The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Correspondence 2005 MADE To ORDER STAMP & SEAL 6100 Lomas Boulevard, North East ♦ Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 voice 800.606.9655 ♦ fax 800.854.0729 Celebrating is Fears of Service 1887 - 2005 Jan 4,2005 Attn:Ai Hello Al, This guy is an obvious scammer and I am sure he is going to use this embosser to forge documents. Enclosed are topics ofhis bogus p.o.,order and responses. Please do not call him until you let me know yourplan 1 Thanks, Swve Rader Doc-unent Security Specialist TO 39dd dWVIS d3a6O 01 3GVW 9L9699Z9O9 WTI 9OOZIVO1T© SquirreiM,ail Page l of 2 Current Folder: IN)E3OX yip Out Corlp-cao. AddrGsSes Folder; Qpt� S Sear t"lelp SclOirrelMail 'Mts&c 'k Lig 1 Delete Previous!Nejq Fgjward j auwpwd as A-Am yment I k )l _ Etc:p IY All �l X l ._ Subject: Re: Custom Embosser Order From: "Cid Isbell" <cidisbel1@yahoo.corn. Date: Tue,January 4,2005 1:04 pm TO.' seaWngveustomembossers.com Priority: Normal Options: View Full H,gader} View prjntabla version G.S, no problem. I do some ccnsultant work for the town and they askea rra to oraQr this. I will get then; to senci sue a PC asap. Thanks: Cid Isbell Network Corisultanc r�"1 sealkin�cusi.emenitosser�.com wccte: Thank you for ,your order Your embosser is in production and will ship as soon as we have official clearance. If this is an offie;a_ seal for a State or Goverment agency, , t must be presorted by an official P.O. or letterhead even if paid ty crre,dit card. If we do not gave the proper documentati.or:, your order w_.11 be t:ir;ed o�;er t-- the Department of homeland Security for review heforz we can send ou _or delivery. In the tints our great Nation is experiencing, we appreciate your i;elp in these mattez6. Thank you, Steve Hadway, Document Security Specialist '.`'Jude To Order Stamp & seal "The Nations Largest Supplier of Custom Embossers grid Wax &eals" 6100 Lomas Boulevard North East Albuquerque, New Mexico 87?10 U.S.A. 800.606. 9655 fx 800.859.0729 505.255. 9655 fx 505.255.9576 www.cus=omembossers.coto lmp://'-vww•.customembossers.com/webmail/sreiread body.php?mailbox=INBOX&passed_i... 1/4/2005 90 39tid cfWk'1S 83CI80 01 3aVW 9L9699Z909 6b:TT 500Z/i%0/Z0 Purchase Order Order #: 105-4432 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 917664-4956 Bill To: Ship To: Made To Order Stamp &Seal Cid lsbell 61.00 Lomas Boulevard North East 392 14t St. Albuquerque,New Mexico 57110 U.S.A. Brooklyn,NY 11215 I 800-606-9655 917-6644956 Uute Date Meedtd ship Via Terau F.O B Cust PO Na Cult.Vo. 01/03/05 01/10;05 N/A Pre-Paid I Dest. PP N°1A 13921 I Qty part No. Description Price Total 1 D1xEmb-1 Deluxe Pocket Seal - 44.98 44.98 Monograrned � r t ' r i i I I Method of Payment: Pre-Paid 44,gg Z0 39Vd dWh1S a3Qci0 01 3QVW 9LG699Z909 WIT 9002/VoiZ0 Tee Ann Hunter From: Melissa Luckow[MAL8@cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:05 PM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: dog park Dear Council Members: I was delighted to read in the Ithaca Journal that Will Burbank supports the establishment of a dog park in the town of Ithaca. I have been walking my dog at the Treman Marina for the past 8 years, and have been persecuted by State Park Police crackdowns on-and-off during all these years. I think a legal, off-leash dog park is sorely needed in our community. I have paid my taxes for many years to support schools, playgrounds, skating rinks, after school programs, etc. even though I have no children. Although I don't mind paying to educate tomorrow's citizens, I personally reap few benefits from my local taxes. A dog park is a relatively inexpensive way to make a taxpayer like me very happy. Thank you for your consideration! Melissa Melissa Luckow Associate Prof. Plant Biology Dept. 228 Plant Sciences, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 PH: 607-255-7829 FAX: 607-255-7979 e-mail: mal8@cornell.edu 1 Catherine Valentino ,►,From: Will Burbank[willburbank@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday,January 04, 2005 1:25 PM To: ith-lefters@ithaca.ganneff.com Cc: Carrie Whitmore;AI Carvill; Catherine Valentino Subject: Town of Ithaca budget figures To the Editor, Last Monday (1/3/05) the The Ithaca Journal ran an article comparing budget figures for the various towns in Tompkins County. The accompanying chart omitted the Town of Ithaca, noting that figures we're "unavailable" . I found this puzzling in that these figures are a matter of public record and are easily gotten. One can see the budget at Town Hall, the library and by way of the Town's website (http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/) . Had the Town of Ithaca been included in the chart, the figures would have been as follows: 2005 budget: $14,276,995, 2004 budget: $12,905,380 Change: + .106 2005 levy $4,879,749 Change +.126 rate/1000 $1.38 As a member of the Ithaca Town Board I know how hard everyone worked to keep this year's tax increase to a minimum. Our tax rate had remained `,steady at $1.26 since 1998 but it proved impossible to continue that rate for the coming year without major cuts in services. Such are the realities in these tough budgetary times. Sincerely Will Burbank 1 OF 12, TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithacamy.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 January 13, 2005 Mike Ocello 519 Warren Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mike, On October 18, 2004 you made a formal request to the Town Board for Retiree Health Insurance coverage for when you lose group health coverage currently through your wife, Lois. The Town Board during executive sessions over the past three months has discussed your request. I have shared with the Board our phone conversations and have reiterated to the Board that you were requesting coverage for only when you become in-eligible for group coverage through another source. At the December 30, 2004 meeting, the Town Board discussed the issue further and came to the conclusion that they could not make a determination on your request until such time as there is a documented date that you would be losing group health insurance. The Town Board felt it would be imprudent and in-practicable to make a decision based on a futuristic date that was uncertain. I am sure that if your situation changes the Town Board would agree to discuss and consider your request at that time. Sincerely, 6 Judith C. Drake, PHR Human Resources Manager Xc: Town Board Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Richard K Charsky 137 Whitetail Drive --- Ithaca, NY 14850 ! JAN 14 2005 January 13, 2005 ___... .. + Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Ithaca Town Board 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: I am writing to you concerning the Veterans" property tax exemption. Currently the exemption is 512,000, which translates into a $16.56 reduction in Town property tax. hardly an amount of any consequence today. I ani not sure what year it became effective, however, it needs to be reviewed and adjusted by the Town Board to reflect a more meaningful benefit for veterans. Many towns in New York State provide a tax exemption of up to 50% of assessed value. I am asking you and the Board to consider a minimum exemption of 35%. An exemption on a percentage basis will help to keep the benefit consistent as property values and assessments change from year to year. I believe everyone can appreciate how the events of the last few years have once again brought into focus the sacrifice that veterans make to keep our nation safe. I trust that you will act on my request without delay. Best Regards. Richard K Charsky f, , tr C BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBCW & MARCUS Attorneys At Law SENEGA BUILDING WEST SUITE 400 Facsimile John C. Barney 119 EAST SENECA STREET Peter G.Grossman (607)272-8806 David A.Dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) Randall B.Marcus Jonathan A.Orkin (607)273-6841 Kevin A.Jones January 19, 2005 Joseph W. Allen, Esq. Hines & Al-len 417 North Cayuga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca - Robert Drake Subdivision-Tax Parcel Number: 27-1-15.2 Dear Joe: Jon Kanter has asked me to respond to your letter to him of December 30, 2004 regarding the above matter. Unfortunately,we have some disagreements with the statements contained in your letter as well as with the history of the project as outlined in your letter and in Mr. Fabbroni's letter which you attached. The Town of Ithaca adopted a revised zoning ordinance effective April 1, 2004, although the actual adoption of the ordinance occurred around the end of December, 2003. The ordinance contained a transition provision(Section 270-245, a copy of which is attached) which permitted applications filed prior to the effective date(April 1, 2004)to be processed in accordance with the provisions of the old ordinance provided the application was "diligently prosecuted to conclusion" and completed within nine months of its submission. There was also a provision, applicable to certain limited circumstances where there would be a resulting severe economic impact, for an extension by the Town Board of the nine month period for up to four additional months. Reviewing the history of your client's application, it appears that a sketch plan was submitted on March 31, 2004. The Planning Board discussed the sketch plan at its May 4, 2004 meeting. At that time Mr. Fabbroni,who was representing your client, was advised of some of the concerns that the Planning Board had with the proposal. From that date forward until December 30, 2004 no action occurred with respect to your client's application. The transition period for your client expired December 31,2004. Thus,the Town Planning Board at this point in time is without authority to take any action whatsoever on your client's project under the old ordinance. Of course, an application under the new ordinance would be entertained and considered in accordance with the current ordinance provisions. � r BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS January 19, 2005 Page 2 If your client would like to continue to be considered under the old ordinance, he should make an application directly to the Town Board(it can be in the form of a letter addressed to the Town Supervisor or Town Clerk)requesting the four month extension and providing the information called for by Subdivision C of Section 270-245. Quite frankly, in view of the long hiatus between May 4 and December 31, 2004,there is some doubt in my mind that the Town Board would react favorably to your client's request. That period of time militates greatly against there being a"diligent prosecution"of the proposed project. However,you are certainly free to make the request on behalf of your client and the Town Board will, I am reasonably certain, discuss the matter. The next Town Board meeting is scheduled for February 7,2005. To meet the statutory 30 day limitation,the application for an extension should be submitted to the Town Clerk or the Town Supervisor no later than January 30, 2005. To get it on the agenda, it might be advisable to apply earlier. As an aside you suggest in your letter that there were no provisions for cluster subdivision under the old ordinance. In fact,there have been provisions for mandating cluster subdivisions in the Town of Ithaca for many years. The provisions were not found in the zoning ordinance but rather in the subdivision regulations. In particular,your attention is drawn to Town of Ithaca Code Section 234-31 C which gives the Planning Board authority to approve a subdivision contingent upon all or a part of the subdivision being clustered. A copy of Section 234-31 is also enclosed. In summary, if your client wishes to try and continue to have the benefit of the transition period in the zoning ordinance, an appropriate application should be made to the Town Board as discussed above. If you have any questions, I would be happy to try and answer them. Very truly yours, r JCB:sls Enclosures xc: Catherine Valentino, Supervisor J`' Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk OF 17, TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithacamy.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1070 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 January 21, 2005 Mr. Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S. 127 Warren Road Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Drake Subdivision, Tax Parcel No. 27-1-15.2 Dear Mr. Fabbroni: This letter is written in response to your letter dated December 30, 2005, regarding the sketch plan for the Drake Subdivision proposal on Mecklenburg Road. I referred your letter and Mr. Allen's letter dated December 30, 2004 to John Barney, Attorney for the .� Town. Mr. Barney sent a letter of response to Mr. Allen (January 19, 2005), a copy of which is attached for your information. As outlined in Mr. Barney's letter, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is without authority to take any action on Mr. Drake's project under the old zoning provisions, since the transition period under the new Zoning Code expired December 31, 2004. An application to extend the transition period (by no more than four additional months) should be made to the Town Board, not the Planning Board, as indicated in Mr. Barney's letter. Sincerely, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Att. cc: Catherine Valentino, Supervisor -Ann Hunter, Town Clerk Fred Wilcox, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board (with attachments) Robert Drake Joseph Allen, Esq. John Barney, Attorney for the Town CEJ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �- 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, N.Y. 1 3202 CARL F.FORD,P.E. JOSEPH H.BOARDMAN ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER January 14, 2005 Ms. Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino RE: RTE. 366 OVER CASCADILLA CREEK During the development of the Route 366 Bridge Replacement project over Cascadilla Creek, the Town of Ithaca agreed to accept Ownership of a portion of the property that the State acquired for the project. It was Our understanding that the Town intended to maintain Judd Falls Road as a Town Road, The Town felt that they needed to have a Town Road into the campus. The Town of Ithaca passed RESOLUTION NO. 2001-141 —Conditionally Accepting a Title to a Portion of Judd Falls Road as a Town Highway and the Related Pedestrian Path and Assuming Maintenance Responsibilities for same on November 8, 2001. The Department will need a revised Resolution from the Town in order to be able to transfer the property. A suggested draft is attached for your consideration. In addition the Resolution should indicate who will sign on behalf of the Town to accept the property in question and indicate that the Town of Ithaca agrees to own and maintain Judd Falls Road from its intersection with Rte. 366 to its intersection with Campus Road as a Town Road. If you have any further questions please contact William Guyder, our Regional Real Estate Officer, at (315)448-7315 �Very truly yours, �y J. N E. FIET E4P. E� Regional Design Engineer 1I ' JAN 2 7 M STATE OF NEW YORK = --_- - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 CARL F. FORD, P.E. J w'Y LV January 24, 2005 JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER Ms. Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON BOSTWICK ROAD This is a further response to your October 18 letter requesting a lower speed limit on Bostwick Road between Route 13A and Sheffield Road. Our traffic engineers have completed their review of the section of Bostwick Road between Seven Mile Drive and Sheffield Road. Our review indicated that the existing roadside development and highway characteristics justify retaining the existing speed limit. Based on these findings, we have determined that a lower speed limit would not be appropriate at this time. The section of Bostwick Road between Route 13A and Seven Mile Drive is included in an area speed limit study for the Seven Mile Drive area. Upon conclusion of that study, you will be notified of the results and our determination. Your interest in this matter has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, GEORGE A. DOUCETTE, P. E. Regional Traffic Engineer cc: J. Lampman, County Highway Supt. A"WN' C. Valentino, Town Supervisor Tompkins County Tel: 607272-2292 Education Center Fax:. 607272-7089 615 Willow Avenue E-mail:tompkins@cornell.edu Ithaca,NY 14850-3555 www.cce.comell.edu/tompkirts Cooperative Extension January 24, 2005 JAN 2 7 2005 _ Catherine Valentino, Supervisor — -- Town of Ithaca - -- - _-- 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino, In 2003 New York State Agriculture and Markets Agricultural District Law was amended to allow for the addition of viable agricultural land to existing New Your State Certified Agricultural District on an annual basis. This amendment directed counties to designate an annual 30-day period during which landowners could submit requests for addition of their agricultural land to an existing agricultural district. Tompkins County has designated November as that 30-day period beginning in 2004. During the November 2004 Request for Addition period, one landowner in the Town of Ithaca submitted a request for the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board's consideration. This requests was for the following parcels: Oam%. 33.-1-7.1 33.-1-6 These parcels have been reviewed by the County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board and determined to be part of viable agriculture operations, and therefore the Board has recommended they be added to Tompkins County Agricultural District 1. The Annual Addition to Agricultural Districts is 120-day process. The Remaining timeline is as follows. Jan 26 County Planning Advisory Boards reviews and acts on Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board report Feb 2 County Planning, Development, and Environmental Quality Conrunittee re.ir. :s u::cl acts on Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board report Mar 1 County Legislature holds Public Hearing and acts on Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board report Mar 31 Final Legislative Action forwarded to New York State by this date Please let me know if you have any questions about this process, the parcels involved or the timeline. I can be reached at 272-2292 or DLT22@comell.edu. Sincerely, r Deborah L. Teeter Senior Agriculture Program Coordinator Building Strong and Vibrant Nezo York Comma mities Cornell Cooperative Extension provides equal program and employment opportunities.NYS College of Agriculture and life Sciences,NYS College of Human Ecology,and NYS College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornel I University Cooperative Extension associations,county governing bodies,and U.S.Department of Agriculture,cooperating. a� a7 as a (all s �/o w�` TLu's w� I" , G. t tAla, - I"Vtl, to 7rvt -- yov, a,4, CAQrk w146�2 f 74- 7s�f c7La �1� sltlo_u hot &S- 6�4Wr P-qrz-, 4 hwJs�-� ,-<<. Z..,Q « tom C,9A .. -,� Page 2 of 2 Cc: 'rschoch@town.ithaca.ny.us' Subject: RE: Input on recreation resources Dear Ms. Zabel I've forwarded your input to the the highway department. Thank you for the information. I'll see what l can find out and someone will get back to you. Marnie Kirchgessner -----Original Message----- From: Ingrid Zabel [mailto:izabel@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:14 PM To: recreation@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Input on recreation resources Dear Ms. Kirchgessner: I'm writing to let you know of one resource that I particularly wish we had, which is a continuation of the Honness Lane Walkway further downhill on Honness Lane. Many people live and walk below (West of) the current walkway, and are faced with walking along a busy road to get to the existing Walkway and the East Ithaca Recreation Way. I and other parents of young children walk frequently with our kids along the road, and I do it with considerable fear. Children also wait for the school bus along the road. How I wish we had a sidewalk in front of our house! Sincerely, Ingrid Zabel 121 Honness Lane (607) 272-1609 4/26/2005 ` fGY' (585)324 0500 voice 0► �11 18s Enst Clain Street.��:h Floor (585)324 0556 fax Rochester.NY 14604 www.coniferllc.com February 01, 2005 Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca,IVY 14850 Re: Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community Conifer Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 2005 NYS DHCR Unified Funding Application Dear Supervisor Valentino: !t,; for Tompkins County and Conifer Realty, LLC will be submitting a financing the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) for an ,l;ioc;i..ion of Low Income Housing,Tax Credits ("LIHC") and New York State Low Income l!ous ing Tax Credits ("SLIHC") to develop the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community. The development will consist of 72 apartments for seniors 55 years of age and older. The financing and rents arc established to make the 50%of the units affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income and 50%of the units affordable to households with incomes at or below 90% of the area median income. We ask for a letter of support from you and a resolution of support from the Planning Board rc;arding Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community to include as part of the application we arc suhmitting to DHCR for funding consideration in February 2005. Enclosed is a form letter addressed to Judith Calogero, Commissioner of DHCR for your use. If you are in support of this project please forward your letter of support to Commissioner and provide me with a copy. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at(585) 324-0521. Thank you for your interest and consideration. Sincerely, t' A— Parol Oster Project Director Enclosures Vanda B. McMurtry, Ph.D.,.I.D. VIL%: President ' '71 Cornell ulliversltv 3,0�, [)a" HnIl ]4853-2801 Government and CommunityRelations '''''�' '�� "� �` t. 6117.255.-1383 - -- f. 607,255.5572 e.vbm1u!cornel1.edu February 4,2005 z The Honorable Catherine Valentino ! B '^ 4 2W5 II Members of the Ithaca Town Board t Town Hall 215 N. Tioga Street ' ' ` 'T Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino and Members of the Ithaca Town Board: I understand the Town of Ithaca is considering a one-year extension of the consulting services provided by Benchmark Environmental Engineering and Science for third party technical review related to Cornell's Lake Source Cooling project. In keeping with its commitment to the long-term health of Cayuga Lake,Cornell. University offers to split the $3,500 cost associated with the one-year extension. Cornell University is proud of its contributions to protecting the environment in which we live. Lake Source Cooling is an example of that commitment. The project is an environmental success on three counts. First, it is reducing the dependence on fossil-fuel energy by nearly 90 percent to cool buildings at Cornell and Ithaca High School. Second, it is has had no appreciable effect on the lake's ecology. Third, seven years of monitoring and studying scientific data by Cornell and several independent groups has provided the public with more useful information about Cayuga Lake than has ever been gathered in one time and place before. But success does not mean that Cornell University plans to suspend its diligence in this matter. Cornell will continue to monitor Lake Source Cooling because it is the right thing to do. To this end, we will work with the DEC to identify the proper scope and duration of the next phase of the Lake Source Cooling monitoring program, starting in early 2006. Why, then, are ,ve proposing to scale back the current Lake Source Cooling monitoring program from the current nine data- athering points? And, why are we proposing concurrently to join other stakeholders in the community to undertake a new and broader effort to monitor the lake's overall health? The answer in two words is: good science. Regarding the scope of Lake Source Coolino monitoring, members of our faculty, including world- renowned limnologists and ichthyologists, have concluded that there is nothing more to learn from sampling the nine current sites that cannot be captured with the two-site program ori,,inally required by the State Department of Environmental Conscr%,ition seven years ago. Our lake monitoring has shown no significant change in the lake's ecology. Looking to the future, our analysis shows that the two data sites would provide the information necessary to remain vigilant. Cornell University is an equal opportunity affirmative action educator and employer. AOO*. The Honorable Catherine Valentino Members of the Ithaca Town Board Page—2 As to the second question, our scientists and engineers feel that the savings resulting from the proposed reduction in Lake Source Cooling monitoring points (estimated at $50,000) would be best applied toward new fact-finding and analysis that would promote the long-tenn health of Cayuga Lake. From the outset more than a decade ago, Cornell has been resolute on one point: the health of the lake comes first. We remain.just as steadfast on that issue today and continue to see this much admired effort at environmental stewardship as a success for Ithaca and Cornell. We stand ready to work with the town and city of Ithaca, and others, on this important issue. Sincerely, -a 3 .)M Vanda B. McMurtry Vice President, Government and Community Relations Cornell University is an equal opportunity affirmative action educator and employer. �OFIT� 9a TOWN 4F ITHACA 1821 - 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ��' °4 www.townJthaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 February 7, 2005 Environmental Design and Research Assoc. PO Box 7146 Edmond, OK 73083-7146 To Whom It May Concern: I am happy to write a letter in support of the nomination by Professor Heriberto Dixon, SUNY College at New Paltz, of the Inlet Valley Archaeological Survey for the 2005 Environmental Design Research Association Place Planning Award. The project was a unique and fruitful partnership between the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University and has become a catalyst for new collaboration between the Ithaca community and Native Americans in the preservation of our shared heritage. The project achieved much more than its original objectives in the early 1990's of identifying and protecting cultural resources of great importance to the Ithaca community and eliminating the potential for controversy and acrimony in the Town's exercise of its growth management responsibilities. The findings from the archaeological work resulted in the Town acquiring land for a new public park,appropriately named Tutelo Park,and has opened up the door to opportunities for the Town of Ithaca to partner with the Tutelo and Cayuga peoples to create a place where the Native American heritage of the Inlet Valley can be celebrated and passed on to others. The research and design phase is completed and I am pleased to say that the facilities at Tutelo Park are now being built.When completed it will be a valuable recreational resource for the community, a place to gather and commemorate the Tutelo presence in Ithaca and the Inlet Valley, a place for contemplation and a place where the butternut, hickory nut, walnut and black oak trees that provided essential foods to the Tutelo can continue to grow and prosper. hope that the awards committee will look with favor on the nomination. Sincerely, eaft-� t✓ &t, Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor qA MN Place Planning Award ° What kinds of plans qualify? Any plan that makes proposals for the future use, management, or design of a place can be nominated — including master plans, specific plans or ° •�,_, , ° elements, management plans, vision documents, or charrette proposals. e • Plans can operate at a range of scales, from a specific area, such as a campus or neighborhood, to a region. They can consider a variety of issues, such as urban design, preservation, environmental management, community development, facilities programming, and community visioning. Plans must have been sponsored by an organized entity— such as a public agency, community group, or private business or institution. Plans should be available for public review, but they need not have received official approval. What issues does the jury consider? Plans should address how specific places or activities operate within a larger fabric of spatial, functional and cultural relationships. Plans should involve places of public or social significance, consider issues of social importance, or be configured to expand the constituency for a place. Plans should have a clear methodology. They should have effective strategies for participation and communication, involving affected constituencies in formulating the plan and conveying the plan's significance to those whose involvement and commitment will be necessary. Plans should have demonstrable impact. They should result in specific design, management or policy initiatives; broaden or strengthen the constituency for the place; attract additional resources to the place; or shift the discussion about or perception of the place. Submission Requirements; Please submit a written statement— no more than two pages or 500 words long — that addresses these questions: 1. Please describe the following aspects of the plan: a. The place involved b. The client for and/or sponsor of the plan c. The planning methodology and process, including the time frame in which the planning took place d. Strategies for involving people in forming the plan e. Strategies for helping people understand the significance of the proposals ..- f. Proposals for implementation • °° 2. What impact has the plan had? 3. What research was useful in creating this plan, would be pertinent in evaluating it, or would help make future plans of this sort even more effective? Tee Ann Hunter 00� From: webuser@town.ithaca.ny.us Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 11:06 AM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm department: Town Board MessageType: Suggestion Subject: Service SubjectOther: Username: Lynda Bogel userstreet: 25 Renwick Heights Road usertown: ITHACA UserEmail: ldb4@cornell.edu UserTel: 607 273-1858 UserFAX: 607 273-1858 B1: Submit Comments: As a tax payer--and one whose house assessment has just, again, skyrocketed, making me more preciously conscious of my status as a taxpayer--I'm distressed that our local and state taxes are supporting three cars and four officers out ticketing dog walkers on Saturday (or AT ALL EVER) : what a WASTE of our money and priorities, to hound (as it were) benign minding-their-own-business (and their dogs' (as it were) ) dog owners, exercising in the middle of a gorgeous Ithaca winter's weekend day their dogs and themselves. When oh when will the City put on its agenda a serious and sympathetic reconsideration of legalizing the dog park?? How does one counter an out-of-county kvetcher, an out-of-season boater, whose "complaint" to the police mobilizes their forces, their binoculars, their consumption of our valuable taxes? Lynda Bogel long-time Ithaca resident teacher at Cornell owner of three dogs daily breaker of the law, at Treman Marina Park 1 Tee Ann Hunter From: webuser@town.ithaca.ny.us Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 11:35 AM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm department: Town Board MessageType: Complaint Subject: (Other) SubjectOther: ticketing dog owners Username: Kathy Hildreth userstreet: 657 Elmira Rd usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: kphildreth@yahoo.com UserTel: 272-6434 UserFAX: B1: Submit Comments: Saddened to hear this mornings news about all the folks being ticketed at Treman Marina for having their dogs off leash. 3 units responding, as if this were something major, like a brawl, people being hurt. Isn't there laws against frivolose claims? Something needs to change. . .we need a legal dog park located in the town of Ithaca asap. ,fes 1� 1 BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS Attorneys At Lav SENECA BUILDING WEST John C. Barney SUITE 400 Facsimile Peter G.Grossman 119 EAST SENECA STREET (607)272-8806 David A. Dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) Randall B. Marcus Jonathan A.Orkin (607)273-6841 Kevin A.Jones February 8, 2005 Joseph W. Allen, Esq. e (; r . Hines &Allen 417 North Cayuga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 FEB - 2005 i Re: Town of Ithaca- Robert Drake Subdivision Dear Joe: The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca took up the request to extend the time for Mr. Drake to complete his subdivision process under the old Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. as explained in your letter of January 28, 2005. After considering the matter, the Board felt disinclined to grant the extension. A copy of the resolution denying the request is enclosed. I am sorry that it did not work out as your client might have wished. However, as you can see from the enclosed resolution,the Town Board was simply not convinced that there had been a diligent effort to keep the process moving in order to preserve the right to request an extension. I would be happy to talk to you about this matter should you have any questions regarding it. Very truly yours, r JCB:sis s� Enclosure xc: Supervisor Catherine Valentino j Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS Attorneys At Law SENECA BUILDING WEST John C. Barney SUITE 400 Facsimile Peter G. Grossman 119 EAST SENECA STREET (sol)272-8806 David A. Dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) Randall B.Marcus Jonathan A. Orkin (607)273-6841 Kevin A.Jones February 8, 2005 r _ HAND DELIVERED Mark B. Wheeler, Esq. Harris Beach, LLP 200 119 East Seneca Street, Suite 300 Ithaca,NY 14850 - Re: Overlook at West Hill Dear Mark: The Town Board reviewed the restrictive covenants for the Overlook at West Hill project and approved them at its meeting on February 7, 2005. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution that was adopted. If you would like a certified copy, please feel free to contact Town Clerk, Tee-Ann Hunter and she will arrange to get you one. Please provide me with ribbon copies of the one document which requires the Town Supervisor's signature together with any other documents needed to record it (e.g., Form TP-584, if required), and I'll have Cathy sign them. Please also provide us Nvith completed and signed copies of the oil-,_;- iv, n�cn_� a1111'. proof of recording (copy of the filing receipt) when recording is completed. With best regards. Sincerely yours, I JCB:515 J Enclosure xc: Catherine Valentino., Supervisor Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning •�+. Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk 6 o� aFIT� �9 TOWN OF ITHACA is zi 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us �W TOW LERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 February 9, 2005 Judith Calogero, Commissioner NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal Hampton Plaza 38-40 State Street Albany, NY 12207 RE: Conifer Realty, LLC Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community Conifer Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 NYS DHCR Unified Funding 2005 Application Dear Ms. Calogero: It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I write to you in support of Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community's financing application to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) for Low Income Housing Tax Credits ("LIHC") and New York State Low Income Housing Tax Credits ("SLIHC"). Conifer Village Ithaca will fill a portion of the need for quality affordable housing in the area. The requested tax credits will allow Conifer to offer the 72 senior rental units to households with 36 (50%) of the units affordable to households at or below 60% of the area median income and 36 (50%) of the units affordable to households with incomes at or below 90% of the area median income. On behalf of Conifer and the households this affordable, high quality rental project will directly benefit, I respectfully request that you give Conifer's request for funding the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Apartments your utmost consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Supervisor Cc: Carol Oster, Conifer Realty 4r ♦ . 7 ,.•., 838 Buck Road Groton,New York 13073 607-533-7296 February 16, 2005 Ms. Sarah Dean, Cornell Real Estate 15 Thornwood Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Ms. Dean, , This is in answer to your telephone call requesting history of the Mitchell Cemetery located on land now owned by Cornell University. The Mitchell Family was among Ithacas early settlers. John Mitchell's stone dates his death in 1802. The Mitchell farm was established in the area of today's Mitchell Street and Maple Avenue. The family cemetery, in the custom of that time,was on their farm My connection to the Mitchell family is that my great grandfather, Byron Ostrander had a sister,Phoebe Amelia,who married Jeremiah Mitchell in 1858. Jeremiah and Phoebe had eight children including Charles Mitchell, October 1862 — 1962. Charles became an employee of Cornell and it was he who arranged the conveyance of lands from the Mitchell Family to Cornell in 1916, including the Mitchell Family cemetery. It was Charles belief that the cemetery would be in good hands on Cornell property. His optimism was rewarded in the years following that conveyance and a fence and locked gate were placed around the site and maintenance was done by the University buildings and grounds staff. However, since the surrounding area saw the construction and occupancy of Maplewood Park Apartments,the cemetery condition declined: the fence and gate torn down,the site vandalized and maintenance ceased. My Aunt Eugenia Mitchell, who is Charles' daughter, was by then elderly and unable to take a more active role in preservation of the site. She did hire a man to bring several of the tipped over headstones to her home before they were further vandalized or stolen. She still resides on Maple Avenue in the family home that Charles built. Eight of the burials in the cemetery are dated from 1834 to 1840. They are: James Mitchell, 1834;Isaac Smith, 1835;Eliza Shaver, 1837;Lyna Mitchell, Eliza Mitchell and Eva Shaver, 1840. ,•�*, In 2001,I attended an historians meeting on the Cornell campus. During the meeting there was raised the topic of old area cemeteries. This site was noted and the question was raised as to why it had become vandalized, overgrown and apparently abandoned. Only later did I realize the site was the Mitchell Cemetery and that it was on Cornell property. Subsequently, my husband and I have visited the site and begun research and inquiries. I am enclosing a map and some pictures taken two year ago. Thank you for looking into this and we hope there will be a happy ending to restoring and honoring this piece of local history. Sincerely, uanita Griffin FEB 24 2005 February 24 , 2005 Town Board Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Coy Glen Area Park To whom it may concern: As former neighbors of Connie Cook, we would like to recommend that the new Town Park in the Coy Glen area, adjacent to Connie ' s home, be named in her honor. We have known Connie for 30 years and have always considered her one of the outstanding citizens of this County and this State. Her resume speaks for itself. We consider it a high honor to have known Connie all these years and we recommend that the Town recognize and honor her in this way. Sincerely, {- Heinz P. and Ann H. Riederer Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-1933 OF 17, TOWN OF ITHACA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 publicworks @ town.ithaca.ny,us PHONE (607)273-1656 Roads, Parks,Trails,Sewer,and Water FAX (607)272-6076 February 24, 2005 RECEIVED Residents West Haven Road FEB 2 5 2005 Glenside Road Coy Glen Road Highway Dept. Elm Street Ext. To Wham It May Concern: At the April 11, 2005, Town Board meeting, the Town Board will be discussing the naming of the recently acquired park sites off of West Haven Road and Glenside Road. Traditionally, the Town Board has named parks for where they are located such as: West Haven Park or Glenside Park. The Town Board would like to hear from the residents in this area as to what they would like to have the parks named. Please let us know your ideas for naming these parks by March 28, 2005, either by writing us, calling us, or e-mailing us: Address: 106 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 273-1656 E-Mail: publicworks@town.ithaca.nv.us � y Thanks for your input. Sincerely, r� Fred Noteboom ! ar c I lighway Superintendent ,rhk I 0 d r, �� . Gail Kroll From: Jefferson Cowie Urc32@cornell.edu] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:41 AM To: publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: new park name With regard to the new park off of West Haven Rd, I believe it was the general consensus of the group that organized to raise the money to buy the land (known as WHALT) that it be named DeGraff or Helen DeGraff Park after the original owner. Thanks for including our input. Best, Jeff Cowie 624 Elm St Ext 1 Page 1 of 1 Gail Kroll From: Tish PEARLMAN [tish pearl@ yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:44 AM To: publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Park Name We live on West Haven Rd. and were part of the group who bought the land. We think DEER HAVEN PARK is a great name idea. Tish Pearlman Carol Painter 141 West Haven Rd. (607) 277-4128 Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want- Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 2/25/2005 Page 1 of 1 Gail Kroll From: Mitchell [rmitche2@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 26,2005 8:32 AM To: publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: cvalentino @town.ithaca.ny.us;jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Attn:Fred Noteboom Misspelled Westhaven Rd Mr. Noteboom Your letter regarding Westhaven road park incorrectly refers to the road as West Haven Road. I have noticed this error on numerous Town Board and Planning Board maps and documents. In addition the new road signs are spelled wrong and the new road off Westhaven road is signed West Haven Dr. The old signs have always read Westhaven. I have lived on this road since it was first name Westhaven. It was change from Titus road. The change was made because rescue vehicles went to Titus Street downtown by mistake when a child was hit by a truck. I have asked your department on three occasions to research and correct this error and have gotten no response. National databases have it spelled Westhaven; Google Yahoo Mapquest. I don't have access to the state Metadata base to check it at that level. There is only one official name. This error should be corrected before it creeps into more official documents. I would not want a new park officially named differently then the road. This would only cause more confusion. A map on your website or inserted in the letter would be helpful in identifying the location of the proposed parks in relationship to proposed parks at Linderman creek, Perry La,Woolf park,Williams Creek and Coy Glen parks. Also any connecting trails would be helpful. The expected usage of all the parks should be examined as a whole rather then individually. Expected usage would have some bearing on an appropriate name. For example: If it's to be a ball field it might be Westhaven Field or if it's a nature trail it might be called Westhaven Sanctuary or Meadow or Woods. Please respond Robert Mitchell 153 Westhaven Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 rmitche2@twcny.rr.com /'ft� 2/28/2005 l� ��Q r �n ,�� a� Wim' fJa.w....., sl�-�I � � �Q� �J � .