mahr, President, Forest Home Association Conservation Board Members (Filename: 28plan\CB\incnratr.let) TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer FROM: Geri Tierney DATE: 4 October 1996 RE: Draft 1996 Park and Open Space Plan Enclosed, please find a draft copy of the inventory section of the new Park and Open Space Plan. George Frantz presented this to us at our last CB meeting on October 3; he will deliver the plan's recommendations to us at our next meeting. Please review the enclosed draft, and report comments back to George. He hopes to receive comments within the next two weeks. Also, the Codes and Ordinances Committee has asked us to meet with them to develop strategies to protect Unique Natural Areas within the Town, particularly the South Hill Swamp and Coy Glen Natural Area. The meeting date proposed is Thursday October 17 at 7:30 pm. (This is our second reserved meeting time this month). Please call me at 273-1747 and let me know if you are available at that time. fop FINAL OCT 2 3 1996 MD _, TQ,�M1I ilF I�aWre Cory 4 Sugarbush Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 October 12, 1996 Mr. Phillip Zarriello, Chairman Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Phi I, I am writing to confirm what I told you by telephone just before I left for Sweden on September. 23, that is, that I feel it necessary to resign from the Environmental Review Committee. In spite of all the help you have given me, it has become increasingly difficult for me to keep up with the extra work involved with being the chairperson of the ERC, it is sad to leave, because I have enjoyed the Interesting, and often challenging, work and all the different people I have worked with over many years. I will of course remain a member of the Conservation Board as long as I can be helpful there. Most sincerely yours, Eva B. Hoff mann CONSERVATION BOARD/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1996 PRESENT: Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter, Planner Geri Tierney, Carolyn Grigorov, Ellen Harrison, Candace Cornell, Mary Russell, Phil Zarriello, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer, Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman The meeting started at 7:30 p.m., and everyone present introduced themselves to each other. Phil Zarriello, Chair of the Conservation Board, gave a brief description of what the Conservation Board's duties and responsibilities are. Councilwoman Carolyn Grigorov, Member of the Planning Committee, gave a brief description of what the Planning Committee's duties and responsibilities are. The Members went into discussions about the recent site visits to the South Hill Swamp area and the Coy Glen area. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter asked, after seeing the two areas, what would be the best method of protecting, and what are the things about them that need to be protected. There are several methods that could be done or there are certain ones that need to be looked into. One of the things the Conservation Board was interested in was to look at other areas around the Town that had been recommended as Conservation areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Maybe trying to set priorities for overall on how they fit together and what should be done would be an idea that should be considered. Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations, gave a brief presentation on the critical areas for Cornell University and Ithaca College properties. Ms. Ostman also discussed the Unique Natural Area on the Evan Monkemeyer property. Any construction done for housing on the Monkemeyer property, that a 100 -foot buffer would be put into place, so they cannot build close to the Unique Natural Area. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board and ' the Conservation Board will require Mr. Monkemeyer to come in with a detailed mapping of the site that shows his property lines. The Planning Board has asked Mr. Monkemeyer to provide a site description of what the natural areas is on his property. If Mr. Monkemeyer does not supply a sufficient detailed map, then the Boards would send it back and tell him what needs to be done. Ms. Ostman stated that the lighter green area on the map of the Unique Natural Area shows the basin that has a lot of rare vegetation in it. The Ithaca College properties have nice old forests on them. There is a core area that would be the place of historical importance, which records show rare plants for many years. The rare plants have been protected there. It is very diverse CONSERVATION BOARD/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE 2 and very interesting. It is not a consolidated piece of exciting vegetation, but there are small bits of it that suggests the site was interesting. The drainage would be an important factor for development in this area. A lot of water that comes into the basin comes from the south. The . water that goes into the basin is of concern because there is no way of telling what is in the water such as pesticides, oil, salt, etc. Most of the Ithaca College property is not currently protected, but much of the Unique Natural Area is protected by individual owners. The Members had a brief discussion on the development rights and the drainage situation of the Unique Natural Areas. When the Unique Natural Area was drawn there was only a forest in sight without houses being there. Many of the trees were removed on the Deer Run Development, but they tried to leave as many trees as possible. There is water and sewer lines already established in this area. The Deer Run Development would be removed from the Unique Natural Area due to changes in the environment. The Chair of the Conservation Board and the Chairperson of the Planning Board will each write a letter to help protect the Unique Natural Area while waiting for the DEC to respond. The Members discussed resurveying the lands for protection of the Unique Natural Area. The survey would show whether there is more land that needs to be protected that would need to be considered for accrediting. The Conservation Board will look into their funds for this survey, and contact Ms. Ostman for setting up the survey. There was a discussion on the boundaries for the Unique Natural Area in regards to the density, drainage, and sloping of the areas. In summary of the discussions of the meeting is to push DEC to reevaluate the wetland status. Have Ms. Ostman do a survey if the funds are available, and supply maps of the Unique Natural Area. The Members had a discussion on how the Planning Committee and the Conservation Board will divide up the work load for the mapping and data studies. After the data has been collected, the Conservation Board and the Planning Committee will set up another meeting for further discussions. The meeting concluded at 9:30 p.m. Drafted by Debby Kelley on 10128196. CONSERVATION BOARD/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 239 1996 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Carolyn Grigorov, Ellen Harrison, Mary Russell, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Loren Tauer, Phil Zarriello, Planning Director Jonathan Kanter, Planner Geri Tierney. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations Ecologist The meeting started at 7:30 p.m. with introductions. Phil Zarriello, Conservation Board (CB) Chair, briefly described the CB's duties and responsibilities. Councilwoman Carolyn Grigorov, Planning Committee Chair, briefly described the Planning Committee's duties and responsibilities. The Members discussed the recent site visits to the South Hill'Swamp and Coy Glen Unique Natural Areas (UNAs). Planning Director Jonathan Kanter suggested the group focus on identifying for these UNAs both the best method of protection and the particular features in need of protection. Nancy Ostman of the Cornell Plantations spoke briefly on the natural values and need for protection within the South Hill Swamp UNA. She noted that protection of hydrology within the swamp core area precludes excavation (e.g., for a cellar) within a 100 -foot buffer surrounding the rim of the bowl (i.e., the sharp topographic break). The western boundary of this bowl has not been clearly delineated. Planning Director Kanter clarified that a detailed environmental report of the Ithaca Estates parcel (lying west of the South Hill Swamp UNA) will be required before any approvals are granted for that project. Ms. Ostman continued to say that the core area or "bowl" supports significant and diverse rare vegetation, and has historical significance as a well -studied botanical site for the last hundred years. Much of this core is owned and protected by Cornell University, but a significant amount of this core area lies on Ithaca College property and is unprotected. Ithaca College has apparently considered using their land to provide southern road access to the College; building a road on this land would seriously compromise the ecological integrity of this area. Furthermore, drainage into the core area from lands to the south across East King Road must be also considered when protecting this core. Outside of the core area, Ms. Ostman says that there are areas of mature forest vegetation, wetlands, and pockets of rare vegetation that are also worthy of protection, but these areas are less well documented. The Members briefly discussed development rights, drainage into this UNA, and the boundaries of this UNA. This UNA was drawn before the Deer Run Development was built. Although the development attempted to minimize disturbance to vegetation, the UNA should probably be redrawn to exclude this altered area. Water and sewer lines have already been established in this area. It was noted that the South Hill Swamp may warrant wetland designation and regulation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The Conservation Board and Planning Board should draft letters to DEC requesting re-evaluation of this area for possible state designations. The Members agreed that the peripheral area of the South Hill Swamp UNA should be examined by trained professionals to better document the natural value and need for protection of this area. The Conservation Board will determine if CB funds are available for this, and contact Ms. Ostman and Mr. Robert Wesley to arrange a study as soon as possible. There is also a need to better understand hydrologic inputs from the south into the core UNA. This UNA might be best protected by a tiered scheme, with more stringent protection within the bowl, and less stringent protection outside the bowl. Institutional zoning for Ithaca