No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Correspondence 2006 Klaus W. & Christa-Maria Beyenbach phone 253-3482 1024 Hanshaw Road FAX 253-3851 Ithaca, NY 14850 email: KWBI@CORNELL.EDU Mr. Richard Bauer Phone 585 334-1310 _--- - Fischer Associates FAX 585 334-1361 135 Calkins Road Rochester, NY 14623 Jan. 3, 2006 Re. Hanshaw Road Project Dear Mr. Bauer, We were out of town on Dec.1, 2005 when the new drawings of the Hanshaw Road Project were posted in the Cayuga Heights Fire Department. Business trips had also precluded our attendance of the two public niectings and meeting with you to discuss the circumstances of our property. We have lived in our home on Hanshaw Road since 1979. Since returning to Ithaca, wife Christa and I have seen the drawings at Mr. Lampman's office. The drawings anticipate the widening of Hanshaw Road on mostly the north side of the road where some residents are requested to give up property. Southside residents are hardly affected at all by the Hanshaw Road renovation project. The issue of fairness in `sharing the pain' is further aggravated by a walkway weaving into the properties of some residents but not others. In our particular case, 1024 Hanshaw Road, the present construction plans will require 1) moving of our hedge and a tall Rose of Sharon by 1 or 2' further south. Cayuga Landscape had planted the row of 28 yew bushes 15 years ago. 2) felling of a tall corner tree (arborvitae evergreen) to extend the parking space for the tenant living in the rental unit in the back of our property. This will leave a gaping hole into the row of arborvitaes along the west border of our property. 3) relocating the paved parking lot further north. We are much opposed to these changes on our property. While we see that sidewalks and bicycle lanes are desirable, the present surfaces along Hanshaw Road are more than adequate for the bicycle traffic and the occasional pedestrian or jogger. In front of our home we have 4' foot paved shoulder, 3' unpaved shoulder and another 6' to the row of yews on our property, offering 13' total. Construction plans in front of our home call for 5' paved shoulder, 4' swale (unpaved) and another 5' walkway, total 14'. We note that at other northside properties the construction plans combine walkway and shoulder to require 6-7' next to a 3' gutter, a total of only 10'. By way of this letter we would like to request the adoption of this model also to our property. In view of my teaching responsibilities during the spring semester I will be in Ithaca for most of the time and available to meet with you. You may reach me at 607 253-3482 or at KWB 1 @CORNELL.EDU Sincerely, Klaus W. Beyenbach «� Christa-Maria Beyenbach ,Copy to: The Town Board Ms. Dooley Kiefer, County Legislator, District 10 Mr. John Lampman,Tompkins County Highway Highway Division -2/2- OF 1p a TOWN OF ITHACA i_21_ ¢� 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 gam. www.townJthaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY(Roads,Parks,Trails.Water&Sewer)273-1656 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 January 3, 2006 Michele Bailey 17 Fairway Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Michele, The Town Board considered your request for financial assistance with the cost of the sewer reconstruction of $30,000. The Board deliberated over your request at the November 14, 2005 and December 12, 2005 meetings. The final �^+ decision rendered was that they would not approve any payments to you for the sewer reconstruction as you requested. The Board determined that the applications for plumbing permit and building permit adequately states that the owner of the property is responsible for the quality of work performed on the property and any charges related to that work. The Board also discussed the fact that they have a third party insurance agency to address claims and pay when the Town is liable for the claim. The Board discussed your case and the Town's general inspections in some length. They certainly did not make this decision lightly and do want to make sure such problems do not happen again. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 'Judith C. Drake, PHR Human Resources Manager (Insurance Coordinator) Page 3 of 3 the year end is a very busy time at Town Hall. The Board deliberated over your request at two different meetings before coming to a conclusion. Regretfully, they have decided not to offer the financial assistance for the cost of the sewer reconstruction that you requested. The Town Board reviewed the case carefully before coming to their conclusion. They felt the decision by the insurance company was one they should support, as they are the third party administrator of claims for the Town. Also they reviewed the application forms completed,which outline the liability of the construction to be that of the homeowner. There was no formal resolution voted on by the Board,however they did request that I notify you of their final decision. They certainly did not make this decision lightly and feel upset for you over the situation. You will be receiving in the mail a letter from me stating the same. If you have any questions,please contact me. Judith C.Drake,PHR Human Resources Manager Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Tel:607-273-1721 Fax: 607-273-5854 Email:Jdrake@town.ithaca.ny.us Life doesn't wait for you to start living? 1/11/2006 Page 1 of 3 Cathy -)0 .----------- - -- -------- -- - - ---- .__ .. ------ --- - ----- From: Herbert J Engman [hje1 @comell.edu1 Sent: Friday,January 06,2006 2:48 PM To: Cathy; cgrigorov@town.ithaca.ny.us; wburbank@town.ithaca.ny.us; hengman@town.ithaca.ny.us; pstein@town.ithaca.ny.us; WLesser@town.ithaca.ny.us; SGittelman@town.ithaca.ny.us Cc: jrc32@corneil.edu; p117@comell.edu Subject: Re:Your Decision I had understood at the early December Board meeting that Ms. Bailey was to be sent a letter explaining the purpose of the town inspections (solely to protect the integrity of the municipal system)and detailing the amount of money which had been spent in efforts to assist her. Has that not happened? I also suggested in an e-mail December 13 that better language to be used on permits: "Last night Bill suggested I try to come up with some clarifying language that could be used on permit applications to the Town. The goal is to make clear to the public that they must not rely on Town inspections and approvals to protect their individual interests. My initial attempt: Town permits,inspections, certificates and approvals are intended to protect the Town's interests as a whole.The Town assumes no responsibility or liability for completed work on the individual property owner's project. The property owner must ensure compliance with codes, laws and r*'�+quality of work through the contractor or by other means. Maybe this wording could be reviewed by an appropriate committee and then passed by John Barney?" Has any action been taken on this?We can't wait until another Ms. Bailey is victimized by the system. Herb At 11:53 AM 1/6/2006 -0500,Michele M. Bailey wrote: Dear Ms. Valentino and Town Board Members: I received the following email from Ms. Drake after I enquired of you, last week,the outcome of the Board's decision to my presentation. I am very disappointed in your decision, that you have chosen to support your insurance company and a false certification by one of your employees(or designates). I would appreciate, as a final courtesy, if you would address a couple of questions I have and make one final consideration. Questions: What is the purpose of an inspection,if there is no accountability for its accuracy or veracity? I had assumed that inspections were to protect the homeowner,the community, and ensure compliance with Town requirements; I thought that inspections were to provide the homeowner with an assurance that municipal standards are met. I do not understand what the purpose is, if they are not done properly and no one is held accountable. This huge financial toll to me is directly traceable to 7 code violations approved by your designated agent. Does it concern that Board that an agent could miss some many code violations on a 1/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 L - single job? Why should the homeowner take the full responsibility for these errors? I am also perplexed about how this matter was dealt with. There was a public presentation, yet no public discussion(despite assurances that there was no pending litigation), and no formal resolution was acted upon. Is this normal procedure for a Town Board? For your consideration: There was no reasonable way for me, as the homeowner, to have discovered within one year and 90 days the errors in construction that were falsely certified by your designated agent. I realize that you are worried about setting a precedent, but I am left holding the complete financial responsibility for the results of the violations approved by your agent. Regardless of the technicalities, is this fair?Therefore,I am asking you to consider whether there is some way that the Town could provide me partial relief that is not precedent setting? Thank you in advance for your response. Sincerely, Michele Bailey elm) Subject: Town of Ithaca Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:44:17 -0500 Message-ID: <A9F5D 134B 1B61 C459676A1F419E89COC 19CA48@dcOl.TinyTown.int> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----__NextPart_001_O1C6109E.15512C1A" X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Town of Ithaca Thread-Index: AcYQnhUbvdEEfYX3R1CO23N8gjIgSQ= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 X-PH: V4.1 @filter02 From: "Judy Drake" <JDrake@town.ithaca.ny.us> To: <mmb38@comell.edu> X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0,Antispam-Data: 2006.1.3.20 X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075,Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, Antispam-Data: 2006.1.3.21 Michele, I am writing for the Town Board in regards to your request for financial assistance with the sewer repairs. I apologize for the delay in notification,but 1/11/2006 Copy: Town Board Correspondence; J. Kanter � ztonr 1 o: i New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation n Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau r�wyoatcsraT Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Bernadette Castro January 6, 2006 COMM45Si0/78! Ms. Cathy Valentino j ! 1 �; �� it Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street ql E� i }' JAN 12 2006 Ithaca, NY 14850 r Re: Hayt's Corners Chapel and Schoolhouse A7TEST 1296 and 1298 Trumansburg Rcad �_ iT'~•^+rF,T 'r","I�Li �r Irhaca, Tompkins County Dear Ms. Valentino: I am pleased to inform you that the above referenced property has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As you may know, the National Register is the nation' s official list of properties worthy of preservation. Listing on the National Register recognizes the importance of these properties to the history of our country and provides them with a measure of protection. In addi-ion, owners of income producing properties may qualify for federal income -_ax benefits . Properties owned by municipalities and not-for-profit organizations are eligible to apply for d� state historic preservation matching grants. If you would like more information about any of these programs, please contact your field representative, in this case, Anthony Opalka, at the New York State Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau at (518) 237-8643 ext. 3278. Field Services Bureau staff maintains a continuing interest in all registered properties and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. sincerely, -4 Ruth L. Pierpont Director Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau PLP: lsa ate*, An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency 0 printed on recycled paper MEMORANDUM TO: Town Board Members,Jon Kanter and Tee Ann Hunter FROM: Mary Russell RE: Report on the December 8,2005 Cornell Veterinary College Waste Management Project Update Meeting DATE: January 9,2006 A project update meeting of former members of the Cornell-Community Waste Management Advisory Committee with Vet College and SUCF representatives took place on December 8, 2005. It had been over a year since the last update meeting(Nov. 2005). The lack of progress on this project is disappointing. The date of final completion of the project has now slipped to Summer 2008,a full ten years from the time the Cornell-Community Waste Management Advisory Committee made its recommendation(June 20, 1998)and three years past the completion date(Summer 2005)projected in the DEIS. When questioned as to the delay, Chris Marcella of the State University Construction Fund cited the complicated nature of the project and the difficulty the consultant Malcolm Piinie has had in dealing with the volume of comments on the EIS. They are currently in the final design phase and are pursuing necessary permits simultaneously. Permits are required from the DEC (Part 360), the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and DOH. Bidding is currently scheduled to take place late winter/early spring with work to begin on the project midsummer to late summer. I am attaching a summary page from the final CCWMAC report. �^1 r-►, Goals and Summary of Recommendations In 1996 the Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine (CCVM) and the State University Construction Fund (SUCF) presented final plans for a new incinerator at Cornell to dispose of regulated medical waste. In response to strongly expressed community concerns over this plan, a joint Cornell-Community Waste Management Advisory Committee(CCWMAC)was formed to investigate and analyze alternative waste disposal methods and waste minimization options. CCWMAC's mission was to recommend technology for treatment and disposal of the pathological and regulated medical waste generated and/or managed by CCVM. Over time, the following group goal emerged: Utilizing a consensus process where all concerned voices are heard and included, recommend options(s)for the Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine that: 1)best protect public health and the environment, and 2) are effective, cost-effective, protect the character of potentially affected neighborhoods, and allow Cornell to meet its land-grant and research needs. Recommendations would address waste treatment and disposal, waste minimization and pollution prevention, interim waste management(between recommendations and implementation), and the future role of the community with respect to this project. On June 20, 1998, the Cornell-Community Waste Management Advisory Committee achieved �►, consensus agreement on the following recommendations pertaining to the Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine: For waste treatment and disposal CCVM should use a combination of two technologies, external steam sterilization and sodium hydroxide-based chemical digestion, to treat animal carcasses and a single technology, external steam sterilization, for bedding and regulated medical wastes. CCVM should begin an engineering and scientific study immediately to determine the feasibility of combining the two technologies for carcass treatment. The exact configuration of the system should be based on the engineering and scientific recommendations. CCVM should make every effort to enable this combination of technologies to work if reasonably possible. Should the combination not be feasible, CCVM should use external steam sterilization alone for all waste streams, with fixed and TSE carcasses disposed of according to the best practices consistent with the regulatory policies and CCWMAC criteria. Waste minimization and prudent recycling should be used when possible, at all phases of waste treatment and disposal. For waste minimization and pollution prevention To date, the Waste Minimization Work Group of CCWMAC has not concluded its work. When complete, their recommendations, as reviewed and endorsed by CCWMAC, will be included as an addendum to this report. The recommendations are expected to address creation CCWMAC Final Report 2 10198 of a new CCVM position of waste minimization and pollution prevention coordinator and /40*� whether this CCVM work could function as a pilot project for the whole of Cornell University. For interim waste management The new waste management plan should be implemented as quickly as possible. In the meantime, CCWMAC endorses the following recommendations made by CCWMAC's environmental consultant: Considering the age of the current incinerator and the lack of air pollution control equipment, it is strongly recommended that the only materials incinerated should be pathological-type wastes, namely carcasses and bedding, but not metal, glass, plastics, or paper, unless any of the latter are absolutely necessary from a health and safety perspective. CCVM management should pursue actions that greatly reduce the probability of foreign objects being introduced into benign wastes sent for composting. For future role of the community The community should function in an advisory capacity to CCVM in the research, development, and implementation phases of the recommended project. To date, the details of this involvement are yet to be developed. j CCWMAC Final Report 3 10198 Copy: Town Board Correspondence loik, IMA MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC & GAS ALLIANCE A Local Development Corporation P.O. Box 88 • Ithaca, New York 14851 Phone: 1-866-320-MEGA(6342) January 9, 2006 http://www.rnegaenergy.org Honorable Catherine Valentino, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Su;i4 elitino: We are pleased to inform you that from April through November 2005; you saved$3,145 on your electric accounts through your participation in the Municipal Electric and Gas Alliance, a saving of 4%, compared to standard utility rates. At a time of rising utility rates, MEGA is pleased to give you this news. You are part of a growing buyers' group that altogether saved a total of S 1,877,000 over the eight-month period for our municipal, commercial and residential participants. Since 1999, we have saved our participants more than$4,000,000. MEGA has achieved these savings for you by doing the important things right: we have correctly understood NYSEG's tariff rules for"shopping for power" so that you and our other participants choose the best rate plan for ^"+ your needs; and we, along with our consultants at EnergyNext, Inc.,have helped you choose the lowest risk, highest saving options when it comes to long-term pricing. Most of MEGA's 2005 savings come from accounts that entered the "fixed pricing"plan last spring,which we recommended. Participants'fixed pricing is guaranteed through the end of 2006,and, in all probability, savings will continue accumulating through that time. But even if you did not adopt fixed pricing, you are still saving money, compared to standard utility rates. MEGA appreciates your participation in our program, and we are happy to bring you this good news. Please accept our best wishes for the New Year. Sincerely, 1�el" ce__CG Barbara Blanchard, Executive Director Municipal Electric and Gas Alliance M i JAN 1:2:2006 i 1 ATTEST — j 4 iTHACA TOWN CL–FTW TOWN OF ITHACA j ;- 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 tip. nor 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 January 10, 2000 Tompkins County Legislature 320 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attn: Michael Koplinka-Loehr Dear County Legislators: We, the undersigned members of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, support the continuation of yearly full-value assessment for Tompkins County. We believe yearly full-value assessment is the fairest, most easily understood system and is rewarded by the State in additional funding to Tompkins County. Sincerely, t; Supervisor Catherine Valentino on behalf of Councilpersons Herb Engman, Will Burbank, Jeff Cowie, and Patricia Leary of!T�99 TOWN OF ITHACA �8 2� -- 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 A,.\ ��w ,�04� www.town.ithamny.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 TO RESIDENTS OF NORTHEAST AREA NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING for discussion of the proposed Hanshaw Road project The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca is holding a Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY for discussion of the proposed Hanshaw Road reconstruction project, sponsored by Tompkins County, and the possible inclusion of a walkway in the project. Residents are invited to attend and those who wish to speak will be given three (3) minutes each to address the Town Board. If you are unable to attend the meeting, comments may be sent to the Town Board at the address above or email townclerke-town.ithaca.ny.us. Ithaca Town Board January 17, 2006 �► E; �, p�a�dev°'�° GGv0002m p�� ��a�rp �■n �o ve oSM ' -tea �� �n so �eeoe_ee� W-W do ran r�� MGM a C ® ; RIN e►�, �� fleeea�,� �n va 4�� • �n•� �o �.� oa,�+oo s e..ao Qj - � e� E1.� ••► 4a 000�as o� �i���iC�©��OG■� a ® aq 0 Deese m �vpW e d �ee�esee � D o � � 0000loo`� v � ® �� cG��GOG��aoG�o od � a�Qee ee 2='0000©©ra�Qav��eo�� WWII civ ao ao d d ,i�G�C�D GCC©DeeC�C� Dfl [7Q 0� id 0th ve uo IMo r�o °o �© vo E113 ®® ao ©0=23G� GG�o �o cea©ee �� o i - o� afloocccao � Li �■ JAN-20-2006 FRI 09; 17 AM BIO MED SCIENCES 6072533851 P. 02 SquirrelMail - -- - Page l of 1 Current Polder: Sentop% SriO.u>� `Corn se Addresses olders . t' s 5-garch 119IR ss _List I D-*te I Hdit MoMq ALXq Er Previous I Nextward I Foruv ;�s At, :chment I$�p�I Ren1�,v All Subject: Henshaw Road Project From: "Klaus Werner Beyenbach" <kwbl @comell.edu> Date: Thu, January 19, 2006 6:14 pm To: cvalentino@towndthaca.ny.us Priority: Normal Options: Ykm-MLHeader I View bie VcrSinn IV ees2 a dg etails Dear Ms. Valentino, It is good that the residents along Hanshaw Road and elsewhere have another chance to express their views about the Hanshaw Road project. Since the Highway Department has hosted the last meeting in the Cayuga Heights Fire Department there has been no communication from this department. Nor has the Town formally responded to the petition the neighborhood has submitted weeks before the December meeting. For these reasons it would be good - and perhaps you have already planned this - to review the present plans of. the Highway Department and the Town's position before the floor is opened for discussion. Looking forward to the meeting, Cheers, $ Klaus Prof. Dr. Klaus W. BeyenbachProfe Director,sor n Physiology �dG� /A." �` LJ�tC Director, Undergraduate Physiology' Department of Biomedical Sciences c VRT 8004 LtJl�'r 4. ,G7c , 0 Gtoee. .S'Ect � Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Voice: (607) 253-3482 Fax: (607) 253-3851l- Finai1: kwbl�cornell.edu Homepage: http://www.Aeople.cornell..edu/pages/kwbl„/ a n oath this as a file Take Address. e a & -ev-I Dolete&Nest, _._._........ ._....._...... J00� Move o:;INBOX http://webmail.corneH.edu/squirrelTnail/srr,/read_body-php?mailbox=MOX.Sent&Dassed id--29. . i imn" r Tompkins"Counfy'`'. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKS 170 Bostwick-*oad° 'Ithaca,New,Yorc 14850_ Edward C.Marx,AICP Telephone(607)274-5560 Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Fax(607)274-SS78 January 19,2006 Cathy Valentino,Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Cathy: I am writing regarding the Ithaca Town Board's pending consideration of the walkway component of the Hanshaw Road reconstruction project. As you know,we have undertaken a lengthy design process for this project so that we can fully consider all of the comments and concerns expressed by adjoining landowners and neighbors. I believe that the alternative that includes a walkway from the Village of Cayuga Heights line to at least Salem Drive represents the best option, all things considered. Ideally the walkway would be continued into the village to Community Corners. We will work with the Village of Cayuga Heights and the New York State Department of Transportation to determine whether funding can be identified to complete that phase as part of this project or whether further funding will need to be sought in the future to complete that leg of the pedestrian route. The Hanshaw Road project is a Federal Aid project. The 80%Federal funding and hoped for 15%State aid requires that we undertake a comprehensive design process to meet Federal and State highway standards. The aim of those standards is a safe transportation facility serving all legal users including all modes of vehicular traffic,pedestrians and bicycles. In this case those standards would mandate a wider roadway than the neighborhood feels is desirable. However,by recognizing the legitimate neighborhood concerns in the design process and including a separate walkway(along with some extensive and costly drainage improvements),we have arrived at a road design that safely accommodates all users while being extremely sensitive to the neighborhood environment. The ten foot travel lanes and five foot paved shoulders are absolute minimums given the vehicular,pedestrian and bicycle traffic in this area. Without the walkway, shoulders on both sides of the road would need to be widened to six feet which offers less flexibility in avoiding impacts on yards and landscaping,and does not provide as much of a traffic calming effect. As you also know,this project is pushing the limits of the budget and there is no guarantee at this point that Federal and State funding will be available for the pedestrian component of the project. However,we are willing to work to try to obtain that funding if the Town decides to support inclusion of the walkway component by taking responsibility for maintenance and providing the local share of the funding. Page 2—Cathy Valentino,January 19,2006 We look forward to continued work with the Town of Ithaca to complete a reconstruction project for Hanshaw Road that enhances the neighborhood,accommodates the transportation needs of the area, and improves safety for everyone. Sincerely, Edward C.Marx,AICP Commissioner of Planning and Public Works Cc: Tompkins County Facilities and Infrastructure Committee Michael Koplinka-Loehr,County Legislator,District 11 ,.•�,, TOMPKINS ((�@; Y DIVISION 170 Bdstw k N 14850 January 19, 2006 Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Hanshaw Road Reconstruction, PIN 3753.25—Walkway Support Dear Ms. Valentino: I am writing in response to the Town Public Works Committee's request for a summary of public comments regarding inclusion of a walkway in the Hanshaw Road reconstruction project. Since before the first public meeting in February 2005, there has been significant community support for inclusion of a walkway. In fact the County received a petition signed by 86 residents, 28 living on Hanshaw Road, requesting that the County "install a bicyclelpedestrian path" between Warren Road and Freese Road. At the first public meeting, as reported by The Ithaca Joumal on March 8, "many residents from the Hanshaw area said they would like to see better pedestrian and bicycle accommodations along that road, including sidewalks." Only when the issue of walk maintenance and liability was raised did the support among meeting attendees wane to perhaps half in favor and half opposed to a walk. Between February and the second public meeting in September some residents circulated a petition opposing a walkway which was signed by a majority of the property owners within the project limits. This position appeared primarily due to concerns with the perceived magnitude of individual and corridor landscaping impacts as well as the issue of maintenance. However, a pro-sidewalk majority sentiment started to return following the September meeting when the Town appeared willing to assume walk ownership responsibilities. This was bolstered through individual site visits with representatives of 41 Hanshaw Road households in October. While an opinion poll was not the object of the visits, County willingness to preserve or replace the vast majority of existing trees and other landscaping seemed to allay most people's concerns. Of the 41 homes contacted, only 9 expressed opposition.to a walkway, two of which are on the south side of the road that said they were supporting their north-side neighbors. One of these residents, a signer of both petitions cited above, has since changed to supporting the walkway because the design was able to mitigate impact to the character of the community. Another said that if other changes could be made at his property, he would not oppose it. At least four other Hanshaw households that had not requested site visits were heard from at an open house in November at the Cayuga Heights Fire Hall. All supported the presented walkway plan. Following the open house the Town also passed a resolution stating that it would assume walkway ownership, liability and maintenance. C.* Recycled paper Ms.Cathy Valentino January 19,2006 Page 2 of2 An interesting geographical pattern of support/opposition has emerged through the County's ' public input process. As we currently understand residents' opinions, all north side residents from Blackstone Avenue to the Sapsucker Woods Road, with the exception of perhaps two (one between Muriel and Salem and one at the extreme east end of the project,) either support or are indifferent to the idea of a walk. This of course overlaps the area for which a walkway was requested by the earliest petition. On the other hand, of the 11 properties between Blackstone and the Village line, at least 4 have been opposed, primarily because of loss of hedges and yard. I have asked Fisher Associates to compile and provide a-mails and comment sheets they have received from and since November's open house regarding the walkway. This information will be sent to you as soon as it is available, likely early next week prior to the Town Board's January 26 meeting. I have enclosed copies of communications the County has received, many of which you are no doubt already aware. Also enclosed is a spreadsheet summarizing written comments we have received. As shown, 70% of the comments have been overall in favor of the walk while 13% have opposed it, The rest of the spreadsheet lists people's comments and the numbers of people that mentioned them, both concerning the walk and other aspects of the project. Also enclosed is a second spreadsheet that clarifies the walkway options and costs that were discussed at the Town's January 13 committee meeting. The design process has now reached a critical point. Because of the controversy that has surrounded the project, the County plans to hold a public hearing prior to finalizing a project design report that gives details of the preferred design alternative. That hearing should be held in February and those design details should be available for comment at that time. Once the report is approved by the FHWA, NYSDOT and the County, documents and drawings will be created that should allow construction to begin late this year. I hope this information is useful as the Town board considers funding of a walkway. If you would like to discuss any of this information, please feel free to contact me at 274-0307 or at <jlam pman a@tompkins-co.org>. Sincerely, r John R. Lampm n, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer enclosures cc(w/o enclosures): Brent Cross, Village of Cayuga Heights, (w/cost spreadsheet) Duane Randall, Board of Representatives, District 9 Dooley Kiefer, Board of Representatives, District 10 Michael Koplinka-Loehr, Board of Representatives, District 11 Richard Brauer, Fisher Associates Ed Marx, P&PW Commissioner William Sczesny, Highway Manager Hanshaw WalkwV Pros and Cons Tracking as identified by Public north-reside south-reside other/unkn total % overall pro(w/town responsibility) 8 8 16 70% overall con 1 2 3 13% no comment 1 1 2 4 17% 23 100% Pro-sidewalk Comments Anti-sidewalk Comments walking benefits personal health 2 homeowner land sacrificed 5 provides alternative to car culture 2 impact on trees&shrubs 8 walking benefits environment 1 does not equally effect both sides 3 walk to bus 2 increased trash 1 walk dogs 1 more open sense to drivers 2 walk to lab of Ornithology 1 neighborhood character 2 walk to work 2 walk to Community Corners 3 sense of community 4 traffic calming 1 dangerous to walk without 2 greater community good 2 speed of drivers a problem 3 improve convenience 2 improve safety 5 beautification 1 accommodate joggers 1 Comments concerning: other Alternatives take equally from both sides 1 curbed section is safer 1 5'grass between rd&walk 1 use cl grade to promte drainage 1 walk on south;already cross for mall 2 creative walk zigzags around trees 3 6'Swale better if it fits 1 street lights 1 Road/Shoulder Widening "original plan of a residential road" many bike commuters 2 wider road 01'+) provides alternative to car culture 1 increases speeds 3 accommodate 2 peds side by side 1 hi speed is ped/bike hazard vehicle use facilitated by 11-12'lanes 1 damages property values reduces tax base Questions/Issues walk ways an side streets connection to Cayuga Hts walk with<5' accessibility issues /0041 additional funding for options 1 or 2 3 buses speeding reduce speed limit 2 truck noise signage needed 1 Q m CO 0) W m m tm GO. 4% w c� 60 to N N N 63 N y N O O CO t} 49 N O r.- N 6 y co 60 N F 64 m t4 m W m W O O m E9 to v to OA w r ^ A VO ymy � cm U L w co OO 0 tC N Cs r C �! di Co 03 c') i— LID m m C U N - �_in rz > rya a cu CCL om{ s w C V a C � 3 N y m U � s N CL � � d c= `� m m e � O ie � Q o _ m m m C E h C cm o C a j G a G y O C _C a C p K IZ C E a C W �° a hi E d, ai cm W oo h w oa s fq m W 0. ? CIS c 5 EES � w a t�m � �CO C; ma� j Page 1 of 2 Cathy _ From: Mary Russell [MLRussell@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday,January 24, 2006 3:04 PM To: Tee Ann Hunter; Cathy; Jonathan Kanter Subject: Fwd:A Cornell Perspective on CCWMAC process For the Town Board correspondence folder Since major issues with Cornell arise fairly often, I thought it might be helpful for the Town Board to understand, from the Cornell perspective, the key role the Town played in the CCWMAC negotiations. This was sent to me by one of the community representatives. Mary Russell Begin forwarded message: From: "Brian B. Eden"<bbe2@cornell.edu> Date:January 22,2006 5:55:23 PM EST To: rm20@cornell.edu, dskll@cornell.edu, bevlivesay@earthlink.net, MLRussell@twcny.rr.com, seltzer@ithaca.edu Subject:A Cornell Perspective on CCWMAC process From the Cornell website. I believe that you may find it of interest. Brian r^ Community Collaborative Decision-Making Cornell initially proposed to replace the incinerator with a new incinerator and state-of-the-art air pollution controls. Many members of the Ithaca and Cornell community opposed a new incinerator because of residual air emissions even after control - the primary objection was to the toxic air contaminant dioxin. Due to intense public pressure, Cornell halted advancement of the replacement incinerator project and entered into a collaborative consensus-based decision making effort with representatives of 17 community groups. After two years of study and debate, there was consensus on two non-burn technologies—alkaline hydrolysis and the steam sterilization—as the replacement for incineration. Project Summary: The College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) operates an incinerator for the destruction of pathological waste, including carcasses. Prior to 1990 the incinerator also destroyed medical waste. Because the incinerator was aging and needed maintenance, the SUCF proposed to replace it with a new incinerator with a 176 foot tall stack and new pollution control equipment, so that it would be enabled to once again burn medical 1/25/2006 Page 2 of 2 waste. Starting with a few vocal activists, a portion of the community !Oak, along with some students, mobilized to oppose the project. There concerns were based on several perceptions: an unsightly tall stack;the dangerous emissions of dioxins and other pollutants; the lack of local municipal approval because of state sovereignty; and a faulty SEQR process at the state level that did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The local opposition also involved local government—primarily the Town of Ithaca. The administration surveyed the growing opposition, and assessed the long-term potential for adversarial relationships with the community and the Town. Proceeding with the project would likely result in severe deterioration of community relationships and a dysfunctional project approval process for future projects that did need local approval. The Dean of the CVM, and the senior administration of Cornell, decided to stop the forward progress of the project and begin a dialogue with the community about the issue. A"Cornell Community Waste Management Advisory Committee" CCWMAC was formed, comprised of the CVM Dean, the Cornell Facilities and Campus Services VP, and representatives from 17 groups, including all the opposing activist groups, and the Town. ECO Provided: �.+.� * ECO was the project manager for the formation and function of the CCWMAC. The ECO project manager managed the process for two years. This included: hiring a facilitator, retaining three separate consultants; representing Cornell on 4 subcommittee working groups. Outcomes: * After two years of meetings and studies, Cornell and the community members of CCMAC reached a consensus decision that the incinerator would be replaced with alkaline hydrolysis, a non-burn technology. * Long-term disruption of university community relations was avoided. * In 2003, the SUCF and CVM are preparing an EIS for the alkaline hydrolysis, and maintaining positive community relations. For more information on this project please contact: Robert R. Bland, P.E. Director 607-255-6643 rrb2@cornell.edu 1/25/2006 TOWN OF ULYSSES 10 Elia Street Trufrtansbutg, NY 14886 (607) 387-5767 Fax (607) 387-5843 JAN 3 January 25, 2006 Dan Walker Engineer, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New Fork 14850 Dear Mr. Walker, I know that you are aware of the many instances at the Woolf Lane Pump Station that affect the supply of water to the Town of Ulysses as well as parts of the Town of Ithaca since I have called you several times when problems occur. The majority of these instances have been relatively minor in the scope of the overall system; however they do directly affect the process of pumping and supplying water to our communities. It seems that there is very little oversight in the operation of the station. The facility has some of the most up to date monitoring equipment with alarm systems to notify system operators of problems and irregularities that occur. These warning systems have yet to connect to the offices at Southern Cayuga Intermunicipal Water Commission. The Town of Ulysses monitors the system by having either me or my deputy check the system 365 days a year. We are concerned because least eight times since our water district was activated, we have noted malfunctions and called for repairs. These malfunctions have resulted in extremely low tank levels, overflows from over pumping and very low chlorination levels. In addition, as I have stated to you before, we have found the door unlocked and even open on a couple of occasions. If the data could be sent to the office, the overflow and low tank levels could have prevented by rapid action. We do not monitor the facility on a 24 hour basis but the operator built in monitoring systems do, which is the point in having them. Many times we have noted that the pump cycles, tank level requirements, etc. have been changed for no apparent reason. The changes may have actually resulted in the malfunctions. I understand the concept of equipment malfunction, as was apparently the case in the last two instances; however my point is that if the monitoring equipment was being properly used,problems would have been noticed more rapidly and repaired before they affect service. It seems to me that this is an important issue and should be addressed sooner rather than later. By my estimates based on daily usage, tank levels and pumping times, the overflow of the tank within the last week was over 200,000 gallons. Our '�"" engineers are more than willing to coordinate with representatives from the manufacturer and your operators to get this issue resolved and train the operators. I really feel that the _ system was designed to supply water at proper chlorine residuals and more needs to be done to ensure that the system works as designed. I hate to mention this again,but the Town of Ulysses has not received a bill for the water used this vear(2005). It is really hard to budget and make any financial plans or the district without knowing the costs involved. We have given you all of the daily meter readings from the pump house as well as our actual user readings for the year as you requested. Sincerel , s � Doug Austi Town of Ulysses Suprevisor CC: Cathy Valentino John Andersson Paul Tunison Ulysses Town Board Bruce D. Wilson c�r' t�fy. TOWN OF ITHACA j��, 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) 2.73-1704 January 27, 2006 Dear Town of Ithaca Property Owner/Resident: The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has rescheduled the meeting to discuss the proposed re-zoning of a portion of the land between Taughannock Boulevard and Trumansburg Road from Low Density Residential to Conservation Zone. The meeting originally scheduled for mid-December was cancelled due to bad weather. The rescheduled meeting will be held on Thursday, February 9,2006 from 7:15—8:30 PM at the Ithaca Town Hall,215 N. Tioga Street. The land proposed for re-zoning is considered environmentally sensitive and includes natural and scenic resources considered to be of significance to the community as indicated in the Town's Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan(1997) and Comprehensive Plan (1993). This area contains steep slopes, erodible soils, numerous watercourses and small gorges, and portions designated as a Unique Natural Area by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. The Town seeks to minimize environmental ,•■•, impacts to this area from future development by reducing residential densities and encouraging sensitive land use. The Conservation Zone provides a mechanism to achieve this goal by minimizing development to one house per seven acres, and providing additional protective measures and guidelines as outlined in Article V. of the Town of Ithaca Code. Enclosed is a map showing the affected area, with information concerning the Conservation Zone. The February 9`h meeting is an opportunity for affected landowners and nearby residents to provide input on the Conservation Zone proposal. This is an informal meeting. No formal presentation is planned, but maps will be displayed, and staff and committee members will be available to discuss the proposal and obtain your feedback. A report containing more detailed information concerning the rezoning proposal will also be available, and can be obtained prior to the meeting by contacting the Planning Department. If you are unable to attend, but interested in speaking with staff or committee members, an alternative meeting date/time can be arranged, or optionally you can submit written comments. A formal public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. Please contact Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter Okanter@town.ithaca.ny.us) or Assistant Director of Planning, Susan Ritter(sritter@town.ithaca.ny.us) at 273-1747, if you have any questions, comments, or wish to arrange an alternative meeting date. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor Enc. OF I T� a TOWN OF ITHACA PUBLIC WORKS 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 1, 2006 Chien Cheng 203 Winston Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Cheng: We received a note from the Town Clerk about a drainage problem at your property, 203 Winston Drive. After reviewing our records, we found that we met with you in June 2004, and advised you of drainage work you needed to do on your property. We cleaned the Town's drainage structures at that time, and we presently have it on the ditch--cleaning schedule for 2006. The Town's drainage at that property is adequate and functioning. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us. Sincerely, izvl�l I a Fred Noteboom Highway Superintendent ghk pc: TeeAnn Hunter, Town Clerk Cayuga Medical Center ii -- at Ithaca i FEB - 6 2006 A77 F S i February 3, 2006 Ms. Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino, Thank you all for meeting recently regarding the three items relative to the medical center. I felt it important to summarize our thoughts following the meeting. Biggs Building: HOLT and Trowbridge & Wolf will be coordinating all of the necessary documents to initiate the approval process to remove the Biggs Building. The medical center strongly desires to remove this facility very soon for the numerous public safety reasons we articulated. We believe we can be prepared to submit the materials you need in early February. Proposed Conservation Zone: With respect to the proposed Conservation Zone, while we have a philosophical agreement that much of this land should remain "green", our meeting heightened our concern, due to specific aspects of the proposal. As we discussed, the following items need to be addressed in detail: 1. There seems to be no language in the Conservation Zone proposal that addresses either "medical facilities" or"institutional facilities". The proposal only states the size of a residential home per acre of property, and does not address any institutional issues. There needs to be specific language regarding both institutional usage, and the scope of development that would be allowed. 2. The boundary line appears to be located on or extremely close to the present tree line east of the medical center, which is located much too close to our existing facilities. The significant portion of the medical center's present property would be placed into this proposed zone, and I assume there would also be set- backs from the zoning boundary. The boundary line clearly would need to be moved east a distance from the present proposal. 