HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2011-04-11a� OF `?- Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
' Monday, April 11, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
q,4 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Agenda
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Report of Tompkins County Legislature
3. Report of Ithaca Common Council
4. Fire Commissioners' Quarterly Report
5. Persons to be Heard and Board comments
6. Public Hearings:
a. 5:45 P.M. — Public Hearing Regarding A Local Law Deleting Chapter 205 of
the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled 'Property Maintenance', and adding a new
Chapter 205, Titled 'Property Maintenance'
b. 5:47 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a Local Law Amending the Zoning
Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Require Compliance with the Property
Maintenance Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code
c. Consider SEQR (combined)
d. Consider Adoption of each
i. Local Law Deleting Chapter 205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled
'Property Maintenance', and adding a new Chapter 205, Titled
'Property Maintenance'
ii. Local Law Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code
to Require Compliance with the Property Maintenance Chapter of the
Town of Ithaca Code
7. Public Hearing Regarding Noise Permits for Ithaca College. 1) 5.50 P.M. --
"Splash" on May 181h, and 2) 5:52 p.m. an Outdoor Movie on May 20th 3) 5:54
p.m. "Kick Back" on May 6tt,
a. Consider Approval (combined)
8. 5:55 P.M. — Public Hearing Regarding Establishing Regulations for Permits for
Neighborhood Block Parties, Celebrations and Events Requiring Temporary
Closures of Town Roads
a. Consider SEQR
b. Consider Approval
Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, April 11, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Minutes
Board Members Present: Supervisor Engman; Members; Bill Goodman, Pat Leary,
Nahmin Horwitz, Eric Levine, Tee -Ann Hunter and Rich DePaolo
Staff Present: Mike Solvig, Judy Drake, Paulette Terwilliger, Susan Ritter, Bruce Bates
and Jim Weber Attorney for the Town: Susan Bock
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Supervisor Engman opened the meeting at 5:30p.m.
An executive session was added the agenda.
Report of Tompkins County Legislature -- none
Report of Ithaca Common Council -- none
Fire Commissioners' Quarterly Report — Bill Gilligan (Attachment #1)
Mr. Gilligan went over his submitted report. The Board asked what input the
Commission was looking for from the Town regarding the review of the Charter. Mr.
Gilligan responded that they are interested in thoughts from the stakeholders on what
the most useful role in terms of the community the Board of Commissioners can
perform. What functions the stakeholders would like to see the Board of
Commissioners do.
Persons to be Heard and Board comments
Mr. Engman noted that this would be the time for the comments regarding the possible
West Hill Moratorium.
Greg Perreault read a prepared statement (Attachment #2)
Mr. Perrault lives off of Route 96 and there are now 40 TCAT busses going down his
street since Overlook and this was not discussed during the EIS for that project and he
would like the Board to look at such fallout for future development. Mr. Perrault was in
favor of a moratorium with no exceptions.
Pat Dutt spoke in favor of a moratorium with no exceptions. She stated that we need a
plan with input from both the Town and the City and felt it was unwise and irresponsible
to develop without a well thought out plan and a time to study the area. She presented
a petition from an online site with 115 signatures. (Attachment #3)
Resident from Ulysses — She was in favor of a moratorium because of the effects of
traffic along the route. She has lived in Ulysses for over 40 years and the increase in
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 2 of 30
traffic and the possibility of fracking and garbage trucks are making it a bad traffic
situation.
Steve Felker spoke in favor of a moratorium with no exceptions. He talked about
problems already on West Hill since the low-income housing was developed and noted
that he lives on Campbell Ave and people are using it as a short cut and he can no
longer walk his street. Campbell Ave is very narrow and it is not safe to walk anymore.
He spoke about published reports stating that the development will not affect how long it
takes to get onto Route 96, but the problem is down at the bottom and nothing
published seems to address that problem. He asked that the Board favor the existing
residents over the possible new residents as well as be more assertive with the City
who don't seem to care about the issues on West Hill. He felt that development needs
to follow infrastructure, not the other way around. He was not opposed to development
per se, but he objects to taking what is already broken as far as infrastructure and make
it worse. The Board should plan first.
Judy Schwann spoke in favor of a moratorium with no exceptions. She stated that
there is a huge traffic problem and she was recently rear-ended on the road. She felt
there is not enough bus service now and the infrastructure and flooding are issues that
need to be addressed before more development is approved.
Cathy Beuaraguard from Trumansburg. Spoke in favor of a moratorium with no
exceptions. She now allows 45 minutes to get to Ithaca and she is concerned about fire
and emergency services.
Yvonne Fogarty spoke in favor of a moratorium with no exceptions. The traffic and
infrastructure are being talked and both are bad and she would like to see some real
studies about the effects of development on both. She is also concerned about
fracking. There is a parcel on the corner of Hayts and Sheffield that has been leased
out and this will really cause a traffic issue.
Mr. Engman asked if there was anyone else, noting that there will be a public hearing
on the topic also.
Board Comments
Mr. DePaolo commented regarding the statements from residents past the Town of
Ithaca. He stated that one of the justifications for development on West Hill is that
people will move from Trumansburg and Ulysses so there will not be additional traffic.
He did not have any evidence that that was true, but that is one of the justifications
being given. He also responded to the concern about fracking, stating that the Town is
very involved in the issue and protecting the Town. He also noted that some people are
asking for a moratorium because they do not want any development, and that is
unrealistic to expect no development. He stated that he was in favor of the moratorium
to plan for responsible growth.
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 3 of 30
Ms. Hunter responded to the concern about fracking and asked Mr. Engman for an
update on the legislation in cooperation with TCCOG. Mr. Engman noted that we have
been studying this for about two years now and we are getting ready to start a couple of
actions. We have enacted a law protecting against road cuts such as gas lines across
the road or culverts and there is additional work on a permitting mechanism to protect
the roads. They are also looking into zoning changes to effect protection from industrial
uses. There is a map online that shows the areas where drilling is likely to be
requesting and permitting processes will help protect the Town. There are still
questions on how to go about protecting the roads but the Town and the County are
actively pursuing all avenues.
Mr. Engman also noted that he had not heard about concerns from the City about losing
business to some of the nodal development businesses the Town may have developed.
Ms. Leary responded to the comment about the 1992 Comprehensive Plan and noted
that the City's is even older and she disagreed that the Plan is out of date. She also
stated that there is a difference of opinion of the Town Board and the Planning Board
about what the definition of quality of life is and she felt that although traffic is a
problem, many vibrant communities have to put up with traffic issues, but it is also a
sign of a growing community and she is in favor of affordable housing. She added that
there is a misconception about what affordable housing means and to her it does not
mean putting certain types of homes in certain areas. She stated that the short answer
is that any new housing contributes to the supply of housing even if it is not affordable to
the median income residents, it still alleviates the housing shortage.
Public Hearings:
5:45 P.M. — Public Hearing Regarding A Local Law Deleting Chapter 205 of
the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled 'Property Maintenance', and adding a new
Chapter 205, Titled 'Property Maintenance'
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:20p.m. and gave an overview of the draft
law. There have been several instances of "hoarding" in the Town and the Town has
received complaints, taken people to court and received judgments but nothing
happens. This gives the Town the authority to get the properties picked up and
returned to a reasonable neighborhood level.
Doug and Bruce Brittain — (Attachment #4) The Brittains went over the issues they
saw with the draft law. Although they were in favor of updating the code, they saw
some problems with the wording.
The public hearing was closed at 6:38 p.m.
Board comments: Mr. Engman reiterated that in the law, any of the violations have the
caveat "tends to create a danger to the public health, safety and welfare or creates
degradation through unsightliness or noisomeness or creates a public nuisance" so that
eliminates a lot of the things they were concerned about because they would not be
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 4 of 30
violations. The standards is what will exempt the normal and usual issues the Brittains
brought up. Mr. Engman also noted that agricultural law would protect the farmers and
their equipment.
Mr. Bates added that the person also has the right to bring a violation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals if they disagree and Zoning also regulates many of the other concerns
the Brittains mentioned. Mr. Bates added that he receives complaints daily about
property maintenance and this is to allow the Town to address these complaints.
Mr. Goodman suggested that the draft go back to Operations for another review. Mr.
Horwitz moved to refer the draft back to Operations Committee, Mr. Goodman
seconded, unanimous.
The remaining public hearing and action items regarding the Property Maintenance Law
were postponed for another meeting.
Public Hearing Regarding Noise Permits for Ithaca College: 1) 5:50 P.M. --
"Splash" on May 18th, and 2) 5:52 p.m. an Outdoor Movie on May 20th 3) 5:54 p.m.
"Kick Back" on May 6th
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. The representative from Ithaca
College gave a summary of the events. There was no one wishing to address the
Board on this topic. The public hearing was closed and motion made.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 055: Approval of Noise Permit(s) for Ithaca College
Events
WHEREAS, noise permit applications have been received for the following Events at
Ithaca College: 1) "Splash" on May 18th 2) an Outdoor Movie on May 20th and 3) "Kick
Back" on May 6th , and
WHEREAS, these events involve the playing of music or audio, which sound may not
be confined to the Ithaca College Campus; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled and notice of said public hearing was duly
advertised in the Ithaca Journal and notification made to nearby neighbors through
notification to organizations that represent the neighbors such as the South Hill Civic
Association and Neighbors of Ithaca College; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on April 11, 2011 at the Meeting of the
Ithaca Town Board and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak
on behalf of or in opposition to said Noise Permit Applications;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby approves Noise Permits for the events listed.
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 5 of 30
MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Eric Levine
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
5:55 P.M. — Public Hearing Regarding Establishing Regulations for Permits for
Neighborhood Block Parties, Celebrations and Events Requiring Temporary
Closures of Town Roads (SEAR Attachment #5)
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
The Brittain Brothers commented on page 3 the regulations and the definition of a
"party" especially as it pertains to the music. There was no one wishing to address the
Board and the public hearing was closed.
Minor changes were made to the SEAR.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 056: SEAR ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTIES, CELEBRATIONS AND EVENTS REQUIRING
TEMPORARY CLOSURES OF TOWN ROADS
WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of Regulations Governing the Closure of
Roads for Neighborhood Block Parties; and
WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148
(Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code, for which the Town of
Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to
the adoption of_Regulations Governing the Closure of Roads for Neighborhood Block
Parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on April 11, 2011, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF),
Parts I and II, for this action, prepared by the Town Engineering staff; now therefore, be
it
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental
Quality Review and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced
action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set
forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form,
nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 6 of 30
Motion passed unanimously.
Board Comments:
The Board discussed the definition of a block party as drafted. The focus was the
definition of the various performances . The definition was changed by omitting
reference to carnival, theatrical or musical performances such as concerts or similar
events and adding "intended for people of a particular neighborhood"
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 057: ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTIES, CELEBRATIONS AND EVENTS REQUIRING
TEMPORARY CLOSURES OF TOWN ROADS
WHEREAS, Section 64(10-b) of the New York Town Law authorizes a town
board to adopt regulations for the issuance of permits by the town superintendent of
highways or commissioner of public works for neighborhood block parties, celebrations
or events that require temporary closure of a town street, highway or road, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca does not have any regulations governing the
temporary closure of roads for these types of events, and
WHEREAS, after considering a request from a Town neighborhood association
for a block party, the Public Works Committee at its September 28, 2010 meeting
requested Town staff to prepare draft regulations regarding temporary road closures for
such events, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works and Town Clerk prepared draft
Regulations authorizing the Highway Superintendent to issue a permit for the holding of
such an event on a Town street upon the completion of a Temporary Road Closure
Application, and,
WHEREAS, the Public Works Committee at its October 26, 2010 meeting
considered the draft Regulations and voted to move the issue to the Town Board for
consideration, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board discussed the draft Regulations for Temporary
Road Closures at its regular meeting on March 7, 2011, and
WHEREAS, New York Town Law Section 64(10-b) requires a public hearing on
at least five days notice before said regulations may be adopted, and
WHEREAS, at its March 7, 2011 meeting, a resolution was duly adopted by the
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on April
11, 2011 at 5:55 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed Regulations for
Temporary Road Closures, and
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 7 of 30
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca
Journal, and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town
Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to
speak on behalf of or in opposition to the proposed Regulations for Temporary Road
Closures;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts and
adopts the attached Regulations for Temporary Road Closures for Neighborhood Block
Parties, Celebrations or Events.
MOVED: Tee -Ann Hunter SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Regarding A Local Law to amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of
the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Belle
Sherman Cottages Project (SEAR Attachment #6)
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
David Moore addressed the Board regarding the PDZ. He stated that he would like the
Town to not allow private streets because then developers would have to build streets
to the Town's standards.
He did not understand how the model home will have a certificate of occupancy with no
water or sewer and the height maximum listed in the PDZ that is measured from the
front, not the lowest point which could make them very high and the maximum height for
garages is not listed.
He would like assurance that things that are not listed in the PDZ would still have to
meet the high-density residential requirements of the Town such as setbacks.
He also wondered why the boundary of the PDZ does not match the property line
between the Vine Street property and the trucking company and why it includes Worth
Street up to the City line.
He wanted confirmation that the project would abide by both Town and City noise
regulations.
He had issues with the traffic study because it did not contain any data, just
assumptions and does not address the traffic blinds and the fact that roads do connect.
Toby Millman, Agora Homes, and Mary Russell. Attorney addressed each comment.
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 8 of 30
Whether the streets should be designed to become public — this was discussed at
length during the process and it was determined that by having private streets they
could design more pedestrian -friendly streets. For example, the tree boxes would not
have been allowed.
The Certificate of Occupancy question actually states the opposite. The model will not
and can not be occupied and can only be used to market and sell the units. He added
that if it does not, that can be changed because that is the intent.
The height of the homes is generally 35 feet and the 40 was to give a cushion in case of
grading and the actual height will be determined during Site Plan approval with the
Planning Board. The garage height can not exceed 18 feet.
The draft has a minimum of 10 feet as a setback and in no case is there less than that
and they had to get a variance from the State for that.
The boundary of the PDZ including Worth St. to the City line was to allow for access to
a public street at the north end. The Vine Street property line location is to make sure
the entire street is on a single lot.
He was not sure about the differences between the Town and City noise ordinances,
but noted that the Planning Board required the HOA to distribute the ordinances
annually.
He was not sure how to respond regarding the traffic study because it has been through
Planning Board and Planning Dept review and there were no complaints about it to this
point.
Board Comments
The issue regarding the temporary Certificate of Occupancy with the model home was
discussed at length. Ms. Brock felt no wording change was needed.