� � . � � � � �� t. STATE OF NEW YORK—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION STUDY Ho.: 3040117 NOTICE OF ORDER FILE: 50. 12-loc TROOP: C THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: SECTION 1150 . 12 SUBDIVISION (a d) PARAGRAPH OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS 1S ®ADDED ❑AMENDED to read as follows: ❑ REPEALED (a d) 45 MPH on Seven Mile Drive, a town highway, between Route 13 (SH 454) and Bostwick Road, CR 137, a distance of 1.0± miles. FE B 2 8 2005 The above order will be effective upon the installation,modification or removal of the necessary traffic control device (s) required by and conforming to the State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2/S/05 fie-ional Traffic Engineer IT APPROVED BY; 'ti ✓� �l��F�E'- 0 (DATE) (SIGNATURE) (TITLE) DESCRIPTION: Order establishes a 45 MP11 speed limit on the above described section of Seven Mile Drive. COUNTY: Tompkins LOCALITY: Tovm of Ithaca OTHER RELATED ACTIONS x❑ NONE ❑ (identify) cc: ❑ CITY ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ VILLAGE ❑ SHERIFF REGION 3 TRAFFIC ENGINEER Zn TOWN ❑ STATE POLICE ❑ OTHER Q COUNTY SUPT. ❑ PERMITTEE (Specify) GAD:JE-L:hh TE 3e I$1$01 _ ^ (� ;j STATE OF NEW YORK—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS l TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION STUDY NO.: 3040117 NOTICE OF ORDER FEB FILE: 50.12—loc$ 2005 TROOP: C THE-DEPOFTRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: SECTION 1250. 12 SUBDIVISION (i) PARAGRAPH (1) OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS IS ❑ADDED ❑AMENDED to read as follows: ❑REPEALED (i) 30 11F11 within the Seven Mile Drive area, the boundaries of which are described in paragraph (1) . (1) Area description: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly right-of-way of Seven Mile Drive and the westerly right-of-way line of Route 13 (S1I 454) : thence northeasterly along the westerly right-of-way line of Route 13 for a distance of 0.65± miles to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of Route 13A (SH1891) ; thence northerly along the westerly right-of-way line of Route 13A for a distance of 0.54± miles to its intersection with the southerly right--of-way line of Bostwick Road; thence westerly along the southerly right-of-way line of Bostwick road for a distance of 0.44± miles to its intersection with the easterly right--of-way line of Seven Mile Drive; thence southerly along the easterly right-of-way line of Seven Mile Drive for a distance of 1.0± miles to the point of beginning. The above order will be effective upon the installation,modification or removal of the necessary traffic control device (s) required by and conforming to the State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2/9/05APPROVED BY: k` z' -/�' C�r' �' _ Regional Traffic Engineer II (DATE) �" tGNATURE) (TITLE) DESCRIPTION: Order establishes a 30 11PH area speed limit for the Seven Mile Drive area. COUNTY: Tompkins LOCALITY: Town of Ithaca OTHER RELATED ACTIONS ❑ NONE ❑ (identify) cc: ❑ CITY ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ VILLAGE ❑ SHERIFF ❑ REGION ; TRAFFIC ENGINEER TOWN ❑ STATE POLICE ❑ OTHER . © COUNTY SUPT, �] PERMITTEE (Specify) GAD:J111,:hh TE 3e IS1801 _ STATE OF NEW YORK—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION STUDY NO.: 3040117 NOTICE OF ORDER FILE: 30. 12—loc TROOP: C THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: 1150. 12 (ae) SECTION SUBDIVISION PARAGRAPH OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS IS ❑ADDED ❑AMENDED to read as follows: ❑REPEALED (ae) 45 MPH on Bostwick Road, CR137, between Seven Mile Drive, a town highway, and Route 13A (SIT 1891) , a distance of 0 .4- miles. 12 �. FEB 2 8 2005 The above order will be effective upon the installation,modification or removal of the necessary traffic control device (s) required by and conforming to the State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2/9/05 �cr__91 �s REGIOD?AL TPtiAFFIC ENGINEER 11 APPROVED 8Y: (DATE) IGNATURE) (TITLE) DESCRIPTION: Order establishes a 45 iTH speed limit on the above described section of Bostwick Road. COUNTY: Tompkins LOCALITY: Town of Ithaca OTHER RELATED ACTIONS ] NONE ❑ (Identify) cc: ❑ CITY ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ VILLAGE [] SHERIFF ❑ REGION 3 TRAFFIC ENGINEER ® TOWN © STATE POLICE ❑ OTHER COUNTYSUPT. ❑ PERMITTEE (Specify) GAD:JILL:hh TE 3e ia,80) 1 - Andy Frost From: Kirk M. Sigel[kmsigel@ksx.com] Sent: Wednesday,March 02,2005 5:01 PM To: Andy Frost Subject: ZBA Alternates Letter To The Ithaca Town Board Regarding ZBA Alternates: The new zoning ordinance enacted last year has a provision (270-235) for UP to two alternates on the Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe that this is an important new feature of the law and that the Town Board should act to fill at least one alternate position. The reason for having one or more alternates is straightforward. In the event that a ZBA member has a conflict of interest or is away for an extended period of time the ZBA could find itself unable to act on an appeal because of a 2-2 tie. Having an alternate in this situation would allow the deadlock to be broken. I am planning to appear at the March 7 Town Board Meeting at 7pm to answer any questions. Feel free to call me before then to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Kirk M. Sigel ZBA Chairman 257-6413 ------------------------------------- Kirk M. Sigel KSX Technologies kmsigel@ksx.com www.ksx.com 607-257-6413 1 414 Elmira Road - Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)272-1093 Ext. ® Fax: (607)254-4013 MAR 10 2005 March 4, 2005 The Honorable Catherine Valentino Town of Ithaca Supervisor 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino, We are writing to support your application to the NYS Quality Communities program for the Gateway Trail. The trail is immediately adjacent to our Ithaca Home Depot store and we see how it will be a very valuable community asset. The Home Depot is committed to giving back to the communities in which our customers live and our associates work. Our greatest asset is our home improvement and construction expertise, therefore we volunteer our time and give monetary and material contributions in the following areas: building affordable and energy efficient homes, increasing opportunities for at-risk youth via Workforce Development programs within construction trades, preparing for and responding when disasters strike, and participating in environmental sustainability programs. 'Ale have walked the trail with trail planners and we are interested in contributing to the trail construction project, especially in conjunction with. the Ithaca Youth Bureau's Youth Conservation Corps, as this project would then address two of our corporate giving goals. We look forward to further discussing with you and the City of Ithaca how Home Depot can volunteer, contribute material or money, and/or work hand-in-hand with Ithacans to further the Gateway Bridge Trail project. Good luck with YOU'r grant application and let us know if there is anything else we can do to support it. Sincerely, U S A Proud SNnio, MAR 1 1 2005 James H . Fenner 1308 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 7-8-05 Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn : Hanshaw Road Rehabilitation Project My wife and I attended the first public meeting at the DeWitt Middle School . The informality of the discussion seemed to us to result in a domination of the session by a few vary vocal individuals with their own agenda, many of whom do not live on Hanshaw Road . I tried several times to be recognized , finally I gave up . Having lived here since 1956 and in the area for 74 years , my thoughts are as follows : 1 . The road is a mess and needs repair . A finish product like that of Warren Road would , in our judgement, be most acceptable . 2 . I would hope that you don ' t put new pavement over old water and sewer lines, so that in a few years the new road doesn ' t become scarred with repairs . 3 . We favor a walk/bike shoulder on both sides of the road . One can then walk safely facing traffic . The snow plow can keep it clear in winter . 4 . We are opposed to sidewalks . Their cost will drain from the primary project. If put in with a curb next to the road , the snow plow will cover them with every pass. If put just inside the 25 ' distance from the center of the road , it will mean tree removal and landscaping which will draw monies from the main project . Some of the elderly depart during the winter months , and would be required to contract snow removal during the time they are away . I for one have enough area now with a 100 ' + driveway to clear of snow. Finally , and most important, we don ' t want the increased property assessment that would surely follow. 5 . More lighting would added safety and security at night. 6 . Mailbox placement must be considered . Sincerely , OF 17, 9� F-. y ��18214� TOWN OF ITHACA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 publicworks @ town.ithaca.ny.us PHONE(607)273-1656 Roads,Parks,Trails,Sewer,and Water FAX(607)272-6076 March 14, 2005 Regional Traffic Engineer Region No. 3 Department of Transportation 333 E. Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Sir or Madam: The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,by a resolution adopted March 7,2005, and the County Superintendent of Highways of the County of Tompkins,hereby request the ,,•q Department of Transportation,pursuant to Section 1622.1 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, to establish a lower maximum speed at which vehicles may proceed on Coddington Road, a County Road. We are requesting the speed limit along Coddington Road be 30 mph from the City of Ithaca line to Troy Road and 40 mph from Troy Road to the Town of Ithaca/Town of Danby town line. Upon receipt of the notice that the regulation herein requested has been established,the County of Tompkins,will provide,install and maintain signs in accordance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law and conforming to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices of the Department of Transportation. Dated: I Town Clerk Dated: County Superintendent Comments by County Superintendent TE 9a J. L� � �00 East Genesee Street Stdle`0 Si-racuse, NY 1321i_ Stearns &Wheler ' ' ,''companies �- _ _ ...__ tel. (315) 422-qo)_49 fax. (315) 422-2124 YAR 1 5 2005 web.��ti�u.su'rcde�.ea�ui March 14, 2005 Cathy Valentino Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: 950 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York Entry into the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) Dear Ms. Valentino: Enclosed is a copy of a public notice identifying South Hill Business Campus, LLC's application and intent to enter the above referenced site into the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). During the public comment period, please direct any comments, in writing, to the NYSDEC contact identified in the notice. Very truly yours, S&W REDEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC Robert M. Petrovich Executive Vice President Cc: Andy Sciarabba S&W Redevelopment of North America, LLC New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program Notice of Application to Participate Applicant: South Hill Business Campus,LLC Site Name: Former Axiohm Facility Site Number: C755012 Site Address: 950 Danby Road, Ithaca,NY 14850 Site County: Tompkins County The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(Department)administers the Brownfield Cleanup Program. The Brownfield Cleanup Program is designed to encourage the remediation of contaminated properties known as brownfields for reuse and redevelopment. The Applicant identified above has submitted an application to participate in the Brownfield Cleanup Program. The application was determined to be complete by the Department and is currently under review for eligibility. The property described in the application is identified by the Site Name and Site Number identified above and is located at the address above. The application proposes that the Applicant will conduct investigation and/or remedial activities at the site,to allow for commercial use of the site. The Department will accept public comments concerning the application, as well as the attached Environmental Reports and a Site Investigation Workplan for thirty days from March 23,2005 through April 22,2005-.after review of theapplicationand any public comments received;-the Department will determine whether to accept the Applicant's request to participate in the Brownfield Cleanup Program. If the Department accepts the Applicant's request to participate,it will execute a Brownfield Cleanup Agreement(BCA)with the Applicant.By executing a BCA,the Applicant would commit to undertake the project under the Department's oversight. The Department will require the Applicant to inform and involve the public during this process. A copy of the application and other relevant documents are available in the document repositories for this site located at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 East Green St.,Ithaca,NY 14850 or the NYSDEC Region 7 Office, 615 East Blvd.West, Syracuse,NY 13204. The documents in the repository have not been reviewed by Department staff prior to their release for public continent. The Department,in conjunction with the New York State Department of Health,will review these documents during the public comment period. The public is encouraged to offer comments in writing and refer questions to the Department representative identified below. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 7 615 Erie Blvd. West Syracuse,New York 13204 ATTN: Karen Cahill Phone#: (315)426-7432 The Department's web site provides additional information about the Brownfield Cleanup Program at:www.dec.state.ny.us/website/der/bcp. cc : J. Kanter / Town Board correspondence / F. Noteboom Benjamin [Zubin .000%, 955 Coddington Road Ithaca,NY 14850 Supervisor Catherine Valentino Ithaca Town Hail 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino, I am very upset by the plan to widen Coddington Road. People already speed excessively along our relatively straight road and making it wider would only make them think that they could drive even faster. There are a lot of small children, pets, and deer on Coddington Road and they are already in enough danger without the speeders speeding even more. Widening the road would also tear up many yards and even some buildings. The playground at the Coddington Community Center is very close to the road and would undoubtedly have to shrink to accommodate a wider road. I understand that you do not have direct control over the plans for Coddington Road but I hope that you use your position to influence the decision and try to get any plans for widening the road changed. Sincerely, i,� 4v�,v, Coddington Road resident Benjamin Rubin MAR 1 7 2005 r� Garrett Tate r•. 123 Cambridge Place Ithaca,NY 14850 March 24, 2005 Catherine Valentino, Ithaca Town Supervisor 110 Eastern Heights Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino, I am a member of the community around the Northeast and DeWitt schools, and I would like to thank the town for recently putting up new school-zone signs around Northeast Elementary School. These signs are vital to the safety of the majority of the children in our community. The area around Northeast School is one used very extensively by the kids of this community. Not only is Winthrop Drive, where the new signs were put up, used by students walking to and from Northeast, but it is also used by many of the students at nearby DeWitt Middle School. Many DeWitt students N alk home past Northeast, and the proximity of the Northeast parking Iot to DeWitt makes it a popular place for parents to pick up their kids after school. While I am glad that these new school-zone signs were put up, I still see room for improvement in their implementation. Most school-zone signs, like the ones for DeWitt on WarrenRo , have flashing yellow lights to warn drivers of the reduced speed limit when school is in session. The new signs around Northeast, however, only have two large yellow spots in place of the lights. Why should an area such as this, used heavily by not one but two schools, be guarded by a watered-down version of warning signs for drivers? Again, I thank the town for improving the safety of our community, and I hope you will consider improving it further. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Garrett Tate O� OF 17, E" 9 1821 -- TOWN OF ITHACA ''MII` HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 publimorks@town.ithacany.us PHONE(607)273-1656 Roads,Parks,Trails,Sewer,and Water FAX(607)272-6076 March 28, 2005 Residents of Westhaven Road U.S. Post Office E911 System To Whom It May Concern: It has been brought to the Town of Ithaca's attention that the spelling of West Haven Road is incorrect. After doing some research it was found that in 1957 the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approved the name change of Titus Road to Westhaven Road. Westhaven should be one word. Please mark your records accordingly. We will replace the signs as soon as we get them ordered. If you have any other questions, please call. Sincerely, Fred Noteboom Highway Superintendent ghk pc: Andy Frost, Building and Zoning Officer Copy: Town Board Empire State Q e v e [ o p m e lit � ll APR 4 2(145 i I.` CERTIFIED MAIL w17'-!,',,r'l RETURN RECEIPT-RE March 30, 2005 Tee-Ann Hunter, Ithaca. Town Clerk Ithaca Town Hall 215 N. Tioaa Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Emerson Power Transmission Capital Projcct, Public Hearing Dear Tee-Ann Hunter: 1 am bereby transmitting, for filing in your office, the General Project Plan of the Ni;w York State Urban Develc,prnent Corporation ("UDC"), doin�,' hLI:; USS as the Empire State e� Development Corporation (the "Corporation"), together with the fi,Idin�_,s required pursuant to Secti:,ns 1/-m and 101g) of t`.c UDC Act, for the Emerson Power 'rran.,nnk�ion Capital Project in Toy ipkiu4 Count.; County. This material is being filed pursuant to Secti-,}rt 10(2} of the UDC Act. A public hearing, also required by the UDC Act, will be held by the Corporation at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 Ai. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 from, 2:00 !ar, to 3:00 pm to consider the General Project Plan. Sincerely, r - x hr�)�CCt �..1Il�ILt'1- Fn . cc: Richard Dorado, 11sq. - ESD Empire State Development (orporation 633 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017-8167 Tel 212 803 3100 rah FOR CONSIDERATION March 24, 2005 TO: The Directors FROM: Charles A. Gargano SUBJECT: Ithaca(Tompkins County)—Emerson Power Transmission Capital— Empire State Economic Development Fund—General Development Financing(Capital Grant) REQUEST FOR: Findings and Determinations Pursuant to Sections 16-m and 10 (g)of the Act; Authorization to Adopt the Proposed General Project Plan; Authorization to Make a Grant and to Take Related Actions General Project Plan 1. Project Summary Grantee: Emerson Power Transmission Corp. Contact: Mark Weidman, Vice President, Finance 620 South Aurora Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Phone: (607)274-6007 Fax: (607) 274-6195 Project Location: same NYS Empire Zone (or equivalent): N/A Proposed Project: Relocation of Liverpool operations to existing Ithaca facility,which includes Ithaca facility improvements and purchase of machinery and equipment. Project Completion: June 2003 Number of Employees at Project Location: Initial employment at time of ESD Incentive Offer: 430 Current employment level: 435 Minimum employment on January 1, 2010: 430 ESD* Investment: A grant of up to $750,000, to be used for a portion of the cost associated with facility improvements. * The New York State Urban Development Corporation doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation ("ESD"or the "Corporation') Anticipated Appropriation Source: Empire State Economic Development Fund ESD Project No.: P497 Project Team: Origination Robert Sweet Project Management Steven Fischer Legal Richard Dorado Affirmative Action Denise Ross Finance Peddy Ligonde Environmental Soo Kang H. Project Cost and Financing Sources Financing Uses Amount Facility Improvements 1,023,102 Equipment Acquisition $3,529,011 Equipment Relocation 1,383,968 Training 825,120 Working Capital 236,401 Total Project Costs6'997,602 Financing Sources Amount ESD-Grant $750,000 10.7% Tompkins County Workforce Development Board 123,807 1.8% New York State Electric and Gas 25,000 0.3% Company Equity 6,098,795 87.2% Total Project Financing 6-997 602 100.0% III. Project Description A. Background Emerson Power Transmission Corp. ("Emerson"or the"Company") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co., a$16 billion publicly traded manufacturer of a wide range of products for the industrial, commercial and consumer markets. The Company was formed in 1987 and manufactures high quality industrial components under seven branded product lines. From its ,on., 11 manufacturing facilities throughout the world, Emerson produces belt drives, clutches, motorized pulleys, gearings,bearings, and other parts that make up equipment used in a wide range of capacities from oil fields to paper mills. It is a leading producer in the majority of its markets, and 2 some of its major customers include Caterpillar Incoporated, Valmont Industries, Trane Company, eOl� and Solar Turbines. In 2001, Emerson Electric Co. experienced a severe downturn in many of its key markets and began to take strong initiatives to increase efficiencies companywide. As a result, its Liverpool, New York location,which produces roller bearing products, came under critical scrutiny. Emerson considered moving the operation to its Valparaiso, Indiana facility but was induced to stay in New York by a March 2002 offer of a$1 million capital grant from ESD. ESD's offer induced the Company to retain 567 jobs in New York State 137 from its Liverpool operation and 430 from its Ithaca operation,which also came under greater scrutiny as Emerson Electric Co. closely analyzed its hundreds of facilities worldwide. ESD's March 2002 offer gave Emerson the option of consolidating facilities in Ithaca and, in the second half of 2002, Emerson decided to take this route and relocated the Liverpool operations to its underutilized Ithaca facility. In February 2004,Emerson informed ESD that its employee headcount had been reduced to 435 as a result of continued declines in business and greater productivity resulting from closing its Liverpool operation. ESD elected to reduce the grant amount to $750,000 in return for Emerson guaranteeing the retention of the original 430 Ithaca jobs. Because Ithaca is an older facility with higher workers' compensation costs than Emerson's other North American facility,the$750,000 grant allowed the Ithaca facility to remain competitive among existing Company facilities. B. The Project In June 2002, Emerson began relocating the Liverpool operations to the Ithaca facility. As part of the consolidation of facilities, Emerson embarked on improvements such as painting the facility, enhancing the electrical system, upgrading telecommunications systems, adding piping, and installing coolant trenches. In addition, over$2.7 million in machinery and equipment was purchased, including a new crane system and manufacturing equipment. By June 2003, facility improvements and equipment purchases had been completed and all equipment from the Liverpool operation had been relocated. Following the consolidation,Emerson initiated employee training for new hires. As a result,Emerson has significantly increased labor productivity and efficiency at its Ithaca operation. C. Financial Terms and Conditions 1. The Company shall pay a commitment fee of I%of the$750,000 ($7,500)upon execution of the grant disbursement agreement. In addition, at the time of disbursement,the Company will reimburse ESD for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the project. 2. The Company will demonstrate no materially adverse change in its financial condition prior to disbursement. 3. The Company or the Company's shareholders will contribute at least 10%in equity to the Project. 4. Prior to disbursement, the Company must employ at least the initial number of Full-time 3 Permanent Employees set forth below. A Full-time Permanent Employee shall mean (a)a full-time,permanent,private-sector employee on the Grantee's payroll, who has worked at the Project Location for a minimum of thirty-five hours per week for not less than four consecutive weeks and who is entitled to receive the usual and customary fringe benefits extended by Grantee to other employees with comparable rank and duties; or(b)two part- time,permanent,private-sector employees on Grantee's payroll, who have worked at the Project Location for a combined minimum of thirty-five hours per week for not less than four consecutive weeks and who are entitled to receive the usual and customary fringe benefits extended by Grantee to other employees with comparable rank and duties. 5. Up to $750,000 will be disbursed to Grantee upon evidence that the Grantee has retained 430 permanent full-time employees and has expended $2.7 million on the project,with at least$1 million spent on facility improvements at the Project Location,as evidenced by such documentation as ESDC may reasonably require, and verification of participation of other financing sources, assuming that all project approvals have been completed and farads are available. 6. ESD may reallocate the project funds to another form of assistance, at an amount no greater than$750,000,for this project if ESD determines that the reallocation of the assistance would better serve the needs of the Company and the State of New York. In no event shall the total amount of any assistance to be so reallocated exceed the total amount of assistance approved by the Directors. 11O� 6. In consideration for the making of the Grant, Grantee will achieve the Employment Goals set forth in column C of the table below. If the number(for the preceding calendar year) of Grantee's Full-time Permanent Employees, as defined above, as of each reporting date set forth in column A of the table below, is less than the total of the Initial Number of Full- time Permanent Employees plus eighty-five percent (85%) of the number of Total New Jobs as set forth in column B,then upon demand by ESD, Grantee shall be obligated to repay to ESD a percentage of the disbursed Grant Amount, as set forth in column D. The Grantee's number of Full-time Permanent Employees shall be deemed to be the greater of the number as of the last payroll date in the month of December for such year or the average employment for the 12 month period computed by quarter. Initial Number of Full-time Pen-nanent Employees 430 A B C D Percentage of disbursed Date Total New Jobs Employment Goals Grant Amount to be repaid February 1,2006 0 430 1000/0 February 1,2007 0 430 80% February 1,2008 0 430 60% February 1,2009 0 430 40% February 1,2010 0 430 20% 4 IV. Statutory Basis 1. The proposed project would promote the economic health of New York State by facilitating the creation or retention of lobs or would increase activity within a municipality or region the state or would enhance or help to maintain the economic viability of family As a result of this project, the Company will maintain its employment level of 430,which were at-risk of relocation/elimination because of steep declines in business at Emerson Electric Co. and resulting cost cutting initiatives. 2. The proposed project would be unlikely to take place in New York State without the requested assistance. Without ESD assistance,Emerson would have considered relocating the Liverpool positions to a Company facility outside of New York State. 3. The project is reasonably likely to accomplish its stated objectives and the likely benefits of the project exceed costs. Evaluated over a seven-year period,the following are anticipated project impacts (dollar values are present value): • Fiscal benefits to NYS government from the project are estimated at$11,904,475; • Fiscal cost to NYS government is estimated at$775,462; • Project cost to NYS government per direct job is $2,214; • Project cost to NYS government per job(direct plus indirect)is estimated at$962; • Ratio of project fiscal benefits to costs to NYS government is 15.35:1; • Fiscal benefits to all governments(state and local) are estimated at$26,224,990; • Fiscal cost to all governments is$1,297,617; • All government cost per direct job is $3,705; • All government cost per total job is $1,609; • The fiscal benefit to cost ratio for all governments is 20.21:1; • Economic benefits(fiscal plus total net resident disposable income from project employment) are estimated at$166,025,123, or$205,901 per job(direct and indirect); • The economic benefit to cost ratio is 127.95:1; • Project construction cost is$1,023,102 which is expected to generate 8 direct job years and 8 indirect job years of employment; • For every permanent direct job generated by this project, an additional 1.32 indirect jobs are anticipated in the state's economy; • The payback period for NYS costs is 1 year. ( See Project Summary Benefit-Cost Evaluation attached for detail and definitions.) 4. The project is undertaken in accordance with the enabling legislation. f,..� The project is undertaken in accordance with the memorandum of understanding executed in accordance with the enabling legislation. 5 5. The requirements of Section 10(g)of the Act are satisfied. No residential relocation is required because there are no families or individuals residing on the site. V. Environmental Review ESDC staff has determined that the project constitutes a Type II action as defined by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and the implementing regulations for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. No further environmental review is required in connection with the project. VI. Affirmative Action ESD's Non-Discrimination and Affirmative Action policy will apply. Emerson Power Transmission Corp. is encouraged to include minorities and women in any job opportunities created by the project and to solicit and utilize Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises for any contractual opportunities generated in connection with the project. VII. ESD Financial Assistance Subject to Availability of Funds and Additional Apuroval The provision of ESD financial assistance is contingent upon the availability of funds and the approval of the State Division of the Budget. VIII. Additional Submissions to Directors Resolutions New York State Map Project Finance Memorandum Cost-Benefit Analysis 6 Radhekant Dave 112 park Lane �• Ithaca , NY 14850 April 5 , 2005 Fred Noteboom , Highway Dept . r* �{ Town of Ithaca } @ a W 5 . [ r ,{ 106 , 7 Miles Drive Ithaca , NY 14850 }- APR _=T f Dear Fred : In connection with the letter I wrote you on July 27 , 2004 , I would like to remind you about our request of NOT sending any Heavy machines for cleaning the big drainage pipe in future . They destroy not only our yard and land , but also our loan . I hope you will find out some alternative way to clean the ditch and the pipe . Thanking you , Sincerely , Radhe (Radhekant Dave) ,//Cc . tO : Ms . Cathy Valentine , Town Suoerintendent , Town of Ithaca . BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS Attomeys At Law SENECA BUILDING WEST John C. Barney SUITE 400 Facsimile Peter G.Grossman 119 EAST SENECA STREET (607)272-8806 David A.Dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) Randall B.Marcus Jonathan A.Orkin (607)273-6841 Kevin A.Jones April 8, 2005 HAND DELIVERED Honorable Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca- Cell Tower and Bostwick Road Matter Dear Cathy: Pursuant to our discussion this morning, enclosed are the following documents: 1. A copy of Justice Relihan's Decision. You will note that he finds the telecommunica-' tions issues to be not yet"ripe"for judicial review. He dismissed that portion of our complaint"without prejudice"which means we can come back at any time and re-litigate the matter. The balance of the Decision dealing with Bostwick Road was the portion of the Decision that was appealed to the Appellate Division. 2. A copy of Justice Relihan's Order implementing his Decision. If you need anything further,please do not hesitate to give me call. With best regards. Sincerely yours, JCB:sls qA--0— Enclosures DICTATED BY BUT NOT READ BY JOHN C. BARNEY STATE OF NEW YORK Nagr SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS TOMPKINS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 - P.O. BOX 70 ITHACA, NY 14851 WALTER J.RELIHAN,JR. TEL: (607)277.1441 1 JUSTICE October 18, 2001 FAX:(807)272-0690 ✓fohn C. Barney, Esq. Tompkins County Attorney William J. Troy, III,Esq. Jonathan Wood, Esq., Deputy Barney, Grossman, Dubow&Marcus County Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners 125 E. Court St. Seneca Bldg. West, Suite 400 Ithaca,NY 14850 199 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Harris Beach LLP (Edward C. Hooks, Esq., of Counsel, for Defendant-Respondent) 119 E. Seneca St. PO Box 580 Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Town of Caroline, Town of Danby,Town of Dryden, Town of Ithaca, Town of Lansing, Town of Ulysses,Village of Lansing and Village of Trumansburg v County of Tompkins Tompkins County Index#2001-0788; RR#2001-0489-M Special Term- September 20,2001 DECISION Several towns and villages within the County of Tompkins bring a combined action for a declaratory judgment and a special proceeding under Article 78 of the CPLR against the County. The casus belli is the announcement of County.plans to create an improved wireless communications network for the use of public safety agencies (i.e. fire, police and emergency medical services)throughout the County. A second issue involves the construction of an addition �V to an existing County public works building in the Town of Ithaca. All parties move for summary judgment. I. The Factual Background The towns and villages insist that the telecommunications project, which will involve the construction or reconfiguration of transmission towers to be located within the borders of some or all of these municipalities, cannot proceed without meeting the land use regulations existing under their Iocal laws and ordinances and without their participation as"involved" parties under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8,Environmental Conservation Law). An "involved" agency is defined as a governmental authority with jurisdiction to approve or disapprove an action connected with the project (6 NYCRR§ 617.2 [t]). The Town of Ithaca, additionally, contends that a county project to enlarge its existing Department of Public Works facility, located on Bostwick Road in the Town, is subject to its land use regulations and may not proceed without the permission of the Town zoning and planning authorities and that the County must recognize the Town as an"involved" party in the SEQRA procedures which, it is argued, should'attend this project. The County responds that its telecommunications plan is still in the gestation stage and that issues surrounding its possible implementation have not yet ripened to the point of justiciability. The County also contends that it has performed a balancing of public interests analysis regarding the public works building and has concluded that the paramount interest of the County excuses it from any need to secure Town land use approvals for the project. Further, the 2 it County asserts that the project is an unlisted action'under SEQRA and that it has fully complied ► with all environmental requirements. II. The Legal Background Counties, towns and villages are creatures of the State and enjoy only such powers as have been devolved upon them by the Constitution and laws of the State. The structure of that devolution is the product of an earlier era in which little need for large scale planning or regulation was thought necessary or desirable. In effect, the smallest municipal units were given the power and responsibility to regulate land use without any specific reference to larger interests. The Legislature, with notable exceptions (viz., the Adirondack Park Agency)has not seen fit to enact a regulatory scheme to deal with the many public responsibilities regarding land use which involve interests extending beyond the boundaries of any single municipality or interests which, arguably, should be accorded seniority and precedence as a matter of sound public policy. Generally, the State of New York has been content to leave the historic apportionment of local land use regulation in status quo despite the growing inclination of local governments to enlarge their purposes under imprecise state enabling statutes which,'formerly, were thought limited to basic police powers. These enlarged municipal missions, not surprisingly, lead to } confrontation and conflict. Professor John R Nolan has summarized these developments in a New York Law Journal article of August 15, 2000: "In New York, it is clear that the state has the authority to preempt local land use authority to address a matter of state,concern...neither this need nor the state's authority to act, however, will necessarily overcome the historic reluctance in New York and many other states to disturb the authority of local governments to control land 3 �..1 use. For 30 years, articulate voices have been suggesting the reform of state land use laws to address the multiple problems caused by the parochial nature of local land use controls. Despite the litany of these ills, which include—frustration of regional planning, only a few states have...seriously directed local decision-making". At best, the Legislature has permitted localities to form county planning boards (Article 12-B of the General Municipal Law)to deal with such issues. However, even the boldest expansion of the authority given these boards, regarding zoning, amounts to no more than a license to recommend regulations to constituent municipalities that need not be accepted(General Municipal Law § 239-d[5]; Charles M. Haas, "Regionalism and Realism in Land Use Planning", 105 U. Pa. L. Rev 515, 521). This vacuum in the state enabling statutes has drawn judges into the unwelcome role of public policy architects (Haas, supra, at pp. 530-531). Many methods and tests have been devised by the courts in an effort to resolve such inter-municipal conflicts as reasonably and predictably as the inherent uncertainties permit (see Note, "Governmental Immunity From Local Zoning Ordinances', 84 Harv. L. Rev 869). Absent a comprehensive resolution, or any lesser degree of guidance emanating from the Legislature,the New York Court of Appeals attempted to construct at least the beginnings of a new synthesis in Matter of County of Monroe. 72 NY2d 338. This is the judicial font which we must now follow downstream. III. The Telecommunications Towers The issue, in Monroe County, was whether the expansion of an airport, owned and operated by the County, but located within the City of Rochester, should be subject to the City's 4 13 site plan approval requirements. The Court of Appeals examined the distinction between proprietary and governmental functions as the criterion by which to determine whether the activities of one governmental unit (the intruder) in the territory of another(the host)are immune from the land use regulations of the host. The Court concluded that the much criticized distinction was not only artificial and unhelpful but should be retired. The Court held that section 350 of the General Municipal Law, regarding the establishment and operation of airports, impliedly freed the intruding County from the land use controls of the host City. In our case, alas, there is no similar expression of legislative intent in any relevant state enabling statute. However,the holding in Monroe County is not entirely dependent upon the terms of the airport statute. To replace the disavowed proprietary/governmental criterion, the Court adopted the"balancing of public interests" test endorsed by the American Law Institute and the courts of many sister states. The Court, citing Rutgers State Univ. v_Piluso. 