101 Dates Drive Ithaca,New York 14850-1383 607.274.4011 607.274.4527 fax www.cayugamed.org Affiliated with Weill Medical College of Cornell University 3. How will future development of the medical center in the next 50 or more years be effected, since the proposed zoned property located east of the medical center is on a downward slope?We are very concerned that future improvements or expansions could be hindered by concerns over the impact to an adjacent conservation zone. 4. While I don't have exact location, but it appears that our recent storm water detention area is presently within the proposed zone. 5. We were quite surprised that the Town had progressed with the proposed zoning modification, assimilating a significant number of CMC's property, without contacting us prior to December's initial informal meeting notice. With the upcoming meeting on February 9, 1 felt it important to convey CMC's initial concerns to you prior to that event. We are very willing to reconvene at your convenience to work through the multiple issues noted above. Overall Zoning of CMC Properties. Lastly, since we were out of time and unable to discuss the topic of zoning. As I briefly stated, our property is presently zoned within multiple zoning ordinances which really do not represent a hospital. The Village of Lansing re-zoned the Convenient Care Center area a"health and human services" zone a number of years ago, which has eliminated issues, such as the "need" issue, that prolonged the radiation medicine facility development a few years ago. We are very willing to continue to meet and discuss the items noted above in order to reach an appropriate resolution for everyone. We appreciated your time at the most recent meeting. V"truly'�yours, J Joseph.W. gera Vice President, Business Development CC: Jonathan Kanter Susan Ritter TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.townJthaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 February 7, 2006 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Fred Jackson, President 701 W. State Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Jackson; I apologize for the delay in responding to your request. The Town is interested in the concept that you put forth in your letter. The Public Works Committee discussed your request at our recent meeting. The Town does not have a policy authorizing signs to be put up along the roadways. Therefore, at this time we will not be able to grant your request. The Town is working on a program that may allow organizations to adopt a park or highway, but that policy has not been adopted by the Town Board as of yet. Again, I apologize for the delay and that the Town cannot grant your request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Chair, Public Works Committee A Michael Talarski - Business Manager/ Frederick Jackson - President Financial Secretary Internationa _ rot ertjoo� of (electrical morher5 AFFILL%TED Wrrl I Phone: 607-272-2809 Nekv Yvrit State AFI,-CIO LOCAL UNION No. 241 Fax: 607-277-5623 N.Y.State Building Trades Council 701 West State Street Finger fakes Building Trades Council Ithaca, New York 14850 Ithaca-Cortland Building Trades Council N.Y.State Assoc.of Electrical Workers October 17, 2005 Kathy Valentino " [ .E�� Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 - OCT $ 2005 Dear Ms. Valentino, rS� The electricians of IBEW Local 241, Ithaca request permission to put signs along the roads entering Ithaca. The signs would be 24" square and welcome people to Ithaca. We are a non-profit organization and would be glad to install the signs. I'IcLis ;id ise me if we can do this. Sincerely, Fred Jackson I President FJ/pa iVE7L_U) M -LSE) Nov ` o CP o 4 � G s p�F >_ l HA�� s A "+ 1016 Hanshaw Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Feb. 10, 2006 Ms. Susan Brock Town of Ithaca Attorney 306 E. State St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Brock: In as much as the Town of Ithaca, by resolution of the Town Board dated Jan. 26, 2006, has expressed an interest in constructing, owning, and maintaining a sidewalk along Hanshaw Rd. between Sapsucker Rd. and the Cayuga Heights village line, according to a plan presented by the Tompkins County Highway Dept., which involves our property at the above address, you need to be aware of the current situation with regard to the Right- of-Way (ROW) at our property. This ROW has been in dispute with the county at least since Oct. 19, 2005, when I sent the county attorney, Mr. Jonathan Wood, a certified letter (copy attached) informing him of such. Mr. Wood has never replied to this letter. There has been some discussion of this with Mr. John Lampman (county highway) and Mr. Richard Brauer (the county's consultant, Fisher Associates), but almost completely, they are avoiding the issue. It is clear to us, and to many of our neighbors, that there is certainly no written easement for the road that describes a 25 foot ROW or anything beyond a use easement. My deed (attached) is likely typical (the neighborhood was after all just a few large farms at one time). Further, at my property, and for most if not all the properties down from Blackstone to the C.H. line on the north side of Hanshaw, there is no ditch or swale, or the slightest evidence of"occupation" by the public. To the contrary, there are trees and hedges of considerable age in many places. The situation is probably similar to mine on the entire south side of the road, but it may be different on the north side east of Blackstone or Warren, where there may be ditches. At the Jan 26, 2006 T.B. meeting, John Lampman said that originally, they (the county/Fisher) thought there was a defined 25 foot ROW in the deeds of 75% of the properties along Hanshaw. I can say with some certainty that they did look at the deed of at least one property— mine. This I say because on Dec. 1, 2005 there was a meeting between property owners and the county at the C.H. firehouse. At that meeting, I refuted their claim that the NYS DOT had determined that there was a 25 foot ROW based on some plans from 1906. At that time, they pulled out their"ace in the hole" and told me that my own deed had a 25 foot ROW in the text itself. I told them that I was sure it didn't, and they said they were sure it did. They were "sure" beyond any 75% probability, which tells me that they did look at my deed (me being a main troublemaker) specifically. I had not brought the deed with me. FEB 13 2QOt� What those fools did was mistake arip vate ROW, on the side of my property, which is mentioned at 25 feet, as being a public ROW for the road. The road ROW is on the second page (see attached) and is only by use. This I of course pointed out to them on Dec. 2, and they said they would correct their records. My ROW involves probably three of my neighbors as well (Ptak, Henry, and Cowan), and I believe there is at least one other further up (Beyenbach) that is similar. I suspect that this realization of their blunder was the reason Mr. Lampman revised his estimate downward to 50% at the Jan. 26 T.B. meeting. On Jan. 27, 1 challenged him to find a 25 foot ROW in even one deed. He has never responded. I have subsequently asked Mr. Bill Sczesny (the county highway director) to get Fisher Associates to look at the deeds and to come back with actual numbers, but he too has been unsuccessful (he laments that it is not like his Navy days when asking once was enough!). We have the following sequence of claims and failures on the part of the county: (1) Sept. 29, 2005, Dewitt School, County/Fisher to property owners: We have written easements. (None produced.) (2) Oct. 17, 2005, Ithaca Town Board (Supervisor Valentino and John Barney), County needs to go back and dig into their file cabinets a bit more. (No Response.) (3) Oct. 19, 2005, County/Fisher to property owners during neighborhood walkthrough. r� The 25 foot ROW is on your survey maps. (Lines on survey maps irrelevant: opinions of State DOT - "ROW Mapping Manual", Darrel Harp, Bill Lesser, etc. attached) (4) Oct. 19, 2005, my letter to Mr. Wood. (I have the certified mail green card back. There is no response.) (5) Dec. 2, 2005, C.H. Fire House, County/Fisher to property owners: The NYS DOT has found conclusive evidence of 25 foot ROW in 1906 plans. (DOT denies this— phone call to Joe Flint at Syracuse DOT at 1:45 PM. By 6:00 PM county/Fisher says 1906 plans "irrelevant.") But........ (6) Dec. 2, 2005, C.H. Fire House, County/Fisher: it's in the text of your deed. (It's not— they looked at the wrong thing!) (7) Jan 26, 2006, T.B. Meeting, Lampman: it's in 50% of the texts of the deeds. (Pure blue sky— no data— he just made that up, hesitatingly, on the spot. He has not responded to a challenge to produce evidence.) In answer, I have assembled (attached), as best I can, documents that overwhelmingly support our point of view that the county has no ROW beyond 15-17 feet at our location. r"� 1 • There comes a point at which laziness and denial on the part of bureaucrats, and disrespect and disdain for the citizen, regardless of official intent, constitute a denial of due process. We are beyond that point. This government-sponsored quagmire is typical of most rights issues and the situation is unchanged from Mencken's typically masterful although cynical description of 80 years ago: H.L. Mencken,"On Government," Prejudices: Fourth Series(1924) It is,perhaps,a fact provocative of sour mirth that the Bill of Rights was designed trustfully to prohibit forever two of the favorite crimes of all known governments:the seizure of private property without adequate compensation and the invasion of a citizen's liberty without justifiable cause and due process of law. It is a fact provocative of mirth yet more sour that the execution of the prohibitions was put into the hands of courts,which is to say,into the hands of lawyers,which is to say,into the hands of men specifically educated to discover legal excuses for dishonest, dishonorable,and anti-social acts. In as much as the Town of Ithaca would need to get an easement (according to Mr. Kanter's Sept. 13, 2005 memo) from the county— a sub-easement I guess —does the Town not have to be sure it is the county's right to give? I would suppose that the Town has an interest in not being left with a faulty title. The Town of Ithaca is hereby informed and put on notice that as of this date, and going back to Oct. 19, 2005, that Tompkins County has not proven they have a valid ROW, nor could they, for they have not responded to my challenge. Until such time as this issue is addressed and resolved, consistent with our property rights, and our rights to due process and just compensation, the Town of Ithaca as well as Tompkins County is forbidden from trespassing on our property for purposes relating to the construction of a sidewalk along Hanshaw Rd. We will appreciate your addressing this issue. Sincerely, A Bernard Hutchins �}-i Vn Cath JH oh@freedomweb.comj t� Tuesday, February 14,2006 3:05 PM To: Recipient list suppressed: Subject: Support for Marriage Equality Hello, my name is Jason Hungerford. My partner, Jason Seymour, and I are plaintiffs in the Ithaca 50 marriage equality lawsuit. I believe very strongly in this issue, and because of this, last year Jason and I became Marriage Ambassadors for the Empire State Pride Agenda. Part of our role as a Marriage Ambassador is to educate people on the important issue of marriage equality, and how it affects us and thousands like us across the state. My reason for writing you today is to ask for your support by agreeing to join Empire State Pride Agenda's latest campaign called "New Yorkers for the Freedom To Marry". They launched the new site today and they plan to add more people to the list in the coming weeks. You can view the site at: http://www.prideagenda.org/freedom_to_marry/freedom.htm As of right now they mostly have clergy members, but over the next few weeks they will be adding to the list elected officials, local business owners, and other prominent New Yorkers who support marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am helping them out with this program by asking some people to join growing list and lend their public support for marriage equality. ause of your standing in the community, I felt that you would be a great person to be included on the list of those who support marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Participation amounts to having your name and a brief statement in support of marriage equality, along with a photo (optional) . I have included a letter from the leaders of Empire State Pride Agenda below that details the program a bit more. May I tell Empire State Pride Agenda that you would be willing to participate in the campaign? Thank you for your time and consideration, Jason Hungerford Ithaca 50 Plaintiff Empire State Pride Agenda Marriage Ambassador ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Dear Prominent New Yorker: We are writing to ask for your help on an issue that is important to us as New Yorkers. ,,pw,� state has a history of championing America's promise of equality 3 justice for all those who have been oppressed, denied equal protection under the law, and denied equal opportunity to fully participate in the life of our democracy. This history, however, does not yet apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) New 1 ` Yorkers who are in loving and committed relationships. Same-sex couples in New York who make the choice to love each other and create a family together need and deserve the legal support for / i.r families that heterosexual couples receive when they marry. ', c legal support can only come through marriage. We are proud of the work the Empire State Pride Agenda has done through our members, allies and supporters to bring these families closer to equality and justice. We are proud of the more than fifty legislative or administrative changes in law we have helped shepherd through local and state government in New York that give same sex couples the right to visit their partners in the hospital or receive equal health benefits, but these aren't enough. Marriage, after all, is not merely a symbolic matter. There are literally 1,800 rights and responsibilities that New York heterosexual couples take on as soon as they say "I do." The right to make medical decisions for each other, the ability to inherit property, immigration rights, child custody, and eligibility for governmental protections such as Social Security and veteran survivor benefits are all obtained through marriage. When committed same-sex couples are blocked from legal marriage, they are deprived of this support system for their families. Only the right to marry can guarantee equality for these couples who are willing to live in commitment to each other but who are not considered the equals of heterosexual married people. Judge Doris Ling-Cohan ruled on February 4, 2005 that same-sex couples in New York must be allowed to marry. With this case now heading to the state's highest court and expected to reach a final verdict as early as late 2006, the LGBT community is at a critical cture in its quest for equality and justice. The clock is ting. So we are writing now to ask that you reach out to your fiends, neighbors and co-workers and ask them to support marriage equality in New York. Those who seek to deny LGBT New Yorkers their freedom will seize a ruling in favor of either party as a chance to actively promote hatred of our community. They will try to bring to New York those legislative responses (Defense of Marriage Acts or state constitutional amendments) that actively discriminate against same sex couples which we have seen enacted in all but eight states in the country. We can't let that happen. We can't let discrimination and hatred towards an oppressed group of people become reality in New York. It is not our history or the character of New Yorkers. This is why we need your help. We are creating a group of individuals drawn from all areas of society that will be called "Prominent New Yorkers for Marriage Equality." It will consist of people like you who have the ability to make a difference in the arena of public opinion in their community or place of work or worship. Please lend your name to this growing coalition in support of full equality for LGBT citizens in American society. As a leader in your community, your statement of dedication to winning legal marriage for same-sex couples can affect our lawmakers and the hearts and minds of the people of this state. �Nfto_eeply appreciate your serious consideration of our appeal. Our . _f will be calling to ask that you sign on. We will need some basic information (not more than a paragraph) and your picture to post on our web-site. People should know who you are and why justice and equality for LGBT New Yorkers and the freedom to marry matter to 2 w •` you. over the next few months, there will be a number of ways that you can help us by lending your name to this coalition. When breaking events Vit the involvement of someone of your stature, you can actively _ce your support for marriage for same-sex couples. This could include talking to a reporter, issuing a statement, or publicly speaking out, all of which would be worked out with you in advance. Depending upon your flexibility there are other things you could do as well, such as helping us lobby the state legislature to prevent legislation or a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage; encouraging other groups and organizations to openly support marriage equality for same-sex couples; and participating in rallies and events. Thank you for considering our request and please feel free to call with any questions you might have. In community, Alan Van Capelle Carmen Vazquez Executive Director Deputy Executive Director Empire State Pride Agenda Empire State Pride Agenda 3 ~ Selective Insurance Company of America SELECTWE Northeast Region PO Box 480 bisurartce Branchville, New Jersey 07826-0480 Tel: (315) 834-8914 Fax: (315) 834-8893 E-mail: george.ball@selective"com February 15, 2006 Ms. Judy Drake, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 i Policy #: S1672429 Re: Loss Control Visit of January 27, 2006 Dear Ms. Drake: This letter is a follow up to my visit on the above date to review recent claim history to determine if there are trends that may need further preventive action. For the policy term 111105-06, 6 claims are recorded. 4/3/05— Damage to property of others, this occurred when a new water line was installed and the change in ground surface characteristics in the area caused rain water run off to flood a local home owner's basement. 4118105 — Claimant slipped and fell in front of the Post Office that occupies part of the Town Office Complex. Recent repairs to a gas line service by the utility company may have contributed to this incident per your investigation. Also, the design which incorporates brick pavers and concrete slab results in surface changes that create uneven joints and trip hazards. 8/8105 —A dump truck operator needed to back up and struck the vehicle behind. This involved a seasonal employee. 8122105 —Town vehicle struck by another vehicle. Operator of the other vehicle was bent down to pick up their cell phone and crossed into the lane of the Town vehicle. Total recovery is noted for this claim. 9129105 — Damage by falling object. A tree fell across the road and hit some cars. There appears to be no liability in this case. 1011105— Claimant fell in front of the Post Office. Again, there are uneven joints created by using two different paving materials. There are plans to redesign the entryway leading to the Post Office with work to start in the spring. To round out the past three years, just three claims were reported in the 111104-05 policy term and 5 in the 1/1104-04 policy term. Selective Insurance recently conducted a survey of your business as part of our underwriting process. In conducting this survey,we attempted to identify conditions that appear to be hazardous. It is possible that some hazardous conditions may have been overlooked. In addition,even when reported hazards have been corrected,damages or injuries may still occur. It is our hope that if the hazards identified in this report are eliminated, the premises and operations will be safer for employees and members of the public. The total for the three years is 14 claims. The break down is as follows: Water damage— 5 Vehicles accidents—4 Slip and fall—2 Fallen tree— 1 Faulty road design—1 Struck traffic counter— 1 You indicated that the Town Engineers and the Highway Department try to anticipate water run off problems and keep drainage ditches clear. In each instance, each department has attempted to make corrections so that flooding may not reoccur. The vehicle claims include two minor backing incidents, a struck parked car claim and a Town vehicle being struck by another vehicle whose driver was bending down to retrieve his cell phone. Both slip and fall incidents occurred in front of the Post Office and plans are to redesign the entry walkway. The claim with the largest potential cost of recent note is the Faulty design claim. This occurred on Stone Quarry Road when a 17 year old driver with 4 passengers rounded a curve at excessive speed, believed to be over 50 mph. on a curve posted as 30 mph. The curve had been properly marked, a guard rail provided and the suggested safe speed posted. There was also an earth embankment provided. As a consequence the vehicle went through the guard rail and over the embankment and down a ravine, resulting in some passenger's sustaining severe injuries. The current status is that depositions have been taken from all passengers and r� accident reconstruction experts have weighed in and it does not appear clear whether there is any liability on the part of the Town. Evidence weighs heavily on excessive speed. Our other discussion revolved around the fact that the Town has many trails and play ground areas. You pointed out that these facilities are maintained and overseen by the Town Highway workers and there is a Director of the parks who is a Landscape Architect. You indicated that the play equipment is modern and should meet current standards. However, if it would be of value to you, I would provide a survey of the equipment to evaluate current conditions. In addition, you commented that the Town has a storm water management program to improve drainage around the local shopping mall and surrounding residential area. The Highway Department continues to work on drainage ditches and improving run off control. Regarding vehicle safety, every 3 years, drivers attend a 3 day National Driver Safety School refresher course. I appreciate the cooperation you provided regarding this review visit and l applaud your work to monitor and manage claim handling for the Town. Additional safety related information can be found at the Selective Insurance website at www.selective.com. Simply click on the"Business Solutions" tab at the left margin to access the loss control information. Information regarding business recovery after a loss can be found at the Institute for Business and Home Safety website at www.ibhs.or4. /,.ft� Please feel free to contact me should you require my participation in surveying the play equipment. • Very truly yours, George F. (Ted) Ball Loss Control Representative Selective Insurance Cc: Karen Keenan, Haylor Freyer& Coon Ithaca Agency#11557 Michelle Chattaway, Northeast Region Underwriting r� 3/6/06 Copy Town Board Kinga M Gergely 106 Juniper Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 February15, 2006 Dear Ms Valentino, In anticipation of the warmer weather, when students bring their parties out of doors, I would like to bring to the attention of Town government the problems we are facing living on South Hill. First, is the noise volume coming from students living on Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall. As I sit here, it's a nice balmy day and students are already out whooping and hollering. During the day as I am busy it's easy to block it out, but at night sound carries even further and it's not unusual to be awakened every few minutes to primal screams, loud lag` ter, cars coming and going, doors slamming, car engines. When we call the sheriff, the usual answer is that they are working on it but there is not much they can do. Some parties are so out of hand even the police have a hard time getting through the crowd. There has not been any amplified music lately, but the noise goes on until three and four in the morning. In order for the sheriff to enforce the noise ordinance, I believe we need to make some changes in the ordinance and giving our law enforcement officers more muscle in crowd control. The second frustration is the number of cars that are parked perpendicular to Coddington Road, backing out without having a clear view of traffic. Most of these properties (and I counted 11 parking areas between Juniper and Pennsyvania Avenue) have areas to create parking in the back, where they might be able to turn around and reenter Coddington nose first. This problem was addressed before, without any results. I would appreciate the Town looking into and finding solutions to these problems that seriously effect the quality of our lives. Respectfully, Kinga M Gergely o� OFlr� ' TOWN OF ITHACA �4, 21-0�� 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 �' `� www.townJthaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 February 16, 2006 Ms. Michelle M. Bailey 17 Fairway Drive Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms. Bailey: This letter is sent to you in response to your e-mail to the Town Board members of the Town of Ithaca and myself on January 6,2006. At the outset, it is my understanding that you have already been advised as to the position of the Town on the matter of your loss due to improper installation of a sewer line at your home. The Town's position was sent to you by the Town's insurance carrier by letter of July 27, 2005,by an e-mail from Judith C.Drake, the Town's Human Resources Manager and Insurance Coordinator dated January 3, 2006, and by a letter from Mrs.Drake similarly dated January 3, 2006. All of these communications advised you that the Town was unwilling to pay for any part of your loss. Thus,this letter will address only the three questions that you raised in your January a e-mail. Your fust question asked what is the purpose of an inspection. Generally speaking, the main purpose of sewer inspections is to be confident that a privately owned sewer system will not adversely affect the town-wide facilities to which the system is being connected. In that connection, a determination is usually made as to whether the private work meets applicable codes. However,the primary purpose is not to protect a landowner from the improper activities of a contractor selected by the landowner,but rather to protect the community as a whole. While the Town, or,in this case, the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission,does such inspections, we have been advised by both our insurance carrier and our attorneys that while protecting the individual may be an incidental side effect of the inspections,there is no liability to the individual on the part of a town for any alleged failure to provide effective inspections. While the Town is not happy with the quality of the inspections of your system in this case,under the law pertaining to this situation any deficiencies in the inspections do not justify the Town paying out taxpayer money for the benefit of an individual homeowner. You assert in your letter that the"huge financial toll to me is directly traceable to seven code violations approved by your designated agent." With all due respect,the financial toll more realistically resulted from improper design of the sewer system by the architect you selected and used,and the improper construction that was done by the contractor that you elected to use, and that you or your architect presumably supervised. The Town does not undertake to guarantee the performance of the work of private contractors hired by individual landowners. Your second question is whether it is the normal procedure for a town board to discuss matters such as this in a non-public manner. The answer to the question is yes. Like any entity,the Town is entitled to receive confidential legal advice from its attorneys in a confidential non-public setting. The issues that you raised necessarily involved consultations with the Attorney for the Town. If a claim were to be asserted against you, and you wanted to solicit the advice of an attorney as to what the appropriate legal response might be,you would not want to have the discussions between you and your attorney made public. A town board is entitled to have the same privileged communications. Thus, the answer to your question is that it is indeed a normal procedure for a town board or any other municipal board to obtain and receive advice on legal matters in a non-public setting. The fact that you indicated there was no pending litigation does not alter that privilege. There have been situations where a person may state that they are not going to bring any litigation but change their mind. Thus, the town obtains legal advice in a confidential manner. Your third question is whether the Town could provide you with partial relief that is not precedent setting. The Town Board discussed the matter and concluded that under the current rules which govern these kinds of situations, as confirmed by both the Town's insurance carrier and the Attorney for the Town, it would be inappropriate if not actually unconstitutional and illegal under the New York State Constitution to dispense taxpayer monies to you under these circumstances. - I am sorry that you had such an unfortunate experience with the contractor that you selected, as well as with the persons who inspected the contractor's work. While we are taking steps to improve results from future inspections, it does not change the determination of the Town that making payments to you under these circumstances would be inappropriate. I would also note that the Town, without expense to you but at some considerable expense to the Town, gave you and your new contractor significant assistance in devising solutions to your problems,including installing a new sewer main and assisting in the design and hook-up of a pump system. As a final note,while I understand that you are not happy with the Town's response on this matter, and may take issue with some of the statements that are made in this letter,I would hope you would understand that having made the decision, I don't see any benefit to engaging in further debate, whether by correspondence, e-mail, or otherwise. Hopefully this letter will conclude our dialogue. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino roll') Town Supervisor Thaler & Thaler Attorneys and Counselors at Law ; 309 North Tioga Street2 2 2Q06 Richard B.Thaler P.O.Box 266 Louis K Thsler,(19o�-"i�t9) Richard T.John Nathaniel F.Kriappen(19514990) Guy K.Krogh Ithaca,New York 14851-0266 Thomas D.Cramer Telephone. (607)272-2314 Service ByFai or Other Electronic . Sharon M.Sulimowicz Fax: (607)272-8466 Communication NoCAixepted — Katrina Thaler Medeirost GKrogh@thalerandthaler.com tarso admitted in Massachusetts Lorraine Moynihan Schmittt Amy Emerson February 16,2006 Ms. Catherine Valentino Ithaca Town Supervisor 215 N.Tioga.Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms.Valentino: I have spoken with Attorney Susan Brock concerning her request that I provide back-up and"as.needed" legal assistance to her in her role as attorney for the Town of Ithaca. As you may be aware, I currently represent the Towns of Lansing and Caroline. I have performed a conflict check, and have inquired as to whether those Towns had any objection if I provided back-up or other legal services to the Town of Ithaca. Based upon those investigations and discussions,I have received an"all clear". The only conflicts I would have are those requiring direct negotiation between either of such Towns and the Town of Ithaca, and any matters pertaining to the negotiation of contracts with the Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,as I am currently the Chairman of such corporation's Board of Directors. This information has been communicated to Susan Brock, who in turn asked that I prepare a retainer letter which outlines my billing rate, and other essential terms as required by law. Attorney Brock requested that I send this directly to your attention for distribution to other Board Members, as she hopes to address this issue at the March meeting. Attorney Brock asked me to recite that I will provide services only under her direction. I have no objection to this process. However, I must advise that the Town Law places the power and responsibility to request legal services in the Town Board and its designated Town Officials. Since the Town of Ithaca has an Attorney for the Town,and not a Town Ms. Catherine Valentino Ithaca Town Supervisor February 16,2006 Page Two Attorney(there is a legal difference),I have tried to balance Attorney Brock's request with the law, and hope that the enclosed retainer letter accomplishes that balance. To draw a parallel,her request,while reasonable,is akin to a CEO requiring a corporate attorney to only perform work for the corporation upon his or her direct authorization, even when the Board of Directors requests services. The corporate attorney, by law, must be responsive to the Board. Similarly, a municipal attorney must also be primarily responsible to the Board. Hence, if the Town desires to utilize my counsel,knowledge and services as a back-up to Attorney Brock, I respectfully request that the scope or level of services be identified for the near term, even if such request is to specify that I shall perform services only at Attorney Brock's request. Longer term scoping should await the Board's attaining of knowledge as to my level of integrity and competency. If you or the Board have any questions or concerns relative to the terms or language of this letter or the enclosed proposed retainer letter, please do not hesitate to let me know. If the Board would like me to be present for any public or non-public meeting,whether to meet formally or informally,please also let me know. Thank you for your time and attention to the above. ry truly o Gu . Krogh GKK:ll cc: Attorney Susan Brock,with enclosure AGREEMENT as to LEGAL REPRESENTATION between the ` TOWN OF ITHACA and GUY K.KROGH,ESQ.,of THALER&THALER This agreement (the "Agreement") is made between the undersigneds as of January 1, 2006. The Town of Ithaca, with its offices at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 (herein,the"Town"),has requested that Guy K.Krogh,Esq.provide services to the Town as Attorney for the Town, and accordingly the Town hereby engages said Guy K. Krogh and the firm of Thaler and Thaler (of 309 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 (herein, said Guy K. Krogh and Thaler and Thaler are jointly and severally the"Firm")) to provide legal services to the Town at the request of Attorney Susan Brock or any Town Board Member,including: ➢ Providing legal advice to all Councilpersons, Elected Officials and Officers of the Town,for the benefit of the Town; ➢ Preparing and reviewing necessary or desired legal documents; ➢ Prosecuting and defending civil matters and proceedings involving the Town (and where applicable, obtain appropriate insurance defense reimbursement or coverage); ➢ Preparing drafts of local laws, ordinances, resolutions, and other legislation upon request of the Town Board or the Town Supervisor; ➢ Preparing notices and other documents connected with any Town actions; ➢ Providing legal assistance upon the request of the Code Enforcement Office, the Highway Department,the Town Justice Court Offices, the Town Clerk's Office, and other Town employees and offices as designated by the Town Board; ➢ Attending Town Board meetings upon request; ➢ Being available for telephone calls,emails,and other correspondence upon an"as needed"basis;and ➢ The provision of such other or further legal services as the Town may desire or request. The Firm's fees for the services performed by its attorneys and paralegals (herein, the "Fees") will be based upon the amount of time devoted by the individuals performing the services, multiplied by those individuals' respective hourly billing rates. For this Agreement, the Firm's billing rates for 2006 are as follows: Partner - $150.00 per hour; Associate Attorney - $150.00 per hour;Paralegal -$90.00 per hour. Hours will be billed in minimum increments of a tenth of an hour. Hourly rages apply to all time expended relative to Town matters,including but not limited to: ➢ Meetings and conferences; ➢ Telephone calls and telephonic conferences, either placed by or 140� placed to the Town, or otherwise made or had on the Town's behalf or related to Town matters; ➢ Preparation, review and revision of correspondence and documents, memoranda, or papers relative to Town matters; ➢ Legal research; ➢ Court appearances and court conferences; ➢ Preparation time for any meeting or court matters; ➢ Travel time;and ➢ Any other time expended on behalf of or in connection with Town matters that are traditionally billed in the Firm's business. However, not all time will be deemed billable or will be billed by the Firm, which may exercise its discretion to "no charge" any time and billing entries. The Firm will not bill for any time, charges or expenses incurred for responding to any billing inquiries that may arise, nor will the Firm bill for any time, charges or expenses incurred for the negotiation or drafting of any documents concerning the terms of employment of the Firm. The Firm will incur various costs and expenses in performing services, including but not limited to, filing fees, subpoena and service of process fees, reporting and transcription expenses, postage, courier delivery expenses, long distance telecommunications, document reproduction and/or printing expenses, travel expenses, and computer assisted legal and factual research expenses. The Town agrees to reimburse the Firm for �q any such costs and expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Firm on behalf of the Town. Such costs and expenses shall be deemed and billed as Fees under this Agreement. The Firm may need to hire outside experts and corresponding or local counsel in certain situations, such as where a legal matter must be handled more than 100 miles from the Town Hall or in another State. However, this expense will only be incurred upon the Town's prior advance approval and agreement to pay these individuals' fees and charges upon a direct billed basis. The Firm will provide the Town with copies of all correspondences, documents, and pleadings, and will keep the Town apprised of the status of each matter being handled,in whole or in part,by the Firm. The Town has sole discretion in determining whether to terminate the Firm s representation at any time,for any or no reason. While the Firm seeks to avoid fee disputes with the Town, and encourages open discussion to resolve any fee disputes, the Town is advised that it has the right, at its election, to seek arbitration to resolve any fee dispute. In such event,the Firm shall advise the Town in writing by certified mail that the Town has 30 days from receipt of such notice in which to elect to resolve the dispute by arbitration, and the Firm shall enclose a 2 copy of the arbitration rules and a form for requesting arbitration. The decision resulting from arbitration is binding upon both the Firm and the Town. The Town is referred to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the New York State Courts for more information about arbitration. At any time, even if there is no fee dispute, the Firm will forward the complete text of Part 137 to the Town. The Firm also has the right to withdraw from representing the Town in the event of the Town's failure to communicate or cooperate in the provision of legal services, or if the Town engages in any conduct which would make it inappropriate to continue representation, or if any bill rendered for Fees remains unpaid, in part or in full, for a period of 90 or more days after such bill is delivered to the Town. The Firm will send the Town an invoice every calendar quarter, or upon request of the Town. The Town is hereby made aware that in the provision of municipal legal services there are often facts and circumstances that call for a legal judgment and for which there is no specific or unanimous "correct" answer. The Firm shall exercise its best judgment in all cases and at all times to provide legal services and advice that are consistent with law and controlling or persuasive legal precedents, and that will minimize the risk and expense to the Town. Despite these best efforts,the Town acknowledges that there is no assurance or guarantee of the outcome of any matter, the length of time it may take to resolve any �+ matter, or the costs which may be incurred to attempt to resolve any matter. The Firm will endeavor to advise the Town as to any and all risks and expenses that any proposed course of action or conduct may entail so that the Town may weigh its alternatives and make a decision that is in the best interests of the Town and its constituents. The Town has reviewed and understands this Agreement. The Town has had an opportunity to ask any and all questions it may have pertaining to this Agreement, and has had each such question answered to its full satisfaction and understanding. Accordingly, the Town and the Firm each agree to all of the terms set forth in this Agreement. By: Town of Ithaca("Town") Title Date Guy K.Krogh,Thaler&Thaler("Firm") Title Date 3 Carrie Whitmore Prom: Dan Walker .ant: Friday, February 17, 2006 2:53 PM To: Carrie Whitmore Subject: FW: Plans posted by County not Consistent ! -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Arthur Hutchins Jr. (mailto:hutchins@ece.cornell.edu] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:54 PM To: Dan Walker Subject: Plans posted by County not Consistent ! Hi Dan- Peter Stein, responding to a comment by Klaus Beyenbach, asked you at the Monday 2/13/05 about the County's plan "3a" (or was it "3b"! ! ! ) for Hanshaw Rd walkways. You seemed to feel that that plan involved a curb. However, it does not - I believe no plan currently under consideration involves a curb (all plans with curbs were ruled out even as they were first offered to the public at the Sept. 29 cafeteria meeting! ) In posting various plans, however, the county has simply replaced pdf files without changing the links, so if one were to say plan 3a for example it could be different things at different times. That is the "ONource of confusion. I think the county is now offering an "adjoining" and a "non-adjoining" option according to whether the sidewalk is adjoining the roadway or not. It is different for different segments of the road, and jumps back and forth several or many times. Klaus was asking why the road-adjoining plan could not be used for our neighborhood (me at 1016 and eastward to Blackstone. ) But it's anyone's guess what the county is doing! I can well understand why this is confusing, and we the neighbors don't have a clear picture of what is intended for our particular properties. I doubt that the county has even decided. They need to give us (and you) detailed (property-by-property) drawings to look at. The big long green pdf (with Cayuga Heights options) shows no details, even if you blow it up. I probably have not clarified anything - except to assure you that it is not clear to anyone. Bernie 1 Copy: F. Notehoan/J. Kanter/Zbwn BOaxd FEB " 2006 Zti Patty L.Potter - ---._ 104 Juniper Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 PlRorter4Qaol.com 272-2268 February 20,2006 Dear Cathy, I'm sending you a copy of a letter I send to President Peggy Williams of Ithaca College.It enumerates the problems previously discussed that are caused by the students residing off campus in the area of Coddington Road,Pennsylvania Avenue,and Kendal Avenue. Now I request that the town actively pursue the following: 1. Write a more definite and reasonable ordinance for and disorderly conduct,one that will assure peace in the neighborhood between the hours of I 1 pm and 7:30 am on weekends and 10 pm and 7:30 am Sunday through Thursday. Look to the City of Ithaca for an example. They do not rely on amplification for the noise to be an offence. 2. Limit the density of student rental housing in residential neighborhoods. 