The public hearing was closed and the SEAR moved.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 058: SEAR: Proposed Local Law Amending Zoning
Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned
Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project
WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a local law amending Zoning Chapters
270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to provide a Planned Development Zone for
the Belle Sherman Cottages project; and
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 9 of 30
WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is
acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the enactment of the
proposed local law; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on April 11, 2011, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF),
Parts I and II for this action, along with other application materials;
RESOLVED: that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance, in this uncoordinated environmental
review, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for
the above referenced action as proposed based on the information in the LEAF Part I
and for the reasons set forth in the LEAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement will not be required.
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-059: Adoption of a Local Law Amending Zoning
Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned
Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2010, the Town of Ithaca Town Board did refer the
consideration of the possible establishment of a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) to
the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee for a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2010, the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee
recommends that the Town Board support the concept of the PDZ and recommends
that the Town Board refer the PDZ to the Planning Board for a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2010, the Town of Ithaca Town Board did refer the
draft Planned Development Zone to the Planning Board for a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board did
recommend that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed local law; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee reviewed the proposed
revised local law, and on February 10, 2011 did refer it back to the Town Board for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on April 11, 2011, at 6:00 p.m.
to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled "A Local Law to Amend
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 10 of 30
Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned
Development Zone for the Belle Sherman Cottages Project"; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca
Journal; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town
Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to
speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this local law is, pursuant to Part 617 of the
Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code (which laws and
regulations thereunder, including the Town's local law, are collectively referred to as
"SEAR"), an unlisted action; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting in an uncoordinated
environmental review with respect to the enactment of the local law, has, on April 11,
2011, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I
and II; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its
citizens to adopt the local law;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local
law entitled "A Local Law to Amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of
Ithaca Code to Provide a Planned Development Zone for the Belle Sherman
Cottages Project", a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this
resolution, and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law
with the Secretary of State as required by law.
MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Pat Leary
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Possible Adoption of
a New "Limited Historic Commercial" Floating Zone (SEAR Attachment #7)
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 11 of 30
Mr. and Mrs. Grippi gave an overview of their property which is on the Historic Register
and was the impetus for the drafting of this zoning change. Mrs. Grippi gave a detailed
history of the property and Mr. Engman thanked the Grippis for their stewardship of this
important historical site.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 060: SEAR: Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Possible
Adoption of a New "Limited Historic Commercial Floating Zone"
WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of proposed amendments to the 1993
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, said proposed amendments include the following, which are
described in detail in the attached narrative of "Proposed Amendments to 1993 Town of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Regarding Historic Resources, dated August 4, 2010: (1)
Amend Section III.B of the Comprehensive Plan by adding wording in a new Section
III.B.10.e describing the use of the Limited Historic Commercial floating zone to protect
historic structures and achieve their adaptive reuse where appropriate; (2) Amend
Section III.E-2.a of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting the existing introductory
paragraph of that section and adding the following new wording: "Include at least four
non -cumulative types of commercial zones in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code:
Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Lakefront Commercial, and
Limited Historic Commercial"; (3) Include in amended Section III.E-2.a, after the
description of Lakefront Commercial, language describing the Limited Historic
Commercial Zone; and
WHEREAS, this is an Unlisted action pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148
(Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code, for which the Town of
Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency and the only involved agency in
conducting the environmental review with respect to the adoption of the above-
described amendments to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, after holding public hearings on January 10, 2011
and April 11, 2011, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and 2, for this action, prepared by the Town Planning
staff;
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law and the implementing regulations thereof and Chapter
148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, for the
reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 12 of 30
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 061: Resolution Adopting Amendments to the 1993
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the
Possible Adoption of a New "Limited Historic Commercial" Floating Zone
WHEREAS, the Town Board has proposed the adoption of proposed
amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan regarding historic
resources; and
WHEREAS, said proposed amendments include the following, which are
described in detail in the attached narrative of "Proposed Amendments to 1993 Town of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Regarding Historic Resources, dated August 4, 2010: (1)
Amend Section III.B of the Comprehensive Plan by adding wording in a new Section
III.B.10.e describing the use of the Limited Historic Commercial floating zone to protect
historic structures and achieve their adaptive reuse where appropriate; (2) Amend
Section III.E-2.a of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting the existing introductory
paragraph of that section and adding the following new wording: "Include at least four
non -cumulative types of commercial zones in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code:
Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Lakefront Commercial, and
Limited Historic Commercial"; (3) Include in amended Section III.E-2.a, after the
description of Lakefront Commercial, language describing the Limited Historic
Commercial Zone; and
WHEREAS, resolutions were duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca for two public hearings to be held by said Town, the first on January 10, 2011 at
5:45 p.m. to assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such
proposed amendments, and the second on April 11, 2011 at 6:20 p.m. to hear all
interested parties on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearings was duly advertised in the Ithaca
Journal; and
WHEREAS, said public hearings were duly held on said dates and times at the
Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an
opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed amendments, or any
part thereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 ("SEQRA"), and Chapter 148 of the
Town of Ithaca Code, adoption of said amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is an
Unlisted action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency
in an environmental review with respect to adoption of the amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, has on April 11, 2011 made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 13 of 30
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Parts I and II prepared by the Town's Planning
staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the amendments
to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, as described in said "Proposed
Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Regarding Historic
Resources", a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
file said amendments in the Town Clerk's Office and with the Tompkins County
Planning Department.
MOVED: Eric Levine SECONDED: Tee -Ann Hunter
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Regarding Two Proposed Local Laws Amending the Town of Ithaca
Code Chapter 270 (Zoning) to (1) Add Article XVIII -A, Titled "Limited Historic
Commercial Zones" and (2) Amend Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones Generally, to
Add Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to Revise Additional
Special Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through Operations Requirements
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. There was no one wishing to
address the Board and the hearing was closed.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-062: SEAR: Proposed Local Laws Amending the
Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to Add Article XVIII -A, Titled "Limited Historic
Commercial Zones" and to Amend the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca
Code, Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones Generally, to Add Provisions Related
to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to Revise Additional Special
Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through Operations Requirements
WHEREAS, this action is the enactment of a local law amending Chapter 270 of
the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to add Article XVIII -A, Titled "Limited Historic
Commercial Zones", and enactment of a local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the
Town Code, Article XIII, titled "Commercial Zones Generally," to add provisions related
to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to revise additional special requirements, and to
clarify drive-through operations requirements; and
WHEREAS, said proposed local laws would, among other things, (1) include
provisions for the Town Board, at its legislative discretion and after making appropriate
findings, to re -zone property deemed historically significant in the Town by either
having been listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the State or National
Register of Historic Places, or having been identified as potentially significant in the
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 14 of 30
Town of Ithaca Historic Resources Survey, to Limited Historic Commercial for the
purpose of protecting these resources by providing reuse and redevelopment options,
and (2) add provisions regarding Limited Historic Commercial Zones to the Commercial
Zones Generally article of the Zoning Chapter; and
WHEREAS, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is
acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of
these local laws; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on April 11, 2011, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I
and II for this action, prepared by Town Planning staff;
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State
Environmental Quality Review, for the above referenced action as proposed, based on
the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and,
therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Nahmin Horwitz
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-063: Resolution Adopting "A Local Law Amending
Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to Add Article XVIII -A,
Titled "Limited Historic Commercial Zones" and "A Local law Amending the
Zoning Chapter of the Tow of Ithaca Code, Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones
Generally, to Add Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to
Revise Additional Special Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through Operations
Requirements"
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca's character is enriched by the existence of
historically significant structures and properties located throughout the Town, including
five structures and one neighborhood/district listed on the State and National Registers
of Historic Places, as well as numerous other properties identified in the Town's historic
resources survey (Final Report for the Intensive Level Survey, September 2005); and
WHEREAS, these architecturally and historically rich sites serve as important
reminders of our past, providing a link to our cultural heritage and a better
understanding of the people and events that shaped our community's development; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board recognizes the importance of protecting and
maintaining these historically significant resources and that such protection was a
stated objective in the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan; and
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 15 of 30
WHEREAS, the property owners of the Hayts School House and Abolition
Chapel, located at 1296 and 1298 Trumansburg Road and listed on the State and
National Registers of Historic Places, submitted a letter to the Town, dated November
18, 2009, requesting that the Town consider rezoning their property, explaining that the
site was not well suited to residential use (as currently zoned) and that allowing some
limited commercial use would increase the chances that the buildings would be
maintained as attractive historical landmarks into the future; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2009, the Town Planning Committee discussed
the issue and recommended that the Town Board consider the possibility of developing
a new "Limited Historic Commercial" Zone that could be applied to historic properties
around the Town; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010, the Town Board agreed to the concept of a
Limited Historic Commercial" Zone and requested that the law be drafted and further
pursued by the Town; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2010, the Planning Committee reviewed a draft of the
law and referred it to the Codes and Ordinances Committee for further review and
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee ("COC") discussed
and refined the law during several meetings between June and October of 2010; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2010, the Town Board referred the proposed local
law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals for a
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2010, the Planning Board discussed and held a
public hearing on the proposed law and recommended that the Town Board adopt said
law; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the
proposed local law and decided not to make an official recommendation that the Town
Board; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2011, the COC made additional changes to the
proposed local law in response to the feedback the Town received, and
WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on April 11, 2011 at 6:20 p.m. to
hear all interested parties on the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law Amending
Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to Add Article XVIII -A, Titled
"Limited Historic Commercial Zones" and "A Local law Amending the Zoning Chapter of
the Town of Ithaca Code, Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones Generally, to Add
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 16 of 30
Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to Revise Additional Special
Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through Operations Requirements" ; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca
Journal; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town
Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to
speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said
local laws is an Unlisted action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting
as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of these local laws,
has on April 11, 2011 made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment
Form Parts I and II prepared by the Town's Planning staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local laws
entitled "A Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning,
to Add Article XVIII -A, Titled "Limited Historic Commercial Zones" and "A Local law
Amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code, Article XIII, Titled
Commercial Zones Generally, to Add Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial
Zones, to Revise Additional Special Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through
Operations Requirements", a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this
resolution; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local
laws with the Secretary of State as required by law.
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a possible Local Law
enacting a Moratorium on Development on West Hill
The memo from Ms. Ritter and Ms. Brock detailing options was discussed.
Mr. Engman spoke in favor of Option 2 which he felt was the cleanest and clearest
option.
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 17 of 30
Mr. Engman moved the adoption of Alternative 2 as the proposal for the west hill
moratorium and Ms. Leary seconded
Discussion
Ms. Hunter clarified that the Alternative exempts the three projects in process now and
therefore does not address the concerns which prompted the request for the
moratorium. The concerns started in 2009 with money being put aside for a traffic
study, which was never done. So Alternative 2 has us proposing a moratorium on
property that is not under review for development and is not responding to the residents
that came forward.
She went on to state that if we are going to look at infrastructure on West Hill, we need
to not exempt large development proposals. She also had a question about Conifer and
whether the Board would have any control over imposing conditions on the
development when and if it goes through a re -zoning. Ms. Brock responded that she is
still researching the mechanism to impose conditions.
Ms. Hunter spoke regarding the Holochuck proposal and noted that the State money for
the parkland is not guaranteed and she was curious about the ability to buy a house at
the affordable price and "flip" it for a quick profit. She thought it seemed that there were
a lot of unenforceable conditions. Ms. Brock explained some of the conditions the
Planning Board imposed and how they would be enforced.
She closed by saying that she wished the Board would do what the residents are
requesting and have a moratorium that is not exempting projects.
Ms. Leary did not care for some of the Planning Board conditions and felt it was strange
to set conditions on the purchase of a private residence. She then asked for an
explanation of the differences between Alternative 2 and 3. Ms. Ritter explained that
Alternative 2 eliminates everything north of the Cornell property on the west side of
Route 96 and exempts everything north of the hospital on the east side. Alternative 3,
maintains a good deal of the moratorium land, but exempts the Conifer and Holochuck
areas.
Mr. Engman noted that the biggest proposed project is included in the moratorium and
that is Carrowmoor and the Goldenrod project. He added that he had very specific
reasons to exempt the three projects. Namely that we have encouraged Conifer and
gone through some steps and there are funding issues. He reiterated that he does not
like the project but it is far along in the approvals process and it fits our zoning and our
current Comprehensive Plan. The Waldorf School is a timing issue and temporary use.
He felt that there are other projects coming up and the moratorium will still be useful
even with the exemptions and that is why he would support it.
Mr. Horwitz commented that he focused on Ms. Ritter's comments regarding
Alternatives 2 and 3 which take out large portions of land so he favors Alternative #1.
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 18 of 30
He added that telling Holochuck they can't go ahead now is an undesirable outcome;
going ahead with a development that may be much worse for the Town is a more
important undesirable outcome and it comes down to judgment and choosing between
two undesirable outcomes.
Mr. Goodman stated that he would be interested in why Mr. Horowitz felt the
development would be bad for the town. He asked Ms. Ritter if there were other land
parcels towards Ulysses that she has heard about development on an and Ms. Ritter
responded that the Town gets calls all the time but there is nothing in the process yet.
Mr. DePaolo asked Mr. Goodman what his level of involvement was with the County
parcel at Bigg's and the EcoVillage-like development grant. Mr. Goodman responded
that he has put together the budget for the EPA grant proposal back in July. He stated
that he had no financial interest in the parcel. Mr. DePaolo asked if it would be fair or
unfair to say that he had some interest in the development of that parcel and whether he
has a predetermined vision in his mind on how that parcel should be developed by the
county. Mr. Goodman responded, no and that he had no thoughts about what should
be done with the parcel and he had no type of interest, financially or otherwise, with
what the County does with that parcel.
Mr. DePaolo continued with his comments stating that we have been at this for years
and heard from residents for years and it defies logic in his mind to embark on a
comprehensive study of an area and then exclude proposed development in the area.
He turned the question back to the members who are in favor of the exclusions, asking
what they proposed to do or accomplish with the moratorium if these are excluded?
And, how they propose to make sure that these various components have some sort of
unifying component.
Ms. Leary responded that she would have preferred to talk about the reason for the
moratorium before voting on whether to have a moratorium but going by the local law
outline, her impression is that we want to study traffic patterns, how roads could be
rerouted, shuttle service, etc and getting the developers together to discuss options.
There is still more land out there and she was not in favor of stopping development.