60 NJ 142, 153, 286A 2d 697, 703, noted that, in any balancing of interests analysis, one factor in the calculation may be so influential as to "completely overshadow all others" (Monroe County,, supra, at p. 343). Invoking the newly anointed test, the Court upheld the paramountcy of the intruding county over the host city on the rationale that any other result would"foil the fulfillment of the greater public purpose..." (Monroe County, supra, at p. 344)which, in that case,was the promotion of intra and interstate air commerce. The analogy between the overarching purposes of the Tompkins County public safety network and the larger purposes involved in the Monroe County case is readily apparent. In Monroe County the airport expansion could only occur if linked to the existing facility. In the case at bar, the needed towers must be juxtaposed in such a 5 14 pattern as will provide electronic transmissions to cover the entire county. Arguably, the public purpose in providing the Tompkins County emergency communications net cannot be resolved piecemeal, else a single veto by any of the affected-towns or villages would be sufficient to defeat the county-wide system. A somewhat similar issue reached the Appellate Division, Third Department, in 1991 (Matter of City of Ithaca v Tompkins County,Board of Representatives 164 AD2d 726). There, j the County had assumed responsibility for solid waste disposal within its geographic boundary which includes the City of Ithaca. The City demanded its recognition as an"involved agency" under SEQRA since, arguably, a City permit would be required if the County facility was connected with the City's sewer system: The case was decided upon other grounds but the opinion ends with the observation that: "In any event, it may well be that the county is exempt from any such permit requirements", citing Monroe County. .This concluding remark, though semble, can only be explained as a recognition of the possible precedence which should be accorded to the governmental unit which plays the paramount role in some public enterprise which does not admit of fragmentation. Thereafter, in 1995, the'Third Department Gdatter of Town of Oueensbury v City of Glens Falls, 217 AD2d 789)gave more explicit recognition to the use of the Monroe County balancing of interests doctrine in relation to zoning disputes between municipalities. We are cognizant of the fact that a declaratory judgment requires a real and substantial collision of legal interests and that the County has not yet formulated a plan for the construction or reconstruction of towers in any particular location. Hence, it cannot be said, with certainty, that any specific town or.village will be affected QMatter of Town of Coeymans v City of Albany, 6 15 237 AD2d 856). The objection is jurisdictional and the Court defers to the views of the County which, upon the argument of the motion and cross motion, were accepted by the towns and villages. Accordingly, the claims regarding the telecommunications network are dismissed, without prejudice. IV. The Public Works Building We turn to the issue posed by the construction by the County of an extension of its existing public works facility in the Town of Ithaca which has been owned and operated by the County for these purposes since 1965. The project replaces 1295 square feet of an existing structure with 9,975 square feet of additional office space in a building on this County owned parcel of about 25 acres. Three new parking spaces would be added. About 0.23 additional acres would require paving. Six additional County employees would be located at the enlarged facility. The existing building houses shops and spaces for the maintenance and repair of trucks and machinery. The additions would house the County's buildings and grounds division, a use closely related to those presently served by the facility. These purposes are allowed under a special permit provision of the Town zoning code. To the rear of the building, gasoline pumps are located upon a large tarmac surrounded by sheds which accommodate plows and other equipage used by the public works vehicles. Nearby, piles of roadwork materials are stored. Further to the rear, a number of disused vehicles have been scattered in a large open field. The adjoining property, to the east, is occupied by a sprawling City School District bus facility. Scores of school buses, 80 or more, are parked in an open area. Several small service 7 buildings are also present. A church, and attendant parking lot, is located across the street to the E south. Looking west of the County parcel, only one residence is visible at a distance of some 500 feet. In short, the entire area within view from the County facility is devoted to uses which are not residential in character. The County project is far removed(i.e. 1400 feet)from the outer bounds of the Coy Glen preserve, which has been designated as a protected environmental area. The County project is located in the Town and, in that limited sense, the County is the intruder. The Town is the host. But the County includes the Town. Plainly, these labels are incongruous and their use is justified only as an analytical tool. In this case, the host is the governmental unit which has been given explicit authority to regulate land use where the project is located. The intruder is a second governmental unit which, necessarily, functions in the territory of the host and beyond. The intruder performs responsibilities which have been delegated to it by state enabling statutes as authoritative as those delegating land use responsibilities to the host. The intruder cannot perform many of its statutory duties without the use of lands within the territory of the host and other municipalities within the County. Whether the intruder or the host should be entitled to a first instance review of a proposed project was not entirely resolved in County of Monroe. The issue has a long and contentious history(4 Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning,.§§ 53.03-53.05, 53.09). However, under the emerging majority view,where the intruder is not explicitly immune from the land use regulations of the host, and assuming the intruder cannot demonstrate that its interests are paramount in some important res publica sense, the host is permitted to scrutinize the intruder's. project in the first instance. Thereafter, the intruder is entitled to pursue any available judicial. remedy. The court may then review a developed factual record. Thus, it is argued, the r� 8 I� prerogatives of the localities which have been given express land use regulatory powers are j preserved, subject to modification in the interest of other compelling and transcending public purposes (4 Rathkopfs, supra, § 53.03[3]). Here, however,the County interest in the completion of the addition to an existing and long-established public purpose building is apparent. The addition is small as compared to the existing structure. It is minor in the context of the entire 25 acre County facility. It is insignificant in relation to the area as a whole which is dominated by workshops, warehouses, and garage facilities for heavy machinery,trucks and a fleet of buses. It does not threaten to modify the nature of the neighborhood, in any perceptible or measurable degree, or damage the environment. The construction of the project is well advanced. Counsel for the Town concedes that the public interest would not be served by an order to stop the work or to require its removal or even its substantial modification. Indeed, we are advised that only the improvements surrounding the addition (i.e. parking spaces, landscaping, etc.) are now likely targets of Town interest. These are not significant local interests. Such marginal rearrangements, if allowed, would make no appreciable impact upon the projector its immediate vicinity which,long since, has been given over to workaday facilities of the most utilitarian character: To paraphrase the New Jersey Supreme Court: "...we fail to see the slightest vestige of unreasonableness as far as [the Town's} local interests are concerned or in any other respect." (Rutgers v Piluso, supra, 60 NJ142, 154, 286 A2d 697, 703). Nanuet Fire Engine Co. No. 1. Inc. v Amster, 177 MZd 296 must be distinguished: There, following the majority trend, the court required the intruder to submit to the regulations of the 9 host. But no paramount interest of the intruder was identified or discussed. The intruding project, e0MIN apparently, could have been located elsewhere as an accommodation to the interests of the host in protecting a residential area. No declaratory judgment action was involved and, hence, the court concluded that it could not rule on the claimed immunity of the intruder. Here, both circumstances are dramatically different: The intruder has established a paramount interest. The host has not shown a countervailing local interest of substance and significance. The facts are not in dispute and both parties seek a declaration of their respective rights and duties. Moreover, in this Judicial Department, the intruder has been permitted to conduct the balancing of public interest analysis, in the first instance. King v County of Saratoga Industrial Development Agency, 208 AD2d 194, 200, upheld this procedure where the court found that the intruder had correctly concluded that its interests outweighed those of the host. Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by an order directing the County to submit its project to a factual review process which will result in a Town ruling that the County interest is not paramount and, consequently, that no County immunity exists. This scenario, inevitably, would produce another round of litigation and bring precisely the same issue back to court. Accordingly, we conclude that the County, on its cross motion, is entitled to a judgment in its favor declaring that(1)the Bostwick Road project represents a paramount County interest, (2) the project is the continuation of a present and long-standing public use which benefits the residents of the County, including the Town, (3)the project does not alter the character of the neighborhood, (4)the project does not adversely affect the Coy Glen preserve or any other 10 1 significant local interest of the Town, (5)the Town has no standing as an"involved"parry under SEQRA and, consequently, (d)the project is exempt from land use regulation by the Town. Counsel for the County to submit, on notice, a judgment dismissing the petition/complaint, without prejudice to the telecommunications issues, and incorporating our declaration.of the rights and relations of the parties. No costs. ENTER Walter J. Relihan, Jr. Justice cc: Nancy Joch, Chief Clerk lI n i At a Motion term of the Supreme Court held in and for the County of Tompkins at the County Courthouse in Ithaca,New York on the 20''day of September,2001 STATE OF NEW YORK: SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF TOMPKINS TOWN OF CAROLINE, TOWN OF DANBY, TOWN OF DRYDEN, TOWN OF ITHACA ORDER AND JUDGMENT TOWN OF LANSING,TOWN OF ULYSSES, �^ VILLAGE OF LANSING and VILLAGE OF Index No.2001-0788 TRUMANSBURG, RJI No. 2001-0489-M ' .o• ' Plaintiffs/Petitioners Hon. Waiter J.Relihan,Jr. C"> vs. n c • v+ o tn COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, � Defendant/Respondent m rn Plaintiffs/Petitioners, having commenced this action and proceeding seeking both declaratory and Article 78 relief declaring that respondent County of Tompkins must apply,for and receive appropriate approvals from petitioners before constructing any telecommunication towers or,in the alternative apply for and receive from petitioners a detemunation that the County is exempt from local land use regulations, and petitioner Town of Ithaca,having sought both declaratory and Article 78 relief declaring that respondent must apply for and receive approval from the Town of Ithaca in order to construct the expansion to the County Highway Facility or,in the alternative, apply for and receive from the Town of Ithaca a determination that the Highway Facility is exempt from the Town's regulations, and respondent County of Tompkins having moved for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint and petition and granting to respondent a declaratory judgment in its favor,and petitioners having cross-moved for summary judgment on their claims in their favor, and the Court having read and P'4� r n , filed the order to show cause signed on August 2,2001,the summons dated August 1,2001,the verified complaint and petition,verified on August 1,2001,the verified answer of defendant/respondent,verified on August 30,2001,the notice of cross-motion, dated August 31, 2001, the affidavit of Stephen Whicher, sworn to on August 30,2001,the affidavit of James Fulton, sworn to on August 30,2001, and the affidavit of Thomas Schickel, sworn to on August. 30,2001, all in support of said motion, and the notice of cross-motion of phdntiffs/petitioners, dated September 14, 2001,the affidavit of Cathdrine Valentino, sworn to on September 14,2001, the affidavit of Andrew Frost, sworn to on September 14, 2001,the affidavit of Kristie Rice, sworn to on September 14,2001,and the affidavit of John C.Barney, sworn to on September 14, 2001,all in support of plaintiffs/petitioners' cross-motion and in opposition to defendant/respondent's motion for summary judgment, and the affidavit of Jonathan Wood, sworn to on September 19,2001,the affidavit of Mikel Shakarjian, sworn to on September 19, 2001,both in reply to the cross=motion of plaintiffs/petitioners, and the Court having heard oral argument from John C.Barney, Esq.on behalf of plaintiffs/petitioners and Edward C.Hooks, Esq. on behalf of defendant/respondent, and the Court having issued a written decision dated October 18,2001, NOW, upon motion of Edward.C.Hooks,it is ORDERED that with respect to all motions directed to the first three causes of actions pleaded in the petition and complaint, the motion of defendant/respondent is granted, and those claims relating to the telecommunication towers are dismissed without prejudice on the ground that the issues raised therein are not yet ripe for decision; and it is further ORDERED that with respect to the motions directed to the fourth, fifth and sixth causes of*don,the motion of the Town of Ithaca is denied, and the motion of defendant/respondent is granted; and it is finther ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that (1)the Bostwick Road project represents a paramount County interest; (2)the project is the continuation of a present and long-standing public use which benefits the residents of the County, including the Town; (3)the project does not alter the character of the neighborhood; "- (4)the project does not adversely affect the Coy Glen preserve or any other significant local interest of the Town; (5)the Town has no standing as an"involved"party under SEQRA and, consequently; (6)the project is exempt from land use regulations by the Town; and it is further ORDERED that no party shall have costs against any other. J.S.C. ENTER Page 1 of 1 Gail Kroll 0"41\ From: Pat Dutt[pdutt@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:24 AM To: publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: Marie Harkins&Bill King; Susan Pond Subject: name of park along West Haven/Elm Street/Ecovillage Dear Fred, West Haven Park sounds fine. Also, please note: West Haven Park, not Westhaven. Pat Dutt, 135 West Haven Rd, 272-3212 4/11/2005 Page 1 of 1 Gail Kroll r'"`N From: Susan Pond [susaneepl @msn.com] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:05 AM To: Pat Dutt; publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Re: name of park along West Haven/Elm Street/Ecovillage Dear Fred, I think West Haven Park sounds great. Also, keep it definitely West Haven, not Westhaven. It's would be consistent with our new little off-shoot, West Haven Drive. We really are a community up here, a great mixture of old and new residents. What's involved in finding out what people prefer and going with that. Just one street sign to fix. Could you let me know? I could always walk around and find out what people feel. I talked to the man who was badly injured as a boy, on this street, and heard the story of the slow ambulance response, because of the confusion of two streets named Titus (I believe that was it) that caused the ambulance to report to the wrong side of town. Genevieve Henry, my former neighbor, told me the second half, as she was one of the people that walked a petition around to changed the name and prevent future confusion. I think the vote was split then, as to spelling as one word or two, with the farmer on the hill above us strongly favoring the straightforward "West Haven" and others favoring the modernity of Westhaven. Hope I have this right. Best, Susan and Steve Pond 142 West Haven Road 277-5911 ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Dun To: publicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: Marie Harkins& Bill King ; Susan Pond Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:24 AM Subject: name of park along West Haven/Elm Street/Ecovillage Dear Fred, West Haven Park sounds fine. Also, please note: West Haven Park, not Westhaven. Pat Dutt, 135 West Haven Rd, 272-3212 I''R\ 4/11/2005 l2jWr ly 1821=- TOWN OF ITHACA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 publicworks @town,ithaca.ny.us PHONE(607)273-1656 Roads, Parks Trails Sewer,and Water FAX (607) 272-6076 February 24, 2005 �� t Residents West Haven Road 's Glenside Road Q Coy Glen Road C�u'f ! / 7 Y Elm Street Ext. r To Whom It M4y Cqn ern: At t"Apri ,&M05own Board me ing, the own oiril e iscussmi g ie ,000,,,, naming of the recently acquired park 'ites off of West Haven Road and Glenside Road. i..-Fir' i IC)r "vvTiiic Li1C�" [tri IoCa Cl SU - - ......--_-._�......_.__ West Haven Park or Glenside Park. The Town Board would like to hear from the residents in this area as to what they would like to have the parks named. Please let us know your ideas for naming these parks by March 28, 2005, either by writing us, calling us, or e-mailing us: Address: 106 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 273-1656 RECEIVED E-Mail: 12ublicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us FEB 2 5 2005 Thanks for your input. Highway Dept. Sincerely, - - j �, 40 AQ- �� Fred Noteboom Highway Superintendent ghk Z 'c70 1nN� ��c Et S .If CA LlS (�" � A LT rbAL<< AL 1� AoES N_� (� A c A ,,J �Al�k m�E-P A r-T EP,-- HAA I mail2web.com - Pick Up Your Email Page I of 1 copy: F. Noteboom, Town Board coorespondence folder Screw Post_Chicago_.Screws Monster Job Search Help teach.660.0+ Recruiters Post Resum± Direct Source 100 Per Bx or Bulk Post Your Resume& Search Resume Distribution - $39.95 No Post your Scier Low Price Guarantee$50 Min. _Listings Find the Ultimate Job on extra Charges - No hidden Costs! _Premier Scienc Order Monster! thunter@town.ithaca.ny.us IlEnglish - Go j * mai 12wel Reply -Reply All - Forward -View Source - Previous- Next - Message: 15 1 16 From: <webuser@town.ithaca.ny.us> To: <townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http:llwww.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm Date: 21 Apr 2005 08:37:01 -0400 ent: Town Clerk ,-pe: Complaint L)jecL- : (Other) S_�bjectOther: Pine Tree Road Bike Path Username: V. Thomas wakula userstreet: 204 Pine Tree Rd. usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: vtwl@cornell.edu UserTel: 255-9081 UserFAX: B1: Submit Comments: As a Pine Tree Road resident I have a concern. Even though there are signs at each end of the bike path "No Horses", Cornell University students continue to use the bike path for their horses, leaving behind (especially this week) a to of (how else do you put it) horse manure. I see many folks riding bikes along the shoulder of the road to avoid this. I walk to and from work at least 4 day a week and when I walk home, I walk on the shoulder of the road, also to avoid the mess. A suggestion is to put another "No Horses" sign directly accross fro the Equesterian Center. I assume that, since the signs are in place, their intentions are being enforced? Advertising_Programs About mail2web.com Privacy Policy News Help 02005 SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc. http://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/read.asp?mb=inbox&mp=I&mps=0&lid=0&ld=... 4/21/2005 Page 1 of 2 r.., Marnie Kirchgessner From: Mamie Kirchgessner Sent: Tuesday,April 26,20051:14 PM To: Mike Smith Subject: RE: Input on recreation resources Thanks Mike. Is it okay if I send your entire response to Isabel? Mamie -----Original Message----- From: Mike Smith Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:32 AM To: Mamie Kirchgessner Subject: RE: Input on recreation resources Mamie-The Transportation Committee is currently looking at various pedestrian corridors in the Town,as part of developing the Transportation Plan. The area discussed here on Honness Lane is one of the walkways proposed, but we will have to see how the plan develops. There are no current plans for construction of this section in the near future that I am aware of. I have forwarded this message to Sue and Nicole for the Transportation Committee. There will be upcoming public meetings on the transportation plan that they should watch for to express their opinion on this walkway, or other walkways. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mamie Kirchgessner Sent:Tuesday,April 26, 2005 9:22 AM To: Mike Smith Subject: FW: Input on recreation resources Mike maybe you're the person I should have sent this tool Please let me know answer.(or would this be the Transportation committee? ) Do I still get away with I'm teaming? Mamie(How about trying?) -----Original Message----- From: Ingrid Zabel [mailto:izabel@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Monday,April 25, 2005 10:38 PM To: Mamie Kirchgessner Subject: RE: Input on recreation resources Dear Ms. Kirchgessner: Regarding our e-mails in February(see below), I haven't heard back from anyone at the town and I was wondering if you had any information about the possibility of extending the Honness Lane Walkway. Is this under consideration in any of the Town's plans? Sincerely, Ingrid Zabel -----Original Message----- From: Mamie Kirchgessner[mailto:MKirchgessner@town.ithaca.ny.us] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:35 PM To: 'Ingrid Zabel' 4/26/2005 Copy: F. Noteboom; C. Valentino; Town Board Correspondence j` rl STATE. OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 CARL F. FORD, P.F. JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER May 2, 2005 Ms. Tee-Ann Hunter 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON CODDINGTON ROAD This is a further response to your March 14 letter requesting a lower speed limit on Coddington Road from the City of Ithaca line to the Town of Danby line. Our traffic engineers have completed a joint review of this location with the New York State Police. Our review indicated that the existing roadside development and highway characteristics justify retaining the existing speed limit. Based on these findings, we have determined that a further reduction of the speed limit would not be appropriate at this time. Your interest in this matter has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, GEORGE A. DOUCETTE, P. E. Regional Traffic Engineer cc: J. Lampman, Tompkins County Highway Superintendent C. Valentino,Town Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Honorable Michael Koplinka-Loehr, Tompkins County Legislator, District 11 Honorable Tim J. Joseph,Tompkins County Legislator, District 12 �� CITY OF ITHACA it 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • CAROLYN K.PETERSON APoRAO Telephone: 607/274-6501 Fax: 607/274-6526 Memorandum To: Town of Ithaca Board Members �CAOL/ From: Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson , Re: Recreation Facilities Date: May 3, 2005 On behalf of the City of Ithaca, I would like to thank the Town of Ithaca representatives that have devoted many hours of effort to working on this issue. Cathy Valentino, Peter Stein, Carolyn Grigorov, Judy Drake, and Al Carvill all worked hard and approached the task with a spirit of inter-municipal cooperation that is greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Cathy Valentino and Tee-Ann Hunter for their efforts and ,�•., leadership in submitting a Senate Initiative proposal to Senator George Winner. If approved,this Initiative would enable us to extend both the hours and the season at Cass Park swimming pool as well as add lane lines for lap swimming. As you may recall, we had submitted a proposal in October of 2004 that was based on an estimated 25% Town of Ithaca share of the total projected costs, which came to $160,744. We requested a$100,000 Town contribution at that time, since the City/Town Working Group had not yet been formed. More recently we have decided to focus on 2004 actual costs and to utilize a format that mirrors the approach that the City and the Town use with respect to fire services. We have mutually agreed that this format has been quite successful for the recreation facilities as well. Based on this approach we are currently discussing the possibility of a Town contribution that might range from$142,693 (22%)to $162,152 (25%). This more closely reflects actual numbers for 2005 rather than the earlier suggested $100,000. Thank you so much for your consideration. The good working relationship with the Town is critical to both our municipalities. After your decision is made for 2005, we will continue with our work to create a formula for future recreation facility collaboration. 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." C� ,1111. ka�4j-Y4 YS eve if -TA:L 1�ssa I 14856 Ls v OAS, aL7 'sr�� o� , P- Q -)L, a, ECLl- +/rn - J p 41-11 jlf-�ml-,� 331�- c,J mu, beP�. hofma�•cP7,7 f Sciaarabba Walker & Co., LLP Certified Public Accountants 200 E.buffalo Succi,Suite 402,Ithaca,NY 1 N50 28\onh Main Street,C017lanci,\5 1;301:7 (607) 272.5550 ♦ Fax(607)273-6,357 (607) 756-0073 4 Fax(607) 7556-00,52 May 5, 2005 Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Cathy: I am writing this letter as a follow up to my conversation with the Town's Network/Record Specialist, Lisa Carrier-Titti, regarding the Town's information systems and specifically to address your concerns regarding the susceptibility of those systems to unauthorized access. As the Town's accounting records are maintained on a computerized system, we are required under Government Auditing Standards to gain an understanding of the controls associated with the information system. My questions to Lisa primarily dealt with gaining an understanding of the type of iniunnation system employed and how access is controlled. In the course of our conversation, Lisa confirmed to me that an employee of Bolton Point gained unauthorized access to the Town's e-mail system by apparently circumventing existing firewalls. Although it does not appear that the Town's financial records were affected by the breach, the ability of the Town to guard against unauthorized access and maintaining the integrity of cornputerized records holds audit significance. In response to my question regarding subsequent measures to improve security, Lisa noted that e-mail hosting was moved to another service provider and that she had reset all administrative passwords. She also noted that the 2005 budget includes expenditures to implement a security monitor to track and report on traffic against the Lisa felt that these measures were sufficient to protect the system against unauthorized access. A complete evaluation of the security of your system is beyond our capabilities. I suggest that you contact an information technologies specialist if you feel that additional evaluation is warranted. Please contact us if you would like the names of some specialists in the area. In response to your question regarding the adequacy of Town policies prohibiting unauthorized access to computer system, it appears that the Town's personnel manual addresses unauthorized access in Appendix Five, pages four and five. Under the heading ♦ 11enil)er of In1Crnatif 11A Group of Accountin;;Finns UGAF) t Policy Violations, items 1 c and 2g prohibit interference with network resources or computer data files. The manual further states that policy violations may be subject to disciplinary action and/or legal action, including suspension without pay or termination. SincereW. David M. Stinson, CPA r'� r Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING *^* 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Edward C. Marx,AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner or Planning Fax(607) 274-5578 May 6, 2005 Hon. Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca MAY 9 2005 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: As the summer approaches, the Tompkins County Water Resources Council (WRC), an advisory board to the Tompkins County Legislature, would like to acknowledge again the hard work of the municipalities with Cayuga Lake shoreline with regard to the watercraft ordinances that are now in place. The WRC further recognizes that proper enforcement of these laws is critical to the safety of people enjoying the lake and the comfort of residents. To this end, the WRC would like to inform itself and recreational users of Cayuga Lake about how these laws will be enforced. Please submit to the WRC by Friday, June 3 a short description about the plans you are taking to enforce these laws. Comments can be submitted to the Tompkins County Planning Department by calling 274-5560, emailing planning_(a7tompkins-co.org, or writing 121 E. Court Street in Ithaca. Sincerely, Todd M. Schmit, Chair Tompkins County Water Resources Council 42�. rti X/Yt/ �TZvLG LS G Jxj � �� Ou- To: Town of Ithaca Tompkins County Legislature Date: May 15,2005 Subject: Tax Consequences of the latest increase in Property Assessments My property at 160 Bundy Rd.,Ithaca,N.Y. has experienced the following increases in assessments,yearly, since 2002 in the following amounts: (2002-$5,000),(2003-$25,000),(2004-$15,000),(2005-$8,000)=$53,000.My total assessment is $133,000. In as much as this is probably the market value of the property in the event of a sale,the problem arises in that (1)-1 am not interested in selling.and(2)-The County Government(as well as the School system)has not shown ANY conserted effort to contain their spending sprees.As a result,I along with the other residents of this county have seen our tax bills increase in ever increasing amounts to the point where it is becoming a real hardship to be able to find the dollars to pay,especially for those on fixed incomes. I am formally protesting the actions and decisions of our County Legislators and their unwillingness to reduce their runaway spending and their choice of priorities.We have roads that are in poor shape,public safety being compromised with ever fewer road patrols and decisions affecting the repair and size of the county jail.The excuse is always the same mandates from the State.What isn't said is that the programs are focally funded at amounts many times the legal requirements. New programs are constantly being implemented,older ones do not come under review as to effectiveness. It is now time for changes at the county level-both in politicians and programs affecting the people who pay the bills. Zoa oeS. mwski 160 Bundy Rd. Ithaca,N.Y.-14850 MAY 1 6 2005 I { a� o New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation LL n Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau U- 0 NEwYORK STATE 9 Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Bernadette Castro May 17, 2005 Commissioner Ms. Cathy Valentino �t r Town Supervisor f J Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 MAY 2 3 2005 Re: Hayt's Corners Chapel and Schoolhouse _ 1296 and 1298 Trumansburg Road Tthaca, To pkins County _.___ _ ._rrl r, r= Dear Ms. Valentino: We are pleased to inform you that the property noted above will be considered by the State Review Board at its next meeting for nomination to the National and State Registers of Historic Places. These Registers are the federal and state governments' official lists of historic properties worthy of preservation. Listing in the Registers provides recognition of our national, state and local heritage and assistance in preserving it. Enclosed is a copy of the criteria under which properties are evaluated for listing. Listing in the National and State Registers affords properties a measure .�• of protection from the effects of federal and/or state sponsored or assisted projects, provides eligibility for certain federal tax provisions and renders certain properties eligible for federal and state preservation grants. In general, there are no restrictions placed upon private owners of registered properties. The results of listing are explained more fully in the attached fact sheet. Owners of private properties proposed for listing in the National Register must be given the opportunity to concur in or object to the listing. Each private property owner has one vote regardless of ho,•; :nany properties or what part of a single property that party owns. A r:otaiized object4on by the .sole owner of a private property ..;_11 prevent tha: property from being listed in the National Register. For properties or districts under multiple ownership, a majority of the o;-rners must object in order to prevent the listing. If a property owner wishes to object to a proposed listing, he/she must submit a notarized acknowledgement that he/she is the owner of the property in question and that he/she objects to the proposed National Register listing. Objections must be submitted before the property is listed. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency 0 printed on recycled paper Page 2 If a property cannot be listed because of owner objection, the SHPO will submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination of eligibility for listing. Properties formally determined eligible for National Register listing by the Keeper are subject to the same protection from the effects of federally sponsored or assisted projects as are listed properties. There are no provisions in the New York State Historic Preservation Act that allow an owner to prevent listing in the State Register by means of objection. If you wish to comment on whether or not the property should be nominated to the National and State Registers, please send your comments to the SHPO at the address below. Comments must be received by June 16, 2005 in order to be considered when this property is reviewed by the State Review Board. A draft copy of the proposed nomination is on file in this office and can be made available to you upon request. For more information, please /-ft\ contact Anthony Opalka, Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189, (518)237-8643, ext. 3278. Sincerely, & 04 V� • Ruth L. Pierpont Director Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau RLP:lsa Enclosure: Fact Sheet Criteria for Evaluation ram%\ May. 27. 2005 2: 12PM No. 0682 P. 2/2 KEYSER, MALONEY &WINNER, LLp ,�. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law U 1.1 : MAY 2 7 2005 HSBC Bank Building,2nd Floor 150 Lake Street ��JJ Elmira,New York 14901 T O"O; ; - 1-WCA PLANNIING, -"I U7C 'JEERNG Richard D.Keyser John W.Maloney Tal.(607)734.0990 George H.Winner,Jr. Fax(607)378-6204 May 27,2005 VIA,: FACSIMILE&FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Fred T. Wilcox W, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Ithaca Estate Subdivision-Phase III Dear Mr.Wilcox:, It is my understanding that the Town Planning Board has rejected Mr.Monkemeyer's offer of the Park Land as set forth in his prior proposal and referenced in my letter to the Town Planning Board of December 1,2004. This proposal was made in good faith and for the Town Planning Board to further refer to the prior plan in view of the intervening zoning changes is unreasonable. Mr. Monkemeyer would prefer to now have-a financial contribution in lieu of Park Land dedication since this recent proposal has been rejected. The long delay in this review has seriously prejudiced my client and we need to have an indication as to what will be an acceptable resolution or we will have to explore our other legal options to move this project along. Please advise. Very truly yo , George H. Winner,Jr. GHWllmo cc: Evan Monkemeyer o'` John Barney,Esq, v OF 17, 0TOWN OF ITHACA W. 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 1821 4� wwW.town.ithaca.ny.us TOW LERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 May 31, 2005 Mr. Todd M. Schmit Chair Tompkins County Water Resources Council Tompkins County Department of Planning 121 East Court Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Schmit: Thank you for your May 6th letter regarding enforcement of our watercraft ordinance. I was hopeful that the Town would be able to fund extra enforcement for our watercraft ordinance, but due to budget constraints the Town will need to depend on whatever enforcement the County Sheriff can provide. I would encourage the County Legislature to increase the number of Sheriff's Deputies so that we have sufficient enforcement to protect our citizens and improve the environmental quality of the lake. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Supervisor -100 ANORBVS',-I BEET RlATE-5[i RoCl I ESTER,',,Y 14(,04 00000%�I'HONF.(716);4()�OHO FAX(71(,)5164�25 HOUSING r--- V ;7 . 7 INFOCHOUSIN00P.ORG OPPORTUNITIES INC. I [.-,. I � @ � 0 � J UN 2 2005 June 1, 2005 Supervisor Cathy Valentino Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: Thank you again for meeting with us on May I I'll to discuss affordable housing in the Town of Ithaca. We are extremely excited by the possibility of a collaborative project that would involve Housing Opportunities, Inc and Cornell students in designing and developing affordable housing for Tompkins County residents and Cornell employees. As a follow-up to that meeting we have written and attached a brief project statement. Consider this document a"work in progress" compiled based on our understanding of the roles and interests discussed at our initial meeting. We are interested to hear your comments and questions. Please email or call Joe fioeahousing I gop.ongz)with your thoughts. Finally we would like to invite you to a tour of the Anthony Square Development in Rochester, NY. We are in the process of finalizing the details; however we envision a tour of the development with lunch and further discussion of the potential development in Ithaca to follow. Sinc rely, //Susan Ottenweller oe Bowes Executive Director Housing Developer A Proposal for the Design of a Mixed Income Neighborhood in the Town of Ithaca Mission: Create a new residential neighborhood in the Town of Ithaca that will address the critical need for housing for families at all income levels utilizing a"Green Building" approach that involves community residents, educates Cornell University Students, and draws on the strengths of committed affordable housing professionals. Goals: • Meet the critical need for additional housing created by new economic development in the City and the stable employment provided by Cornell University and Ithaca.College. • Create a diverse mixed-income neighborhood. • Develop a mixed-ownership neighborhood including homeownership and rental. • Ensure the site plan, building design and construction materials are environmentally sustainable. • Reduce the number of families commuting from outside the County. • Draw on Ithaca's rich architectural history for inspiration during the design process. • Create easy and safe pedestrian, bike, public and automobile access to jobs at the Cayuga Medical Center, Comell University, Downtown and the Southwest. • Set aside a portion of the new neighborhood as green space for recreation and community gathering. • Develop an employer assisted housing program that would help low-wage employees purchase homes. • Provide a hands-on service learning course to Cornell University students. • Utilize regional not-for-profit developers committed to community goals. A new residential neighborhood in the Town of Ithaca: Housing continues to be the number one concern of neighborhood residents, Tompkins County Legislators, local service providers and business owners. These diverse groups agree that while jobs are important,workers want to live close to good schools, recreational opportunities and their places of employment. The high rental prices, tight housing market and age of the current housing stock has pushed families to surrounding Counties making them choose between high cost of living or long commutes to work, less time with family and more time in their cars or on public transportation. At the same time, many college towns throughout the US,with similar housing affordability concerns, have developed community/university partnership strategies. National models include public/private partnerships with financial institutions such as Fannie Mae, local lenders, employers, and municipalities. Employer assisted housing efforts such as those of the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University and Canisius College, have transformed the neighborhoods surrounding these institutions. In late 2004,Housing Opportunities, Inc. began the process of locating a site to develop mixed income affordable housing in the County. It became apparent that due to the unique circumstances outlined r'•"1 below a location in the Town of Ithaca would be appropriate. Those factors include the following: • Cornell University, after an internal review of land holdings has determined that a parcel on Route 96, north of the Fire Station, could be made available for sale. • The Town of Ithaca has recognized the area surrounding Cayuga Medical Center and the Route 96 corridor into the city as a moderate density area in its zoning ordinance and a natural area for growth in its comprehensive plan. • Studies by the County Planning Department, University, community, and independent analysts point to the gap between the supply of housing and the demand at all income levels,whether renter or owner occupied. • Due to a high quality of life, rural character, and proximity to the City,the Town of Ithaca has seen significant increases in property values. • Cornell University has appointed Jeffery Lehman President. During President Lehman's tenure as the Dean of the Michigan Law School he was considered a pioneer of community/university engagement. • The Department of City and Regional Planning has appointed Associate Professor Ken Reardon, Chair. Professor Reardon is a leading scholar and practitioner in the field of service learning and University Engagement; leading one of the most recognized partnerships in the Country during his tenure at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. • Housing Opportunities, Inc. a not-for-profit housing organization with over 20 years of affordable housing development experience has hived a local developer to work in Tompkins County. • The Enterprise Foundation, a national foundation focusing on affordable housing,has initiated the Green Communities Initiative, a five-year, 550 million dollar program to build more than 8,500 environmentally healthy homes for low-income families. .Over the last 12 years,the Enterprise Social Investment Corporation has invested more than 15 million dollars in projects developed by Housing Opportunities, Inc. Roles of Partners: Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning—Develop a multi-disciplinary lecture and workshop course involving Planning, Architecture, Real Estate and Landscape Architecture students. The course would gather existing data on the need for affordable housing in the County drawing from the County Comprehensive Plan, City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, Compass-U Report,Musical Chairs: The High Stakes Game of Affordable Housing in Tompkins County and other relevant reports. The class would collect data regarding the commuting patterns of employees focusing on the top 10 employers in the County. This research and data collection would inform the design of a master site plan for a piece n of property currently owned by Cornell on West Hill, in the Town of Ithaca. Working with development professionals including Housing Opportunities and the Town of Ithaca Planning staff and public officials, students would create a site plan and preliminary architectural drawings. These plans and 2 drawings would become the basis for an application by Housing Opportunities to the Town for site plan approval as well as application to the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and Enterprise Foundation for construction and permanent financing. Office of Community Relations—Working with the President's Office and Cornell Real Estate the Office of Community Relations would coordinate access to the site location, inform students and Housing Opportunities of University Policy and work to create a site plan and employer assisted housing program that reflects the needs of the University, its faculty, and staff. Town of Ithaca The Town of Ithaca will be involved in the site planning process to ensure that the site plan created by students and Housing Opportunities meets the needs of the Town. If zoning change, variances, or special uses are required, the Town will work with students to understand these processes and design a site that has the highest likelihood of meeting the Town's planning thresholds. There may be funding sources such as Small Cities Community Development Block Grant or other funding that the Town could access to provide financial support to the project without tapping into local taxpayer revenue. Housing Opportunities, Inc. (HOP) Housing Opportunities, Inc. Executive Director and Developer will work with Cornell Students to create a site plan that has a high likelihood of funding. Utilizing its experience developing over 800 units of affordable housing across Western,NY,HOP will facilitate access to New York State Housing Officials and Affordable Housing Financial institutions who can provide students with input on their design and discuss the underwriting requirements and guidelines for funding. HOP will apply for site plan approval from the Town, prepare all funding applications, make all necessary construction guarantees and be the general partner of any rental housing. Enterprise Foundation &Enterprise Social Investment Corporation(ESIC) ESIC has been the tax credit syndicate on all of Housing Opportunities, Inc. affordable rental developments. Enterprise also has predevelopment loans and grants that can be made available during the predevelopment and design stages of the project. Time Line with Major Milestones: May 2005 • Initial Meeting of Project Partners June 2005 • Tour of Housing Opportunities, Inc. Anthony Square Project in Rochester,NY. Completed in the fall of 2001, Anthony Square is a mixed use development with 39 rental units and 23 single family homes. It is the recipient of the Charles Edson Tax Credit Award,the Gold Award from the National Homebuilder's Association, the Common Good Planning Council Award and recognition from the National Community Development Association. • 2 d Meeting with Partners to discuss the details of a collaborative project including employer assisted housing, and benefits of project. 