3. Create safe parking procedures on Coddington Road that will limit the number of cars backing out onto the road. Require landlords to provide off-street parking that enables cars to pull out onto Coddington Road. 4. Provide the Sheriff with enough manpower to really deal with parties in a reasonable time frame and fines high enough to be a deterrent to future offenses. Perhaps a mobile holding vehicle is necessary to round up the offenders on occasion.Perhaps if the police showed enough man power in the beginning of the party season and made enough arrest to make a statement,the students would get the message that it is not OK to party until 3 am. 5. Come up with a plan to get emergency vehicles to the far end of Pennsylvania Avenue on nights when the parties are huge and students and cars are blocking the roads. I have met with a few neighbors and we hope to talk with Mr.Iacovelli about what he can do with his rental properties to insure a more peaceful atmosphere in the neighborhood. If we do not get a positive response from him you will here from me again. Thank you for the info on the Public Hearing on Tuesday. I will attend. Sincere ga47o �1 Y Patty L Porter 104 Juniper Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 -1porter4@aol.comaol.com 272-2268 February 17,2006 Dear President Williams, I've lived in the Ithaca College Neighborhood since 1977. My daughter and son-in-law, Amy Porter Bentz and Jonathan Bentz, are graduates of IC. Over the years I have enjoyed many cultural activities on campus and consider myself lucky to be a neighbor of such a fine institution. Unfortunately,this academic year I have also suffered many sleepless nights caused by the loud parties of Ithaca.College students living off campus. Their lewd remarks and drunken shouting travels up South Hill and into my house. They flood Coddington Road on weekend nights;walking 3-5 abreast so a car has to slowly wind it's way through them. They never wear light colors so that they could be easily seen,nor do they make any attempt to get on the shoulder. The roads are often littered with beer cans and other debris. I have been advised to call the Sheriff,which I do but it often takes the police 2-4 hours to get through all the parties on Pennsylvania Avenue. That means I am still hearing party noise at 3:am. Officer Vitale explained to me that if the police arrest someone at the beginning of Pennsylvania Avenue near Coddington Road,two officers have to take that person to jail; leaving only one officer at the party site. Therefore, other infractions cannot be addressed for hours until the officer's return. Calling the police under these circumstances is not a satisfactory solution. Also,fines for these infractions are$25,not a real deterrent to the students to change their ways. Making more police available might be an answer but it will be at my expense as a taxpayer. Pennsylvania Ave is a dead-end street. The police dispatcher has estimated upwards of 2000 students partying on the block on some nights. If emergency vehicles were needed at the far end, how would they get through? f.•�y1 I ask that you do all in your power to help IC students become respectful members of the Ithaca community. I receive the Ithaca College Quarterly and am aware of some of the graduate's achievements. Ithaca College takes great pride in the achievements of Michael A. Battle,David Boreanaz, Diane Frankle Storck and others. Do the current students have the right to trash their Ithaca neighborhoods on the way to achieving their life goals? These students do not seem ready to live off campus. They need your supervision,more limits, and consequences. This has become a problem for the police,the landlords,the neighbors,and the Town of Ithaca. It now needs to become a problem for the immature Ithaca College students. Please work with your students to resolve the problems. Please respond to me at the above address as soon as possible. Sincerely, Patty L. Porter Copy Town Board on 2/28/2006 TIMEWARNER " ' ,. ' FEB 2 8 2006 CABLE <:TTEST February 24,2006 L t T WAC'TOWN C-LF 7 Kms`! Dear Time Warner Cable Municipal Official: We're notifying customers of changes to some components of our service effective April I and have copied (on the reverse)the subscriber notice detailing those new rates. Due to packaging of our services, I'm pleased to tell you that approximately one-third of our customers will see either NO rate increase this year,or an increase of less than 3%,on their core cable packages. Our average effective rate increase over our entire customer base is 3.5%. We are not changing the rates for either our high-speed Road Runner service or our popular Digital Phone service. What's also important to remember is this is our first increase in 15 months.We have NOT increased our equipment rates since January 1,2004;we're adding a much-demanded and popular new network–SportsNet New York,featuring the Mets–to our Standard service.The optional HD(high-definition)tier DECREASES in price from$6.95 to$4.95; and the Digital Sports tier DECREASES from$4.95 to$1.95. Taxes,fuel and power costs impact all of us individually and as a business the impact is even greater:fuel is up 60%,as you know. There are other costs associated with providing cable service that we do not control, and our programming expenses (costs to networks for carriage) increased by 10% in 2005 alone. However, we are confident that cable continues to deliver great entertainment value. The average cost of a movie ticket is approaching$7 (WAA), but the average cable customer pays I 1 cents for the same two hours of filmed entertainment.The average cost for a family of four to spend a day at an amusement park is more than$185,which would buy several months of cable.The average cost to take that family to a Major League Baseball game increased 5.60/c to $164.43 last year. Compared to these entertainment choices,cable offers great value,variety and control. Our satellite competitors, DirecTV and DISH Network,had previously announced 2006 increases: a 7.1% increase in DirecTV's "Total Choice" package and 8.7% increase in its "Total Choice Plus," while Dish Network is boosting its America's Top 60 package by 9.40%.Unlike cable,satellite companies are not required to provide customer notification and those rate increases are rarely,if ever,covered in newspapers.Satellite charges an extra monthly fee to receive local broadcast networks, while we don't even charge for the high-definition signals of those broadcasters – and satellite doesn't even offer those signals! Time Warner Cable pays local taxes,provides local jobs,sponsors local events and contributes to local charities.We do business with companies in the area and provide an advertising outlet for other businesses.Time Warner Cable provides complimentary cable television and high-speed data service to schools and public libraries. By guaranteeing prompt, reliable service at all times, Time Warner Cable is working hard to remain responsive to the needs of our customers, including flexible appointment scheduling, efforts to restore service quickly when faced with a service outage,Parental Controls on our set-top boxes,and providing even more on-demand content that our customers enjoy. Today,more than ever,customers are subscribing to packages which include more than just video. Our customers are choosing their television/telecommunication providers based on the price and quality of the entire package —not necessarily the individual prices of its components. We have shown many customers how they can,in fact,save money with our packages–and are using this notification opportunity to communicate those savings opportunities to them. As always, this notification may raise questions and our local employees are available and eager to assist customers understand these changes. In the meantime,don't hesitate to contact me(Jeff.Unaids&wcable.com,or(315)634-6242) if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff Unaitis V.P.Public Affairs IMPORTANT 116 RATE INFORMATION Customers currently enjoying certain promotional package rates and/or multiple-product bundles will continue to benefit from discounts until the expiration of those offers(if applicable).At that time, these rates for service will apply. RATES ARE EFFECTNE APRIL 1,2006 AND WILL BE REFLECTED ON YOUR APRIL STATEMENT. CABLE RATES CURRENT NEW INSTALLATION RATES NEW Basic Service 17.40 16.42 Standard Install/Reconnect Standard Service 32.55 35.58 -Pre--wired home 30.00 Standard Total 49.95 52.00 -Unwired home 40.00 Hourly Service Charge 36.55 Full Digital Cable 11.95 12.50 Additional Outlet(s),during install 18.00 Explorer Pak 7.95 8.50 Additional Outletcs),separate trip 31.97 rnonflthj rJtarges ' ADDITIONAL RATES NEW EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COSTS NEW HBO 11.95 Digital Terminal(converter) 237.00 Cinemax 10.95 HD Digital Terminal 292.00 Showtime Unlimited 10.95 Digital Video Recorder(DVR) 375.00 2nd Premium Service' 8.95 HD Digital Video Recorder 425.00 Digital Sports Ter 1.95 Remote Control 6.00 HDTV Ter 4.95 Residential Modem 43.00 Digital/HD Terminal 7.64 Wireless Modem 99.00 Remote Control 31 Digital Phone/Modem 118.00 Non-Addressable Converter .55 Cable Card 69.00 Cable Card 3.14 'Does not m de Starz' moral*darg'as Dighal Termmai is rewred m order to rec some channels andlor services.Rates and charges apply to standard residential instailat".s and service. The ahave rates foo caU'e service packages and equipment do not'include franchse fees a State and FederaP regulatory fees. 111111'r- Check out these packages! . TALK©V NEV SURF©VIEW ALL©OK ..� INCLUDES: INCLUDES: INCLUDES: Digital Phone,Basic&Standard Road Runner High-Speed Digital Phone,Road Runner Service,Digital Home Terminal Online,Basic&Standard High-Speed Online,Basic 8 with remote,Digital Navigator, Service,Digital Home Terminal Standard Service,Digital Home and the Explorer Pak with remote,Digital Navigator, Terminal with remote,Digital and the Explorer Pak Navigator,and the Explorer Pak 9 1 95 p9erma,th �95 th �2 perr nn _ COMING APRIL 1: We're pleased to add the new SportsNet New York network, your new home for New York Mets baseball and New York.lets football. SportsNet New York will be available as part of our Standard service on Channel 24. �r..oa. To accommodate this addition,we will move Fox Sports New York to channel 69;we will no longer be offering the Product Information Network on that channel. CA-TC Page 1 of 1 Al Carvill From: Susan H. Brock[brock@clarityconnect.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:06 PM To: Cathy;AI Carvill Subject: Lakeside NH Cathy and Al, I talked to Dick Ruswick(the County's bankruptcy attorney)about the nursing home bankruptcy. He is willing to attend the March 13 Town Board meeting to answer any questions the Board may have. Here's how I propose things occur:We go into executive discussion to discuss proposed litigation regarding Lakeside nursing home. Al sets the stage by explaining what is going on and walks the Board through his spreadsheet. Then Dick answers any legal questions relating to the bankruptcy proceedings and powers of the bankruptcy judge to lower the taxes. We then ask Dick to leave so the Board can discuss potential settlements, but have Dick stay in the hallway in case we have questions and need him to come back in. Al, shouldn't the spreadsheet's assessed value for 2001 and 2002 be$7.35 million instead of$7.8 million? Should we ask Valeria to attend the Board meeting as well to explain the basis for the reduced County assessment to$3.5 million beginning in 2003? Do you understand what factors she used to reduce the assessment? If so, please let me know. Thanks, Susan his electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s)named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at(607)277-3995 (collect)or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. 2/28/2006 -7777-� FEB 2 8 2006 February 27, 2006 Memo To: t Cathy Valentino, Al Carvill, M le KKirschgessner From: Karen Coleman, TCYSD ;Skl,� Re: 2006 Budget Recommendations from the Joint Youth Commission In response to questions and concerns about the 2006 budget recommendations from the Joint Youth Commission, I have attached a budget with notations re: revenue and a narrative about each program as discussed and recommended. The Commission worked carefully and creatively to keep the excellent programs available to Town' youth and not increase the request for Town Tax dollars. In fact though the total revenue increased, the amount charged to the Town Tax line is $632 less than that paid in 2005. Please see the attached budget for detail. A and Marnle you will note that for clarification I split the Town Tax line and the employment grant to better illustrate the difference between the 2005 and 06 request. It should be noted that the County increase of$750 will remain in our request for your 2007 allocation and will need to be matched. In 2007 the County allocation can be distributed as recommended by the Youth Commission. I hope that this information answers your questions. Please feel welcome to contact me if you require further clarification. c0 0 0 I SII I I i Il ) � ► II ' � � il,xCD N i I i i c N I f CD ! IV m 11 m, j ' I cI i ! �_► IpI I i l ! l � co i t cl I I ml Ni ' ! Ni .l C C I� 6 L 3 m I I •� m I I I , m �! m o f I �m 1 13• c to m ( to L5. m r I I I I S It 'E �I c m i E N m — c 3 V o m �- -o I y m , ,o j Z L I ! ! !ml� rj l o l l -- _ 'or; , mI I�) � ! p' I�'� U w: !� � mI ! � I 10 �! o f 51cc IU1 col i �� I c I �l t VI f O M p Iyj I a I D Q r, , v i =I� ° o 1 I •. c i ; v(ao o CO � � i u �'N i I l.....' � _.j . ' -fi--I— 1 •�__ I i i I r OO, N `5 � m i 10l j �m 0) yIN! H ° I 'o `�' { i c cr m U �� I L E _ ._ - : co Q ti0ti000 �} rOf-1- .�_... 00cnto *0r 01- O Ml+ a) 0 (csI a0 oo�NtoT- V h mil IN eoI.I+I(ati0)0) I�M ; I (OOw) C4V) C) ti cl I ! I I ed,L61 !"4 p:146 oil , e=ti er CSF W i1` I iN r O, i I r t[!lN iO t0! I I I I i 1 !tR/A?6A lA 64).169 6.3,14& d'?Itf?ItAJWI—j IW.i Iii I l i I CI 4 m j i6; r co I-it 0 IX) iLO! j O Otto OO' i �'�I -'IA; ,p,, lO Cv) CD C'OlNl�i I9it7ai N 0010�Co'00 m 0. I j I ( '= 00('t N, t�'• I I0 ,OItO �- COI � N; ! t01r(0 �toOj i ' ptACAtA. I V 1 I :Go 0 ;�I1* C) .OIOi O X I � to C1461 � I ; i ,II- colt- CO° I ml l Imf I f 1N1 I Imo! 'r-!o le-�tC� N � i r I ea 61%V�69. es 6%1 ;tjj�! ' 6%101>cfli�'6>l j E!�car tfr { lI CO ! Cc Nle >i i o, I,I mi I (D: ' >.i°»°�U' o f c1 laj I�' r i m E i>jcn!L; EI I I ni I}�a m L_I oI c. mi w' "l aZ te° 'd; `Cmj--i. m: iz IES°; v, �' E .. �1 � Ej m, E � >; a .o m' xi n to,v; i °1�' I °' OIZI—°I z'! of a m) ° '01 c 0 o jml },2 Elm E�I-` cl E rnl 'clr_ILIQ ; m, c! °) Im x' E' � Ic' m >- o .ol 'c;�t-iUf 5 0�iw m 1.;0i ` c� w �•° EI m rn Maid �'' ' c°i I Ym C m e m. m cl c1 as :p E a cI m c E cr c 3 0l >I���I-�'w 3? 31 � � I o vl ml of p�3(-' �I El;gl !ol 3I -°� o Ni m•o ..,� E o of—I o m o; o m o °: of (o of E: o, o COI Lu i--lt- >I la U �IU.�i 0; lc� SIU,..: rNll-1LU fes"\ February 24, 2006 Joint Youth Commission Narrative to 2006 Program Recommendations Coddington Road Community Center— Proposal received from Anne Morrissette. Request was for$11,600 which is the same request as 2005. Camp fees help offset costs of the morning and full day camp. The CIT (Counselor in Training) program has continued to expand and Anne has restructured this so that the youngest (12 -14) are in a pre-CIT program and pay a camper fee to participate. The older youth are in graduated groups, by experience and ability, and these youth receive a stipend. Stipends come from Dryden, Danby, Caroline and the Town of Ithaca through the JYC allocation. Town Employment A and B: Proposals were received from Mamie Kirschgessner. For lack of better way to label these proposals, which will both be supervised by Mamie and operated through the Town, the Commission members labeled them as A and B. Student Work'lnitiative (Employment A) -was described as the traditional employment project; youth would be generally recruited from the JYC communities with 7 out of 50 contacts to be employed. The other 43 will be referred to other youth employment projects, which comprise a county wide continuum for employment of youth. The total requested was $5,108. The Commission recommended $5,318 partially to cover the increase in minimum wage for the 7 youth anticipated to be hired. According • to the proposal the actual cost beyond employment would be covered as in-kind by the Town of Ithaca. Student Work Corps (Employment B) -This employment project was described as a Youth Corp working with an adult supervisor. The supervisor would be hired as a summer employee and will be a JYC resident, most likely of college age. Tasks for this group would be deferred maintenance on three parks. The total requested was $8,707 to cover the costs for the crew chief and three youth (one youth will be employed through the Job LINK program) The Commission allocated $7,941 to this program with the assurance from Job Link that one youth will be employed by them and most likely other JYC youth could be placed through the Job LINK program thus reducing employment expenses to the Town. The proposal noted that this was a pilot from the Town and would be funded with grant money. Discussion with Mamie identified this as a program the Town had funded and would move money into the JYC budget. By funding this project the revenue shows as an increase in the Town allocation of$7,941, which would go directly to this project. Cornell Cooperative Extension —Proposal was received from Linda Schoffel, RYS Coordinator. Request includes a $750 increase in the Program Manager salary and a $288 increase in program fees. On behalf of municipalities, the County Youth Services Dept requested,through the County budgeting process, an increase for Rural Youth Service Program Mangers in the amount of$1,500 for each full time employee. County Legislature approved this request as a one time appropriation. The JYC Program Manager works only .5fte so the JYC increase was only$750, which would be added to the CCE request. In addition no match was to be required from the municipality for this increase. Tompkins County supports the RYS program by paying for 1.5 supervisors for 12 staff, some van costs and a small coordinators budget. Expenses for this service are not passed onto the partner municipalities. In 2005 the JYC moved the youth employment responsibilities from Extension to the Town of Ithaca. This change created an opportunity for more youth development programs which were well received and well attended. The Commission asked Extension to charge a modest fee for summer programs to help offset rising costs. They have agreed though details have not been worked out. As in other municipalities these funds would be recorded in the budget and moved forward at the end of the year as revenue for the summer of 2007. Floating Classroom — Proposal received from Bill Foster, Cayuga Nature Center. Funding requested $2,400. Commission allocated $750. The project is designed for middle and high school age youth who will participate in a multiple day lake and watershed study program. This project will entail half-day sessions over the course of a week during the summer of 2006. The Commission was interested in this project as a summer activity which would offer education and connection to the environmental resources of the Town. Bill submitted this same proposal to 5 other municipalities. No municipality had funds available to pay for an exclusive week. Karen Coleman, TCYSD, brokered an agreement with Bill, as Nature Center Representative, to offer the program to 3 communities. To make this possible Linda Schoffel agreed to add the Floating Classroom as a collaborative program between Extension, Nature Center and the municipalities. By offering to do this, Program Managers may recruit participants, participate as supervising staff, and monitor the project. Each participating municipality will request a fee, with the understanding that no youth will be refused due to inability to pay. Each municipality will have 8 youth placements available, again by sharing this we can assure that all of the slots are filled. Details will be worked out in March 2006. Charging Fees -This is a new process for the Joint Youth Commission and working out the details is a process that is as individual as the programs. Karen Coleman will work closely with Mamie and the programs so that we have agreement on the fee structure to be used as well as developing a monitoring system of the structure. Learning Web— Proposal received from Sally Schwartzbach and Mary Ann Lapinski. Request was for$ 57,036; $57,000 was recommended. The increase includes a 3% cost of living increase for the full time staff person and a 10% increase in health insurance costs. The Commission recognizes that this program-is-meeting and- - exceeding program goals, however, they are concerned with the high costs. The Commission requested that the summer program begin charging fees, though no youth would be turned away for inability to pay. These fees will be collected and used to offset some summer 2007 program expenses. Because no fees have been charged for programs to date, we did not reduce the allocation and will be working with the Learning Web to set up a fee scale and method for carrying forward these fees. Workforce NY. Proposal was received from Diane Bradac. Program request was for $3,870. JYC recommended $2,265. This recommendation followed conversations with Diane who assured us that Workforce could provide one workshop exclusively for JYC which will be held during the spring 2006. Diane proposed that another series of Customer Service and Sales Training be held for high school age youth. This program was offered in 2005 at the request of the JYC and was successful training 11 males and 7 females who attended one of two five week sessions. Each youth has the opportunity at age 16 to take the nationally recognized Customer Service Credential. This Credential is also recognized locally, especially at the Mall. This Credential process is available at the Workforce Center. Youth were referred to this program through the schools, RYS, Town of Ithaca general announcements and after the first class, word of mouth. These workshops are open to high school youth who live in the JYC area and are interested in working in the retail sector. There is a lot of interest in this workshop as many of our youth begin their work experiences working in retail businesses l" 3/6/06 Copy Town Board Klaus W. & Christa-Maria Beyenbach phone 253-3482 1024 Hanshaw Road FAX 253-3851 Ithaca, NY 14850 email: KWB1@CORNELL.EDU Mr. Richard Brauer PE - - Phone 585 334-1310 Fisher Associates ° FAX 585 3341361 135 Calkins Road Rochester, IVY 14623 RA R Feb. 28, 2006 3 2 (;� Re. Hanshaw Road Project Dear Mr. Brauer, Thank you for your visit on Tuesday, Feb. 21 to discuss the particulars of the Hanshaw Roar[ Reconstruction Project as they affect our property. By way of this letter 1 would like to summarize the agreement we have reached during this meeting: 1. Option 3B (see Figure attached) will be used in the case of our property, 1024 Hanshaw Road, for a total of 21' extending north from the present center lane of Hanshaw Road. These 21' feet include a) 10' lane for vehicular traffic, b) 5' shoulder under which 2' of a 3' gutter are located, c) 1' edge of the gutter, and d) 5' walkway. 2. The present hedge located along the road approximately 22' from the center lane will be removed and replaced at reconstruction expense with a similar hedge or a fence. 3 The present parking surface on the south-west corner of our property will remain intact as its paved surface begins at approximately 23' from the center lane. Thank you again for making the visit. Please be so kind as to confirm the agreement as we understand it. Sincerely, Klaus W. Beyenb11 Christa-Maria Beyenbach Attached: Plan 3B Hanshaw Road Reconstruction, Fishes- Associates yopy to: he Town Board Ms. Dooley Kiefer, County Legislator, District 10 Mr. John Lampman,Tompkins County Highway Highway Division A'"s Mr. Richard Stumbar, Esq. COPY OF LETTER GIVEN TO EACH BOARD MEMBER 2/28/06 Ms. Molly Vance 115 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, N. Y. 14850 Yl- March 27, 2006 �7) � FEB 2 $ 2405 i IthacacTown Board -_ Town Hall 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca., N.Y. 14850 Dear To Whom: I am writing to protes-i the building of new apartments by Orlando Iacovelli on Pennsylvania Ave. This is a street of mostly single family homes and as far as I know is not currently zoned as a high--density dwelling area. Due to the student population the sheriffs need to patrol the area every weekend and are freouently called by residents for noise from parties and vandalism such as the regular destruction of mailboxes. There is also dangerous driving and illegal parking. Several times they have vomited on cars and ripped off the car mirror. There is always litter the day after <: p,-rty, and students walk home twi-king loudly until 4:00 a.m. Surely there is a. con- cern that these problems would only worsen with more student housing. Also, the area in,,%hich the landlord wants to build is at the entrance to the Fingerlakes Trail and being at the beginning of the street lends the entire street a more rural atmosphere. The area is small and to squeeze two more six student dwellings in that place would definitely disfigure the trail. We live in the town and don't want it to look like the city with all the concerns of living- so close together. Some of the nieghbors who feel as I do have recently moved, each citing the increasing student population as the reason. Mr. Iacovelli built just across the street from us last year and rented to six students after I was told it was six--bedroom single family only, '-by the zoningboard. I you eea a petition please let me k know and I will try o col�ec nas-ries . Thank You for reading Try letter -,nd please consider the strong sentiment of residents who oppose building. I arr. sorry I' missed the meeting"—my mother was ill and needed help Holly C. Vance, homeowner cc : Peggy Williams S.P.C.A, 1640 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, New York 14850 607/257-1822 Rax: 607/257-5470 _ ONTIGNS COUNTY www.spcaonline.com March 8. 2006 TeeAnn Hunter Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear TeeAnn Hunter: The Tompkins County SPCA Animal Control Officers will no longer provide personal service when serving tickets to individuals whose dog licenses have expired. Rather, they will mail the tickets. We will ascertain the status of the ticket and learn whether the individual pleaded guilty, appeared, or failed to appear. Although we realize some people will fail to appear, we expect that this will free up our Animal Control Officers to more diligently pursue egregious transgressions of the Agricultural and Markets laws they enforce. This will streamline our efforts so that we can focus more resources on more serious crimes,while continuing to enforce licensing requirements with greater efficiency. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, LS Jeff Lydon Executive Director T h e S o c i e t y f o r t h e P r e v e n t i o n o f C r u e l t y t o A n i m a l s Below I've described some of our reasons for the decision to change our policy regarding the service of expired dog licenses: The Tompkins County SPCA's decision to serve tickets for expired dog licenses via the post does not represent a reduction in services. Rather, it is an effort to augment services by making our animal control efforts more efficient so that our Animal Control Officers can focus on those issues that pose a more immediate threat to the welfare of people in the community. To the best of my knowledge, the SPCA personally serves tickets for expired dog licenses some 600 to 700 times each year. That's three times a day on every business day of the year. This can siphon hours from the work day of our ACOs. Communities are far better served if that time is concentrated on issues like: -Dangerous dog reports -Nuisance dogs -Potentially rabid animals -Dogs at large in danger of being run over or of causing an automobile accident -Animal cruelty cases -Child abuse cases our officers are trained to follow up on when suspicions arise in the course of animal-related investigations -Performing the desk work necessary to effectively cope with all of the above Although dog licensing is very important, it is not an immediate issue like these others are, in that these issues can involve great harm and even fatalities. An ACO's availability is reduced if she is spending half her day essentially delivering mail. She will be far more likely to have a much greater distance to cover before arriving at the scene to respond to an emergency or to prevent an emergency from occurring. Furthermore,fully one-third of the expired license cases involve residents who have relocated. Learning about who has moved by getting a note from the post office has clear advantages for all parties when the alternative involves driving all over the county to hunt for former residents. An alternative to this minor improvement in efficiency and services would be to employ ACOs for more hours or to employ more ACOs. That would drive up the cost of services. Instead, we thought it would be in everyone's interest to execute our role in dog licensing enforcement by using the mail,while improving more critical and more immediate services—at no extra cost. f 1 Roy A. Luft �7 7 1317 Trumansburg Road _ Ithaca., NY 14850 - XW 273-7088 ' R 21 3/20/06 Town Board of Ithaca, NY Dear Sirs, Last fall my wife and I applied for and were issued a building permit to construct a free standing photo voltaic (PV) system in our yard. A PV system generates electricity from sunlight. We spent$48,000 on this wonderful, pollution free, renewable energy system. The system has been up and running since 2/2/06. During that time, despite the cloudy weather and short winter days, our PV system has generated more electricity than we have consumed, so we supplied some solar electricity to the energy grid. This morning, I received a phone call from Steven Williams. Mr. Williams told me that he had made a technical error when he issued me the building permit. Apparently, Ithaca's zoning code does not list a PV system as a permitted structure within the town of Ithaca. Mr. Williams asked me to apply for an area variance from the zoning board for permission to build the PV system. I then called Jon Kanter the Director of Planning. Mr. Kanter told me that the town is in the process of changing the zoning laws to allow PV systems, which the town would like to encourage. Mr. Kanter told me that he thought it would be better for me to apply for an area variance, because it would be at least 3 months until the zoning laws caught up to the reality of my PV system. We discussed that NY State and the federal government want PV systems built as evidenced by the fact that both offer financial incentives to encourage PV installations, and that Ithaca's ordinances should also encourage local PV development. I told him that I would apply for the zoning variance but that I thought the town should waive the $100 fee associated with applying for the variance, since I already had the building permit, and the finished PV system and the error in issuing the building permit was the responsibility of the Town. He indicated that he would support the waiver of the ZBA fee, but told me that I would have to write to the town board to request that the fee be waived. By this letter, I am officially asking you to waive the fee for my application for an area variance. I believe that it is reasonable for the town to waive the$100 variance application fee because: The Town of Ithaca issued our permit on November 4th, 2005. Performance Systems contracting installed the system according to the permit and state approved specifications and it was activated by NYSEG on February 2nd, 2006. NYS and federal governments are giving tax credits as incentives to encourage PV installations. My wife, Nancy Emerson, and I are also inviting members of the Town Board and Codes and Ordinance Committee to come by and tour our PV system. We know that we are early adaptors of this technology and would like to do all that we can to help spread the word and ease the way for others in Ithaca to invest in renewable energy. Please feel free to call and make an appointment to see the system, and ask questions, either as a board or as individuals. Thank Roy A. Luft Copy to Board 3/24/06 Fred Noteboom rr* To: Kathy Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca From:Margaret De Graff Re: "Pocket Park" Date: 21 March `06 Last fall I made an oral presentation to the Town Board regarding the naming of the proposed "Pocket Park" on the land purchased from the De Graff Family. I requested that the park be named, specifically honoring my parents, Homer and Helen De Graff. Other requests or suggestions have been made naming Eco Village in the park. The De Graff family concurs that both entities have a reasonable interest in naming the park. Therefore, we De Graff s suggest the name "De Graff Family-Eco Village Park". Alternatively, The Homer & Helen De Graff-Eco Village Park" is suggested. In 1988 Helen De Graff wrote a short article intended for the book One Day in Ithaca: May 17, 1988 edited by Carol Kammen, a copy of which is -- attached. The article eloquently articulates Dad's foresight and suggests why we as a family, wish to honor our parents in this way. As the owner of the only remaining De Graff property on West Hill, I would be pleased to appear again before the Town Board as you proceed in naming the park. Margaret H. De Graff 122 West Haven Road Ithaca, NY 14850 - - - 607-273-1655 L2r 44 1 ATTEST A man looking for a way to give his growing family a place to live forty years ago saw a farm on West Hill with possibilities. The farm had lost productivity through many years of declining farm prices and depleted soil, a great depression, a world war. Homer D eGraff found a way to purchase "West Hill Farm," once owned by Charles M. Titus, an Ithaca businessman. The farm should have been re- named "Bootstrap Farm," since the searching man brought it by bootstrap force from its unproductive state to a place today where more than fifty households have found home space, where trees and open fields have replaced the old orchards and rundown fields. The lights of Ithaca forty years ago clustered in the valley, today have spread to cover every hill. What was once an isolated farm at -the top of a long hill road is now a place filled with the light reflected from the myriad lights of the city. The sounds of forty years ago were, more than anything, the many-toned whistles of trains on the DL and Lehigh lines as they passed among the hills; today the hum of business and traffic is still faint, the occasional whistle of train merely a note in the undertone. The persistent fire horns are now stilled, only sirens rise from the valley. Our five children flourished in this natural environment, giving their own youth and energy to the growth of the old West Hill Farm. Their children have found the natural world of the hill equally enjoyable. And the following- generation will„know that joy in this little bit of Ithaca. --Helen M. DeGraff May 17 , 1988 Empire State Development .mss CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED March 22, 2006 Tee-Ann Hunter �IA R 29 2o06 Town of Ithaca Town Clerk 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Primet Precision Materials Capital Project, Public Hearing Dear Ms. Hunter: I am hereby transmitting, for filing in your office, the General Project Plan of the New York State Urban Development Corporation ("UDC"), doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation (the "Corporation"), together with the findings required pursuant to Sections 16-m and 1O(g) of the UDC Act, for the Primet Precision Materials Capital Project in Tompkins County. This material is being filed pursuant to Section 16(2) of the UDC Act. A public hearing, also required by the UDC Act, will be held by the Corporation at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850 on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 from 3.30 PM to 4:30 PM to consider the General Project Plan. Sincerely, Ji berry Project Manager sNQ% Empire State Development Corporation 633 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017-8167 Tel 212 803 3100 1. Primet Precision Materials Capital (8514) March 23, 2006 General Project Plan Grantee: Primet Precision Materials, Inc. Address: 1005 Hudson Street Extension Ithaca,NY 14850 Contact: Leonard Dolhert,President Phone: (607) 277-0700 Fax: (607) 277-1530 Project Location: Company facility,Tompkins County NYS Empire Zone (or equivalent): N/A Number of Employees at Facility: Initial employment(at time of ESD Incentive Offer): 0 Current employment level: 8 Minimum employment on January 1,2009: 30 ESD Investment: A grant of up to $75,000 to be used for a portion of the cost of the purchase of machinery and equipment. Project Team: Origination Robert Sweet Project Management Eva Bogaty Affirmative Action Denise Ross Environmental Soo Kang Project Completion: April 2006 Project Description: Background Primet Precision Materials, Inc. ("Primet"or the"Company')was founded on April 8,2002 in the state of Maryland as a privately owned, cutting-edge advanced materials company. Primet's unique,patent-pending technology allows for the manufacturing of small particles, including nano-sized particles,out of many diverse materials (including ceramics and metals). The advantages of Primet's proprietary technology are cost-effectiveness, scalabilty and high purity. The advanced materials business is currently a multi-billion dollar market with significant projected growth over the next few years. Market opportunities for Primet's small particle technology include fuel cell catalysts, catalysts in general,polymers and electronics. Examples of some of Primet's recent products include the production of a special compound for catalytic converters for automobiles to reduce pollution, lithium compounds for batteries Pn.p and a catalyst for fuel cells and for the hydrogenation of petrochemicals. Primet's major customers are: ExxonMobil; Corning;Ford Motor Company and the Department of Energy. Primet Precision Materials Capital (R514) March 23, 2006 Primet has recently been working with leading titanium dioxide(TiO2) producers around the world to implement its process in their production processes. The new process will result in improved TiO2 products (e.g. superior opacity) or new products (e.g. nano TiO2). Titanium dioxide can be used for advanced applications such as solar cells, fuel cells, catalysts, thermal spray coatings,photonic crystals,photocatalysts and traditional applications such as cosmetics,paints,plastics, paper, and pigments. Early in 2003, the founders of Primet began searching for a new location that would offer a well-educated work force and access to a major university with a strong nanotechnology program. The Company was choosing between State College, Pennsylvania and Ithaca, New York. Empire State Development's incentive offer of a$75,000 capital grant in August 2003 helped induce Primet to move operations to New York. The Project Primet signed a lease for a building in November 2003 and immediately began acquiring equipment for the manufacturing and research and development of Primet products. By July 2004,the facility was sufficiently operational to begin hiring personnel. To date,Primet has hired eight full-time employees. In January 2005,Primet accepted a venture capital infusion from two companies—Cayuga Venture Fund and Draper,Fisher,Jurvetson—that allowed the Company to continue with its equipment acquisition. The final order for laboratory equipment was made in January 2006,and the project will be complete with its delivery and installation in April 2006. Financing Uses Amount Financing Sources Amount Percent Machinery Acquisition $572,530 ESD Grant $75,000 10.9% Working Capital Costs 118,041 Com any Equity 100,000 14.5% Cayuga Venture Fund 257,786 37.3% Draper, Fisher,Jurvetson 257,785 37.3% Total Project Costs 1 $690,571 ITotal Project Financing 1 $690,5711 100.00/, Financial Terms and Conditions: 1. The Company shall pay a commitment fee of I% of the$75,000 grant($750)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 be obligated to advise ESD of a 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. 2 Primet Precision Materials Capital (8514) March 23, 2006 4. Prior to disbursement,the Company must employ at least the number of Full-time Permanent Employees set forth as the Baseline Employment in the table 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 $75,000 will be disbursed to Grantee upon documentation of a lease commitment at the Project Location and machinery and equipment project costs totaling$408,400,, assuming that all project approvals have been completed and funds are available. Payment will be made upon presentation to ESDC of an invoice and such other documentation as ESDC may reasonably require. Expenses must be incurred on or after August 27, 2003 to be considered eligible project costs. All disbursement requests for this project must be received by September 15, 2006. 6. ESD may reallocate the project funds to another form of assistance, at an amount no greater than$75,000, 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. 7. In consideration for the making of the Grant, Grantee will achieve the Employment Goals set forth in Column B of the table below. If the Full-time Permanent Employee Count for the year prior to the reporting date set forth in Column A of the table below is less than eighty-five percent(85%) of the Employment Goal set forth in Column B (an "Employment Shortfall'),then upon demand by ESDC, Grantee shall be obligated to repay to ESDC a portion of each disbursement of the Grant, as follows: The Recapture Amount is based on the time that has lapsed between when the Grant funds were disbursed and when the Employment Shortfall occurred. The Recapture Amount shall be calculated by aggregating the Recapture Amount for each disbursement of the Grant,which in each instance shall be equal to: (i) 100%of the disbursed amount if the Employment Shortfall occurred in the calendar year that the disbursement was made, or in the first full calendar year after the disbursement was made; (ii) 80%of the disbursed amount if the Employment Shortfall occurred in the second full calendar year after the disbursement was made; (iii) 60%of the disbursed amount if the Employment Shortfall occurred in the third 3 Primet Precision Materials Capital (8514) March 23, 2006 full calendar year after the disbursement was made; (iv) 40%of the disbursed amount if the Employment Shortfall occurred in the fourth full calendar year after the disbursement was made; (v) 20%of the disbursed amount if the Employment Shortfall occurred in the fifth full calendar year after the disbursement was made. 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. Baseline Employment 0 A B Reporting Date Employment Goals February 1,2007 0 February 1,2008 0 February 1,2009 30 February 1,2010 30 February 1,2011 30 Statutory Basis—Empire State Economic Development Fund: 1. The proiect would promote the economic health of New York State by facilitating the creation or retention of jobs or would increase activity within a municipalfty or region of the State or would enhance or help to maintain the economic viability of family farms. As a result of this project,the Company will create 30 new jobs that would otherwise have been located out of state. 2. The proiect would be unlikely to take place in New York State without the requested assistance. Without ESD assistance, this project would likely have been relocated from Maryland to Pennsylvania. As a result of ESD's grant,the Company chose to move its operations to New York State. 3. The project is reasonablyly to accomplish its stated objectives and the likely benefits of the project exceed costs. Evaluated over a seven-year period,project fiscal benefits to New York State government are expected to be $1,529,390, which exceed the cost to the State. 