College may also provide a vehicle for protecting critical areas owned by the College. The group briefly discussed the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area. This natural value and boundary of this area are well defined by existing documentation, except for the boundaries of the upper lobes surrounding creeks north of the Elm Street Extension. Phil Zarriello has technical information on protecting creek borders that may be relevant to this issue. There was consensus that something similar to the Six Mile Creek Conservation District Zoning would be an appropriate conservation method in this area, due to it's similarity to the Six Mile Creek Valley. Members should review the Coy Glen report in the Planning Department library. The Members discussed how the Planning Committee and the Conservation Board will divide the work associated with this effort. There seemed to be consensus to continue work on both UNAs simultaneously. After additional data has been collected, the Conservation Board and the Planning Committee will reconvene a joint meeting to continue discussion. Staff indicated that data could be assembled for both areas in map overlays on the GIS system, including natural features (topography, drainage, etc.), land use, zoning, ownership patterns, etc. The meeting concluded at 9:30 p.m. Minutes drafted by Debby Kelley on 10/28/96. The attached outline summarizes important issues and action items from this meeting. Important Issues from 10/23/96 Joint Meeting of CB and PC on UNA Conservation I. Issues to Consider A. South Hill Swamp 1) Need clarification of value/boundary outside "bowl' 2) Need better understanding of water input from south 3) Which is best method for conservation: conservation zone, institutional zoning for IC, wetland ordinance, or something else? 4) Must protect water table from excavation (e.g., for building foundation/cellar) in UNA and buffer zone 5) Potential for re-evaluation of wetland by DEC for NYS designation B. Coy Glen 1) Need clarification of upper boundaries 2) Should Hackberry Woods and/or Bill Dress' Woods be included in the protection of Coy Glen? 3) Conservation Zone similar to 6 -Mile Creek is probably appropriate here II. Action Items 1) Hire R. Wesley and N. Ostman to survey S. Hill Swamp outside of the core area. CB has approximately $1244 remaining for 1996, some or all of which could be used for this survey. CB should draft letter to R. Wesley and N. Ostman requesting their services, and asking for cost itemization. The Town can hire them without soliciting additional bids due to their special skills. Permission to access private land must be obtained. 2) Investigate drainage into S. Hill Swamp using maps and field checks. CB will analyze hydrology map supplied by N. Ostman, and USGS topographic maps. Perhaps N. Ostman and R. Wesley should field check existing water flow north, across E. King Road, and advise the Town on the potential impacts to the swamp from impairment of quantity or quality of this water source. 3) Request re-evaluation of S. Hill Swamp from DEC. CB, Planning Board, and/or Town Board should write letters requesting this after additional information is gathered by N. Ostman and R. Wesley. 4) Review relevant material on Coy Glen area. CB/PC, members should come in to Town Hall at their leisure (but between 8 am and 4 pm) to review the Coy Glen Report. 5) CB will review aerial photographs, topo maps and other information (e.g., Phil Zarriello's technical information) to assess upper boundaries of Coy Glen. Field checking upper bounds of Coy Glen area may be necessary. Who should do this? 6) After additional information described above has been considered, PC/CB should reconvene to decide the issues outlined above, particularly the best form of protection for S. Hill Swamp UNA, and boundaries of both UNAs. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30-9:30 pm, Thursday, 7 November 1996 ***OLD JAIL CONFERENCE ROOM*** 125 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 AGENDA 7:30 pm 1. Persons to be heard 7:35 pm 2. Member Concerns 7:45 pm 3. Coordinator and Chair Reports 7:55 pm 4. Committee Reports 8:05 pm 5. Items for Discussion a. UNA Conservation b. Comments on Part 1 of 1996 Park and Open Space Plan C. Membership Reorganization d. New Projects for 1997 9:15 pm 6. Business a. Approval of minutes from 9/19/96, 10/3/93 9:30 pm 7. Adjournment CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Lois Levitan Loren Tauer (File Name: c:\28planNcb\11-07-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Geri Tierney DATE: 10/31/96 RE: November Meeting Please note that the November 7th meeting will be held in the County's Old Jail Conference Room, not at Town Hall, because the Town Board will be in session. As last month, we must vacate the County building by 9:30 pm, so we must be sure to adjourn by that time. The Old Jail Conference Room is located at 125 East Court Street, just two blocks north of Town Hall. Enter the building on the east side from the parking lot, go up the stairs to the first floor, turn right and go down the hall to the Conference Room. I'll be walking over there from Town Hall before the meeting, so if you are unsure of the location, meet in the parking lot behind Town Hall at 7:20 pm to accompany me. I've enclosed draft minutes from 9/19/96 and 10/3/96 for your review; minutes from our joint meeting with the Planning Committee on 10/23/96 are included also for your information, but we won't have to approve these. I've also enclosed a draft letter to recruit new members. Please review the letter, and bring names and addresses of any prospective members you might recommend. Please call me at 273-1747 if you have any questions. FINAL C(OPY Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes 7 November 1996 Approved: 2/6/97 Present: Chair Phil Zarriello, Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith Absent: Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer Staff: Geri Tierney Guests: Anne Pitkin a - Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. No persons appeared to be heard. No members brought up concerns. Coordinator Report Coordinator Geri Tierney updated the CB on the outcome of Mr. Carlton Baker's request for guidance from the Planning Board last month, regarding tax parcel 58-1-14.2. Approximately seven acres of this 12.7 acre parcel fall within the Conservation Zone (which requires a 7 -acre minimum lot size); the City of Ithaca has approached Mr. Baker with the desire to purchase approximately 4 of these 7 acres, to be preserved as parkland. Mr. Baker inquired whether he could still develop one house on the remaining 3 acres, if he sold 4 acres to the City. The Planning Board responded that they could not provide a specific recommendation without more specific information about future plans for development, but did advise that clustering any development on this site might be a good option. Ms. Tierney also reported that she and Lois Levitan attended the Conference on the Environment sponsored by the New York State Association of Conservation Commissions and Environmental Management Councils. She attended interesting sessions on GIS, integrated pest management, SEQR review, and groundwater protection, and presented materials from the conference to the CB for their perusal. Chair Report Chair Zarriello reported that plans were underway to contract Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley to undertake an environmental study of the South Hill Swamp UNA, as per discussion at the 10/13/96 joint meeting of the CB and the Planning Committee (PC). If the Town Board approves a resolution to hire Mr. Wesley and Ms. Ostman at the 11/12/96 Town Board Meeting, work should start immediately. Once this study is complete, the CB will contact DEC to request re-evaluation of this area as a state regulated wetland. Chair Zarriello also reported that Tompkins County has proposed a revision of regulations governing septic leach fields within the County. The proposed revisions weaken these regulations to EPA -based minimums, which may be insufficient particularly on leachable soils. The EMC has discussed this issue, and objects because these proposed revisions are not based on scientific criteria. Unfortunately, the CB has missed the official comment period on these proposed revisions, but should still register a comment. Committee Reports CB Chair Zarriello asked whether the Environmental Review Committee had commented formally on the Ithaca Estates Sketch Plan. ERC member Jon Meigs replied that no formal comment had been written. Coord;nator Tierney indicated that no further action will happen on the Ithaca Estates project without another opportunity for ERC review, but that it would be appropriate to add a formal comment to the file now in preparation for the next round of development review. UNA Conservation As soon as Town Board approval is granted, Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley will begin the survey of the South Hill Swamp UNA. In the meanwhile, this group will consider appropriate boundaries to the Coy Glen UNA. Chair Zarriello has submitted a digital topographic image of the Town and a technical report on Riparian Forest Buffers to the CB coordinator, which may help this effort. Lois Levitan remarked that protection of the Coy Glen UNA should move quickly due to the pending, second phase of development at nearby EcoVillage. As the EcoVillage site intersects just a small portion of this UNA as drawn by Tompkins County, protection of this UNA may or may not affect plans at EcoVillage. Comments on 1996 Park and Open Space Plan Chair Zarriello asked for comments on the first part (the Analysis) of the Park and Open Space Plan presented by George Frantz at our October meeting. Several members voiced concern that the Plan's focus on both biological corridors and active recreational areas was confusing. Phil Zarriello and Lois Levitan suggested that these two types of open space be linked more closely together if they are to exist in the same document; Jon Meigs thought they should be addressed in separate reports. Lois Levitan reiterated some the written comments she submitted two weeks ago, specifically that she found the vision insufficiently clear, the analysis section needs to be pared down, and that the Town is not the most meaningful unit for analysis of park needs and supply. CB members with substantial comments who have not yet submitted them in writing will attempt to do so as soon as possible for incorporation into the evolving document. Also, George Frantz will attend our December 5th meeting to present the