3 July 2005 • Prepare Syllabus for Fall Lecture Course August 2005—December 2005 • Fall Semester Lecture Course Taught • Analyze Housing Data • Negotiate Site Control • Submit Predevelopment Application to Enterprise Foundation • Prepare Syllabus for Spring Workshop Course • Schedule guest speakers for course. Potential speakers could include HOP's Architect, a DHCR Representative, Town of Ithaca Supervisor and Director of Planning, HOP Executive Director, and a representative from Sustainable Tompkins. January 2006 May 2006 • Spring Workshop Course • Develop Site Pian and Architectural Renderings June 2006—August 2006 • Submit Site Plan for Approval from Town September—February 2007 e Prepare all applications to funding sources August 2007—October 2007 r"1 • Funding Decisions Made at State Level • Loan Closings • Construction Start November 2008 • Construction Complete 4 June 14, 2005 JUN 1 7 2005 Town of Ithaca Zoning Department 215 North Tioga Street =s,ri--�; Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: 17 Fairway Drive, Town of Ithaca Dear Sir/Madam: This letter will service as notice to the Town of Ithaca of my claim for reimbursement of monies paid to contractors for expensive repairs to the sewage disposal system at my residence at 17 Fairway Drive in the Town of Ithaca. The Town's responsibility is based upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, which certified that the sewage disposal system was constructed in conformity with applicable codes. Based upon information which has only recently been discovered, that certification could not have been based upon an actual inspection or, if it was, such inspection was wholly inadequate and should not have been relied upon by the Town. BACKGROUND In 2001, the Town of Ithaca issued a Building Permit for the construction of a single- family residence at 17 Fairway Drive, listing myself as Owner and MJK Construction, as Contractor("Contractor"). On or about January 14, 2002 a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. One of the conditions of the issuance of that Certificate of Occupancy was an inspection of the septic disposal system. Specifically, the house is served by the Town's municipal sewer system, which required the Contractor to install a sewer pipe connecting my residence to the Town's sewer main. After completion of construction and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, I undertook residence at 17 Fairway Drive with my family. In August and December 2003, the sewer line backed up, releasing sewage into my residence. At that time, we were unable to determine the cause of the problem. In July, 2004, there was a major sewer line back up, discharging raw sewage into my home. Shortly thereafter, I was advised by the Town that my Contractor had incorrectly connected my sewer line to the Town's sewer main at the connection point designated for the next door residence. During its subsequent investigation, the Town discovered that my sewer line failed to meet code in multiple respects. Moreover, these failures were not minor—they were catastrophic. Specifically, these failures included: 1. The sewer line contained an illegal "turn". 2. The sewer line was not laid in a straight line, but snaked around and over large boulders. Affte Town of Ithaca June 14,2005 Page 2 only 2 inches. This allowed liquid in the line to flow backward toward my house. 4. The sewer line was not laid in gravel, but was simply backfilled with rock and clay. The improper backfilling most likely resulted in the destruction of the line at a clean-out. I believe the Town personnel familiar with this matter wholeheartedly agree that the problem is so severe and the code deviations are so substantial that no rational basis can be gleaned for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. DAMAGES The Town's failure to properly inspect the sewage disposal system will result in substantial in damages that I would otherwise not have incurred. Initially, if the inspection had been properly performed, the Contractor would have been required to construct and install the line to code, without any additional compensation under the contract. For whatever reason, the Town's inspection was completely flawed and these numerous and substantial defects did not come to light until earlier this year. The cost to replace the line is substantial. The damages include replacement of the sprinkler system, driveway repairs and replacement landscaping. An itemization of costs will be supplied to the Town upon request. The Town is well familiar with this matter, as Wayne Sincebaugh and other Town personnel have been actively involved in engaging contractors, inspecting and directing the progress of the work and facilitating completion of the construction. Although the Town personnel have been very helpful,the fact of the matter is that none of the work would have been required if a proper inspection had been completed during the construction of my residence. For these reasons, I request reimbursement by the Town of my expenses in replacing the defective sewer line. Fortunately, my insurance company covered most of the costs to repair the interior of my home when the sewer system backed up into the house, damaging floors and walls and destroying other property. My request, therefore, is limited to the cost of replacing the line itself,not for the damages to other property because of the inadequate system. I am most eager to resolve this matter as quickly as possible and, toward that end, I would be pleased to meet with the Town,review the facts in greater detail, and present copies of invoices and such other materials as the Town may require to expedite my claim for reimbursement. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michele Bailey MB-jac Town of Ithaca June 14,2005 Page 3 cc: Town Supervisor John Barney,Esq.,Town attorney Mark B. Wheeler, Esq. Tee Ann Hunter 110ROM: webserver@clarityconnect.com Jnt: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:24 PM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.townofithaca.com/Feedback.htm department: Town Board MessageType: Complaint Subject: Facilities SubjectOther: Eastern Heights Park Username: J. Scott Newton userstreet: 219 Tudor Road usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: jsn74@earthlink.net UserTel: 269-0408 UserFAX: Bl: Submit Comments: Good afternoon. I reside at 219 Tudor Road, next to Eastern Heights Park, and I am concerned with the use (or misuse) of the park. Now that school (Public and College) is done for the year, Eastern Heights Park has turned into a gathering place for people to party, during the day and after sunset. It has become a haven for underage drinking, illegal drug use and sale, l4"''oad obnoxious music, yelling, screaming and extremely load voices, .ittering, vandalism and illegal firework use. There also have been many instances where people have driven on the grass areas to avoid the posts in the ground to use the park entrance off of Tudor for a thru street to Skyvue. On Wednesday evening, June 15, 2005, there was a party until 1:30 am or so. My windows were open and I could hear the load music and voices. They also left a mess of papers and beer cans. The Town of Ithaca Parks Department does an outstanding job in the park, but it should not be their responsiblitity to pick-up the park on a daily basis. The sign at the entrance of the park clearly states that it is a carry in-carry out area, no alcohol is permitted and that the park is closed 30 minutes past sunset. It also states that it is under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Patrol. I also am concerned with the excessive speed up and down the hill by certain individuals who frequent the park. There are a number of young children who reside on the street, along with an abundance of wildlife,and we do not need an accident to bring injuries to any of them or any property. In my 2 1/2 years at 219 Tudor Road, I have seen the Sherrif one time in the park. That was this past Spring when some young girl drove her car down into the park approximately 100 yards off the road. Why should the neighborhood be subjected to the continued misuse of this park? What can be done? Would it be possible for someone to contact the ,Avml�herriff to put the park on a regular or routine patrol schedule? Please feel free to visit Eastern Heights Park and observe for yourself what actually takes place on a daily basis. I also am requesting a response from someone, and what actions may take place. Thank you for your time. a � LL New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation 518-474-0456 The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Human Resources NEW YORK STATE Z Agency Building 1,Albany, New York 12238 518-474.0453 Bernadette Castro Fiscal Management Commissioner 518-474-4061 TDD:518-486-1899 June 21, 200- ., • I n Ms. Catherine Valentino Supervisor Town of Ithaca �,`� :>•;�_. 215 North Tioga Street ",��✓ �� Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino- The Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation would like to acquire 7.64 acres of land as an addition to Buttermilk Falls State Park. The property is an irregularly shaped parcel that is bordered on the east by the Cayuga Lake Inlet and on the west by an active railroad line. The parcel has 1,431 feet of frontage on the Cayuga Lake Inlet and borders the railroad for 1,015 feet. Enclosed is a map of the proposed acquisition for your convenience. New York's Open Space Plan recommends that we seek local government concurrence when the Environmental Protection Fund is use to fund this acquisition. Should you or the Town Board havc any questions or concerns regarding this acquisition, please contact me at (518)40S-19-:)i) 1 ncere , James S. unable Director Bureau of Real Property Enclosures www.nysparks.com An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency 0 printed on recycled paper r aA�fF o rA tit - N giA � I I � � I 8, oQ ■ �q$g§ p `E CD 1 i C i 11 1 7 -n 71 r OF 17, O `qn -- . TOWN OF ITHACA 18 21- ,,,,.,� �� e¢� 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 June 23, 2005 Assemblymember Barbara S. Lifton NYS Assembly Room 821, Legislative Office Building Albany,NY 12248 Dear Assemblymember Lifton: I am writing to express the Town of Ithaca's support for the Community Preservation Act(S. 3153 and A. 6450). Senator Carl Marcellino and Assemblymember Tom DiNapoli, chairs of the Environmental Conservation Committees in the Senate and Assembly,respectively, introduced the bills to expand town options for creating local land conservation funds. I understand that you are a co-sponsor of the Assembly version of the bill, and we thank you for your efforts. The proposed legislation expands the authority currently held by 6 towns on Long Island to provide interested town governments throughout New York the option of establishing local "community preservation"funds for protecting farmland, natural areas and other open space. If approved by a town board and a majority of local voters, interested towns would be able to enact up to a 2% real estate transfer tax whose proceeds would go to a dedicated town community preservation fund. The availability of local funding for farmland and open space protection is important to the Town of Ithaca. The importance of farmland, open space and parks in the Town of Ithaca have been well documented in our Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (December 1997). Farmland, significant natural areas, and other open space resources are becoming more and more threatened as development pressures and land values have increased in recent years. The Town of Ithaca has established an Agricultural Land Preservation Program, utilizing the voluntary purchase of agricultural conservation easements to preserve important farmland. The Town is considering a similar program to preserve significant natural areas, and the Town has an active parks development program in our Five-Year Capital Plan, as well. We have found that our sales tax and property tax revenues are experiencing increasing and competing pressures for ongoing Town services. The Community Preservation Act would give town governments more options for creating local land conservation funding. It is important to note that this legislation would not generate new costs for the State of New York nor would it require any town to take any action. Rather, it would give interested town governments greater options in supporting their local quality of life �, and protecting important agricultural and natural resources. The Town of Ithaca Town Board adopted a resolution(TB Resolution No. 2005-092) in support of the Community Preservation Act, a copy of which has already been forwarded to you by our Town Clerk. I encourage you to continue supporting this legislation. Thank you for your efforts in this important area. Sincerely, Supervisor Catherine Valentino Town of Ithaca 2 PAcAc_�D0 M Tee Ann Hunter -ALOM: webserver@clarityconnect.com "nt: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 12:19 PM 10: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.townofithaca.com/Feedback.htm department: Town Board MessageType: Complaint Subject: Facilities SubjectOther: Eastern Heights Park Username: J. Scott Newton userstreet: 219 Tudor Road usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: jsn74@earthlink.net UserTel: 607.269.0408 UserFAX: 607.280.3393 cell B1: Submit Comments: Good afternoon. This morning as I left for work, I noticed that Eastern Heights Park was used for a party again last evening, Monday, June 27, 2005. There was a bag of trash in the parking lot, and the garabage had been thrown around the area. Due to the hot and humid conditions, I have my air conditioner running with my windows closed. This will not allow me to hear if anything is happening in the Park, thus not being able to notify the Sherrif. -ontacted the Parks Department this morning with this issue to see if it would be possible for someone to survey the situation and possibly pick-up the mess. I realize that they have limited resources and plenty of work to keep them busy. I do appreciate all of the maintenance that is performed in the Park by the crews, and anything extra is great. A few weeks ago I also sent an e-mail with my concerns of Eastern Heights Park misuse to the Town board. Carol Valentino called and left a message regarding my concern, and that she would contact the Sherrif for a routine patrol to the area. Would it be possible for someone to verify this for me? I have not seen any additional (or any) patrols since her call. These parties occur at different times of the day, not only in the evening. Please stop by Eastern Heights Park and observe the use and condition following one of the on-going parties. Please feel free to contact me to discuss this on-going and increasingly frustrating issue. I also am requesting a reply from the Town Board on what the next steps will be to eliminate the misuse of Eastern Heights Park. I would like to put some closure to this on-going issue and eliminate the misuse of this beautiful park. Any assistance with this issue will be greatly appreciated. Thak you. 1 Tee Ann Hunter ,.from: webserver@clarityconnect.com ent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7:20 AM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.townofithaca.com/Feedback.htm ************************************************************************ department: Town Board MessageType: Complaint Subject: Facilities SubjectOther: Eastern Heights Park Username: J. Scott Newton userstreet: 219 Tudor Road usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: jsn74@earthlink.net UserTel: 607.269.0408 UserFAX: 607.280.3393 cell B1: Submit Comments: Good morning. Last evening, Tuesday, July 5, 2005, at 11:35 PM, I awoke to the sounds of a basketball game at Eastern Heights Park. Individuals had pulled their cars up to the court, and were shining the lights on to it. There also was loud music, yelling and screaming. My guess there also were illegal drugs and alcohol present. As instructed by Carol Valentino in previous communications, I notified the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department. Within 10 - 15 minutes, a patrol car arrived and /dispersed the crowd. There did not seem to be any communication _oncerning the direct violation of the Rules, or any action by the Officer. I believe that the presence of the Patrol Car was enough to disperse the crowd. By observing the vehicles went they departed, I believe that they were high school age, since there were a number of mini-vans. It is clearly stated that the park closes 30 minutes past Sunset, but the rule is not observed or enforced. There also is trash remaing from last evenings gathering, which also is a violation to the carry-in, carry-out rule stated on the sign. As a working and tax paying individual who must rise early days for work, these re-occurring parties and distrubances do not allow us ample rest to perform our daily duties at our place of employment. What can be done to deter these on-going parties and gatherings? I will continue to contact the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department when the after hours parties and disturbances take place. I will also contact the Town of Ithaca Town Board when these parties occur, with hopes that the elected Town Board will be able to provide assistance with this issue. I am requesting a response from someone on the board, or the Town Supervisor, and I am also requesting that my Town of Ithaca Representative (Council person) contact me to further discuss this important issue. That you for your time. Enjoy your day. 1 ° T CITY OF ITHACA1 - 4~'. _ 318 North Albanv Street Ithaca, New York 1850 L' 4 4) ^ ' JULry�� 'pw d•00 GREATER ITHACA ACTIVITIES C1\TER — L 1 3 2W5 'a0RAS1~� Telephone 60'7z272-3622 Fxx: 607;272-0250 i • iCSI July 12, 2005 Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms, Valentino, I am writing to thank you for the $1000, contribution to the Greater Ithaca Activities Center Senior Program and to discuss our funding request for 2006. Through conversations with Marnie Kirchgessner, it is my understanding that the $1000 was to be used to supplement the cost of providing transportation to Town of Ithaca residents participating in the senior program. In consultation with GIAC's Administrative Coordinator we have decided on a formula which calculates the part time drivers gross wages times the percentage of use by Town of Ithaca senior residents during a given time period. For example, during the period of January 2005 through April 2005 there were 38 program events. The total number of participants for the 38 events was 763, of that number, 218 were residents of the Town of Ithaca; which accounted for 28.57% of total participation in the events. The average number of town of Ithaca residents per event was 5.74. Assigning 28.57% of the cost of drivers to the Town of Ithaca for the period in question would amount to $621.45, an average of$16.35 per event. At an average of 9.5 events per month, the total annual charge would be 9.5 x 12 x 16.35 = $1,863.90, With expected Town of Ithaca participation of 654 during the year, the charge per event for each participant would be $2.85. Although the contribution from the Town of Ithaca for 2005 is $1,000.00 it appears that actual charges incurred will be almost double that amount. These figures do not include costs of driving time by Tom Stern, who is a full-time staff person. He contributed an additional 77 hours for trip time from January to April. Total hours for trips, including his, were 322.5. Assuming a reimbursement rate equivalent to the average part-time rate($8.86/hr), the cost per participant would be $3.74 when Tom's hours are included. We will submit invoices totaling up to $1000, by September 30, 2005 and December 30, 2005. ^oft, As of May 1, 2005 there is a total of 142 participants in the senior program, 49 participants are Town of Ithaca residents, which is 35.5% of the total participation. Therefore, our funding request for 2006 is $20,884.00. This figure represents the percentage of Town of Ithaca residents who participate in the senior program. :An Equal C)plaortunity Employer with a comminnrnt to Nvorkforce diversification." tJ The $20,884.00 figure is based on the percentage of Town of Ithaca residents who participate in our programs (35%)multiplied by the City of Ithaca's 2005 allocation for the GIAC senior program of$60,533. The $60,533 includes employee fringe benefits calculated at 40%. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the allocation of the$1,000.00 contribution, our 2006 funding request, and supporting materials that may aid our discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, /. rz� Marcia J. Fort Director cc: Carolyn Peterson, Mayor Steven Thayer, Controller Mamie Kirchgessner, Recreation Supervisor Tom Stern, Program Coordinator RE: Ellis Hollow Apartments Page 1 of 2 Cathy emw,,, From: Susan Jennings[Sjennings@coniferllc.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 12, 2005 1:12 PM To: John Barney Cc: Cathy; Stacey Crawford; Carol Oster;Susan Jennings Subject: RE: Ellis Hollow Apartments John and Cathy, thank you very much for your assistance last night. We are very excited to be moving forward with this renovation. In order to close on our financing, please fax to me the consent of the chief financial officer of the Town approving the formation of the housing development fund company. As soon as I get that, we will have this entity formed with the State. My fax number is 585-324-0555. John, I assume you will make the revisions to the pilot agreement that we discussed last night and email an amended document to me. If you would like me to make these changes, please let me know and I can do that. If there is anything else that you need from us at this time, please let me know. Thank you again. From: John Barney [mailto Jbarney@bgdmlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 05, 2005 3:27 PM To: Susan Jennings Cc: 'Cathy Valentino' Subject: Ellis Hollow Apartments Susan: After more effort than I had planned, attached are two versions of a proposed payment in lieu of taxes agreement. The first version was prepared using the WordPerfect word processing program. Assuming that you might not be using that program, I've attempted a conversion to Microsoft Word and that is the second version. Unfortunately, the conversion program we are working with does not always convert precisely correctly, so there may be some typographical anomalies in the Word version, such as words that are supposed to be in quotes such as "net rents" reading "Anet rents@". When we have a final version, we can either use the correct WordPerfect hard copy, or read over word for word the Word version, prior to signing. The enclosed versions contain considerably more than the somewhat abbreviated form you sent to me. However, if you review the tax abatement agreement, resolution, and amendment that currently pertain to Ellis Hollow Apartments, you'll see that much of what is included in this draft is simply taken from those documents, in many instances without significant change. The main additions stem from the concerns I expressed to you last week regarding having a not-for-profit company formed under NY Housing Finance Law Article XI being the legal owner of the property, but having a for-profit limited liability company or limited partnership having beneficial ownership and actually operating the property. You indicated this procedure has been used elsewhere by your company, as well as by other companies. However, the language of the Housing Finance Law is not entirely clear that this l,.N arrangement is allowed. Since it appears the only authority, in this instance, for the Town to grant tax exemptions, is founded on NYHFL Section 577, we want the Town, and its officers, to 7/14/2005 RE: Ellis Hollow Apartments Page 2 of 2 be indemnified if it turns out that under the scenario your people are proposing the eligibility for the tax exemption is lost. Most of the additional language is related to that arrangement. We also feel it would be appropriate for the Town to review any transfer of title, beneficial or !ter otherwise, and consent to that transfer only if satisfactory evidence is provided that the transfer doesn't void eligibility. I've provided that an opinion of counsel may be sufficient evidence in this regard. Language to that effect is also now included. Please look the document over, and give me a call with any comments. John <<File: Ellis Hollow 2005 PILOT Agreement.wpd>> <<File: Ellis Hollow 2005 PILOT Agreement.doc>> eoft, 7/14/2005 .�� OF 17, � A G E N D A # 1 S ----- TOWN OF ITHACA .� taz1j l 4, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 July 14, 2005 Mr. William E. Wendt, Director of Transportation ervlces Cornell University 116 Maple Avenue Ithaca,NY 14850-4999 Re: Proposal Regarding Costs Associated with Cornell University Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement(T-GEIS) Dear Mr. Wendt: As a follow-up to our meetings on June 15th and July 12th, 2005, I have outlined the Town of Ithaca's proposal for charges to Cornell University to cover the anticipated costs of the Town's participation as Lead Agency in the collaborative venture of the Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (T-GEIS). Town of Ithaca and Cornell representatives have had discussions regarding the T-GEIS over the past several months, and are in agreement that the T-GEIS is the most appropriate means to identify, examine, and evaluate the transportation- related impacts and possible mitigation measures for planned campus projects and hypothetical growth scenarios for Cornell over the next decade. A GEIS is a tool available under New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617--also known as SEQR). 6 NYCRR, Part 617.13 provides guidelines for a Lead Agency to charge fees to the applicant in order to recover the costs of either preparing or reviewing the draft and/or final GEIS. Part 617.13 is specific regarding fee thresholds relating to residential and non-residential construction projects, but is not specific regarding costs associated with a GEIS. Beyond the SEQR guidelines, we see the T-GEIS as a partnership between Cornell and the Town of Ithaca to proactively plan for the future for campus growth on a regional basis. I have reviewed the Town's anticipated time commitment in relation to participation in the T- GEIS process with Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning. The following is our proposal for Cornell to cover the Town's costs associated with the T-GEIS. There are two elements of the proposal spanning the next year-and-a-half—the first includes the time anticipated for the Supervisor's and Planning Department's time commitment to the T-GEIS; the second includes the Town's attorney fees associated with the project. Both elements are being broken down into two phases: July through December 2005 to parallel Cornell's structuring of the Scoping phase of the project; and the entire year of 2006 to cover the actual T-GEIS process. At this point, we 1000%,, have come up with Town staffs anticipated costs relating to the T-GEIS, but are still working on the details of estimated attorney costs. Therefore, we would like to move ahead with the proposal for Town staff to participate in the T-GEIS process, so that we can obtain the necessary 1 authorization from the Town Board. We will soon follow up with our cost proposal for attorney roo1 time and involvement in the T-GEIS process. For the six-month period (July 1 —December 31) in 2005, the total estimated costs, including salary and Town benefits,would be $32,000. For the 2006 calendar year(12 months),the total estimated costs, including salary and benefits,would be $68,000. Because of the importance of this project, it is assumed that Town staff working on the T-GEIS would include the Supervisor (in my role as Chief-Administrative Officer of the Town),Director of Planning, and Assistant Director of Planning. The cost proposal, outlined below in more detail, includes the hourly salary rate-plus-T-own-benefits-for-each-of-t-he-three-positions;-for the-six-monthsdn-2005_(at---_-----_. current rates) and for the 2006 calendar year, factoring in the anticipated 3% cost-of-living increase for 2006 (approved in concept by the Town Board at the July 11, 2005 meeting). 2005: Supervisor: 225 hours @$27.55 =$6,199 Director of Planning: 375 hours @ $51.32 =$19,245 Assistant Director of Planning: 200 hours @ $32.71 = $6,542 2005 Sub-total: $31,986 (say $32,000) 2006: �..` Supervisor: 480 hours @$28.38 =$13,622 Director of Planning: 770 hours @ $52.86 = $40,702 Assistant Director of Planning: 400 hours @$33.68 = $13,472 2006 Sub-total: $67,796 (say $68,000) We would need a confirmation that Cornell is in conceptual agreement with the above proposal prior to the August 1,2005 Town Board meeting, so that we can proceed with Town Board authorization to participate in the project and to factor the 2006 estimated cost into our 2006 Budget proposal. Please let me know as soon as possible if the above proposal is acceptable to Cornell so that we can move forward to initiate this collaborative effort. Sincerely, 1 / Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca cc: Brenda Smith, T-GEIS Coordinator- Planning, Design,and Construction 2 Town Supervisor Ithaca, NY 14850 Catherine Valentino 215 N. Tioga Street 607-273-1721 July 15,2005 Mr. Amon Adler New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Hampton Plaza, 38-40 State Street Albany,NY 12207 Re: The Overlook at West Hill Phase H Dear Mr. Adler: This letter serves as confirmation that I received a copy of the DHCR Low Income Housing Credit application for the Overlook at West Hill Phase II in February 2005. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at(607)273-1721. Sincerely, (°AIn.cti,,c V-A-&� Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca > 0 41GC91 307-C OF 17, ° 99 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 1521 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 July 15, 2005 Ms. Susan Jennings Conifer Realty LLC 183 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14604 RE: Ellis Hollow Housing Development Fund Corporation Certificate of Incorporation Dear Ms. Jennings: Enclosed is the "Consent to Incorporate" regarding the Ellis Hollow Housing Development Fund Corporation signed by Supervisor Catherine Valentino. If you have any questions please call me at the number above. � Sincerely, Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Enc. J'''r r TRUE, WALSH & MILLER, LLP ADEN nA 4 1 2 AttonlcN s at Law Peter J.Walsh Ilrc C 0nmuros OPcounsel a+� Salle T.True ?u} l n>:,[nic 1i cc(,Seventh Floor R..lames Miller llh�ic;i_ \c�� Ymk- 14850 Fred Weinstein John Voss I lincheliff Stephen Yatc-Loehr plena 5,ilcrno Flash Ru�annc!later Retired Gcorec R. h anll.Jr. Dam id A.A' ler Constance E.Cook 1 lilary 7'.Fraser Rogcr 13.Sovocool I auric M.Johnston Adam R.Schaye Telephone:(607)2734200 Carolyn S.Lee Fax:(607)272-6694 E-mail:dat Mans J.Schubert a tkvmlavv.com Barbara A.McGinn Web: vvww.t��nnlawv.com July 20, 2005 Catherine Valentino, Supervisor HAND DELIVERED Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: 12 Sanctuary Drive, Town of Ithaca, tax parcel #73-1-9.7 (Stephen P. Lucente-owner) Dear Cathy: The survey map recently prepared in preparation for sale of the subject property by Larry Fabbroni (copy following), was made part of the record on a variance request which was granted Monday night by the Town Board of Zoning Appeals. A copy of that resolution follows along with a copy of an e-mail I received, yesterday, from attorney John Barney of which, I believe, you received a copy. Please treat this letter as the request by Stephen P. Lucente to be included on the agenda for the regular Town Board Meeting for August I51. I am expediting this communication in hopes that I will get it in your hands for your staff meeting this date. The problem relates to the strictures on the lot in question as a result of multiple water and sewer main easements. The encroachment was inadvertent and was not known until Larry Fabbroni did his survey field work earlier this month shown on the enclosed map. Mr Lucente advises that the steps which are over the main itself, are easily removable if maintenance of the line in that area should be necessary. My research suggests that the easement is a forty year old easement granted by Rocco A*00% Lucente to the Town, a copy of which I enclose herewith for reference. Dan Walker may want to verify that I have correctly identified the easement in question. _ Catherine Valentino, Supervisor July 20, 2005 PAGE 2 OON In as much as the property is under contract for sale, having this matter on the agenda for the August I` meeting would be much appreciated. If it will be, I will prepare the license agreement in the form suggested and kindly forwarded to me yesterday by Mr. Barney and have it in the Clerk's hands promptly. Very truly yours, C � DAVID TYLER DAT/new Encl. cc: Stephen P. Lucente w/encl. hd: John C. Barney w/encl. L: � �\ RESEAgCH c 10 2b IMED IS _.MUSEUM OF THE EAffrH JUL 2 6 20105 July 22, 2005 ATTEST Catherine Valentino ITNA—CA TOVI-—NC I_FRK Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Cathy: I am writing at the suggestion of Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge and Wolf who is working on landscape design for both the Cayuga Medical Center and the new Overlook housing project on West Hill. As you know, with the opening of the Museum of the Earth, we want to continue to do all we can to make the Museum site as accessible as possible, especially to our neighbors here on West Hill. The Medical Center has already been a generous partner in helping facilitate TCAT access for Museum visitors, with a bus shelter and path connecting it to us. With all of the new development to our north, we are now wondering what additional opportunities might exist from the Town's or State's point of view for improvements around the Overlook/CMC intersection and adjoining properties that would help pedestrians and perhaps cyclists get to the Museum. From our point of view, in an ideal world there would be a continuation of the sidewalk along the east side of Cliff Street/Trumansburg from the City line past PRI to the Medical Center. Short of that, might there be any way to install some pedestrian access at least along part of our frontage on Trumansburg Road that would allow pedestrians to walk from Overlook to the Museum? Perhaps some commitment by the Town could encourage the State to help with the rest? In any case, I did not want to-let too much more time go by without letting you know that we are most interested in being proactive in addressing the needs of everyone on West Hill as we move into what looks like an accelerating period of development in our area. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss this further. Thank yoyr athy, for all your support for PRI. Si��e , Warren D. Allmon Director 1259 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 • Phone: 697.273.6623, Fax: 607.273.6620 • www.priweb.org, www.museumoftheearth.org T&M$Administration Cornell University 116 Maple Avenue Ithaca,New York 14850-4902 Transportation and Mail Services t 60f. ;;�; m 6305 trnnsportation@co=nell.edu www.tramportation.corndl.edu July 27, 2005 Ms Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Proposal regarding costs associated with Cornell University Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement(T-GEIS) Dear Ms Valentino, Per your letter of July 14,2005,I have University approval to reimburse the Town for personnel expenses relating to the T-GEIS scoping phase during r calendar year 2005. - I am looldng forward to this process and anticipate a successful start to the project and see no impediment to the reimbursement of the costs laid out for calendar year 2006, as we proceed with the project. Thank you. Sincerely William E. Wendt,Director Cornell Transportation Services cc: Brenda Smi*T-GEIS Coordinator, Planning Desip, and Construction ConwH VrAvmlty ii an&4ual oppom&airy.drwma&t action adueator and employer. 7.f1'.I F,7.:t7L cr-nz. J7 inr gO99NUO9:XEa ITHW '$ NOI161808SNU& fly OF 17,, ° �9 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 July 29, 2005 Ms. Allison Knoth 651 Ridge Road Lansing, NY 14482 Dear Ms. Knoth: On behalf of the Ithaca Town Board I want to thank you and the other event organizers for working with us to limit the noise at the Relay for Life. We appreciate your willingness to listen and respond to neighborhood concerns and wanted to let you know there were no complaints following this year's event. We appreciate the work you do to support the American Cancer Society and look forward to working with you in the future. So that we may better assist you in preparing for next year's event please have your application materials to the Town Clerk's office by mid-April. All of the involved volunteers are to be commended for giving of themselves in support of others. Thank you, 1/-� v�e Catherine Valentino Supervisor Cayuga A�GEN D-A # 7 Medical Center at Ithaca August 2, 2005 Town of Ithaca Town Supervisor 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Cathy Valentino Reference: Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition and Building Renovations Dear Cathy, We have recently begun construction of the subject project under a building permit. 1 am writing to discuss what we see as a unique situation creating a degree of hardship for the Cayuga Medical Center, and to start a discussion to see if we can find an equitable solution for both the town of Ithaca and the Center. This is a major, multi-phased construction project, with a minimum duration of three years. A large portion of the project will take place in the existing Center and the phasing will be required to keep all departments in full operation throughout construction. We will need to occupy the renovated spaces as soon as they are complete; therefore a large number of temporary certificates of occupancy are required before the conclusion of the construction and the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. The Town's Building Department currently issues temporary certificates of occupancy for a maximum of six months. This project will require, at a minimum„ six temporary certificates of occupancy at a cost of$5,250 each. The original building permit was based on a $21 million project and cost $10,500, for a projected total of $42,000 in building permit fees. I would propose that, in addition to the original building permit, Cayuga Medical Center apply for a single temporary certificate of occupancy for the duration of the construction project. We have done, and will continue doing, all of the things in our power to minimize the impact of our construction projects on the building department. We believe that this is an equitable solution in a unique situation. 101 Dates Drive Ithaca,New York 14850-1383 607.274 4011 607.274.4527 fax www.cayugamed.org Affiliated with Weill Medical CoileaeofCornell University Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call me at your convenience so we can discuss this further. incer ly, e Fitzgerald Vice President, ness Development Cc: Lou LoVecchio Paul Levesque Andy Frost Kristie Rice rte, NIXON PEABODY LLP -.- -- ..�.,, ATTORNEYS AT LAW ( linlnn Square _ ) r fi()rh('til£�r, New York 140()3-1051 � AUGNIG _ 8 2005 (:385) 203-1000 V Fax: (585) 263-1000 Dire('t Dial: (585) 263-1672 CST Direct fax: (806)451-0779 ;-}4 ^p TC J" J' t.FQK - E-Mail: dcampbell@nixonpeabody.eom - August 2, 2005 U.S, MAIL Town Board Members Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Application for a Special Perrnit and Site Plan Approval from the Village of RE: Cayuga Heights Planning Board by Upstate Cellular Network, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, to construct a 120'wireless telecommunications facility off Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights, New York Dear Board Members: The Village of Cayuga Heights Code requires that we notify adjacent and nearby municipalities of the above-referenced application to the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board. Verizon Wireless will soon make application to the Planning Board to construct a telecommunications facility in the Village of Cayuga Heights. The proposed facility will be located at 186 './z Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights, New York. The facility will consist of a 120' monopole, and a 12' x 30' equipment shelter located at the base of the monopole. The monopole will be designed and constructed to allow for three additional carriers to install antennas on the monopole. 6ncerely, .-i l Dana K. Campbell h1.1WO'. NY 130SION,.MA•8l:FF.V(Y,,N1 •GAKIHN(ITY, NY •HARIMR0,( I .