4 Primet Precision Materials Capital (8514) March 23, 2006 4. The project is undertaken in accordance with the memorandum of understanding executed in accordance with the enabling legislation. See cover memo. 5. The requirements of Section 10(g) of the Act are satisfied. See cover memo. 5 t p ' RICHARD P. RUSWICK ATTORNEY AT LAW 401 East State Street, Suite 306 Ithaca,New York 14850 www.ruswicklawoffice.com ruswick@clanica.com Voice: (607) 277-0110 Fax: (607)272-1123 March 22, 2006 Mr. William J. Leberman, Esq. One Lincoln Center 110 W. Fayette St., Suite 1110 Syracuse, NY 13202 Mr. Terry R. Pickard Bryne, Costello & Pickard 800 Mony Tower I Syracuse NY 13202-2721 Re: Lakeside Nursing Home, Inc. Case # 03-63106 Gentleman: I now have had a chance to discuss this matter with the Ithaca City School District as well as the Town of Ithaca Town Board, and I think that everyone on this side of the issue is pretty much in agreement. No one wants to see the nursing home closed and the residents relocated. However, all the taxpayers should be treated fairly and equally. Everyone should pay their fair share of the taxes that are established by the governing bodies. Second, rather than talking about the total amount clue, we have to confine ourselves to negotiating the assessed value of the parcel. I believe this is required by New York law which allows governing bodies to compromise on assessments, but not on total taxes. Moreover, I don't see how the Court could possibly change the total of the tax due under §505 except by changing the assessed value. The byproduct of restriction is that some portions of the tax hills are not going to change. Parts of the tax bill, such as water and sewer, are not based on the assessed value of the property. Therefore, they are not going to change, no matter how low the Court may value the property. In looking at what might be a reasonable compromise on this issue, I started with the original assessments. You're questioning the tax years in which the assessments were $7,800,000 and$7,350,000. That is obviously the high end of the negotiating range. The court is not going to say the value was higher than what it was actually assessed at. ��� 10727.002 s Mr.William J. Leberman, Esq. Page 2 Mr.Terry R. Pickard, Esq. March 22,2006 Conversely, I believe that the bottom range of the assessment would be the $2,187,500 value given by the Harlan LaVine appraisal. I know that, in regard to the mortgage, you have made the argument that the property should not be valued as a nursing home and therefore, that the lower LaVine value of$983,000 should apply, but I don't think that argument has any weight in this situation. In a §505 motion, the court would be looking at the use of the land during the tax years being challenged, and that use was undoubtedly as a nursing home. Therefore, the LaVine opinion that the land would be worth $983,000 as an office building is totally irrelevant. Although the LaVine gives Lakeside a value of$2,187,500 as a nursing home, we are unable to agree with that figure for a number of reasons. I won't get into specifics, but the LaVine appraisal could be challenged on any one of a number of grounds. He makes assumptions about the optimal number of beds for the nursing home and then bases his value on this assumption. He also could be challenged on the comparables that he picked, or, when he looked at comparahles to calculate a per bed value, the way he sharply discounted the comparables for several reasons. Both the basis and the amount of those discounts could he challenged. Conversely, he didn't add any positive adjustments to Lakeside, even though he very well could have. Changes to any of these r„ assumptions could greatly change the appraised value. The Tompkins County assessment department has conducted its own review of the property. Based on that review, the current assessment for the property is $3,500,000. We believe that this is a closer value of the property than the value given by LaVine. This is not to say that the original assessments were wrong. Those original assessments were not pulled out of the air, and if challenged in a §505 motion, we would seek to uphold the original assessments. However, given that the current assessment is $3,500,000, we are comfortable in compromising the assessed value for the taxes in question to the $3,500,000 value, which is more than a 50%reduction from the original assessment. We believe this is a fair and very reasonable offer. As stated above, changing the assessed value does not result in a evenly proportional reduction in taxes. If you agree to the $3,500,000 assessment, I would have the County rerun the calculations to give us the exact figure as owed on the date of the petition. However, in the meantime, my quick calculations show that the taxes would he reduced to approximately $425,000 as of the filing of the petition and I think we could use this as an approximation. The amount actually paid to the County would have to include interest to the date of payment. I also have to condition this offer. We do not want the taxes to be rolled over and 10727.002 i w Mr.William J. Leherman, Esq. Page 3 Mr.Terry R. Pickard,Esq. March 22,2006 paid over time. There is just too great a risk that if that is allowed, there will be a post- confirmation default and we'll just be in exactly the same situation that we were in prior to the bankruptcy filing. Therefore, we want the back taxes paid.off. Consequently, our offer to reduce the taxes is conditioned on the Plan being changed so that the taxes are paid in full on the effective date of the Plan. Of course, it probably goes without saying that this suggested assessed value would only apply to the 2000, 2001 and 2002 taxes which have not been paid. It would not serve to readjust the taxes for any other years, or for any taxes that have been already been paid. I also have to warn you that I was not given any leeway to negotiate this matter. If you offer a counter-proposal on the assessed value, I would have to take it hack to the various governing bodies before I could get hack to you. The Town Board for the Town of Ithaca does not meet that often, so malting proposals and counter-proposals is going to he very time consuming. Moreover, these hoards have heard all the arguments that I knew of already, and this is the lowest figure that they would authorize me to offer. Therefore, there is no assurance that any counter-proposal would he accepted. I don't think I have to tell you what would happen if we can't agree on the assessed value, but there is one point I want to clarify. Your current Plan and Disclosure Statement assert that the County is not impaired under the Plan. I believe that is incorrect. The County is impaired by your proposal. You may want to read Judge Gerling's decision in Onondage Plaza Maintenance Co., Inc. dated September 10, 1998, which is on all-fours with this issue. (I don't know if the case is reported, but it can be retrieved from the court's wehsite The case number was 96-62930). Therefore, if the County votes "no", the viability of your Plan rests on its meeting the cram-down requirements of S 1129. This would require the Plan to be fair and equitable and non- discriminatory, as well as meeting the indubitable equivalency test. Franldy, I think your Plan is vulnerable on all three points. Therefore, I urge your client to give our proposal a very hard consideration. Finally, I have to correct an error that I made in my objections to your Disclosure Statement. In paragraph 5 of my Objections, I take issue with the assessed value that you had listed for the three different tax years in questions. However, you were right and I am wrong. The assessment was $7,350,000 in 2000 and$7,800,000 in 2001 and 2002. Therefore, please ignore that ohjection. �� 10727-002 Mr.William J. Leberman, Esq. Page 4 Mr. Terry R. Pickard,Esq. march 22,2006 Please review this proposal with your clients and let xne know of their response. Sincerely, FO�Pa Richard P. Ruswick Richard Ruswick ecc: Mr. Jonathan Wood, Esq. Mr. David Squires Ms. Susan H. Brock, Esq. Ms. Kathleen Bennet, Esq. 10727.002 \ Jonathan Kanter _Mm: kborgelia@tompkins-co.org nt: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:58 AM To: Jonathan Kanter Subject: RE: Walkability Study NE 344-1 1—M Attachment NEMapl.pdf Attachment NE recruiting Attachment 3-22 scope informationAxt information..txt steering corn mem., information..txt walkability.doc Hi Jon, Based in large part to your recommendations on the boundary for the Northeast Ithaca walkability study area a couple of weeks ago, we've decided to go with the area west of Triphammer and north of Hanshaw. I've already contacted the Mayor of Cayuga Heights and he's looking for a volunteer from CH that would be willing to be on a steering committee for this project. He was a bit doubtful that he could even find one volunteer, so I don't think he'd lobby for more reps from the Village. Would you (and perhaps Cathy, if she has the time) think about others who might be good to sit on the steering committee? I was thinking of something along the lines of 2 residents of that area of the Town (preferably at least one with school aged children) , I resident of Cayuga Heights, 1 Town Board or Planning Board member, 1 Town Planner (you?) , a representative from Northeast Elementary School, and possibly a business owner in Community Corners, although I'm very much open to other ideas. I'm attaching a description of the project and what a steering committee member mould be asked to do, as well as a map of the study area. We're looking at having e first steering committee meeting in May or June. Also, find attached the sce~;e of services I 've negotiated with Stantec. If you see any problems with clease le_ Fe kno)w P.SiIP, as the contract is not yet finalized. thanks, Katie On 8 Mar 2006 at 12:50, Jonathan Kanter wrote: > Hi, Katie: > I think that I would recommend either Option 1 or Option 3 that you > outlined below. Option 2 would be kind of a strange and perhaps awkward > boundary to work with. Option 3 would be more logical, but it would be > a larger area, with more people to deal with. Option I would be the > easiest_ to work with {smaller area and only one municipality, but it > does the drawback of somewhat artificially/ splitting the > "neig:.,.}._)rhood" because of the Village/Town lin-_ las municipal boundaries > do to-.d to do) . Summary: Option 3 probably mal:Es the most sense, if it > can be done in a way that fits in with the fir:_.ncial and time scope of > the project. If it doesn't, then the fallbacr_ would be Option 1. > [Note: A decision on the above probably will also have implications for > setting up the steering committee. ] Let me know if you want to discuss this further. > Jon I > -----Original Message----- • From: kborgella@tompkins-co.org (mailto:kborgella@tompkins-co.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:38 PM > To: Jonathan Kanter; fdearagon@tompkins-co.org > Cc: jjurkowich@tompkins-co.org; emarx@tompkins-co.org > Subject: Walkability Study NE > Hi Jon and Fernando, > I'm working on a scope of services to hire Stantec to do the walkability > studies in > the Town's Northeast area and the Village of T-burg. As part of the > contract, I'd > like to define the boundaries of the study areas (actually, since T-burg > is going to > the be defined as the village boundary, it's just NE that needs some > thought at > this point) . This would be to define the target area to design a > walkability survey > to help residents identify how safe and easy it is for them to walk in > the study > area. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the attached map of the Northeast > Study > Area, and the following options: > 1) Use the boundary shown in red on the map, basically the area in the > Town > located to the north of Hanshaw Rd. and bounded by municipal boundaries. > The > thinking being that the study area would focus on a suburban > neighborhood with > several schools in the study area and commercial, health care, and n > recreational _ > (Lab of 0) just outside the study area. > 2) Expand the boundary to include the area within Cayuga Heights that > goes to > the Northeast Elem School (I think I have the correct district boundary > here, but > would need to verify) - that's the area bounded by Triphammer - Winthrop > Drive - > Village of Lansing municipal boundary. Same reasoning as above, but > include > entire elementary school area. Complexity added to the project by > adding > another municipality, however. > 3) Expand the boundary to include the entire area from Triphammer to > the > Village of Lansing line. Reason for adding would be to capture #2 > above, as well > as the community corners retail and commercial area. > I'd like to get the scope (and these maps) to the consultant by the end > of the day > tomorrow (Weds) , if possible, so if you could get me comments by then, > it'd be > ideal. > > Once we define the study area, I'll be picking your brains again for > people you > think would be good to be on a steering committee, so be warned, that > email is > coming soon! 2 > thanks, > Katie > Katherine Borgella > Principal Planner, Tompkins County Planning Dept. > 121 East Court Street > Ithaca, NY 14850 > Ph: (607) 274-5560, Fax: (607) 274-5578 > kborgella@tompkins-co.org Katherine Borgella Principal Planner, Tompkins County Planning Dept. 121 East Court Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph: (607) 274-5560, Fax: (607) 274-5578 kborgella@tompkins-co.org 3 ,Oft-, Walkability study Northeast Ithaca The walkability of a community affects access to resources, housing, entertainment, and employment. It can also influence the health of residents, as well as community interaction, cohesion and sense of community identity. Many factors, ranging from lack of sidewalks to steep terrain can impact the walkability of a community. Despite the diversity of factors that influence walkability, it is often defined only in terms of distance from point A to point B. This study will attempt to identify and quantify both overarching and location-specific issues that could be addressed to improve a community's walkability. It is intended that the Walkability Study undertaken with federal Transportation,Community and Systems Preservation Program(TCSP)grant funds will serve as a pilot study for other communities that may wish to better understand walkability in their communities in the future. The Northeast Ithaca Walkability Study will focus on the area within the Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights that is located to the east of Triphammer Road and north of Hanshaw Road. The study will provide specific recommendations to improve and enhance pedestrian access to important destinations, such as schools, shopping,employment,and health centers. The study consists of six main tasks: Task 1: Review Plans and Proposals Task 2: Develop a Site Specific Resident-Based Survey Tool Task 3: Develop a GIS Inventory and Assessment Tool Task 4: Conduct Walking Survey Task 5: Develop Results and Recommendations for the Study Area �,..� Task 6: Prepare Report and Disseminate Results Stantec, a consulting architecture and engineering, planning and landscape architectural firm, has been hired to conduct the study, under the guidance of the Tompkins County Planning Department and a Steering Committee composed of local stakeholders. It is anticipated that the Steering Committee will meet three times between June 2006 and January 2007, though members may be asked to occasionally review and comment on materials between meeting times. Input and guidance from the Committee will be crucial to the success of the project. Topics expected to come before the Committee include: 1) Identify walkability issues in the area, as well as important local plans and proposals for the consultants to review. 2) Identify important destinations just outside the study area that residents in the study area may want to walk to. 3) Review and modify a survey tool developed by the consultants for individuals, community associations, and groups of residents to use to evaluate the walkability of the area. 4) Plan the best methods to engage the local community in the project. 5) Review the results of an evaluation of the pedestrian environment based on computer maps of the area and Geographic Information System analysis. 6) Review the methodology developed by the consultants for recording and analyzing the results of the survey tool after it is completed. 7) Advise the consultants' on effective ways to reach the public to plan and implement the walking survey(expected timeframe for conducting the survey is August—October). 8) Review the consultants' draft recommendations for changes to the pedestrian network and environment prior to holding a public meeting on the study. 11 OWN ROAD EXT UPTOWN ' 4 0 > z Qa w ➢pie z clav ROAD m UPTOWN ai SHEARATON 4 ------- .-----------------= - - - -S - - - ---. - ARROWOOD DRIVE LU z (LOAD D LEXINGTON v 0 O co `i A It a I VE z 0- o f m p z n n z z 0 \� Z z z 9 r I' n 0 /Hl b J Gii m z V DEERPIEL PLA � A SOA m �Ft4Vli he Q � T DRIVE WINTHROP OSE HIL ROAD c O 00 II A LL m C7 -A DROVE z w z m o SIMSBURvI P DRIVE o o SANCTUARY 1 LAN r6- p E V)i DRIVE iVEAD 1 cS CHRISTOPHER m LANE a O �V�N LONE l p m n DRIVE BIRCHWOOD D� \�0 SAIq, A > U rr I BARD 10 LISP P > m C�T�F Cn �OPHE� ~ SYCAMORE D �' —I > z R/ O ROCKY z -Z �F z M Or7l �'/ m LANE 3 OR Y APLEWOOD D 0 L STREET F T 0 p O M{ RL m w J BIRCHWOOD DRIV z < �c a co I 20 Ny�NSy a o g I _?w Y ROAD _ -- — ---- 1 HANSHAW Z t 4 ; I - C�1 r s ROAT b STREET G� I O u r0 O I z o r ° 1 DON m r Ff'P v it rrnn i Map 1 : Northeast Ithaca — — j Study Area Boundary 1,000 500 0 1,000 2,000 3.000 Feet r M Prepared by Tompkins County Planning Department March 2006 walkabibl yNEMa p 1.mxd R ,•1 Walkability Assessment Methodology and Case Studies March 22,2006 Revised Draft Scope of Services It is intended that the Walkability Studies undertaken with the federal Transportation, Community and Systems Preservation Program(TCSP)grant funds will serve as pilot studies for other communities that may wish to better understand walkability in their communities in the future.With that goal in mind, two disparate areas of the County will be approached to pursue such a study. One area is Northeast Ithaca,were the study will provide recommendations for pedestrian access to important destinations,such as schools,shopping,employment,and health centers.The second geographic area is the Village of Trumansburg,which has been working for many years to improve its Main Street central business district, including improved streetscapes and pedestrian facilities.The Trumansburg Walkability Study will review pedestrian connections from surrounding neighborhoods to the central business district,as well as the connections to the proposed Black Diamond Trail. Task 1: Review Plans and Proposals Timeframe: April-May 2006 • The Stantec Team will familiarize themselves with the near-term and long-terms plans for the Northeast Area and the Village of Trumansburg(study area boundaries are identified on the attached Map 1:Northeast Ithaca,and Map 2: Village of Trumansburg). This task will include identifying important destinations just outside the study areas that residents in the study areas may want to walk to,such as the medical offices in the Village of Lansing and the Trumansburg Fairgrounds in the Town of Ulysses. Task 2: Develop a Site Specific Resident-Based Survey Tool Timeframe: May-June 2006 • The Stantec Team will develop a survey tool to evaluate the walkability of an area.The survey will be designed to be easy to use by individuals,community associations,and groups of residents.The survey will also be designed for use along a specific route to identify barriers to pedestrian use and opportunities to enhance the pedestrian experience. • The Stantec Team will work closely with the steering committees to: 1)identify walkability issues in each area,as well as important local plans and proposals for the Stantec Team to review, 2)review from Task 1 the important destinations just outside the study areas that residents in the study area may want to walk to,3)prepare and modify the survey tool,and 4)plan the best methods to engage the public in the project in each of the communities. Steering Committees— 1' meetings with Stantec Team. Task 3: Develop a GIS Inventory and Assessment Tool Timeframe: July-August 2006 • The Stantec Team will utilize available GIS data from Tompkins County,Town of Ithaca,Village of Trumansburg,and NY State to evaluate the pedestrian environment in the study areas. • Any unavailable data identified as necessary to support the resident-based survey tool will be developed by the Stantec Team. • The Stantec Teams will develop a methodology for recording and analyzing the results of the survey tool. • The Stantec Team will work closely with the steering committees to evaluate the pedestrian environments and develop the methodology for recording and analyzing the results of the survey tool. Steering Committees—review materials via emails or at meetings,at discretion of Stantec Team and availability of members. P"� r Vital Communities Initiative: Implementation Strategies Task 4: Conduct Walking Survey Timeframe: August—October 2006 • Building on work done with the steering committees in Task 2,the Stantec Team will work closely with the steering committees to plan and implement the best methods to engage the public in the walking survey. Steering Committees—2nd meetings with Stantec Team prior to conducting surveys. • The Stantec Team will provide the steering committees with outreach material(press releases, fliers) in order to promote participation in the walking surveys in the two communities. • The Stantec Team will hold meetings with interested members of the general public in each community to discuss how to participate in the survey and how to complete the survey form. • Using the resident-based survey tool and the GIS inventory and assessment tool,the Stantec Team will work with local residents to conduct a pedestrian walkability study in each the study areas. • The Stantec Team will modify the tools as appropriate,based on the results of the walking survey. Task 5: Develop Results and Recommendations for Each Study Area Timeframe: Nov 2006—Jan 2007 • The Stantec Team will develop draft recommendations for changes to the pedestrian network and environment. • The Stantec Team will review the results of the walking surveys and draft recommendations for changes with elected officials,transportation specialists,municipal employees,and people who completed the survey in order to elicit input for developing recommendations for changes to the pedestrian network and environment. • The Stantec Team will revise the recommendations for changes to the pedestrian network and environment and will submit the recommendations to the steering committees for their review and input. Steering Committees—3 meetings with Stantec Team. • The Stantec Team will organize at least two public meetings(one in each community)to present the results of the surveys and GIS assessment and the final draft recommendations for changes to the pedestrian network and environment. The Stantec Team will provide the County with press releases and any other necessary outreach materials in order to publicize the meetings. Task 6: Prepare Report and Disseminate Results Timeframe: February 2007 • The Stantec Team will revise the recommendations as necessary following the public meetings and discuss any changes with the steering committees. • The Stantec Team will prepare a draft final report on the findings,methodology, lessons learned, and advice on methods to evaluate the effectiveness of pedestrian improvement projects in the future and submit it to the County Planning staff for final review. • The Stantec Team will revise the report as necessary based on staff input,with the comments consolidated by Tompkins County,and prepare the final report. • The Stantec Team will provide the County with up to 10 bound copies of the final report, including applicable maps and graphics, and provide the County with the electronic version on CD. • The Stantec Team will disseminate the results of the program to the community, including print and digital versions of any tools developed for this project. • The project deliverables will conform to, and be delivered in,the following three digital standards: A) GIS Data Standards and Protocol �'•'1 o The standard geo-referencing format for Tompkins County digital spatial data is New York State Plane Central coordinate grid system in feet,based on the 1983 North American TCSP Strategic Initiative: PIN: 375402 Page 2 of 3 Vital Communities Initiative: Implementation Strategies ,.. Datum and GRS80 Spheroid. o The standard software file format for spatial data is ESRI's ArcGIS format(vector or raster)geodatabase layer. The County's preference is to receive digital data products in the standard geo-referenced file formats. If it is not possible for the consultant to provide the digital spatial data in the standard format,the County may accept the data as a geo- referenced CAD(.dxf, .dwg or.dgn)file,Arc/Info export(.e00)file,or ArcView shapefile (.shp). Export files from other GIS software packages may be acceptable, but must be pre- approved by the County.Other CAD drawing formats and non-geo-referenced files will not be accepted. o In addition,the contractor is required to submit FGDC compliant metadata for each spatial data set.The delivery format of all digital data products must be clearly defined in responses to Requests for Proposals and/or the final contract for services. Early in the project,the consultant must also review his or her proposed data structure, file format,geo- referencing standard and metadata content with the Tompkins County Planning Department and/or the GIS Division of the Information Technology Services Department to ensure that final digital data products will meet the Department's GIS requirements. o Existing County developed map and digital GIS data products can be made available to the contractor based on County data distribution standards and policy. o All County developed maps and data used by the consultant in any publications(project reports,proposals,maps,etc.) should be properly cited as such. o A digital version of each presentation map should be provided in Adobe Acrobat(.FDF)or encapsulated postscript(.EPS)file format. B) Database Standards and Protocol-Microsoft Excel or Access Q Digital Photo Standards and Protocol—TIF format TCSP Strategic Initiative:PIN: 375402 Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of 1 Tee Ann Hunter From: Plporter4@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:14 PM To: Cathy; pcsl@cornell.edu; willburbank@twcny.rr.com;jrc32@cornell.edu; hje1 @cornell.edu; sandra-gift@yahoo.com; pll7@cornell.edu; Tee Ann Hunter; sbrock@town.ithaca.ny.us; Fred Noteboom; Dan Walker; Jonathan Kanter; acarvel@town.ithaca.ny.us; Judy Drake Subject: Thank you Honorable Members of the Ithaca Town Board, THE NEIGHBORS OF ITHACA COLLEGE thank you for listening to our complaints and suggestions at the meeting on March 13,2006. We commend your timely establishment of a citizen/town committee to draft the local codes and ordinances for zoning, noise,nuisance behavior that will effect a positive change in our neighborhood. I refer to the last paragraph of our cover letter from March 13: " We surely don't need any more student housing off campus. Until the Town of Ithaca and Ithaca College make a commitment to successfully police off campus housing we suggest that a moratorium be placed on building permits new construction of any building that is not owner occupied in our neighborhood. No more rental properties should be added to the area. We suggest that the zoning of the properties that are already rentals be returned to the previous restrictions of no more than 3 unrelated people living in a unit." I'm glad to see that Dan Walker will be following up on occupancy complaints with a citation, but issuing a citation for occupancy offences without a fine has no clout. We recommend an immediate amendment that will provide for fines to the landlords who are not in compliance with the occupancy codes. Giving a landlord 30 days at the end of the semester probably means there will be no compliance this school term. Where as we are not in favor of evicting students during their semester, we don't want to send a message that it is OK for landlords to disregard the code. Landlords are signing leases now for next year. Thank you for your attention and action on these issues. NEIGHBORS OF ITHACA COLLEGE Sincerely, Patty Porter 3/27/2006 4Nr' o 1 11.7;// TOWN OF ITHACA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 pub1icworks@townJthaca.ny.us PHONE(607) 273-1656 Roads. Parks,Trails,Sewer,and Water FAX(607)272-6076 March 24, 2006 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 resolution number 2006-060 adopted March 13, 2006, and the County Superintendent of Highways of the County of Tompkins, hereby request the Department of Transportation, pursuant to Section 1622.1 of the ,r... Vehicle and Traffic Law, to establish a lower maximum speed at which vehicles may proceed on Game Farm Road, a Town road between Ellis Hollow Road and Dryden Road (Route 366). Please Note: On Game Farm Road there is a trail intersection, various ball fields owned by Cornell University with a large amount of pedestrian traffic. Upon receipt of the notice that the regulation herein requested has been established, the Town of Ithaca, 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: O L' 1 G� Town Clerk Dated: 6)uIltV SL]Perintelldellt Comments by County Superintendent TE 9a Copy: F. Noteboom and Town Board Correspondence TOMPKINS COUNTY HIGHWAY DIVISION : 170 Bostwicad,I0 thca, NY,14850 3 1 60 FAX607-272-8489 March 30, 2006 George A. Doucette, PE NYSDOT Regional Traffic Engineer 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Re: Speed Limit Request: Dear Mr. Doucette: Please find enclosed a request for a reduced speed limit on Game Farm Road, in the Town of Ithaca. The appropriate TE 9a and the supporting Resolution are submitted for your review and action. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can assist further in your determination. Sincerely, 13S/6­11 lilc•: C/1 :Speed Limit Requests Enclosures cc: 'Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca Fred Noteboom, Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent IQ Recycled paper Al Carvill From: Susan H. Brock [brock@clarityconnect.com] nt: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:53 PM Cathy; Al Carvill Subj>add w: Lakeside Cath See to below about Lakeside Nursing Home. I've asked Tee- the agenda for executive session so I can update the Town Susa This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect) or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. ----- Original Message ----- ,F,v,,om: "D. Ruswick" ¢Ruswick@danica.com> " 'Susan H. Brock'" <brock@clarityconnect.com> U_nt: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6 :52 PM Subject: RE: Lakeside Susan: I talked to the Lakeside attorney a couple of days ago. Lakeside refuses to give an inch. They are sticking with their proposal that the taxes to be paid should be reduced to no more than $200, 000 and that the taxes be paid over six years with 6% interest. I figure they are doing this for either one of two reasons. First, they think they have an iron-clad case. This is hard to imagine since our calculations show that even if the court accepts their valuation, the taxes will still be more than $200, 000 or 2) they don't have any more money to pay. David Squires thinks that the second explanation is the more accurate. In any event, it makes our choice clear. We' ll have to litigate the issue of the valuation and then just abide by whatever the court decides. Dick R. Richard P. Ruswick (jJD7) 277-0110 ruswicklawoffice.com 1 -----Original Message----- From: Susan H. Brock Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:26 AM To: Dick Ruswick 1060N=k, The Ithaca Town Board's next meeting is April 10. If you hear wnything before then from the attorneys in response to your letter, please let me know and I'll update the Board in executive session. Both Cathy Valentino and Al Carvill independently told me they think you did a great job on your letter. Susan This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect) or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. 2 4/4/06 Copy to D. Walker and Board Correspondence TOWN OF ULYSSES 10 Elm Street Trumansburg, NY 14886 20 APR (607) 387-5767 Fax 7-5843 March 31,2006 H.Michael Newman,Chairperson Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 1402 East Shore Drive Ithaca,New York 14850 Catherine Valentino,Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re:Water Services to Edward Evans-Ulysses Tax Parcel No. 31.-2-29 Dear Mike and Cathy, I understand that Mr.Evans has request that water service be provided to his parcel at 1101 Taughannock Boulevard,Town of Ulyssds,Tompkins County,New York from the existing Town of Ithaca main that was apparently erroneously extended approximately 150 feet into the Town of Ulysses along Taughannock Boulevard.At this time the Town of Ulysses does not have a water district which serves the Evans property.We understand that the Town of Ithaca is willing to provide public water to the property pursuant to a contract directly with Mr.Evans and that the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission will permit the Town of Ithaca to use water from the Bolton Point Plant for that purpose. John Barney,attorney for the Commission,and I have had a couple of conversations on this matter and I understand that the Commission and Town would like some indication as to the Town of Ulysses position regarding the above water service arrangements.The Town of Ulysses does not object to the Town of Ithaca supplying water by an individual agreement with the owner of the Evans property and,indeed,at this point would prefer that water service be so provided. If there is any further information required in connection with this application,please don't hesitate to get in touch with me. Veryly y s, o oug1 c�c 119 Town Supervisor xc: John C.Barney,Esq. Paul Tunison,General Manager-SCLIW ?am*, r �a-►, j pkC 115ti00. APR t 1 4 fw.VVv STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION THREE 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 www.dot.state.ny.us CARL F. FORD, P.E. THOMAS J. MADISON, JR. ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER April 5, 2006 Ms. Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca 170 Bostwick.Road Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: RE: REQUEST FOR LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON GAME FARM ROAD Thank you for your March 30 letter requesting a lower speed limit on Game Farm Road between Ellis Hollow Road and Route 366. 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 determination. Your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, DIANA L. GRASER, P.E. Acting Transportation System Operations Engineer cc: William Sczesny, Superintendent,Tompkins County C. Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Michael Koplinka-Loehr,Tompkins Legislator,District 11 Martha Robertson,Tompkins Legislator,District 13 SOPOCA 607/257-1822 Fax: 607/257-5470 b0 1640 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, New York 148 .'ONTI INS COUNTY www.spcaonline.com f' AN April 5, 2006 _ TeeAnn Hunter Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear TeeAnn Hunter: I don't know why you didn't get our original letter regarding the SPCA's decision to deliver expired dog license tickets through the post, but I apologize. A new copy is enclosed, along with further explanation of our reasons for making this decision. Since sending the letter, I've spoken with Marcia Georgia of Ulysses, among others, and she has agreed to invite me to the next municipal clerk's meeting so that I can field concerns. I am of course open to revising our position, and now regret not having such a meeting prior to the announcement. It seemed to be a matter of common sense to me. Obviously there may be factors of which I was not yet aware. I am still confident that this is a good decision for all parties, and look forward to explaining why at the meeting. If you wish to contact me prior to the meeting (Marcia has not yet informed me of the time or place), I'd be pleased to speak with you. Sincerely, r� Jeff Lydon Executive Director T h e S o c i e t y f o r t h e P r e ,, e n t i o n o f C r u e l t y t o A n i m a l s 4/07/2006 Board Correspondence Page I of l Tee Ann Hunter From: Tee Ann Hunter Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:44 AM To: Gail Kroll; Fred Noteboom Subject: FW: Town of Ithaca Website Feedback form -----Original Message----- From: chris jung [mailto:cjung@twcny.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:30 PM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Town of Ithaca Website Feedback form Hello, tried to send a message on your feedback website but when I hit submit, it brought up a blank email to your address. So I'm not sure if my message was submitted or not. My message was to the Public Works Department regarding storm water erosion problem in front of our house. Here's the message: Hello, We are homeowners at 111 Salem Drive. The last big rainfall (a couple of weeks ago)resulted in so much water that it overflowed the ditch in front of our house, went over our driveway and washed away a bit of the gravel on the south (down stream) side. More of the gravel subsided today and we can see that the wash-out edge is getting close to our car's path. In this situation (wash-out/erosion in the ditch/driveway), who is responsible for fixing the problem -Town of Ithaca or the homeowners ? I'm guessing that filling in the wash-out area (around the covert) with gravel is a suitable fix but I may be wrong. Thank you for any assistance in this matter. Chris Jung 111 Salem Drive 592-9985 cjung@twcny rr.com 4/7/2006 4/07/2006 Board Correspondence Tee Ann Hunter ^, rom: Tee Ann Hunter ,ent: Friday,April 07, 2006 8:46 AM To: Kristie Rice; Fred Noteboom; Gail Kroll Subject: FW: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm Hi guys, Could one of you please reply to this individual? Thanks, Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk -----Original Message----- From: webserver@clarityconnect.com [mailto:webserver@clarityconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:39 PM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm ************************************************************************ department: Public Works MessageType: Complaint Subject: My Property Subject0ther: Username: Connie Amici /*01,,iserstreet: 100 Alison St. or Dr. lsertown: Ithaca UserEmail: coned@msn.com UserTel: (607) 277-1943 UserFAX: B1: Submit Comments: Who can tell me the name of my street? When I moved here 3 yrs. ago you told me it was Alison St. You come and put up a street sign with Alison Dr. You send my town newsletter to Alison St. 1 e,�\Ns coy Fine IE911 aouce 72 BROWN ROADITHACA aasc.i� RHONE: (607) 257-3 ACA, 607) 257- ACA, NY 14850 ",`" FAX: (607) 257-231 Y RESeo� _ S DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY RFsPQNSE Lee Shurtleff, Director APA 7 2006 April 7, 2006 Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor - Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Cathy: I have today delivered applications for a zoning variance and planning site plan review to Jonathan Kantor for the proposed communications tower at Ithaca College, on behalf of Ithaca College, as applicant/landowner, and Tompkins County, as agent/tenant. I believe the documents fully detail and disclose our plans for the site. I appreciate your assistance in facilitating the process, and look forward to future collaboration. By this letter, I am requesting that the Town of Ithaca continue to waive fees related to this critical public safety initiative. I remain available to answer any questions or concerns that you or the various town entities may have. Yours sincerely, l fLZ�� Lee Shurtleff, Director Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response Cc: Steve Whicher Tim Joseph Richard Couture, Ithaca College zar.'vrtrt'c'ks ��,ERLFy�,6 1 s r , Coordination of Fire, Disaster and Einer,enc),Medical Services o �� „ <. Enhanced 911 and Public Safety Communications Page 1 of 1 - Carrie Whitmore From: Lars Dohnapt@lightlink.com] Sent: Monday, Ak►gnst—Zr, 9:21 PM `/l 0/�2 co To: Carrie Whitmore Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance I understand that you will be discussing a Noise Ordinance at your Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board this evening. I am not able to attend this meeting, and have only heard of the topic this afternoon. The City of Ithaca recently revised its Noise Ordinance. I believe that it is a reasonable model for you to consider when discussing your own version. The City ordinance recognizes that noise is generated by the resident of a property. The owner of the demised space is not and can not be held responsible for the behavior of the resident. While there is a contractual relationship between two adults, one of them can not be cited for violations ol'the second. Whether the behavior is civil or criminal. The perpetrator alone is responsible for her hehavior. Please consider the example of car rentals. If the driver is stopped for speeding, the o%\ner of the vehicle is not given a citation. If a domestic dispute is brought to court, the landlord is not involved in a family court proceeding. If a property has some life safety issue, such as faulty sprinkler system, he tenant is not cited for this negligence. There are two precedents \vhich you might consider which speak to the due process protections of the Constitution. 1. People v. Scott (26 NY 2d 286 [1970]) 2..Ben-Su-Si Realty-Corp. v. Wagner (72 NYS 2d 765 [Sup.Ct. Queens Co, 1947]) Recently, the Town of Dryden was considering an ordinance that might have cited property owners for numerous Police calls at a specific property. The idea was not pursued. The Landlords Association of Tompkins County considers our involvement as good citizens in our communities to be good business and responsible ethical behavior. However, we have no policing powers. We pay taxes to provide for police, and believe that they are responsible and trained to act in situations which might threaten the health and safety of ourselves or employees. Thank you for your consideration of my comments and please contact me if I can be of assistance in future. Larry Beck President Landlords Association of Tompkins County 4/10/2006 Lakeside Nursing Home Page 1 of I RE: LAKESIDE NURSING HOME PROPERTY TAX ISSUE Al Carvill From: Susan H. Brock [brock@clarityconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:08 PM To: Al Carvill; brock@clarityconnect.com. Cc: Cathy Subject: Re: Lakeside Nursing Home I talked to the attorney handling this for Tompkins County, Dick Ruswick, last week. Nothing has happened on the Lakeside tax issue and Lakeside hasn't yet filed papers requesting the reduction in taxes. I have a message in to Dick for more specifics so the Town can gauge whether anything is likely to affect the 2007 budget. Susan This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect)or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. Original Message ----- From: Al Carvill To: brock@clarityconnect.com.. Cc: Cathy Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:40 AM Subject: Lakeside Nursing Home Good Morning Susan, This is a good day! The sun is bright, the sky is blue and it is a wonderful fall crisp day. May it find you in the best of fall spirits. Since this is budget time, and this suit could have some consequence in the 2007 and/or future Town budgets I need to ask; have you heard anything regarding the status of the Lakeside Nursing Home suit pertaining to their action for reconsideration tax payments and assessments for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002? I would hate to see the Town get hit with an unexpected or unplanned tax settlement. Thanks, AI 11/9/2006 Page 1 of 1 RE: FRANCHISE TAX REVENUE - TIME WARNER Al Carvill - From: Mike Caton - Computel Consultants [mcaton@computel-consultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:43 AM To: Al Carvill Subject: Time Warner Franchise Fee Underpayment Al: I just wanted to touch base with you on the Time Warner Case. We continue to pursue a satisfactory settlement for all of our municipal clients. The PSC has given us a copy of a July 31, 2006 status report they received from Time Warner. In that report, Time Warner states that they have discussed the matter with Supervisor Valentino and followed that up with a letter to her. From what we've seen of Time Warner's communications with some of our other clients, we doubt that they provided the Town with a complete and accurate picture of the situation. We are in the process of getting detailed information from Time Warner regarding settlement offer specifics - including such things as refund calculations, time period covered, interest rate applied, and pass through impact on subscribers. In order to help us best represent your interests, I wanted to ask whether Time Warner's statement to the PSC is accurate and also whether the Town has taken any action on Time Warner's proposal - even if that action was to tell them to contact our office regarding the matter. _„Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you. Mike Michael T. Caton Partner Computel Consultants P.O. Box 35 Earlville, NY 13332 (800) 724-9859 www.computel-consultants.com 11/9/2006 4/18 copy: Town Board, F. Noteboom - { IN J�la .✓ £a,CL'L YSOVi A I STATE, OF NEW YORK A7 EST _ ~� I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i-r14 r-Af( V tl (fI—E6K-- REGION K —REGION THREE 333 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 www.dot.state.ny.Lis CARL F. FORD, P.E. THOMAS J. MADISON, JR. ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER April 14, 2006 Ms. Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk,Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: RE: REQUEST FOR A LOWER SPEED LIMIT ON GAME FARM ROAD This is a further response to your March 30 letter requesting a lower speed limit on Game Farm Road between Ellis Hollow Road and Route 366. Our traffic engineers have completed their review of this location. Our review indicated that the existing roadside development and highway characteristics justify retaining the existiing speed limit. Based on these findings we have determined that a reduction of the speed limit would not be appropriate at this time. Your interest in this matter has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, DIANA L. ERASER, P. E. Acting Transportation System Operations Engineer cc: W. Sczesn}, Superintendent,Tompkins County Highway Department C.Valentino, Supervisor,Town of Ithaca M. Koplinka-Loehr, County Legislator, 11 th District M. Robertson, County Legislator, 131 District 223 Rachel Carson Way Ithaca,NY 14850 Tel 607-272-1987 I iIt Email: francisAecovillage.ithaca.ny.us Rfi 17C Cathy Valentino, Supervisor _ Town of Ithaca `.A77EST� 215 N Tioga St ', * n�`° �`�"��I ! - `� Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Cathy, I am writing to you at the suggestion of Dwight Mengel from TCAT, in regard to a bus shelter we at the Ecovillage at Ithaca Village Association have recently built at the comer of Rt.79 and Rachel Carson Way. It is our intention to receive Federal fund reimbursement to cover part of the cost of building the shelter. In order to do so, the local government in the vicinity must take ownership of the structure (though not the land on which it is built). Dwight informs me that the Town has already taken from TCAT some other shelters for similar reasons. We are currently putting a few finishing touches on the structure. I will contact you again once these steps are completed. Please feel free to contact me in the meantime if there are additional steps we should be taking. Th fou, /Francis Vanek village at Ithaca Page 1 of 1 Al Carvill TIME WARNER CABLE � From: Thomas Caton [computel@citlink.net] FRANCHISE TAX Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:06 AMTo: AI Carvill Subject: RE: Time Warner Franchise Fee Audit Al,your complaint has been at the PSC since October 2005. We've been told that the PSC staff is evaluating the appropriate next steps to resolving your complaint, as well as approximately forty others that are similarly situated. At this point, we have no sense of a timeframe other than to say that the pace of PSC action is normally tediously slow. However,we have been led to believe that they are sympathetic to the issues. I don't think we can read anything into it other than recognizing that they're not normally encumbered by a sense of urgency. Tom Caton From: AI Carvill [mailto:ACarvill@town.ithaca.ny.us] Sent: Monday,April 17, 2006 3:32 PM To: Thomas Caton Subject: RE: Time Warner Franchise Fee Audit Tom: Almost a year has past since our last communication. I assume at this juncture that any potential repayment of underpaid franchise fees is not going to happen? AI -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Caton [mailto:computel@citlink.net] Sent: Wednesday,June 15, 2005 8:37 AM To: Al Carvill Subject:Time Warner Franchise Fee Audit Al: I left a phone message, but I'm not sure it reached you. We've received the Time Warner data for 1998 through 2004 and have identified excluded revenue that we plan to question. For the period under the current franchise agreement(5/29/03 forward)the franchise fee pass-through revenue,shown as $117,212.48,was excluded from gross revenue in the fee calculation. This violates the PSC Order Approving Renewal for the current franchise.The underpayment would be approximately$3516 plus 9% interest annually(provided for in the franchise agreement). For the preceeding franchise agreement, franchise fees are also excluded,as are a few other revenue line items that we would like to investigate. However,we do not have a copy of the`old"franchise agreement(prior to 5/29/03). If you or someone on staff could locate the old agreement and forward a copy,we'll verify those items against the agreement language. Thanks. Tom Thomas J. Caton Partner Computel Consultants PO Box 35 Earlville, NY 13332 [315]6914310 [315]691-4311 FAX 11/28/2006 Y� Cath From: Susan Riha [sjr4@cornell.eduj . a: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:27 PM Cathy Cc: PUB LICWORKS@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US; vib23@cornell.edu; aeaglesh@twcny.rr.com; jung_david_r@yahoo.com;jmm47@cornell.edu; afgates@hotmail.com; sjr4@cornell.edu Subject: Pettition to Address Drainage Problem Cat'.