plan's recommendations and discuss the CB's comments on the first section. New Projects for 1997 The group discussed new projects for next year. In 1995, the group drew up a list of potential projects. The group debated whether they wished to create such a list for 1997, and how wide a scope these projects should cover. Lois Levitan feels that the group should focus tightly on their mandate to advise the Planning Board regarding development and open space issues, and should perhaps take on one relevant project in addition to development review. Other members of the group indicated that their time for CB projects was limited. The group decided to draw up a new list, using the 1995 list as a basis. Membership Reorganization Cheryl Smith submitted a letter to the Town Board indicating she will not renew her CB membership when it expires next month. Zhe CB will be sorry to see her go, but wishes her well in her new pursuits. The terms of Eva Hoffman and Loren Tauer are also expiring next month, so they must write to the Town Board and indicate whether they wish to renew their membership. With the vacancy created by Cheryl, there are now three vacant positions on the CB. The CB will pursue new members by issuing a press release to the local media, writing directly to potential members, and perhaps hosting an open house with bagels. The CB will identify potential new members from attendance lists of local environmental meetings, such as meetings on the proposed incinerator; the CB will also contact students at Ecology House for potential members and collaboration on projects. CB members should review the draft letter and press release for new membership and return any comments to Coordinator Tierney by next Thursday, 11/14/96. As no current members are willing to chair the ERC, the entire CB will review development proposals as a group until new members are recruited. The planning staff should circulate all mandatory and potential review materials only to Phil Zarriello; he will decide what warrants additional review. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the 9/19/96 and 10/3/96 meetings were unanimously approved with minor changes. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. (File Name: c:\Cent12\CB\11-07-96.cbm) CONSERVATION BOARD/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 239 1996 PRESENT: Candace Cornell, Carolyn Grigorov, Ellen Harrison, Mary Russell, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Loren Tauer, Phil Zarriello, Planning Director Jonathan Kanter, Planner Geri Tierney. GUESTS: Nancy Ostman, Cornell Plantations Ecologist The meeting started at 7:30 p.m. with introductions. Phil Zarriello, Conservation Board (CB) Chair, briefly described the CB's duties and responsibilities. Councilwoman Carolyn Grigorov, Planning Committee Chair, briefly described the Planning Committee's duties and responsibilities. The Members discussed the recent site visits to the South Hill Swamp and Coy Glen Unique Natural Areas (UNAs). Planning Director Jonathan Kanter suggested the group focus on identifying for these UNAs both the best method of protection and the particular features in need of protection. Nancy Ostman of the Cornell Plantations spoke briefly on the natural values and need for protection within the South Hill Swamp UNA. She noted that protection of hydrology within the swamp core area precludes excavation (e.g., for a cellar) within a 100 -foot buffer surrounding the rim of the bowl (i.e., the sharp topographic break). The western boundary of this bowl has not been clearly delineated. Planning Director Kanter clarified that a detailed environmental report of the Ithaca Estates parcel (lying west of the South Hill Swamp UNA) will be required before any approvals are granted for that project. Ms. Ostman continued to say that the core area or "bowl" supports significant and diverse rare vegetation, and has historical significance as a well -studied botanical site for the last hundred years. Much of this core is owned and protected by Cornell University, but a significant amount of this core area lies on Ithaca College property and is unprotected. Ithaca College has apparently considered using their land to provide southern road access to the College; building a road on this land would seriously compromise the ecological integrity of this area. Furthermore, drainage into the core area from lands to the south across East King Road must be also considered when protecting this core. Outside of the core area, Ms. Ostman says that there are areas of mature forest vegetation, wetlands, and pockets of rare vegetation that are also worthy of protection, but these areas are less well documented. The Members briefly discussed development rights, drainage into this UNA, and the boundaries of this UNA. This UNA was drawn before the Deer Run Development was built. Although the development attempted to minimize disturbance to vegetation, the UNA should probably be redrawn to exclude this altered area. Water and sewer lines have already been established in this area. It was noted that the South Hill Swamp may warrant wetland designation and regulation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The Conservation Board and Planning Board should draft letters to DEC requesting re-evaluation of this area for possible state designations. The Members agreed that the peripheral area of the South Hill Swamp UNA should be examined by trained professionals to better document the natural value and need for protection of this area. The Conservation Board will determine if CB funds are available for this, and contact Ms. Ostman and Mr. Robert Wesley to arrange a study as soon as possible. There is also a need to better understand hydrologic inputs from the south into the core UNA. This UNA might be best protected by a tiered scheme, with more stringent protection within the bowl, and less stringent protection outside the bowl. Institutional zoning for Ithaca College may also provide a vehicle for protecting critical areas owned by the College. The group briefly discussed the Coy Glen Unique Natural Area. This natural value and boundary of this area are well defined by existing documentation, except for the boundaries of the upper lobes surrounding creeks north of the Elm Street Extension. Phil`Zarriello has technical information on protecting creek borders that may be relevant to this issue. There was consensus that something similar to the Six Mile Creek Conservation District Zoning would be an appropriate conservation method in this area, due to it's similarity to the Six Mile Creek Valley. Members should review the Coy Glen report in the Planning Department library. The Members discussed how the Planning Committee and the Conservation Board will divide the work associated with this effort. There seemed to be consensus to continue work on both UNAs simultaneously. After additional data has been collected, the Conservation Board and the Planning Committee will reconvene a joint meeting to continue discussion. Staff indicated that data could be assembled for both areas in map overlays on the GIS system, including natural features (topography, drainage, etc.), land use, zoning, ownership patterns, etc. The meeting concluded at 9:30 p.m. Minutes drafted by Debby Kelley on 10/28/96. The attached outline summarizes important issues and action items from this meeting. Important Issues from 10/23/96 Joint Meeting of CB and PC on UNA Conservation I. Issues to Consider A. South Hill Swamp 1) Need clarification of value/boundary outside "bowl" 2) Need better understanding of water input from south 3) Which is best method for conservation: conservation zone, institutional zoning for IC, wetland ordinance, or something else? 4) Must protect water table from excavation (e.g., for building foundation/cellar) in UNA and buffer zone 5) Potential for re-evaluation of wetland by DEC for NYS designation B. Coy Glen 1) Need clarification of upper boundaries 2) Should Hackberry Woods and/or Bill Dress' Woods be included in the protection of Coy Glen? 3) Conservation Zone similar to 6 -Mile Creek is probably appropriate here II. Action Items 1) Hire R. Wesley and N. Ostman to survey S. Hill Swamp outside of the core area. CB has approximately $1244 remaining for 1996, some or all of which could be used for this survey. CB should draft letter to R. Wesley and N. Ostman requesting their services, and asking for cost itemization. The Town can hire them without soliciting additional bids due to their special skills. Permission to access private land must be obtained. 2) Investigate drainage into S. Hill Swamp using maps and field checks. CB will analyze hydrology map supplied by N. Ostman, and USGS topographic maps. Perhaps N. Ostman and R. Wesley should field check existing water flow north across E. King Road, and advise the Town on the potential impacts to the swamp from impairment of quantity or quality of this water source. 3) Request re-evaluation of S. Hill Swamp from DEC. CB, Planning Board, and/or Town Board should write letters requesting this after additional information is gathered by N. Ostman and R. Wesley. 4) Review relevant material on Coy Glen area. CB/PC members should come in to Town Hall at their leisure (but between 8 am and 4 pm) to review the Coy Glen Report. 