(OS gNt�Fl Cti,[,A MAMAUSTEK,N11•MULAN.VA NI iV Yl]KR \) OKnNGC Cpl.,I),('\•1-1111 A0H PIIIA.PA •I'ROVIPI.N(F..RI •Rot"H[Slk R. N5' SA\I RANCISCO,CA•WA5HiNGTON,DC �&Tc - ! ,,,opusiness expansion,retention and attraction 1 August 4, 2005 Honorable Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Town Of Ithaca - 215 North Tioga Street - Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Catherine, Effective April 2005, New York State legislation was passed that extended the Empire Zones Program through June 1-0 1 1. The 11 counties, including Tompkins, that currently lack zones were named in the le`,i slation and deemed eligible for new zone designation. It is the State's intention to name 3 zones each year for the next four years based on an application process that reflects a "priority system of economic need." TCAD has the responsibility for preparation of this application,which must be submitted by 29 September 2005, on behalf of Tompkins County. Because the criteria for zone designation and program changes that are part of the legislation require a considerable commitment of staff resources to revise the application we submitted in 2002, we are currently evaluating the possibility of waiting until 2006 to file for designation. In any event, we need to obtain supporting resolutions from the Towns and Villages in Tompkins County in which parts of the zone are to be located. Your Board passed such a resolution in 2002 and we are asking that you pass the same identical resolution again so that it can be included in the application package in the event we determine that filing by September 291h would be advantageous. (Copy enclosed). As TCAD past-Chair, I am working with staff to gear up for this effort and would like to speak with you directly about our chances for zone designation in 2006 and the purpose of the supporting resolution. I will call your office next week to set up a convenient time for us to get together. A copy of this letter is also being sent to your Clerk as a"heads up" about the resolution. At the appropriate time, the Clerk's office will be provided Nvith an electronic version of the resolution. I look forward to talking with you soon. Best regards, arbara Blanchard ems �z CC: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk �ompkimr (�ountyArea Development 200 Last h'rrffaio Street, Suite 102A Ithaca,Nc a, �'nr-k 14850 (607)273-0005 -fax: (607)273-8964 TOMPKINS COUNTY LEGISLATURE 320 North Tiog a Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 � AUGVj Telephone: (607)274-5434 Fax: (607) 274-5430 www.tompkins-co.org ATi'E5T lTH�CA TU JIB!CLERK August 5, 2005 �- Hon. Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St. Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Sale of County Parcels to New York State Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation Dear Ms. Valentino: The Planning,Development &Environmental Quality Committee of the Tompkins County Legislature passed resolutions concerning the sale of tax parcel 31:2-14 to NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Ifistoric Preservation at our meeting on August 3rd. I am enclosing copies of the resolutions and supporting documentation. If the transaction is approved by the County Legislature,the property will become part of Buttermilk Falls State Park It is anticipated that the County Legislature will consider the sale at its September 6 meeting. If you have any questions about this action,please contact Katherine Borgella at the Tompkins County Planning Department,274-5560. Sincerely, Ls i_ JS�At rr Kathy Luz Herrera <C1 Copy: . Town Board STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202 CARL F.FORD,P.E. THOMAS MADISON.-JR. ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR ACTING COMMISSIONER August 10,2005 Ms.Tee-Ann Hunter _ Town Clerk,Town.of Ithaca 106 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMITS ON PENNY LANE AND LOIS LANE Thank you for your July 26 letter requesting lower speed limits on Penny Lane and Lois Lane. A formal investigation will be conducted at the subject location. The Department has begun a new initiative to be more responsive to you, our customers. To carry out this initiative,we encourage you to submit any information which may be helpful in our investigation. This may include petitions, letters from the public, accident data,maps, etc. This information should be submitted to my office at the above address. Please be aware that our review requires sufficient field investigation and analysis to assure a proper response. Upon completion of the investigation,you will be notified of the results and our dctermi ation. Your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Q GEORGE A. DOUCETTE,P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer cc: J.Lampman,Tompkins County Highway Superintendent C.Valentino, Supervisor,Town of Ithaca tlmft� Honorable Michael Kopinka-Loehr,Tompkins County Legislator,District 11 ..w - AUG i 6 2005 TIME WARNER / CABLE August 13, 2005 ;E 1 Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Cathy, The cable television franchises between Time Warner Cable and the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Cayuga Heights provide for a video production center, PEGASYS. Use of PEGASYS is limited to residents of these "Participating Municipalities," whose subscribers fund it. The franchise provides the possibility for other county residents to use PEGASYS facilities by paying a fee. The Participating Municipalities are to create a "per use" fee, and residents of other county municipalities may then use the production center by paying this fee. Time Warner is charged with collecting the fees and using them to augment the PEG budget, under the guidance of the Access Oversight Committee. The franchise also stipulates that an Access Oversight Committee would be established to "approve the timing, use and amount of PEG equipment and facilities..." Feeling it was the best avenue to establish fees, Time Warner has been working on the topic with the AOC for the past 16 months. During that time, Time Warner has allowed producers from outside the Participating Municipalities to continue to use PEGASYS production services without charge while waiting for the fee structure to be created. Thus far, we have not been able to come to a consensus with the AOC on the type of fee structure to establish. To provide the best service for residents of the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Cayuga Heights, we feel it is time to implement the provisions of the franchise related to usage of the access facility and going forward will make PEGASYS production facilities available only to Participating Municipality residents until a fee system has been created by the Municipalities. As PEGASYS operates on a seasonal scheduling system, with the next season starting in January, we will implement this change in eligibility then, and provide notification to affected producers shortly. I will address the boards and councils to help facilitate the process shortly. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Tom Doheny " L General Manager A=K Cc: Access Oversight Committee � 1 � A T1 ;t. , U ?r �- AUG 2 5 V5 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ATTEST 41 STATE STREET ITHACA TOWN CLERK ALBANY, NY 12-231-0001 GEORGE E. PATAKI RANDY A. DANIELS GOVERNOR SECRETARY OF STATE August 22, 2005 Honorable Catherine Valentino Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: 20042005 Quality Communities Grant Program Gateway Bridge Trail Dear Supervisor Valentino: Thank you for submitting an application to the NYS Department of State for Quality Communities grant. Requests for funding exceeded the amount available fourteen-fold and we regret that we are unable to provide funding for all the proposals submitted. Unfortunately, your application for the project cited above was among those not funded. While your proposal has not received assistance through the 2004-2005 QC Program, you may be eligible for financial or technical assistance trough Quality Communities in the future or from other New York State agencies. As you may be aware,the 2005-2006 State budget has increased funding for the Quality Communities grant Program to $3 million. Information about his new round of funding will be released shortly. In the meantime,we will share a short description of your project with the twenty-four agency members of the QC Interagency Working Group in the event that they know of other opportunities. We also urge you to continue to check the QC Clearinghouse website (www.qualitycommunities.ora) for news of programs that may be useful to your planning efforts. If you have any questions regarding Quality Communities, please contact me at the Division for Local Government, 518-473-3355. Sincerely, Barbara A. Murphy Director, Division of Local Government oo—. WWW.DOS.STATE.NY.US E-MAIL! INFO@OOS.STATE.NY.US RECYCLED PAPER ,#Vft* TOMPKINS COUNTY BOARD OF ELB ibnLLl� Elizabeth W. free °128`East Buffalo Street- St�{ Ml �DeW'tt Republican Commissioner Ithaca, ,Nese York 14850 AU®e2o ammr i Sion r (607) 274-5521 Fax. (607) 274-5533 (607) 274-55 2 vvww.votetompkins.com —1 25 August 2005 i A� sy k4 ,.rA TO�^.�^� Dear Supervisors, Recently passed New York State legislation will soon have a significant impact on various aspects of the election process. We're still getting all the details, but we wanted to share with you what we know now, as these changes will affect your budgets for next year. New York State has mandated the consolidation of many aspects of the election process. Starting next year all election machines will be stored, maintained and transported under the auspices of the Board of Elections. Inspectors and custodians will have their pay rates set by the County Legislators, and will be paid by the County. The new law allows Tompkins County to then charge election related expenses back to the towns. They may charge back all or just a portion of the expense. We currently charge back election expenses based on what elections your town has and what is needed for each machine set up. We anticipate our Legislators will decide on charge backs during the upcoming budget process, so we urge you to contact them with your questions and concerns. Of course what everyone wants to know is the amount of all these costs. Since there are still a number of unknown variables, especially because we don't know what type of new election machine we'll purchase next year, it is impossible to get exact figures. But we've made projections based on the best information we have, and passed those numbers on to the Legislators. As'we receive more information we'll share it with the Legislators and you. Regards, J Elizabeth Cree & Stephen DeWitt cc: County Legislators QRecycled paper o�y0FIT' 99 TOWN OF ITHACA fe zi 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 September 6, 2005 Mr. Mark Frechette Director, Planning and Program Management NYSDOT Region 3 333 E. Washington St. Syracuse, NY 13202 RE: Invitation to Appoint Resource Committee Members for Ten-year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) and transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) Dear Mr. Frechette: As part of a pro-active initiative, Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca are jointly undertaking a transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) which will result in the development of a Ten-year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS). An increase in the population that travels to Cornell (primarily staff, faculty and graduate students) affects transportation in the community surrounding the campus. The t-GEIS will study that effect on the surrounding community, and outline ways to reduce adverse transportation impacts of potential Cornell growth. Potential growth will be derived from a range of hypothetical Cornell campus growth scenarios over the next decade. TIMS will not be written before the t-GEIS. Rather, TIMS will evolve in response to the data and the public feedback obtained from the t-GEIS process. The mitigations and alternatives sections of the t-GEIS, in particular, will inform and shape TIMS, which may include recommendations for transportation demand management improvements, multi- modal transportation strategies including pedestrian, bicycle, transit and parking, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. We recognize that to be successful in this endeavor we need to draw on local expertise. We are asking you to help us assemble a Resource Committee for this important transportation-focused project. The purpose of the Resource Committee is to provide technical assistance through the t-GEIS process towards the development of TIMS. To that end, the Resource Committee will be composed of individuals from potentially ,•►� involved agencies who are able to contribute technical knowledge about transportation issues because of their training and position. Members of the Resource Committee will be expected to contribute technical input, share knowledge, information and resources, provide critiques to the planning team and contribute a range of professional opinions on transportation planning. Committee members should expect to review and comment on reading materials provided in advance of meetings, contribute to technical discussions, and occasionally provide a brief presentation related to their area of expertise. Regular attendance at meetings is expected. Frequency of meetings is estimated to be once every six to eight weeks for the duration of the project, which is expected to take up to two years. Please provide us recommendations for Resource Committee members relevant to your jurisdiction using the attached draft list as a guide. Please consider appointing Committee members who are able to commit to attending meetings on a regular basis for the duration of the project. We would like to receive your recommendations no later than4eptember 13, 2Q05 We expect the first Resource Committee meeting to occur during the last week of September, and we anticipate that the Committee will meet three or four times during the scoping phase of the t-GEIS, which should be completed by mid-December 2005. The Committee will continue to meet regularly during the completion of the t-GEIS. Thank you in advance for helping to make this transportation-focused project successful for the entire community. Sincerely, Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Bill Wendt, Director Town of Ithaca Transportation Services Cornell University List of Contacts Receiving Letter from Cathy Valentino Regarding Appointments to Resource Committee—Cornell t-GEIS (Letters sent 9/6/05) Mark Frechette, Director,NYSDOT Region 3 Ed Marx, Commissioner of Planning,Tompkins County Steve Trumbell, Supervisor, Town of Dryden Walter Lynn, Mayor, Village of Cayuga Heights Carolyn Peterson, Mayor, City of Ithaca Andrew Eastlick,Transportation Planner, Cornell University Joe Turcotte, General Manager,TCAT Fernando de Aragon,Director, ITCTC Steve Farkas, Supervisor, Town of Lansing (hand-delivered) Don Hartill,Mayor, Village of Lansing (hand-delivered) ------------ SEP 12 2005 , September 6,2005 Catherine Valentino, Supervisor George Fral Town of Ithaca George R. F 215 North Tioga Street 604 Cliff Street A S L A Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Congratulations! On behalf of the Executive Committee of the New York Upstate Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, I am pleased to announce that your project Inlet Valley Project, in the Town of Ithaca,New York has been awarded a 2005 NYU Chapter Community Achievement Award.The Community Achievement Award recognizes individuals and organizations that have made a noteworthy contribution to the careful stewardship, wise planning or artful design of our cultural and/or natural environment. All award-winning projects will be honored at the ASLA Awards Luncheon to be held on Thursday, September 22, 2005 from 12:00 to 1:30 at the Hyatt Regency, Buffalo,New York. We are pleased to extend an invitation for one project representative to attend the awards luncheon as a guest of ASLA. We would heartily welcome as many project representatives to attend the Awards Luncheon as are interested,however, we unfortunately cannot cover the registration fee for additional attendees. The Awards Luncheon is part of the APA/ASLA Joint New York Upstate Conference"Community by Design"scheduled from September 21 —23 in Buffalo. The conference committee has prepared an excellent selection of speakers and events,and we hope that you will consider registering for the full 3-day conference. However,you also have the option to register for 1- day(Thursday)or only for the Awards Luncheon. I have enclosed a copy of the conference registration form for your convenience.You can also register on-line at www.ubevents.org/event/apa. In addition, please respond to me by September 14 with the names of all project representatives who will be attending the Awards Luncheon. You can email me at deutter@tweny.rr.com or call 315-778-7521. I look forward to congratulating you in person next month. Sr'511— ly, David Cutter Awards Program Chair President-elect,NYU Chapter Encl. Cc:NYU Chapter Secretary's Correspondence File ❖•:•:••:•❖ Celebrating the New York Upstate Chapter's 51t1i Anniversary Year •:•°:•�o°:•❖ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Bureau of Water Permits, 4'"Floor ,,.. ?5 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3505 lone: (518) 402-8111 , FAX: (518)402-9029 Website: kN,w .dec.state.n v.us ---- "� eni M Sheehan �iatinrCommissioner September 8, 2005 Catherine ValentinoI! SEP 1 4 2005 Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca ;,TTEST „ 215 N. Tioga Street �' Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca SPDES Permit#: NYR20A134 Dear Catherine Valentino: The SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer system(s), Permit No. GP-02-02 required that the year two (2005)MS4 annual report table and municipal compliance certification (MCC) form be submitted by June 1, 2005. All tables and forms received were reviewed by the General Permits Section staff for completeness. The annual report and MCC form submitted for Town of Ithaca are complete and meet the minimum requirements of GP-02-02. They will be forwarded to the regional office for a detailed technical review; you can expect follow-up from the regional office staff after that review. If you have any questions or need further information, please call Carrie Wafer of my staff at (518) 402-8121. Sincerely, Angus Eaton Chief—General Permits Section 1000*�. Tompkirrs:Co,Un y SES' Finance;D:epar6ent y' 12 12`5 E- :Court,St! towN of INAea Ith1 ga;�NY•];.4850 Aceour�r�nc J (607)x274-5545 September 8, 2005 Ms. Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re 2006 Tax Levy Collection Period Dear Ms Hunter: This is to advise that Tompkins County will be changing the tax collection schedule commencing with the 2006 Tax Levy. Specifically, the County will no longer authorize the extension of collection on the tax warrant by the Town beyond March 31. This change is justified because tax collection patterns indicate that all Towns have satisfied their warrant by the end of March, and therefore do not require an extension to satisfy their warrant. Acceleration of the return will also benefit the County by improving liquidity and tax enforcement. This change in procedures may impact the Town Clerk's operations as the return of unpaid taxes and settlement of the warrant will occur in April now rather than June. The tax bill will also have to be modified to reflect the change in collection period for the Town. If there are any questions about this matter please feel free to call me at 274-5502. Sincerely, David Squires Cc: Tompkins County Legislature TOWN OF ULYSSES _ 10 Elm Street s,► T'rumansburg, NY 14886 (607) 387-5767 SEP 2 2005 Fax (607) 387-5843 jATTEST September 9, 2005 ITHACA TOWN CLEgK Dan Walker Director of Engineering 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Mr. Walker, In the sixteen months or so that the Ulysses Water District has been operational we have had a couple of incidents which are outside the parameters of our supply contract with the Town of Ithaca. Originally the pump station and Ulysses tank levels were not being maintained as per the engineered design leading to insufficient chlorine residuals in the tank to maintain proper levels in the system mains. After meetings with Barton& Loguidee and the Health Department and readjustment of the pump run and tank level settings, a partial alleviation of the residual problem was achieved. Plans are in the works for the installation of an additional chlorine injection pump at the tank, soon I hope, which probably solve the problem altogether. Paragraph 8 on page three of the contract is my concern as to the management of the pumping facilities. "Both parties agree that they will not implement physical changes in their respective water systems design or change operating conditions of the system in such a manner which would result in deteriorated service to the other party's customers....". One time last fall someone changed the pump cycle in such a manner that the tank level was below safe operating range requiring me to call to have the cycles changed immediately before we actually ran out of water. Just last week,the settings were charted to accommodate your west hill tank cleaning effort. I understand that and agreed to change the system for a day or two during the cleaning. The problem is that no one reset the system after the cleaning was completed. I repeatedly called Bolton Point and was told that it would be done. However, the changes were not made in a timely manner and the Labor Day weekend went by with improper settings. Essentially no freshly chlorinated water was reaching the Ulysses tank for almost a week. The chlorine residuals in the tank were effectively reduced from a level of 1.2-1.3 prior to the work to a level of.27 on Tuesday September 6. This I consider to be outside the bounds of our agreement and definitely deteriorated the service to Ulysses Customers. Even with me personally adding chlorine to the tank it will take weeks or months for the desired residual levels to reach the entire system. I realize that the Town of Ithaca is not directly managing the Woolf Lane Station, however, our contract is with the Town of Ithaca. Town of Ulysses personnel are visiting the pump station on a daily basis, seven days a week. This is fortunate since we notice potential problems and request changes before a real emergency occurs. I understand that Bolton Point visits the site once a week. This may be sufficient if the system were set up to send the daily operation data to the Bolton office. In over a year,this system that was engineered to do just that has not been connected,why. The Town of Ulysses intends to have a similar hookup to our town hall at the time the chlorinator is installed at the tank, probably way before your system is connected. It would be a lot easier to catch problems before they become serious if that system were activated. Please understand, I am not writing as a threat,but to let you know of our concerns in the hopes that you will take a more active role in the operation or at least ensure that your contract management is properly concerned about the operation of our supply pumps. I repeat,our contract is with the Town of Ithaca,not Bolton Point. Sincerel Doug Austic,Ulysses Town Supervisor CC: Cathy Valentino COPY : F. Noteboom/C. Valentino/Board STATE OF NEW YORK—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION STUDY NO.: 3050233 NOTICE OF ORDER FILE: 50. 12-79 TROOP: C The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: SECTION 1050. 12 SUBDIVISION _Sed- _ PARAGRAPH OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS IS ADDED ©AMENDED to read as follows: ❑ REPEALED (e) 45 MPH on Route 79 between RM 1111 .3± (Ithaca City Line) on SH 72 in the Town of Ithaca and RM 1068± (0. 1± mile east of Besemer Hill Road) on SH 483 in the Tom of Caroline, a distance of 4.3± miles. �� _I'' a L'. f' • j . i _. SEP 3 0 2005 I-'t::NCA T('ltrinl rl FQ'i. i The above order will be effective upon the installation,modification or removal of the necessary traffic control device (s) required by and conforming to the State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 9/19105 APPROVED BY: 4d07rPPt= of 0�2 erar;nns (DATE) �IZIGNATURE) (TITLE) DESCRIPTION: Order extends existing 45 iv1PH speed zone on Route 79 in the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden for 0.9 mile through the Hamlet of Besemer in the Town of Caroline. COUNTY: Tompkins LOCALITY: Town of Ithaca OTHER RELATED ACTIONS ❑ NONE ❑x Amend 1050.9 (b) and add 1050.07 _(d)._ (Identify) cc: ❑ CITY ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ VILLAGE ❑ SHERIFF D REGION TRAFFIC ENGINEER TOWN ® STATE POLICE ® OTHER Cortland/Torn%kins Residen Y ❑ COUNTY SUPT. ❑ PERMITTEE (Specify) GAD:RTM:hh TE 3e r8,'80) 1 OF 17, ° 99 TOWN OF ITHACA -- 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 � is zi � wvvw.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 September 20, 2005 Mr. Warren D. Allmon Director Museum of the Earth 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Warren: The Town is very interested in improvements around the Overlook/Cayuga Medical Center intersection. We are planning on better pedestrian and bicycle trails. Your thoughts on a sidewalk from Cliff Street past PRI and the Medical Center sound like something the Town should consider. You have raised concerns that our planning staff and Board are looking at and studying. We are indeed in accelerated development on West Hill and the Town needs to be proactive with the residents to make sure that the growth is planned well. I will pass your letter on to the planning staff and ask them to keep PRI well informed of our future plans. The Town of Ithaca is proud to have your wonderful museum located in our town. I enjoy telling people about the time you called asking if you needed a permit to bring the whale and bury it on your site. It caused quite a discussion at Town Hall. We never had a request to bury a dead whale before. In the end we decided to forget a permit (because we couldn't figure which permit to use). Everything went fine. I think about the fun the staff and I had about it every time I visit the museum. I would like very much to meet with you to discuss the West Hill issues. Please call me at 275-8189 to make an appointment. Sincerely, 0 Catherine Valentino ,�•+, Supervisor September 26, 2005 Tee Ann Hunter, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: I am writing to express my support for Town of Ithaca continuing funding of the Six Mile Creek water monitoring partnership through 2006. Since the summer of 2004, I have been a volunteer monitor on Six Mile Creek. This monitoring partnership has collected water quality data, including certified data on sediment, nutrients, and bacteria, at approximately a quarter of the comparable costs charged by a consulting firm. In addition, the program has fostered citizen stewardship and education through the involvement of approximately 20 community volunteers(plus family and friends). A similar partnership in the Fall Creek-Virgil Creek watershed has produced information on levels of bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediments. The continued support of the Six Mile Creek monitoring partnership will likewise produce valuable data useful for long-term water quality management needs, such as TMDL requirements and Phase 2 stormwater monitoring. I believe funding for the Six Mile Creek monitoring partnership is justified based on the cost-effective production of needed water quality data and the promotion of citizen watershed stewardship. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Nick Schipanski 415 Hudson Street Ithaca,NY 14850 w BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS f ` ATTORNEYS AT LAW SENECA BUILDING WEST JOHN C. BARNEY SUITE 400 FACSIMILC PETER G.GROSSMAN 119 EAST SENECA STREET (607)272-8806 DAVID A. DU BOW ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) RANDALL B. MARCUS JONATHAN A.ORKIN (607) 273-8841 KEVIN A.JONES CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ANALYSIS AND ADVICE TO CLIENT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE September 26, 2005 FSEP [�BY E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY 77 2p�15 Honorable Catherine Valentino TcktiIN of rry,acA Town Supervisor I PE?S0NNEL ar--PT Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Process for appointment of committees Dear Cathy: You have asked what steps the Town should take in order to legally formalize the process it presently uses for the appointment of advisory committees such as the Codes and Ordinances Committee,the Personnel Committee,the Safety Committee,etc. It is my understanding that you would like to formally legalize the process whereby the town supervisor establishes committees and appoints the members of the committees,which may be town board members, non-town board members, or both. PreliminM Discussion As we have discussed from time to time,the above process as presently used may be legally suspect. Section 63 of the Town Law authorizes the town supervisor to appoint committees"consisting of members of the [town] board,to aid and assist the board in the performance of its duties." That provision has been interpreted by the State Comptroller as precluding a town board from establishing a rule providing for the board to appoint committees (13 Op. Stat. Compt. 336195'). There are exceptions to that rule found in the Town Law relating to suburban towns,which expressly authorize non-compensated advisory boards created by the town board and appointed by the town board or the supervisor or both(Town Law, Section 51(5)) and,in the case of towns having a population of 5,000 or more,citizens advisory committees on capital improvements which committees are created by the town board and appointed by the town board(Town Law, Section 64(17)). The Comptroller has also rendered �1 an opinion that citizens advisory committees consisting of persons not members of the town BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW& MARCUS Honorable Catherine Valentino September 26,2005 Page 2 board may be created if authorized by a local law(1987 Opinions of the Comptroller,No. 87-69). While not stated in the Opinion,presumably the manner in which the committee is created and appointed could be included in the provisions of the local law. However,the Attorney General has issued an opinion that a local law authorizing the town board to create and appoint a citizens advisory committee is subject to a mandatory referendum under Municipal Home Rule Law Section 23 2.£which requires a mandatory referendum on any local law which"curtails any power of an elective official",and the local law discussed in the opinion curtailed the authority of the town supervisor by transferring the town supervisor's functions of creating and appointing committees under Town Law Section 63 to the town board.No cases or opinions have been found on whether a local law authorizing the Supervisor to establish and appoint a citizens advisory board consisting of both town board members and non-town board members would require a mandatory refer . Conceivably the argument can be made that such a law would constitute a curtailment of the powers of town board members by diluting their influence in a committee since,absent such a local law,only town board members may serve on such a committee. Recommended Process for adoption of Local Law In light of the foregoing opinions and statutes,the following is the conservative approach to the adoption of a local law that would modify the provisions of Town Law Section 63 to permit the town supervisor to create committees made up not only of town board members,but also of non-town board members,or a combination thereof,and authorize the town supervisor to appoint the members of such committees. 1. A proposed local law needs to be drafted. The local law would include: a. Authorization for the town supervisor to create non-compensated advisory committees for the Town made up of town board members,persons other than town board members including town staff,or a combination thereof; b. Authorization for the town supervisor to appoint the members of such committees for such terms as the supervisor may determine; C. A statement that the committees' powers are advisory only; d. A statement that it is intended to supercede Town Law Section 63; e. A statement that it is being adopted pursuant to Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, f. A statement that the local law is subject to a mane ref g. [Optional—see below if it is decided to hold a s'ppecial election] Provisions fixing the date and time of a special election to be at least 60 days after adoption of the local law. BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DuBOw& MARCUS Honorable Catherine Valentino September 26,2005 Page 3 2. A resolution authorizing a public hearing on the proposed local law needs to be adopted by the town board. 3. A public hearing,after due presentation and notice,is held on the local law. (Municipal Home Rule Law Section 20) 4. A SEQR determination is made on the environmental significance of the local law. (Environmental Conservation Law Section 8-0109[4]). 5. The town board adopts the local law. 6. The matter is submitted to a mandatory referendum of the town voters. a. The vote must occur at the next general election held not less than sixty days following adoption by the town board unless (i) The local law provides that it is to be submitted for vote at a special election held not less than 60 days after adoption of the local law, or (ii) A petition for a referendum earlier than the general election is filed within 30 days of adoption of the local law,in which event a special election shall be held at a date fixed by the town board which shall be not less than 60 days from adoption of the local law. (Municipal Home Rule Law Section 23). b. The manner of holding the election,election inspectors,polling places,etc. are determined by the town board(e.g.the town board could decide to have only one polling place such as Town Hall, and limit the voting hours to six consecutive hours between 8 am.and 8 p.m.)(Town Law Section 82). 7. If approved,the local law is filed with the Secretary of State and becomes effective. (Municipal Home Rule Law Section 27). Alternative Process for Adoption of Local Law The process set forth above,if followed,eliminates any doubt as to the validity of the local law if the process results in its approval. A less certain process would be to forego the mandatory referendum. The recommendation for the referendum arises from the dilution of influence town board members might have if non members are included on the committee, thereby curtailing the power of town board members. However,it could be argued that since the committees are advisory only, and since any decisions and votes on any matter recommended by BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW& MARCUS 7 Honorable Catherine Valentino September 26,2005 Page 4 the advisory committees would ultimately be voted upon by each town board member when presented to the town board,and since Section 63 of the Town Law already dilutes a town board member's authority somewhat by allowing the supervisor to appoint less than all of the town board members to a committee,there is no actual curtailment of a Town board member's power. If the process of adoption did not include the mandatory referendum,it seems unlikely that there would be a legal challenge to the local law,as the committees are advisory only,and thus any recommendation made by a committee is subject to a vote by the full town board, so no person,including any town board member,would have much of an incentive to incur the expenses of bringing a legal action. Further,even if a legal challenge were mounted,and the local law found to be invalid for failure to have the mandatory referendum, since the only actions taken by the committees would have been advisory in nature it is highly unlikely that any legislative action taken on the recommendation of any committee would be overturned. Probably the only negative consequence of adopting the local law without the referendum would be the embarrassment of possibly having the local law itself declared invalid. Hopefully,the foregoing is of some help to you. Let me know if and how you would like to proceed. With best regards. Sincerely yours, JCB/bc cc: Mrs. Judy Drake,Human Resources Officer./ Tee Ann Hunter �' M: webserver@cladtyconnect.com aent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:20 AM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of hftp:/Awm.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm department: Town Board MessageType: Praise Subject: Service SubjectOther: Username: John Heitzman userstreet: 101 Kay St usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: johnheitzman@gmail.com UserTel: 257-3364 UserFAX: B1: Submit Comments: I just wanted to commend the town and the representatives of the town who were at the Hanshaw road project meeting last night for their plan to make the sidewalk along Hanshwaw road a designated "walkway." I feel that there is a great need for a sidewalk along this road, and would use it very often to walk with my children to school and church and for recreational walking. Although I've heard from different residents of /04�nshaw complain about a planned sidewalk, most of those complaints :ntered around maintenance and liability issues that were assumed to be a homeowner's responsibility. Thank you for seeing the need for a sidewalk and working to get it done! 1 Flr�9 9 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N.Tioga Street,Ithaca,N.Y. 14850 I8 21 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 September 30,2005 Mr. Fernando de Aragon Executive Director Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 121 East Court Street Ithaca,NY 14850 RE: Resource Committee Kick-off Meeting for transportation-focused Generic Environmental Imnpact Statement(t-GEIS) Dear n: You have been asked to serve as a member of the Resource Committee being assembled to provide technical input and guidance to the Town of Ithaca and Cornell University project team in the development of a transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement(t- GEIS). The t-GEIS is being undertaken to understand the impacts of potential Cornell growth over the next decade and ways to mitigate them. Attached is a full statement of the charge for Resource Committee members. The first Resource Committee meeting has been scheduled from 8:15 a.m.— 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, October 6,at the TCAT Board Room, located at 737 Willow Avenue in the City of Ithaca. Coffee and refreshments will be served at 8:15 a.m. The meeting will begin promptly at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn promptly at 10:15 a.m. Parking immediately adjacent to the TCAT building may be limited due to construction. However,nearby parking is available in the Haunt parking lot. While it is anticipated that the Resource Committee generally will meet once every six to eight weeks, it is anticipated that the Committee will be asked to meet more frequently during the Scoping Phase of the project. A second Resource Committee meeting has been scheduled tentatively for October 20,2005, from 8:15 a.m.— 10:15 a.m.to provide input on development of the draft Scope,prior to submitting the draft Scope to the Town Planning Board(proposed Lead Agency)on November 1,2005. A third Resource Committee meeting is anticipated during the week of November 14-18,2005. All meetings tentatively are scheduled to be in the TCAT Board Room. The purpose of this kick-off meeting is to better acquaint Resource Committee members with the ,o► t-GEIS purpose and process, formalize the structure of and schedule for the Resource Committee,and begin to solicit technical input that will lead to the development of a Scoping (' Document and t-GEIS. The t-GEIS is being coordinated by a comprehensive project team.Andrew Eastlick, Transportation Planner at Cornell is the t-GEIS Project Director for Cornell University. He will also be a member of the Resource Committee. Jonathan Kanter,Director of Planning for the Town of Ithaca, is the t-GEIS Project Manager for the Town, and also a member of the Resource Committee. Cornell University has contracted with the consultant team of Martin/AlexiouBryson(MAB),Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering,Raleigh,N. C., and Trowbridge&Wolf Landscape Architects and Planners of Ithaca to prepare the t-GEIS. The professional staff of Trowbridge& Wolf and MAB will also provide organizational and technical support for the Resource Committee, including preparing materials for review and comment by Committee members and presenting methodologies and findings of analyses. Please review the enclosed material in preparation of the kick-off meeting. • Resource Committee Charge • Preliminary Draft Agenda for October 6, 2005 Kick-off Meeting • Proposed Action • Frequently-asked questions(FAQs) on a transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement(t-GEIS) and Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) r"'1 • t-GEIS Development Process Flowchart • List of Involved and Interested Agencies for the t-GEIS • Tentative Project Schedule Through Scoping Phase,Including Resource Committee Meetings • Preliminary Outline for Proposed Draft Scope for the t-GEIS • Resume for Martin/AlexiouBryson, Transportation Planning, Traffic Engineering • Resume for Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects and Planners Your participation in this endeavor is greatly appreciated. We look forward to seeing you on October 6. Sincerely, Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Bill Wendt,Director Town of Ithaca Transportation Services Cornell University 2 copy: C. Valentino/J. Kanter/F. Noteboom/Town Board a Tll T 44-k R So ."tiC A✓�+:— k St.,��►u�� Cti� "�( .1�u :.} 1a5� 4'8 St-1c �t cu % �D �pw✓� 171<ci5t �vtv� ",I Y i Y �'�✓ti'T. �� I ari C` IM q"=y 5• n��t �7 1 =OCT5 r f ;ATTEST IT1i/1(A TOU+N CLF COMMENT SH �-r HANSHAw ROAD RECONSTRU! ION OCT _ 5 2005 � I. PIN 3753.25 -'.rTrsT ITHA CLER,v,--- We want to know what you think! -� -- Name AC i TZ,'vl/I,- Address ion �-,.4 E d Q 4 Please provide us with any comments you have on the project in the space provided below. k A 'VIZIZALf1✓11 C'7 7� r Y�r II -3 L�'1 S i � C�✓\C� d.� �jti� 1Vc- � w �1-t ��• 5 on_ +ra.2 �ro✓ 'ltd Yl, L 'r'+7uA lC1ct [12it wlu:L 'tiFJSclvl+-e-I!g LCIS j",.2� -,+, �t✓l n..4t-r-cs.c - ;J k 111t u.nwt.�✓.. rn r2S&.i � ft.YlctrLLt ��tr�� z i7tv'tr 3�t 5 at✓i�� l5 L. - O•1 14 o ��L..v'C v c. 7 �l.�S is 4`:.+1 n " t .-in LJItiIC e , yk �'{ CGCG n � (J-t Strl� rS Xi f eve .�� Please leave this form or mail to: Richard J. Brauer Fisher Associates, PE, LS, PC 135 Calkins Road W✓IN C :�teC.-. TU -i�Z - rh �•� :S ttti�i� C� SI, f `k i�;S �nCL t.lt LFicyz 4r- r a �� v1 a 4- S�-J�,�-+-C r.•'1�l y �L.�t'..;�.+? ��.� :.