-:v Valentino To,,,: Supe::-.-isor Town of Iti:aca, NY CVALENTINO@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US Dear Ms. Valentino: We are homeowners who are writing to petition the town to address the water drainage problem on the south side of Maplewood Drive and the contiguous east side of Salem Drive. Water has been running through the storm water drainage ditch on the south side of Maplewood Drive continuously, year round for the past several years . It is our understanding this ditch was designed to handle storm water runoff, not be a permanent drainage course. This was the case until several years ago, when essentially all the water draining from the east was routed through this one ditch on the south side of Maplewood Drive and then the east side of Salem Drive, except after storm events that cause water to reach very high levels, at which point the excess water is distributed to other ditches. Thus the other ditches on Birchwood, Sycamore and Maplewood appear to be operating in a manner for which they were signed, whereas as our ditch is not. :..is change in use of the ditch is presenting a number of problems. 1) Some of the driveways are sinking as the ground below the culverts is permanently wet. The structures anchoring the culverts are shifting and eroding. This, and the large increase in volume of water moving down the ditch is causing further eroding of the ditch. If the town does not address this issue soon, several of the homeowners will have to incur major expenses to repair damage to their driveways . The residents of 107 Salem have already incurred this expense. 2)As the ditch is permanently wet and steep, it is a hazard to small children in the neighborhood. 3)The permanently wet and steep nature of the ditch along Maplewood also means it is no longer possible to maintain it as part of the landscape, thus creating an eyesore. We are requesting that the town address this problem as soon as possible. The Town of Ithaca Highway Department Superintendent is aware of the problem and agrees that it needs to be addressed. We think one acceptable solution would be for the town to install an appropriate piped drainage system along the entire south side of Maplewood, as well the east side of Salem and then cover these pipes with fill. We are open to discussing appropriate solutions further with the highway department and engineer. Given the change in use of the ditches, we think the town should not charge homeowners for work or materials required to address this problem_ Thank you for considering this petition. 1000"N' +cerely, Susan Riha and Jeff Melkonian, 109 Maplewood Drive sjr4@cornell.edu 257-0752 I Vicki Bogan and John Saunders, 103 Maplewood Drive vlb23@cornell.edu 257-0944 t?00*-bara and Allan Eaglesham, 106 Pinewood Drive Aglesh@twcny.rr.com 257-0770 Dave and Chris Jung, 111 Salem Drive jung_david—r@yahoo.com 592-9985 Dick and June Haynor, 107 Salem Drive jmm47@cornell.edu 257-5677 Brady and Ainsley Nunley, 111 Maplewood Drive afgates@hotmail.com r� 2 Page 1 of 1 Cathy From: CFSchmitt@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:07 PM To: Cathy Subject: noise ordinance comment Hi Cathy, always admire how well you run our town! just have a comment about the noise ordinance. I understand the need to control noise problems and the impact of student parties on residential neighborhoods. As a local landlord, my concern is that the responsibility for each individual's actions rest on that particular person, and not on their landlord. Please make it clear to students, or any tenant, that they are accountable for their behavior. As you revisit this ordinance, take care that additional blame and burdens are not passed on to landlords and that each citizen is directly responsible for his own behavior. Thanks, Carol Schmitt lowN 4/20/2006 Page 1 of 5 Cathy From: Elizabeth Fontana [eaf3@cornell.edu] Sent: Tuesday,April 25, 2006 12:26 PM To: Cathy; PUBLICWORKS@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US; Gene Redman Cc: Denise M. Stover; Lisa McCutcheon; Neil Belcher; Abigail C Cohn; Lauren Comly; Randi Kepecs; Susan M Barnett; Abigail C Cohn; mmestill@gmail.com; eflash@twcny.rr.com; angejung@hotmail.com; Rehana Huq; mkornr@aol.com; Jian Tan; Lisa Jervey Lennox; Rebecca Joyce Stoltzfus; patti@nozell.com; erambeau@gmaiI.com; dfs@cornell,edu; Dawn \ Ellen Schrader; mikeormarg@hotmail.com; eva@cs.cornell.edu; miajsl23@yahoo.com; djmahoney@verizon.net; rabbmari@yahoo.com; theuhligs@hotmail.com; Stephen A Fontana; clerk@cayuga-heights.ny.us; klansing@cayuga-heights.ny.us;jeaton@cayuga- heights.ny.usJames John Bisogni Jr; mayor@cityofithaca.org; laurens@cityofithaca.org; liftonb@assembly.state.ny.us; seward@senate.state.ny.us; winner@senate.state.ny.us; nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us;jusily@aol.com; met24@cornell.edu; theuhligs@hotmail.com; youngmi@twcny.rr.com; Cayuga HeightsPTA@yahoogroups.com; Tom Frank; bcross@cayuga- heights.ny.us Subject: Re: Ithaca City School District"Courtesy" Bus and Child Safety Zones Importance: High Dear Cathy Valentino, Fred Noteboom, and Gene Redman, As one of a large group of concerned parents, I am contacting you to share our concerns about the ICSD plan to eliminate "courtesy" bus transportation between Cayuga Heights and Boynton Middle School , ., and Ithaca High School. Given that there are no sidewalks, narrow or no shoulders, and blind curves on Khine Road and Wyckoff Road, we would appreciate it if you would review the conditions along those roads and advise usudith Pastel, and the ICSD Board of Education as to how safe you believe it is for children to walk to school on those roads. Sincerely, Beth Fontana 315 The Parkway Ph: 257-5088, 351-8941 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:25:22 -0400 To: Tom Frank <tfrankcutwcna.rr.com> From: Elizabeth Fontana <cah �tcornell.edu> Subject: Re: Ithaca City School District "Courtesy" Bus and Child Safety Zones Cc: "Denise M. Stover" <dmstover@twcny.rr.com>, Lisa McCutcheon <mclisa@twcny.rr.com>, Neil Belcher<nfbl@comell.edu>, Abigail C Cohn <acc4@cornell.edu>, Lauren Comfy<lauren�comly@yahoo.com>, Randi Kepecs <rkl6@comell.edu>, Susan M Barnett<smbl l@comell.edu>, Abigail C Cohn <acc4@cornell.edu>, <mmestill@gmail.com>, <eflash@twcny.rr.com>, <angejung(q%hotmail.com>, Rehana Huq <rh24@cornell.edu>, <mkornr@aol.com>, Jian Tan <jt75((i cornell.edu>, Lisa Jervey Lennox <lj127 )corncll.edu>, Rebecca Joyce Stoltzfus <rjs62(i;cornell.edu>, <p,,itti(r�nozell.com>, <erambeau@gmail.com>, <dfs@comell.cdu>, Dawn Ellen Sclinider<desl4@cornell.edu>, " <mikeormarg(i)hotmail.com>, <eva(ii;cs.cornell.edu>, <miajsl23@yahoo.com>, <djmahoney6c?,verizon.net>, <rabbmari(a)yahoo.com>, <theuhligs@hotmail.com>, Stephen A Fontana<sa125@comell.edu>, mayor@y)cayuga-heights.ny.us, clerk@cayuga- 4/25/2006 Page 2 of 5 heights.ny.us,klansing@cayuga-heights.ny.us,jeaton@cayuga-heights.ny.usJames John Bisogni Jr<jjb2@cornell.edu>, mayor@cityofithaca.org, laurens@cityofithaca.org, sherman@cityofithaca.org, liftonb@ assembly.state.ny.us, seward@senate.state.ny.us, winner@senate.state.ny.us, nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us,jusily@aol.com, mct24, <theuhligs@hotmail.com>, <youngmi@twcny.rr.com>, CayugaHeightsPTA@yahoogroups.com Tom, Thanks very much for taking the time to fill us in on the background re: this issue. As is anything related to State law and education policy, it is much more complicated than any of us would imagine. Here is another State Ed website with more details: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/schoolbusBus nessOff cia_l/htm/Pa.rt 191 Child Safety_Zones.html It just boggles my mind that school district administrators and BOE members must wade through such technicalities when a simple walk along the routes our children would be expected to travel to school should be enough to convince anyone whether the route is safe or not. Since you have clearly stated that this isn't a funding issue for the BOE and most board members share our concerns, it appears that we parents need to focus our efforts on doing whatever we can to aid the district in addressing the safety issue in a timely manner. It seems to me that we should also be calling upon local police and our representatives in NYS and local gov't to address the issue of mandated public school transportation policy. To that end, I am copying this message to Walter Lynn,Norma Manning, Ken Lansing, Jean Eaton, and village trustee Jim Bisogni (please forward to other trustees!); Carolyn Peterson, Dan Hoffman, and Lauren Signer; Barbara Lifton, Jim Seward,Michael Nozzolio, and George Winner. I know the other parents copied on this message will share my hope that these government officials will step forward to aid us in this endeavor. Sincerely, Beth Fontana 315 The Parkway Ithaca,NY 14850 Ph: 607-257-5088; 351-8941 At 07:31 PM 4/24/2006, Tom Frank wrote: Hi Beth and All: Thank you for sending me your concerns about the courtesy runs. As I hope you all know, I don't speak for the Board but I will provide you with my sense of where things stand and what the Board and District are doing. The District and the Board are investigating this issue currently. Since Deborah O'Connor and I first raised concerns about this(not living in Cayuga Hts. Deborah went and drove the routes you described below and reported to the Board about the lack of sidewalks, lights etc. Since I grew up in C. Hts and for six years actually walked those routes to Boynton and IHS, I already knew the situation; there were fewer sidewalks then and even today I could show 4/25/2006 Page 3 of 5 everyone where my younger sister fell and broke her upper arm; this isn't merely storytelling but I do know what the safety issues are). If it were only a matter of transportation efficiency, it would be easy. Unfortunately due to the transportation regulations, things have become more complex. Hence, the issue of Child Safety Zones. This entire situation is under review by the District's Attorney to see where we stand, including the existing courtesy runs. We haven't yet received anything from the Attorney. As I see it right now, there are a range of options: We could just leave things as they have been for many years. I think most, if not all, on the Board would like that but arguably we would knowingly be in violation of Board and Commissioner policies and regulations and perhaps State law( evidently we weren't aware of much of this prior to the proposal to cut these 2 runs!) and that isn't good. Liability issues alone are a problem and in general we shouldn't be operating in violation of our own policies. We could leave them as is and adjust everything next year in terms of voter approval or rejection. For example, the District could provide transportation for children under the mandated distances of 2 miles for 6-8th graders and 3 miles for 9-12 but only if the voters approve and if such transportation applied district wide. I don't know what that would mean in terms of changing our current transportation operations. Another option is the creation of Child Safety Zones, which as I understand it, is governed by a law that was supposed to sunset in 2005 unless the State Legislature extended it. I don't know if they did or not. No one seems to know when the courtesy runs in C.Hts and the one downtown were established. It's possible that the BOE passed a resolution about them; if so there is some curious language regarding the length of time such a resolution applies. For example, in the Transportation Policy you provided, read down to the part about Continuation of the Zone. There is nothing there that indicates what is called for to continue an existing zone,just what to do if safety issue no longer applies and as you rightly note, in C.Hts that safety issue still applies. The problem is, of course, who decides what is safe. Hence the "point" system used by the Dept of Transportation. A preliminary investigation using that system wasn't helpful in supporting the unsafe aspect of the routes (for example, the lack of sidewalks isn't by itself necessarily unsafe). As I understand it, the Child Safety Zone legislation came about because too many children were crossing railroad tracks on the way to school down in Long Island. We could eliminate the runs.Not a good option and one that I don't think anyone is supporting at the moment. We could,I think, reroute the bus runs to a couple of central points that fit with the 2 mile limit. (To go back to my own history: the bus picked up and dropped off at the Community Corners and another point down on C. Hts. road. Kids walked to those points.)We might have some wiggle room with the walk- back distances and adjust those by Board action along with pick ups within the 2 mile limit. There are probably other options. 4/25/2006 Page 4 of 5 I should note that Board does take children's safety very seriously and we are determining how many other courtesy runs exist for similar reasons (for example, children who live in Northwood Apts. who attend Dewitt could walk but that would mean crossing Route 13. No one wants that). Also, the proposed elimination of the courtesy runs was never a budget issue or a Board issue in terms of our voting for or against it. It was an operational change. Funding for transportation in budget that we adopted is the same with or without the 2 courtesy runs. The proposal was provided to the Board in the context of changes in transportation due to changing start/stop times and in terms of improving transportation efficiency. Now, however, given the Child Safety Zone issues, and the entire question of the "legality" or "legitimacy" of the courtesy runs it has become a Board issue. We discussed this last week at the Finance Committee meeting and I'm sure that we are not finished with this yet. Again,please remember that the above are my interpretations of the situation. The regulations, policies, and laws that govern school transportation are complicated and I'm looking forward to seeing what our Attorney has to say about it. I hope this helps provide some context for where things stand. Let me know if you have further questions. Best, Tom Frank Elizabeth Fontana at eaf3@comell.edu wrote: Dear Tom, I'm writing to you both as a friend and as a concerned ICSD parent about the proposal to eliminate the so-called "courtesy" bus runs for students attending Boynton and IHS. If you have ever driven on Kline Rd or Wyckoff/Renwick Rd, you know that there are no sidewalks, almost no shoulders, and that they are hazardous for walkers (of any age and in all weather) to traverse up or down. I don't know when or why the courtesy bus runs between Cayuga Hgts and Boynton/IHS were originally established, but if it was for safety reasons, I can't imagine that anyone would try to convince us that those roads are safer now than they were then! Although some parents have been informed that this is a policy issue(as opposed to a BoE issue), it appears from the info. we found online at the State Ed Dept that the Board can take action to address it. We would like to ask the Board to consider establishing a Child Safety Zone so that our children are not forced to walk to school on unsafe roads. Would you please look at the info. noted below, and the State Ed Dept /► web site? It seems clear that we will need to mobilize quickly if we want to ask the Board to address it this year. It looks to me as if the Board either must adopt a resolution on its own to establish a child safety zone, 4/25/2006 Page 5 of 5 or respond within 30 days to a petition signed by at least 25 district residents. Reading down, an investigation seems to be required as well as special budget appropriation to fund the extended transportation service. We would really appreciate it if you would be willing to help "champion" this with the Board, or at least provide us with some advice on how best to bring it to the Board's attention in a timely manner. Ultimately, I can't imagine this enlightened community putting budget concerns ahead of the safety of our children. Thanks very much Tom; we look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Beth Fontana 315 The Parkway ph: 257-5088 Section 3635-b of the Education Law Definition of a Child Safety Zone: A child safety zone is a designated area within a common, central, central high school or union free school district, including at least one personal residence, within which children who reside at a lesser distance from school than the minimum eligibility distance may be provided transportation on the basis that their most direct walking route to school will traverse a hazardous zone. Once properly authorized by the board of education or trustees and the voters of the school district, such transportation may be provided for pupils in kindergarten through grade eight who reside within two miles of the school legally attended and for pupils in grades nine through twelve who reside within three miles of the school legally attended without regard to like circumstances. http://st.ateaid.nysed.gov/trans/safzon.htm rte, 4/25/2006 1 April 26. 2006 APR 2 8 2006 Mr. Fred Noteboom Highway Superintendent Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Fred, As a 15 year resident of the Town of Ithaca, I wanted to thank you and your fine employees for improving the Judd Falls Rd. walkway. They not only did the work but they did a superb job. Walking along Judd Falls Rd. is still a dangerous undertaking but this is a big step toward improved safety. I know the FHIA is working with the Town to implement traffic calming on our over used streets and we all support that_ You can count on us residents to do our part. S i n cerehy, David W. Gross, Ph.D. 122 Judd Falls Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 (/ cc: Ms. Cathy Valentino ,wn%" Joseph M. Lorincz Ellis Hollow Senior/Disabled Apts. 1058 Ellis Hollow Road # 236 _ Ithaca, New York 14850 Fred Noteboom Highway Supervisor r Town of Ithaca "` �': ter_•TOV-P CL=a 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Noteboom, As per conversation with Ms. Tee-Ann Hunter I am writing you this letter to request that a sign be put up advising people that there is no bike riding on the little sidewalk going from the East hill Plaza to the road bordering Ellis Hollow Road Senior/Disabled apts. It seems that a number of adult riders use this walkway with no regard for the people who use this to walk to and fro from the apartments to the East hill plaza. ,,,AMIN A great deal of the people who use this are elderly and disabled and the bicyclist who use this pose a extreme threat to the well being of pedestrians by their irresponsible use of this walkway. They come close to hitting people, using bells and horns and sometimes nothing they expect us to in a hurry get out of their way. Several times I have not only witnessed elderly people and disabled people being hit, but the rude attitude of the bicyclists is that we are in their way so they ride as close as possible to people. A situation where people are apt to be seriously hurt is in effect created by the people who ride their bikes on this path. As a number of the people who are riding their bikes seem to be students, or by observation also come from the Cornell offices at East Hill Plaza, could you also notify Cornell and the office manager of their complex at East Hill of this restriction. I ask this because attempts to talk to people their and those doing this have resulted in being told in very uncomplimentary terms that they have no interest in the severe problem and danger they are putting disabled and elderly people in. Thank you for you help! Joseph Lorincz Cathy Robert Kellogg [b_kellogg_14867@yahoo.com] Tuesday, May 02,2006 11:19 AM To: Cathy Subject: Inlet Valley Cemetery To whom in may concern, I have been mowing the Inlet Valley Cemetery for several years as a community service free of charge. I knew Earl Cortright prior to his death and felt a sense of community pride and respect for those buried there to do this job. I have tried to find help but nothing has worked out. I called the Ithaca Town Highway Department and asked how the Town could take of the mowing of this cemetery. He said I would need to petition the Ithaca Town Board. Is this the action needed on my part to have the Town of Ithaca to mow this cemetery? Thanks Bob Kellogg Do You Yahoo! ? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 1 OF I TOWN OF ITHACA ��_8 zi o ,� 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithacamy.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY(Roads,Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 May 3, 2006 Empire State Pride Agenda Attn: Elisabeth Bullard 16 West 22"d Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Dear Elisabeth Bullard, Please add my name and the members of the Ithaca Town Board to the list in support of full equality for marriage of gay and lesbian couples. It is time for same-sex couples to have the same rights as heterosexual married people. The Town Board supports the Empire State Pride Agenda. The members of the Ithaca Town Board are: Catherine Valentino, Town Supervisor William Burbank, Councilperson Peter Stein, Councilperson Herbert Engman, Councilperson Jefferson Cowie, Councilperson Patricia Leary, Councilperson We wish you well in your battle for equality. Sincerely, r Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor /Off*" Xc: Town Board Correspondence AMR% Dinah Collins 107 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 607-273-2678 May 10, 2006 Mr. Fred Noteboom Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New'York 14850 Dear Mr. Noteboom: My home is located at 107 Pennsylvania Avenue, on South Hill. I have recently attended meetings, concerning some identified "problems" in this section of the Town, primarily caused by excessive traffic, both foot and vehicle_ I am increasingly concerned regarding additional traffic problems due to new housing (apartment building) in the process of being constructed, directly across the street from my property. The landlord has stated that an additional 20 cars will be added to this street, attributable to the planned apartment building. Some "problems" already affecting me and my property include: - tire tracks on my lawn - speeding and aggressive driving on this street -vandalism - people congregating in my driveway making it impossible for me to enter or leave my drive. I believe that some of these problems could be reduced if another section of guard rail could be placed near my property line and extending a short ways in front of my property. Please consider this letter as a formal request for consideration of the placement of this additional guard rail. I would appreciate your consideration for this guard rail in a timely fashion. If you have any questions, regarding this request, I can be reached by phone at 273-2678. Very truly yours, cc: Ms. Catherine Valentino Tee Ann Hunter ,0,"om: webserver@clarityconnect.com .ent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:06 PM To: townc1erk@townJthaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm ************************************************************************ department: Town Board MessageType: Suggestion Subject: Facilities SubjectOther: lighting Username: William Trochim userstreet: 200 Forest Home Drive usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: wmtl@cornell.edu UserTel: 607-257-7234 UserFAX: B1: Submit Comments: I've heard that there will be a PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ON PROPOSED OUTDOOR LIGHTING LAW this Thursday. Unfortunately, my spouse and I will be out of town on that date. However, street lighting is a major issue for us. We live at 200 Forest Home Drive and there are several street lights outside our house that are extremely bright and shine right in our windows all night long all year around. We would LOVE to see you opft�ange the street lighting in front of our house and throughout Forest )me to better reflect the historic nature of the neighborhood and to better shield residents from constant light glare. We don't know the technological options, but from our naive perspective think the following should be considered: (1) new street lights, perhaps more 'old fashioned' looking (like faux gas lamps) that are a little closer to the ground and can use bulbs that are less glaring; (2) new low glare bulbs in existing lights; (3) shielding on new or existing lights that would still provide lighting in the public roadways but would be directly blocked from our house, especially the bedrooms. In any event, we would greatly appreciate anything you can do for us. New lights could greatly enhance the look of our neighborhood, could improve public safety (perhaps night traffic would slow down a bit more! ) , and improve our personal comfort at night. Thanks. 1 Tee Ann Hunter 00""rom: webserver@clarityconnect.com .rent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:56 AM To: townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedbackl.htm D1: Highway MessageType: Complaint Subject: (Other) SubjectOther: speed limit and noise on 96 between hospital and Hillcrest Username: MaryDawn Wright userstreet: 1121 Trumansburg Road usertown: Ithaca UserEmail: recipeguru@clarityconnect.com UserTel: 277.2918 UserFAX: Bl: Submit Comments: Dear Board members of the Town of Ithaca: I have lived in my home at 1121 Trumansburg Road for the last eight years and have watched the traffic increase over this time period. What is alarming about the increase in traffic is the total disregard for the posted speed limit. The posted speed limit in front of home is 45 mph. I can assure you that only a rare soul follows the posted limit. #;&t is becoming increasingly dangerous to pull out of my driveway, and 3r school buses to stop in front of the house. I have more than once witnessed drivers slamming on their brakes because they were driving too fast, not paying attention, or worse yet, driving past the extended stop sign. One time a Semi-truck almost jack knifed into my front yard because they were driving too fast and a dog ran into the road. Imagine my terror as I stood in the driveway, in front of my home, holding the hand of my five year old son, watching a semi-truck slide sideways toward us. Fortunately the truck gained control and we had a happy ending (the dog escaped injury too) . I believe people do not realize (or perhaps care?) that this is a residential zone. I strongly urge you to reduce the speed limit to a safer and more appropriate speed for a residential area. If the speed is reduced to 35, given human nature, people will drive 45. I would feel a little more comfortable for the overall safety of my children. and my neighbors and I might have a fighting chance of pulling out of my driveway in the morning. I If you are not the appropriate authority to address this issue please advise me as to whom I should contact. Additionally, I would like a legal decibel/noise limit sign posted on the road, much like the ones posted on either side of highway 13 coming into Ithaca. Semi-truck traffic has increased on the highway and posted noise limits combined with a lower speed limit may also help with some of the noise issues that this neighborhood is experiencing. fens, _dank you very much very your concern and action. MaryDawn wright recipeguru@clarityconnect.com 1 Town Supervisor Its aca, NY 14850 Catherine Valentino 215 N. Tioga Street 607-273-1721 June 2, 2006 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Town of Ithaca, I would like to express my support for `Resolved EDP", a mental health / law enforcement collaboration. The Ithaca Police Department is committed to working with the Tompkins County Mental Health Department to promote public safety by actively diverting individuals with mental illness from the criminal and juvenile justice systems to treatment facilities within those systems. We believe the continuation of this link is critical to the success of the Resolved EDP Program and is beneficial to the community. We support the efforts to make this project successful and look forward to enjoying the benefits that result from this collaboration. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor ® 307-C T.V E(q. THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1 ALBANY,NY 12230 I 2 i The New York State Archives Tel.(5181 474.6926 �9TE OF N Grants Administration and Program Support Unit Fax(518) 486.1647 9A81 Cultural Education Center E-mail:Archgrants@mail.nysed.gov Albany,NY 12230 June 23,2006 Project Number: 0580-07-7572 Tee-Ann Hunter,Project Director Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Ms. Hunter: On behalf of the New York State Archives,I am pleased to inform you that the Commissioner of Education is offering a Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund(LGRMIF)grant for$7,180. Grant award documents will be finalized and mailed to you shortly. If you accept this grant offer,please complete,sign,and return the enclosed grant acceptance. You will receive payment as follows: 1. 50%of the award when we receive the Grant Acceptance Form signed by your Chief Administrative Officer or designee. You will receive the first payment approximately four weeks later. 2. Up to 40%of the grant will be released when you submit form FS-25 Request For Funds For Federal or State Project to the State Education Department's(SED)Grants Finance Unit. 3. The remaining 10% will be released when the project is completed and the Grant Project Final Report Form (FR-1)and the Final Expenditure Report(FS-10-F)have been submitted to the State Archives Grants Administration and Program Support Unit and are approved by the Grants Finance Unit. 4. You must complete all project work and expend all funds no later than July 31,2007. We will provide the Project Director with guidelines explaining the full process at a later date. If you have any questions regarding this offer,you may reach me at(518)474-6926. Sincerely, Loraine K.Wilson Director, Grants Administration and Program Support att: JUN 3 0 X06 cc: Region 06 ATTEST 1"q ITHACA TOWN CLERK Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund (LGRMIF) 2006 — 2007 Summary of Reviewers' Recommendations Local Government: Town of Ithaca Project Number: 0580-07-7572 Summary: The grant reviewers recommended reducing the hours for the education specialist to 150 at$30 per hour or $4,500- 120 hours for project development and 30 hours for the focus group and revising the workbook. This was a very competitive grant cycle and funds were not available to award at the requested amount. The grant reviewers recommended that the town copy the workbook on to CD-Roms for distribution. This will allow the town to make copies of the workbook whenever needed and distribute the workbook to a wider audience. They also recommended that copies of the workbook be placed in the school district's library and in the school district's teachers'professional development library. /~1 ERSrT THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT/THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK I ALBANY,NY 12230 The New York State Archives Tel.(518) 474.6926 Grants Administration and Program Support Unit Fax (5181 486.1647 9AB 1 Cultural Education Center E-mail:Archgrants@mail.nysed.gov OF Albany,NY 12230 LGRMIF Grant Acceptance Form Local Government: Town of Ithaca Project Number: 0580-07-7572 Budget Summary: Code 15 Professional Salaries $4,500 Code 16 Support Staff Salaries $0 Code 40 Purchased Services $500 Code 45 Supplies and Materials $1,775 Code 46 Travel Expenses $0 Code 80 Employee Benefits $405 �'"►� Code 90 Indirect Cost $0 Code 49 BOCES Services $0 Code 30 Minor Remodeling $0 Code 20 Equipment $0 Amount of Grant Award: $ 7,180 I hereby accept a grant from the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund in the amount indicated above and agree to comply with all reporting requirements. These funds will be expended in accordance with the budget as detailed above and approved by the State Education Department. The State Education Department has the right to recover funds if the services are not provided or if the funds are expended inappropriately. Chief Administrative Officer: Signature: Title: Date: Complete this form and return it to: If you have any questions,please contact the Grants Administration and Program Support Unit: The New York State Archives Grants Administration and Program Support Unit Telephone:(5 18)474-6926 9A81 Cultural Education Center E-mail:archgrants@mail.nysed.gov Albany,NY 12230 .0. I ATTEST=,_ CITY OF ITHACA ITHAcnTf��, r_,p=T�� 310 WEST GREEN STREET ` ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TEL (607)272-1234 BOARD OF FERE COMMISSIONERS FAX (607)272-2793 TO: Tee-Ann Hunter, Clerk Town of Ithara FROM: Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioner RE: Memo of Appreciation DATE: June 23, 2006 As our final piece of legislative action of the present 2005-2006 Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioner's term, we wish to thank the Town of Ithaca and especially Supervisor Valentino for her steadfast efforts to help fund and maintain the Ithaca Fire Department. This department's sole purpose is to save lives and protect property both in the Town and City of Ithaca. Supervisor Valentino worked tirelessly negotiating an equitable and mutually beneficial fire protection contract between the City and the Town of Ithaca furthering the efforts toward increasing intermunicipal cooperation. Since the zone of protection crosses municipal boundaries, the official support from the Town and Supervisor Valentino, both in the past and present, has insured a seamless provision of fire fighting services. Thank you all. Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners - Robert Romanowski, Chair - Paul Alexander - Vice Chair - William Gilligan - Member - Steven Williams - Member n -An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Recycled Paper WINNER Fax:6077322832 Jul 5 2006 11 : 28 P. 02 CHAIR COMMITTEE ON ETHIC5 THESENATE ALBANY OFFICE: LE rS_ArnE COMMISSION ON STATE OF NEW YORK ROOM e14 oomk*' RUFh.4 RE901JRc2s LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ALBANY. '5W YORK 12267 COAIMI"EF MEMBFIZ I5iGl455.2091 A,CRiCULTURE FA-X:15181 426-6976 CONSUNfi^n PRO?ECTIQN - ,f DISTRICT OFFICES; CRIN.E VICTIMS,CRIME S CORRECTION r, ENERGY&TELECOMMUNIC0.TION5 ,Ir I I 228 LAKE SIREET HE.1UTH P.O.BOX 558 HIGHER EDUCATION ELMIRA.NEW YORK 14902 fUD1CIARY 9 16071 732,2765 GEORGE H. WINNER, JR. FAX:(0071732-2&32 SENATOR 1 105 E.5TEUEEN STREET BATH,14EW YORK 14810 53RD DISTRICT 1607)77o-_:CI "A .Ia071 i 7--5135 June 28 2006 INTERNET ADDRESS: w-w stnatora•tnnet.eoln win nerg",cn 9c.5ta te.tlyms Judith Calogero, C0111 ssioner 7-1 New York State Di-dsiton of Housing and Community Renewal �1 3840 State Street Hampton Plaza Albany,New York 12207 ATTEST Re: Ithaca Senior Living, LLC L Iri nCA 70l^rN C F I Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments Town of Ithaca,NY Dear Commissioner Calogero: It is any understanding that Better Housing for Tompkins County and Conifer Realty,LLC's grant application,for Low Income Housing Tax Credits to farad the development of the Ithaca Senior Living Apartments in the Town of Ithaca is before you for consideration. I would like to register clay strong support for this project which would provide a much needed affordable housing option for seniors in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County, and have a tremendous positive impact on the community. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and if I my provide any further information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly y George H. W IF-'r' Jr. Membc- of Senate cc: Adam Barsky, Deputy Secretary to the Governor for Public Authorities, Finance, and Housing Catherine Valentina, Superv- sor Town of Ithaca CITY OF ITHACA v= a 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14550-5690 rld. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY �R�'"• "" �� Daniel L. Hoffman,City.Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504 '°bltA"ftro Patricia Dunn,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507 Robert A. Sarachan,Assistant City Attorney Khandikile M.Sokoni,Assistant City Attorney Dawn M.L.Tordel,Legal Assistant June 29, 2006 Cathy Valentino, Supervisor 3 0 Sm Town of Ithaca Tow ii Hall 215 North Tioga Street ATTEST HACA T4WV!<t CLERK Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Thank You For Waiver of Subdivision Fee Dear Cathy: I have received a copy of the Town Board resolution granting the City's request for waiver of the $140 application fee, for subdivision of the property at 1517 Slaterville Road. On behalf of the City, I would like to express our appreciation to you and the rest of the Town Board for your unanimous approval of this request. While the amount of money involved may be relatively small, your action is a symbol of cooperation between our two municipalities (and a recognition of the importance of the protection of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area). As the City is pursuing a number of other purchases for the same purpose, you may see some additional requests for waivers! Again, thank you for your support and courtesies. Sincerely yours, Daniel L. Hoffman City Attorney DLH/dmlt PC: Carolyn K. Peterson, Mayor AON%6 K:OANIDLH lenersWalentino Itr thank you.doc R "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." ILO Page 1 of 9 Fred Noteboom From: Peter Stein [pcsl@cornell.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:02 PM To: Fred Noteboom pp R R Subject: Fwd: Constituent Contact D !i W Fred, This is the letter that Herb forwarded to me. ! Peter � ATTEST tct ITHACA TOWN CLERK X-Sender: hjel@postoffice8.mail.comell.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:10:25 -0400 X-PH: V4.1 e graniteI (Cornell Modified) To: Peter Stein --pesl @comell.edu> From: Herbert J Enun—ian <hjel@cornell.edu> Subject: Fwd: Constituent Contact Cc: willburbank@twcny.rr.com Peter, as the brand-spanking new chair of the Public Works Committee, I am alerting you that the gentleman who sent the message below may be contacting you. He called me this morning, but I think this is a matter for the committee. The truck purchase issue may not be immediate, but his concern about safety at Tutulo Park (he said in one message that front loaders were being used to support people working on the backstop and/or restroom) and private use of public vehicles are certainly matters that should be clarified. I talked a bit with Fred about this, but he considers Leon an irritant. That may be, but if he has legitimate concerns, they must be addressed. Herb Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:32:33 -0400 To: willburbank (r twcny.rr.com, Peter Stein<pcsl@comeil.edu> From: Herbert J Engman <hjel@comell.edu> Subject: Constituent Contact Am I correct in thinking that the two of you are on the Public Works Committee (my list is at home and the Town web site doesn't list the committees)? The gentleman below sent me this message which is best handled by a member of the committee. He seems to have a history with the Town, including getting rejected for jobs. But, he has some interesting ideas. He has asked that his name not be shared beyond the three of us for now - the focus is on the ideas. herb Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:49:50 -0400 X-PH: V4.1 a soapstone) "* From: leon edward zaharis <lzaharislu twcny.rr.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD compaq (WinNT; U) 8/31/2006 Page 2 of 9 X-Accept-Language: en To: Herbert J Engman <hjel@cornell.edu> Subject: Re: our prevoius contact X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075,Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, Antispam-Data: 2006.6.30.153432 X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.4.0.264935, Antispam-Data: 2006.6.30.155433 Many thanks for the swift reply, and I hope you are reading this monday morning. Not to bore you to death but I have been a county resident since birth and I have lived in the town since 1968. Perhaps you might have known my aunt- hnnie Zaharis Pappas, she worked for the state of new york in the ag econ department- accounts payable. I hope they have note signed a purchase order for that truck yet as I would like to see it stopped! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ► 11. r ! t I would also like to know how I as a citizen of the Town of Ithaca can stop this purchase or at least on hold as we still have plenty of time before winter comes. The big thing I am worried about is that truck that fred noteboom insists on having- I am assuming it is a Sterling brand 10 wheel drive should be put on hold or stopped in all seriousness. It can be done much less expensively-I will n explain how this will come about in a minute by purchasing a "Mercedes" 8/31/2006 Page 3 of 9 "Unimog" truck rather than a ten wheel replacement vehicle-now to the heart of the truck matter: The purchase of a standard 10 wheel truck frame minus a dump body etc.limits its usefullness-I will explain how The truck in question will only be able haul aggregates, and plow snow and carry a salt spreader if so desired, NOTHING ELSE! The old components off the old wreck should be saved to be used a spare components for the other matching vehicles. It should really should not come down to we have always done it this way argument because the tax dollars are not being effectively used for highway equipment- I will explain further. The "Mercedes Unimog" truck allows you to mount a snowplow, snow blower, multiple cranes, water tanks, aerial lift buckets useful for tree trimming and street light repair, painting of buildings and water tanks etc. The "Unimog" can be ordered with a sliding operators station to allow the driver to operate the "Unimog next to the shoulder as well-very good for mowing, snow blowing, snow plowing and repairing road shoulders. The plows are smaller and weigh less and they have a good cleaning ability - they are used every day all over europe 8/31/2006 Page 4of9 during snow season. The snow plows offered for the unimog also have much more versatility compared to a standard wing plow where thay can gather snow and push it a way in tight areas. a wing plow cannot do that. The Unimog also allows you to install a ditch cleaning back hoe for much less money than a "Gradall" that is either a ten wheel mounted unit mounted on a CCC carrier or a 4 wheel drive unit such as is owned currently by the town for much less money than owning a separate piece of equipment for ditching work that is not used all the time. The Unimogs small size allows it to have a minimum foot print when doing road work, while ditching it can drive right into the ditch and clean it and drive out-you can not do that with a "Gradall". Further the current need of having the towns tractor trailer/flatbed will no longer be needed to haul the gradall from place to place as the unimog is road legal and does not require a separate transporter. The Unimog is also fully capable of mowing the ditches and shoulders that the town is required to mow much faster with boom mounted mowers versus the use of a separate tractor which would be used only part of the year for that job. 8/31/2006 Page 5 of 9 The Unimog also has the capacity and ability to have a front end loader installed- very handy for snow season which allows it even more verstility. As I understand it Cortland County has two of these critters so I think it would be a good idea to look at them. I honestly hope I am not to late regarding this and I hope we will not spend those tax dollars foolishly on that new truck when it is not needed in my sincere opinion. If one 6 wheel or four wheel Unimog is purchased several pieces of town equipment will no longer be needed and can be sold off saving the town even more money. and reducing operating inventories for spare parts, tires, preventative maintenance filters and oils, fuel expenses -they are very fuel efficient and reducing parts purchases in the process saving the town a substantial amount of money. Tracey road equipment does not care what you buy from them so in all seriuosness we should examione the unimog for this job as we-the town and its tax payers will come out ahead and reduce our equipment expenditures as parts and equipment for the unimog and it attachments do not go away annd they are always available since the unimog is a major work horse in europe and will continue to be so. 8/31/2006 Page 6 of 9 Please be assured I do not represent Tracey Road Equipment in any form. I hope we can meet soon as I wish to speak to you in person at your convenience regarding other issues including the Town of Ithaca Highway Department, Bolton Point and the water system in the town. I have spent a great deal of time talking to Walter Struble regarding same and it operation as far as the Bolton point vehicles being taken home by employees- I would in all seriousness like to see the amount of trouble calls answered in relation to miles driven in off hours by the Bolton Point employees as I have seen them driving vans past my house going to work in the morning in a Bolton point van or seen an employee using the van to buy groceries.and take them-the groceries home or seen a Bolton point van being used by an employee to pick someone up at the airport terminal-I work at the terminal part time so I can verify this. I also question the necessity of the highway superintendant needing a vehicle for his disposal during off hours. I also wonder if Paul Tunison still drives a Bolton Point truck home every day and is all this really necessary? I am paying for their use of Bolton Point vehicles and yet I have no access to Bolton Point water not do I wish access to same. 8/31/2006 Page 7 of 9 I hope we can talk soon as I would like to obtain some clarity to all this, my treat for lunch or coffee if thats ok, I am not trying to be a pain or a trouble maker I just want the town to spend its money wisely as I am on a limited income from disability. Case in point when the town or the county buys stone, gravel or crushed from a privately owned pit forty percent of the average weight of the aggregate or sand is water -this is because the storage piles are out in the weather and are nothing but moisture magnets just like rock salt -I know this from experience as I spent 22 years at Cargill Salt. In all seriousness we should be asking the gravel suppliers for a sales discount due to water in the gravel and sand we buy from them as it is substantial especially when it rains we pay for that at the truck scales owned by the gravel pit. I hope I have not bored you to sleep or angered you and I look forward to our meeting. I think you will learn a lot from our talking. I hope to learn more as well as I am very concerned about the town and its operations as a citizen and a taxpayer. We/I should always have a questioning attitude and not simply allow our selves to fall into the "we have always done it that way" trap as it will be our undoing. Leon Z 8/31/2006 Page 8 of 9 607 273-0984-24 hour telephone e-mail Izaharis@lightlink.com My mail address: Leon Edward Zaharis 1398 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850-9389 Herbert J Engman wrote: I'm so glad you got in touch. I tried to e-mail you,but the message bounced back. I must have copied the address wrong off your voice mail message. Sure, use my work e-mail address (hjel@cornell.edu). I don't have a computer at home so I access only during the week. I look forward to hearing from you again about town business. Herb At 09:58 AM 6/30/2006 -0400, you wrote: Dear Mr. Engman, If its alright with you could you forward your personal e-mail to me so we can chat regarding town business? I am available anytime to talk in person as well. I have several concerns I would llike to discuss regarding where the town is going as I previously �,.., mentioned. 