Mr. DePaolo responded that they were in a meeting with Ed Marx today where there
was a map with a superimposed Y4 of a mile radius with the center of the node and
everything being included in the exemption is in that radius. Ms. Leary responded that it
has not been decided that that is the best place for a node and there is disagreement
among board and committee members on where that should be. Mr. DePaolo
responded that you have to add all of the numbers and we can't study it
comprehensively if you don't stop and study it. Ms. Leary responded that we have been
studying this area for years.
Ms. Hunter interrupted stating that we have not studied the area and she read from an
previous letter detailing the questions and what is needed. She does not believe the
board has acted in good faith and addressed the stated concerns, instead there has
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 19 of 30
been political jockeying going on with different planning initiatives in different directions
that ignore that we have infrastructure problems and constraints.
Mr. Engman responded that the political games she refers to was on the introduction of
the suggestion of the moratorium at a single Planning Committee meeting an passing of
the recommendation that we go forward in one Planning Committee meeting. That is
what started this process. He went on to say that we have studied this area and just
because some people do not agree with the Route 96 Corridor Study does not mean
that it is not accurate or that we have not studied it. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan is
valid and it says that West Hill was identified for the growth. As Rich said earlier, there
will be growth on West Hill, the question is how much and how are we going to manage
it. The nodal development idea was put forth as a way to manage the growth. If we
do not have growth in our borders, it will happen outside of our borders and we will still
have the traffic coming through to get to the City. He added that we have talked to the
city numerous times and they have stated that we should not even think about a bridge.
He said he has spoken with the Mayor numerous times and she believes anything
growth outside of the city is sprawl and in fact the city has built on West Hill themselves.
He responded that the reason he supports the moratorium is he believes we can still
have a lot of effect on West Hill with a study in conjunction with the moratorium with the
exceptions. He added that he and others talked with Ed Marx today about multiple
studies that are happening now and we are trying to coordinate studies and monies.
Mr. DePaolo responded that he wanted to clarify that this has been talked about at the
committee level for years so it has not fallen out of the sky and perhaps we have taken
too much time. He went on to say that the moratorium should be used as a means to
get the best plan that we can get. He also referred to the meeting with Mr. Marx and he
was talking about studies and prioritizing but it can not be done when giving away any
leverage by exempting developments already in the works.
Mr. Goodman responded to that he agreed the Board has been talking about this for
over a year but back then the majority of the Board did not believe it was a good idea
and now this second time around, he was in favor of it so he could look at what could be
done between Route 96 and 79. He added that he does not agree with Mr. Marx's
location of the best nodal placement. He went on to say that in his deliberations
regarding exempting Conifer, the need for affordable senior housing outweighs the
detriment to the nodal planning in his mind. He also believes that the town will still have
leverage because of the zoning changes that will be needed before development starts
and his main goal is to gather all the studies and the major shareholders in the property
and development as well as the residents together to plan what is better for West Hill.
Mr. Goodman then spoke about the dilemma of the catch 22 the town is in. Retailers
won't build until there are people wanting the services and there will be a period of time
before the commercial aspects will come.
Mr. Horwitz responded to Mr. Goodman's question by saying that that he doesn't know
if Holochuck is bad or not and that is the problem. He does not believe the Board is
educated enough in this area to make the decision about what is good or bad for West
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 20 of 30
Hill. There are no documents or studies presenting a professional analysis on how to
evaluate competing considerations. He felt the value of the moratorium was in giving
time to produce such a document.
Ms. Leary stated that the Town has professional Planners and so does the County and
we all have our ideas. She did not believe there is such a document or there could be
one on how to set a policy, or how you set public policy. She stated that we have been
relying on professional planners for several years and we have heard their advice but it
depends on what planners you are listening to. If they agree with your person priorities,
you like them, if they don't, you don't; but they do not set policy. Her priority is to
support medium income houses and that outweighs traffic congestion and we have to
figure out a way that we are not held hostage by the City and TCAT.
Discussion followed with Ms. Ritter explaining the alternatives and the maps were
reviewed. Ms. Hunter had additional comments and asked if any of the scenarios do
not exempt the projects. Ms. Brock noted that that was what she and Ms. Ritter were
tasked with doing. Ms. Ritter noted differences between the options and the waiver
process. Ms. Hunter continued to ask for clarification of the boundaries of the maps and
the exclusions. She then asked Mr. Goodman what the solution is for the traffic
problem and who would it be paid for. Mr. Goodman responded that the most
immediate is to lobby TCAT, which does not seem feasible, so alternately, get the major
landowners such as the hospital, Overlook, EcoVillage etc and develop shuttle vans.
The current TCAT route is not user friendly and does not meet the needs and we need
to get people out of their cars and into public transportation. Holochuck and Conifer will
not have residents for 2 years, and we need this now. He went on to say that the Bundy
Rd access needs to be looked at and he doesn't think the current alignment is the best.
Discussion followed with Ms. Hunter asking how these ideas and possible fixes are
going to be financed.
Mr. Levine added his thoughts. He stated that he understands how passionate she is
about this issue, but he agrees with Pat and Herb on this issue but not because of any
"political shenanigans" which he has not seen or heard and he does not think that he is
ignoring residents. He felt that those concerns are going to be a part of town work but
on the balance, the exemptions are not going to be a significant impediment on working
out the traffic issues.
Mr. Engman brought the board's attention back to the motion on the floor which is to
accept Alternative #2 and to in effect put that into the Moratorium Plan and that is what
would be advertised to the public for a public hearing. He suggested that the board vote
on the motion to see if we have a majority. Roll call vote.
Herb Engman, Aye; Bill Goodman, aye; Pat Leary, aye; Eric Levine, aye; Nahmin
Horwitz, nay; Tee -Ann Hunter, nay; and Rich DePaolo, nay. Motion passed 4 to 3.
Public hearing was set for May 9t" at 5:45.
Consider adoption of a Resolution of Recognition for PW employees
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 21 of 30
RESOLUTION NO.2011 — 065: RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION FOR JOHN
SHEPARDSON AND MONTAGUE MOUILLESSEAUX
WHEREAS, John Shepardson and Montague Mouillesseaux while plowing snow on
Summerhill Road on March 7, 2011 saw that a person was in the drainage ditch trying
to stay afloat in the frigid water; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mouillesseaux entered the water to help keep the man's head above
the water, while Mr. Shepardson called for help, provided assistance until EMS arrived,
and then aided in the removal of the man from the water; and
WHEREAS, the governing Town Board wishes to express its recognition and
appreciation to Mr. Shepardson and Mr. Mouillesseaux for their willingness to help
others in need;
Now, Therefore, Be It
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, on behalf of the Town, its
Citizens and its Employees expresses its sincere gratitude to Mr. Shepardson and Mr.
Mouillesseaux for their dedicated service to the Town and our community.
MOVED: Tee -Ann Hunter SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Consider adoption of a Resolution of Appreciation for Gail Kroll
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 066: Resolution of Sympathy and Condolences to the
Family of Gail Kroll
WHEREAS, Gail Kroll started her career with the Town of Ithaca as the Secretary for the
Highway Department on January 25, 1993, where she provided her expertise and talents to the
Town continuously until she passed away on March 17, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Gail was the solid core that held the Public Works Department administration
together; and
WHEREAS, Gail was always one to show her professionalism, courteousness and helpful
nature while serving and talking with the Town's residents, contractors and while working with
her fellow employees; and
WHEREAS, Gail's years of devotion and dedication to the Town will be remembered for years
by the Town and staff, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has greatly benefited from Gail Kroll's contributions and
desire to serve our community for the benefit of the Town and its citizens; and
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 22 of 30
WHEREAS, the governing Town Board wishes to express its sincere appreciation for what
Gail Kroll brought to the Town of Ithaca over her 18 year career;
Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, on behalf of the Town, its citizens
and employees, wishes to express its sincere gratitude to Gail Kroll for her dedicated service to
the Town and our community; and further be it.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, wishes to express its deepest
sympathies and condolences on behalf of the Town, its citizens and employees to the family of
Gail Kroll.
MOVED: Pat Leary SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Consider Authorization of Award of Contract for the following Projects:
a. Warren Road Pervious Pavement Project
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-067: AUTHORIZING THE AWARD OF THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA WARREN ROAD
WALKWAY PERVIOUS PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, plans, specifications and bid documents have been duly prepared relating
to the construction of highway improvements known and identified as the Town of
Ithaca Warren Road Walkway Pervious Pavement Improvements (hereinafter also
referred to as "Improvement"), and
WHEREAS, the NYSDOT Region 3 Plan and Program Management Group has
reviewed the plans and specifications for the Improvement construction and provided
authorization to proceed with advertisement for bidding, and
WHEREAS, Bid Proposal for the Improvement were received and opened by the Town
of Ithaca on Wednesday, March 15, 2011, at which time one bid proposal was received,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has reviewed the Bid Proposal and has determined that
the Bid Proposal submitted by Environmental Paving solutions, LLC, is a responsive
Bid for the improvement in the amount of $214,485.00, and has made a
recommendation for award of the contract to Environmental Paving Solutions, LLC, PO
Box 61, Syracuse, NY as the sole responsive bidder, and
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 23 of 30
WHEREAS, the NYSDOT Region 3 Plan and Program Management Group has reviewed
the recommendation for award for the Warren Road Walkway Pervious Pavement
Project construction and provided authorization to proceed with the award of the
contract to Environmental Paving Solutions, LLC;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca awards the contract for
construction of the Warren Road Walkway Pervious Pavement Improvement to
Environmental Paving Solutions as the lowest responsible bidder, and authorizes the
Town Supervisor to sign the contract for the Improvement, subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works and Attorney for the Town.
MOVED: Tee -Ann Hunter SECONDED: Pat Leary
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
b. Hungerford Hill Pump Station Project
TB RESOLUTION No. 2011- 068: Authorization to Award Contract for
Construction of the Town of Ithaca Hungerford Hill Pump Station Water
Improvement and to Establish the Town of Ithaca Hungerford Hill Pump Station
Water Improvement Capital Project Fund
WHEREAS: On March 30, 2011 the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway
Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Hungerford Hill Pump Station
Water Improvement for the construction of a pre -cast concrete building, installation of
pumps, meter and control valves within the building, and installation of 8" water main
that will connect the Hungerford Hill Tank directly to the East Hill Transmission Tank,
together with related ancillary facilities, and
WHEREAS: The Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of
the bidders and has recommended that the low bid of $148,000 for the total project
made by Procon Contracting, LLC, Vestal, NY 13851 is a qualified bid, and
WHEREAS: At the September 13, 2010 Town Board meeting under Resolution No.
2010-158 the maximum amount of $400,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the
Town of Ithaca for this improvement, now therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the
contract for the Town of Ithaca Hungerford Hill Pump Station Water Improvement
project to Procon Contracting, LLC, subject to final approval of the contract documents
by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon
such approval; and be it further
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 24 of 30
RESOLVED: that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders
to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum
amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $10,000.00 without
prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost,
including the contract, engineering, legal and other expenses does not exceed the
maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all
necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions transferring $148,000 to
establish the capital project fund "Town of Ithaca Hungerford Hill Pump Station Water
Improvement" project.
MOVED: Nahmin Horwitz SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Hunter and DePaolo
Abstention: Eric Levine Motion passed.
c. Snyder Hill Road Water Main Project
TB RESOLUTION No. 2011- 069: Authorization to Award Contract for
Construction of the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Water Main Water Improvement
and to Establish the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Water Main Water Improvement
Capital Project Fund
WHEREAS: On March 30, 2011 the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway
Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Water Main Water
Improvement for the installation of 2800 feet of new 8" water main, replacing the
existing main, together with related ancillary facilities, and
WHEREAS: The Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of
the bidders and has recommended that the low bid of $253,500 for the total project
made by LRS Excavating, Inc., Lansing, New York 14882, is a qualified bid, and
WHEREAS: At the October 18, 2010 Town Board meeting under Resolution No. 2010-
183 the maximum amount of $300,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town
of Ithaca for this improvement, now therefore be it
RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the
contract for the Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Water Main Water Improvement project to
LRS Excavating, Inc, subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town
Engineer and Town Attorney, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon
such approval; and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders
to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 25 of 30
amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $10,000.00 without
prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost,
including the contract, engineering, legal and other expenses does not exceed the
maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all
necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions transferring $253,500 to
establish the capital project fund "Town of Ithaca Snyder Hill Water Main Water
Improvement" project.
MOVED: Tee -Ann Hunter SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Consider Endorsement of the Recommendation from the Conservation Board for
Reappointment of Kristine Shaw to the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 070: Endorsement of the Conservation Board's
recommendation to reappoint Kristine Shaw to the Tompkins County
Environmental Management Council
WHEREAS Kristine Shaw was appointed to the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council and
WHEREAS the Conservation Board has recommended to the Tompkins County
Legislature that she be reappointed to the Tompkins County Environmental
Management Council as the Town's representative
Now therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby endorses the recommendation of the
Conservation Board regarding Ms. Shaw's reappointment and directs the Town Clerk to
deliver a certified copy of this resolution of endorsement to the Tompkins County
Legislature.
MOVED: Herb Engman SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
Consider Consent Agenda Items
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011- 71 a: Approval of Minutes of February 28, and
March 7, 2011
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 26 of 30
WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the February 28, and March 7, 2011 of the Town
Board have been submitted for review and approval;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby approves the submitted
minutes as the final minutes of the February 28, and March 7, 2011 of the Town Board
of the Town of Ithaca.
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-071 b: Town of Ithaca Abstract
WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca
Town Board for approval of payment; and
WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town
Board; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of
the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 318-384
General Fund Town wide
29,016.18
General Fund Part Town
9,854.60
Highway Fund Part Town
23,072.29
Water Fund
15,339.33
Sewer Fund
279,127.91
Warren Road Walkway
Forest Home Traffic Calming
Fire Protection Fund
516,265.56
Risk Retention Fund
775.00
Forest Home Lighting District
149.76
Glenside Lighting District
38.87
Renwick Heights Lighting District
55.70
Eastwood Commons Lighting District
135.68
Clover Lane Lighting District
15.99
Winner's Circle Lighting District
54.07
Burleigh Drive Lighting District
54.08
West Haven Road Lighting District
162.22
Coddington Road Lighting District
96.80
Trust and Agency
50.00
Debt Service
TOTAL
874,164.04'
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 27 of 30
c. Bolton Point Abstract
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011-071 c: Bolton Point Abstract
WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board
for approval of payment; and
WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town
Board; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of
the said vouchers.