-} ) LA Page 1 of 1 Cathy From: Joshua Peluso[pelusoj@cortland.eduj Sent: Tuesday, October 04,2005 5:41 PM To: PUBLICWORKS@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US; Gene Redman Cc: Cathy Subject: SPAM-LOW: Resident's Thank You And Question I wanted to write and express my thanks for a job very well done. I am a resident at 140 West Haven Road, last week a tree fell from the right of way in front of my yard, and landed in the street. The highway department responded quickly and professionally. The tree was cleared in moments and moved into my yard. A supervisor than explained to me that the part that fell was in the right of way and they would be back to clear it. Upon my arrival at home the next day the tree was cleared,completely, it was a pleasant reminder of the excellent workers this town employs,and made me feel very much satisfied with the response the resident have becomes accustomed too. Thank you very much and please pass on my gratitude to those that made it happen. I do have one question though, only half of the tree had fallen,the other half remains, sickened, and somewhat unsafe in its current condition. According to my survey the tree is in the right of way, however I am not sure if this has been verified, my question is am I responsible for the removal of the rest of the tree, because the tree is"half in and half out', are we to share the responsibility of its removal, or is the town responsible? If you could let me know,at your earliest convenience it would be appreciated,as bad weather comes are way I would hate for another fallen tree to damage property. Thank you for your time, Joshua Peluso 1607.256.2444 10/7/2005 Q 1223 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 06 October 2005 George A. Doucette Regional Traffic Engineer USDOT 333 E. Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 Dear Mr. Doucette, I am writing at the direction of Jonathan Kenter, Director of Planning for Tompkins County. (Please see my letter to him and his response to me - both enclosed). I am extremely concerned about the new traffic light at the intersection of West Hill Drive and Cayuga Medical (it appears to be an offset intersection). As you will note from my letter, it is extremely difficult for me or any member of my family, for our neighborhood and Lakeside Nursing Home staff to exit our driveways and with the new housing development(s) on West Hill Drive, we anticipate further problems. There are many days when I have to turn right out of my driveway and to north to the Hospital light in order to go back down the road, past my home to get to work. If there is a truck or a show car coming down 96, the traffic can sometimes be backed up for miles with no relief. As soon as the light changes at CMC, the traffic continues. I have ^ly one neighbor that works at CMC, all the rest of us have to go down 96. The rst traffic times are between 7 am and 9 am. Is there any way the timing of the light can be changed to accommodate those of us in the neighborhood? Since the folks at Lakeside sit and wait so long at times, they sometimes get into the traffic at unsafe and unreasonable speeds and there have been a number of accidents and many,many sounds of tires peeling. Any assistance in taking us into consideration would be greatly appreciated. The other issue I have is with what I believe is called jake breaking. We get large trucks down 96 at all hours of the day and night and the noises have changed. The "jake brake" much more these days. It is not only an increase in the noise level, but also must be an environmental issue and quite frankly my windows shake. I noticed on Rt 13 on the way from Pyramid Mall to Stewart Park, there is a sign that says" State Law Noise Level 90 decibels." Would one of these signs or several signs placed on property such as the fire station, help? We will also speak with our sheriff and see if it could be enforced. Any help with this would be much appreciated. My family and I have lived at the above address for 40 years and have seen the traffic change significantly. I work hard, pay my taxes, keep my property up and don't want to move. I would hope the DOT would be able to assist me and my neighbors with these problems. Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you soon. -Yours v ry truly„ r Pr�U�i Y P enclosures cc: Cathy Valentino - Town of Ithaca Supervisor 1223 Trumansburg Road Ithaca,New York 14850 31 August 2005 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Kanter, I have read your notice of a public hearing on 9/6 for the repositioning of the traffic light at CMC. Since I am unable to attend that meeting and unable to call you at my workplace, I would appreciate some information about that light. As you will note from my address,I am the home just before Lakeside Nursing Home on the way to CMC. The traffic has been expanding tremendously over the last 40 years since we moved into this home. My concern-which I voiced at a Planning Department Meeting, was that the new West Hill Development across from CMC would add so much more traffic that it would further create problems for myself and my neighbors when we try to exit our driveways to go to work. We felt the traffic studies were outdated and not accurate-but that is an issue that went on deaf ears. ,A� My question is-will this new light give us some relief from the traffic flow to enable us to get out of our driveways more easily? Will it be a traffic sensitive light which perhaps would give us a short span of time to exit our properties or will it be all timed to allow the most flow from 96 North ? Currently I have to turn right and go to the Hospital light in order to get down the hill to work. Your information and assistance in taking the neighbors into consideration when this change in the traffic light occurs is very much appreciated by all of the property owners immediately affected. As an aside, I wonder if you could direct me to the appropriate department with phone numbers and/or addressers. Yesterday, I saw for the first time a sign on Rt 13 that indicated"State Law noise level 90 decibels." How can we.get those signs in our neighborhood? The trucks as they come down the hill and break, are extremely loud •+-�� • ��»•-�U-..#backbm aldng(I am not sure of the terminology). Also awa . ..+u,.. ..�a, .uuaab uvvua vuva� vav J/ aawith not- + since 96 is a straight a.v.»y 11-.., ,.., » . ..:::.;.,,........... .. .. ..:....,.,.., ., . »: .:.r�, -.�=� loud, AUi- ideas on who I can contact? Thanks again. Sincerely, Mary E. Prosperi r"'1 OF 17, ti� 99 1821 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 October 3,2005 Ms. Mary E. Prosperi 1223 Trumansburg Road Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms.Prosperi: -- Thank you for your letter of August 31, 2005. In response to your first question,the September 6th, 2005 Planning Board agenda item regarding the traffic light at Dates Drive simply involved the transfer of a strip of land from the Medical Center to the State to accommodate a new traffic signal pole for the modified intersection. In response to your second question regarding whether the new traffic light will provide some relief from the traffic flow on Trumansburg Road for residents who live downhill from Dates Drive, I would suggest that you speak with the NYS Department of Transportation(NYSDOT) about the phasing and operation of the traffic signal. Because Trumansburg Road/Route 96 is a State highway,NYSDOT is the responsible-agency for approving the intersection modifications, including the new traffic signal. I am referring you to Mr. George A Doucette, Regional Traffic Engineer at NYSDOT. Mr. Doucette's office reviewed and approved the intersection and signal plans. His office phone number in Syracuse is (315)428-4382. I am copying Mr. Doucette on this letter with a copy of your letter attached. In response to your final question regarding signs indicating"State Law noise level 90 decibels", I am not familiar with such signage,but would refer you again to Mr. Doucette's office at NYSDOT, since they would be the agency responsible for installing such signs on a State highway. I hope that the above information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, S 3-33 F. w ` V1400r Jonathan Kanter,AICP, Director of Planning S R• 13o'I Oo1- cc: George A. Doucette, P.E., Regional Traffic Engineer,NYSDOT r'"`. Supervisor Cathy Valentino Page 1 of 1 Cathy - ... - ----- -- - ------ - ------From: Patricia A. Johnson [paj5@comell.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:24 AM To: Cathy Subject: SPAM-LOW: Hanshaw Rd reconstruction Cathy, I live at 1034 Hanshaw Road and I was unable to attend the last community meeting that discussed the Hanshaw Rd reconstruction. My husband and I signed the petition but understood it to be in support of the walkway, and not a sidewalk. I clearly want a walkway along the road. I think this will provide much needed safety for all the many pedestrians which use the shoulder of the road now. I walk daily and I am really afraid of being struck by a car the entire time I am on Hanshaw, so I either walk in my neighbor's yard or on the church's property before turning to walk on Blackstone. My biggest concern is the amount of property I will lose with either a sidewalk or a walkway. Our house is situated closer to the road than many of the neighbors and I would hate to lose the majority of my front yard for safety and privacy reasons. I expect to lose some of the yard,but I hope that the town would minimize its use. I support the town's efforts to widen the road,but would hope that we put in traffic calming crosswalks in order to slow the traffic down. I am very pleased with the effort that the town is making and I would want the town to use the federal ,,grant. Please count on my support of this project. Patricia A. Johnson Treasurer New address as of April 7, 2005: 35 Thornwood Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 607-254-1595 607-254-1555 fax 10/6/2005 Pagel of 2 Cathy From: Charlotte Williams[charwill@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:30 PM To: Cathy Subject: SPAM-MED: FW: Hanshaw Meeting 9/29 Dear Ms.Valentino, My family lives at 1036 Hanshaw Rd (on the north side of the affected section of road), but we were unable to attend the meeting last Thursday. I sent my feedback on the designs presented to Mr. Lampman, but a neighbor recently told me that you would also like to receive community feedback. I have included the text of my message to Mr. Lampman below. To summarize,we are very enthusiastic and supportive of a sidewalk/walkway being added to Hanshaw because we believe that a sidewalk will add to property values and improve pedestrian safety.Though we feel it would be most appropriate and fair to take the needed additional land from both sides of the road (and therefore will require a shifting of the road center lane point),we have no complaint about the amount that would be required from our own yard, given the designs we have seen. We hope that a curbed sidewalk in particular is added and we look forward to the finished improvement. Thank you for your consideration, Charlotte and Kenneth Williams 1036 Hanshaw Rd. From: Charlotte Williams [mailto:charwill@twcny.rr.com] Sent:Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:03 AM To: ylampman@tompkins-co.org' Cc: 'CPerkins@FsherAssoc.com' Subject: RE: Hanshaw Meeting 9/29 Dear Mr. Lampman, My family lives at 1036 Hanshaw Rd,which is on the north side of Hanshaw near its intersection with Blackstone. We were unable to attend the meeting last Thursday, but would like to provide our feedback on the design options we have seen. In general,we strongly prefer the following elements to be included in a design: Equitable yard space use:The MOST IMPORTANT element in any design used -it should take equally from the yards to the north and south of the road. It is absolutely vital to give equal treatment to homeowners on both sides of the road. A single curbed sidewalk:A curbed sidewalk is preferable because it is safer for pedestrians, better controls the runoff from the road, looks nicer and adds more to home value. Grass separation:There should be a reasonable grass separation (approx 5')between the sidewalk and the shoulder of the road.This provides additional pedestrian safety, looks nicer, and is necessary for winter snow storage space. A lowered roadway: Runoff from the road into yards is a concern because it adversely affects yard plantings and lawns.A lowered roadway will better control runoff. It is also much safer for pedestrians. 10/6/2005 Page 2 of 2 Our comments on the specific designs from your website: httpJ/gisweb.tompkins-co,org/detail.asp? ROJECTID=70 Option 9: BEST DESIGN.We love it! It has all of the elements that I have listed above,while taking only a reasonable amount of yard space equally from both sides of the road. Option 2: POOR DESIGN.Though it takes equally from both sides of the road and has elements that we like,two sidewalks are unnecessary and therefore takes too much yard space from homeowners. Option 3: MODERATE DESIGN. While it has some elements that we like, it does not take equally from both sides of the road. In order to be acceptable, it MUST take equally from both sides of the road.The design would be significantly improved if the roadway is lowered. Option 3 gutter with adjacent sidewalk:WORST DESIGN.Although some homeowners may prefer this because it takes the least amount of yard space, it is unacceptable to us because it does not provide enough safety for pedestrians and makes no allowance for snow storage. Option 3 4'swale: MODERATE DESIGN: In order to be acceptable, the center line of the roadway MUST be shifted-this design MUST take equally from both sides of the road.The design would be significantly improved if the roadway is lowered. Thank you for keeping us informed of your progress. We appreciate the emails you send and are looking forward to the finished improvement to the road. Thank you for your consideration, Charlotte and Ken Williams x1036 Hanshaw Rd 10/6/2005 Cathy Fq : Jonathan Kanter g� Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:21 PM To: 'Erica Jessup' Cc: Cathy;'jlampman@tompkins-co.org' Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: 1442 Hanshaw Road Ms. Jessup: I can't answer your question, but I am forwarding your message to Town of Ithaca Supervisor Cathy Valentino, and John Lampman at the Tompkins County Highway Division. I can tell you at this point that the County and their consultants have offered to meet individually with each property owner to see how their property frontages would relate to the project. Both the County (who is sponsoring the project) and the Town Board (who is advising the County regarding the project and is considering the walkway) are aware that significant trees and community character are important elements that need to be factored into the decisionmaking process. Please let me know if you have any specific questions on the project, and I will try to answer them for you or refer you to someone who can. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)273-1747 F+�4 (607)273-1704 iter@town.ithaca.ny.us -----Original Message----- From: Erica Jessup [mailto:ej36@cornell.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 12:46 PM To: Jonathan Kanter Subject: SPAM-LOW: 1442 Hanshaw Road Dear Mr. Kanter, I hope you can give me some assurance that the 250 + year old oak tree at 1442 Hanshaw Road won't be sacrificed to build the new sidewalk and bike path. I just bought the property two weeks ago, and was devastated to hear from my neighbor this morning about the project. Please let me know what I can do to ensure the survival of this beautiful, healthy tree. Thank you so much, Erica Jessup 1 Pagel of 2 Cathy From: Deb Cowan [cowan2222@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:58 PM To: William Lesser Cc: cggdgoro@twcny.rr.com; hjel @comell.edu; Sandra_Gitt@yahoo.com;wiliburbank@twcny.rr.com; pcsl@cornell.edu; Cathy Subject: Hanshaw Rd petition To Bill Lesser, Just wanted to respond to your point in our prior email that the Board would need some clarification about the petition circulated to Hanshaw Road residents prior to the September 29 meeting. The petition circulated to residents by the neighborhood group did contain an item that recommended eliminating the sidewalks,among others that asked for limiting the width of driving lanes to 10 feet and the shoulders to 4 feet, considering reduction of the swale size, and including traffic calming measures. The wording is almost identical to the resolution passed by the Board on September 12. At the time we distributed the petition our information was that the Town would require residents to maintain, repair and have liability for sidewalks. I checked this myself with both John Lampman and Rich Brauer by phone before proceeding to canvass neighbors. Some people's major concern about sidewalks was the maintenance issue--but concern for the safety of the street, particularly as regards traffic speed,was the overwhelming issue. The removal of trees, the widening of the roadway footprint, change in the character of the neighborhood,and privacy issues were all mentioned as part of people's opposition. Rich Brauer offered two traffic calming measures as part of the project. One was the sidewalks themselves, which is arguable,as there are studies which show that any widening of the horizontal optical plane on a roadway increases the tendency for drivers to speed. Rich himself admits that drivers drive at the speed which they feel is appropriate for the roadway, regardless of posted Iimits.If the visual aspect of the roadway is widened by paved shoulders, swales and sidewalks,one might expect speeds to increase, making the neighborhood less safe. The second traffic calming measure mentioned in the Sept 29 presentation was landscaping--that bushes and trees overhanging the roadway give a sense of enclosure and therefore help to slow traffic.Yet the project proposes to remove many bushes and trees,some of them 50 to 100 years old, and then re-planting so that in some future year we will regain the measure of safety we already have. Although the removal of the maintenance issue as regards sidewalks has likely resulted in some change of mind among residents, many continue to question the advisability of a measure which will so greatly alter the nature of our neighborhood for so many years to come. I agree with you that it makes little sense for the Board to vote in favor of sidewalks before they know what this will entail. I have contacted Rich Brauer to see if he is willing,at his site visits in the neighborhood,to not only identify the ROW on each property but also to tag each of the-trees proposed to rhe removed. This way everyone can get a visual of what will be entailed. I also favor reduction of any potential sidewalk size from 5 feet to the 4 feet more common in Cayuga Heights, and discussion on potentially placing drainage pipes underneath the shoulder (as shown in options 1 and 2) rather than the Swale, reducing digging impact on the root systems of any trees adjacent to the project ROWS. 10/7/2005 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your time and attention. Regards, Deborah Cowan 2022 Hanshaw Rd. 10/7/2005 Page 1 of 2 �c. Cathy From: Cathy Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:00 AM To: 'Deb Cowan' Subject: RE: Agenda for 10/17 Board meeting I am not planning to vote at the Oct. 17 meeting. I think we should get more information before we vote. I would like to plan a field trip for the board members and make sure we have more and better information before we vote. Cathy -----Original Message----- From: Deb Cowan [mailto:cowan2222@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:58 PM To: Cathy Subject: Agenda for 10/17 Board meeting Importance: High dear Cathy During our conversation last week I understood you to be saying that you were planning on a Board vote for a resolution in support of sidewalks on Hanshaw Road at the meeting on 10/17. /1°wi There are many people on the road who continue to oppose sidewalks despite the fact that the issue of maintenance/repair as a homeowner responsibility seems to be off the table. There is virtually unanimous concern about the safety of the roadway as regards speeding and it is the feeling of many of us that the increase in visual perception of width which will be afforded by the roadway, shoulders, Swale and sidewalk will result in more speeding and a less safe environment. I think the October meeting has the potential to be very contentious and divisive. The Hanshaw Road project has the potential to alter the safety and quality of life in our neighborhood for many years to come. ti I would suggest that any determination of whether sidewalks be supported be deferred to one of the Board meetings scheduled after the site visits planned by Fisher Associates. At this time they have promised to stake the proposed right-of-way distances and identify trees and bushes to be removed so that the neighborhood will have a concrete visual. If indeed many of our old trees and other landscape features that provide the"sense of encroachment" that Rich Brauer noted as an effective traffic calming measure remain,then I think opposition will melt,and you will have a simple and speedy passage of a positive sidewalk resolution. If, however,the decision remains part of the plan for October 17, before we are aware of what impacts the project will have on our neighborhood environment, I can guarantee that there will be vociferous opposition. Voting on a sidewalk resolution makes no sense until site visits are completed and design refinements are considered. Until then we do not know the width of the sidewalks,shoulders or swales,where a proposed sidewalk would be placed or what trees would be preserved or destroyed. I would ask that you defer any sidewalk decision until a Board meeting subsequent to these events. 10/6/2005 Tee Ann Hunter ?00*1110m: Tee Ann Hunter bent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:02 PM To: Cathy Subject: FW: Regarding Hanshaw Road Sidewalks -----Original Message----- From: Carolyn Grigorov [mailto:cgrigoro@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:58 AM To: Tee Ann Hunter Subject: FW: Regarding Hanshaw Road Sidewalks From: "Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr." <hutchins@ece.cornell.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:27:38 -0400 (EDT) To: CGrigorov@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Regarding Hanshaw Road Sidewalks PLEASE NOTE: The text of the letter below was provided to Supervisor Valentino on Monday Oct. 3, 2005 at 3:22 PM for her comments. I have had no reply as of this mailing. Please note further that in taking over this sidewalk project, the Town of Ithaca needs to recognize that it will inherit a good deal of the frustration and resentment that Tompkins County has generated among /dm" residents of Hanshaw Rd., for which we apologize. Dear Councilwoman Grigorov; My wife and I, along with most of the residents of Hanshaw Road, are extremely upset with the actions of the Town (or at least of Supervisor Valentino) with regard to the sidewalk issue on Hanshaw Rd. Please .recall that resolutions regarding Hanshaw were passed (unanimously) by your board on June 13 and Sept. 12 of 2005. The June 13 resolution said ". . . . . .that sidewalks or walkways be included when wanted by a majority of the adjoining residents, . . . IF The Sept. 12 resolution called for protection of trees and a much smaller "footprint" than the one planned by Tompkins County. In planning for the county's Sept. 29, 2005 meeting at DeWitt School, we, the citizens, relied on these resolutions in preparing our defense of our property and of our rights. In particular, we decided to find out if a "majority of the adjoining residents" wanted sidewalks, and a petition was circulated. The results were overwhelmingly against sidewalks. More than 2/3 of the neighborhood said NO. Of about 84 households on Hanshaw, and on the corners of Warren Rd.and Kay Street, ere were about 56 households who said no, two who said yes, about 10 /01�0 -id not sign but were leaning no, about six not signing but leaning yes, and about 10 empty houses (out of town, for sale, etc. ) . This initial petition was presented to Supervisor Valentino at the meeting, and an 1 updated version has been presented to the town, or will be shortly (additional copies were circulating throughout the meeting for additional ,a*%�gnatures) . With this huge majority, there can be little doubt that .ie residents REALLY ARE opposed to the sidewalks. When the June 13 resolution was pointed out, Supervisor Valentino first said it applied only to Coddington Road. She was wrong about this, and "stood corrected. " When asked about a vote (majority of adjoining residents) she said that there was "not going to be a vote. " (The petition had not been presented yet. ) When the language of the resolution was read, she said that the Town would rescind the resolution and added "We do it all the time. " I don't know why she jumped to the conclusion that the full Town Board would be quick to rescind any resolution, and in particular, one that she had only minutes ago been reminded of. In this case, rescinding the resolution looks really evil because the resolution transferred a decision to the citizens to make, and then when the Town doesn't like the results of the vote, they propose to invalidate the vote and rescind the right to vote. (Supervisor Valentino would not be asking to rescind if we had voted yes, so she does want to override our honestly implemented vote. ) [ At the meeting, two people who signed the petition indicated that they would not have done so if they had known about the Town's assumption of maintenance and legal liability. Of course, this was only wrought out (by Dan Walker) at the meeting, and is certainly far from a .)ne deal. Be assured that there are multiple reasons for opposition, of which snow shoveling was a major issue, but not the only one. I know of no household on the north side who has backed down. One who favored sidewalks came over to our side when she found out that there was no serious effort (just smoke and mirrors) to complete the missing link to the Cayuga Heights sidewalks. Further, and this is not insignificant, Supervisor Valentino's statement regarding rescinding ("We do it all the time.") was not helpful in giving us- faith in the Town regarding a promise to maintain sidewalks (how long?) . ] On Friday Sept 30, one of our neighbors spoke to Cathy and found out she also intended to rescind the Sept. 12 resolution. Further, she said that if we wanted to speak about the sidewalk issue at the upcoming Oct. 17 Town Board meeting, we would need to address issues mentioned in the Town Sidewalk Policy (10/23/03) . It was not enough to just be opposed. Likely it is not enough to be "just opposed, " but why should she get to limit the issues that are open for discussion? If she gets to sets those rules, we have no chance, so we will of course reject her rules, but will be arguing far more than just arbitrary opposition. Cathy refers to the eight indicators favoring sidewalks mentioned in ,41�e Sidewalk Policy, and Jon Kanter by memo of Sept. 7, 2005, says that .1 eight apply to Hanshaw Rd. The policy says any three of these would indicate the need for sidewalks. Actually, it is possible to argue that three of the eight he claims are not met. (In fact, two of them are the same are the not?: linking to other sidewalks and not dead ending. ) 2 But, if the sidewalk policy's formula actually works; that is, if it is "TRUE" that sidewalks are a good idea, then why are nearly all of us ?AA49posed? Does this not indicate that we need to add a ninth criterion jr discard the redundant one) : SIDEWALKS ARE INDICATED WHERE THEY ARE OPPOSED BY NEARLY ALL THE HOMEOWNERS? The problem with many policy formulations is that once they are drawn up, people think that they actually MEAN SOMETHING. In reality they may not measure or indicate what they say they do. This has to be evaluated independently of just using the policy. You never should expect to get good data out of a flawed or uncalibrated tool. This sidewalk policy is a bad tool. Fortunately, you do have a good tool for finding out if sidewalks are a good idea; one that takes advantage of the combined wisdom of the people who are in the best position to judge. This was the "Vote" of the June 13 resolution (an insightful inclusion) , and the neighborhood was kind enough to run the actual experiment. If the "theory" is that the neighborhood embraces situations where sidewalks are a "good" idea, then either the sidewalks are a "bad" idea or neighborhood opposition is an indicator of a "good" idea. Or is it just that the Hanshaw Road neighborhood is populated with an excess of reactionaries, curmudgeons, /jm"qd Luddites? Which is it? Please oppose the actions to rescind either of your resolutions, and encourage the Town to work with the neighborhood to arrive at a solution that may be satisfactory to all. Bernie Hutchins Jinyong Hutchins 1016 Hanshaw Rd. 3 Copy: F. Notehoom, C. Valentino, Town Board George R. Frantz & Associates ,,�► 604 Cliff Street, Ithaca, New York 14650 (6071256-9310 Wo a17 a�li�ts�pe.get�p D L55 hJ �f Honorable Catherine Valentino, Supervisor OCT 12 2005 Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street aTT� EST Ithaca,New York 14850 ITHACA TOwr]Ct_FctK October 8,2005 Dear Cathy: It has now been 15 years since the passage of Public Law 101-336, also known as the Americans With Disabilities Act. I thus find it little short of amazing that the Town of Ithaca would design and build a public park facility that would include such a blatant violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act as the new Tutelo Park does. The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and equal access for persons with disabilities in employment, commercial facilities, transportation, state and local government services and public accommodations, including public parks. Yet at least half of Tutelo Park has been designed and built to be inaccessible to the 20 percent or more of the population that suffers from mobility impairments. The woodchip path that runs through the portions of the park covered with woodland, the portions that feature the unique trees and wetlands complex, is nowhere near adequate in terms of meeting even the minimum requirements of the Americans With Disability Act. The soft, irregular surface makes it practically impossible to navigate in a wheelchair or with a cane or walker, and extremely difficult to push a baby carriage. There is no excuse, in this day and age, for such insensitivity in the design and construction of public park facilities. In the particular case of Tutelo Park, it would be quite easy to construct, at reasonable cost, an attractive footpath of adequate width, with a smooth, hard surface and a gentle 3 percent gradient from the base of the hill to the meadow at the top. There are certainly no practical difficulties or potentially burdensome costs that would justify any decision by the Town of Ithaca to not construct a path that complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act,and to continue to deny access to such a valuable public recreational resource to a large segment of the population. I thus urge you to take action immediately to correct this unfortunate situation. Sincerely, George R. Frantz,AICP Land Use Ptarning Park & Open SPa[e Plannng Agri[ultural Land Protechon Flanncnq Transportation Planning Site Planning Crcwtt,ManaGernent Regulations State Eny,ranmental Ouality PevTw Community Development Grant Acqureihon& Admmrstrahon OF IT,ygv TOWN OF ITHACA -i82i-- 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY(Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer)273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 October 12, 2005 American Institute of Certified Planners Attn: 2006 FAICP 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036-1904 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to support the nomination of Jonathan Kanter as a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. As Town Supervisor, I have had much opportunity to work with Jonathan and to appreciate his many contributions to Town government in his role as Planning Director. In New York State, all land use control rests with the local municipal government. This is an immense power that can be used judiciously to implement community plans but it is also a power that has to be carefully thought out to be effective. During Jonathan's tenure with the Town of Ithaca, he has overseen the use of this power in ways that make the Town a premier living environment in Tompkins County and throughout the region. In addition to working quietly and effectively to develop a Comprehensive Plan for the Town that we use on a daily basis as our guideline for growth, Jonathan spearheaded the revision of the Zoning Ordinance that would help implement the Plan. So why does this make Jonathan Kanter special? Isn't this what Town Planning Directors are supposed to do? The answer to these questions is, of course, yes but the method in which the tasks are carried out is all-important. Jonathan's approach to these multi-year projects that have the potential of becoming very controversial and often times fail is to take steps along the way to ensure that the community is included in decision-making and that Plan and Ordinance concepts are clearly understood and supported. Jonathan's leadership in several other project areas should also be recognized. To name just a few: he has worked with the Town's Transportation Committee to develop sound policies for road improvements and transit services; he has arranged for and encouraged training opportunities for Planning and Zoning Board members; he has coordinated the work of consultants with responsibility for monitoring the Lake Source Cooling project; he has served as Chair of the MPO Planning Committee and on the County's Economic Development Coordinating Committee. In short, Jonathan has represented the Town of Ithaca in a number of venues with the full confidence of the Town Board and the Supervisor. Jonathan has also been instrumental in developing a Park and Open Space Plan for the Town and a plan and procedure for Purchase of Development Rights. He has worked with Cornell University to prepare an inventory of historical homes in the Town and is currently collaborating with Cornell on a Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement that will allow us to make informed decisions about various growth scenarios. In short, Jonathan Kanter is a mainstay of Town government. As Supervisor, I rely on him greatly for good sound advice and I am happy to endorse his nomination to become an AICP Fellow. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Supervisor October 12, 2005 John W. and Doreen J. Rudan 100 Wildflower Dr., Ithaca, NY 14850 d Mr. Wayne Sincebaugh OCT 14 2005 Department of Public Works,Town of Ithaca 106 Seven Mile Drive AT-TEST Ithaca, NY 14850 ITHACA TOWN CLERK Dear Mr Sincebaugh, We are writing this letter to express our serious disappointment of your action to approve the removal of the tree in front or our house at 100 Wildflower Dr. on Wednesday, October 5th. You cannot imagine how shocked we were that day to find out that the contractors from the Spitsberg development across the street cut down the tree. We left home with the tree intact and returned home mid-afternoon to find the tree gone! We were sadly disappointed to see this action taken without consulting us. We did not receive any advance notice and the opportunity to argue for leaving the tree intact. In a conversation the following day you attempted to justify your action by making the following statements: 1. The trees along Wildflower, which were planted by the Eastwood Commons community some years ago, got in the way of snowplowing. 2. The trees were not in good health and would all have to be cut down in the next 10 years. /'N Having lived in the city of Ithaca for over 40 years, and where the trees are as close to the road as on our street,we never heard nor saw any difficulty with snow plowing. We find that argument somewhat self-serving. About the health of the trees, we admit that many of them on the street have problems, but "our" tree in particular was just fine and I'm sure we could have nursed it along for many more years. We will now miss the shade it provided from the early morning sun and the filtering of the night light from the nearby pole. And....10 years is a long time. We are both in our 70s and we surely could have enjoyed that tree for many more years. We believe that we should have been consulted in advance before you took or approved such an action. We find your decision not very "user friendly" when dealing with homeowners and taxpayers. We believe that your next action should be to replace that tree with one of equal size and we are willing to have that tree planted further away from the road and even on our property. We are sending a copy of this letter to Supervisor Cathy Valentino to make her aware of this situation. Sincerely, John W. Rudan Doreen J. Rudan cc: Kathy Valentino,Town Supervisor 1H/12/21e05 13: �S GOT29-70849 WIVELL PAGE 01 Comments on the Hanshaw Road Project: I am convinced that you will do the best job we can afford, with the least disruption possible, as you reconstruct Hanshaw Road. i I hope it's superfluous to ask that work at the entrance to _Muriel_not be done at the some time as the entrance to Salem, so that if it should be easier to go the IoMg way around to get to Hanshaw Road, it is stili possible. I think this should be obvious, but I've seen too many examples of road construction where the alternative access was under construction at the same time as the main outlet! My only real concern has to do with the 'walkway', and fears that the town resolution, concerning the wishes of the majority of adjoining homeowners, being allowed to deny many citizens a safe place to walk. One lady had a petition signed by 56 residents, asking that a sidewalk not be built, But I attended the first of these meetings, and the anti-sidewalk sentiment I heard expressed at that time concerned fears of maintenance and liability on the part of the homeowner whose property the sidewalk would cross. I thought this was a legitimate corcern, and was very pleased to hear that the town will own and MninTain the 'walkway', rather than having this burden placed on individual homeowners. One speaker at the 9/29 hearing said that she had signed the petition based on the 'sidewalk' concept, but that she was not opposed to the 'wolkwey.' If there is to be a petition heard on this 'walkway', please let it be drawn up so that it fairly describes the project. I also question the concept that only those whose properties adjoin the walkway may vote I pay the town, state and federal taxes which are funding this project, I live on Mur=el St,, 3 houses north of Hanshaw Rd, and I feel that I am a legitimate stakeholder in this affair! I ride the#31 bus, which can pick me up most conveniently in front of my house. However if I stay on the bus to get off in the some place, I have a 20 minute ride around the airport complex, so I would prefer to get off at Warren and Hanshaw and wa#k the rest of the way, beating the bus by about 10 minutes. The north side shoulder, however, is not a safe place to walk. in addition to the fairly heavy traffic, the shoulder is usually full of potholes, sometimes enormous, and if it is dark, or there is snow covering the shoulder, you can't see the holes. I nearly fell 10/12/2005 13:38 6072570849 WIVELL PAGE 02 r� into one, and had my husband not been there to catch me,I would have been injured.; This is a much-used bus stop, and riders deserve to have safe access to it. Furthermore, in the winter, the snow is plowed up onto the corner,forcing bus riders to wait and walk in the street. A plowed walkway should make this a safer area. (Hanshaw and Blackstone has similar conditions,although less cross traffic Despite the convenience of being able to catch the bus at my door, I find that I often drive to Community Corners and park there,so that on the return trip I do not have to walk on Hanshaw. This seems silly and wasteful to me, but my only othor safe choice is to stay on the bus for the extra 20 minutes. At the hearing someone said that it has been proved that neighborhoods with sidewalks have healthier residents. I hope this is true! I would think that it is also true that neighborhoods with sidewalks are healthier neighborhoods. I grew yp in a bedroom suburb of Philadelphia, with sidewalks: I spent 22 years living in a residential neighborhood of the City of Rochester, with sidewalks, and I certainly feel that when residents feel safe walking around the neighborhood,they do so mot,e often, know their neighbors, and the area becomes a friendlier and safer place to live. A final suggestion which might help to appease the anti-walkway folks: I can i remember, somewhere in my travels (Paris, perhaps?),walking on sidewalks which Had drainage conduits underneath them. There were periodic,grated,openings for the! water to enter, but they were safe to walk on as long as you werent wearing high heels. Could this be possible on Hanshaw RV that the walkway and the ditch cold occupy the some space, one on top of the other? Sincerely, Helen M. Wyvill 6 Muriel Street i I i r 'Oak., BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEN ECA BUILDING WEST JOHN G. BARNEY SUITE 400 FACSIMILE PETER G.GROSSMAN It 9 EAST SENECA STREET (607) 272-8806 DAVID A. 0usow ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS{ RANDALL S. MARCUS JONATHAN A. ORKIN (607) 275-5841 KEVIN A. JONES October 14, 2006 w�f� OCT 17 2005 _J . William Highland, Esq. 200 East Buffalo Street r:.77 F ST Ithaca,NY 14850 t_ 17HAC�,TOVJr a 4 I RK-- Re: Dress Option--Town of Ithaca Dear Bill: Following up on the discussions we had before you left for vacation regarding the above transaction, I've attempted to draft some language to include in any deed from Mr. Dress to the Town to try assure him that the land will be Dept as natural forest. The proposed language would be something like the following: The transfer of property that is the subject of this deed(the"Property")is subject to the following restrictions which shall constitute covenants running with the land for so long as the Property is occupied substantially completely by a natural forest similar to the forest presently located on the Property: 1. It is the intention of both Grantor and Grantee that, except as provided herein,the Property will not be developed,but will remain substantially as a wilderness area and natural forest open for use by people and animals. It is the expectation that, except as provided herein, none of the existing mature trees will be removed from the Property by Grantee. Grantee shall be permitted,however, to remove dead or diseased trees or other dead or diseased vegetation, and may also remove any invasive species of vegeta- tion that threatens, or could threaten,the viability of the trees making up the existing forest on the property. Any such removal shall be accom- plished in accordance with good forestry management practices and with as minimal damage to the remaining healthy trees as possible. 2. The Property shall be maintained as a passive recreational forest,without the construction of any facilities for other than hiking or walking activities, except as provided herein. Without limiting the foregoing,no ball fields, swing sets,play structures, or other similar types of facilities shall be constructed on the property. To the extent deemed reasonably necessary by the Grantee to protect the forest and its trees, soil, and ground vegeta- tion, and in accordance with good forestry management and land use practices, Grantee may install drainage facilities and stormwater protective facilities. 