8/31/2006 Page 9 of 9 Izaharis@lightlink.com leon Edward Zaharis 1398 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850- 9389 607-273-0984 8/31/2006 O ! Ct q � TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY(Roads, Parks,Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 FAX(607)273-1704 or(607)273-5854 July 6, 2006 Director William Kimball NYS Department of Agriculture; & Markets 10B Airline Drive Albany, NY 12235 Re: Six Mile Creek Vineyard/Town of Ithaca Dear Director Kimball: The Town of Ithaca submits this response to your May 10, 2006 letter regarding Six Mile Creek Vineyard's request for a Section 305-a review. The Vineyard's owners, Roger and Nancy Battistella, have requested a review of the limit on the annual number of large events held on the premises, and a review of the need for site plan submissions and approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) imposed both of these conditions in 2005 when it modified the Vineyard's use variance to allow large events. Limit on Annual Number of Large Events The ZBA's limit does not unreasonably restrict farm operations. The Rental Agreement submitted to your Department by the Batistellas shows that their facilities can be rented for a ceremony with no reception, which means they will sell no wine at such events. These facility rentals do not fall under the Agriculture and Market Law's (AML's) definition of "farm operation," as they do not contribute to the "production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products." While the Vineyard will sell wine at events that do have receptions, it appears likely that for many events, the income realized from facility rental will exceed the income from wine sales. Such facility rentals should not be considered "marketing of crops" under the AML, but instead "another source of income," as the Battistellas told the ZBA at its November 21 , 2005 meeting. This rental income stream should not receive the same protection as other activities that are more directly related to the marketing of crops, such as the establishment of an on-site farm market or stand, - Furthermore, the Department should consider all of the products sold and served at such events, which include both food and wine. The food is brought in Letter to Director William Kimball July 6, 2006 r� Page 2 by outside caterers, and none of the food is grown on-site. Because the value and quantity of the food likely exceed that of the wine, these events should not be considered part of a "farm operation." Even if the Department determines the facility rentals contribute to the marketing of crops as defined in the AML, the limit of 20 events per year of 50 or more guests is reasonable. The Vineyard needed (and received) a use variance from the ZBA in 1985 to locate in a medium density residential zone that was not then in an agricultural district. The use variance did not include events at which facilities would be rented and food and wine would be served. When the ZBA considered modification of the use variance in 2005 to allow such events, the Battistellas told the ZBA they had held around 4 events in 2005 that exceeded 49 people. The ZBA's condition allows 5 times that number. There is no limit on the number of events with fewer than 50 guests. The Battistellas provided no economic data that justified a higher number of large events, as is required by the NY Town Law provision regarding use variances. In addition, a limit is necessary to protect the character of the surrounding medium density residential neighborhood from the traffic and noise impacts that could occur if there were no limit. Here is information to provide the historical context for the use variance, explain the ZBA's 2005 action, and further support the above conclusions: • The Battistellas received a use variance in 1985 to operate a "farm winery. The winery was to be located in an R-15 zone (equivalent to the Town's current medium density residential district). The R-15 zone did not permit wineries or agricultural activities as of right. The property was not in an agricultural district, and a number of residences were located in proximity to the property. • The ZBA was provided with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which included this definition of"farm winery": " 'Farm winery' means and includes any place or premises, located on a farm in New York state, in which wine is manufactured and sold." The Law prohibited the sale of more than 50,000 gallons of wine annually. • The ZBA was also provided this similar definition from a publication by the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva: "A farm winery is a premise located on a farm in NYS in which wine is manufactured or sold. A licensed farm winery cannot manufacture more than 50,000 finished gallons of wine annually." • The Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provided to the ZBA stated that licensed farm wineries could sell wine in the original sealed containers "at retail for consumption off the premises." At that time, retail sales for consumption on the premises were allowed only if the farm winery received a license from the state Liquor Authority to sell wine in an on- premises restaurant owned and operated by the farm winery. 2 • Letter to Director William Kimball July 6,2006 Page 3 So at that time farm wineries without licensed restaurants could not allow on-site receptions or other special events if the winery sold wine for consumption at the events. If the Battistellas wanted to hold such events, they would have needed to apply not only to the state for a restaurant license, but also to the Town for a use variance authorizing a "restaurant or other place for serving food," which was a use allowed under the zoning ordinance only in certain business districts. The Battistellas did not apply to the Town for a use variance authorizing a restaurant or other place to serve food, nor did they contemplate they would be holding events when they applied for their use variance. They anticipated making no more than 10,000 gallons/year and estimated an average of 7 cars/day at maximum production capacity for wine tastings and bottle sales. They stated they would provide 12 parking places. Please review their application, attached as Exhibit A, which sets forth the Batistellas' calculations and assumptions. • The use variance allowed a "farm winery" subject to the condition that it produce no more than 10,000 gallons/day. This was intended to protect the residential character of the neighborhood from increased numbers of visitors and traffic exceeding the Battistellas' projected average of 7 cars/day. The use variance did not authorize a restaurant or events at which wine could be sold at retail for on-premises consumption. (See Exhibit B, which contains the minutes from the 1985 meeting at which the ZBA granted the use variance.) • The ZBA had the authority to impose these 1985 conditions, which are reasonably related to the impacts of the variance sought. (See NY Town Law § 267-b(4) for requirements related to variance conditions.) The property was not protected by the Agriculture & Markets Law, as it was not in an agricultural district at that time. The property was added to the agricultural district in 1996. No property contiguous to the Six Mile Creek property is included. (See Exhibit C.) The ZBA was asked in 2005 to either (1) interpret the "farm winery" use to include special events, or (2) modify the use variance to allow such events. NY Town Law § 267-b charges zoning boards of appeals with making interpretations and considering variance appeals. These are 2 legally distinct types of actions. • The ZBA referred the Batistellas' request to the Planning Board for a recommendation because the Vineyard had built structures on the property without building permits, and the Planning Board had approved a site plan in 1985. In responding to the 2005 referral, the Planning Board recommended that the ZBA modify the use variance to allow large events. The Planning Board did not provide an interpretation as to whether large events are normal functions of farm wineries, and even if it had, its /aft.N recommendation would not be binding on the ZBA and would have no legal effect. Under NY Town Law § 267-b(1), it is the ZBA (not the 3 Letter to Director William Kimball July 6,2006 Page 4 Planning Board) that is charged with providing interpretations of the zoning ordinance. • At the subsequent ZBA meeting, the ZBA's attorney opined that wedding events are a normal function of a winery if there are a modest number each year, but he recommended that instead of making an interpretation, the ZBA could instead modify the use variance and place a cap on the number of events. • The ZBA followed its attorney's advice and did not make a formal interpretation. It instead modified the use variance to allow no more than 20 annual special events of 50 or more guests. This modification allows an unlimited number of events where there are fewer than 50 guests. • The ZBA did not have to modify the use variance to allow any special events, as the 1985 variance was valid. It chose to do so, but with limits on the numbers because the ZBA felt that the character of the use as a farm winery could change if substantially more large events were allowed. The Battistellas can apply for a greater number of large events if they can make the necessary economic showing. NY Town Law § 267-b allows the granting or modification of a use variance if, among other things, "the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence." • The 1985 variance allows unlimited numbers of visitors for wine tastings and sales of sealed bottles. The 2005 ZBA action did not change or limit this method of marketing. Site Plan Submissions and Approvals The Planning Board approved a site plan in 1985 to assure that the projected minimal traffic would have adequate ingress, egress, and parking, and to assure that placement of the structures would not negatively impact the neighbors. Over the years, the Batistellas increased the parking capacity from the initial 12 spaces to around 120 spaces located in several lots and areas on the property. They built several parking lots and structures without obtaining building permits. Among other things, the ZBA conditioned its 2005 use variance modification on the requirements that the Batistellas (1) submit a baseline site plan so the Town would know the locations of current ingress, egress, parking, traffic circulation, structures, and the like, and (2) receive site plan approval for future development of structures such as parking lots and buildings. The site plan submission and approval requirements are reasonable. First, the ZBA did not require the baseline site plan to be prepared by a licensed architect, surveyor, or engineer as long as the Town Engineer deemed it acceptable. This decreased the potential costs and time required to comply with this requirement. The Battistellas complied with this condition by submitting a ,•1 simple site plan denominated as a "sketch plan" on December 21, 2005. The Battistellas chose to have it prepared by a surveyor. 4 Letter to Director William Kimball July 6, 2006 Page 5 Second, the requirement for future site plan approvals is limited to future development of structures on the property. Site plan approval is not required for activities that do not involve structures. Depending on the complexity and nature of the proposed structures, the Planning Board could waive the requirement for future submissions to be prepared by professionals,just as it did for the 2005 baseline site plan. Third, site plan approval for future development of structures will minimize their impact on the City of Ithaca's drinking water supply from the nearly abutting Six Mile Creek reservoir, into which the Vineyard's property drains. (See Exhibit D.) This will help assure that parking lots and other structures are appropriately located and help protect the public health. Fourth, site plan approval will help assure locations of ingress, egress, parking and on-site circulation of traffic are appropriate and meet public safety requirements, especially since there will be a number of large events at the site (hosting up to 200 people at a time, according to the Vineyard's current website). Site plan approval will also assure that this property, which has a unique use variance history, does not negatively impact the residential neighborhood in an unacceptable manner. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. The Town's attorney, Susan Brock, can also assist you. Her telephone number is 607-277-3995. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Supervisor Enclosures cc: Kirk Sigel, ZBA Chair Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Attorney Susan Brock 5 eolk, em%R TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: . $10.00 � 126 East Seneca Street RECE 1 VED:,T;_ Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( } (607) 273-1747 . � CHECK - A P P E A L ZON I NG: to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to establish a family-operated farm winery at 1551 Slaterville Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-2-1.1 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s) IV , Section(s) 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: An existing barn was extensively renovated and moved 12' from its original foundation to improve appearance and safety. Moving it again would be a hardship. Appeal is to establish a four-person family-operated winery in renovated structur6 32' X 50. , (35' height) with full utilities. Harvest to bottling-retail time approx. six months. Sales on a daily basis (11 am-5pm) May to Sept. ; and weekends Labor Day to Memorial Day. Initial vol. projected at 1,000 gals. , with production increasing at 1,000 gals. annually over next 5-10 years, depending on how things go. Expect 500 visitors or 250 automobiles annually per 1,000 gals. production. Offstreet parking provided for 12 vehicles. Additional space available if needed. Vineyard recycling of waste, grape skins-stems, to 7� spread among rows and cultivated as spread. Dated: Fehr,iary 12, 1995 Signed: Zoning Board of Appeals 5 February 27 ,, 1.985 at the sign is within 350 ' of Ellis Hollow Road and about 3501 from the Plaza buildings. Vice Chairman Austen asked if the proposed sign were a rotating sign. Mr. Knowlton stated that it was not . The Secretary read from the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of- January fJanuary 15 , 1985 , as follows: " . . .iVIOTION by Mr. Edward Mazza, seconded by Mr. Bernard Stanton: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in its capacity as Sign Review Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals a grant of approval for the proposed freestanding Time and Temperature sign proposed by the Tompkins County Trust Company in conjunction with its proposed East Hill Plaza drive--in banking facility, said sign proposal having been presented to the Planning Board this date, January 15 , 1985 __Aye -- May, Stanton, Schultz, Baker, Mazza, Klein, Grigorov; Nay - None. —Carried unanimously. " Mr. King asked how high the proposed sign is , with Mr. Knowlton responding, 20 feet. Mr. King wondered how that height compared with the "East Hill Plaza" sign already in place. Mr. Knowlton replied that he thought that sign was about 32 feet high, adding that this sign would be below the thirty-foot height line. Mr. Knowlton: briefly described the activities of the bank and the drive--in area and pointed out that there is no other identification on the bank . Vice Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the requested Trust Company sign , No one spoke . MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Section 4 .02-2 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law to permit the issuance of a Sign Permit for the proposed freestanding Time and Temperature sign proposed by the Tompkins County Trust Company in conjunction with its proposed East Hill Plaza drive-in banking facility , said sign proposal having been presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals this date, February 27 1985 , by Stewart D. Knowlton, Agent for Cornell uTd-versity and the Tompkins QA-�i:nty Trust Company. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Tompkins County Trust Company sign request duly closed. PPEAL OF ROGER BATTISTELLA, APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A PERMIT TO OPERATE A FARM WINERY IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, 351 IN HEIGHT, IN AN R-15 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 1.551 SLATERVILLE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6--56-2- 1 . 1 . PERMIT IS Zoning Board of Appeals 6 February 27 , 1985 i '0 ',HIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 , AND ARTICLE IV. SECTION 11 (10) , TOWN uF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8: 00 . p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Battistella was present, and so, too, was Mr. James Tacovelli, the contractor who had renovated the barn under discussion. Vice Chairman Austen read aloud from the Appeal form as signed and submitted by Roger M. Battistella under date of February 12, 1985, as follows: . " . . .Having been denied permission to establish a family-operated farm winery at 1551 Slaterville Road. . .An existing barn was extensively renovated and moved 12 ' from its original foundation to improve appearance and safety. Moving it again would be a hardship. Appeal is to establish a four-person family-operated winery in renovated structure 32' x. 501 , (35' height) with full utilities. Harvest to bottling-retail time approx. six months. Sales on a daily basis (11 am-Spm) May to Sept. ; and weekends Labor Day to Memorial Day. Initial vol. projected at 1,000 gals. , with production increasing at 1 ,000 gals. annually over next 5-10 years, depending on how things go. Expect 500 visitors or 250 automobiles annually per 1,000 gals. production. Offstreet parking provided for 12 vehicles. Additional space available if needed. ' Vineyard recycling of waste, grape skins-stems, to be spread among rows and cultivated as Spread." The Zoning Board of Appeals members each had received with his/her Agenda several documents with respect to the Battistella Appeal, including: 1. The Appeal Form as noted by the Vice Chairman. 2. Discussion Draft --- Farm Winery ZoningAAppeal: R-15 to R-30. "FARM WINERY DEFINITION 'A farm winery is a premise located on a farm in New York State in which wine is manufactured or sold. A licensed farm winery cannot maunufacture more than 50 ,000 finished gallons of wane annually. ' 'The wine has to be produced entirely .from New York State grapes , or, under recent amendment to the ABC Law enacted at the Authority's request, any other fruit or agricultural products grown in New York State' (Source: Alan J. Gardner, 'Legal Requirements in' Establishing and Operating a Farm Winery' . Farm Winery Proceedings. Geneva: New York State Agricultural Experiment Station 1979 . ) FARM WINERY LEGISLATION See attached New York State Liquor Authority alcoholic beverage control law and rules. LOCATION OF PROPOSED FARM WINERY 1551 Slaterville Rd. See attached survey map for lot size and boundaries. STRUCTURE SIZE Dutch-style barn 30 ' X 521 . Frame construction (board and batten) set on cinderblock foundation, 35 ' to peak. Barn consists of full basement (10 ' ceiling) and two floors , with full utilities. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES zoning Board of Appeals 7 February 27, 1985 Family business. _.NAIL SALES HOURS Seasonal variation: Daily, 11 am.- 5 pm. , beginning Memorial Day and ending Labor Day. Weekends only for remainder of year. VOLUME Beginning with 1 ,000 gallons and expanding by .1 ,000 gallons annually to tenth year, with production levelling off at approximately 10,000 gallons. TRAFFIC PROJECTION Estimates are based on the following assumptions, the reasonableness of which have been verified by Mr. William Brown, Secretary, Finger Lakes Wine Council--a consortium of local farm wineries for joint purchasing and promotions: 1. Total production will be sold on site. 2. Average visitor can be expected to purchase two bottles of wine. 3 . There are two occupants per automobile on average. 4 . Roughly 500 visitors annually are required for each thousand gallons of wine sales. 5. Number of automobiles annually per thousand gallons of wine equals 250. The number of visitors per day (365) will begin at 1.4 (1000 gallons) and level off at 14 (10, 000 gallons) . The number of automobiles per day (355) will begin at 0. 7 (1000 gallons) and level off at 7 (10,000 gallons) . PARKING /005� See attached plan. New York State Department of Transportation has ' -uthorized construction of 2nd driveway accessing Rte. 79 , together with piping and filling of drainage ditch from existing culvert face to distance near back of barn. WASTES GENERATION--DISPOSAL On average, two (2) gallons of waste water are required for each gallon of wine. Solids consisting of grape skink will be returned: to fields. In addition to clean washing and rinse water, waste water entering sewage system occasionally will include dead yeast cells and potassium bitartrate (cream of tartar) , when fermentation vessels are cleansed. " 3 . Site Plan (undated) .. 4 . Drawing dated 2/12/85 , drawn by Roger Yonkin, showing proposed access/ egress, driveway profile, parking lot, placement of 54" pipe and rip--rap, with attached detail sheet. 5 . Short Environmental Assessment Form, completed and signed by Roger M. Battistella under date of January 23, 1985 , with all questions answered "no"; reviewed by Peter M. Lovi, Town Planner, under date of January 30, 1985, with the following recommendation: "On the basis of the following findings, I recommend that a negative determination of environmental significance be made: la. 1. This project will not create a substantial adverse change in existing air or water quality. 2. Noise levels associated with automobile traffic will increase, though I do not believe a projected average traffic flow of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals 8 February 27, 1985 cars/day at full capacity to be significant, given the overall level of traffic on State Route 79 . 3 . All solid wastes will be returned to the. site; water will be disposed of through the sanitary sewer system. 4 . There will not be a potential increase in erosion, flooding, or drainage problems if proper soil maintenance practices are followed. Proposed Department of Transporation drainage improvements will not be compromised by this project. 5 . The project will not destroy large quantities of vegetation or fauna, and will in fact cultivate a high value crop. 6 . There is no evidence that the project will interfere with the movement of any resident migratory fish or wildlife species nor will the project have any substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of plant or animal . 7 . A projected maximur« of 5000 visitors annually will not interfere with the predominantly residential character of the area. 8 . The project will create a material conflict with the Town Zoning Ordinance. However, a portion of the vineyard is zoned R30 , and a roadside stand for the sale of farm products is a permitted use in such zones. Though the Zoning Board of Appeals is responsible for interpreting the Zoning Ordinance, and the Town Board is the only body empowered to make legislative determinations, I do not believe that this material conflict is significant. 9. This project will not impair the archeological, architectural, or P1 historic qualities of the area. Insofar as the owner has made a substantial restoration of the barn and an investment in the vineyard, I believe that the aesthetic character of the area has been improved. 10 . There will be no significant difference in the types or quantities of energy used in this project as compared with residential uses in our Town. 11. The New York State Department of Transportation has authorized a second driveway on Slaterville Road. The parking areas appear adequate for the projected traffic flow. The use of pesticides should be controlled and monitored closely so that there is no possibility of runoff into the City of Ithaca reservoir. There are no other aspects of the project which might create either a short-run or long-term hazard to human health or .safety. 12. The proposed use is compatible with existing uses, both in type and intensity. 13. 1 cannot foresee the creation of a future, material demand for any action which may have a significant environmental impact as the result of this project. " 6. Planning Board Minutes, February 19 , 1985. The record also contains (1) Survey Map entitled, "Map of Former William E. Hart Lands on Slaterville Road in Town of Ithaca, N.Y.-, dated April 4, 1964 , signed and sealed by Carl Crandall, C.E. , and (2) 8 pages from "New York State Liquor Authority -- Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and /"' ules of State Liquor Authority, September 1 , 1977 , which include an update if same dated 1980 . . Zoning Board of Appeals 9 February 27 , 1985 Mr. Battistella stated that he did not 'know what else he could say other than what has been put in writing. Vice Chairman Austen clarifed with Mr. Battistella the location of the barn. Mr. King noted that the barn is on the westerly side of the road. Mr. King commented that Mr. Battistellafs literature does not mention deliveries. Mr. Battistella stated that they want to start out small, adding that there is sufficient acreage to grow whatever they need deliveries are not a problem. Mr. King stated that he had looked at the site and the dip is horrendous. Mr. Battistella stated that he has worked with the NYS DOT and they have drawn up a plan for joist that reason, which the Board had received, adding that they will also have fill placed. Discussion followed with respect to clarification as -to the map approved by the Planning Board, it being determined that it was the undated Site Plan. Vice Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the Battistella Appeal. Mr. Jonathan C. Meigs, City of Ithaca, spoke from the floor and asked how the waste will be disposed of. Mr. Battistella stated that the liquid will go into the sewer system from the barn; the solid waste will go into the vineyard. Vice Chairman Austen stated that Mr . Meigs, was welcome to review the EAF and its review. Mr. Meigs offered that he was satisfied. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , with respect to the farm winery as proposed by Roger M.' Battistella, make and hereby does make a negative declaration as to environmental impact, noting that there are no adverse effects that cannot be tolerated. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. King noted that there is legislation with respect to such a farm winery which imposes certain restrictions as to size of operation beyond which such farm winery may become no larger. Mr. King commented that there is no request for a sign and wondered if Mr. Battistella had any plans for signage, noting that that would be a separate matter. Mr-. Battistella stated that he had not really thought about that, commenting that he did not think they would need a large sign and noting that it would be a local operation. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a use variance to the applicant, Roger M. Battistella, .or the operation of a "FARM WINERY" proposed for 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56-2-1.1 , within the- limits as set forth in the petition which is indicated as not to exceed 10,000 gallons a year, Zoning Board of Appeals 10 February 27 , 1985 'with the understanding that there might be a further review by this Board of Appeals if Mr. Battistella wishes to expand his gallonage beyond that indicated and up to the presently permitted 50,000 gallons of wine annually under the requirements of New York State, and in accordance with the Site Plan as approved by the Planning Board on February 1.9, 1985 . There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Battistella Appeal duly closed at 8:19 p.m. APPEAL OF CITY OF ITHACA, APPELLANT, JONATHAN MEIGS, AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT TO ERECT TWO STRUCTURES TO ACCOMMODATE THE ITHACA CITY YOUTH BUREAU WITH AN APARTMENT, AND A MAINTENANCE FACILITY, AT 1701 NORTH CAYUGA STREET, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NUMBER 6--18-2-11 AND 6-18-3-1 . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 11 AND 12, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75 , TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted utter duly opened at 8:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Aearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Meigs was present. Vice Chairman Austen read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mr. Meigs under date of February 19 , 1985, as follows: " . . .Having been denied permission to erect two buildings to accommodate the Ithaca Youth Bureau, a maintenance facility for Stewart Park, and. a park watchman' s apartment at 1701 N. Cayuga St. . . Continuation in use of existing, outmoded, inefficient, hard-to-maintain structures in which these municipal activities are housed; and interference with existing plans fo:-- improvement of Stewart Park, a major community recreation facility. " It was noted that the Board members had also received the following documents with their agenda: 1 . Letter dated February 13 , 1985 from Jonathan C. Meigs , City Planner, to Mrs. Nancy Fuller -- "Please schedule some time on the agenda of the February 19th Planning Board meeting, for an informational presentation on the proposed Youth Bureau Facility. Perhaps fifteen minutes is all that will be necessary for this overview of the project at its present stage of development. SlIn addition to familiarizing the Board with the project, which has only been in design a little over a month, comment received at the meeting will be useful in refining the site plans, which is tentatively scheduled to be submitted for formal approval at the March 5 , 1985 meeting, following hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval of the use on February 27 , 1985 . TThe accompanying drawing gives an idea of the direction the design is headed and its main features. The segment of (46N. Cayuga St. between East Shore Dr. and the park would be relocated, to _emove the hazard to foot traffic between Youth Bureau and park, and to permit more design freedom and design relationship to the park. The Tin Can' s asbestos will be properly disposed of. The new two-storey Youth F" ., r,�� x+..G1■ � � j1"4�,Y�,,�„}'" �.y��^ � �Y�a r m All' [ �-•rtiW�nr� ��� �3� -air. w•rG- � a Y I[ 1 'So �� 11.1 fr.R �§iIIW r L` .ti ,w J M. VT ' - ._ - 6 I .� �Y.-mow:, " 1[ is t_ 1■111 r> �i ll ♦1., .T"11�1�`� !m nnu114 ��.■ �axar lr�- _:r i"Mira ME FAIR Zm [yam Lam: �_..,.-��r� ���[ ��1,..,���, �����■= �j'�� _ , . ._ Balm I E%rl11t� f OWN air IBM �Ilast 10 AM MEN IN INSANN 1 IN IMPso i VIA .b , I ` A MILLER MAYER, LLP 4.�. ATToR.NEYS AT LAW R.Jamc %hi ler Adam R.Schaye John%Joy; I i incheliff 202 East State Street,Suite 700 Carolyn S.Lee Elena Salcmo Plash ll}}; New York 14850 Kimberly N.Rothman RosanneCtT._;:.-1200 I:a cr Nancy T.Kung* 1`r'srhhane: Geer�zc R. Pt-:um,Jr. Fax: 607.272.0694 *Admitted in Connecticut DaN id A. I%It,r Web:www.rnillermayer.com New York Admitlanee Pending Hilar},T. Fmscr dat@millerm.�yer.com Hayden R.Brainard Laurie Nf.John,�,m Of Counsel Stephen Yale-Loehr July 7, 2006 j "''FST Susan H. Brock, Esq. 306 E. State Street, #230 ----- Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Agreement of Municipal Cooperation between the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Town of Ithaca (Court Attendance) Dear Susan: I am writing with good news to you in your capacity as Attorney for the Town of Ithaca. Last week I had a call from Mitchell Morris,the Associate Counsel in the Office of the State Comptroller, with reference to my letter to him of June 19, 2006 in the above, of which you received a copy. He started by saying that the Comptroller's Office does not generally give opinions where there is an existing Agreement in place unless there is a complaint with respect to it. However,he went on to say that our arrangement is consistent with current policies, which encourage Municipal cooperation. The old opinions that we had looked at in the McKinney's notes of cases and opinions, did not, in fact, set out the policy change which occurred about 1970 \',•licli 5 199-n ot' the General Municipal Law, subparagraph c., added language that the Municipality's power to "effectuate the purposes of this article, shall include extension of appropriate territorial jurisdiction necessary therefor". He dug up and sent to me several opinions which reflect the change in policy which he had described to me. I enclose those opinions No.s 72-926, 76-736 and 77-560. Apparently, a number of opinions of the Comptroller do not get reported, so we did not have the benefit of the current policy position on the issue we `' ere struggling with. The opinions are quite straight-forward and helpful, and I think you will enjoy having them in your files. S. Brock July 7, 2006 Page 2 Please call me with questions. I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this to Cathy Valentino as well as Mayor Lynn and Chief Lansing. Very truly yours, OZ'-- David A. Tyler, Esq. DAT:nfp cc w/enclosures: Mayor Walter R. Lynn, Village of Cayuga Heights Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Kenneth W. Lansing, Chief, Village of Cayuga Heights Police Dept. HA3016\001\corres 20061Bmck re muni coop bean VCH 6&T of Ithaca-wpd n V1 Vl VJ V1 Vi F P CJ P ;3 .G.� („�, P+i ..5.,-i ^ Ln 6 r �+ U y� aS U cd rl � N 4�7 4�-7 N — O '�' r x 7J � Q �• � � Q1 � _ c0 un � A .i Go p _ – -: O U _ — V N - eh M v :.) d G J j U ti �y ra C 00 p00 O 10 L �r 00 yLm CL cl o OW C ri C7 n n F F r O F. C3 U T=C G.�cr r _ coy ;� U U L O -� O -b v Q - U g VrA n n Go ra ra H cs Y vca U LO _ ., -. .. ,..; . :�. ..:.;; '.: rri•.--s"" -.` '..',:ate. :: WA, 00 O D.. UV �.-. .0 a J O G — U Nza — on u v W) 73 y V � � D G O O � � tW `� ✓, � fl. Ctl � O 00 Lr, rj LI) ..f) V - s N . 14 LCr, 00 tj CL C ^ x f _- N N - r • 1.+ U �. .; O Gd9 Q W O J CL a- ^�. M m O � G�NERAL MU33ICIPAI, LAW, §§119-n(c) , jig-o(3-) :whichsuch to. provide police. protection to the. town in w _ located. 4 November 27,, 1972 72-9'6 Miss Melanie J. Roberts Village Clerk- Treasurer lij Bast VAin Street lWashingtouville,, Now York 10992 Ret village of Washingtonville Dear N190 Roberts This is in rosporse to your recent .inquiry in which you ask the following: May a village furnish pollee proteotion to the mown in which such village is located? �r Statement of Late r SQotion 119»o(l) of Article 5-C of the Ogneral Muniaipal Law authorizes arunloipalities to enter into, amend, cancel and terminate agreenents for the performance among themselves of their respective functions, power 8 and dnties or for the provision of a J OInt servieO v prior to 1970, the teras of Article 5--G did not authorise a munlei- paUty to extend Its territorial Jurisdi.otion. Because Article 5­G did not relieve 'municipalities of the limitations on their terri- torial juri edietton a-ud because village poilaemen were jU ted to perfornttng pollee functions only within the area of the village, we had expressed the view that a village could not enter into a munlei- pal cooperation agreement that would require village policemen, to perform pollee f'=etions beyond the LUnit s of the village (19 Op. State Compt. 172, 1963; 21 op. State Compt. 329, 1465) . In 1970,, Artiale 5--G was amended by an expansion of the definition of the term "Joint. services" (General Municipal Law, 5119-n(a), as amohdod by L. 1970, c. 331, eft. Ma1 1970) • The effect of the amendment was to extend appropri.tzteKy �he territorial. Jurisdieti,on of mur eipalitles participating in r4uni.cipal cooperation agreements. By reason of that amenftent, we have stated that villages are now authorized to enter into muniolpal 000peration. agreements that Call for the performance of pollee functions by village policemen beyond Cthe area limits of the village (26 Op. state Compt. 75, 1970; OPIn- 11 ion No. 70-991, 1-970, unreported) . In 1972, Article 5-GF was again amended by an expansion of the 72-926 alternative powers treated ire, 'Mun101Pal corporations (General Mwlpipal zavo 5219.OW S as amended b7 L. 29720 o, 407, off. May 22, 1972) The eftOat of this amendment was to enable one muniaipallty to per.. fOM NOrViOes for another. By reason of these amendments, it noir appears that a v13,1198 M47 dantraat to provide police protectl6n io the town in which swab vi,12age is looeted. Consideration for such proteatiOn shall be paid under the terns of the agreement by the toWa to the V111a a on an eTilti%ble bar-Ig pursuant to subdivision 2(t) of section I P-o of the. General- M=icipal Law, Conclusion A i.11age may coxatraat to .proVlde pollee proteati-on to the town in Whloh such Yi3lage is located. We trust that the above will be of assistance to you. 'fiery truly yours, ARTHUR F,WnTT State Comptroller BY zm#-O. Cooper Associate Oounsel Cttrtis� aROM MMICIPAL LAjV, §§119-o, 119-ns Discussion concerning police protection provided by a village to a portion of a city. - J Augast 27: 1976 76436 Robert Be Prey0 Esq. Village Attorney Village of Mamaroneck Village Hall Mamw=eck0 New York 10543 Res Village of Nemaroneck Dear Mr. Preys This is in response to your recent letter, and vill confirm your telephone conversation with Mr. Ellenberg of this Departments in which you inquire concern- ing a proposed contractual relationship between the Village of Mamaroneck and the - ---Cityf of We. You state that the grounds and buildings of the &ye Neck Nigh School and the We Neck Middle School are located partly within the City of Bye, and part- . ly vithin the Village of Mamaroneck, with the result that it int unclear at times whether the city police department or the village police department has the obligar- tion to supply police protection to the school grounds. You ask whether the vil- lage and the city may enter into an agreement whereby the village police department would supply police protection to the entire school grounds and buildings including that portion of the school grounds located within the City of Ave. Section 119-o(l) of article 5-G of the General Municipal Law authorises muni- cipalities to enter into, amend, cancel and terminate agreements for the performance among themselves of their respective funotions, powers and duties or for the provi- sion of a joint service. Prior to 19709 the terms of Article 5-0 did net authorise a municipality to extend its territorial jurisdiction. Because of this, and because village policemen were limited to performing police functions only within the area of the village we had previously expreased the view that -a.village-.00t d not or into a municipal cooperation agreemtlat that would require village policemen to per- form police functions beyond the limits of the village (19 Op. State Compt, 172! 1963; 21 Op. State Compte 329: 19651 Op. State Compt. No. 63-479, reported at 21 Op. state Compt. 364, 1965)• . In 19700 Article 5-G vas ended b inn espanaion of the definition of the term "Joint service" (0eneral Municipal Lav, 119n(c), as amended by L. 1970, oe 331. off. Nay 1, 1970). The effect of the amendment was to extend the territorial juris- diction of municipalities parti4ipa�tiag, ► municipal:�eoopera<ticnCeem8at11. Sy PON A. 2 �ft%-756 reason of that amendments. we have since stated that villages MI authorized to enter into municipal cooperation agreements that call for the performance of police functions by village polieemen beyond the area limits of the village (26 Op. State apt• 791 19701 Op. State Compt. No* 70-991# unreportod, 19701 Op. State Compt. No. 724926, vnreporteds 19721 Ops State Compt. No. 78-97$, wnreported# 1972). In. 19721 Article 5-Gf was again amended by an expansion of the reciprocal pow» vers vested in municipal corporations (Gfoneral Municipal Lawg §119-0(1)9 as amsuk d by L. 1978# c. 4079 off• May 92# 1978). That statute now provides, in pertinent part, as follows a+(1) In addition to any other general or special powers vested in municipal corporations and districts for the performance of their respective functions# povers or duties on an Individnaly cooperative, joint or contract basing, man~ icipal corporations s . . shall have power to enter into . . . agreements for the performance among themselves or one for the other of their respective functions powers and du- ties on--a cooperative or oontract-basis .01 The effect of this amendment was to enable one municipality to perform ser- vices for another. By reason of the above-mentioned amexadmentss thong it would ap- pear that a village can contract to provide police protection to another m mioipality such as the aity herein. However# we feel that the particulars of such a joint agree- went require some discussion* if it is envisioned that the village police department alone Is to furnish po- lioe protsotlon to that part of'the school grounds within the cityp we feel that this would be improper. The City of Rye has a police department and is obligated to provide standards everyday police protection to every part of the city. -7he city taxpayers are paying for this service Aad, in our view$ there is no gray in which the oity police may abdicate this..gov# responsibility. However, we do feel thats pursuant to an Article " agreementp the oity and village police deperiments may# under the aggravated emergency conditions existing cn'tt the school groundas shire the protective services and functioned there. In shortf the village and. the pity.may.provide Joint-police•protection to that part of the school grounds situated within the city, The agreement mast so provide and the city mast furnish adequate compensation to the village for the additional police*protec- tion afforded by the village to that part of the city. We trust that the above will ba of assistance to you. Very truly yours, L,illil T . State Comptroller James C Cooper Assool;te Counsel �sLG7W �. . ..