Voucher Numbers: 128-186
Check Numbers: 13000-13058
Burdick Hill Tanks Project
$ 0
Operating Fund
$ 94,840.04
TOTAL
$94,840.04
Less Prepaid
$ 30,170.58
TOTAL
$ 64,669.46
d. Authorization for Town Supervisor to sign the contract with Johnson
Controls for the Energy Improvements at the IAWWTF — Pulled (already
given)
e. Authorization for Town Supervisor to sign an Agreement with Cornell
Cooperative Extension for services associated with the Community
Garden at West Hill
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 — 071e: Authorizing Supervisor to Sign the
Community Gardens Agreement with Cooperative Extension
WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca requires program and administrative services for its
Community Garden, and
WHEREAS Cooperative Extension has collaborated with the Town of Ithaca in support
of its Community Garden, and
WHEREAS Cooperative Extension has the expertise and experience to provide the
needed services for the Town.
Now therefore be it
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 28 of 30
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town
Supervisor to sign the Agreement with Cooperative Extension for program and
administrative services for its Community Gardens.
Authorization for Town Supervisor to sign and Agreement with Cornell
Cooperative Extension for services associated with the Safe Routes to
School Program
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 071f: Authorizing the Town Supervisor to sign the
Safe Routes to School Agreement with Cornell Cooperative Extension for 2011
WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca was awarded a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) grant
from the New York State Department of Transportation in September, 2008 and
WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca anticipates completing the walkway along Warren Road
in the Spring of 2011 and
WHEREAS a required component of the SRTS program is education of the children,
parents and teachers near the walkway and
WHEREAS the Town's Recreation and Youth Coordinator retired near the end of 2010
prior to conducting the final stages of the educational program and
WHEREAS Cooperative Extension has considerable successful experience with
informal, out -of school education, classroom instruction, and youth and community
development
Now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town
Supervisor to sign the Safe Routes to School Agreement with Cornell Cooperative
Extension for 2011.
g. Approval of reimbursement for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) for
certain Public Works employees
TB RESOLUTION NO. 201-071g: Approval of Reimbursement for Commercial
Drivers License (CDL) Renewal Cost for Certain Public Works Staff
WHEREAS, the Teamster's contract with the Public Works staff was approved by
the Town Board November 23, 2009, which changed some of the Town's policies; and
WHEREAS, in early 2010 the Personnel Committee reviewed items from the
contract that were different for union and non union Public Works staff in order to
determine if the changes should be extended to non-union staff, however, the change
for reimbursing for CDL renewals was not reviewed; and
IQ
i
TBR 4-11-2011
Page 29 of 30
WHEREAS, the Personnel Committee after reviewing the cost and frequency of
the expense recommends extending the reimbursement for the difference between the
cost of a CDL and the cost of a Class D license to the non-union staff that have a
position that requires a CDL, retro -active to January 1, 2011;
Now therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve
reimbursing the cost difference between a CDL and a Class D license to the non-union
staff that has a position that requires a CDL, retro -active to January 1, 2011.
Report of Town Officials
Written submitted by: Finance, Public Works; Codes and Human Resources
Report of Town Committees
Public Works Committee
Consider Adoption of Construction Staging Policy
There was some discussion on current projects and Mr. Goodman reminded the
Board of the changes to the language in the policy from last meeting about the
application of balancing test(s)
Intermunicipal Organizations -- None
Review of Correspondence -- None
Mr. Goodman moved to enter closed session to seek the advice of counsel at 9:39p.m.,
seconded by Herb Engman, unanimous.
Motion made to reenter open session at 10:13 p.m. by Tee -Ann Hunter, seconded by
Nahmin Horwitz, unanimous.
Consider Adjournment
Motion by Rich DePaolo to adjourn at 10:14 p.m.
RespectfuAsubed,
Pau ette erwilliger, Town Clerk
Boarrd of Fire Commissioners
Report to Ithaca Town Board
f,.� April 11, 2011
The following is a summary of the Board of Fire Commissioners quarterly report to the Ithaca
Town Board for the I" quarter of 2011:
Included with this report are: the Fire Chief's Report for the March 2011 BFC meeting and,
Fire Marshal's Report for March 2011.
The department call activity reports for January 1- March 31, 2011 are included as part of
this report. As part of the activity report, a new chart provides a graphical comparison of call
activity by type of call distributed by election district within the city -town fire service area.
• Fire Department Staffing (March 2011)
a. Current Department Active Fire Fighting staffing totals 64 (on duty staffing- 1 Acting
Chief, 1 Deputy Chief, 5 Assistant Chiefs, 8 lieutenants, & 49 Fire Fighters. There is
an additional fire fighter on injury leave and 1 on Administrative leave. Current open
positions are: 1 Chief and 3 Fire Fighters.
It is expected that an additional fire fighter will be on a leave of absence for at least a
year, beginning in February or March of 2011. Chief Dorman advised the Board of
Fire Commissioners that the Department is getting close to having overtime issues.
b. Department Staff met with the City's Vacancy Review Committee in December to
request the hiring of 2 Fire Fighters. Chief Dorman expressed optimism in December that
the Department will be permitted to hire 2 Fire Fighters in February in time for them to
114 1 receive training at the Fire Academy. In January he reported that because any newly
hired fire fighters would have a different retirement package from the other union
members, the union must agree to placing the new hires into a separate retirement plan
before the Department can proceed with filling the 2 positions. The City and Fire
Fighters union are currently in contract negotiations. As of March, no agreement has
been reached on the filling the vacant positions.
• Budget Status 2010 —The final expenditure and revenue totals for 2010 were not available at
the March meeting.
• Financial Reports for 2011— included with BFC Report.
• Fire Police Activity: The volunteer Fire Police unit continues to develop and meets monthly
for training They are available for traffic control at the scene of fire or traffic incidents.
Members of this unit are interested in recruiting new volunteers to serve. A new member has
been recruited and is expected to be approved as a new volunteer in the department at the
BFC Apr. Meeting.
• A new card -reader access system has been installed at all stations and should be operational
in the next few months.
Items in urostress:
• Traffic calming device remediation. — The BPW held a public hearing in March on this issue
and has asked the City traffic engineer for various options for removing the diverters and
changing the speed humps.
f
BFC Report to Town of Ithaca Board 11 April 2011
• Charter Review- the Board of Fire Commissioners met twice in February 2011 with the
City's Charter review committee. The BFC is charged with developing a preliminary
recommendation on changes to present to the Council's charter review committee. The
Board of Fire Commissioners is currently working on a tool to obtain input from stakeholder
groups and individuals.
• Resource recovery — no action.
• County Fire -Disaster — EMS Advisory Board— no new action on this issue.
• Training Center Facility Project — the City Park's Commission is recommended granting a
waiver that will allow the expansion of class room space at the IFD training center to
proceed, this recommendation has gone to BPW.
• The Board is working with the City Clerk's Office to begin posting BFC meeting agendas
and minutes on the City Website.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bill Gilligan
Chair, Board of Fire Commissioners
Page 2
Monthly Report of the Fire Chief to the Board of Fire Commissioners, for the March 2011,
meeting. Combined Chief's and Deputy Chief Operations Report
LIFE SAFETY DIVISION
Administration
1) Career Personnel Report
PERSONNEL STAFFING LEVELS
1
Acting Chief
I
Deputy Chief
5
Assistant Chiefs
8
Lieutenants
49
Fire Fighters '
64
On duty personnel
l
1
Fire Fighter on Injury Leave
I
Fire Fighter on Administrative Leave a
I
Fire Alarm Superintendent
1
Office Manager
I
Administrative Assistant
.05
Financial Clerk
Total employees as of 01M1 /11 — 69.5 -
Open positions — Chief, 3 Fire Fighters (2 unfunded, 1 funded)
b) Hiring/Recruitment Committee
The Vacancy Review committee has approved the hiring of two Fire Fighters (one
to replace a disability retirement; one to replace a leave of absence) with- the
condition that the City and the Fire Fighters Union reach an agreement regarding
the retirement provisions that would apply to new hires. Since the City and the FF
Union are in negotiations, I do not expect this to be resolved soon and therefore I
do not expect being able to hire soon. (same report as last month)
2) Budget Status
a) Account totals for 2010 and 2011 are still not available.
Fire Chief's Report for Much 2011
3)
`l)
08 MAR 11
Page 2 of 3
County Coirnnunications and 911 Program
a) Some minor progress has been made in the implementation of the Counties CAT)
911 system however, many problems continue to exist.
Grants and Donations r
J
a) Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG); (in -vehicle repeaters) — DC Parsons is 4
working on identifying and securing the proper frequencies for this project. L`
b) Training Center Project Funding: The City Parks Comi nittee voted tomove t s
item to the Board of Public Works (same report as last month)
5) Resource Recovery Legislation
No report
6) City Charter Update -�
Delegated to a committee established by the Board of Commissioners
7) Traffic Calming
The Board of Public Works will be holding a public hearing concerning the removal of
the speed bumps at Wood and South Streets on 3/9/11.
Operations
1) - Mutual Aid Calls: Quarterly Report
2) Selected Calls —
No Report
3) Support
The hardware work for the keyless entry system is done. I do not have a date
when we will be converting to the prox cards and fobs. I have asked West Fire to
provide a price'quote for installation of security cameras at Central Station.
Fire Chief s Report for March 2011
08 MAR 11
Page 3 of 3
Fire Prevention Bureau
1) Please see Deputy Fire Chief Parson's report of Fire Prevention Bureau activities
Safety Section
OPERATIONS DIVISION
Response
1) Quarterly Call Report
2) Emergency Management
No report
Support
1) Training Center
Quarterly Report
Training
Quarterly Report
Recruitment and Retention
1) See DC Parsons report
2) Summaries of Service Hours:
Quarterly Report
Respectfully submitted,
J. Thomas Dorman, Acting Fire Chief
0
e
CITY OF ITHACA
310 West Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5497
OFFICE of THE FIRE CHIEF
Telephone: 607!2724234 Fax: 607/272-2793
March 4"', 2011
Board of Fire Commissioners
Ithaca Fire Department
310 W Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Board Members:
The following is the Fire Marshal's report for February 2011.
Code Enforcement Division:
The Codes Enforcement Division received 28 complaints in the month February. There
were 17 complaints forwarded to the City of Ithaca Building Department and 4
complaints forwarded on to the Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department. There
were 21 complaints closed out, and 39 complaints remain open for February and previous
months.
The Code Enforcement Division performed 129 Fire Safety and Property Maintenance
Inspections or Re -inspections. The division also witnessed 8 Fire Alarm Tests; 1
Standpipe Flow Test; and 6 Hydrostatic Sprinkler System Tests. There were 216
violations cited.
The Code Enforcement Division issued: 13 operating permits for assembly occupancies;
and -14 certificates of compliance for fire and property maintenance inspections.
Fire Investigation Unit:
There was one fire investigation performed in February for a fire that occurred at 301 S
Geneva Street in the City of Ithaca. The fire investigation determined the cause was
accidental related to a cooking fire.
Public Education:
There were 4 Child Safety Seat Inspections; and I Public Education Activities performed;
by the department in February.
Municipal Fire Alarm System
The municipal fire alarm system has remained operational while the remaining property
owners disconnect from the system. There is are 12 buildings still tied to the system, and
despite having a February 2811i 2011 date for the final shut down of the system. The
remaining properties are in the process of being transitioned off of the fire alarm system
"An Equal opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce divmificntion." co
Fire Marshal's Report for February 2011— Page 2
and should be completed within the next week. The fire alarm superintendent has already
begun isolating and dismantling parts of the system.
Respectfully Submitted,
(29hmc
C Thomas Parsons
j Deputy Fire Chief / Fire Marshal
I
I
I�
.I
I
I
2011 REVENUE SUMMARY BY ACCOUNT
February
Revised
REVENUE
PCT
YTD REVENUE Collected
Remaining
REVENUE
Average
Mthly
Projected
Fire Code Inspection
1565
$32,000
$3,007
9%
$28,993
$1,503
$18,040
Home & Comm Services
2189
$100
$50
0%
$50
$25
$300
Public Safety Services
2260
1$6,000
$374
6%
$5,626
$187
$2,244
Fre Protective Services
2262
$3,177,500
$0
0%
$3,177,500
$0
$0
Rental of Real Property
2410
$11,000
$0
0%
$11,000
$0
$0
Rental of Equipment
2414
$0
$0
0%
$0
$0
$0
Public Safety Permits
2550
$7,000
$852
12%
$6,148
$426
$5,112
Fines & Forfeited Bail
2610
$5,000
$0
0%
$5,000
$0
$0
Minor Sales
2655$100
$6
6%
$94
$3
$35
Sale of Equipment
2665
$0
$0
0%
$0
$0
$0
Insurance Recoveries
2660
$8,000
$0
0%
$8,000
$0
$0
Other Compensation for Los 2690
$50
$0
0%
$50
$0
$0
Refund Prior Year Expense
2701
$200
$85
42%
$115
$42
$510
Gifts & Donations
2705
$711,967
$0
0%
$711,967
$0
$701,445
Unclassified Revenue
2770
$2,000
$0
0%
$2,000
$0
$0
Home & Community Service
3989
$0
$0
0%
$0
$0
$0
1
$3,960,917 1$4,373..
0.1%
$3,956,544
IS2.187
$727,685
V
February 2011
Budget Program Account Balances
2011 Accounts
3/10/2011
50
51
S2
S3
S4
55
56
57
O
'�v
qN
\
V a=
L v
N
>
o
O
Ln
V^
°
Cr
t
o
C
II
m
.a
y
m 4
) d
dx
W
m
j
m
7 d
o�
V E
Q Z
o
� � c U
° >T > m M
n G Q D N
c= d m � .-.
'p° �m a
a m
Q N
c
o p
G V V
wn m H c Eo
N N y M
p '- o� y a-
a. a.. uD.Eaa
N
O
i �v
=O. eq
m N y
and E O
cr t°� u
C yto
Admin
34Z475
105
229,410
15223
3,045
6,851
19,972
17,780
12,178
0
0
304,458
ll%
Stall
4,724,792
110
208,473
320,727
40,091
2004,549
1,202,730
76,173
156,355
0
0
4,009,098
15%
OverAme
370,000
125
23,600
6,652
1,073
249228
14,691
629
50,258
0
346,137
6%
Fum & fl7dures
0
205
p
0
Office Equip
Other Equip
0
19,400
210
2250
0
0
0
0
19,400
0
0
19,400
0%
Telephone
17.500
405
70,901
3,540
14,441
17%
UtQifes
110,000
410
97,803
97,803
11 %
Clothes
Gas &Oil
170,150
69,000
415
420
0
49,111
0
39,567
69,000
1,000
89,678 '
69,000
19%
0%
Office Expen
9,000
425
7,765
500
8.265.