3. The only recreational activities to be permitted on the Property shall be hiking, walking, cross country skiing, birdwatching,jogging,plant obser- vations, and similar types of passive non-disturbing activities by the public generally. No motorized vehicles, including without limitation all-terrain vehicles or snow mobiles, shall be permitted on the Property except that Grantee may, if necessary for proper maintenance of the forest, bring motorized vehicles such as trucks on the Property for purposes of accom- plishing such maintenance. Grantee may also permit parking of vehicles on a small area of the Property adjacent to any public highways adjoining the Property provided such parking may be accommodated without the removal of any existing mature healthy trees and provided such parking is limited to persons engaging in the activities permitted on the Property by these covenants. Would language such as the above help your client feel more comfortable about convey- ing the property to the Town? If so, I'd be happy to submit the proposed language to the Town Board for consideration at their meeting Monday evening to see if they are willing to purchase .�. the property with these limitations.If you have any suggestions for alterations of the language that Mr. Dress would want to include, let me know and we can consider them. Please give me a call if you are able to connect with your client to discuss this before Monday's meeting (October 17). With best regards. Sinc elif6o , cc: Supervisor Catherine Valentino Mr. Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning J ' October 17, 2005 0 To: Town Board From: Tee-Ann Hunter Re: Proposed Veteran's Real Property Tax Exemption r ftp Town currently has Alternative Exemption as follows. Exemptions continue annually until time of death or death of surviving spouse: Veteran serving during time of conflict -gets 15% off assessed value up to a maximum of $12,000. Veteran serving in the combat theater _ - gets additional 25% off of assessed value up to maximum o $20,000. Veteran disabled during combat - gets %i of disability rating (are you 20%, 40%, 80%, 100% disabled) up to a maximum of$40,000. A 100% disabled veteran receiving the maximum in exemptions would get an annual $72,000 real property exemption until their death or the death of a surviving spouse. The County has raised the ceiling on the exemptions from $12,000, $20,000, and $40,000 to $15,000, $25,000, and $50,000 respectively currently. Per the Town's Tentative Assessment Roll for 2006 the Town currently grants the following real property Veteran's Exemptions: Conflict = $1,601,325. x tax rate of 1.38 = 2,209.82 Combat= 3,187,875. x tax rate of 1.38 = 4,399.26 Disabled = 544.944. x tax rate of 1.38 = 752.02 7,361.10 If Town were to raise exemption to County levels A worst case scenario would add 25% to each exemption category. Additional $1,333,536 of exemption x 1.38 = $1,840.27 increase in lost revenue. A"N r * � Department of Assessment 128 East Buffalo Street Valeria Coggin Jay Franklin Director Assistant Director r I' mer 7 September ,2005 Town of Ithaca �� Catherine Valentino 215 North Tioga Street A 7TEST A la,�cA'Tot frr cf gal' Ithaca,NY 14850 — - Dear Cathy, This letter is to inform you that the Tompkins County Legislature has recently passed legislation regarding Ileal Property Tax Exemptions. We wanted to bring these provisions of the Real Property Tax Law to your attention in the case that your municipality would also like to either enact or to change your ceiling limits as the case my be. First,on May 17`h the Legislature opted to enact RPTL—483 (b)—Historic Barns. This exemption allows for a 10 year exemption, exempting 100%in the first year based on the increase in assessed value due to the rehabilitation of a Iistoric Barn. This exemption then decreases each year by 10% for the remaining nine years. Second, also on May 17"'the Legislature opted to enact RPTL—459 (a)—Improvements to property pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This exemption allows for a 10 year exemption, exempting 50%in the first year based on the increase in assessed value due to the improvements made to make the property more accessible to people with disabilities. This exemption then decreases each year by 5% for the remaining nine years. And lastly, on September 6ffi the Legislature enacted to increase in the ceiling limits for the Alternative Veterans Exemption. The Legislature increased the ceiling limit for the Basic exemption from$9,000 to $15,000. The enclosed chart shows what ceiling limit each municipality within Tompkins County has adopted. You will also note that some municipalities have not opted in to the Alternative Veterans Gxctnption and have decided to remain with the Eligible Funds(Existing)Veterans Exemption. The limit on the Eligible Funds (Existing)Veterans Exemption is only $5,000. A municipality that only allows the Eligible Funds(Existim,) Veterans Exemption may opt to allow the Alternative Veterans Exemption however a municipality that has opted into the Alternative Veterans Exemption may not go back to allowing the Eligible Funds(Existing)Veterans Exemption. If you have further questions regarding these exemptions or any other real property tax exemptions which you may be interested in enacting,please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Jay Franklin Assistant Director of Assessment Mail Address: Tel: 607-274-5;17 128 East Buffalo Street Fax: 607-274-5iO7 Ithaca,New York 14850 assessment(rrtomwkfns-ce.or http://www.tompkins-co.org/assessmcnt/ To the Members of the Ithaca Town Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 October 17, 2005 Less than a month ago, I purchased the property at 1442 Hanshaw Road, which I chose because it provides a strong sense of country living so close to town. Sharing the property with me is its most striking landscape feature, an enormous,healthy oak tree more than 200 years old. I have spoken to previous owners of the property who went to great lengths to protect this tree from road salt and other manmade hazards which have threatened it since the property was converted from farmland in 1957. My new neighbors have spoken to me about how much they enjoy it and how it adds majesty, shade and beauty to the neighborhood. As stated in Goal 7 of the Transportation Plan, protecting the environment and the significant natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic resources in the Town of Ithaca is part of the process you have undertaken to make transportation better for all the citizens of the Town of Ithaca. It seems this tree is in the way of human progress, and I am here to plead with you to find creative ways to progress around it without endangering it further in the long term. I invite each of you to take the time to visit the property and see this beauty for yourselves. Thank you for your consideration of my request. R , Erica J. Je X�ctp 1442 Hanshaw Road Ithaca,NY 14850 1- 1016 Hanshaw Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Oct. 17, 2005 Town Board Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Town Board: My wife and I live at 1016 Hanshaw Rd., on the north side, second property before the Cayuga Heights line,just across from the tennis courts. Regarding Hanshaw Road rehabilitation, at the Sept. 29, 2005 meeting at the DeWitt School, we were underwhelmed by what Tompkins County and Fisher Associates had accomplished in seven months of study. Specifically, they presented a single cross-section intended to fit1he entire road, which had all the nuances of a bull in a china shop. Where we live, we currently have a 10 foot driving lane and a four foot shoulder, which is not in terrible shape at our location. This is exactly what the Town of Ithaca called for in its Sept 12, 2005 resolution. We have no ditch or swale or storm sewer, and there appears to be none on either side from the Cayuga Heights line up to at least Blackstone. There is no need for such water control devices because water has never been a problem here (Witness: last week!). The reason for this is clear. The water just sinks into the deep gravel base, the area being a large delta of.a temporary version of Fall Creek, spilling into post-glacial "Lake Ithaca" (940 foot level) as the glacier retreated northward some 10,000 years ago. The Town Engineer is likely familiar with the lack of drainage problems over this area. Yet, the county's plan calls for a 10 foot driving !ane, a 5 foot shoulder, a 6 foot swale, and a 5 foot sidewalk (26 feet total). The "swale" includes an underground storm sewer. At best this system might recapture some ground water which would then have to be dumped into the Cayuga Heights storm sewers, but which would have otherwise percolated peacefully into Renwick Brook. Clearly, it would cost a lot of money and for the most part, be a "storm sewer to nowhere." Clearly this is a stupid idea. Moreover, the inclusion of the unnecessary six-foot swale complicates the situation by enlarging the "footprint"of the project. Most egregiously, there is the need for an "additional" 1.5 feet of right-of-way. (In actual fact, the county has been unable to produce any documents supporting any ROW, so any reference to a 25 foot ROW is alleged only. Please see page with map.) The consequences of this can not have been given much thought by the county. Indeed, they have indicated (Jon Kanter's Sept 7, 2005 memo) that they would expect the Town to take on 5% of the sidewalk cost and the ROW acquisition chore. Here are the main problems: (1) According to the county's map, the additional 1.5 foot of ROW means the destruction of many trees, hedges, and fences, which the Town would need to replace. - Many of these were.evidently planted (constructed) with full knowledge that they were close to, but on.the homeowner's side of the (alleged 1 or supposed) ROW line. Of course there would also be the costs of the payments to the property owners and legal fees. (2) There would be (and perhaps is already) the need to draw up something like 50 individual ROW agreements, many of which would not come easily. The residents are aware that one of the few places we have to protect our interests would be to get them detailed in writing in any ROW agreement. (3) In the very likely event that any resident absolutely refused, it would be difficult for the Town to show anything remotely resembling a compelling public need for the additional ROW, and "eminent domain" is becoming an increasingly offensive practice (Witness: T. of Dryden Comprehensive Plan passed 10/13/05 removed 26 miles of proposed trails because of concerns over eminent domain). (4) Any actual sidewalk as proposed would pass directly over the current survey pins of many homeowners. That is, they would be dug out. Residents would clearly be entitled to a suitable replacement survey at the Town's expense. Such a survey would need to be for the full property(what buyer would accept a paste-together survey?) recertified to the homeowner. (5) We doubt the Town's ability to provide replacement planting. To begin with, there is the fact that the deer eat everything. (Please, don't anyone use the phrase"deer resistant varieties!" And no vibumums. The Town planted cranberry viburnums on the sewer easement a couple of years ago,just ahead of the viburnum leaf beetle invasion which killed most of them. I presume the Town got a good price!) The Town would have to provide deer cages for every planting, and they would need to remain for probably five to 10 years. And some planting just die without apparent reason, and would need to be replaced. If we accept that swales/storm-sewers are unnecessary (indeed, stupid), and that they further aggravate the ROW situation, a rational person would get rid of that idea. Instead, what would work would be a 10 food driving lane, and a combination walkwaj/bikeway as a continuous extension of the road shoulder(perhaps separately striped) perhaps as wide as six or seven feet total, but not so wide that drivers would ever be tempted to pass on the right. Clearly, this would be much easier for the Town to maintain (winter)with just the usual road plow with the wing further extended. What about a smaller swale (four feet rather than six in one possible alteration of the plan by the county)? Well, you still don't need the storm sewer, so this would presumably be just'a strip of grass or gravel. It is unlikely that any grass would grow there, because of the road salt accumulation. While there would be no need for the extra 1.5 feet of ROW in this case, there are still many trees, shrubs, etc., that perhaps are inside the ROW, which are still deserving of preservation (Town Board's Sept 12 resolution) and which could be spared if the unnecessary swale is entirely eliminated. Sincerely, /34w4wqU, Bernard Hutchins APPENDIX "MAP PAGE" Until such time as Tompkins County produces easements or ROW agreements concerning Hanshaw Rd., or offers a satisfactory explanation, we are left to speculate as to what the actual ROW width is. Clearly, by implication and current use, it must be as wide as the current driving lane and shoulder (14 to 15 feet each side of center). Yet there is no reason to believe it must be John Lampman's "county standard" of 25 feet. Where are the documents? I think we need these. Below is a section of the 1895 topo map showing the relevant portion of Hanshaw Road (all roadnames overwritten by me). Note that it was certainly a farm road in 1895 as one would suspect. Farmers did not suffer the local authorities excess control over their farm fields (a 10 feet strip grew a lot of wheat!), and the standard where I grew up (Town of Richmond, NY in the 1950's) was 15 feet. Every farm kid knew this. Is it the case here that the original (whenever) ROW was 15 feet? That would explain why so many houses on Hanshaw have old trees consistent with this 15 foot figure, and inconsistent with 25 feet. Or was there never a ROW written up? I do not know what the consequences of this situation are, but they need to be addressed. Bernie Hutchins 51 1 1'' vrr s ncwcw �.z w i —_'rte—✓=- F l 1 Li f J tt! ro 1 _ J � ^ I t 1 a7 7�� " k M i''.Y1i�ti teV,sC Cathy From: Jonathan Kanter Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:14 PM moo: 'andrewzepp@fllt.org' Jc: Cathy; 'jbarney@bgdmlaw.com' Subject: Dress Property CONFIDENTIAL Andy: John Barney has spoken with Mr. Dress's attorney, Bill Highland. They have been discussing possible deed language that would address Mr. Dress's concerns about future use of the property. John Barney is waiting to hear back from Mr. Highland,who was supposed to run some draft language by Mr. Dress. So far,we have had no other direct contact with Mr. Dress to my knowledge(I think that Cathy was waitiing to see what happens with John Barney's attempts at deed language that would satisfy Mr. Dress). Let me know if you have any additional questions. Feel free to contact John Barney in regard to the status of hearing back from Mr. Highland on proposed deed language. Jon Jonathan Kanter,AICP Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)273-1747 FAX: (607)273-1704 jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us /01*` i WILLIAM D. HIGHLAND ,..,� Attorney at Law OCT 2 4 200_ti 200 East Buffalo Street Suite 101 C Ithaca,New York 14851-0255 (607)277-3344 October 21,2005 John C. Barney,Esq. Barney,Grossman, Dubow &Marcus Seneca Building West,Suite 400 119 East Seneca Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Option for Purchase of Real Estate 283 Culver Road,Town of Ithaca Dear john: Thank you for you letter of October 14th. My time away was extended by one day by virtue of a death in the family. As a result, I did not return to the office until Tuesday,October 18th-the day after the Town Board meeting. I have sent a copy of your letter to Mr.Dress for his review. After he has had the opportunity to discuss its contents with me, I will contact you. Sincerely yours, -rte' 4D. FRghlan William WDH Tee Ann Hunter From: sandra gittelman [sandra_gift@yahoo.com] e'°ent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:39 PM o: Tee Ann Hunter Subject: SPAM-LOW: Fwd: For the Town's consideration TeeAnn; please put this lettwer on the Agenda for further dicussion. Sandy ps thanks --- "Michele M. Bailey" <mmb38@cornell.edu> wrote: > Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:23:02 -0400 > To: sgittelman@town.ithaca.ny.us > From: "Michele M. Bailey" <mmb38@cornell.edu> > Subject: For the Town's consideration > Dear Ms. Gittelman: > I am writing to ask you to reconsider a decision > made by Judy Drake, Human > Resources Manager, and Dan Walker, Director of > Engineering, after > consultation with Selective Insurance Company of > America. > I had a home built on 17 Fairway Drive in Ithaca in > 2001. My home is > served by the Town's municipal sewer system, thus > the Contractor (MJK Construction) was required to install a sewer pipe from my residence to the Town's sewer main. This installation was inspected > and passed by the Town. > The sewer system backed up in August and December of > 2003. At that time, > it was thought that these were relatively normal > back-ups due to type of > toilet tissue, etc. being used. In July 2004, there > was a major sewage > back up which led to extensive damage to my home. > At that time, I started to investigate the problem > further with plumbers > and the Town (Wayne Sincebaugh, Water/Sewer > Maintenance Superintendent) . I > have documentation of our numerous discussions from > July 2004 until the > problem was fully diagnosed and resolved in May > 2005. > In summary, it turns out that > - my house was tied into the wrong spot, > i.e. it was tied in at > the next door lot (code violation, but passed > inspection by Town) > - there was an illegal turn, which did not > have a clean-out (both > code violations, but passed inspection by Town) the pipes were not bedded in gravel (code violation, but passed > inspection by Town) > - the pipes went up and over two very large 1 > boulders (3-4 ft. in > diameter) ; (code violation but passed inspection by > Town) > - there was only a 2" drop from my house to the road; there needed to be a minimum of 30" by code (code violation, but > passed inspection by Town) > - and the slope from the house to the > cleanout was BACK INTO THE > HOUSE (code violation, but passed by the Town) . > I would like to be clear that Mr. Sincebaugh was > helpful and professional > in all of his dealings with me. However, I am > extremely disappointed that > the Town will not accept any responsibility for > falsely certifying that the > sewage disposal system was constructed in conformity > with applicable > codes. My understanding for the rationality of the > Town's decision not to > accept any responsibility is that a claim would have > had to been made > within one year and 90 days from the time of the > inspection. > The consequences of this false certification took > longer than the one year > and 90 days to develop, since all of the problems > were underground, out of > sight, and undetectable within that time frame. > Indeed, from the time I > contacted the Town in July 2004, it took ten months to fully discover the gravity of the problems. The problem has now been > rectified, but it has > cost me over $29, 000 to date, and I have not even > had the driveway repaired > where it had to be dug up. > Had the Town carried out a proper inspection, the > problem would have had to > be corrected in 2001, before a Certificate of > Occupancy was > issued. However, the problem would have been MJK > Construction's (the > contractor) to deal with. Unfortunately, I now have > no recourse against > the contractor (as he went bankrupt) and the Statue > of Limitations prevents > me from making a claim against the contractor, even > if he were still in > business. > In summary, had the sewer installation not been > falsely certified in 2001, > the Contractor would have been liable and I would > not have to pay what will > be in excess of $30,000, to rectify the problem. I > would ask that the Town > reconsider their role in this problem and consider > assisting with the costs • of this reconstruction. I would be happy to provide you with more details > and copies of the > invoices. I look forward to hearing from you, and 2 > thank you in advance for > your consideration. > Sincerely, > Michele Bailey > 17 Fairway Drive > Ithaca, NY 14850 > 266-0733 > cc: Town Board Members 3 LeNorman J.Strong Assistant Vice President for F,7 Cornell University Student and Academic Services 2336 South Balch Hall Student and Academic Services Ithaca. �� :�s�3-140 ---t.607.25-5.3511 (( "If f.607.255.9767 ;Ijs3l@cornell.edu October 28, 2005 NOV — 7 2005 rATTEST �—� Honorable Catherine Valentino 3TF'nC .Tr'r.� �?x Supervisor,Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca,N.Y. 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino, In the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and in support of the many efforts to assist those in New Orleans, Cornell leaders sought strategies by which our University might help to support our fellow citizens in the New Orleans area. It was determined that we could contribute most by arranging to admit students from Tulane University and other surrounding schools. We did so by securing housing for those who accepted Cornell's offer. We found that many of the students who chose to come to Cornell from Tulane and other schools were undergraduates.We are temporarily housing the students for this semester only in available space at various University residential facilities, including ones located in the Town of Ithaca such as Maplewood Park and Hasbrouck Apartments. If you or any of your town staff have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact one of us. Sincerely, hoz . LeNorman Strong Assistant Vice President for Student and Academic Services r Philip McPheron Director of Graduate&Professional Student Housing LJS/tmk cc: Susan H. Murphy John C. Gutenberger ,+wa T O>MlP' K-JIN S COUNTY EESv][)KONMUElNTA IL NIA\NA G JEl�ltlE��[' (C�O1lU[I��CI[]L 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Te�,i J: cam: (6o7)274-556o Fax(6o7)274-5578 November 2, 2005 Dlyr Supervisor Catherine Valentino NOV — 4 2005 Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Street �ATi TEST Ithaca,NY 14850 (�^ ITHACA TOWN CLF aK -- Re: Model Wind Tower Ordinance Dear Ms. Valentino: Wind is an abundant,renewable,and nonpolluting energy resource that can help to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is becoming increasingly viable,both technologically and economically,as an alternative to the use of fossil fuels. iversi 's Depjztnt,nt of Utilities .and Energy Mama ws that there are sites in Tompkins County with enough wind potential to support large-scale turbine development. If a project were proposed loca y,the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC)recommends that municipalities have in place a plan to review and approve these projects.The best way to do this is to adopt a wind tower ordinance. The EMC,with a consultant, developed a model wind ordinance to assist in siting and environmental impact decisionmaking for utility-scale wind facilities for your consideration.A short background and the Model Municipal Ordinance for Utility-Scale Wind Energy Conversion Systems is attached. In addition to the model,we offer the following points you may want to consider in your own local ordinance: a. A utility-scale wind project is a large undertaking. Consider adding language that requires,or allows as an option, a preliminary review process that could provide an opportunity for the Board to review generally and informally the proposed project and highlight any concerns that may be readily apparent with respect to the project. b. One of the most important issues of concern for siting wind towers is the visual impact.The model ordinance does not require a visual impact analysis. It is an optional study the Board may request if deemed necessary. Consider making this a requirement rather than an option. c. The model ordinance is written for utility-scale wind facilities greater than 500 kilowatts. For intermediate-scale proposals (between 100 and 500 kilowatts),you may wish to require a subset of the model ordinance's provisions. Some municipalities in Tompkins County have already addressed, through existing ordinances, smaller wind towers that provide on-site electric usage.For those of you who have not,a good place to start is to review the model ordinance New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has made The FMC is a citizen board that advises the County Legislature on matters relating to the environment and does not necessarily express the views of the Tompkins County Legislature. Page 2 of 2 Wind Ordinance November 2,2005 available to municipalities throughout the state.The"AWS Model Zoning Ordinance:Permitted Use Regulation for Small Wind Turbines"can be found on the internet at http://www.powematurally.org/publications/AWS Small Wind Zoning.pdf. I hope these materials will be helpful to your municipality to enhance the review and approval process for siting wind towers in your community. If you should have any questions,or need any additional information,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, , Stephen C.Nicholson,Chair Tompkins County Environmental Management Council cc: Tompkins County Legislature Attachments: Background Information—Model Municipal Ordinance for Utility-Scale Wind Energy Conversion Systems Model Municipal Ordinance for Utility-Scale Wind Energy Conversion Systems _� "J— e-�-cc a !� New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation 9 n Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau VEW YORK STATE Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 caernadette Castro Commissioner November 8, 2005 1 [ 4 Ms. Cathy Valentino Town Supervisor ! Town of Ithaca k4 ; NOV 1 7 2005 , � ;� 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 t i i EST, --- Re: Hayt's Corners Chapel and Schoolhouse L'— iYiA� PTdr��fCtERuJ 1296 and 1298 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, Tompkins County Dear Ms. Valentino: Following a detailed review, the State Review Board has recommended to the Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, who is the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) , that the property identified above be listed on the New York State Register of Historic Places and nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. After reviewing the nomination, the SHPO has agreed with the recommendation of the State Review Board and has listed the property on the State Register of Historic Places. We shall now forward the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register in Washington, D. C. If the Keeper of the National Register approves the nomination, the property will be listed on the National Register. You will be notified when this decision is made. Information about the results of State and National Register listing were included in our earlier notification letter. If you have any further questions, please contact your field representative Anthony Opalka, at the New York State Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau or call (518) 237-8643 ext . 3278 . Sincerely, f 65�. ao 04 Ruth L. Pierpont Director Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau RLP: lsa An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency 0 printed on recycled paper BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS Attorneys At Law SENECA BUILDING WEST NOV 1 0 2011 i C.Barney SUITE 400 refer G.Grossman 119 EAST SENECA STREET Facsimile ( David A.Dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK 1,4850 (NOT - VIC06 E O (fVOYFOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) Randall B.Marcus Jonathan A. Orkin (607)273-6841 Kevin A.Jones November 9, 2005 Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca Water Tank Located on Coddington Road Dear Dan: Enclosed is a letter from Mark Masler on the Raponi - Ithaca College water tank. Most of what he indicates is in his letter, I think is acceptable although I do want to modify the abandonment reverter provision to make clearer that it is not any intention to abandon but rather the actual abandonment that provokes the right to exercise the reverter, and define what constitutes abandonment. We will also have to work through some language on the responsibility for maintenance for the portions of the access road utilized by others in addition to the Town. Please look the document over and let me know if you have any problems with it. I will plan to meet with Mark Masler after you and I have had a chance to discuss it. With best regards. Sinc ly yours, JCB:sls Enclosure xc: Supervisor Catherine Valentino (w/copy of Mr. Masler's letter) RECEIVED HARRIS BEACH NOV 0 4 1005 ATTORNEYS AT LAW BY HAND 119 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA,NY 14850 gar►` (607)273-6444 MARK G.MASLER FAX: (607)273-6802 November 8, 2005 MMASLERQHARRISSEACH.COM John C. Barney, Esq. Barney, Grossman, Dubow and Marcus 119 East Seneca Street, 4th Floor Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Town of Ithaca Water Tank Located On Coddington Road Dear John: It is my understanding that during our recent conference, you expressed the following on behalf of the Town of Ithaca: I. The Town is agreeable in concept to accepting title to the tank site and access road subject to a right of reverter to the College. 2. The Town is willing to allow the College the right to relocate the access road(at the College's expense), but not to extend the same provision to the tank site. 3. The Town understands that Cox has some sort of right for access over the access road and will accept the conveyance subject to Cox's rights, with the intent of entering into an express agreement with Cox. 4. The Town would rather that the College and Hilker not have easements over the access road, due to concerns about liability on behalf of the Town and about assuring that future development is fully subject to Town review. As promised, I have conferred with Carl Sgrecci at Ithaca College. He advises it is important to the College to maintain an easement for casual use only; the College does not have current plans to develop the property and needs access over the tank access road only for limited purposes like mowing the property. As a new agreement is planned with Cox, it seems advisable to include Hilker and the College at the same time. We propose, therefore, to enter into an Easement Agreement prior to closing, satisfactory to the College and to the Town, among the College, the Town, Cox, and Hilker. It could J John Barney, Esq. 03 Barney, Grossman, Dubow&Marcus Page 2 of 3 address the concerns you raised by providing for the following terms: (1) a restriction Providing that the College and Hilker can use the access road only for ingress and egress to their respective vacant parcels; (2) the requirement that any further use or development of their respective parcels by the College or Hilker would be subject to any Town laws or ordinances that may exist at the time application is made for the construction of any improvements on, or any other development or use of, such properties; (3) the allocation of the responsibility for maintenance; (4) a provision that the Town will have exclusive use of the road beyond a specified point so that it could elect to control access to the tank site; and (5) a waiver of liability in the Town's favor. While it would be important for the College to have the right to relocate the tank site (again, at its expense), I believe the College may be willing to omit that provision from any deed if the access issue can be satisfactorily addressed. As you suggested, the parties would remain free to discuss that issue directly if it ever arises. I understand you were going to confirm with the Town whether the power line and water line are within the road area. Finally, as you requested, I have reconsidered the language in the proposed deed relating to RPAPL §1955. The language relating to damages can be omitted. I suggest that provision read as follows: THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE UPON LIMITATION This conveyance is made upon the express limitation that if any of the following events occur, title to the within-conveyed real property shall revert to the grantor, or its successors and assigns,provided, however,.that the grantor, or its successors and assigns, then have title to any of the real property contiguous to the within-described parcel: (a) grantee conveys, or attempts to convey, all or any portion of the within-described premises to any party other than a governmental or municipal entity; or(b) grantee abandons, or intends to abandon, all or any portion of the within-described property. The parties recognize that at the time of this conveyance, Parcel A is an approximate one acre parcel completely surrounded by other lands of the grantor on which a municipal water tank of grantee is located and that Parcel B is conveyed to provide access from Coddington Road to Parcel A. The parties agree that the primary purpose of the limitation, as defined in John Barney, Esq. Barney, Grossman, Dubow&Marcus Page 3 of 3 RPAPL §1955(3)(a) or any successor statute thereto, is to restrict the use of the land to any proper public purpose as determined by the grantee, including without limitation, non-use. There is no intent that the value of the property, rather than the land itself,be devoted to a public purpose. Therefore, the parties agree that upon any finding that the grantee's-estate has ceased that the grantor shall be entitled to reconveyance of the property. Thus, if allowing limited access to the College and to Hilker is acceptable to the Town, I believe we should proceed by preparing and reviewing an appropriate Road Agreement. Please advise whether you would like to prepare the first draft or whether I should provide one for your review. Please advise. Thank you. Verygr , Mark G. Masler MGM/ms pc: Carl Sgrecci, Ithaca College (by email only) '"•' NOV 1120 65 TIME WARNER � CABLE Via Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested November 10,2005 Supervisor Catherine Valentino Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga St. Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: I am writing as part of our ongoing efforts to keep you apprised of developments involving your local cable system. As you know, an affiliate of Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWCI") operates a cable television system in your community(the"System")and does business as Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of,and controlled by,Time Warner Inc. ("TW 111). As you may have read,TWI recently entered into an agreement with Comcast to redeem Comcast's interests in TWCI and an affiliate, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., that are currently held in FCC-mandated trusts pending divestiture (the "Transaction"). Upon completion of the Transaction, TWCI will become a publicly-traded company. The Transaction will have absolutely no impact on the System and its operations or local management. In particular: TWCI will become a publicly-traded company, with TWI owning stock representing approximately 84%of the equity in Time Warner Cable and 40%of the voting power. The remaining I6% of the equity will be held by public shareholders. • There will be no transfer of the System, or any applicable local franchise, which will continue to be held by the same affiliate of Time Warner Cable. • The local management and staff will remain the same. • There will be no change in control. TWO will continue to be solely and exclusively responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the System, and TWI will continue to hold ultimate cc,n 'cl of T`:'Cl. • There will be no change in our commitment to provide our customers with the best in programming choices and customer service at a competitive rate. • This Transaction will have absolutely no impact on our business policies or practices. • Local management will continue to report to the same executives of Time Warner Cable. This Transaction does not require any action on your part. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or if 1 can be of any assistance. We certainly value the fine relationship we have with your community. Very truly yours, Mary Cotter President,Syracuse Division 6065 Fnir Lakes Road E.'asr SliTacu.sc. %T 13057 • P.O. Bar-E73.3 S.iTncuse. AT 13221 7,,1:315.0,94.6200 Fax 315.46.3.6584 Copy: Town Board Correspondence Folder Department of Assessment � r Fk * *f 128 East Buffalo Street Valeria Coggin Jay Franklin Director Assistant Director November 17th, 2005 Town of Ithaca Catherine Valentino 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Cathy, On September 70, 1 sent you a letter informing you of recent actions by the Tompkins County Legislature affecting Real Property Tax Exemptions. On May 17th, the Legislature approved RPTL 483(b) —"Historic Barns" and RPTL 459(a)— "Improvements to property pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990". Also, on September 6th, the Legislature increased the ceiling limits for the Alternative Veterans Exemption from $9,000 to $15,000. r'^� If you would like to enact this legislation or increase your ceiling limits for the Alternative Veterans Exemption, please do so as quickly as possible so that we have time to apply these exemptions to the 2006 Assessment Roll. All applications for these exemptions must be filed in our office by March 1. If you have any questions or need a further explanation regarding these Real Property Tax Laws, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Jay Franklin Assistant Director of Assessment Q ?� . Nov 18 2005 I I hi TEST.- --. — I I HACA TO`J'.+N1 CLF4K� I Mail Address: Tel: 607-274-5517 128 East Buffalo Street Fax: 607-274-5507 Ithaca,New York 14850 assessment@tompkins-co.org http://www.tompkins-co.org/assessmenti Klaus W. & Christa-Maria Beyenbach phone 253-3482 1024 Hanshaw Road FAX 253-3851 Ithaca, NY 14850 email: KWB1@CORNELL.EDU Ms. Cathy Valentino Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 November 18,2005 Re. Hanshaw Road Project Dear Ms. Valentino, Thank you for meeting with wife Christa and me yesterday afternoon to discuss the Hanshaw Road Project. As I have explained, the construction plan presently favored by the County (Fig. lb)will retain the present 20' width for automobile traffic but will substantially expand another 16' into the properties of the residents on the north side of the road. Residents on the south side will suffer less property loss because a walkway is not planned on that side of the road. Next to the sacrifice of lawn, hedge rows, trees, fences and parking space by the property owners along the north side of Hanshaw Road,the visual impact of widening a paved surface from the present 28' to 47' (Fig. 1) will aggravate speeding which already is a problem on Hanshaw Road. Concerns must also be raised about the removal of the additional volume of snow from the much increased surface of macadam. Wife Christa and I were somewhat relieved to learn in your office that the Town of Ithaca favors a more narrow road than presently envisioned by the County. The qualifier `somewhat' reflects the task before us: convincing the County that the present proposal for the lateral expansion of Hanshaw Road is excessive because of the separate placement of shoulder(bicycle), swale, and sidewalk next to each other. A far more reasonable proposal is a common surface for bicycles and the occasional pedestrian. Such a model exists around the corner from Hanshaw Road. It is Warren Road that offers 11' plus 11' for automobiles and 5' of paved shoulder on each side marked for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic to and from BOCES and DeWitt Middle School. The adoption of the Warren Road model for Hanshaw Road would spare our lawns, hedge rows, trees and fences and retain the present residential character of our neighborhood. A neighbor- hood petition to this effect has already been submitted. Thank you again for allowing us to present our concerns in your office. The visit has given us the hope that a solution agreeable to citizens,Town and County can be worked out. Sincerely, Klaus W. Beyenbach Christa-Maria Beyenbach Encl. Fig. 1. Copy to: The Town Board,Town of Ithaca Ms. Dooley Kiefer, County Legislator, District 10 Bill Sczesney, Highway Manager,Tompkins County Highway Division r'1 -2/2- v ca OU LU in c Fn G CL C tlJ CL r fr1 O _7 O _0@-j ai Oy J - N M o O m Q-= r- ° a 03 (3) ro a, L 00 •7. O Ci O CSV r Ln fB O cu C Q. Ln u - Ct Z s = 00 ty r1�1a O U t� X cr CL 4-J } W � , ► r� s C1J Z © U m 4- v i _0 o > o d " CL= > o r ra Q O LJ fg C i Z LLJ c. O cn r �., ''u 4- bLL Ile x r s a) � r ro ami copy: F. Noteboom STATE OF NEW YORK—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION STUDY NO.: 3051)213 NOTICE OF ORDER FILE: 50.12—loc TROOP: C " DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS FILED AN ORDER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHEREBY: 1250. 12 (j) (1) SECTION SUBDIVISION PARAGRAPH OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS IS ❑ADDED ❑AMENDED to read as follows: ❑ REPEALED (j) 30 MPH in the Commonland Community area, the boundaries of (1) AREA DESCRIPTION: See Attached r � I U112005DEC ; LJ ;ATT EST above order will be effective upon the installation, modification or removal of the necessary traffic control device (s) required by and conforming to the State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 11/23/05 System Manager APPROVED BY: (DATE) (SIGNATURE) {TITLE) DESCRIPTION: Order establishes a 30 MPH area speed limit for the Commonland Community area. COUNTY: Tompkins LOCALITY: Town of Ithaca OTHER RELATED ACTIONS ❑ NONE ❑ (Identify) cc: ❑ CITY ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT ❑ VILLAGE ❑ SHERIFF 0 REGION 3 TRAFFIC ENGINEER WOMK TOWN ❑ STATE POLICE [] OTHER Q COUNTY SUPT. ❑ PERMITTEE (Specify) DLG:JML:hh TE 3a(81801 i (1) AREA DESCRIPTION: Beginning at the point of intersection of the southerly right- of-way line of Route 79 and the northerly right-of-way line of Lois Lane; thence westerly and northerly along the northerly right-of-way line of Lois Lane for a distance of 450± feet to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Penny Lane; thence northwesterly along the easterly right-of-way line of Penny Lane for a distance of 1660± feet to the north end of Penny Lane; thence southeasterly on a straight line for a distance of 1600± feet to the westerly terminus of the cul-de-sac for Lois Lane; thence easterly on a straight line for a distance of 1100± feet to the southerly terminus of the cul-de-sac for the south end of Penny Lane; thence northerly on a straight line for a distance of 700± feet to the point of beginning. .►'' .r j� LCL ► NOV 2 9 2005 STATE OF NEW YORKI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AI-FE ITITA-CA TOAh!CLEgK 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202 CARL F.FORD,P.E. THOMAS MADISON,JR. ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR ACTING COMMISSIONER November 23, 2005 Ms.Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk,Town of Ithaca 106 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms.Hunter: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMITS ON PENNY LANE AND LOIS LANE This is a further response to your July 26 letter requesting lower speed limits on Penny Lane and Lois Lane. Our traffic engineers have completed their review of these roads and determined that establishing a 30 MPH area speed limirfor Commonland Community area would be appropriate. The official order for the new speed limit will follow. Your interest in this matter has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY l:]€aNA L. GRAOSER DIANA L. GRASER,P. E. System Manager cc: W. Sczesny,Tompkins County Highway Superintendent C.Valentino, Supervisor,Town of Itlig a Honorable Michael Kopinka-Loehr,Tompkins County Legislator,District 11 HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON COMM117EES ORMED SE'RvICE` .. SEIJA' ENV!ROMVEN''AND-UBoC wORNS RUS-SELL SEN<7EOFFICE 9UIL^u+N'G - HEKLVW EOLICA710tt LkSOR ANC.PENSIONS Su TE 4`6 cPEtiA;COI. 77EE ON AGING "United Mates �gnat a zr "4,644 WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3204 r!rr 1 2 November 29, 2005 Ithaca Town Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ithaca: The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration. When the President addresses the nation tomorrow on the war, the American people want and deserve to know how we got there, why we are still there, how we have executed the war and what we should do now. In short, the President must explain his plan for the war in Iraq. There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict this Administration triggered that consumes a billion dollars a week, involves 150,000 American troops, and has cost thousands of American lives. 1 do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people. In October 2002, 1 voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument. that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do. Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false. Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban. Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible." Instead,the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors-the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan. From the start of the war, I have been clear that I believed that the Administration did not have an adequate plan for what lay ahead. I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war. Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their "last throes," this Administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I heard General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, tell us that it would take several hundred thousand troops to stabilize Iraq. He was subsequently mocked and marginalized by the Bush Administration. In October 2003, I said "In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress" and "Time and time again, the Administration has had the opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to do that." I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops. • After my first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I returned troubled by the policies of the Administration and faulted the President for failing to level with the American public. At the Council on Foreign Relations, I chided the President for failing to bring in enough international partners to quell the insurgency. • I spoke out often at the Armed Services Committee to Administration officials pointing out that the estimates they provided about the war, its length and cost lacked even basic credibility. r„, Page 3 ' • And I challenged Secretary Rumsfeld more than once that he had no benchmarks to measure actual progress which would lead us to believe we had a strategy that was working. • Last month, I signed a letter with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and dozens of other Democratic Senators voicing strong concerns that,without a solid plan, Iraq could become what it was not before the war: a haven for radical Islamist terrorists determined to attack America, our allies and our interests. The letter asked the Administration "to immediately provide a strategy for success in order to prevent this outcome." • Just a few weeks ago, I joined a bipartisan majority in the United States Senate in voting for an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill calling upon the President and his Administration to provide answers and a plan for the war. It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor—not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war. And it is past time for the President, Vice President, or anyone else associated with them to stop impugning the patriotism of their critics. Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism. I am grateful to the men and women of our armed forces and have been honored to meet them twice in Iraq. They honor our country every day with their courage, selfless dedication, and success in battle. I am also grateful to the thousands of unknown men and women in our security forces and around the world who have been fighting the larger war against terrorism, finding terrorists' cells, arresting them and working to prevent future attacks. And I applaud the brave people who have been risking their lives every day to bring democracy and peace to Afghanistan and Iraq. I recently returned from visiting Israel and Jordan, seeing first hand the tragedy of spreading terrorism. As a New York Senator, I believe New York has a special bond with the victims of such terrorism, and we understand both the need to fight terrorism and the need for a clear plan in Iraq so that we can focus our resources in the right ways to prevent it from again reaching our shores. America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis. We must deny terrorists the prize they are now seeking in Iraq. We must repair the damage done to our reputation. We must reform our intelligence system so we never go to war on false premises again. We must repair the breach with the Muslim world. And we must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists. Like all Americans, I hope the Iraqi elections are a true expression of democracy, one that is committed to majority rule, minority rights, women's rights, and the basic rule of law. I hope these elections will finally put the Iraqi people on the road to real security and independence. Page 4 r If these elections succeed, we should be able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President both for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the failures of intelligence— something we owe not only to those killed and wounded and their families, but to all Americans. We have to continue the fight against terrorism and make sure we apply America's best values and effective strategies in making our world and country a better and safer place. We have to do what is right and smart in the war against terrorists and pursuit of democracy and security. That means repudiating torture which undermines America's values. That means reforming intelligence and its use by decision makers. That means rejecting the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it alone rather than building real international support. I know when America leads with its values and fearlessly faces the facts, we make the best decisions. That is what is missing at the highest levels of our government, and what we desperately need now—answers to the questions about Iraq that only the President can provide. I hope he will level with the American people and provide us those answers in his Annapolis speech and give us the plan that has been sorely lacking. Sincerely yours, Hillary Rodham Clinton CATHERINE VALENTINO TOWN OF ITHACA SUPERVISOR _1 I DEC - 6 2005 215 N.TIOGA ST ITHACA, NY 14850 DECEMBER 5, 2005 DEAR CATHERINE VALENTINO, MY WIFE .JEAN AND I ENJOYED YOUR PRESENCE AND STIRRING SPEECH AT COMPANY TWO'S ANNUAL BANQUET. THE PART OF YOUR GRANDSON JOINING STATE COLLEGE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT BROUGHT BACK MEMORIES WHEN MY SON USED TO FOLLOW ME TO FIRE ALARMS. BILL HAD VERY OLD TURNOUT GEAR HANGING LOOSE, FIRE BOOTS TWO/ THREE SIZES TO BIG AND FIRE GLOVES SO BIG HIS FINGERS NEVER CAME CLOSE TO THE FINGERTIP, BUT STILL HE WENT. NOW 30 YEARS LATER HE IS A CAREER FIREFIGHTER IN THE ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT. IN 1975 A FIRE EXPLORER POST WAS STARTED AT THE ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT, MY SON AND 30 OTHER YOUNG BOYS AND GIRLS BELONGED_ THE POST ONLY LASTED 13 YEARS. IN 1985 IT WAS DISBANDED. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFLICTS, LACK OF ADVISORS, AND THE NON-COMMITMENT OF THEN OFFICIALS CAUSED THE FIRE POST TO FAIL. THE YOUTH NUMBERING 40 TO 50 WERE STILL THERE WAITING TO BE TRAINED AND LEARN ABOUT FIREMACTIC PROCEDURES IN THE ITHACA FIRE SERVICE. SOME POST MEMBERS RODE BICYCLES WITH LITTLE BLUE LIGHT ATTACHED TO THE HANDLEBARS. THEY ARE STILL WAITING. I AM ENCLOSING THE ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE DATED 11/4/2004-"VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS " FOR YOUR VIEWING. IT CAN BE SEEN ON LINE UNDER IFD. s !�1 IT LOOKS LIKE THE VOLUNTEER SYSTEM IS OVER FOR THE LACK OF FUNDING. I ALSO THINK THERE ARE ONLY (5 ) FIVE ACTIVE VOLUNTEERS LEFT TO FIGHT FIRES IN THE CITY AND TOWN OF ITHACA. THE YOUTH STILL WAIT. LYMAN E. BAKER, ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT BADGE # 3258 r�"a ITHACA Fiq DEPARTMEW Volunteer Programs Please note... The Ithaca Fire Department is neither recruiting nor accepting applications for new volunteer fire fighters. We no longer have the resources necessary to support new volunteers or bunkers. (Existing volunteers and bunkers are not affected by thi&-change) _ Please consider contacting the Tompkins County Department of Emergency -Response at (607) 257-3888 to inquire about other volunteer opportunities within Tompkins County. HOME I Welcome I Our Mission I Contact Us I FANG I About IFD Career Opportunities I Volunteer Programs I Bunker Programs I IFD Members Only Related Links I Hot Topics I Apparatus I Fire Prevention IFD Archives Copyright©2001 Ithaca Fire Department Page Last Updated: 11/4/04 dmb r !A� A-GENDA # 13 BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SENEGA BUILDING WEST JOHN C. BARNEY SUITE 400 FACSIMILE PETER G. GROSSMAN 119 EAST SENECA STREET (807)272-8808 DAVID A. DUBOW ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) RANDALL B. MARCUS JONATHAN A.ORKIN (607) 273^6841 KEVIN A.JONES December 6,2005 Honorable Catherine Valentino and Members of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca Ladies&Gentlemen: In the course of reviewing a building permit application recently,an issue arose as to whether a parcel of land that had a road running through it was one or two lots. Historically,the parcel had been treated as one lot for real estate taxation purposes,but a couple of years ago,the Assessment Office, presumably at the request of the parcel owner,had assigned separate tax parcel numbers to the lot. Attached are two maps which show the parcel. On the first map,both pieces of the parcel,on each side of King Road West are shown as tax parcel 39.4-20.On the second map,the piece on the southwest side of King Road West is now assigned a separate tax number as 37.4-28. The changeover in tax parcel /A%� number was not done a result of any subdivision process at the Town. The issue was whether the division of the lot required subdivision approval by the Town. In trying to answer this question,the definition of"lot"was reviewed in the zoning ordinance, since if the original configuration represented only one lot,subdivision was necessary,but if the original configuration,with two pieces of property on two sides of a road,was already a de facto two-lot parcel,no subdivision was necessary. The zoning definition was ambiguous—reading as follows: LOT—Any area of land bounded by property lines which is not divided into parts by a public road,railroad,or public utility right-of-way. Each part of an area so divided is considered an individual lot for zoning purposes but is not exempt from applicable regulations of Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. What is unclear is whether the subdivision regulations apply to the lot before it is separated into two parcels divided by the road,or only to any subsequent subdividing that may occur to either of the already separated lots. To remove the ambiguity, it is suggested the definition of Lot be amended. Two amendments have been drafted—one assumes subdivision approval is required for any division of the parcel,even though it is physically divided by a road,the other assumes the physical subdivision is acceptable and requires subdivision approval only for subsequent further divisions. It is requested that the Town Board consider which policy it wishes to follow,and then the appropriate draft local law will be submitted for consideration at the January meeting. If there are any questions or comments,please call. Very truly ours, JCB jb `2`4 0 N\ ``\ W N v . N z 1-1 � � 0 UI7 r 21 �a ad i - rI�, 1 t,• N NOt p 1 •0a _ o q \\•N � fl se q) 11 to � O o J x gat 1 071 —� i Ti.PK. ' g .� p ]I,�ap�— y��' 131.1 \• a 7 '+ Q / \ 4 1 9 12 2 Bac ? 102 2 B AC.CAL. i 7 , aC Knos / v` CAL .Y7. K0. f0 2N0.9D.1tiLl sea V. 14 `\ of It N 15 , N ' aa ori 16 IC � , • �I C TAE PSRK 1, O {{{ h m 46.6 AC Iasi 22 z o 21.3AC, y BUTTERMILK R STATE PARK. ;6�' 43 '• 19 11 2 n 2 8 20.9 m1. 20.7 3 as 20.1 \` m •. o d 20.6 s ~ 7 ' a O _ i4 ,fo \ 21 20.2 205 10 201.11 1 1 S� 237 1 28 AC Ifi-$ AC.CAL ,n • , ,a AC CAL ao SESA STAEEr d BUTTERMILK E STATE PARK 20.4 Q3 20.1 n i1• q 39 13.11 1.02 Ac e Ac C ' 37A-28 g ` 113S [� 1 14 0 1 r'� i�1b�d7 1IUTCHINS (10 16 Hanshaw) Oct. 19,2005 Letter to Tompkins County Attorney Jon Wood(attached ) Certified mail receipt returned Oct. 21, Delivered Properly No Response at all as of Jan 27, 2006 Oct. 21,2005 Email from Bill Lesser, Ithaca Town Board (Concerning ROW by use)(attached Z,) Oct. 21, 2005 Email to NYS DOT regarding ROW(attached .3 ) Nov. 8, 2005 Large Envelope from State DOT—Cover Letter Edward Wilday (attached 4 ) Dec. 1,2005 "Open House"meeting Dec. 1, 2005, Cayuga Heights Fire House Email from John Lampman at 1:30—said state DOT says State DOT thinks 1906 plans conclusively show 50 foot ROW. (attached } Call to Syracuse DOT Mr. Flynn(sp), says DOT was not in a position to make such a determination. 6:00 PM at Firehouse Lampman and Brauer (Fisher Associates) say 1906 plans are irrelevant! Instead,they say my awn deed shows a 25 foot ROW. I tell them it does not. Did not bring deed. Dec. 2, morning, send copy of deed (attached C )to Lampman and Brauer. Deed only shows use ROW(attached '7). The county mistook a private side ROW for the road! Lampman emails thanks for the correction. (attached �' ) Dec. 12,2005 "Ithaca Town Board"Persons to be Heard ROW Update to board. Still no response from Wood. Story of county's blunder in mistaking side easements for road! I have Found DOT ROW Mapping Manual(many points against county's ROW claims) (main points attached ) Dec. 15,2005 "Gagnon Article" (much support for our view)(attached (0 ) Jan. 26,2005 Ithaca Town Board—We are ignored. They already,had resolution written and printed. Lampman has downgraded his estimate that 75%of deeds show 25 foot ROW in text to 50%. We will believe him when he downgrades it to 0%or when he shows us one or more examples. r K8m7a'b�PMMN�srw\C PCOM r�.'r8�aC^'+R.R!^a•An7�+AF:u w�_r3r�:nK9:+��87`��W7iY!'.l.Yw•t�.:.Y-Y 1ri+wAr•fi::Kx�if67RN!rq�H1.38 a••.K l w;alf�sc(a:t YU6MM W4.nQ5ypW�,N.. r 1016 Hanshaw Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Oct; 19,2005 Mr.Jonathan Wood Tompkins County Attorney 125 E. Court St. Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Mr. Wood: In connection with proposed work in rehabilitating Hanshaw Road between Sapsucker Woods Road.and the Cayuga Heights Village Line,Tompkins County(as represented by.Mr.John Isampman of your highway department and Mr.Richard Brauer of Fisher Associates,Rochester) maintains that the county has a right-of-way(ROW)over'our property at 1016 Hanshaw Road- . beginning at the center line of Hanshaw Road and extending for a width of 25 feet to the north. As of this writing,we have not been provided with any written proof of this ROW or easement. To the-contrary,it has been.suggestedthat no written document's granting the ROW can be located, and may never have existed,and that the county would claim a"use easement." This letter,is first of all a request for the county to provide a copy of any written easement concerning this matter,and fail.ing to do that,to provide information as*to what sort of search(if any)for the document has been made,and why it has failed. At the Monday(Oct. 17,2005) meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, concerning sidewalks on Hanshaw, Supervisor Valentino'and attorney John Barney felt that the county needed to dig into its file cabinets a bit more, and said they would so inform the county. If you can claim only a"use easement"then•we would need at least a letter stating that you do- claixn.'this, and th-e basis for claiming itwas 25 feet. The actual use at my location is just 15 feet (the road plus the shoulder). Thefe is no ditch or anything beyond that,except as I maintain my own property. Any such figure as 25 feet is arbi just the"county standard"and 'unsupported by the*eviderice on the ground. In fact,the evidence on the ground is counter indicating, as old trees are growing,presumably planted intentionally, adversely to anuse by the public, and never challenged. By this letter we deny Tompkins_County any rights to our property further than 15 feet from -the centerline;until such time as you are able to provide written proof of a wider easement;-or until the county negotiates a satisfactory easement agreement with us, or until you state your position comipletely-and in writing(addressing all my concerns above). General verbal statements by the highway depirtineint and/or its-consultajits are of course insufficient Sincerely, . • r �..� Bernard Hutchins f 171 SquirrelMail Page 1 of 2 �J Current Folder: INBOX Sign Out ;compose Addresses Folders Options Search Heli Mess ee List I Delete Previous I Next Forward I Forward as Attachment I Rept I Rem Subject: RoW on Hanshaw Rd. From: "William Lesser" <whll@cornell.edu> Date: Fri, October 21 , 2005 3:06 pm To: hutch ins a@ece.cornell.edu Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header I V ew Printable Version I View Message details Dear Bernie, The issue of the form of Right of Way on Hanshaw Road came up at the Town Board meeting. Here for your possible use I will lay out what I know of this intricate matter. 1. Whether the ROW is by use or deeded is not readily determined. Indications are if a deed refers to the ROW. A ROW shown on a survey map is not an indication, as surveyors will often show 3 rods (25 feet each side) as a matter of course, and not based on a legal determination. 2. Fisher Associates seem to believe/would like to believe Hanshaw is a deeded ROW; Lampman seems less clear. My guess given the age of the road it is by use. In any case, it is the County's responsibility to document a deeded RoW if that is the basis for any action. 3. If the RoW is by use, that gives the County rights only to what is presently being 'used' . If there are ditches associated with the roadway they would likely be included, but whether additional land needed to service a ditch or shoulder is included as well is unclear to me. 4. Again, if the RoW is by use, the County must purchase a ROW for any additional land used in an expanded roadway. A landowner unwilling to sell would most certainly loose an eminent domain case if the purpose was an improved roadway for public use. Whether the same would apply for purchases for a sidewalk is unknown to me. A landowner could however go to court if the sum offered for the expansion of the ROW was unacceptable. Any resulting increase in payment would likely be nominal compared to the costs and hassles, but clearly multiple cases would be a burden for the County to manage. I hope this information is helpful for you. Bill Lesser Download this as a file 1, L.J- To STATE DOT - OCT. 21, 2005 We are currently involved with Tompkins County with regard to rehabilitation of Hanshaw Road here in Ithaca.. I know that the DOT is also involved. The county is unable to provide any existing written easement agreements. The county very vaguely mentions "use easments" and a couple of 19th century laws, but they don't give the details. Where would I look to find more information about this matter? Bernie Hutchins • rte, .. " :s.o-' Y '4',' •','• :".• ' M ` " .. ik• ;fir•:•Vr'.�•�:-• ` , •,y:.•7•`kc2`Y`•.., -3•;•"-rte n�«::•% .,� • DEPP�TINE""�17fg.`�,i•�'rTR�i4Ihi��p'O'�'r�5,��I ' Ve • %`3'33��as`.r��M,�,�sF[rl�tC�,'� ,�" ��. . 'S`1(It�4Ck7SErr"I CARL F.FORD,P.E. THOMAS MADISON,%R Xdli4d AltdONAL DIRECTOR ACTING COMMISSIONER November 8, 2005 Mr..l3emar-d Hutchins 1016 Hanshaw Road Ithaca; New York 14850 Dear-Mr:Hutchins: You r'ecently.sent an e-mail to'the NEW York State Department of Transportation. ' You asked about a project on Hanshaw Road and wanted to know about the right-of-way. Hahshaair Road was a state road between 11/1/19.08 and 9/29/1965 (from Catalog, •• . of State Highway Numbers;State Highway #606"Cayuga•Heights-Hanshaw Comers" It was abandoned•by Official Order# 1123 to Tompkins County(copy endosed). It is normally-pur procedure to turn over all documents to the county at the time of . abandonment. A search-of our recorcis found virtually no records,an.Indication that we did tum them over to the county:. ' We did find a-microfiche copy of the original contract when the state took over the road("Plans For Improving Tltie Cayuga Heights-Hanshaw's Cors. Road,"dated December ' 1906): It shows the road rival constructed pursuant to Chapter 115bf the Lawsof 1898:' t6pies:of the documents are enclosed. This information may help j ou.wIWthe•T6Mpldn$ County.bepartment of• Transportation. You could also research the- county `cleric's office and°kheck to see if there is any county or town historian. We wish you the best of luck. Very truly yours, EDWARD G. WILDAY, P. .: Acting Regional Desigri`Engineer ,,,.,, Ericlosurres . SquirrelMail Page 1 of 2 ,::� Current Folder: INBOX Sign Out zompose Addresses Folders Options Search HeI Message List I Delete Previous I Next Forward Forward as Attachment I Rept [Reply All Subject: Re: Hanshaw Public Meeting, Dec 1 From: "John Lampman" <jlampman@tompkins-co.org> Date: Thu, December 1, 200512:30 pm To: "Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr." <hutchins@ece:cornell.edu> Cc: "Richard Brauer" <RBrauer@FisherAssoc.com> (more) Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header I View Printable Version I View Message details Bernie, The ROW status really has not phanged.0160; I mentioned to Klaus Beyenbach that the DOT (my contact) thought that the 1906 plans conclusively showed that there is a 50 foot right of way.0160; I think that plans can be interpretted that way but I'm not sure everyone would say it is conclusive. The County's position is that we have a 50-foot right of way, although we have not found any evidence of a dedicated ROW. However, 90%+ of the deeds along the project reflect a 50 ft public right of way either in the text, a map, or both, and property pins located in field coincide with 50 .ft ROW.&0160; Tax Maps and assessments also are based on a  50 ft ROW.0160; We are continuing to research the question. The road "use" and associated drainage occupy a width of 25 ft from the centerline for the majority of the road.  Other places "use" cou be as narrow as 17 to 20 ft from the centerline of the road. I don't expect Jonathan Wood to be at the open house, so Fisher and I will have to address ROW as needed.  Fred Noteboom, Dan Walker, and Jonathan Kanter are expected to attend from Town of Ithaca staff.  I don't know if any Town Board members are coming. I'll look forward to seeing you around 6PM. John L. Date sent:               Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:04:20 0500 (EST) `'Subject:         &(#160;       Re: Hanshaw Public Meeting, Dec 1 From:           1_u._.JJ__.-L-_.:1 --�-11 -J..►_�..:...._I.Y_:1J.._../-......1 1.....t.. ..1...�1...,..:14...u—fA1Qr1V3t.rnee �r��»nn� SquirrelMail page 2 of 2          &11160;    "Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr. &quct; To:&#7.60;       &#.160;  &ttl60; &#;160;&#.160;             &#16.0;      �lampman@tc > John- > What is the current ROW status? > > What ROW do you claim and on what basis? > Bernie Hutchins > Download this as a file aketl dd�esNME Delete & Prey Delete & Next Move to: INBOX 1 Mo"4e:. SquirrelMail Page 1 of 1 r Current Folder: Sent Sign Out Compose Addresses Folders motions Search Helm Message List I Delete I Edit Previous I Next Forward I Forward as Attachment I Reply I Reply All Message as New Subject: I am right about my deed! From: "Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr." <hutchins@ece.cornell.edu> Date: Fri, December 2, 2005 11:07 am To: jlampman@tompkins-co.org (more) Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header I View Printable Version I View Message details Hey guys- I am right about my deed. Attached is hans1016.pdf. -Possibly whomever you hired to research the .issue was careless and mistook tke North/South easement (which does mention a distance of 25 feet) for a roadside easement. It is further significant that the distances are mentioned for the side easement, but not for the front. This suggests that the front dimensions were not available. Add this to the "preponderance of the evidence. " For the survey, note that the supposed R/W lines are not parallel to the centerline (25 ft and 25 .5 ft) and that the are drawn in on both sides. Are we to suppose that the surveyor also checked the south side of the road? No, he just drew them in. Regrettably, much of the map seems to have come from his imagination! The first version did not even close - with an error of ten feet. ' Some day I need to get Al Fulkerson to came up and do it right. Bernie Download this as a file Attachments: hans1016.pdf 291k [ application/pdf] Download [ Twice Address' Delete & Prev I Delete & Next INBOX - v Move to: �� a�Ma .e...� e a L:."--."�'-T' -y r: xT').t �f�,�,a':Sy?' � t- `� ,,,�c F+4_''.'d�`'4�'�'f,z. � y�+� r�T5 cEW x�x sd' ti.a' ti`-,✓,.�tt ' r .,`r�� ..-.,rK�r '� �•,.--,..�„�;:�'`'�.;..:*_ �a.3.`t. -t '^'.f' v'P x4 '�x,,= 4vic`z--;�t i`3�..• - k.: .y �,t v�-i '�"� 'u r ,�t'7 w ti S �',t - ,c.�t �_��# t +'-1 ' „f C'- .`y '� � .} .(�• .;1,.. �.—+..��"a_ Srr-a— .,..� s� ..:v.a,_�- .e?:;-;i mss;,,,,-. •mss....-,.. _-�-'d''- a .. ` - WARRANTY DEED WITH LIEN COVENANT . . THIS INVENTUREe made : the 28th day of November, . Nineteen' " Hundred and Ninety rive Between FRANCES E. BRUCKNER:.of 146�Burlpigh Drive; Ithaca; - New York 14850, party of- the first part, and BERNARD A. HUTCHINS and JINYONG M. HUICHINS, husband and wife, "' of I Pheasant;- Laine,- Ithaca•; NeW York 14850, as- tenants by the entirety, parties- of the: second-part - . WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, consideration of One Dollar ($1. 00) . lawful money of the United States, a:ndI other good and valuable consideration, paid by the parties of the. second• part, doe$ hereby• grant and release unto the parties of the second part, the survivor, his or her heirs, distributees and assigns forever,% ALL THAT TRACTOR PARCEL of land situate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins', State ofTNew York, being a part of Military Lot 9.0 in- $aid town, more particularly bounded and described as follows BEGINNING at a point in -center iine of Hanshaw Road,- which point of beginning is - 1,230 ± feet northwesterly from its intersection with the.centerline of. Blackstone Avenue, being-also the southwest corner of premises conveyed by the Grantor herein to Philip i.: F. Liu and Justine' L: 'Liu by deed dated May _24, 19.84. and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's office in Liber 601 Deeds Page 443; thence North 22° 2.7' 30" east passing a pipe At 25 feet a total •distance of 232.7 feet to a point marked by a pipe; thence south 68° 26' 191' east 142.9 feet to a paint marked by' a pipe, said point being .the northeast corner of premises of Uiu and being in the centerline-of a' 50 foot right of way; thence north 60 53' 22:" east. passing a pipe .gat 277 .5' ± feet :a''total distance of 292 .1 feet to a point marked by an iron pipe; thence, north �0° 321 west 249 feet to a point marked by a pipe; .thence south 13" 4511 west passing a pipe at. 522 : 1 feet a total ,distaince" of 547':6 feet to the center-line of Hanshaw Road; thence south 64" -2°5F -east 10.0 feet along said center,Iine to the point or place of BEGINNING TOGETHER WITH a right of way 25 feet wide from Hanshaw Road alojig * the west line of premises ' formexly of Uris . and - now reputedly of Henry and a right of way 25`feet-wide along the..east LBRaa line of premises of Liu which together constitute a 50 foot r�fight G&oaof way, rt SU13JECT To a 25 foot right-of way.along the. east line of the . AioMORS— _AW sz above. described premises north of the preini.se-s .of Liu. - box es99 1y w YORK iaas i •yiba,t'.S5".•1 ,-� .�., ,: sa::. •• •��. .. .l>. .. . . .r. ,.. i .. 't-: J :.•K •i.rr:•:s,',:ee ?y j,a .� ;'r SCJ .�ni'J• :.:• •... .. - _ �T.�>t'. 'T� '`'F'�f!�''-�'++�.Kxt+tte�•+.&D.�dli�cs,�aifi.@'�}�n., teiFlbSa' btai ? .r r _ I=NG a 'portiori: of the premiso$" conveyed- to J. Herbert-- r'Bf u kase and yantes E. Bitucldier �y deed 'dated Mach d, 1967* ed-'in•said- Clerk. s office .in'Liber 467 Deeds, page '947. IT " fIerhert Bruckner (also known as Jacob Herbert Bruckner) died : .February P&P 197 0, leaving the Grantor her'eiix as surviving'tenant. by.the entirety.' ' The above described premises are conveyed subject to the- • 7ow : • The" rights of the public in and to that portion of the ' 41 above-describe lying:within tWa- bounds,•of Hanshaw Road, 2. A right-- of way for electric lines• granted by Stella Hanford- tO J T tir or.k- State Electric & Gas Corporation by r , 1.11$ L1nlQnt' d tied- Fgbbruaty -16,- . 1928, '-recorded in- said Clerk's of fice iri Liber 213 Deecfs, page 452. 3. An. easement for a• sahitary sewer right of way granted to the Town of it•haca by instrument dated July-• 25, 1959., and redorded ih said Clerk's office in Liber 419 Deeds, page 187.. The above described premi:see• are shown on a "SURVEY MAP OF + . LANDS OF J. HERBERT AND F�,2A,NCES:: B#tUGxNE12, HANSHATnT ROAD, LOT 9D,',TOWN OF ITRA -A, TOMPKINS: •COUNTY f NEW y,0RK" made by Clarence 3�,r* W. Brashdar, Jr• . , dated and amended November 3, 1995, a copy of which is attdched hereto and made a part Herdof. -- - - :t T604THER with the • •appurtdnafices• •arid all the . estate and rights 'of the party of the: €irst• part in and to said 'premises, ;. TO HAVE AND TO HOToD the premises granted' unto the parties of the second, part, their 'heirs, distributees and assigns forever. • it . a :; ;•; AND said party of the first, part covenarts as follows: , �! FT t$E'� fihat the partias of t e sero nd part shall- quietly : :.. Onjoy. the sai4-premises; A SECaND, That said ' piny of -the :fust• Pari -will• forever' _ WA1JT the title to saidrenises. THIRD-{ That, in CoigpUpL pe with .Sec. :.z3 of the Lien. Law, the ,+ grantor will receive the c:otside tion for this, conVeyanbe, and will Mold the right to receive such consideration;• as- a'trust;-f od. . -to' be applied first for the pu'r'pose of paying the cost f'. t �toL i�rtLit:ric. t'; �timpravement:`and.will apply tfie same first to the paymentrq ° r cost .of.the: improvement before .using any part. o€ the total GALBEtArMoft ,e HOL,MBFF�kC1••$'GRL�'L•` same -•fbr 'arty other putposei, ATt'ORAIL'WSP�lm,• rP �`, • COUNSEL15RS AT LAW aFiACAirNE11VY(9R1C•1488t �• •f .r,,•••-•.••..•••�� ,, ' . .S :.fsa�,=a✓�af`r Yr. Fv- ,;;ar:. 44C.'S':ryz^; tFx .s.`3r:r:-:lrwi Xu41wI;: 7p�?tfuYS ti,a •s�:nig:cr+. Ci6x +g +':r"r17' ? ` •h , "�: t -� :.S•. ,., r�'[� `/�/• .. _,.•_.' .. _...., , L. .. .•Lf r a s.,, ryl•1...t_:,. . ... . '... -„.ay. ..{,.. rri X Dz rrT ED U) 4 _ mw a• yw�e w /�� _ M six m �o rye 3 i M S� !R o' '"1 r w - c O 0 m _ n— � .Q1 syr;u rri �aa ; Rpk X4.9' • ` • • >�. tD ' •- �, �`.' ', �:�•3:3.x.. - . . cuCA .ao rri vs m lu : . N ol[OZ• � . _'` '� A�pP�v1 C Sq � SE d X N c X Ctl ~ TU ar - Z °ora 3 m W 'N -� J cp v o (p { . t O ' 0 a a=a• 1 0 Co0 rnro N �m V T.ii a Ic C Dr m -ti } O m r' N ©' rri t- m tD a +u ,+ 0 Oz m, e _. cn n•ro ►^�z Z D s7 ►'tD uta H I "' m rn Tl ] m n-Z� D W -a nl �6 /9 ;�.. .,�>{�� o a a to$m F•• �� tQ C Q . ��. G iu c-, M mm zl CA CA • y`� r.. ' , ,V � r to _ I - � �. ... �:• Vii: - r - _ Pte_�� •- ..,,,. • � •Sat .r ..e , _ .. .a ,...,. •ai, +t;eti. .�: .. :,s; :.: :•✓ ;�e.yl.;n :i+r. :�;;rC1'r� .r.:eir+I r :' '+r?t, i:�•:iY?'t+5' '� 4; F!'Zr' ;r`-'°•y.r i: 4.t.�irF.rc7+^ k. asrJ '. .bac •�, w .l';+ •J. '.'• '�.+•' . " t, • '..• -. a•'�.•:.i.:•,•SIS y{'::F'.� •. '. .. r ;¢•�} 4i.l�+r'�. tie airs • ps:z '• ` c�foe IST WIT"ss WHEREOF, •�i : a ix itten -.1� .•: y andyear.-above wt • hereunto set Tier d and Sea ' tYie'da_ Ili• P�2E6ENCE OF ' �/t = (L:S.�s.. FRANCES E: B1�IICITER STATE: OF,,NEW YORK ' ft, �- COIINTT:OF TONIPIKINS do this 28th day of NoVembe •ri`N n.&teen Hundred° aria NinetgF -subscriber` pdrs6 ally appeared• FRANCES E'.; Five,• befOr* me, e + to be thli' same BRUCRrTER, :to, mg. personallit I�_nowll• ani3 knawn to'ane • �..�..• F persoan described in and, whd executed the withkii.Instrt�ent; and she .ackizowledgecd to me that she' eeuted the same. f . . ' •4:i�{� •; .,.• Notary .Public , i.� }• r - RECEIVED � MYpomraisstw iMAL. f:ST TSE ... �.{:.. NOV 3 0 1995 :. r TRANSFERTAX y TOMPKINS ' COUNTY is L4. LF f Akins COMO,.ss: D;iY Recorded the:': .. . 2 ••�, r at :. of....... ....... :of '+ J o clock' .: HOLMBERC3, a. ................. _ P ...........•• ' p^ %At '...K c: lr ,. ..and examined. i�nrnrca�i�e�o at.Pa :.jl�Q� Cl etk CbtIIJS�R�/4T fJ4W , !ITNAC.d.+;!cS^!YORF�f 4861• , , •, ,y .• - k . SquirrelMail Page 1 of 2 Current Folder: INBOX Sign Out /001"Compose Addresses Folders Options Search Help Message List I Delete Previous I Next Forward I Forward as Attachment I Reply I Reply All Subject: Re: I am right about my deeds From: "John Lampman" <jlampman@tompkins-co.org> Date: Fri, December 2, 2005 11:30 am To: "Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr." <hutchins@ece.cornell.edu> Cc: "Richard Brauer" <RBrauer@FisherAssoc.com> (more) Priority: Normal Options: View Full Header I View Printable Version I View Message details I think you're right that somebody mistook the side easement references for the road easement. I'm glad you checked. We will add this to the right of way information we'have. Also, I looked over the message you sent me yesterday and I think we discussed everything included at the public meeting with the exception of one thing. Regarding the question on the width of the 'use' ROW, as the I understand it you are right that if the ROW is only by use and we are using 17 to 20 feet, then ROW would be no bigger than that. John L. Date sent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 11:07:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: I am right about my deed! From: "Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr." <hutchins@ece.cornell.edu> To: jlampman@tompkin6-co.org, RBrauer@FisherAssoc.com > Hey guys- > I am right about my deed. Attached is hans1016.pdf. > Possibly whomever you hired to research the issue was careless and > mistook the North/South easement (which does mention a distance of 25 > feet) for a roadside easement. It is further significant that the > distances are mentioned for the side easement, but not- for the front. > This suggests that the front dimensions were not available. Add this > to the "preponderance of the evidence." > For the survey, note that the supposed R/W lines are not parallel to > the centerline (25 ft and 25.5 ft) and that the are drawn in on both > sides. Are we to suppose that the surveyor also checked the south side > of the road? No, he just drew them in. Regrettably, much of the map > seems to have come from his imagination! The first version did not > even close - with an error of ten feet. Some day I need to get Al > Fulkerson to come up and do it right. f*u&� > Bernie ' > �tC}!l7L`6:M1f1t�t MflL8S+1W..1.fJSf+•y+P.}SLFY•rQi••ZtMYT.'iyMr•Y4.4}aVVI141.=b WhP t..J.:+.tRw.sf-a.h'Y.rwareetWs.s+..1.9:wtynr-p. ( NONMATERIAL FROM FIS-CHER AS PROMISED-AT OPEN HOUSE, SO I FOUND: DOT ROW MAPPING.PROCEDURE MANUAL June 19, 2002 http;//www.dot.8tate.Ay.us/design/survey/rowlthap_04.pdf Highway Law Sect. 189 "All lands which shall have been used'by the-public as a highway . for a period of ten years or more, shall bea, highway, with the same force and effect as if it had been duly laid out and recorded as a highway, and toe town [highway] superintendent shall open all such highways to the width of at least three rods. ("manual" pg, 4-12) ,..., "The Legislature did not intend Section 189 to allow municipalities to deny property owners' just compensation nor due process -�` while appropriating private property for.public use, .The fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit the -government taking such actions. ("manual" pg 4-12) "In the opinion of the Attorney General,*if the prescriptive use of -the road-has been limited to a width of less than three rods-, the municipality may-notwiden the road. without either the consent of -the. abutting owners or by following due process and compensating the owners. ("manual pg 4-1 3) (1962, 1995 and 1999.opinions of XG.} - tb www.geocities.com/asap_ny/Roads.html 08/23/2002 Thanks to Joel Gagnon of the Danby Town Board for submitting the excellent article below. Of Trees and Roads Last winter's mild weather saw many of the area highway departments keeping busy doing "roadside maintenance". Widespread tree cutting caused considerable concern among those more interested in aesthetics than traffic hazards. For those of us in government, both highway officials a iflown board members, the lack of clarity regarding the rights and responsibilities of property owners and the towns seemed like an obvious place to shed some light. Thanks to the efforts of the Roads Committee of Advocates for Sensible Area Planning, we were pointed in the direction of Darrell Harp, former Chief Counsel for the New York State Department of Transportation. Mr. Harp has literally written the book on the subject(2 of them actually: "Reducing Liability for Local Highway Officials" and "Powers and Duties of Local Highway Officials"). He teaches seminars on the legal issues surrounding road rights of way, and was in the area in April. We were fortunate to be able to consult with him and presented him with a formidable list of questions to respond to. What we learned came as a surprise to me, and probably to most of those gathered. First and foremost, per we were told that the rights of way on user roads (roads that came into being simply by virtue of having been used as such; where the land was never purchased by the municipality or given to it as a part of a development deal), which includes most of the rural roads in the townships, is not of any fixed width, despite what is written in law about 3-rod roads (49.5 feet). The courts have generally ruled that the ROW is limited to what the public has actually used and acquired, essentially by adverse possession. That can be more or less than 49.5 feet and includes shoulders and ditches to the outside edge of the ditch if one exists. To become part of the public's ROW, usage and maintenance both need to have been continuous for a period of 10 years. . Obviously, where trees are older than 10 years the area around them has not been used for at least 10 years, casting doubt on whether it is part of the ROW. Complicating things somewhat, the courts have also ruled that once the public has acquired its ROW it cannot subsequently lose it due to infrequent maintenance. To remove a tree older than 10 years, though, a highway superintendent would have to be able to prove to the satisfaction of a judge that for some 10 year period prior to the existence of the tree a ROW was established in the area in which-the tree is now found. The older the tree, the harder it is to satisfy this requirement. Courts tend to presume that if a tree is more than 10 years old, it is outside of the established ROW. A property owner who challenges a tree removal and wins in court is entitled to 3 times the replacement cost of the tree. Moreover, a property owner has no obligation to protect the public from treefall. ' Under the law, highway superintendents have an obligation to identify and mitigate traffic hazards. These can include trees, even if they are not in the ROW. How is s/he to remove a hazard if it is not in the ROW? There are essentially 3 options. With the permission of the property owner, the tree(s) may be removed. Failing that, a legal proceeding called a de minimus taking can be used to acquire the right to remove the tree(s). Mr. Harp's suggestion.is the adoption of a local law or ordinance regulating the placement and removal of roadside objects, something municipalities can do under municipal home rule in the interest of protecting the health and welfare of the public. The Town of Danby 'recently considered doing this, but the sense of the public meeting where the matter was discussed was that property owners would prefer not to give up their rights. Instead, the preference was for a policy that would clarify the procedure that would be followed by the highway department. Such a policy would only be as good as the Highway Superintendent's commitment to it, so it could be an issue when it comes time to elect a new highway superintendent. Joel Gagnon, Danby Town Board member copy: C. Valentino/Town Board Correspondencd Tompkins County Finance Department J 125 East Court Street Ithaca,New York 14850 E" 2 2 2005 607-274-5502 Fax 607-274-5505 December 21, 2005 Mr. A] Carvill Budget Officer Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Lakeside Nursing Home Bankruptcy Dear Al: As you are aware, Lakeside Nursing home has been under protection of Bankruptcy Court for several years. At the time of filing the County was holding in excess of $700,000 in unpaid taxes. The county has engaged attorney Richard Ruswick to represent our interest in the bankruptcy proceedings. Our attorney has advised that Lakeside has suggested to the court that the assessment valuation of the property was overstated and therefore the outstanding taxes should be reduced. This is to advise that should such pleading prevail there would be substantial financial exposure for the Town resulting from a chargeback of tax lien adjustments. I am enclosing a sheet that details the potential adjustment in taxes based upon the current assessed value of the property. It should be noted however that Lakeside is claiming that the property should be valued at approximately $1,000,000, which would further diminish claim recovery. I would recommend that you have the Town's attorney contact Richard Ruswick to coordinate strategy in dealing with this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me for additional information on this matter. Very truly yours, --T:;� David Squires Finance Director Cc: Tim Joseph Chair County Legislature Dick Ruswick,Attorney �11�1099n�INY11 �I�i� �ni�n�B�li�ill� � ��