5) CB will review aerial photographs, topo maps and other information (e.g., Phil Zarriello's technical information) to assess upper boundaries of Coy Glen. Field checking upper bounds of Coy Glen area may be necessary. Who should do this? 6) After additional information described above has been considered, PC/CB should reconvene to decide the issues outlined above, particularly the best form of protection for S. Hill Swamp UNA, and boundaries of both UNAs. FIELD TRIP MAP: Showing Land Ownership N and Wetlands in South Hill Swamp UNA 9/26/96 Field Trip 1" =1000' Note: Land ownership and vacancy shown only for parcels in UNA or CEA. Legend Unique Natural Area NWI Potential Wetland =,`�z,` _ Potential Wetland Proposed Development Vacant Land (as per EE]County Assessment) ____ Creek _ _ Approx. Field Trip Route GLT, 10/17/96, fieldtrp.apr Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Minutes 3 October 1996 Approved: / / Present: Chair Phil Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, Cheryl Smith Absent: Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Loren Tauer Staff: Geri Tierney, George Frantz Guests: None Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. No persons appeared to be heard Member concerns Jon Meigs asked what transpired at the October 1 Planning Board meeting regarding the Baker parcel. It is a parcel partially within the new Conservation District with difficult access; Mr. Baker is considering selling part of the parcel to the City to incorporate into their watershed property. Mr. Baker appeared before the Planning Board to ask what, if any, development would be allowed on the remaining parcel if he sold part to the City. Mr. Meigs thinks the CB should have some input; Ms. Tierney will find out what transpired and report to the CB. Report from Field Trip to South Hill Swamp Jon Meigs described the recent field trip to this Unique Natural Area (UNA) led by Nancy Ostman of the Cornell Plantations. Several Town Board and Planning Board members attended, in addition to Jon, Loren Tauer, Richard Fischer and Geri Tierney. The group walked the through the wet "bowl" of the swamp, and then walked the rim of this roughly circular bowl starting from land owned by Cornell, passing onto land owned by Ithaca College. The group saw a variety of wetland and dryland vegetation associations and a spectacular view of Cayuga Lake. In Jon Meigs' opinion, the value of this UNA is well documented and we should work to protect this area. Geri Tierney added that many trip participants asked Nancy Ostman to define the boundaries of the "unique" area; Ms. Ostman said that the locally rare communities are contained within the somewhat circular "bowl" of the swamp roughly corresponding to the potential wetland outlined on the field,trip map (attached). Within this bowl, the topography slopes gently downward to the center with no hydrographic outflow; the rim of this bowl is clearly defined by a steep break in topography. The current, roughly -designated boundaries of this UNA extend far to the north of this bowl; Ms. Ostman indicated that although the unique vegetation at this site is concentrated within this bowl, the area to the north contains steep slopes and high quality forest worthy of protection. George Frantz added that significant wetlands are present on the sloping land northeast of the bowl, as there are periodic breaks in the steep topography which catch water. As the parcels owned by Cornell are protected from development, the most important parcels for protection within this UNA are owned by Ithaca College, which has previously refused to sell. Parcels owned by the Monkemeyer family may also be important for protection. While the group did not attempt to view the west boundary of the UNA to see it's proximity to Evan Monkemeyer's Ithaca Estates proposal, George Frantz reported that his own investigation indicates this boundary is perhaps 200 feet east of Evan Monkemeyer's property. Coordinator Report Coordinator Geri Tierney reported the following: 1) So that the CB can best utilize her skills, Ms. Tierney reported her background. She holds an M.S. degree in Natural Resources from Cornell University, and her training and previous work experience are in ecology, environmental policy and GIS. 2) At the recent APA/NYPF conference, the Planning Staff collected a variety of written materials for CB members, which are available to pick up at this and the next meeting. 3) The Town's GIS development is progressing well; we now have a great deal of information describing the Town's tax parcels in the ArcView system, available for analysis and cartography. The CB should coordinate with Ms. Tierney to view the system and it's capabilities. 4) The Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) would like to meet with the CB to devise protection mechanisms for important areas in the Town. The CB members should report back to staff whether they can meet jointly with COC on October 17 at 7:30 pm. 5) It is time to recruit new members. We will try to fill our two currently vacant seats, and any others which open, using the local media and perhaps by sending letters to potentially interested parties. Members whose terms expire in December 1996 (Eva Hoffman, Cheryl Smith, and Loren Tauer) must write a letter to the Town Board indicating whether or not they wish to be reappointed. Chair Report Robert Bland of Cornell has invited the CB to send a representative to the Veterinary Incinerator Steering Committee. This 15-16 member group will review the proposed incinerator project to determine if it is the best solution for regulated waste disposal, but will not have authority over the matter. The Town is currently represented by Supervisor Cathy Valentino. After some discussion, it was decided to appoint Phil Zarriello as the CB representative. Letter to Dean Loew Regarding Incinerator After some discussion, the group approved the letter with changes. Staff will incorporate changes into final draft. Environmental Review Committee Report The ERC recently visited the site of the Botie-Warden subdivision on Mecklenburg Road and reports the presence of a wetland which could be affected by this proposal. They will draft written comments. 1996 Park and Open Space Plan Assistant Town Planner George Frantz presented the inventory section of the new Park and Open Space Plan. Drafts of this section were distributed to CB members for review. This plan began with efforts of CB members, and has been continued by Planning staff. The plan seeks to create an integrated, linked network of parks and recreation space within the Town, and provide adequate recreational opportunity for current and future Town residents. Staff inventoried current park and recreation space within the Town, including Town, City, State, County and privately held space. Using national standards for per capita recreation and open space needs, they compared the existing inventory to the recommended amount of recreation and open space for our current and projected future population. They found that the Town currently falls short of the recommended amount of recreation and open space, and that the existing parks are not equally distributed. The Plan individually describes existing parks and parks needed. The next section of the report, which will be distributed at our November meeting, will delineate recommendations. CB members were urged to review this section of the report and report comments back to Planning Staff by October 17 (two weeks from this meeting). ERC Committee Membership Chair Zarriello announced that Eva Hoffmann has decided to step down as chair of the ERC, creating the need for a new chair and a new member. None of the members present desired to chair this committee, though Lois Levitan said she'd be willing to join the committee. Chair Zarriello suggested that in lieu of appointing a new ERC chair, the CB could attempt to rotate the environmental review projects through the entire membership. Business Chair Zarriello discussed plans for attendance at the upcoming Conservation Committee Conference with members planning to attend. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. WORKING DRAFT: Land Ownership and Wetlands in Coy Glen UNA/CEA For 9/26/96 Field Trip Note: Land ownership and vacancy shown only for parcels in UNA or CEA. Legend Unique Natural Area NWI Potential Wetland Potential Wetland Proposed Development EM Vacant Land (as per County Assessment) Creek 1 if = 1000' GLT. 9/10/96. cb.anr DRAFT -TOWN OF ITHACA DRAFT CONSERVATION BOAR� ,SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 PRESENT: Chair Phillip Zarriello, Lois Levitan, Richard Fischer, Cheryl Smith, Loren Tauer, JoAnn Cornish, Planner. ABSENT: Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs. Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. MINUTES APPROVAL: MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of September 5, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 5, the middle of the paragraph where it states "The Ithaca Journal is supporting Cornell's move.", should read "An editorial in the Ithaca Journal showed apparent support for the Cornell University Project." Page 5, at the bottom of the paragraph where it states "Cornell should prepare a management immunization plan before a project is planned.", should read "Cornell should prepare a management minimization plan before a project is planned." Page 2, in the middle of the first paragraph where it states "Pathological Regula Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to' humans such as rabies.", should read "Pathological Regulated Medical Waste is the same pathological waste that is infectious to humans such as rabies." Page 1, AB ENT shall be added with Lois Levitan. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of August 1, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 2, in the sentence of the third paragraph it should read "Ms. Tierney will 1-e helping out with the Conservation Board." CONSERVATION BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT Page 1, ABSENT shall be added with Loren Tauer. Page 1, in the middle of the sixth paragraph where it states "This is far as Saddlewood Farms hot in the process.", should read "This is as far as Saddlewood Farms has gotten in the process." Page 4, in the middle of the first paragraph the name Phil McUben should be replaced with Bill McGiben. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Tauer. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve the Minutes of July 18, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. Page 1, in the middle of the first paragraph under Persons to be Heard should read "along with other people who are members of the Natural Areas Committee". Page 1, in the second paragraph under Persons to be Heard where it states "The closest other place that it would be found would be the Long Island area or the coastal plains.", should read "The closest other place that would be found would be on Long Island or the coastal plains." Page 3, bottom paragraph and thereafter change Bob Land to Bob Bland. Page 2, the first paragraph which states "Seasonably even the swamp is dry because the soil is so shallow, so it is very wet in the winter and the spring.", should read "The swamp is typically dry in the fall and summer, but it is very wet in the winter and the spring." Page 4, in the last paragraph it reads mice, which should read musis. Page 5, in the first paragraph it should read zebra muscles instead -of just muscles. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Smith, Tauer. CONSERVATION BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Mr. Tauer to approve the Minutes of June 6, 1996 by the Conservation Board as written, seconded by Ms. Smith. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve the Minutes of August 3, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Tauer. Last page, in the middle of the first paragraph where it states "There is no Town ordinance again clearing land", should read "There is no Town ordinance against clearing land". A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve Minutes of June 1, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. Page 3, in the middle of the page where it states "Alienation of parkland status and this normally does not happen unless other land is available.", should read "Alienation of parkland status is not normally done and this does not happen unless other land is available." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. CONSERVATION BOARD 4 SEPTEMBER 19,1996 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT MOTION made by Chair Zarriello to approve Minutes of May 4, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Ms. Smith. Page 2, last paragraph where it states "Compos available weekdays", should read "Comi2os available weekdays". Page 4, in the second paragraph where it states "Mr. Frantz will Pgak at the next meeting.", should read "Mr. Frantz will speak at the next meeting." A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer, Levitan. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - None. The motion was declared to be carried. MOTION made by Ms. Smith to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1995 by the Conservation Board as written with corrections, seconded by Mr. Fischer. First page, ABSENT should be added with Richard Fischer and Jon Meigs. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Smith, Tauer. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Levitan. The motion was declared to be carried. Chair Zarriello read a letter addressed to Dean Loew. The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on how to modify the letter. Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting. 7 November 1996 Name Address Dear Name, As a representative of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB), I'm writing to let you know that we currently have openings for new members. You were recommended to us as someone who may have an interest in the type of work done by this Board. The CB is a group of up to nine volunteer members who advise the Town Planning Board on environmental matters of conservation. The local law that created the CB charges the CB with review of proposals for new development which affect open space or other environmental concerns in the Town. Additionally, we undertake a variety of projects related to open space protection and environmental conservation. Currently, we are involved in reviewing the proposed Cornell Veterinary Incinerator project plans and investigating possibilities for protecting Unique Natural Areas and Scenic Viewsheds within the Town. CB members must be Town of Ithaca residents and serve one or two year terms that are renewable. The CB meets about once a month, usually the first Thursday of every month, at Town Hall from 7:30 pm until about 10:00 pm. Some preparation is needed prior to meetings. Additionally, members occasionally meet for site visits, and usually contribute to a particular Conservation Board project by working with a subcommittee. If you would like to learn more about the CB, please contact me at . If you know others who may be interested, please feel free to pass the word along to them, or pass their names on to me. Thank you. Respectfully, TOWN OF ITHACA FINAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 Phil Zamello, Chair Conservation Board 10/29/96 Nancy Ostman Cornell Plantations Dear Ms. Ostman, In response to the recent joint meeting you attended with the Town Planning Committee and the Conservation Board (CB), the CB would like to retain you and Mr. Robert Wesley to inventory the flora and other natural characteristics of the South Hill Swamp Unique Natural Area (UNA). Specifically the CB is seeking written documentation describing the natural features, including plant communities, mature vegetation, rare plants, wetlands, and location of springs within the South Hill Swamp UNA. We understand sufficient information exists describing the critical area within the central "bowl" of the UNA, so we'd like this effort to concentrate in the area of the UNA outside the critical area. The information provided by this investigation should be adequate to document any natural features, such as those listed above, which would warrant further conservation efforts. Any rare species or endangered plant species that occur in the UNA should be identified and located; documentation should be provided that defines the plant's rare status and the region of this designation. We recognize it may not be possible to adequately gather all the requested information this late in the fall, so we ask that you mark areas which warrant additional study and notify us of this need. The CB also requests a written opinion on possible impacts on plant and animal communities within the critical part of the UNA from changes in water quantity or quality from the contributing area to the south, across East King Road. The CB recognizes that permission must be sought from several landowners in order for this work to be completed, and both CB Members and Planning Staff will be available to assist with this task. Because of potential development in or near the UNA and the limited opportunity for inventorying this season, we ask that you respond in writing by close of business next Wednesday (11/6), for action by the Town Board at their 11/7 meeting. In your response, please indicate whether you would be available to perform this work and include a brief workplan including the timeframe for completion, and a cost itemization. Please address this response to myself, Conservation Board Chair, at Town Hall (fax 273-1704). If both parties agree, a contract for services will be drafted. If you have any questions, please contact myself at 266-0217 x3014 or CB Coordinator Geri Tierney (273-1747). Respectfully, Pti� Lr Phil Zarriello, Chair Conservation Board F. Robert Wesley SS # 080 44 4907 541 Ellis Hollow Creek Road Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 539-6118 Phil Zarriello, Chair Conservation Board Town of Ithaca Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Zarriello, Nancy L. Ostman, Ph. D. SS # 474 52 6480 465 Van Ostrand Road Groton, New York 13073 (607) 898-4225 November 4, 1996 ! /SON Fo -FT—J 9 You have requested that we conduct a survey of the South Hill Unique Natural Area. We have information on the core area, so we would concentraw our survey on the other sections of the UNA. This fall we can identify the community types, locate wetlands, springs, and mature vegetation. Our report will also include our opinion of the possible impacts from development on adjoining properties. We will note the value of the vegetation and presence of high quality habitats -,which should be investigated next spring or summer for most detailed species lists and to search for rare plants. We can do the preliminary survey this fall for $1200. We would like to begin as soon as possible this fall in order to get the most information possible because the vegetation is quickly senescing. If we can begin this week, we would complete the survey by mid -month and complete a report mid-December. The cost of the detailed survey is difficult to estimate at this time. It v.' ill depend on what we find this fall. We can give you an estimate as part of the report for this project. If you need any further information please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NandL. Ostma Y Robert Wesley b TOWN OF ITHACAC(DPY 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 26 November 1996 Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear M, As a representative of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB), I'm writing to let you know that we currently have openings for new members. You were recommended to us as someone who may have an interest in the type of work done by this Board. The CB is a group of up to nine volunteer members who advise the Town Planning Board on environmental matters of conservation. The local law that created the CB charges the CB with review of proposals for new development which affect open space or 'other environmental concerns in the Town. Additionally, we undertake a variety of projects related to open space protection and environmental conservation. Currently, we are involved in reviewing the proposed Cornell Veterinary Incinerator project plans and investigating possibilities for protecting Unique Natural Areas and Scenic Viewsheds within the Town. The CB has won several awards for its work creating planning tools such as the Town of Ithaca Wetland Guidelines, the Six -Mile Creek Valley Report, and the report on Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca. CB members must be Town of Ithaca residents and serve one or two year terms that are renewable. The CB meets about once a month, usually the first Thursday of every month, at Town Hall from 7:30 pm until about 10:00 pm. Some preparation is needed prior to meetings. Additionally, members occasionally meet for site visits, and usually contribute to a particular Conservation Board project by working with a subcommittee. If you would like to learn more about the CB, please contact staff coordinator Geri Tierney at 273-1747 during business hours, or myself at 273-9405 in the evening. If you know others who may be interested, please feel free to pass the word along to them, or pass their names on to me. Thank you. Respectfully, Phil Zarriello, Chair Town of Ithaca Conservation Board r .. Letter of recruitment for Conservation Board Members mailed to the following persons on 11/26/96: Mr. Daniel Seltzer Forest Home Improvement Assoc. 228 Forest Home Drive Fran and Gary Bergstrom 113 Birchwood Drive Wendy Taylor 700 Warren Road David St. George 204 Culver Road Tessa Flores and Ira Goldstein 154 Compton Road Katherine Payne Ellis Hollow Road Kara Hagedorn 327 West King Road Joan Bokaer 105 Rachel Carson Way Louise Mudrak 693 Coddington Road Herb Gottfried 237 Renwick Drive Robin Botie 1343 Mecklenburg Road Ruth Mahr 103 Judd Falls Road Jane Johnson 48 Comfort Road Tony Ingraham 113 Nelson Road James Volckhausen 330 West King Road Faith Chase 106 Comfort Road John Yntema 933 Danby Road Loo -0 3x? /U. S 13 2q � -Pa,by lie- ........................ .. .... ............... .................. ..........::v:::::: rv: - ::.v: :::w::: x:rv: r::::::::::: v:::::: x:.�: x:r-:y:::::: ::: w:::::: -:::.i:xi:?•:ti+ff:::: vx:::::::: {?r v:: •:x :.:::::::::::+: u:::::::::. .......................v ...+ ........... n.. n............. n... r..x:::x:•.........f r.. r:................. :.............:.... F... n.......:.... n..