8%
Contracts
31,123
435
0 29,803
6D0.
30,403
StoHDevel
36,775
440
0
5,3001,000
11,300
4,075
1,000
6,686
5,039
2800
29,361
20%
Travel
Insurance
11,200
115,000
445
455
5,600
87,850
10,639
87,850
5%
24%
PrgmSuppl
34.665
460
505 5,300 1,600
12,319 0 11,675
34,199
1%
Renta[
Z800
470
2,755
2,755
2%
Prop Mclnt
48,500
475
42,305
42,305
178 608
13%
6%
Equ[p Malrrl
190,000
476
10,178
9,520 153,660 5,250
0
Equip Ports
Bldg Matn
70,650
8,800
6,327,830 -::
477
480
584,282
_
353,202 1
125,723
2,293,767
66,836
8,668
1,741,461
•117,147
233,316 1
0
1,000
0
66,836
8,668
5,449,897 I
5%t
2%
14%
2011 Accounts
3/10/2011
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary By District (Modified)
Alarm Date Between (01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
04/08/20 07 9 1
C^ I
Good
Hazardous
Over-
Service
False
District
Fire Intent
Condition
Pressure Rescue/EMS
Calls
Calls
Special
Weather
Total
City of
Ithaca
11 61
52
1
314
56
250
0
0
745
City of
Ithaca
- Cornell2Property 26
1
0
33
0
35
0
0
97
Outside
Ithaca
2 4
3
0
2
2
0
0
0
13
Town of
Ithaca
6 14
8
0
170
14
22
0
0
234
Town of
Ithaca
- Corne110Property 2
1
0
6
1
10
0
0
20
Town of
Ithaca
- Ithaca (college 3
2
0
35
1
24
0
0
68
24 110
67
1
560
74
341
0
0
1177
04/08/20 07 9 1
C^ I
300
250
200
100
50
0
Incidents
Action Taken
i InniAenkv
f
__oeaee���_�I
Action Incide Invest
Provi Resc
Extric Resto
Syste Assist
Stand
'Assist
Establ Invest Invest Invest Emer Canc
Provi
Invest Provi
invest
taken, nt igate
de ue,
ate, refire
ms physic
ante,
ish igate igate igate gency
elled
de
igate de
Other comm EMS,
manp water
disent alarm
and ally
by
Other
safe Non- Alarm EMS, medic
en
first
igate EMS, basic
1 1 1
1 1
2 2
2 3
3
5
5 5 13 13 21
40
41
67 79 284
Incidents
City of 11
IFD Incidents by District (Modified)
Alarm Date Between (0110112011) And (03/3112011)
City of Ithaca Outside Ithaca ■ Town of Ithaca - Cornell Property
❑ City of Ithaca - Comell Property [❑ Town of Ithaca E] Town of Ithaca - Ithaca College
Town of Ithaca - Ithaca College 6%
rn of Ithaca - Cornell Property 2%
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
ctiy 6
6
�c 5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
IFD Responses 111/2011 through 312812011
'41
S 7 -5 D O Q. 0.
�_ � a 5 '5 7
W N N N q N q r r n' n n c`i 'n n
4 4 4 4 d 4 B. C� a a a a 4 P- O- O- 4 d P• �' •' r' r •' r .- r .' r
N N N N N N lE� N N N Z N U) Rl Z Z Z
i i r �, r r i ni nr r r fi C)
N W a 5 N p y o r N
N
m t P. fn N Z N o m M fp Z fi in Z Z -n S m o s w rn t
n o a s, n
f9 N ° N [� ., G r 0? N' Q N m �
° G q° •• y CD Q: G
,.n G ; S 7, m rn s r m �^ C? ? fi ° G m co cQ
`� C1 5 m C� y n m° �� a s
3 tri w G S.
to � a 2 Z
[D 2
N M
i f0
@ 5 N
N
N
Election District
1FD Responses 111/2011 through 3/2812011
l False Alarm
J N Good Intent
■ Service Call
700— O Hazardous Condition
■ EMS/Rescue
boo IS Overpressure/Rupture
EFire—..
•`a §`: J
C�9 400
300
100- -
.1 AP 0
o-
, LZ
City of Ithaca City of Ithaca - Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca - Town of Ithaca -
Cornell Property Cornell Property Ithaca College
1 False Alarm
250 35 22
10
24
[Good Intent
61 26 14
2
3
[Service Call
56 0 14
1
1
3 Hazardous Condition
52 1 B
1
2
1 EMS/Rescue
314 33 170
6
35
IOverpressure/Rupture
1 0 0
0
0
1 Fire
11 2 6
0
3
District
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary by Election District
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 1
Good Hazardous
Over-
Service
False
District
Fire
Intent Condition
Pressure
Rescue/EMS
Calls
Calls
Special
Weather
Total
City -
1st
Ward,
Distri8t
1,
NE, Wbst Hill 0
0
10
3
4
0
0
20
City -
1st
Ward,
Distriflt
2,
W, Wbst Hill 2
0
28
1
6
0
0
38
City -
1st
Ward,
Distriat
3,
SW, S3)uthwest 2
0
30
5
15
0
0
58
City -
1st
Ward,
Distrift
4,
S, Lober South H311
0
7
6
5
0
0
24
City -
1st
Ward,
Distri@t
5,
S, Upper South H211
0
3
2
10
0
0
19
City -
2nd
Ward,
Distriat
1,
NE, T5riangle 3
1
16
2
5
0
0
35
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 1
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary by Election District
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 2
Good Hazardous Over-
Service
False
District
Fire
Intent Condition Pressure
Rescue/EMS
Calls
Calls
Special
Weather
Total
City
- 2nd
Ward,
Distri@t
2,
S, Southside, Titus
0
55
5
53
0
0
123
City
- 2nd
Ward,
Distrift
3,
W, Fuaton, Court9 Lin
0
49
9
25
0
0
101
City -
2nd
Ward,
Distri^et
4,
Comm'b2<s East Busfiness
0
41
9
36
0
0
106
City -
3rd
Ward,
Distrilt
1,
E, C2anell Campub
0
22
0
24
0
0
71
City -
3rd
Ward,
Distriflt
2,
E, Co(Llegetn Be4Sher
0
5
2
17
0
0
28
City -
3rd
Ward,
Distriflt
3,
SE, Bb1Sher, E Slate
0
7
0
2
0
0
11
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 2
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary by Election District
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 3
Good Hazardous Over-
Service
False
District
Fire
Intent Condition Pressure
Rescue/EMS
Calls
Calls
Special
Weather
Total
City
- 4th
Ward,
Distri@t
1,
NE, Test Campus0
0
11
0
13
0
0
27
City
- 4th
Ward,
Distri8t
2,
E, Mihdle East Hall
0
4
1
7
0
0
16
City
- 4th
Ward,
Distri8t
3,
E, Lo4rer College4own
0
20
6
28
0
0
62
City
- 5th
Ward,
District
1,
N, FaE1 Crk and Villw
0
12
3
7
0
0
29
City
- 5th
Ward,
Distridt
2,
N, Fhll Crk, Gut Hil
0
9
1
5
0
0
18
City -
5th
Ward,
District
3,
NE, Cornell HeigRts
0
10
1
21
0
0
44
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 3
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary by Election District
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
Town
Good Hazardous
Over-
S,
Service
False
and SouthOHill
0
30
District
Fire Intent Condition
Pressure
Rescue/EMS
Calls
Calls
Special
Weather
Total
City - 5th Ward,
Distridt 4, Farm,OAurora, Kihg
0
4
0
2
0
0
7
Out of District
2 5 3
0
2
2
0
0
0
14
Town - District
1, NW,1Trumansbur2J Rd 0
0
24
2
4
0
0
33
Town - District
2, SW,2Bostwick &l Elmira Rdsl
0
13
0
0
0
0
17
Town
- District
3,
S,
$tone
Quarr-*
and SouthOHill
0
30
2
3
0
0
39
Town
- District
4,
E,
811is
Hollo4r
to Slatergille
0
36
5
12
0
0
60
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 4
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary by Election District
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
Town - District 12, E, Raple Ave 1 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 12
09/08/2011 21:08 Page 5
Good Hazardous Over-
Service
False
District
Fire Intent Condition Pressure
Rescue/EMS
Calls
Calls
Special
Weather
Total
Town -
District
5,
NE,OCornell Cafipus to NE 0
0
5
0
9
0
0
10
Town -
District
7,
N, Village of (Cayuga HgtsO
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Town -
District
9,
N, East Shore Ind RenwickO
0
9
1
0
0
0
7
Town -
District
10,
S, Ithaca Coll.1ge 1
0
90
1
25
0
0
73
Town -
District
11,
SE,1Troy Coddi>n Slater@iille
0
6
1
3
0
0
11
Town - District 12, E, Raple Ave 1 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 12
09/08/2011 21:08 Page 5
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD Incident Type Summary by Election District
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
Good Hazardous Over- Service False
District Fire Intent Condition Pressure Rescue/EMS Calls Calls Special Weather Total
Town - District 13, S, South of Ki&g Rd 2 0 7 2 1 0 0 12
Town - District 14, W, 6lecklenburg3Rd 3 0 40 1 3 0 0 51
24 110 67 1 560 74 341 0 0 1177
04/08/2011 21:08 Page 6
Ithaca Fire Department
IFD False Alarm Cause Report
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} And {03/31/2011}
False Alarm Cause Total Percent of All:
BioHazard Alarm, Device Malfunction
1
0.2%
Bomb Scare, No Bomb
1
0.2%
Detection Device, Cleaning
4
1.1%
Detection Device, Dust
20
5.8%
Detection Device, Extinguisher
3
0.8 %
Detection Device, Malfunction
30
8.8 %
Detection Device, Water
16
4.6%
Dust Detector, Vehicle Exhaust
1
0.2%
Fog -Smoke Machine
4
1.1%
Malicious, Pull - Private Alarm
16
4.6 %
None
5
1.4%
PERS, Emergency Button
5
1.4�
PERS, Pendenant
4
1.1�
Pull Station Unintentional
18
5.2�
Smoke, Cooking NO FIRE
121
35.4%
Smoke, Illegal Drug Use
1
0.2%
�ke, Soldering -Welding
1
0.2%
t noke, Solid Fuel Appliance
2
0.5%
Smoke, Tobacco Product
6
1.7%
Sprinkler, Contractor
2
0.5%
Sprinkler, Frozen Pipe
4
1.1%
Sprinkler, Water Surge
3
0.8%
Steam, Bathroom or Shower
4
1.1%
Steam, Cooking
2
0.5%
Steam, Laundry
1
0.2%
Steam, Other
6
1.7%
System Activation, Contractor
28
8.2�
System Activation, Malfunction
30
8.8�
System Activation, Power Out
1
0.2�
Trouble Alarm
1
0.2%
Total Incident Count 341
04/08/2011 21:06
Page 1
Ithaca Fire Department
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between (01/01/2011} and {03/31/2011}
Incident Type 01/01/2011
01/01/201
01/01/2009
01/01/2008
to
0 to
to
to
03/31/2011
03/31/201
03/31/2009
03/31/2008
0
100
Fire, Other
0
2
0
111
Building fire
11
8
11
£
113
Cooking fire, confined to container
3
4
9
114
Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue
1
0
2
118
Trash or rubbish fire, contained
1
1
4
7
131
Passenger vehicle fire
4
4
2
140
Natural vegetation fire, Other
0
0
1
143
Grass fire
0
0
1
150
Outside rubbish fire, Other
1
1
2
151
Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire
1
0
1
154
Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire
1
1
0
160
Special outside fire, Other
1
0
0
212
Overpressure rupture of steam boiler
0
0
0
240
Explosion (no fire), Other
0
0
1
251
Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition
1
0
0
300
Rescue, EMS incident, other
9
8
12
r,oii�1
Medical assist, assist EMS crew
3
8
51
3`
21
EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury
502
415
344
36E
.22
Motor vehicle accident with injuries
31
11
25
2
323
Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped)
2
2
4
E
324
Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries
8
8
1
3311Lock-in / Knox Box Access Required
0
1
0
342
Search for person in water
0
1
1
350
Extrication, rescue, Other
0
0
0
352
Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle
1
1
0
353
Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator
2
8
1
356
High -angle rescue
0
1
0
]
360
Water & ice -related rescue, other
1
1
0
381
Rescue or EMS standby
1
3
0
400
Hazardous condition, Other
21
11
15
2S
410
Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other
6
0
0
411
Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill
0
2
7
412
Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)
17
20
6
413
Oil or other combustible liquid spill
0
1
0
421
Chemical hazard (no spill or leak)
0
0
1
C
422
Chemical spill or leak
0
0
0
]
424
Carbon monoxide incident
4
8
8
1C
440
Electrical wiring/equipment problem, Other
0
1
0
5
441
Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn
1
1
0
C
442
Overheated motor
0
0
1
2
3
Breakdown of light ballast
2
1
4
1
04/08/2011
21:10
Page 1
Ithaca Fire Department
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} and {03/31/2011}
Incident Type 01/01/2011
01/01/201
01/01/2009
01/01/2008
to
0 to
to
to
03/31/2011
03/31/201
03/31/2009
03/31/2008
0
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment
5
3
2
4
451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected
1
0
0
460 Accident, potential accident, Other
1
0
1
]
461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed
2
0
1
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup
0
1
12
1(
480 Attempted burning, illegal action, Other
0
1
0
500 Service Call, other
36
32
45
4"
510 Person in distress, Other
2
5
2
511 Lock -out
4
2
3
520 Water problem, Other
5
6
6
521 Water evacuation
5
2
1
522 Water or steam leak
7
8
9
531 Smoke or odor removal
1
2
0
550 Public service assistance, Other
4
3
5
551 Assist police or other governmental agency
4
3
6
1(
552 Police matter
2
1
1
2
^53 Public service
1
2
0
C
54 Assist invalid
1
2
0
2
161 Unauthorized burning
1
0
1
C
571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup
1
0
2
600 Good intent call, Other
20
23
21
23
611 Dispatched & cancelled en route
4
5
26
2E
6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher
6
1
0
C
6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs
16
18
25
C
6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS
16
13
5
C
6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S
10
8
3
C
6115Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety
1
0
0
C
6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept
3
0
1
C
6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD
2
3
1
C
6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other Police
1
0
0
C
621 Wrong location
2
0
0
1
622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address
6
3
0
C
631 Authorized controlled burning
2
1
1
C
632 Prescribed fire
0
2
1
C
641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location)
0
1
0
C
650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke, Other
2
2
2
2
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke
11
1
14
5
652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke
1
1
0
0
653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle
0
0
1
0
661 EMS call, party transported by non -fire agency
0
0
0
1
1 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat
7
7
2
2
1
04/08/2011 21:10
Page 2
/ 0b�
Ithaca Fire Department
Incident Type Period Comparisons
Alarm Date Between {01/01/2011} and {03/31/2011}
Incident Type 01/01/2011
01/01/201
01/01/2009
01/01/2008
to
0 to
to
to
03/31/2011
03/31/201
03/31/2009
03/31/2008
0
700lFalse alarm or false call, Other - Medical Alarm
1
0
0
0
710
Malicious, mischievous false call, Other
2
0
4
10
711
Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm
0
2
6
6
712
Direct tie to FD, malicious false alarm
0
0
3
3
713
Telephone, malicious false alarm
0
1
0
2
714
Central station, malicious false alarm
14
5
7
9
721
Bomb scare - no bomb
1
0
0
0
730
System malfunction, Other
13
13
13
20
731
Sprinkler activation due to malfunction
0
0
14
9
733
Smoke detector activation due to malfunction
11
14
17
11
734
Heat detector activation due to malfunction
2
0
4
2
735
Alarm system sounded due to malfunction
23
14
15
12
736
CO detector activation due to malfunction
0
0
1
4
740
Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other
38
29
97
89
741
Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional
2
7
6
5
743
Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional
159
127
139
143
(Oft�44
Detector activation, no fire - unintentional
29
44
9
7
45
Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional
34
25
7
22
746
Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO
6
8
0
0
900
Special type of incident, Other
0
1
1
2
Totals
1177
994
1067
1037
r
04/08/2011 21:10
Page 3
Hazardous Condition (Nc
Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire)
Incident Type Summary
Alarm Date Between {0110112011} And {03/31/201 1)
11 False alarm & False Call 0 Good Intent Call ® Overpressure Rupture, Explosion, Overheat(no fire) 0 Service Call
❑ Fire ❑ Hazardous Condition (No Fire) ❑ Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incident
Call 6%
4"f V�&�j -*�,
April 11, 2011
Ithaca Town Board meeting
My wife and I live on Campbell Avenue, on West Hill in the City
of Ithaca. Route 96 is so congested much of the time that I won't even
use it to go downtown — I prefer Route 79. There has always been some
cut -through traffic on our street, but it will become worse as more traffic
is added to the Route 96 corridor. Actions taken by the Town and the
County have real impacts in the City. Connecting Linderman Creek
and Overlook, we now have 40 TCAT buses a day passing through our
residential street, which includes a tight, difficult turn at Hopkins Place.