� -- UNIFORM JUSTICE C01= ACTS §§lag, 2300(c)(3); G MUNCCYPALLA W, §119-0: There is no statutory authority either mandating or permitting a county sheriffts department to provider at county expensep deputies as attendants at justice court. A county may contract with,municipalities within the county to provide such deputies in exchange for monetary consideration. A,uPolt o 1977 77-o36C Kenneth 13. Wolfe* ]isq. County Aitoxn ey Office oi' the County Attorney Lewis County Levvillep Now York 13367 ne$ Lewis County Dear Mr. Wolfe* This is in response to your letter of dully Ss 1977 Vherein you ask whether a county sheriff's depsrtetaat is either required or permitted to fw ni,ah deputies to be present as court attaAmts at sessions of the justice courts vithin the county. We find no statutory authority either mandating that a county sheriffts department provide deputies as attandants at the justice courts Vithin ouch countye ar peMdtttring Countd" to provide such deputies at county'expsnse. .Suction 109 Of the Wife= J%wft;e Court Act provides that each jus- tice court shall have such no3rjudicia . personnel as may be provided by the governing board of the nunioipality involved. Thud, 1twould be a matter solely within the discretion of the town, village or city in which a justices cous.'t is located vhether or not to dmploy attendants* to be pre. sent at siessions of tho couurt# and the cost thereof v►ould be borne by each such mami.aipaelity (see Uhi.form Justices Court .Acts §2300(c)0)). M.s Department has stated that# puranant to General Municipal. laws Article s a county map contract vith its mmi,cipalitless to pro,,-Ide addio tioaaal, or extraordinary police protection by the sheriff 3_a weehangQ for monetary compeROation (00. State Comet. No. 7�7310 1976* as fet. anr-Torted= Op. State. Coapt. No, 72-637, 197$: unreported), fteb gDeci 3l oal3.ae protec.. tion would have to bd beyond that %blob is nornta].ly provided by the sheriff in order to constitute valid consideration on behalf of the county. We feel that a county could contwact with It* municipalities to provide deppty sheriffs as attendants at sessions of justiee cars rt held in such maanicipalitiess in exchange for monetesry consideration to be paid to the county. Since the pro. tection provided by the deputies pursuant to such an agreement is nota as discussed. Abovas a required duty of the oheriffss deparbumts it would meet 77-560 W the criterion of bating beyond the sheriff a normal duties and xan dp thuds, be valid consideration, We trust rthwb the grove v ill be of assistance to you. Very truly yours# AT2M IMM state Comptroller By Ja*s C. Cooper Associate Counsel 63LOW �i1l121 TOWN OF ITHACA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 106 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 pubIicworks@town.ithaca.ny.us PHONE(607)273-1656 Roads,Parks,Trails,Sewer,and Water FAX(607)272-6076 July 11, 2006 Barney,Grossman,Dubow and Marcus Seneca Building West,Suite 400 119 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Randall B. Marcus Dear Mr.Marcus: It has been brought to my attention that there was filed in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office as of November 3, 1960, a subdivision plat entitled, "Map of Lots for John L. Marion,Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County,State of New York," dated October 10,1960, prepared by J.C. McCurdy, C.E., of premises located along Slaterville Road and what is now Pine Tree Road. This subdivision plat shows an area labeled"50' Street" adjacent to the westerly side of Pine Tree Road and adjacent to the southerly side of subdivision Lot 10. The Town of Ithaca has never accepted this area as a public road,has never used this area as a public road, and has never improved this area as a public road. The Town of Ithaca has no intention that this area become a pubic road in the future. This letter is being provided to assist in eliminating any question concerning the title to this area, which the Town of Ithaca has no rights to. Sincer , Fred Noteboom Highway Superintendent A"� ghk Jul, 10, 2006 4: 05PM Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Marcus No, 5837 P. 2 BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS eo**' Attorneys At Law SENECA BUILDING WEST SUITE 400 Facsimile john C.Barney 119 EAST SENECA STREET (607)272-8806 Peter G.Woman (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) oavid A.Ulm ITHACA,NEW YORK 14880 Randall a.Marcus Jonathan A.Orkin (607)273841 Kevin A.Jones July 10,2006 VIA FACSIMILE Fred Noteboom,Superintendent of Highways Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: Paper Street westerly of Pine Tree Road �..� Dear Fred: Please find attached the proposed letter that I spoke to you about during our telephone conversation Monday morning. I am also enclosing a copy of the subdivision plat that was filed November 3, 1960 of the lots on Pine Tree Road. If possible,I would appreciate your copying my proposed letter on Town of Ithaca letterhead,but if that is any trouble,please just sign the enclosed copy,and send the original back to me.Ideally,I need the original for a closing on Thursday. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you very much once again for your assistance with this matter. e y yours, I B.M cue :ab Enclosures Jul, 10. 2006` 4:06PM'""Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Marcus" ` v No. 5831 P. 4 f R, ,SQ/tOe'•C /9o' r • •!-IIS�jlverldi�y ! w A •• ' q • � �' �� seg=o6a »vim r i � � • _ So/d i C M C?)4FpCR Ig1 1 y - v d �4 Rejr 99 70 � dart j 1 �a3-vor sf Pas';. + i 1 • �• � 1 epi' s.•r�:ed� �s�' � • s e.r-�+o'1c.ran• 1 1 K ij . w i , +a _• •, j ' # i '� "'' !► /; '' � � � 8 is . c r [*] Jul. 10. 2006: 4:06PM734e,Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Nlarcus'IRO _ ,No. 5837 Pp. 5. 07, 11 R, + `�• x 11 -4 . I Pp 1-4 N 1 4 i t o r' I • '��, � ti � �i4 � 1 it r � g�q AA 10 •� �. iii gg ,i• �� �� ����`��C,•�� �� r S93=00'x'ZPIf.t 1:•'- � � ,�'A ,`` Iii�1`s1 \ a r ,\ -. I•. �r �M i` RZ If L4 EMI 4 7/21 Copy Town Board EMEST 21 20 TOW N CLE4K CITY OF ITHACA 310 WEST GREEN STREET ITHACA■ NEW YORK 114850 OFFICE OF TEL (607)272-1234 BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS FAX (607)272-2793 Dear Lee Shurtleff: The Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners would like to express its concern with a recent report from the Fire Chief,Brian Wilbur.During the monthly Fire Commissioners meeting Chief Wilbur reported what appears to be a lack of cooperation from the Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response in dispatching mutual aid calls in compliance with a written request sent to your attention on June 13,2006. In order to provide the residents of the City and Town of Ithaca with a safe and reliable emergency response during an unusual construction season,Chief Wilbur requested that the Tompkins County Emergency Response Center automatically request mutual aid from the Cayuga Heights Fire Department for any emergency calls in the Cornell Heights area of the City of Ithaca.Since June 14,2006 Chief Wilbur reported that there have been 13 incidents on the north side of Fall Creek that would have qualified for this automatic mutual aid.Of the 13 incidents the Cayuga Heights Fire Department was automatically dispatched three times.After identifying the area where the emergency existed,the Ithaca Fire Department requested mutual aid from the Cayuga Heights Fire Department four times.The Chief also reported that six incidents did not receive a mutual aid call at all. Given the number of roadway closures around Cornell as a result of construction and the locations of our response squads,we commend the Chief for taking a proactive approach so as to continue to provide the residents of our community with a rapid response at a time when they are the most vulnerable,at a time of crisis.Our citizens look to all members of our emergency response staff to answer their calls for help in a seamless manner.Based on the Chief's report this is not happening currently.The Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners is requesting your assistance in resolving any obstacles that may exist so that the confidence of our citizens in their emergency response team is maintained. As this issue places the citizens of our community in a potentially life threatening situation we would appreciate your proposed solution to this Rroblem prior to our August Commissioner's meeting. Please feel free to call upon us if there is any way that we can help in resolving the obstacles that resulted in these recent response failures. Sincerely, Robert Romano ski,Chair BFC On behalf of the Ithaca Board of Fire Commissioners(Paul Alexander,Steve Williams,Bill Gilligan) Cc: ryor Peterson, ✓Supervisor Valentino, Tim Joseph, Public Safety Comm.Chair McBean-Clairborne, �'�►� County Administrator Steven Whicher 7/25/06 Copy F. Noteboom/D. Walker/Board Correspondence f July 22,2006 Supervisor,Town of Ithaca Ms.Catherine Valentino 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Dear Ms. Valentino, As 38 year residents of the Town of Ithaca, of which thirty have been at 112 Pineview Terrace, Ithaca,NY we wish to submit several concerns regarding our neighborhood: Juniper Drive, Hickory Place and Pineview Terrace. This well established subdivision has markedly deteriorated"appearance-wise"over the past five years as new owners have assumed properties. Specific properties are not mowing along the town-created drainage ditches. It appears that either the town should ask each owner tornow weeds/grass along and within the ditches and/or cul-de-sac or the town should mow regularly the areas involved. Mowing used to be done in years past by the town personnel. Residents gradually took on this responsibility, however some newer owners have ceased to do this. The ditches have been created by the Town however and should be maintained. One idea is to place culverts in the ditches, cover with gravel and soil and then seed with grass so property owners can mow without endangerment to themselves or their mowers. This was done along the west side of Pineview to Hickory. But Pineview to Juniper is an open ditch area and so is Juniper Drive to Pineview on the south side. Because of these deep ditches owners have not mowed them. Other aspects of concern that fall under PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 205-1: The properties needing to be notified of non-compliance of property maintenace are listed by address in sequence starting form Pineview cul-de-sac, ascending Juniper Drive and arcing back onto Hickory Place. I will list them on separate sheets so that you can refer them to the appropriate Town personnel for follow up. JUL 2 5 MA A000k, ATTEST ITF,f C TT0t1,1�, CLERF4 t 110 Pineview Terrace—There is a general disarray of"junk" in yard, drive and on the porch as well as high weeds at cul-de-sac area. Recently large amounts of water has been pooling in his yard from the road above. It is unable to drain and is a mosquito-breeding - hazard. Needs to drain with a culvert under his driveway to creekside below. Town resolution might be helpful since it appears to come from the road above his sub level lot. 111 Pineview—drainage pooling at the end of their drive again. The Town did address a chronic drainage problem at the end of Pineview at the cul-de-sac in front of 111 Pineview, south side of his driveway. Despite the good work some pooling recurred this year. The property owner notified the town early this year but there has been no correction as of this letter. 109 Pineview—a pile of flagstone used for an entry marker lays in a"heap"at the driveway and road. (Knocked over by vehicle). This has been there for 6 months and the pile of stone obstructs the drainage grate(storm sewer)installed by the Town 2-3 years ago. 107 Pineview—This property borders Pineview and Hickory Place. They often do not mow to road because of the ditch on Hickory Place. Could you install a culvert and even it to the road as suggested above so they could mow it without danger and difficulty? 106 Pineview—Owner occupied home with rental unit attached. Railroad ties(removed from present landscape have lied along the street side over a year. Please have them removed by owner. Rental unit parking is insufficient. Usually two cars are parked on Iw`' the street,especially during the academic year. While turning from Hickory Place to Pineview it is difficult to not hit the cars as they are in roadway nearly every night. Suggest owner widen driveway to make adequate off-street parking for tenants. Because tenants don't like to shovel snow they park on the street. The snowplow has great difficulty navigating and clearing through this stricture too. 101 Pineview—The owners do not mow grass outside of their fence. Because of the drainage ditches bordering their property on both Pineview and Juniper it is difficult to get at this area. A solution might be to put in culvert,gravel, soil and grass seed so they can mow both areas without danger and difficulty. 109 Juniper—brush piles in front and side for two years plus! Either they are unaware of Town brush pick up or choose to ignore the wonderful service. The ditch in front also is full of gangly weeds that are an eyesore. Perhaps a culvert,gravel,soil and grass seed cover application is appropriate here too. Owners can't manage the slopes and shouldn't be asked to. 103 Juniper—ditches are again an unsightly problem and are difficult to mow. Put in culvert, gravel, soil and seed as above so resident can mow. 104 Hickory Place—Brush, cut trees(stumps), limbs lay strewn throughout their property and it"creates degradation through unsightliness", stated in Property Maintenance 205-1 .cam For over 50 years the town has"paved"Juniper Drive, Pineview Terrace and Hickory Place with"oil and stone". This topping proves very problematic at times with much "tar-tracking"into homes of those who walk on it. (The South Hill Trail is a delightful 2 blocks away!) We thoughtfully request that the Town of Ithaca consider asphalting these roads as they have for 10 years plus on Northview Road and Rich Road,comparable neighborhoods of house values,tax base, etc.. Additionally the loose stone causes hazards in traction with both cars and bicycles when newly applied for a few years. Please note that the hilly terrain is nearly identical in all three neighborhoods and Northview and Rich Roads do well with the asphalted surface so we would request the same consideration. Lastly I would like to say that we have counted it a privilege to live in the Town of Ithaca over the years. We have been involved in the Juniper Drive Neighborhood Civic Association as past president. Both of us have served on the Town Board committees and learned in an intimate fashion the inner working of the Town government,co- laboring with Shirley Raffensperger and John Whitcomb on critical issues, especially in comprehensive planning and ethics as well as campaigning. We ask that you carefully consider our concerns. The neighborhood is a key entrance area to the South Hill Trail(Recreation Way)and it receives a lot of use and exposure to the community at large. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, kk Ron and Bonnie Simpson 112 Pineview Terrace Ithaca,NY 14850 (607)273-0599 Aw (continuation of 104 Hickory Place) 1. Also their property border along Pineview is unkempt,not mowed and the ditch problem exists here which compounds their ability to mow it. OF 1 T�9a TOWN OF ITHACA 1821 - 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 EN INEERING MEMORANDUM FROM: Dan Walk TO: Cathy Valentino CC: Fred Noteboom DATE: 8/2/2006 RE: Property Maintenance Complaint on Pineview Tr.,Juniper Dr.and Hickory Place Fred and I investigated the property maintenance complaint submitted by letter from Ron and Bonnie Simpson dated July 22,2006. My comments are listed in the order presented in the letter as follows: 110 Pineview Terrace -There is a"Kiddie"Pool in the front yard and some items on the front porch,but nothing that would be considered a violation of the ordinance. The Water in the yard seems to be short term and is probably due to the heavy rainfall this year. The cul-de-sac drains away from 110 and does not increase water in the yard. The weeds are on a steep bank between the'road and the yard and is not a violation of the ordinance. 111 Pineview Terrace -This drainage problem is in the Town Right of Way and has been a problem because of the flat grades. Fred is planning to address this by grading to the existing catch basin and possibly extending the pavement slightly. 109 Pineview Terrace—The stone pile is in the ROW and we will ask the Landowner to remove it. 107 Pineview Terrace—Not mowing is not a violation and installing a pipe is an option but is not in the current work plan and would probably be hard to justify the cost in this area. 106 Pineview Terrace—The Railroad ties are in the ROW but are below the shoulder and are not causing a problem for the Town. We can request that the owner remove the. The parking on the shoulder will be addressed by ticketing if it is a problem during the winter. 101 Pineview Terrace-Not mowing is not a violation and installing a pipe is an option but is not in the current work plan and would probably be hard to justify the cost in this area. 109 Juniper Drive—The brush piles are not of a nature to be a violation of the ordinance. We can notify the Owner of the Town brush pickup this year and also the acceptance of brush at the PW facility to encourage them to remove it. The weeds in the ditch are not a violation and have not been an obstruction for the Town. Piping this ditch is not on the Highway Work Plan. 103 Juniper Drive-The weeds in the ditch are not a violation and have not been an obstruction for the Town. Piping this ditch is not on the Highway Work Plan. 104 Hickory Place-The brush and stumps are not of a nature to be a violation of the ordinance. We can notify the Owner of the Town brush pickup this year and also the acceptance of brush at the PW facility to encourage them to remove it. Not mowing is not a violation and installing a pipe is an option but is not in the current work plan and would probably be hard to justify the cost in this area. r0'a M:1Com3spondance120061complaintsWemo to CV re Simpson letter re Plneview.doc DWalkerAD Page 1 8/412006 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Rureau of Water Permits, 4th Floor f� Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-3505 r,,one: (518) 402-8111 . FAX: (518) 402-9029 4- WCbsite: + ,,��AC4c.Rate.nv.us I e .Shy h AUG - r 1 sting mmiss r August 2, 2006 j Af�FSI CATHERINE VALENTINO iIi+nt:n Yo:.r�a c_LE4#!" _ SUPERVISOR Town of ITHACA 215 NORTH 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 three (March 10, 2005 through March 9, 2006) MS4 annual report table and municipal compliance certification (MCC) form be submitted by June 1, 2006. All tables and forms received were reviewed by the General Permits Section staff for completeness. The annual report and MCC form submitted for 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 Buetow of my staff at (518) 402-8121. Sincerely, Angus Eaton Chief-General Permits Section cc: Regional Water Engineer AGENDA # 17 AUG 2 1 2006 NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARRS,RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Bernadette Castro George E.Patdd Commissioner Governor August 8,2006 Honorable Catherine Valentino Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: Congratulations! As.Governor Pataki announced today, a matching grant of$40,000 has been reserved from the Environmental Protection Fund for the Town Playground Replacements. Your grant will be formally awarded by means of a contract,which will be coming to you from your Regional Grants Office in the near future. I urge you to work very closely with the*Region, and not to begin work on your project until appropriate contract conditions have been satisfied. Governor Pataki's strong commitment to this program has made more than$14.3 million of grant funds available for distribution this year. The need for this funding is demonstrated once again by an extremely keen competition. Statewide, for these programs,we received 327 applications requesting$57.3 million. For the parks program, 190 applicants requested $29.6 million; for historic preservation$24.9 million was sought by 122 potential grantees; and for the Heritage Areas program,we saw 15 requests for$2.8 million this year. I am delighted that yours was one of the grants that we were able to award from the more than $14.3 million available to us. We are eager to initiate our partnership with you for this very important project. Mos incerely, Bernadette astro Commissioner State Historic Preservation Officer Empire State Taxa•Agency Building 1•Albany,New York 12238 518-4744MB 9 FAX:518-4941865 Tee Ann Hunter mom: webserver@clarityconnect.com mt: Tuesday,August 22, 2006 1:15 PM o: towncierk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm department: Engineering 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: B1: Submit Comments: Good afternoon. Once again, I have a complaint with the misuse of Eastern Heights Park. With the college students returning, and the high school students getting ready for school, the park has once again become the "party place". Since we live directly next to the park, we take the brunt of the noise and constant disturbances. With all of this noise, it is difficult to rest/sleep, which disrupts our performances at work. Last evening, August 21, 2006, at approximately 9:00 PM, there was a party with loud music and noise in the Park. We did call the Sheriff, but were informed that they were extremely usy, and would send someone up as soon as possible. Fortunately, the individuals departed d we did inform the Sheriff. I also was forced to call the Sheriff once last week for I .e same issue, and they responded in a timely fashion and dispersed the people. And, 2 weeks ago, we awoke on a Saturday morning to find that people had camped there all evening! We really appreciate the Sheriff responding and dispersing the violators, but why are they not issued summons? The sign at the entrance to the Park, along with the sign on the basketball court stated that the park closes 30 minutes past sunset. To me, this is trespassing and is illegal and should be handled in such manner. A few summons, and the individuals would get the message and hopefully follow the rules. There is evidence of drug use, possible drug trade, alcohol consumption(also illegal according to Park rules) , and now gang graffiti (on the trash can and sign on the basketball court) , along with the constant littering. This does not account for the numerous times that used condoms are littered in the park. What will it take before the Town of Ithaca realizes that the misuse of Eastern Heights Park is an issue and needs addressing? Additional property damage or serious personal injury? The town will soon replace the children's playground, only to have it misused unless some restraints or actions are put into place. We are also in the process of investing in 1 Tee Ann Hunter ,om: Cathy )nt: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:53 PM o: Tee Ann Hunter Subject: RE: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm Mr. Newton. I talked with the Sheriff he is trying to watch the park and address problems. I have gone over to the park several times and have not seen any damage beyond normal for our parks I went by a 6:30 pm last night and again at 10:30 pm but no one was on park property at that time. I am working with our public works people to try to keep the park clean. It looked well kept when I was their.I will try to keep watch for problems. The sheriff wants you to call when ever you see people breaking the law he will try to sent someone to check. i am sorry that you are so upset. we are trying to address your problems. -----Original Message----- From: Tee Ann Hunter Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:02 PM To: Catherine Valentino; Herbert Engman (E-mail) ; Jeff Cowie (E-mail) ; Pat Leary (E-mail) ; Peter Stein (E-mail) ; Sandra Gittleman (E-mail) ; Will Burbank (E-mail) Subject: FW: Data posted to form 1 of http: //www.town. ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm -----Original P' �ssage----- 1_�rom: webser:r,, sclarityconnect.com [mailto:webserver@clarityconnect.com] =nt: Tuesday, :august 22, 2006 1: 16 PM ): townclerk@town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/Feedback.htm ****************************** *****************************+****************-k department: Web Site 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: B1 : Submit Comments: Good afternoo . Once again, I have a complaint with the misuse of Eastern Heights Park. With the colle students returning, and the high school students getting ready for school, the park as once again become the "party place" . Since we live directly next to the park, we take e brunt of the noise and constant disturbances. With all of this noise, it is difficu to rest/sleep, which disrupts our performances at: work. Last evening, August 21, 20 , at approximately 9: 00 PM, there was a party tif' '_:, icuu music and noise in the Park. We di call the Sheriff, but were informed that they were extremely busy, and would send someo up as soon as possible. Fortunately, the individuals departed 'wed we did inform the Sherif I also was forced to call the Sheriff once last week for e same issue, and they respon ed in a timely fashion and dispersed the people. And, 2 .,eeks ago, we awoke on a Saturday orning to find that people had camped there all evening! We really appreciate the eriff responding and dispersing the violators, but why are they not issued summons? The sign t the entrance to the Park, along with the sign on 1 SEP-05-06 TUE 12 :05 PM P. 01 copy: Town Board Correspondence — Sept 1.1p 06 x T SUNNY BROOK BUILDERS ,August 24, 2006 Dear Ithaca Town Board. MY firm has just coxnpleted a now home in your Town and we ran,into a situation that I wanted to bring to your attention. At thc- time we asked for the Certificate of Occupancy(CO)Inspcction, we were informed that the lawn world need to be seeded. Because of the more pressing list of thing':; to get done inside as well as the fact that there has been a lot of outside activity up unlit 111 k: (-1�te of the inspection,the lawn was not seeded. Of course the Owner is on a fight 1itio to move in, so the Building Department told us that we could apply for a 7'c"'PoCio-,v CO. Which we did and all ofthis is fine. The issue that I would like to bring to your attention is that this is 6)v only item left to be inspected for the Final C.O is a drive by to see the lawn has been seeded. Tie cost of a Temporary CO is one half of the cost of the original building permit. This cost seems disproportionate to the amount of work necessary by your staff to issue the Final CO. This situation will tu'i uririly occur for all building pen-nits of gradcd pzojects that end bcrwc..n'No vent bet and May. 1 respectfully ask your consideration of setting a smaller fee,that is more reflective of the amount of effort that needs to taken by the Town, for Temporary CO's that are issued solely for enforcement of Storm 'Water and.Erosion Control. Sinfceree!y, C f t Jests C— Don Bar4r Mazy 13arber- Vice president 2147 Slaterv&Road, Ithaca., New Yorki148 0on $rb(607)0339-6226 _ pholle (60 thea - Secretary 7)539-6323 - Fax www.sunnybrookbuilcle; co,,, Page 1 of 1 Cathy From: fitzsimmons family[fitzsimmons family@msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 25,2006 8:58 AM To: Cathy Subject: Gazebo website Hello Cathy, We just saw the website with the pictures of the dedication of the Gazebo. It really looks great! Thank you again for putting together the resources, manpower, and planning to establish this wonderful tribute to mom and her work in the community. Please convey our thanks to the town staff for all of the work they did on the project. Sean and I enjoyed our trip back to Ithaca. I especially appreciate the time we spent with you, hearing some of your recollections of times with mom and dad. We'll be sure to stop in and visit with you on our next trip to town. And, if you make it this far west, please let me know so we can arrange to get together. Thank you again, N Cathy Catharine Raffensperger Fitzsimmons fitzsimmons_family_@msn.com Catharine.fitzsimmons@dnr.state.ia.us 7215 Jefferson Avenue Windsor Heights, IA 50322 (515) 274-5804 9/6/2006 1 CATHERINE VALENTINO 110 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE ITHACA.NEW YORK 14850 (607) 272-5214 home August 25, 2006 Mr. Herbert J. Engman 120 Warren Road Ithaca,NY 14750 Dear Herb: As you know, it has been brought to my attention that at an interview with WHCU several weeks ago (around July 28, 2006)you were reported as saying: "The Town's [Town of Ithaca] been doing some things that simply weren't in accordance with New York State Law and we've [you and Peter Stein]been very slowly getting the Town into compliance. Unfortunately, Cathy Valentino,the ,.. Town Supervisor, has fought every step of the way and now has dragged the staff into the debate and that's what led to the particular blow up at the last Town Board." You are also quoted as saying: "We've learned that we're doing something wrong here and we're trying to set them right, doing them in the right way and that's where we have gotten the resistence from the Town Supervisor." I am concerned with the allegations that we are doing something that is not legal and that I have been an obstruction to proceeding in a legal fashion. So that we can hopefully avoid continuing doing things that you believe are illegal would you be kind enough to advise me in writing what it is you think we are presently doing that is illegal and the manner in which you think the Town Supervisor has been resistant to bringing the Town into legal compliance. I know you had a problem with the committee system we were using but we have now taken care of that by adopting a local law authorizing us to use the committee system that the Town has used (successfully I might add)for many years prior to your coming on the Board. io ce Your early response to this letter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, C Catherine Valentino xc: Mr. William Burbank Mr. Jeff Cowie Ms. Pat Leary Ms. Sandra Crittelman Mr. Peter Stein Herb Engman on WHCU July 28,2006 quotes ...the Town's been doing some things that simply aren't in accordance with New York State Law and we've been very slowly getting the Town into compliance, unfortunately, Cathy Valentino,the Town Supervisor, has fought every step of the way and now has dragged the staff into the debate... ...we're going through a process with the Town Board trying to conduct its legally required administrative and legislative responsibilities against the resistance of the Town Supervisor and that's what this issue is all about... ...as new Board Members have learned what state law says,we've learned that we're doing things wrong here and we're trying to set them right and do them in the right way and that's where we have gotten this resistance from the Town Supervisor... Herb Engman on WHCU - July 28, 2006 H There are three forms of government. The Town's been doing some things that simply weren't in accordance with New York State Law and we've been very slowly getting the Town into compliance. Unfortunately, Cathy Valentino, the Town Supervisor,has fought every step of the way and now has dragged the staff into the debate and that's what led to this particular blow up at the last Town Board. Our Town Board, ah, Budget Committee, excuse me, had recommended a 3.6% salary increase for the 2007 year and Cathy had recommended a 4%. Now, we are months away from any final decision but, quite frankly, Cathy Valentino performed a little bit of political theater by inviting a lot of the staff in and they flooded the room and caused, ah, in effect a situation that made it difficult to talk about balancing the need of the taxpayers of the Town, their ability to pay property taxes and the needs of our employees who are excellent and we certainly want to provide every dime we can for them. Ah, but that's what kind of created a, a, an atmosphere and what had been happening was that Councilman Stein had been trying to get information on behalf of the Budget&Finance Committee and the Personnel Committee on just what the situation was with salary and benefits over the past five years so we can see some trends. And he made a superb presentation which explained that beautifully. Everybody agreed that this 12% per year increase for the past five years was correct and I'm, I want to make sure everybody understands that- 12% a year, every year for the past 5 years. So, that's an average. Everybody agreed with that but yet Supervisor Valentino challenged Councilman Stein's report saying well it can't had added in all of the new employees that we had added. So, Councilman Stein turned to our Human Resource Officer and said well, I got the figures from you. Are they correct? And our Human Resource Officer said no, there are additional people and that is when Councilman Stein said ah, in effect,that he had been set up for making a presentation that wasn't totally accurate because it didn't have all of the information and now Councilman Stein doesn't regret using that phrase but he used it in the meeting. And, ah, so that created some, some obvious tension in the group and, ah,but it still doesn't explain why a Town Councilperson can't get accurate and complete information, you know, when, when one asks for it. So in any case, the meeting deteriorated into some chaos and, and quite frankly mainly because the inability of the unwillingness of the Town Supervisor to perform the presiding officer duties in an appropriate manner. So, I think any attempt to characterize me Q)the staff versus board are simply false,they are not appropriate. We're going through a process with the Town Board trying to conduct legally required administrative and legislative responsibilities against resistence of the Town Supervisor, and that's what this issue is all about. But in ways you are dealing with personalities and politics as well, aren't you? H Oh ya, I mean, I don't think anybody who has ever seen the situation would argue that there is considerable friction between Supervisor Valentino and Councilman Stein. But that shouldn't allow us to, ah, deteriorate into chaos. Those two have gotta work that out among themselves, ah, between themselves. This is not something that everybody often PaW 4 of 7 ,•.. saw,that's an issue between the two of them. But, there, there is this tension, I have to re-emphasize between the majority of the Town Board and the Town Supervisor on many of these issues. Person to person. Maybe it is just my lack of understanding,but do you have that just recently cropped us, this tension? H No,this has been going on for many months and partially because as new board members have learned what the state law says,we've learned that we're doing something wrong here and we're trying to set them right, doing them in the right way and that's where we have gotten this resistence from the Town Supervisor. Any kind of change is going to be difficult for anybody. We know that. That is psychological. We can understand that. Um, I wonder when we've talked about this on the radio,you know, you say it in the newspaper and, you know, frankly it is like airing your dirty laundry. Is there a way to sort of go into a back room quietly maybe and negotiate and talk and say look, let's, let's be professionals about this and handle this in a way that is not going to stress out the staff or people in the town and taxpayers who are going- oh boy,these folks are running our town- ah? H Well, we have to understand that state law says you can't do that. Whatever a majority of the Town Board meets, it has to be in public session. In effect, I think that's good, I think that is perfectly appropriate because if we have dirty laundry in the Town the public should know about it and they should come and make their judgment and then decide at the election who should represent them, and, ah, you know, obviously I'm a little bit bias and then sometime I sit on the Town Board and see that end of it and I'm supporting those changes, ah, again I think things have not been done properly in the Town and one person, i.e., the Town Supervisor should not make all of the decisions for the Town. There should be an appropriate use of the responsibility of the Town Board to, ah, have it's rightful place in the decision making process and we need to remember that state law says the Town Board is the administrative head of the Town as well as a legislative head. That is different, there are other forms of government and we need to take that responsibility carefully. We delegate to the Town Supervisor some scribijury(?) and other responsibility but we don't, we aren't relieved of the responsibility. We have to make sure that the Town Supervisor does those duties properly. That's why the Town Supervisor is paid full time in the Town of Ithaca,unlike most places where, you know, it is a part time position. Gotch ya. Let me ask you that night because of the debate over the(?) side presentation on salaries,was other town business postponed or not gotten to. H We had some things that were postponed but, ah,they weren't major issues. One was a presentation of the proposed stream set back law. We are going to do that in August. Um, all of the other business was get done. . . I have to emphasize that when all of this Page 5 of 7 a debate, there hasn't been any, ah, lessening of the effectiveness of town government. We got an incredible staff who continue to do their business just beautifully and that, of course, is the main way the Town gets its business done, is through the Town staff. So, we're going to work this stuff out at the Board and the Supervisor level eventually and as you say, you know, change is difficult and, and, you know, if you take the time and (?). . . and it will eventually work all of this out. It is just a matter of sticking to it and, er, er it will work out fine. I have absolutely no doubt about that. Herb, let me ask you a couple of quick questions. When are the Town Board positions up again? H It is ever two years. When the next election occurs in the Fall of 2007,the Town Supervisor's position will be up, my position will be up, Peter Stein's position will be up and, ah, Cindy Gittlemen's position will be up. So, there will be a(?) election next time around. So, it is a year from this Fall? Right? H Pardon. That will be a year from this Fall? H A year from this Fall, correct. And what is the political breakdown of the Town Board. H All Democrats. All Democrats. Okay. (Laughing) H (Laughing)You know, you know that, that the history the Republicans and Democrats probably get along better then Democrats fighting among themselves. (Laughing) H Sort of a myth maybe in some respects but in reality. . . then you find out within the Town Board itself; I mean we had, oh, a healthy debate about how much, ah, we should try to be paying Town employees. There was one individual who said, hey, 4%may be too little, let's be talking about, you know, what we can really do here and other people were saying well, 3.6%matches the rate of inflation at least as we know it now and other people were saying no the,the rate is going up, it may be 4.3% by the time we are done. So, all of this is still in play. We won't make these final decisions for a couple of months so we gotta get good data,we gotta get good information in order to be fair to the taxpayers and be fair to the employees. Page 6 of 7 Fair enough, I appreciate your talking about it and getting us the latest on it. Herb Engman with the Town of Ithaca Board and Herb, I also personally want to point out you are going to be at the Empire State Games participating. What are you participating in? H I am. I am going to be sweating on the track tomorrow in the 800 meters and on Saturday in the 1500 meters. So. . . Well, best of luck to you. H If I survive, I'll be back to talk with you again. Alrighty. (Laughing)You'll survive, the question is will you get a metal? (Laughing) H Big question. (Laughing) Herb Engman,thanks for being on the Morning News Watch. H Take care. Page 7 of 7 9/7/06 - Copy Town Board/R, Schoch/M. Kirchgessner t STEPHEN J. COLUCCI 207 'TUDOR POAD ITHACA, NE YORK 14850 September 6, 2006 To whom it may concern: I thank you for inviting my family to the September 11 Town Board meeting at which participants in the Student Work Initiative Program will be recognized. My son Greg participated in the program this past summer but is now away at college and will be unable to attend the meeting. He thoroughly enjoyed the Program and wished that he could have spent more days participating in it than his summer schedule allowed. I especially thank Rich Schoch for alerting Greg to this program and for serving as a mentor to Greg while he completed his Eagle Scout service project, landscaping the Pew Trail parking area and installing Greg's "Welcome to Eastern Heights Neighborhood" sign. Sincerely, Steph J.