+•+w::::............ ..........:...:...... ... rJ....i............. .....::::::::::::::: rr::................ ..r .. f................... r..xv::::::::..... .... .. :..: :.:::.:�::: •::::.................. f..::::.+.-:::::: :•:::..r::::+. --.......x: f:::: -:.?. x. .. .+.. r....... .... f•::::::n;•:::::::•::niw::::::::.}v:: ::•::?r. y:: .r fw::::::::::: n.. .... .... .................+............n..................... r..r .. . ........................................... n.................. r....... .......... .:::: •x.:.r.....::::::::::::: fh:•:. i:.....' :::::ii:•i ii:??h:...... i:::: ........................................ ................... ................. ................ ........................................... .......... n.............../.•::nv::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :•iii:tiff:•:::............: :•::... nv: :.:::::::::n:v:::: rr::::::::::::r: �v::....... v .:.:................ v.. n.. n. n..... ..... n.....r:: r::::'?•isY::::::::::::::::::.i•:::::::::::.�:::::::.�::::::.:::::.:.�:::::::..... ... r.....................{'!.•i$:S:4iiiiiii:isis6:•i:}:i�•........................n..r................................. r. TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD 7:30 pm, Thursday, 5 December 1996 .......... r...:..:......+xx:::: x:: rry n...... :.r: v ::.: ........................ r .... r. rr::::::. rf :•: ................................... ............:.....................................r................................. f. r::::::w::•..n....:::::::::::::::::::::::: ffv:{hili::._•::::::::.::::: :v::: i•::::: y:: f...:..:.. _ _ _ :::{j:::i�+i::�:.>.i�-:':?tip{: •:. ..�::::::::::::::: ii:�ii ih:•i:•i:•i:{:hiiiiii:.vii:?{•iv:•iii:v:.v:..:::..i •::{:::::::{{::O�.iivi:.......••••••• ........ ... .... •• ...} ..... .......mrriihilihi:•ish:???•i:•ishh:•i:•i:•isLiiiiii:•i:•i:•i:S::::::::::i.'r ::::.:v:..v'•i.v'•::.:v:::::::::::::::::.'.:'•.::::::::::: iiv::w::::: •:: niv.:v.�iiiiii:•ihi::.:::'•i:::::: Y+hi:{{h:•ih:;ii:.. ............ :::::::+:::viii+=i::v:'•:::'•: rr::::vy:: :v :::wn:...:•••v:: rr::::: i�i::::: :ii ii:•i:+ :::::::::./::::x::::::::::::.;iv :::::::::::.::::::::::::.iiiis ..........ixf .....:--.................. ::: rr.::� fititi::ii:�?�i:::ii:::::?:•i:-ii.-.�:.:�iiii$iiii.:i�:iSiii:.ii:i ii: i. r. r......:..... rn.r. n. .:::::::v.::::::::.::v:::::::..:n•.v:::::::n.::v:::::::......{:i.+f: �iiii:{{::vv.:::i++•••.:vv:v.:.-i ilii iiiiii:J:•:{fi:•i iiiiiiti{{�:{•i i' Town Hall Board Room 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building) (607) 273-1747 FIT 6 11 7:30 pm 1. Persons to be heard 7:35 pm 2. Member Concerns 7:45 pm 3. Coordinator and Chair Reports 7:55 pm 4. Committee Reports 8:05 pm 5. Items for Discussion a. Ithaca College Site Plan b. Membership 9:00 pm 6. Business a. Elections b. Approval of 1997 Schedule C. Approval of minutes from 11/7/96 9:30 pm CB Members: Phil Zarriello, Chair Richard Fischer Lois Levitan Loren Tauer 7. Adjournment (File Name: c.N28p1a&cb\12-05-96.agd) Cheryl Smith, Vice Chair Eva Hoffmann Jon Meigs TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (Environmental Review Committee) FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner DATE: November 22, 1996 RE: Proposed Construction Projects - Ithaca College Enclosed please find material relating to a number of construction projects planned for Ithaca College over the next three years. Proposed is a 55,000 square foot addition to Ford Hall, a 24,000 square foot, single story building to be used as a fitness center, an 83,000 square foot, three story building with a basement to be used for the school of Health Sciences and Human Performance (HSHP), an 11,000 square foot building to be used for temporary laboratory space while the new HSHP is being built, and a new physical plant building proposed to be built in the distant future. In addition, the proposed buildings will displace approximately 110 parking spaces. Another 90 parking spaces currently leased from Axiohm will have to be accommodated on Campus, and 30 more spaces are being planned to accommodate the new HSHP building, for a total of 232 new parking spaces. This project is at the Sketch Plan phase and is scheduled to go before the Planning Board on December 17, 1996. Discussion of this project by Conservation Board members will take place at the December 5, 1996 Conservation Board meeting. Comments from the CB would be beneficial to Planning Board members as they review this project. If you would like to submit comments prior to that time, feel free to call me at 273-1747. As always, your input is greatly appreciated. FILE:IFILES\ 1DEVREVS\CONSERBD\ERC\ICPROJET.MEM,COMP#15 Develo ment Review Application NOV 2 01900 Planned Construction Projects Ithaca College Ithaca, New York 14850 Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C. Architects, Planners, and Interior Designers 217 North Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273 7600 November 20, 1996 Contents Development Review Application Narrative Planned Construction Projects.........................................................1 Tentative Schedule for Construction.................................................... 2 CampusPlan .......................................................................3- Attachments (11 x17) Ford Hall Addition.............................................................9 pages Fitness Center................................................................. 1 page Temporary Occupational Therapy Labs ............................................. 1 page Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C. Ithaca College Planned Construction Projects Ithaca College is planning the construction of several projects on the South Hill campus over the next three years. The purpose of this submittal is to provide the Town of Ithaca with an overview of the proposed projects, and to set the groundwork for more detailed presentations of each project at the appropriate time for Site Plan Approval and Special Approval. All of the projects are geared toward improvement of facilities supporting the College's teaching mission and campus life, without any anticipated increase in enrollment or staffing levels. This submittal includes a general description of each project, an overall schedule for the work, a campus map showing the projects in the existing context, and supporting documentation where applicable to the current level of each project's development. Ford Hall Addition The architect for this addition is Bauer Stark + Lashbrook of Toledo, Ohio. HOLT&C is assisting the architects and the College with state and local code issues, but Charles Stark, principal -in -charge, will make presentations for approvals to the Town. The proposed construction will add approximately 55,000 gross square feet to the south and west sides of the existing music building, Ford Hall. The space provided in the addition will allow each faculty member to have an individual studio; provide a smaller Recital Hall as an alternative performance space to the existing 750 seat Concert Hall; provide rehearsal space outside the performance spaces; and address the substantial technological issues that have taken place since the original building was constructed more than thirty years ago. A more detailed description of the project, as well as floor plans of the proposed addition, are attached to this submittal. Fitness Center The 24,000 gross square foot, single -story building will house exercise and fitness facilities for recreational as well as instructional activities. Located adjacent to the existing outdoor pool, it will provide locker, shower, toilet, and support facilities for that use, as well as for the indoor fitness programs. A floor plan of the proposed building is attached to this submittal. Health Sciences & Human Performance The new building for the School of Health Sciences and Human Performance (HSHP) will be located adjacent to the school's existing facilities in Smiddy Hall and Hill Center. The building, totaling approximately 83,000 gross square feet, will comprise three stories and a basement, with the floor levels corresponding to the existing floors in Smiddy Hall. The building will house laboratories for the Departments of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Exercise and Sports Sciences, clinics for Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Fitness/Wellness, and offices for the Gerontology Institute. The clinics will serve primarily Ithaca College students, faculty, and staff, with a limited number of off -campus visitors. Because the project is in an early stage of development, plans are not included in this submittal. Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C. 1 ::r•Y ii'rii:ii5:ti:+' DEVELOPMENT ;:n,.:••....{v/.�...,rw..;.,}...::::•.v,:}:r:•::{{;::{:: ly of 7T,�, Town of Ithaca }}. - - - 126 East Seneca St. REVM hi Date Received _ 21 r I Ithaca, NY 14850 APPLICATION Project No. mm� ALL Applications: Type of Application: Subdivision Site Plan _X Rezoning Stage of Review: Sketch -)L-- Preliminary Final Additional Meeting Project Name if any): Planned Construction Projects at Ithaca College Street Address or Location of Project: Ithaca College Cam us Tax Parcel(s) Involved: Ithaca College Cam-'pus Owner: Ithaca College, c/o Thomas R. Salm, Vice President Address: Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 274-3285 Applicant or Agent If different from Owner): Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang,- P.C. Ar Address: 217 North Aurora St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 273-7600 Engineer: Phone: Architect: Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube, & Chian P.C. Phone: 273-7600 Planner: Phone: Attorney: Phone: SUBDIVISION Applications: Total number of lots proposed(existing + new): Are new roads or public utilities proposed? Estimated site improvement cost (exclude cost of land acquisition & prof. fees): $ .00 SITE PLANApplications: Project is: Residential Lot Area: No. of dwelling units: Non-Residential X Total Bldg. Floor Area: 197,000 S.F. Estimated project cost (exclude cost of land acquisition & prof. fees): $ NA .00 REZONING Applications: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: ALL Applications: The information on this application form is submitted in addition to other information, plats, and plans required by the Town of Ithaca. I attest that all information so submitted is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Also, by filing this application, permission is granted to members of the various Town Boards, Committees, and Councils, the Planning Dept. staff, Engineering Dept. staff, and any other persons designated by the Town that may be involved in the review of this application, to enter the property specified above to inspect in connecti 'th r view f this applicatign. elluu Owner's Signature Date lican gent Signature (If different) Date Rev. 8/92 \1� iitect WJP��C j1 «x • -` �3 $ pp : / y> v :::: is •:'::r t:;ks :.:.:. ...v........ -i-:....... .hxv{•.�. •.:C.tt:s•'i./"iti!•:::-•••f^.!inti a`C+�±A::.•.. Subdivision Review: Acolication (Sketch): NON-REFFUNOABLE FE= From Town Fee Schedule Due ESCROW_ From Town Fee Schedule Due o 4 New LctyUnits $50 0 10 New L=Udtsrs :tan 10 New L=Units F $100 Plus$2/lbt/Unit inary Plat: o t 0 New Lotwl lnits (Without RoadslPubGc Utilities) $50 Plus $10 Ant or Unit All Crers $100 0.005 of Est Imcc Cosi nal =far. 1 to 10 New LctuUnits (Without RoadsfPublic Utilities) $50 Plus S10 A-ot or Unit All Cthers S100 0.005 of Est imer. Cost Pmiec::nscection (Not Building Insp.): 0.005 of EsL Imor. Cost Pats and replats whose sole purpose is to dedicate land for public use: No Charge Plat Reaifinnations: $50 Plus $S A.at or Unit Site Plan Review: Initial Apolication (Sketch): $75 Preliminary Plan: Nan -Residential $100 0.001 of Est Prcject Cost` Residential $f00 $25 Per Dwelling Unit Final Plan: Non -Residential $100 0.001 of Est Project Cost Residential $100 $25 Per Dwelling Unit Inspection: Nan -Residential — 0.0005 of Est. Project Cost Residential $25 Per Dwelling Unit Rezoningaaning Amendment: $175 _ . Plus Pertinent Site Plan Fees Special Approvalx -$100 APPLY WITH SLOGJZONING Plus Pertinent Site Plan Fees Area & Use Variances: $80 APPLY WITH BLDGJMNING - Additional Meeting Fees: Agenda Processing: $30 Public Hearing Pr c'esw* : $50 Consult Local Law #10 1994 complete explanation of review fees and escow: # of new lots is # that would exist after subdivision. The minimum initial es=m deposit is $200. Separate escrow check if deposft m over $i000. Calwlated Calatiaoed Escrow- •:00 Fee Adjtutitten Less Escrow Balance -Fees Paid: Esaaw Deposited Receipt Receipt Check Check NOTES: Received by Date Parking Lot Expansion The Ford Hall addition and the new HSHP building will displace approximately 110 parking spaces. In addition, approximately 90 spaces used in lots currently leased from Axiohm across Danby Road from the campus will have to be accommodated on the campus. The proposed expansion of the J -lots south of the Towers residence halls will add 200 spaces, and a proposed expansion to M -lot near Boothroyd Hall will add 32 more spaces. This total addition of 232 spaces will replace those lost to new construction (±110), to terminating leased space at Axiohm (±90), and new HSHP staff/clinic parking (±30). The Fitness Center will serve the existing campus population, and is not expected to create any increased parking demand. Temporary Occupational Therapy Labs The Occupational Therapy program, which admitted its first class at the College in 1995, will require Tentative Schedule for Construction temporary laboratory space until the new HSHP building is completed in 1999. The College proposes to locate an approximately 11,000 square foot structure on the shot put/discus throw area south of the tennis courts near the main campus entrance from Danby Road. The area is fairly level, easily accessible from the campus road, near related functions in Smiddy Hall, close to water and sewer, and reasonably unobtrusive. A preliminary site plan for the proposed structure is attached to this submittal. Physical Plant Building The College has considered plans for a new Physical Plant building in its development outlook for several years, and it was included in the Campus Master Plan that was reviewed with the Town in 1991. While plans for this building are not yet being designed, it is mentioned in this report and shown on the campus plan so that it can be seen as part of the overall review of future construction. Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C. 2 N 0 180 300 600 Ithaca College Axio m Temporry OT Labs d hitness Center Parking Expansion 0 Hoffman OBrien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C. 3 Pon uli NOV 2 019,06 PLAN- G, Ithaca College Schoolof. Us. -Po"" Ithaca, New York 14850 A The Concept for the Ford Hall Addition Although the Ford Hall Music Building has served the college well for over 30 years, there are a number of shortcomings that must be corrected at this time_ With the assistance of faculty and administration, we have worked to identify and correct these deficiencies as well as plan for continued growth in the future. The building is too small Over the years, Ithaca College's music programs have seen great success and grown tremendously both by additional student enrollment and additional faculty. In order to squeeze the current faculty in the existing space, studios were doubled up and some faculty are literally occupying janitors closets! This new plan will allow all faculty members to have a studio by adding 30 new rooms. Practice rooms, currently occupied by faculty, can be returned to their original and intended use. Ithaca College's Music Pedagogy program has also developed and grown over the past decade. Currently, the space for Music Pedegogy program is inadequate. With the planned improvements, a new classroom, related storage, office space and an observation suite will be added to accommodate this successful program. Additional facilities are.needed Adequate rehearsal space for the large orchestra is not available. The orchestra practices on the Ford Hall stage, but this is very cramped because pianos are also stored on the stage. The Hall is "tied up" by these rehearsals so no other functions can take place in the Concert Hall. The chorus has the same sort of problem. New Large .Choral and Instrumental rehearsal rooms will solve this problem and allow the Concert Hall to host other activities. An additional large lecture/multimedia classroom is needed and will be provided in a new wheelchair -accessible space. This new lecture room will accommodate 75 students. Currently, there is no Recital Hall in the building. An existing rehearsal hall is being used for this purpose when schedules allow. Other recitals are being held in the Concert Hall. An audience --of 250 or less gets "lost" in the 750 -seat space of Ford Hall and acoustically this large hall is not always appropriate. These two rooms, the rehearsal hall_ and Concert Hall are over worked. A new 250 -seat Recital Hall will relieve this pressure and provide a better space for small recitals. The keyboard classroom space will also receive some attention in the planned addition. This space will be doubled to accommodate the growing demand. The building is not setup for today's technology Electronic music and recording is very popular with today's students. Current programs are being taught in a tiny practice room that has been retrofitted as well as possible to accommodate its special needs. Computer-aided music education has no classroom space. A new computer lab and a computer classroom is being planned. New studios and related -rooms will also be wired for the new technology. Support space is limited or non-existent To run a successful program, one must have appropriate support. Currently, the piano technician works out of a broom closet and the instrument *repairman works in a former orchestra pit. The extensive collection of printed sheet music purchased by the College is being stored in a mechanical equipment room and recording booth, hardly an appropriate place. New rooms for piano and instrument repair as well as a new sheet music library are planned. Technical building issues need to be addressed Life safety, ventilation and energy management will be improved with this new addition and some renovation. Total accessibility of the building to the disabled will also be achieved. Additional stairwells, elevators and improved traffic patterns will result in a more function and accessible music department. We believe that by addressing these issues, the College will create a more beautiful and friendly building for students, patrons and faculty alike that will function well today and for years to come. Charles H. Stark August 8, 1996 ...�....................................... O p O :•:: ; ::::;::•::•:::O O O O O ■ I O I J y I • '•• •• 1 : �r 0 00 ® o 0 0 0 j� in i i SITE PLAN Ensemble Collection Computer Lab Compute_ r Classroom Instrument Joint Work Room Tech. Area �_y�_y�_ _y�_ ,� _ -,� ,�_ y _ ,,r_ _y�_y�_�� ,y ^y - L \JL Piano Tech. Area Music Education . -�::: a �:�: "' •� � ..�;,:.:::: ::`-::�:-:::'=:: :;>��_:: -:� = :�:�:.�=�;:=:: � ::. � ::_ = � _ _ •i�'•'4:yi.:i•}:.• •{ } :..mid } .... :•. :•--.•'!€:-: • sAL�6: : F .� iiJ{6'{:: Music Educatiory :��-r.�.::::•:: .� ..�-�::;-::. _ :: •� ��'='�i97+�s vii:::::. �: ;Gt{: -:E ••' •T�i:£�L:[�1:k - Conference Room..::: ::: .: .......... . . ..:...... h- - 3 { •.• • •.•_-.��_-_-_ •' a '..s -. -_ =- a —(.-t7,:�:':-_ •. ::8• :•::•: :=rte:•::� • e 1 .....::-5:•. _ }i:.,'.���.-:-'r. :�_}]{ e -...:•: Ya•: .:v: 'r}}:: v: }.r•'•'sti�.};�_ �:- C .... - .r7-.. � .. �}} :: a •:: {_:i{ � : •°'•r3�`•:: :a•: .. ...... :: } ? s•. :• . is _ tw _ ::::.•.:•.•:•:•.:•::::•:.. • .YP.... .•.'•.:.:. '�• a .. - - -�• ... •:.¢.....:•. • ....' .- .•Mid•... GROUND FLOOR PLAN w w Piano Studio Piano Studio - - Faculty-Studios 1 i v .� ==:=:.:=:=::: . P2S}.sp:_•.asi.4::•E-•.iS��a:x,{ts•}:_N•.•�?:+u?i:.ii •i>S?JY:= •,-scx}r: {r,.;er. are.rs.: r.<ddS4i•: :-�3CvF't' =bSi:: s::.r:ii•.raeu6:• . Ele tropic Piano Studios 1;, _.. ::•:.: =::: .::�: Y _ =:•: � :• : ........ .:.'; -: i � ':::•} � RM...........::::::.. ...•- - ...,:_.'.• ...... .. - :=:=>:Small Jazz :: .:tom:• Chamber Roo === = = == -- :: •-...::..::•:. fR;... - - - �,�pp�� _tea.•:L.._'•is-: {:.;.::.:. � ::•i::}: :• :-::?3':�:�:�:::": .. ..:.�•• - �-- _ _ - • ^+ S l+t.s'N;r�.r,. - � :i{•r '+�'.a]r. •.fi�{4c•. R`�ksT:': -•Y•- '•} `�}? : i'•'i'rr: :Y.tiiSiZi} :{::j } ••icaa :•: : ;�lrFi�Y:: .3iB74?. .: -- . :-+syr.: bD4`4:_= ;iRX?G.. `:f+?---`}.•: ... :• . .: ,tom _�-.. :' ?.; :• •-:tib• .•----�---•� •:.•.•..•: •' :•.av: ' {•:':' .:•}::.::•:-:-:•:'. Lj— Large Lecture Room rMl i FIRST FLOOR FLAN w ,.. .. i Percussion Studio Faculty Studios � .sueue Large Instrumental Rehearsal ----- -__— t I I ,tet -iii!? ._ _ e � •rM. x _ — :ae•:::....... - '::.: •:.:;:::::: •: _des _:.•:::::. :. _ :: }:•:::-:{•}i. :.?.iF::ti•i:•: ' •::::.:Ju•}3�•.•::.�._:::.:•:. :•:•}i:.i:�}:�:�:�?' :•camas': •:}:-'�:�}}::;?:iti... • :': .d i . :'•:. :•:vim•:::= :. ::::. � ':'E$•::• :•:::•. •.•...•}. I •: • •: • }} r :• •mo-�c�i+.