Any Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared by using
research thorough enough to anticipate such consequences. The EIS
for the Holochuck proposal barely considered the traffic backup at the
West End of Ithaca. We do not want bumper -to -bumper traffic in our
neighborhood, or stoplights at the ends of our street, but those
possibilities are examples of what could happen. This is a real, negative
impact on quality of life in a neighborhood. No additional development,
including Holochuck or Conifer, should be approved before a Master
Plan, including traffic remediation, is in place for West Hill.
Greg Perreault
U✓ hile there are many perspectives on how development of the region should proceed, we,
the undersigned, ask that no large-scale development be allowed to proceed in the area
known as West Hill for at least one year (with no exception of the Holochuck or Conifer
projects). This moratorium is to be used by Town planners to generate a vision of where
development should lead, how development will serve the interests of future as well as
present residents of the area, respond to the specific challenges of energy use, and fit in
with a viable transportation system. The analysis is to take account not only of the Town
of Ithaca, but of the greater community that affects and is affected by the town.
Pat Dutt, Town of Ithaca
Andrejs Ozolins, City of Ithaca
What happens on West Hill all comes past my house on Cliff Street. I very much want to
be sure that development is not something that will prove to be a disaster in 10, 20, 40
years.
Lew Durland, Town of Ithaca
We need to complete the update of the Town's Comprehensive Plan before considering
new development.
Marie Harkins, Town of Ithaca
I live and work on West Hill and think that the issues of traffic and infrastructure impacts
r� of large-scale development are being vastly understated by the town board members who
are pushing this. Please take the time to do some updated studies before you agree to
something that we are going to feel the impact of for many years to come.
Susan Evans -Pond, Town of Ithaca
I fully support a moratorium, now, with no exceptions for Holochuck or Conifer. With
the sustained depth of citizen comment, at meetings and through letters, requesting
advance planning and joint Town/City planning, it is astounding, unprofessional, and
disheartening to see some board members so partisan to developers' interests. It speaks to
a level of developer influence that make me very uncomfortable with the impartiality of
this governing body.
Sharon Ahlers, City of Ithaca
Anthony Di Renzo, City of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, City of Ithaca
Tish Pearlman, Town of Ithaca
I fully support this moratorium. I find it astonishing how so many of our town board
members can continually fail to support the will and voice of so many of us who actually
live in the area of west hill that would be most negatively affected by runaway
development. Perhaps it's worth repeating: You people we NOT elected to represent the
developers but the people who actually live in these communities.
Carol J. Painter, Town of Ithaca
We need time to truly develop a well -thought -through plan for beautiful West Hill. Thank
you.
Anna Smith, Town of Ithaca
The Town Board's allegiance must be to Town residents, not to developers. We
taxpayers, who will bear the financial burden of infrastructure expansion required for
West Hill development, deserve a FULL moratorium -- no exceptions.
J.W. Yetzer, City of Ithaca
This reasonable request should be honored.
Alice Rockey, other
xxxxxxxx, City of Ithaca
Judith Swann, City of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
Joseph Wetmore, Town of Ithaca
It makes no sense to enact a moratorium and then exempt the major projects on the
horizon.
McKenzie Jones -Rounds, City of Ithaca
Abbe Lyons, Town of Ithaca
Don R. Crittenden, Town of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
L Stefanucci, Town of Ithaca
Responsible planning is the civic duty of elected officials such as the Town Board and
Town Supervisor; it is time for our elected officials to take responsibility for the issues on
West Hill. A moratorium on West Hill is absolutely necessary for a safe Ithaca: a true
moratorium that does not exempt hundreds of as yet to be constructed units and new
roads that will exacerbate rather than ameliorate problems already in existence in Ithaca.
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
The additional traffic and pollution is the last thing we need!
Stacy Snyder, Town of Ithaca
Please do not destroy my neighborhood with more traffic. I do not want the open sky and
quiet to be any more eroded than it has in the last ten year. What good is zoning if any
developer gets a green light. Enough!
/°"\ Scott Teel, City of Ithaca
Patricia Viglietta, Town of Ithaca
Deborah Homsher, City of Ithaca
Helen Gibson, Town of Ithaca
S. Castillo -Davis, Town of Ithaca
As a resident of the Northeast, I am in favor of the West Hill moratorium because
irresponsible development has an impact on ALL who live and work in the Town of
Ithaca. Exempting the largest developers from the moratorium makes a mockery of its
very purpose and demonstrates a lack of respect for due process and the concerns
community members haver raised.
margot brinn, City of Ithaca
We know enough now about healthy human development to think again before allowing
more development outside urban areas.
Neil Snyder, other
Study first, develope next.
in doherty, Town of Ithaca
Regi Teasley, City of Ithaca
We must stop and think carefully about our future needs. It won't be like the 20th
century. Stop is the operative word now. More of the same is not a rational approach.
West Hill can be something very positive if we choose to make it so.
Ben Komor, Town of Ithaca
Any officials who wish to build (against popular demand) ought to be ashamed of
themselves.
Pamela Markham, City of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
Joan Lawrence, City of Ithaca
Since Routes 79 and 96 leading into Ithaca are already crowded and all that traffic has to
go through Ithaca where the streets are even more crowded, it makes sense to have a
complete moratorium including Holochuck and Conofer. West Hill needs time to study
traffic problems and solutions and a complete moratorium is the only way to do this. As a
city resident, I resent having to pay higher and higher taxes for street repairs for traffic
originating outside the city. The Town gets the tax income and we get to pay to fix the
streets. No where in any of the material I have read does any developer have to put up
J any funds to improve and/or maintain the roads.
Gregory J. Perreault, City of Ithaca
Without coordinated planning by City, Town, and even County, our quiet neighborhoods
will become noisy, dusty polluted traffic jams. So, please start planning, instead of giving
go-ahead to developers without realistic remediation of traffic
Cindy Massicci, Town of Ithaca
Casey Martinson, City of Ithaca
Planned development that meets the needs of local residents is important.
Gail Finan, Town of Ithaca
Please look at what the area is like now
Suzanne Perreault, City of Ithaca
Anna Cook, other
Enfield
Leslie Meyerhoff, City of Ithaca
John A. Boslett, Town of Ithaca
Living on Mecklenburg Road, I am strongly in support of a moratorium on large scale
�401� development.
Christina and Jeb Mead, City of Ithaca
We feel that careful, long-range planning in cooperation with neighboring cities and
towns is essential to preserving quality of life in our area. It's very hard to undo a mistake
once it has been built. There are also too many unanswered questions about traffic
impacts from Holochuck and Conifer. Slow down and plan carefully!
William Kellner, City of Ithaca
gail sakai, Town of Ithaca
Catherine P. Cook, Town of Ithaca
Steven F. Pond, Town of Ithaca
R.J. Wohlgemuth, Town of Ithaca
Enforce a moratorium on West Hill Development
Marsha Kardon, Town of Ithaca
Fredric Kardon, Town of Ithaca
�, Stephanie Schaaf, Town of Ithaca
/001 Leigh Stivers, Town of Ithaca
Rhea Garen, Town of Ithaca
elizabeth fattaruso, Town of Ithaca
This is such a common sense and community safety issue that we should not be forced to
petition this roadway has long been overcrowded resulting in needless delays and slowing
or barring access to the hospital for emergency vehicles particularly. No shoulders, no
room to expand. No brained,,,,,,
Marty Hiller, Town of Ithaca
We don't need luxury housing in this economy. And our roads can't take a lot more
traffic.
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
Traffic is already congested during the morning commute hours
Bob Romanowski, Town of Ithaca
Already sent a letter to the Town of Ithaca supporting a moritorium.
Yvonne Fogarty, Town of Ithaca
Genie Hurme, Town of Ithaca
That three board members disagree with allowing two exceptions to a full moratorium is
telling. A study would allow a responsible analysis that would benefit the whole area,
Town and City. Traffic is already exceedingly problematic in this area - more large-scale
building without a real solution to that traffic problem would be irresponsible.
Jane Zimmer, City of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
Lenore Durkee, Town of Ithaca
Michael fitzpatrick, Town of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
I support a completion of the Comprehensive Plan before building. Traffic mitigation
should be of prime concern. In the morning on the way into Ithaca, traffic is backed up
past the former Guthrie offices. Getting back up the hill an night is also very difficult.
Angela, Town of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, City of Ithaca
I hope true traffic assessments are done, during peak traffic times am/pm during school
year.
Alexander Rakowski, Ulysses
I am against the continued expansion of Multi -dwelling Housing in the Ithaca
Community. It may provide a "Quality Housing Structure" but like the Community that
was Constructed across the Street from the Hospital Entrance, it will house many
"undesireable elements" which has (and will continue to) force many Residents to leave
that Community for fear for the SAFETY OF THEIR CHILDREN. That is what happens
when "meaningful folks" try to help those that are not Financially Qualified to help
themselves..... many are indeed helped but many neighboorhoods are indeed hurt.
Communities are more than a place to house people inexpensively. I have not heard that
Employment is growing so rapidly in Ithaca that MORE HOUSING IS REQUIRED .... or
that PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS have decided against building a Plant here because
there is not adequate housing. STOP ALLOWING EXPANDING WHEN THERE IS
REALLY NO NEED.
Mike Lupo, Town of Ithaca
I oppose these large developments.
Angela Mennitto, Town of Ithaca
Thomas Hohn, Town of Ithaca
route 96 is already congested. To consider development in the West Hill area is absurd.
Judith Saul, City of Ithaca
If new housing needs to be built, it must be done in a way that takes the big picture into
account. We need open space as well as new housing. The housing needs to be affordable
and sustainable, built in ways that do not create more stress on existing infrastructure,
including roads.
Adrienne Valenti, City of Ithaca
Rebecca Younes, Town of Ithaca
We need to fully consider the impact of new development on the community, especially
in terms of traffic and infrastructure costs. The comprehensive study should be completed
before any development is authorized.
Slade Kennedy, Town of Ithaca
A development moratorium is necessary while the updating process for the
Comprehensive Plan is ongoing. Making exceptions to the moratorium defeats its
purpose.
George Frantz, City of Ithaca
BRIAN H GROUT, Ulysses
ra'�1 Stanley Renkas, Town of Ithaca
We need to design an economy that does not depend on development ad nauseum. The
sooner we can do that the better.
Robert D. Harris, Town of Ithaca
There is already too much congestion which needs to be addressed first.
Mary Slade, City of Ithaca
Adding significantly to the population density on West Hill without having the
appropriate supporting infrastructure in place is neither wise nor responsible urban
planning.
Daegan Miller, Town of Ithaca
Austin A. Duvernoy, Town of Ithaca
There needs to be multi jurisdictional input and financing to solve the traffic problem that
already exists in the West End of the City from West Hill sources. A fly -over would be
unsightly and too costly, but a dedicated lane for through traffic is a must - perhaps one
which reverses direction with each rush hour.
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
Will school district lines be redrawn?
I support a 1 year moratorium on building
Krys Cail, Ulysses
I live 3 properties over the Town of Ithaca line into Ulysses, and also have a Cornell
master degree in regional planning. All properties should be included in the moratorium,
and all three municipalities (and ESPECIALLY all West Hill residents) should be
involved in the visioning.