�Colucci / _ 1 September 12, 2006 i of Ithaca Board Town SEP 2 0 W06 0 Ithaca, New York 14850 , ATTT___�[ --, Dear Town of Ithaca Board Members: i rHac.a TC Those in attendance at the Ithaca Town Board Meeting on September 11 want to thank you for having Mr. Lampman of the Tompkins County Highway Department present Tompkins County's intent for the reconstruction of Coddington Road to the Board. We especially thank you for the support you will give Coddington Road residents in petitioning New York State Department of Transportation regarding the width of road and pedestrian/bicycling paths; the residents of Coddington Road are sorely in need of support from government. We have now sat through public hearing meetings in which none of us are heard. We have been told our ideas are filed away. We have been told that the only people that come to public meetings are the people that don't want the project. We have been told that the only people that don't want the project are the people who live on Coddington Road. We have watched as the Highway Department works with a design firm regarding the systematic destruction of the nature of our community along Coddington Road, and of our neighborhoods off of Coddington Road. When we balk, act reactively and aggressively, generate negative comments and press, Mr. Lampman is made to walk Coddington and try to gain consensus individually from the homeowners along the way: seven months from the intended start date of the reconstruction (March 2007). Based on that effort and in that way, we learned on the 11th of the Highway Department's intent to now not have parking on lower Coddington and to investigate round-a-bouts at key intersections. To some, this may sound like public opinion at work; to the residents of, and near, Coddington Road, it is a constant and frustrating reminder of the inept, and way too aggressive, design that would be forced upon us if we did not take aggressive re-action, perhaps to the level of legal action regarding right of way proprieties of the County along Coddington Road. During a time period when most communities in America have learned that change and progress should be based on the asset gathering power of community input and consensus, Tompkins County legislature is still working to inflict change on its town and villages by levying designs that ignore the wonderful and diverse nature of the small environs that make our County unique. Imagine, if you will, a design firm being commissioned by the County (for the $900,000 that is being paid to Dewberry Goodkind, Inc. for the unfortunate Coddington Road design, as shown to us), assembling those who live on and near Coddington, as well as other interested stakeholders, with a design team, and asking for brain storming and potential collaborations on a design that would carry our Road well into the future—and actually listening to what has been suggested while working to incorporate community consensus into the design and into the future of our County. Instead, community meetings have been token meetings; if they were considered more than that, Mr. Lampman would not now be walking Coddington seeking individual input and consensus of those impacted. Instead, community residents are banding together and working to scale back the aggressive design so as to protect themselves and their community. This process is a poor one, a loss-loss for all concerned; the taxpayer funding supporting it should have created a win- win for all involved. What a sad state of government we are experiencing throughout our County for capital projects underway. The residents of Coddington Road, Ellis Hollow Road and Hanshaw Road are left trampled by the County in which they have chosen to live in and for whom they extend their taxpayer support. Possibly, a participant would have envisioned what I (foolishly) believed the bike path would look like: a wonderful and safe way for students, whose well-being is entrusted to Ithaca College, and to some respects the greater community, for 9 months each year, and residents and visitors to travel and enjoy the wonderful trees that grow on various parts of Coddington. It would be a bike path/pedestrian walk/skating area that was separated from Coddington Road by lush hedges and perhaps an attractive guard rail. Coddington Road itself would have its infrastructure improved and strengthened, its speed limit seriously curtailed, and measures would be taken to clearly delineate the Road from the path so that safety walks hand-in-hand with travel and progress. In fact, if we engage in such imaginings and we allow that to flow from a larger community, this vision would, without a doubt grow in intensity and niche design, serving community and progress in very pointed ways. I believed we would have a project that was founded in sensitivity to what makes Coddington Road different; we have been handed a project seeking to make us obsolete, a project with no consideration for safety, a project that nullifies any asset building potential of Coddington Road. We have had thrust upon us, a very poor design — replete with 54% more concrete, a bike path perhaps running with a widened road perhaps running with the same speed limit (or the design speed limit) perhaps running with sidewalks perhaps running with parking on the side—or some variation of any of these, depending on the presentation of the meeting one is attending. This is the kind of battle the residents of Coddington Road have been given to fight: one of reaction to tentativeness —and the results of that have been dramatically draining and frustrating and producing an adversarial relationship between the County and its taxpayers. On September 11th, you witnessed the somewhat heated discussion of residents elm', of Spruce Way, a Town of Ithaca road, with Mr. Lampman. Had the design team 2 /,OWN spoken with residents of Spruce Way before producing their design, instead of levying their intent to destroy the nature of Spruce Way by operating in a vacuum, they would know the following things about the block that some of us have lived on for 35 years: • The residents of Spruce Way have always known to STOP at their corner before proceeding onto Coddington. The Highway Department Stop Sign should have been placed (and I say this will all due sarcasm) facing Coddington Road, not facing Spruce Way); • The reason for this is because Spruce Way has long been a block that serves as a u-turn for Coddington Road when people traveling Coddington realize they are going in the wrong direction. The narrow width of Spruce Way has served to protect us, then, as travelers have been forced to slow to tum into Spruce Way to make their u-turns, come down Spruce Way and back onto Coddington in the right direction that they wanted to travel; • If the County does what it plans and cuts back the slope that belongs to 101 Spruce Way and cuts back the land that belongs to 100 Spruce Way, it will effectively widen Spruce Way at its entry point; • The perception of a wider road will cause the traveler who is going in the wrong direction to move faster onto Spruce Way; • What they will unhappily find out is that the top of Spruce Way does not allow any great speed. If the person driving isn't fast enough to make a quick left into the driveway of 101 Spruce Way, they will, in all likelihood reach the property and parked cars of upper Spruce Way quite quickly. • They then need to negotiate their u-turns, if they haven't hit the cars parked at the top, or hit the persons living on this quiet, small cul-de-sac. In a meeting with Mr. Lampman at Spruce Way on September 15, it was explained that: • Spruce Way is a cul-de-sac for four families, many of whom have children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews who walk and play on it; • That the driveway of the property at 101 Spruce Way is used by travelers needing to make u-turns consistently throughout the day, and especially during weekend evenings. The owners of 101 Spruce Way have had to replace parts of their driveway more than once and their reflector lights on the driveway nearly monthly because travelers make a sharp left to save themselves from having to go to the top of Spruce Way and generally don't cut the turn correctly. They usually leave their damage for the owners to find in the morning; • That taking the slope of 101 Spruce Way from the owners will shorten the driveway of that property that is used for that perennial quick left hand turn by drivers. In all likelihood, this will result in damage to the cars parked in the driveway of 101 Spruce Way; • That the residents of upper Spruce Way park their vehicles on the upper `�` part of the block, and if the 101 Spruce Way driveway is not used and 3 someone drives quickly up the block (a given of a widened road), their persons and/or their vehicles may be subject to damage, especially in the evenings when visibility is poor; • That widening Spruce Way in the way proposed will seriously imperil the property at 100 Spruce Way, as well as the numerous grandchildren playing there, since the intended design removes most of the front yard of 100 Spruce Way. Frankly, at this time, it is suspect that Tompkins County has the right of way they believe they have over Spruce Way (and Coddington Road) — legal research and time will tell. In addition, there are many alternatives to visibility improvement regarding the flow between Spruce Way and Coddington Road, as there are many safety remedies that might be used on the cul-de-sac, as it currently exists. We seek our Town Board's assistance in implementing an agreeable alternative that keeps us safe, protects our properties and the quiet nature of our little neighborhood, and allows the redesign of Coddington Road. Given that Tompkins County is placing the Town of Ithaca residents living on this Town of Ithaca road in jeopardy with this design for Spruce Way, the residents of Spruce Way are asking their Town Board to intercede for us and prevent Spruce Way's re-design, as intended by Tompkins County as part of the Coddington Road reconstruction. The residents of Spruce Way are attaching a petition supporting our belief that the design of Tompkins County for Spruce Way, as presented in current drawings, with regard to the reconstruction of Coddington Road, needs to be eliminated. The adult resident homeowners of Spruce Way, in total, request that the Town of Ithaca Board mediate for them so that our input conceming our neighborhood will be heeded and not ignored. In truth, Mr. Lampman appeared sincerely interested in the well-being of the owners of 100 and 101 Spruce Way, whose properties are most severely impacted, when he met with them and their attorney on September 15th. However, Mr. Lampman is an employee of Tompkins County, and our issue is with our County and its lack of interest in our well-being— not with Mr. Lampman. We seek additional protection from our Town that what we are asking for will be provided and not ignored. We are fearful of arriving home next summer from work one evening to find our cul-de-sac destroyed, we believe that is possible under the environment of the Tompkins County legislature as it now exists. We hope you will give serious consideration to our request for you to intercede, mediate and protect us; as Town of Ithaca residents, we need your assistance, and we extend gratitude for your anticipated consideration and potential intervention in this matter. 4 r The contact person for this matter will be: Diane Elizabeth DeMuth; PO Box 4896; Ithaca, New York 14852; Phone: 607-273-5433 (home); Office: 607-962- 8225, x11. Copies of this correspondence have been sent to all residents of Spruce Way and Carl Sgrecci, Vice President F/A, Ithaca-College. The homeowners of 100 and 101 Spruce Way have furnished their attorney with a copy. Sincerely; The names of the Petitioners follow on the next page. 5 . i f PETITION We, the homeowners of Spruce Way, in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, request that the intended design of Dewberry Goodkind, Inc., as paid for by Tompkins County, for implementation by the Tompkins County Highway Department, regarding the redesign of Spruce Way, be immediately abandoned. We believe the intended design imperils the lives of children, adults, travelers, and visitors to Spruce Way. We believe the intended design imperils our properties and our vehicles parked on Spruce Way. We request the consideration of Tompkins County, and the support and mediation of the Ithaca Town Board, in gaining a design — based on the consensus of those living on Spruce Way—that will better serve the nature of Spruce Way— if a change in design is truly necessary. We are the seven adult homeowners and residents of Spruce Way: Signatur Address Date 1. f'� 100 Spruce Way 90'G 2. W34l,, ��NiVr 101 Spruce Way 3. C,i,ti� �2�� 101 Spruce Way q isJo�. 102 Spruce Way ¢/11� 5. ` 102 Spruce Way ��Jf7z 6. 103 Spruce Way 7.� 103 Spruce Way 5 Oct 10 06 01:20p p•1 S-RCA 1640 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, New York 14 850 TOMPKINS COUNTY 607/257-1822 Fax: 607/257-5470 www-spcaonline.com September 19, 2006 Cathy Valentio Town of Ithaca Supervisor 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Nfs. Valentio: r, I write in regard to the renewal of our animal control contact for 2007. For years, the Tompkins County SPCA has provided animal control services to enforce state mandated legislation. The SPCA has conducted a thorough cost analysis and compared our rates to other entities providing comparable services in neighboring areas. This analysis yielded two key findings. _ - The first finding concerns fairness of contract costs between municipal entities. Some towns are paying more per unit of service than others. My objective is to standardize fees based on quantifiable measures so that they are uniform across municipal borders. The second finding shows that current payments to the TC SPCA are financially unsustainable for the agency and typically far below market rates for comparable services. In the past eight years, the average increase in contract rates is a mere 8.47 percent, about one-gamer indexed cost--of-operating increases over the same period. The TC SPCA is losing money by providing mandated services at the current contractual Ievels of compensation. A charitable, grassroots community not-for-profit cannot afford to make in- .kind donations to municipalities so that those public entities can comply with mandates to enforce state Iaw. Yet that is what the SPCA is doing by providing law enforcement that costs more than what towns are paying_ We are calculating increases based on two goals: one, standardizing.costs for municipalities relative to one another and two, ensuring that the TC�SPCA can render services without losing money. Maintaining animal control contracts complements our mission in that it allows us to oversee the fate of every stray dog in our service area. (Indeed, the last time any towns attempted to manage animal control and impoundment services independently, the state shut down their programs because of how badly dogs were neglected and abused.) However, when maintaining those contracts carries with it more expenses than revenues, it-undermines our mission and must be eliminated or 1eformed, Naturally, any service provider in the private sector applies the same standard, and on top of that charges enough for large profit margins—something we do not do because of our commitment to the animals. We are at a juncture in which contract reform .•- or elimination is necessary. he Society far the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Oct 10 06 01:20p p,2 Page 2 September 19,2006 It is worth briefly revisiting a point earlier in 2006 when I floated the idea ofproviding expired dog licenge notices via the post rather than through personal service,a practice becoming increasingly common among law enforcement agencies incases ofminor violations. I thought it would be much more efficient and allow us to more readily respond to other dire issues, such as dangerous dogs or strays causing traffic hazards. After learning that several town clerks took exception to the idea,'I immediately withdrew the Plan. We will continue to provide personal service for expired licenses unless otherwise specified. It is also worth noting that other services we make available to all of your eligible constituents keep dog control costs'down, yet these services cost you nothing. By sterilizing nearly a thousand dogs in the community every year—including hundreds owned by low-income members of the public for a fraction of the market rate thanks to our Ileowned subsidies--we check dog over-population which is the root cause of many violations related to animal control enforcement. Successful preventative approaches such as this are too rare Most contracted service providers are seeking to create more business while we are trying to reduce ours,and by extension to limit your costs. Bearing these things in mind,we will be contacting - you after budget season to join other Supervisors and Town Board members in a meeting hosted by the SPCA. We want to discuss these matters in depth and to prepare municipal officials for 2008 when increases to our contracts will be viewed by some as significant. For 2007,however,we did not think it fair to negotiate for major increases in the midst of your planning and with minimal advanced notice or education as to real costs and alternatives. We'll look forward to discussing such issues early in 2007 with an eye on preparing for 2008. Toward that end,for 2007 the increase in our costs to your town is 3S percent,making the total contract cost 520,700.00. ,c• We look forward to continuing to work with you on animal control issues. Please contact me if you wish to talk as soon as your budget process allows so that we can have renewed contracts in place by the deadline. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, .Teff Lydon Executive Director Tee Ann Hunter erom: Herbert J Engman [hje1 @cornell.edu] ;nt: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:27 AM ro: Elizabeth Sanders Cc: Rod Howe; Michael A Koplinka-Loehr; Cathy; TOWNCLERK@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US Subject: Re: Sapsucker Woods destruction Hi, Elizabeth. I am happy to see interest in the development near Sapsucker Woods. There has been a good deal of publicity on this matter and I must admit I was surprised to see the interest develop so late in the process. There was good coverage in the Ithaca Journal (for once) and I kept the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council apprised of the project. Nonetheless, the Planning Board, to my knowledge, received little comment on the project. Some folks may have been lulled into inaction because of the Laboratory of Ornithology's apparent satisfaction with the undertaking. This is one of the projects that was, in effect, "grand fathered" many years ago under old standards. I am doubtful that such a project could get off the ground these days. The state Department of Environmental Conservation probably won't get involved because the size of the wetland falls below their jurisdiction. We used to rely on the Army Corps of Engineers to police smaller wetlands, but that authority has been removed by the current federal administration. The Town of Ithaca has been wanting to put together a wetlands law to cover the small wetlands, but just haven't had the time yet - we, too, are mostly volunteers. One solution to some of your concerns is for more people to volunteer to ('~`it on the Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals Boards. The Town Board ppoints the members, but we often have only enough volunteers to fill the seats. The day-to-day effort is time-consuming and sometimes thankless and we should be grateful for those dedicated citizens who are willing to serve. Protecting the environment is not accomplished by reactions to specific projects, but by creating the structures to ensure strong standards. I hope you will continue to be involved and so encourage others. The Town truly welcomes such involvement. In accordance with town policy and open government laws, I am also copying the Town Clerk and Supervisor with this reply. Herb At 03:28 PM 9/27/2006 -0400, Elizabeth Sanders wrote: >Dear Herb, Rod, and Michael, >This development promises to destroy a major wetland and bird habitat >close by. >I find it shocking to read the transcript and see how little most members >of the Planning Board care about the natural environment, rushing to give >the developer Lucente all he wants, and opining that it will have little >environmental impact (simply accepting the developer's word on that) . >Alas, there are no volunteer experts to challenge it. . .though it's not >clear that most of the Board members would care anyway. Decisions of this >import shouldn't be left to appointed, pro-developer members. I wonder why >this delegation is permitted in Ithaca. (*Ift�s there anything you three can do to stop this destruction? Has the state 'PA cleared it? It shocks me that even in Ithaca developers like Lucente >and Walmart can always plow ahead and destroy the natural environment with >so little opposition from local government. Sapsucker is a major bird >facility, but the lab seems to relish only a gift of a parcel of land from 1 >Lucente, never mind the vast habitat destruction. >Thanks for listening. ✓�';Iizabet h >Dear all, > If you've got a spot of time tomorrow night, come to the second meeting >of Ithaca residents concerned about the future of Sapsucker Woods. You >may have already heard that eighteen acres of woodland adjacent to >Cornell's bird sanctuary are in danger of being destroyed, all in the >name of a 47-lot residential development planned by Rocco Lucente. > The group is meeting on Wednesday, September 27 at 7 p.m. , at 309 >Highland Road (First Congregational Church) . More information can be >found at: > http://savesapsuckerwoods.blogspot.com > Kindly spread the word. > Regards, > K f�1 �1 2 Tee Ann Hunter mom: Herbert J Engman [hje1 @cornell.edu] :nt: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:21 AM ro: Elizabeth Sanders Cc: Cathy; TOWNCLERK@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US Subject: Re: Sapsucker Woods destruction Elizabeth, once a Planning Board and a Zoning Board of Appeals is established, they have powers determined by state law. The intent is to shelter them from undue political influence. You have put your finger on the issue: selection of the members of such boards. The Town Board establishes the zoning and procedures; the appointed boards then interpret those regulations. We recently learned that the Town Board can issue advice as a board to these bodies, so maybe we can be more assertive in the future. Still, they can accept or reject that advice. Yes, the public has no way of knowing that their communications will be part of the town records. I think such a practice inhibits communications with public officials, but that seems to be the interpretation of law by the state Committee on Open Government. Herb At 08:13 PM 9/28/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Herb, thanks for your reply. We are so fortunate to have YOU representing >us. I just wish our elected officials had the decision-making power over >such important land-use decisions. Is there no way you can overrule the >board? Again, I am shocked (as a political scientist) that an appointed >bureaucracy has such autonomy. i didn't know my letter would go beyond you and my other two >representatives. I might have toned it down a bit! >E 1 RISA ROHRBERGER, ESQ. 20 GAYNOR PLACE GLEN ROCK, NJ 07452 201 -444-0470 PHONE 201 -670-1659 FAX risaroh@optonline.net October 9, 2006 Clerk, Common Council City of Ithaca City Hall WT 12 2a 108 East Green Street Ithaca NY 14850 ATTEST1 - T}dACA Tod"J^J CLERK Clerk, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Taxi Regulations Dear Sir or Madam: My daughter is a freshman at Ithaca College and has had several experiences with the local taxi companies that should be addressed by your administrations. In one incident, she met a visitor at the bus station and together they took a taxi to her dorm; they were each charged separately, rather than being charged for one trip with a second passenger surcharge. On two other occasions, returning from the bus station, the drivers took on additional passengers -- and dropped them off first; in addition to taking significantly more time, the driver in one instance charged her more than the direct trip would have cost. When I spoke with someone in the Town or City offices, I was informed that similar complaints against taxi companies have been registered in the past. I have reviewed the City and Town Regulations dealing with taxis. Had these incidents taken place wholly within either municipality, they would constitute violations under either set of Regulations. I am not familiar enough with the area (even with the maps included in the Regulations) to determine whether the City or Town Regulations covers the trip tolfrom Ithaca College and the bus station. The individuals I spoke with in the City and Town offices told me that neither set of Regulations addresses that specific trip. Please coordinate and amend your Regulations to address common cross- border trips such as travel from Ithaca College to the bus station. Clerk,City of Ithaca Clerk,Town of Ithaca Page 2 Additionally, kindly communicate with the operators of the taxi companies your expectation that the drivers will respect existing Regulations where they apply, and otherwise act in an honorable manner when transporting students. (Please do NOT use my name or my daughter's name in your communications as I do not want her "blacklisted" by these companies.) Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cc: Mr. Brian McAree Vice President For Student Affairs, Ithaca College Dean Kent Lovering Hubbell Dean of Students, Cornell University Editor, The Ithacan E- OF Ir, 7P TOWN OF ITHACA 821 -- 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 16, 2006 Kyle Wilber New York Department of State Division of Local Government Services 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231 Dear Mr. Wilber: This letter is an acknowledgment of my support of Tompkins County's application to the New York State Shared Municipal Service Incentive (SMSI) Grant Program for assistance in ,^ developing an inter-municipal consortium to design and implement a plan for addressing rising employee health care costs. Tompkins County and its 16 municipalities formally, the Tompkins County Council of Govemments' (TCCOG) has preliminary research indicating that by offering a common health insurance program that pools health insurance risk and assures reasonable employee cost sharing, there could be achieved annual savings of nearly$6.8 million. A SMSI grant award would undoubtedly place TCCOG on a promising path of reducing pressure on ever- tightening municipal budgets and an ever-increasing tax rate burden on its local taxpayers. I applaud TCCOG's readiness to establish an innovative, cost sharing approach to providing affordable, quality health care for its employees, and I offer my full support in this endeavor. Sincerely, Catherine Valentino Supervisor ITHACA PAID Affiliated with: FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION International IAFF LOCAL 737 Association of Fire Fighters *_kvc PO BOX 711 New York State Professional ITHACA. NEW YORK 14851-0711 Fire Fighters Association OFFICE: (607) 272-4835 Midstate Central FAX: (607) 272-4747 Labor Council E-Mail: mailbox@iaff737.org Memorandum To: Common Council OCT ' 7 From: Brian S. Weinstein, President 8Aj ATTEST ITHA TAC 04"4 CLFqK Date: October 17, 2006. Re: Resolution Regarding the Creation of an MTO Position at IFD For the last several years, on behalf of the sixty-five members of the Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Association(IPFFA), I have observed and participated in the deliberations by Council during the annual budget process. In 2004 and 2005, the membership was simply satisfied that the Mayor was not proposing layoffs at IFD for the first time in several years. At the sarne time,however,we still had to grapple with budget proposals that provided limited growth and no increases in career staffing, despite repeated requests by the Fire Chief to add a minimum of ten additional career line fire fighters and a municipal training officer(MTO) at IFD. Also during budget deliberations in 2004 and 2005, there appeared to be a growing movement within Council to consider partially granting the Chief's request for increased staffing at IFD by creating an MTO position without adding the requisite ten line fire fighter positions. That concerned me, but I chose not to comment and instead stood quietly by and allowed the discourse to take place. Since that time, and after consulting with the Executive Board and membership of the Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Association, I have determined that it is necessary for the IPFFA to enter the dialogue. In anticipation of the upcoming 2006 budget process, the membership of the IPFFA passed the attached resolution at our regular monthly union meeting on October 2, 2006. The resolution states, among other things,that the membership of the Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Association opposes the creation of an MITO position at IFD unless Council first creates the requested ten additional fire fighter positions. Even if the City can only afford to add one fire fighter position per year for the next ten years,we request that you add fire fighters first and then an MTO. 0 ID73M After the IPFFA membership passed this resolution,Mayor Peterson released her 2007 budget proposal that seeks to add an MTO position at IFD without increasing the number of line fire fighter positions. With this,it is now imperative that we share our position with you. Please read the attached resolution and consider it as you deliberate during this year's budget process. If you have any comments,questions,or concerns,please feel free to contact me via e-mail at president@iaff137.org or by phone at(607)227-0747. Thank you. cc: Carolyn Peterson, Mayor Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief Catherine Valentino,Ithaca Town Supervisor Ithaca Town Board I THACA PAID Affiliated with: A FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION International Association of Fire Fighters IAFF LOCAL 737 PO BOX 711 New York State Professional ITHACA. NEW YORK 14851-0711 Fire Fighters Association } OFFICE: (607) 272-4835 Midstate Central FAX: (607)272-4747 Labor Council E-Mail:mallbox@iaff-137.org Resolution Regarding the Creation of an MTO Position at IFD Whereas, the City of Ithaca Fire Department has faced a steady decline in enrollment of -volunteers-and-bunkers over-the last-decade-or more,-and; - -- - Whereas, despite the best efforts of all parties involved and no matter what the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the Ithaca Fire Department is unable to recruit and retain an adequate number of bunkers and volunteers, and the addition of career fire fighting staff is the only way to obtain an adequate number of personnel at the Ithaca Fire Department, and; Whereas,the services provided,the volume of work performed,and the hazards faced by the Ithaca.Fire Department have increased dramatically in the same period of time,and; Whereas,the Fire Chief has made a very conservative request for the addition of ten career fire fighters and an MTO for several years and, due to financial constraints,the City has been unable to meet this request,and; Whereas,the Union believes that the City would,under ideal circumstances,provide the requested number of fire fighters and the MTO,and; Whereas,the Union would appreciate any effort by the City to increase staffing at IFD, but can only encourage that it be done in a manner most beneficial to operations at the Ithaca Fire Department and the taxpayers of the City and Town of Ithaca,and; Whereas,the addition of an MTO alone will not allow the Ithaca.Fire Department to compensate for the effects of serious staffing shortages, as an MTO will not be able to overcome the inability to recruit and retain volunteers and bunkers or do the work of much needed additional line fire fighters,now,therefore,be it; Resolved,that the membership of the Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Association,IAFF Local 737,respectfully request that if the Common Council only partially grants the Fire Chief's request for increased staffing,it creates fire fighter positions first,and creates an MTO position only after creating all of the requested ten additional fire fighter positions. 0<�1073M 921 Coddington Road Ithaca, NY 14850 October 24, 2006 Mr. Duane Randall Chairman �--� Facilities and Infrastructure Committee Tompkins County Legislature Dear Mr. Randall; ATTEST nCA Those of us signing below, acting in part as representatives for many of the residents of Coddington Road within the Town of Ithaca, would like to raise some concerns about the current plans for the reconstruction of that roadway. It is well understood and accepted that the roadbed is in need of reconstruction so that doing nothing is not possible or sought. The need for space for pedestrians and bicyclists is also well understood. However, we are concerned that the current plans for 11 foot travel lanes, four foot paved shoulders and, in many locations, concrete gutters, will actually reduce safely while degrading the neighborhood. Leveling and widening the paved area by 50 percent over the current footprint will, it is well known, lead to higher speeds. That is a major concern for a road where 37 percent of traffic already exceeds posted speeds by 10 MPH, one third over the posted 30 MPH limit. The problem is especially pronounced in the highest trafficked portion (2,600 VPD) near the City line where vehicles have been clocked at speeds up to 70 MPH, but not limited to that section. The Town of Ithaca has worked with the Sheriff's Office to increase patrols, but the Sheriff cannot even provide officers on an overtime basis at the Town's expense. Road design is the only operable means of controlling speeding, and the current plans move in exactly the wrong way. Residents are, as well, concerned about the effect of more asphalt on the character of the largely rural neighborhood as well as on the 12 historical homes (century plus years old) along the stretch slated for renovation. But safety and quality of life are our major concerns. In terms of the process followed to date, there is general dissatisfaction that the proposed plan changed not at all over the course of three public meetings. The most recent promised a discussion of multiple plans, but only the one was presented. The right of way issue is also of concern. An attorney working on behalf of some area residents has determined that the old roadway operates on the basis of a right of way by use, which will mean the need to acquire right of way from the majority of residents along the road. A right of way plan is still being developed, according to Mr. Wood, the County Attorney, but it is clear from the public meetings that an aggressive construction plan will lead to costly and time-intensive negotiations and possibly litigation. Better if we could all come to an accommodation. Toward that end, we would like to request the opportunity to present your committee with a p� community petition seeking a design modification to 10 foot travel lanes and the same four _. foot paved shoulders. We would further like to request the following accommodations:. 1) Drainage under the shoulders to minimize road width, and 2) Stop signs at the Ithaca College entrance, Troy Road and East King/Burns Road intersections for safety/traffic calming. The first item will increase costs while the second will greatly reduce them, compared especially to the extensive work planned at the Burns road intersection. In this way, we believe the needs of the County and the residents can both be accommodated. Seeking any deviations from standard road specifications will of course take some effort, but the NYSDOT's website in its Context Sensitive Solutions section indicates the recognition of just such a need and opportunity. Nor are these issues limited to Coddington Road. Indications are that residents of Ellis Hollow Road are voicing many of the same issues and a remarkably similar context. We do hope your Committee recognizes the issues as boli y considerations, the outcome of which will affect the character of much of the County for our lifetimes. Thank you for considering this request. We hope for the opportunity to present our petition in person so as to be available to answer any questions the Committee may have. Sincerely, (Signatures on the original copy) Merry Jo Bauer 921 Coddington Road Carolyn Grigorov 629 Coddington Road Dale Bryner 689 Coddington Road William Lesser 406 Coddington Road cc: Dooley Kiefer Pam Mackesey Nathan Shinagawa Richard Booth Tim Joseph Michael Koplinka-Loehr Cathy Valentino Bill Scezesny John Lampman Mark Freschette Copy to Town Board per Ms . Valenza' s request 10/26/06 Shirley Valenza 938 East Shore Drive —Ithaca, NY 14850 _ ,07-273-5627 a Q W October 25, 2006 !-IN Kristie Rice, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca r 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. Rice, I have been able to get some legal advice about the concerns raised in your letter of August 25, 2006. There is expert opinion that the work you require is not my responsibility. Your letter does not mention the concrete wall which has caused most of the water damage. Om Gupta, my neighbor at 940 East Shore Drive, built that wall, ( Meet high by r i I feet long). It now constrains the water flow between our houses to feet, whereas a flow of about 7 feet had discharged the water into the lake before the wall's construction. Permission should never have been granted in the first place. Once built, it was Mr. Gupta's sponsibility to maintain the creek. This maintenance has been done only twice in 15 years. The second time was immediately after your letter, in great haste by six diggers who piled 1 1/2 to 2 feet of creek debris on each side. But 2 feet of creek debris does not protect my property, nor does it repair the 15 years of damage. I am the victim whose home has been damaged over the course of 15 years - in spite of my frequent requests for you to correct the situation. Although of very limited means, I have been a quiet, responsible, prompt tax payer for 35 years at this location. Now you tell me that at the age of 80 I can no longer live in my little house unless I do expensive and extensive repairs which I can in no way afford. This is directing me to take care of a problem not of my making, but one caused by Mr. Gupta. The result of Mr. Gupta's wall is an endless cycle of the creek's filling up with no place for the water to go except under my house. I had every right these past 15 years to expect to live at peace in my house without the damage, stress and worry this has cost me. This situation did not exist before the construction of the wall. It was reported to you many times to no avail. I look forward to hearing how you can assist me. Thank you, �enzaShirley Va Page 1 of 2 Tee Ann Hunter From: jmlllus@juno.com Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:01 PM To: Cathy Cc: Kristie Rice Subject: Re: Noise Ordanace Meeting Dear Cathy, I hope this a mail finds you well. I was watching the government channel on my TV, to see the discussions about a noise ordinance to curb the problems resulting from the extremely loud, intrusive, and abusive parties and resulting unsavory, disruptive and dangerous situations that are a product of these gatherings. The fact that now even law enforcement is receiving no respect and are being assaulted has put this problem into the arena of a public hazard. It seems that an ordinance that limits parties to a period of time(eg: not after 9 pm Sun thru Thursday and not after 11 pm Friday and Saturday)as well as a decibel level is needed. Dialog with students as history has shown us is not productive. These behaviors are beyond the pale. I would doubt that this behavior would be allowed in their homes by their parents, in their parents neighborhoods or by their parents neighbors. Why here? Several people speaking from the town made the good point that theses students are guests in our community. They are transient. Since they for the most part cannot act decently, respectfully or in a manner conscience of their behavior its is incumbent upon the Town to regulate said behavior. It is not a situation of good students vs bad or bad parties vs good but rather a collective behavior and attitude that is impacting negatively to a great degree upon residents. We need protection in the form of regulation to make all behavior regarding parties uniform and acceptable. Thank you Joseph Lorincz Town of Ithaca resident Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then,only$9.95/month! 10/27/2006 o F 7 Ty 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 November 16, 2006 Stephen Whicher County Administrator Tompkins County 125 East Court Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Re: 2007 Orthoimagery Program Dear Mr. Whicher: Thank you for the opportunity to partner with the County and the Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination(CSCIC) in the Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program. We understand that our county is planned for inclusion in the Annual Lot to be contracted for production in 2007-2008, with new aerial imagery to be acquired in the Spring of 2007. We further understand that the options available to counties for enhanced resolution or alternate film ,..� types are to be funded at the incremental costs over what is to be funded by the State for the base program. The Town of Ithaca has evaluated the available options, as well as the cost estimates provided by your agency for those options, and determined that the option to Substitute 0.5' Pixel Natural Coverage for 1' Natural Color in the Urban Area will be relevant for our needs. The Town understands that the cost of this option for the county urban area is $21,300, and Town staff has had discussions with the City of Ithaca GIS department about sharing this cost. The Town Board passed a resolution on Monday November 13, 2006 committing the Town of Ithaca to pay half of the cost of this coverage up to a limit of$10,650.00. Based on this funding commitment, we are requesting that the county request this option from CSCIC as part of the 2007 Annual Lot in the Digital Orthoimagery Program. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Dan Walker or Sue Ritter at Town Hall. Sincerely}, Catherine Valentino Town Supervisor Enc: Cc: Greg Potter, Director of ITS,Tompkins County /1014, Ruth Aslanis, GIS Administrator, City of Ithaca DPW 1:1Hdmin12007 Orthoimagery committment letter.doc DWalkerAD Page 1 11/1612006 BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS Attorneys At Law SENECA BUILDING WEST John G.Barney SUITE 400 Facsimile Peter G.Grossman 119 EAST SENEGA STREET (607)272-8806 David A.Dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 (NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS) Randall 13.Marcus Jonathan A.Orkin (607)273-6841 Kevin A.Jones FILE RECEIPT Delivered to the Town of Ithaca at its request are the original files as listed below from Barney, Grossman, Dubow& Marcus: 1) Babcock (Warren) Property - Elmira Road - Highway Quitclaim. 2) Ciaschi, Tim - Westwood Hills Residential with original Abstract of Title to property known as Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca , Tax Map 923-1-11 (part of), Abstract 99500, certified March 17, 2000 by Monroe-Tompkins-Watkins Title Agency, LLC. 3) Cleveland Subdivision - Travis & Kathy Cleveland to Gary Cleveland. 4) Coddington Road Community Center. 5) Conifer Village - Ithaca Senior Living Community ;4,, Emerson Easement. Iacovelli Two Lot Subdivision on Pennsylvania Avenue. 0) Larisa Lane Conveyance - Cheikhet. 9) Penny Lane with Abstract of Title to the property known as Penny Lane/Abbey Road/Lois Lane Commonland Community, Town of Ithaca. 10) Pew Trail with Abstract of Title to 1520 Slaterville Road, Ithaca, tax parcel 456-3-4, certified January 23, 2003 by Public Abstract Corporation. This file also contains a copy of the Abstract of Title on property owned by Jonathan Ngate, Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca, Abstract #11133, Order#119809, certified July 24, 2001 by Monroe-Tompkins-Watkins Title Agency, LLC. 11) Poyer Subdivision and Poyer Subdivision& Street Dedication with Abstract of Title on the property on Evergreen Lane in the Town of Ithaca, Abstract 913486, Order#126352A, certified December 19, 2002 by Monroe-Tompkins-Watkins Title Agency, LLC. 12) Town of Ulysses, Woolf Road Pump Station with Abstract of Title to the property of Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Abstract #12276, Order 4133604, certified June 29, 2004 by Monroe-Tompkins-Watkins Title Agency. Town of Ithaca B Dated: November 16 2006 y. C;A �//d"a� Print Name: c AT h R �" 1�1 VA �-k N-t �' Af o 12/13/06 — File orig. w/ correspondence; copy to C. Valentino Thaler & Thaler Richard B.Thaler Attorneys and Counselors at Law Guy K.Krogh 309 North Tioga Street Thomas D.Cramer P.O. Box 266 Louis K.Thaler(1903-1979) Katrina Thaler Medeirosf Ithaca, New York 14851-0266 Service By Fax or other Electronic Lorraine Moynihan Schmilit Telephone: (607)272-2314 Communication Not Accepted Amy Emerson Fax: (607)272-8466 talso admitted in Massachusetts GKrogh@thalerandthaler.coni December 11, 2006 Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14$50 Dear Cathy: I have received some inside information from Atlantic-Inland, Inc., the Corporate Entity in New York that does electrical, building, and fire inspection, consulting, and training services. They have begun looking at various municipalities to insure that the laws of those municipalities are not discriminatory or in violation of the anti-trust laws. Let me explain what this means. Back when many electrical inspection laws were passed by municipalities, there was only one entity that existed that did this type of work, and that entity was often written in, by name, into such laws. There have been several cases in New York, and elsewhere, that have held this to be improper and illegal. In some cases, anti-trust damages were awarded. Therefore I am simply writing to make sure that the Town of Ithaca takes a look at its various laws and regulations so that it has everything cleaned up and in place by the time that Atlantic-Inland gets round to taking a close look in this area. From a quick review of the materials I have in my office, it does not appear there is any violation, but this is something that should be double checked in-house as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, aler and ler Guy K. Krogh, E GKK:cw Ok. C: Susan Brock A7.EST. 4 ITF4'I_CA_f0 VV Cl.F K l 12`'j �t9 U11IJERSITY CCIUNSEL Fax:6072543555 Dec 15 2006 10:50 P. ei kc>( 300 CCC Building � . Garden Avenue � Y Cornell University Ithaca,New York 14853-2661 Office of University Counsel t.607.255.5124 — f.607.255.2794 and Secretary of the Corporation (not for service of pleadings) December 15, 2006 Da Facsimile and U.S-Mail - Post-W Fax Notal 1 1 7671 Date Pa9eS� 7o a,�LQY! nR.V6.1 t: fi 0 From� i � G Honorable Catherine Valentino 0e OCV�Co.lDept.►` CQ. Town Supervisor Chane Town of Ithaca Phone Town Hall Fax# 1 '7 9 G� Fan k 215 North Tioga Street d I Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Request for amendment of Article XVIII Lakefront Commercial Zones Dear Supervisor Valentino: Cornell University respectfully requests the Town Board to consider an amendment to Article XVIII Lakefront Commercial Zones, specifically to §-270-141 by adding a subsection "F." to read (proposed change in italics): 5270-141. Principal uses authorized by special permit only. The following uses are permitted in a Lakefront Commercial Zone upon receipt of a special permit for the same from the`� 4ri, Planning Board in accordance with the procedures set forih in-; : UNIVERSITY COUNSEL Fax:6072543556 Dec 15 2006 1050 P.02 nearing completion and a site plan applichtion will be filed shortly. The proposed Cornell sailing facility will resemble the permitted use, but will be used for educational purposes. There will also be some continued rental of marina slips by non-Cornell users for the time being, because there is a shortage of marina slips on Cayuga Lake. After preliminary consultation with Town Planner Jonathan Kanter, the above change in the zoning ordinance is requested to squarely allow Cornell's proposed use of the new sailing facility for educational purposes. Jon is out of the office this week, so he has not been able to review the suggested wording. I am mindful of submitting this letter in time for inclusion in the agenda of your Town Board meeting of January 8, 2007. However, should Jonathan have changes to suggest next week when I speak with him, I would appreciate the opportunity to substitute a revised version. We thank you and the Town Board, the Planning Board, and of course, Jon Kanter and the rest of the Town staff;for your kind consideration and cooperation. Very truly yours, �A'VQ0' t" tf Shirley K.Egan Associate University Counsel SKE.hls:nhp cc: Jonathan Kanter Robert Blakeney Tammy Johnson Al Gantert John Gutenberger 2 Page 1 of 1 Cathy ,Oftks From: Susan H. Brock[brock@clarityconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:19 PM To: Cathy; Jonathan Kanter Subject: Town Board involvement Cathy and Jonathan, just came across my notes of my conversation with Herb, Sue and Dan after the agenda meeting last week(I think Cathy was sick and Jonathan was on vacation). The topic was how the Town Board can give earlier input on development projects where the Town Board will ultimately need to accept facilities such as roads, parks, and utilities. I suggested the following,which respects the Planning Board's autonomy and works within the current process: • Sketch plan review--inform Town Board members when a development with proposed public facilities is coming before the Planning Board for sketch plan review so they can attend at this early stage if they want. • Next Town Board meeting following sketch plan review—put discussion of the development on the Town Board's agenda. • Preliminary_site plan/subdivision stage--Planning Board will start coordinated SEQRA review. Town Board should submit comments conveying its issues/concerns for the Planning Board's consideration. • Town Board acceptance of concept and location of roads, parks, etc.--The Town Board should include in its resolution any conditions it wants to impose that the Planning Board hasn't included in its preliminary approvals. • Final acceptance_of infrastructure_by.Town Board. By this stage, it's difficult for the Town Board to impose Idol'\ conditions that could have been imposed earlier in the process. If the Town Board has participated as described above, members shouldn't feel they didn't have an opportunity for input at a meaningful time. • Consider appointing a Town Board liaison to the Planning_Board, in which case the first 2 bullets above might not be needed. Issue to be worked out: Sue expressed concern that the planner who writes the environmental assessment for the project shouldn't also draft the Town Board's SEQRA comments. Susan ##*######*############*#####*##############**#**######**#**#*#**#*** This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at(607)277-3995 (collect)or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. 1 12/22/2006