•; ' •.. '- {•s :}['_}:-.:•:'t: ;} =: ': _'_: 7 r. . :: }}:::..::.. .. .... • .: ��.� _ _ _ :{:. $ ..jVCIQWIi.::•:. .•::... ..... ........... • .sir. - - r m •: xkel.iit►. h-.; •:::.: . . ....:. • _ _ _ ..: _ ::•: :•:v:: =:•: b•:: . _ '�iEg' y.Je... .:Sf::::•:• _ :. F" • • • _ • :• _: } :' ...'g'.: •: {{++ KEW �Ttx1/(i .. .. ............... . :::: •:::: ....... .... ........... .. aaur� I :.s ::- - Vis•::•:•: �s I _ ��i ?'•. e ......... :. .... _ _ Choral Rehearsal F:; �:=::�:::�::�:�:�:�`�:�:�:= : r..�� o :� . .i . � r sR�T-1 CC �L k Recording Studio .sehue. �^ Green Room a,TNESOL M -AN New Recital Hall (250 seats) I - I SECOND FLOOR PLAN I W W .. i i Skylights i` Roof w M '': 'S ::;:;:::':•:•:•: ':•:':-:•:•:':::•.-: :•: ::' ;:;:-... is sd • ;• ; f{ 16•: Skylight li ht., e t ................................. r t. 3 ............ ....... 'LpMf llLL �':• �::•: : .I •:•:S :•l::::::: ... :E ........ ........ .............. . :.1 Y •:- -..:Y.V . i •�tih ri ::: }} S :l :: ........ ........ ....................... ..... ': t •:: � :.;:.:: �::: . � . � . _�:_ia>{43'.x:::•'''' :::.:::• =..•. :::•: �•:: :.�•:: ••-'tom':: [ : t--dS r 1l?L7• /R01 Sgy '.1 . d:. .mom Y: 0 e Roof : �.�:'- Lower L .... ........ . :•r: 0 }} X. }Of :•:'' ter• {� Ste. a.\:.•::::•::•::.............:::::.: .•mak•::I' Fp 8 Skylight 3 P/ +tf mil• i1.•:: :•:::::' •' :•: :•: :•:' •:::•: :::•: :•:: ::•: :•::::•:•: ':•: :::;:::•: :•: ::': :•':• :}': ::•:•: - V.:•. : e •:::•::•.•:•::•::'::: :::•:: '::' •::•::•:•. Pj RQ Lem Light & Sound Control m Upper Part Roof Recital Hall FOURTH FLOOR FLAN 0 W X M pt -f-5 i�etc �9g CP Hip Health and Fitness Center School of Health Sciences and Human Performance Site Plan Ithaca College, Ithaca NY Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang. P.C. AF1CH rECTS, PLANNERS AND INTEROR DESIGNM 20 November 1996 29 Naih Auaa Street Ithaca, W 14M 607 273 7600 0 H OMS D CEN -VR Y CAMPUS co" Mdk E H000 H ALL xx # '1r x X x x Y . P?,01p �jEANO Fv�NESS CENTER K�LLI ARS HALL 7�0 POM- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 A A Hoffman O'Brien Look Taube & Chiang, P.C. ARCWEGTS, PLANNERS AND INTERIOR DESIGNERS 2V North Agora Street, bow, W IM 607 273 7600 X M X X wu TEMPORARY FACILITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ITHACA COLLEGE HSHP 1))=60' HOLT&C 96007 20 NOV 1996 1 TOWN OF 1 1 ri NAL 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 "PRESS RELEASE" Date: 22 November 1996 IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Geri Tierney, Town of Ithaca Planning Dept., 273-1747 Phil Zarriello, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Chair, 273-9405 Town of Ithaca. Conservation Board Seeks New Members The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB) is currently recruiting new members. This board is a group of up to nine volunteer members who advise the Town Planning Board on matters of environmental conservation. Town law charges the CB to review proposals for new development which affect open space or other environmental concerns in the Town. Additionally, we undertake a variety of projects related to open space protection and environmental conservation. Currently, we are involved in reviewing the proposed Cornell Veterinary Incinerator project plans and investigating possibilities for protecting Unique Natural Areas and Scenic Viewsheds within the Town. The CB has won several awards for its work creating planning tools such as the Town of Ithaca Wetland Guidelines, the Six -Mile Creek Valley Report, and the report on Planning for Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca. Members must be Town of Ithaca residents and serve one- or two-year terms that are renewable. The CB meets about once a month, usually the first Thursday of every month, at Town Hall from 7:30 pm until about 10:00 pm. Some preparation is needed prior to meetings. Additionally, members occasionally meet for site visits, and usually contribute to a particular Conservation Board project by working with a subcommittee. If you would like to learn more about the CB, please contact staff coordinator. Geri Tierney at 273-1747 during business hours, or CB Chair Phil Zarriello at 273-9405 in the evening. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 TO: Phil Zarriello FROM: George R. Frantz, AICP �- DATE: November 26, 1996 RE: Development Application Received. Enclosed please find, per the requirements of Local Law No.4 of 1993, materials for the following application for a two -lot subdivision before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: Project No.: 9611216. 50 Gray Road. Teeter 2 -Lot Subdivision. Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 3.0 +/- ac. parcel from Tax Parcel No. 33-1-27.2, 53.3 +/- ac. in size, located on Gray Road approximately 650 feet northwest of its intersection with Enfield Falls Road/ NYS Rte. 327, AG - Agricultural District. A. James Teeter, Owner/Applicant. Because this proposed subdivision involves more than five acres of land, this subdivision is subject to mandatory referral to the Conservation Board for its review. Mr. Teeter is requesting subdivision approval for the purpose of creating Parcel "B" as shown on the enclosed survey. It will become a houselot for another family member. The lot identified as Parcel "A" is not part of the proposal, as it is in the Town of Enfield. This application is expected to be on the Planning Board agenda at one of its January meetings. If you would like the Conservation Board to review this proposal at its December 5, 1996 meeting, please contact me at 273-1747 and I will arrange with Geri Tierney to have copies available at that meeting. A. J. Teeter Farm OF 12" (Town of Ithaca Portion) 18 2i Proposed Lot DATE: -1 - Ajr 0, TOWN OF ITHACA "S"S'0"S: 126 E. SENECA ST. SHEET, ITHACA. M.Y. 14850 —Or X11 a -0 :ell * z z 0��'n 0 zMll — TII m II ............. rll SII li 11 II ........... � W 1.02 .04 C) DA C�D C -S o AkS- 09 � W 1.02 .04 C) Town of Ithaca Planning Department 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607)273-1747 AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT In accordance with Section 283-a of the New York State Town Law, the Town of Ithaca will use the data in this statement to assist in evaluating -he impacts of proposed development projects on farm operations in Agricultural Districts. 1. Name of Applicant: Address: 2. Project Name/Location: /��-LLa� •`�t�� ��O�t� 3. Description of the proposed project. L: YA- 4. Tax Parcel Number: 13- 1 - 27-2- 5. 7.2. 5. Number of Total Acres Involved with Project: P-- 6. Number of Total Acres Presently in Tax Parcel: 7. How much of the site is currently being farmed? .5.3,V acres 8. Please identify who is farming the site. Ce , o. 9. Plea indicate what your intentions are for.use of the remainder of the property, over: Five years - Ten years - Twenty years - (P%EASE COMPLETE OTHER SIDE) 10. Who will maintain the rema nder of t e property not being used for this development? 11. Please indicate crop(s) or vegetational cover for the site. 12. Are there any drainage ways or underground tile systems located on the site? Will this project alter existing drainage patterns? / t.v� 41,0 13. Is the parcel included in a farm plan prepared by the Tompkins County soil and Water District of the USDA Soil Conservation Service? Are federal funded cost snaring practices in p=ace for the parcel? �4� 14. Is the parcel currently granted an agricultural tax exemption? Y N Signature of Applicant: FOR TOWN USE ONLY: NOTE: This form and a map of the parcel(s) should be mailed to County Planning as part of the GML m and n referral. It should also be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary along with the Notice of Public Hearing (Attach list of property owners within 500 feet). Name of Staff Person - Date Referred to County Planning - Orig. Date: 4/22/94. (Filename: Blanks\AgriData.blk) TO: Conservation Board Members FROM: Geri Tierney DATE: 5 December 1996 RE: Natural Feature Maps for Teeter Farm Subdivision The enclosed maps show creeks, potential wetlands, Unique Natural Areas, approximate slopes, prime agricultural soils, and highly erodible soils in relation to the Teeter Farm subdivision. Please note that UNA IT -25 appears to have been misplaced; it is shown south of the creek gorge intended for protection. Thus parcel B probably does not fall within the Unique Natural Area, though the northeast corner of parcel B may intersect the creek gorge somewhat. cc: JoAnn Cornish George Frantz LS% ` UNA iT 24r "Creek G;rge" Arthur Teeter Farm: Creeks, Wetlands and DNAs Note: Teeter Farm is within ; Town Agricultural Zone. + 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet teetrfrm.apr, 12/5/96, GLT DRAFT 7* UNA IT -25 "Creek Gorge'/ Legend Town Boundary Teeter Farm 0 Parcel B - to be subdivided Creek .S. Potential Wetland ® Unique Natural Area k� W 4- O i 'a , MA, Arthur Teeter Farm: Creeks, Wetlands and DNAs Note: Teeter Farm is within ; Town Agricultural Zone. + 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet teetrfrm.apr, 12/5/96, GLT DRAFT 7* UNA IT -25 "Creek Gorge'/ Legend Town Boundary Teeter Farm 0 Parcel B - to be subdivided Creek .S. Potential Wetland ® Unique Natural Area Arthur Teeter Farm: Approximate Slopes Note: Slope information is derived from N the Tompkins County Soil Survey and is approximate. 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Legend /%/ Town Boundary 0 Unique Natural Area Creek ® Parcel B Q Teeter Farm Max Slope - from Soil Survey 0-5% 5-15% F ,>£.... 15 - 25 % teetrfrm.apr, 12/5196, GLT ME 25 - 70 % Arthur Teeter Farm: Soil Properties Note: Soil information is derived from N the Tompkins County Soil Survey and is approximate. 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet teetrfrm.apr, 12/5/96, GLT Legend Town Boundary 0 Unique Natural Area -'Creek ® Parcel B 0 Teeter Farm Highly Erodible Soil Prime Agricultural Soil YUJI`DEC - 4 1996 I � E ¢: R Ithaca Town Board 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Board Members: My term on the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board expires at the end of 1996. I do not wish to serve for an additional term. Sincerely, Loren Tauer December 3, 1996 copies: Geri Tierney Phil Zarriello, Chair of Conservation Board pA DEC 41996 PLA WItil;�ta�•'�;l�;6��f Ithaca Town Board 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Board Members: My term on the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board expires at the end of 1996. I do not wish to serve for an additional term. Sincerely, Loren Tauer December 3, 1996 copies: Geri Tierney Phil Zarriello, Chair of Conservation Board