Nancy Siegele, Town of Ithaca
Tom Myers, other
There needs to be much more thought put into West Hill development before adding so
much proposed housing. In rush hour Rte. 96 is at capacity, in emergencies and road
closings, there is no effective way to accommodate the diverted traffic..
maury TIgner, City of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
I was opposed to the "Overlook" apartments on Rt. 96 across from the hospital in a
beautiful field. Meetings were attended by all my neighbors against this project, yet it
went forward anyway, spearheaded by the Thayers. Crime in my neighborhood has
arrived. At Overlook, fights and stabbings have taken place, with police there often. This
/, is within 1 mile of my house! Zoning regulations and planning are there for a reason, to
created a well planned town, limiting traffic, crime and anything else that negatively
1 impacts those that live there. I notice that the people who vote for these developments
don't live in the neighborhoods they are being built in. Thayers comment on Overlook
was that these developments need to be equally "spread out". It seems the concentration
is now on West Hill. Enough is enough. Traffic is crazy, and crime in our quiet
neighborhood is rampant. I am 100% for a moratorium on building apartments, anywhere
in Ithaca. We have too many to fill now as it is. (I live on Duboise Rd.)
Daniel Yokum, Town of Ithaca
Nina Kethevan, Town of Ithaca
Any development must be very carefully thought through. It is very clear that rushing is a
symptom of something. And, unfortunately, that something is GREED.
We do need planners who respect the community who live on the West Hill.
Thanking you in advance.
nanci blakeslee, Town of Ithaca
Traffic continues to be a problem on Rt. 96 at certain times of the day. There needs to be
cautious and careful consideration given to potential developing, taking into account the
future needs of West Hill.
Mary Jane Hetzlein, Town of Ithaca
Gail Felker, Town of Ithaca
We've spoken out about this many times, and so I hope the officials will hear us this time.
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
I fully support this moratorium with no exceptions.
xxxxxxxx, Ulysses
chad devoe, other
Peak oil is real. Sprawl will result in the slums of the near future.
Rebecca Schwed, Town of Ithaca
I am very concerned about increased traffic. It is already difficult to make a left turn from
Bundy Rd. onto Rte. 96, Cliff St can get very backed up, and the left from Cliff St. onto
Old Taughannock (to Rte 89) can be impossible. I would also like to see the rural nature
of Bundy Rd. preserved.
Richard Carmean, Ulysses
We moved to West Hill 10 years ago and have been subjected to increasing traffic on 96,
now we are faced with fracking and our comfortable way of life threatened. Our home
values will decrease, banks may not make mortages available and our drinking water
(well) may become un drinkable.
/0*
M. Prosperi, Town of Ithaca
I am absolutely opposed to more large scale development on West Hill. A moratorium
with no exceptions needs to be passed now.
Reba McCutcheon, Ulysses
Please, let's make a plan that we can all be confident about.
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
William Avery, Town of Ithaca
Steven Felker, Town of Ithaca
No exceptions for Holochuck and Conifer. It is the responsibility of the Town Board to
serve first the existing residents of the West end. By all appearances, the interests of
developers seem to be taking precedence to the declining quality of life being
experienced by West Hill citizens. Development needs to stop until a meaningful plan is
in place to insure the quality and safety of existing residents.
Further, it is time to aggressively arm -twist the city to a cooperative effort for additional
means of access to the city from the west side - yes, bridges!! I'm not opposed to
development, I'm opposed to stupid development. No more developments until there is
more infrastructure to interface with the city in a safe and timely way.
Thank you.
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
Barbara Warland, Town of Ithaca
Lindy Williams, Ulysses
monty berman, Town of Ithaca
I would like the comprehensive plan to be in place before any exceptions to the
moratorium are considered.
Kurt Pipa, Town of Ithaca
xxxxxxxx, Town of Ithaca
BJ Bliss, Town of Ithaca
peggy adams, Town of Ithaca
Measure twice, cut once --since we will be affected by these changes, we need to know as
much as possible beforehand --a study is only prudent.
barbara van dyk, Ulysses
s�e,�1►t.��Jtyhsr �Q K,r�-u
5
Brittain Comments on
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2011
A LOCAL LAW DELETING CHAPTER 205 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED
"PROPERTY MAINTENANCE", AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 205, TITLED "PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE"
§ 205-1. Purpose and authority.
We support the general purpose of this proposed legislation. It seems well-intentioned and
should help to safeguard the aesthetic character of the Town. However, some specific
provisions of it may have unintended consequences. Also, to live in suburban America in the
21' Century is to own material clutter such as lawn mowers and barbeque grills, and this law
may benefit from being a little more lenient in that regard. Finally, it can be hard to regulate
aesthetics.
§ 205-2. Prohibited acts.
A. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any owner or other occupant of real property in the
Town of Ithaca, or for any person having control of real property in the Town of Ithaca
charged with the maintenance of the property, to deposit, abandon, maintain, keep or allow
the accumulation on his or her real property, outside of any building, of any personal
property, junk, trash, rubbish, garbage, refuse, debris, discarded materials, bulk items,
and/or any other material which, if thrown or deposited as herein prohibited, tends to
create a danger to the public health, safety and welfare, or creates degradation through
unsightliness or noisomeness, or which creates a public or private nuisance.
Potential Problems:
• This prohibits the storage of any objectionable items "outside of any building. " However,
according to the Town Zoning ordinance, a building is "A structure having a roof supported by
columns or by walls and intended for shelter, housing, protection or enclosure of persons,
animals or property." Thus, storing items on a porch, under an overhang, in a carport, or in an
open-faced machinery shed would seem to qualify as having them "inside" a building, even
though they might actually be outside, and could potentially be visible from the road.
• Many properties extend to the center of the road. Will these property owners now be
responsible for picking up roadkill and the litter and debris that motorists leave on the shoulder
and in the ditch? The Town also owns some of the newer subdivision streets. Will it institute a
regular program to pick up the trash, and fine itself if it doesn it? Even if the Town (or County
or State) does not own the land that underlies a street or road, if they are responsible for the
"maintenance" of the ROW, would they be liable for picking up roadside litter?
• One person's trash can be another person's treasure. There are those of us who find pink
flamingos, garden gnomes, and some Holiday displays (particularly Halloween) to be
"unsightly, "and some people may consider wind chimes to be "noisesome. " Is the Town going
to become an arbiter of good taste? Will it find itself caught up in, and trying to resolve, what
might be petty neighbor -to -neighbor disputes?
(1) Examples of such materials are as follows:
(c) Nonputrescible solid wastes consisting of combustible or noncombustible
wastes, such as felled or cut trees, limbs, lumber or construction materials
not actively and presently being used to construct or repair a building or
make any other improvement on the premises, broken glass, discarded
bedding, broken crockery, discarded furniture, toys, magazines and other
paper goods, tools and parts, paints, varnishes and lacquers, containers,
boxes and jars, and similar materials or parts thereof, whether mixed
together or otherwise, and in any amount.
Potential Problems:
• This specifically prohibits felled trees and limbs. However, the Spring 2011 Town newsletter
article entitled "Spring Brush and Leaf Pickup" indicates that residents can set out for pickup
"a reasonable amount of yard waste (as is generated during a normal year). " Where are we to
store the brush that accumulates during the year, while awaiting the next brush pickup, if we
cant store it in our yards?
• Would stacked firewood also be prohibited? What about firewood that has been delivered as
logs, but has not yet been cut to length and split?
• The Cornell Plantations maintains some natural areas in the Town, where downed trees are
allowed to rot back into the environment. Dead trees that are near the road, and are
considered to be a hazard to the traveling public, are felled towards the woods, then left to rot.
They are clearly visible from the street. Would this no longer be allowed?
• This section specifically prohibits "lumber or construction materials not actively and presently
being used to construct or repair a building. " This would seem to prevent building supply
stores from. displaying their materials to the public, and would require them to have all material
stored indoors, which could restrict this sort of commercial activity in the Town.
• The Town Public Works Facility has various materials stockpiled for future use, but not actively
being used. Some of these are visible from the road or from neighboring properties. Would
the Town have to follow its own laws, and visually conceal these stockpiles?
(e) Abandoned, discarded, broken, or inoperable refrigerators, washing
machines or other machinery or parts thereof. Any such items stored on any
yard or lot for a period of more than 60 days shall be presumed to be
abandoned.
Potential Problems:
• According to this, any appliances or machinery stored on any yard or lot for a period of more
than 60 days "shall be presumed to be abandoned." This does not specifically state that the
item has to remain unused or untouched during those 60 days. Thus, this regulation would
seem to state that a barbeque grill that is stored in the backyard all summer could be
presumed to be abandoned, even If it were used every weekend.
• Some machines, like lawn mowers, are seasonal, and are not used during the winter, a period
which often exceeds 60 days. Not every house in the Town has a garage or storage shed to
accommodate off-season storage of these items. Would these residents have to construct
storage sheds or find off-site storage facilities for their lawnmowers over the winter?
• Many items of farm machinery are only used seasonally (hay rake, disc harrow, basket wagon,
etc). It could prove a hardship if farmers were required to construct barns or sheds in order to
store such large items indoors during the off-season.
• The Town Highway Facility also has machinery that likely stands idle for 60 days at a time
(Gradall, brush chippers, leaf vacuum, snowplows, etc). Would these also have to be stored
indoors, out of sight from the street or from neighboring properties?
• The Tompkins County Highway Facility has an antique piece of road grading machinery on
display that hasnT been used for 60 years, not just 60 days. They see it as an historic object
d'art, yet this legislation would seem to render it an abandoned piece of machinery, stored in
violation of this law.
(f) Any automobile, truck, or other vehicle originally intended for use on the
public highways which is no longer intended or in condition for legal use on
the public highways, including such vehicles which are in a state of
disrepair or otherwise dilapidated, broken, or abandoned. For the purpose of
this subsection, a vehicle shall be presumed to be no longer intended or in
condition for legal use on the public highways if any of the following apply:
[1] It does not bear and display upon such vehicle, in a location
prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, a current
registration from the State of New York or other recognized
registering jurisdiction; or
Potential Problems:
• The NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law (Article 14, §401.7. E.4) states that trucks that bear "Farm"
plates do not have to be registered for an entire calendar year. Thus, some "Farm" trucks
might not have a current registration during the off-season, and would be legally classified as
being `no longer intended or in condition for legal use on the public highways. '° These vehicles
could then not be stored outdoors.
• Car dealers who offer new and used cars for sale would not be able to display these vehicles
to the public, since the cars are not registered. Even members of the public would not be able
to display a used car for sale if they have already transferred their license plates from their old
vehicle to their new vehicle.
Possible Solution:
• Allow a grace period for how long a vehicle is allowed to remain unregistered. Perhaps one
year?
[2] It does not bear and display upon such vehicle, in a location
prescribed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, an inspection
certificate issued within the last 12 months in accordance with the
laws of the State of New York or the laws of any other recognized
inspecting jurisdiction; or
Potential Problems:
r� • Not all states require an annual vehicle inspection. Therefore, when our sister comes to visit
from Ohio, she would not be allowed to park in our driveway, since her vehicle would not have
�` ' an inspection certificate issued within the last 12 months.
• The NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law (Article 5, §308.3) states that vehicles with "Farm"
registrations do not have to be inspected. Thus, some "Farm" trucks could be doubly counted
1 as being illegal.
• New cars are typically not inspected until the time of sale. Thus, new car dealers would be
unable to have their vehicles on display. As with "Farm" trucks, they would have two counts
against them: no registration and no inspection.
• Oddly enough, the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law (Article 5, §308.5) does not require fire
vehicles to be inspected. Thus, the fire companies on South and West Hills would have to
keep their trucks stored indoors at all times.
Possible Solutions:
• Clarify that this provision only applies to uninspected vehicles that require an inspection for
legal roadway use, and/or
• Allow a grace period for how long a vehicle is allowed to remain uninspected. Perhaps as long
as one year?
• Perhaps drop this provision. Would the registration provision (above) be adequate?
[3] Such vehicle is not able to be moved by its own power.
Potential Problems:
• The NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law (Article 1, § 156) defines a `trailer" as being a Vehicle" which
is "not propelled by its own power." Therefore, according to this proposed legislation, any
trailer would be legally considered to be "no longer intended or in condition for legal use on the
public highways,"even if it were currently registered and inspected. This proposed legislation
would therefore make it illegal to store any trailer (be it a camper-, cargo-, equipment-, boat-,
or livestock -trailer, etc) on your property within sight of the road or a neighboring property.
• Not all vehicles that are parked at a vehicle repair facility are able to move under their own
power. (In fact, this could be why they are at the repair facility in the first place.) Would they
have to be stored indoors? Also, the ICSD bus garage on Bostwick Road always has a few
out -of -service buses that are undergoing repairs. Would these also have to be stored under
cover? Finally, those of us who change our own oil or rotate our own tires will also have times
when we render our vehicles (briefly) unable to move under their own power.
• In addition to trailers, horse-drawn vehicles are not able to move under their own power. This
legislation would make it illegal to park any horse-drawn vehicle where it could be seen from
the road, whether it is in active use or proudly displayed as an antique.
Possible Solutions:
• Strike Clause 3, or
• Make it clear that Clause f does not apply to trailers (as long as they are registered and
inspected), nor to horse-drawn vehicles (as long as they are in good repair), and
• Allow a grace period for how long a vehicle is allowed to remain unable to be moved under its
own power. Perhaps a month?
(2) Such list of examples is not exclusive and is not in limitation of the prohibition
contained in this section.
/"',
i
B. Except to the extent that a health, safety or fire hazard is found to exist, or if the storage of
such items would constitute a nuisance, it shall not be a violation of this chapter to
maintain on real property items of the kind and nature set forth in subsection A above if
such items are stored inside a storage structure or if they are stored in such manner that
they are not visible to neighboring properties or from a highway.
Potential Problems:
• Storing items "in such manner that they are not visible" may need to be better defined. Would
it be okay to throw a blue tarp over something that is stored in the yard? Do we really want to
see a profusion of blue tarps in the Town?
• Should you also include `visible from a public waterway"? Should there be an attempt to
"promote and perpetuate the attractive appearance" of lakefront propertles, as seen from the
lake?
C. Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection B, outside storage in a front yard of items of the
kind and nature set forth in subsection A above is prohibited. "Front yard" shall have the
same definition as "yard, front 'in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code.
Potential Problems:
• Again, there maybe some problems with definitions. The Town Zoning ordinance defines a
"yard, front" as extending to the front fagade of the principle building. However, it also defines
"yard" as an "open space" that is "unobstructed from the ground upward. " So materials stored
on the front porch or under an overhang might or might not be considered to be in the `front
yard. " (This is in addition to the concern raised above, that these items might be defined as
being within a structure, as long as they are stored under a roof.) Thus, it is unclear whether
or not a snow shovel or garbage can which is stored on a front porch (unsightly to some)
would be considered to be illegal.
§205-3. Penalties for offenses.
A. A violation of this chapter shall be a violation as defined in § 10.00 of the Penal Law of the
State of New York and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 or a sentence of
imprisonment not to exceed 15 days, or both.
B. Persons and other entities that violate a provision of this chapter shall be liable for a civil
penalty of up to $500 for each such violation. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a
separate violation. The Attorney for the Town or his or her designee may commence an
action or special proceeding against the violator in a court of competent jurisdiction to
collect these penalties, together with costs, disbursements and recoverable attorneys' fees,
and/or to compel compliance with this chapter or restrain by injunction any such violation.
Potential Problems:
• A fine of $500 per day seems a bit excessive.
,/100\
0'i 1 !�
PROJECT ID NUMBER 61720 SEAR
APPENDIX C
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
riAm i t - rmu,irt, i irvrUMMA I tun t I o De compietea Dy Hppucant
or rrolect sponsor)
1. APPLICANT / SPONSOR
2. PROJECT NAME
Town of Ithaca
Neighborhood Block Parties,celebratbns, and Events Requiring Temporary
Closures of Town Roads
3.PROJECT LOCATION:
Various Location In Town of Ithaca
Tompkins County
Municipality
County
4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map
Precise location will be when a permit is filed
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion Z Modification 1 alteration
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Adoption of regulations governing the temporary closure of Town roads for neighborhood block parties, celebrations and
other events.
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: The amount will be per permit, each will be of short duration
Initially acres Ultimately acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS?
F,—/]Yes ❑ No If no, describe briefly:
9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.)
❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑ Park 1 Forest 1 Open Space ❑✓ Other (describe)
Each permit will be will be in areas with different land uses around it. This activity will not impact the surrounding land in
the vicinity
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY (Federal, Stale or Local)
✓❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency name and permit 1 approval
Town of Ithaca Public Works Department will issue a permit for each event approved
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
1:1 Yes VNo If yes, list agency name and permit 1 approval:
12.. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
❑Yes ❑✓ No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
) j
Applicant ! Sponsor Name Town qf Ithaca Date:
Signature `� 1
If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency,
complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
PART If - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
❑ Yes ❑✓ No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative
declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.
❑ Yes 0 No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
[There Will be temporary disruption of traffic patterns and increased noise levels
C2.
Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
FS—Will help communities by bringing neighbors together to tie them into a community
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
No
C4. A
community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly:
his will meet the goal of bringing communities, neighborhoods together to form bonds and common
FP
npripnres. p
C5.
Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly:
No
C6. Long
term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly:
No
C7.
Other impacts(including.changes in use of either quanU or tyee of energy? Explain briefly:
Permits will not be granted if the Highway Superintendent finds that blocking the road on the date requested will unduly
interfere with the flow of vehicular traffic or the access to oroDerty or may constitute a threat to public safetv and welfare.
D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)7 If yes, explain briefly:
Yes 0 No
E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes ex fain:
D Yes 0 No
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each
effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e)
geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain
sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked
yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA.
Town
Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the F
EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed ai
WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attacencs as necessary, the reasons supporting
determination.
of Lead
C� [LJ�4'
Till e- ofsponse Ie Offiper
i of
n
SigeOure of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
yf r 1bul l Pf",V> %Q Vl 4-A
0000000 Town Assigned Project 1D Number
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY
PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Proiect Soonsor)
1. Applicant/Sponsor
2. Project Name
Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca Limited Historic Commercial zone local
laws
3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:)
One of the new laws allows the rezoning of certain property in the Town of Ithaca to Limited Historic Commercial Zone.
Only properties deemed historically significant, either by having been listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the
State or National Register of Historic Places, or having been identified as potentially significant in the Town of Ithaca
Historic Resources Survey, would be eligible for this rezoning. Rezoning requests would be reviewed on a case by case
basis and be subject to the rezoning procedures specified in Article XXII of the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca
Code. The other law adds provisions regarding Limited Historic Commercial Zones to the Commercial Zones Generally
article of the Town's Zoning Chapter.
Tax Parcel Number: NIA
4. Is proposed action:
NEW? X EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION?
5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items):
The proposal is to adopt a local law which will involve amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled Zoning,
in order to add a new Article XVIII -A, titled "Limited Historic Commercial Zones". The proposal would also amend the
Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code, Article XIII, titled Commercial Zones Generally, to add provisions related to
Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to revise additional special requirements and to clarify drive-through operations
requirements.
The purpose of the law is to promote and facilitate the preservation and protection of historically significant residential
buildings by allowing a specified range of "limited" commercial uses on the property, thereby facilitating reuse and
redevelopment options for the structures. The rezoning requests would be subject to scrutiny and approval by the Town
Board, and uses other than 1- or 2 -family dwellings or parks/playgrounds would be permitted only upon receipt of a
special permit from the Planning Board.
Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposedproject.)
6. Amount of land affected:
Initial) (0-5yrs) Acres (6-10yrs) >10yrs) Acres Not Applicable.
7. How is land zoned presently?
Not applicable. Subsequent rezoning requests would likely be in residentially zoned areas of the Town.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
Yes X NO If no, describe conflict briefly: This action will result in a new law.
9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Not Applicable
Public Road? YES NO Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO
10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial
Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other
Please Describe: Not Applicable. Subsequent rezoning requests will be on a case by case basis and existing land use
compatibility issues will be addressed through the SEQR process.
11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal, State, Local?) YES NO X
If yes, list agency name and permitlapprovallfunding:
12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES —NO X
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TOHE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
w
Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type):
Signature and Date:
PART 11 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT !To be comnleted by Lead Aaencv)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
E Yes 0 No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.69 If No, a negative
declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.
❑ Yes Z No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
See attached
C2. Aesthetic,
agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
See attached
C3. Vegetation
or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
See attached
C4. A
community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly:
See attached
C5.
Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly:
See attached
C6. Long
term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Ci -05? Explain briefly:
See attached
C7.
Other im acts in luding changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Ex Iain brief/ :
See attached #
D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL_
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CEA 7 If yes, explain briefly:
❑ Yes 6/1 No
E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes expIain:
0 Yes � No
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each
effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e)
geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain
sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked
yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA.
Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FUL
EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actio
WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi
determination.
Town of Ithaca Town Boardp _ April 11, 2011 p
Name of Lead Agency Date
Herb En man 13 Town of Ithaca Supervisor _ Q
or Type Na a Respon ble Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
not e
of Resp able OfficapofVead Agency Signature of Preparer di Brent om responsible o icer
/""�
PART H — Environmental Assessment:
Proposed Action: Proposed Local Laws Amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled
Zoning, to Add Article XVIII -A, Titled "Limited Historic Commercial
Zones", and to Amend the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca
Code, Article XIII, Titled Commercial Zones Generally, to Add
Provisions Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zones, to Revise
Additional Special Requirements, and to Clarify Drive -Through
Operations Requirements
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board
A. Action is Unlisted.
B. Action will not receive coordinated review.
C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following_
C 1. Existing air quality, surface or goundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing
traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or
flooding problems?
/ No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, water quality or quantity,
noise levels, traffic, solid waste, or potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding as a result of the
proposed action.
Amending the Town Code to add a new zone entitled "Limited Historic Commercial Zone" and
adding provisions to Article XIII, Chapter 270 of the Town Code (Commercial Zones Generally)
to add language related to the Limited Historic Commercial Zones provides a regulatory
mechanism to allow historically significant structures to be considered for limited commercial
uses. This action does not result in any immediate rezoning of property in the Town. Rezoning
requests resulting from this action will be handled on a case by case basis, subject to specific
procedures (see Section 270-181 of Town Code). Each request for a rezoning will undergo an
individual SEQR review and require a thorough examination of impacts on water, air, noise,
flooding and traffic from the proposed commercial use. Except for 1- and 2 -family dwellings
and parks/playgrounds, all authorized principal uses are permitted only if the Planning Board
issues a special permit for the use. The special permit procedures in Article XXIV of the Zoning
Chapter will provide further protection to neighbors (see Section 270-200) of the Town Code).
Properties eligible for re -zoning are limited those considered historically significant. Currently
there are five properties in the Town of Ithaca listed on the State and National Registers of
Historic Places. Four are individual properties and include Rice Hall and Wing Hall on the
Cornell University campus, the Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House at Robert Treman State
Park and the Hayts Chapel and Schoolhouse on Hayts and Trumansburg Roads. The other listing
is the Forest Home Historic District, which encompasses approximately 40 acres and 75
properties. In addition, a survey of historical resources in the Town of Ithaca was conducted by
the Historic Preservation Planning Workshop at Cornell University. This survey is described in
the report, "Final Report for the Intensive Level Survey" (September 2005). The report
highlighted twenty-eight "especially interesting" individual properties, out of "scores" that were
considered architecturally or historically significant.
C2. Aesthetic, agriculture, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources,
or communily or neighborhood character?
None Anticipated. This action is intended to help protect historically significant properties by
providing a regulatory mechanism to allow, where deemed appropriate by the Town Board,
limited commercial uses of properties that have lost viability for, most particularly, residential
use. The action would allow a range of re -use and redevelopment options for historically
significant buildings.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?
None Anticipated. Each request for a rezoning will undergo an individual SEQR review and
examination of impacts on vegetation, wildlife, habitats and other important ecological
consideration. While properties potentially eligible for the rezoning under this action will tend to
be those that have already been developed, and are less likely to contain significant ecological
resources, impacts will nevertheless be addressed during any rezoning request.
C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or
intensity of land or other natural resources?
None Anticipated.
The local law will add new zoning provisions to the Town of Ithaca Code to allow the Town
Board to consider, on a case by case basis, the rezoning of historically significant
properties/structures to allow limited commercial use of these buildings. The objective of this
action is to offer a means of maintaining historic structures in the Town by providing reuse and
redevelopment options. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan identifies protection of historic structures
and sites as a Town objective.
Requests to rezone property to a limited commercial zone will be subject to specific review and
procedures, including an individual SEQR review to insure that the particular commercial use is
appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood surroundings.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the
proposed action?
None Anticipated.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C 1-05?
None Anticipated.
1
C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?
None Anticipated.
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental
impacts?
No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated.
PART III. — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance
Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and
the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended
for the action as proposed.
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board
Reviewer: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning
Review Date: April 6, 2011
0000000 Town Assigned Project ID Number
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY
PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Proilect Sponsor)
1. Applicant/Sponsor
2. Project Name
Town of Ithaca
Amendments to 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Related to Limited Historic Commercial Zone
3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:)
The modifications to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan would result in the addition of a new floating Limited Historic
Commercial Zone to the list of actions the Town could take to protect historic resources, achieve their adaptive reuse
where appropriate, and provide for a limited number of small-scale, neighborhood -oriented commercial areas which are
safe and attractive. Potential rezoning consistent with these modifications would be applicable only to certain properties
located within the Town of Ithaca. Only properties deemed historically significant, either by having been listed, or
determined to be eligible for listing, on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or having been identified as
potentially significant in the Town of Ithaca Historic Resources Survey, would be eligible for this rezoning.
Tax Parcel Number: NIA
4. Is proposed action:
NEW? X EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION?
5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items):
The proposal is to amend the 1993 Town Comprehensive Pian as described in detail in the attached narrative "Proposed
Amendments to 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Regarding Historic Resources", dated August 4, 2010: (1)
Amend Section 111.13 of the Comprehensive Plan by adding wording in a new Section III.B.10.e describing the use of the
Limited Historic Commercial floating zone to protect historic structures and achieve their adaptive reuse where
appropriate; (2) Amend Section III.E-2.a of the Comprehensive Plan by deleting the existing introductory paragraph of that
section and adding the following new wording: "Include at least four non -cumulative types of commercial zones in the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Code: Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Lakefront Commercial, and Limited
Historic Commercial"; and (3) Include in amended Section III.E-2.a, after the description of Lakefront Commercial,
language describing the Limited Historic Commercial Zone.
Attach separate sheets if necessary to adequately describe the proposedproject.)
6. Amount of land affected:
Initially (0-5yrs) Acres (6-10yrs) X10 rs Acres Not Applicable.
7. How is land zoned presently?
Not applicable.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
Yes J NO If no, describe conflict briefly: Not Applicable. This action will result in amendments to the 1993
Com rehensive Plan.
9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Not Applicable
Public Road? YES NO Public Water? YES NO Public Sewer? YES NO
10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial
Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other
Please Describe: NotApplicable.
11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal, State, Local?) YES NO X
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding:
12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES _NO X
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type):
Signature and Date:
PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT To be completed by Lead Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
Yes E No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative
declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.
El Yes Z No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
See attached
C2. Aesthetic,
agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
See attached
C3. Vegetation
or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
See attached
C4. A
community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly:
See attached
C5.
Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly:
See attached
C6. Long
term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-05? Explain briefly;
See attached
C7.
Other im actsincludin changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly:
See attached
D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? If yes, explain briefly:
El � No
E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes expIain:
Yes 21 No
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whetherit is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each
effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e)
geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain
sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked
yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA.
Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the F
EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed a
WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts ANU provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting
determination.
Town of Ithaca Town Hoard - p April 11, 2011 p
Name of Lead Agency Date
Herb En man Town of Ithaca Supervisor p
Name o as icer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
3 espons' a icer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
PART H — Environmental Assessment:
Proposed Action: Proposed Amendments to the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive
Plan Relating to Historic Resources and the Use of a "Limited
Historic Commercial" Floating Zone
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board
A. Action is Unlisted.
B. Action will not receive coordinated review.
C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following_
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing
traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or
flooding problems?
No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, water quality or quantity,
noise levels, traffic, solid waste, or potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding as a result of the
proposed action.
The action involves amending the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan related to historic
resources to add references to the possible use of a new "Limited Historic Commercial" floating
zone. The action provides the basis for the Town to create a mechanism to allow historically
significant structures to be considered for rezoning. Any subsequent rezoning requests resulting
from this action will be handled on a case by case basis, subject to specific procedures (see
Section 270-181 of Town Code). Each request for a rezoning will undergo an individual SEQR
review and require a thorough examination of impacts on water, air, noise, flooding and traffic
from the proposed commercial use.
Properties eligible for re -zoning are limited those considered historically significant. Currently
there are five properties in the Town of Ithaca listed on the State and National Registers of
Historic Places. Four are individual properties and include Rice Hall and Wing Hall on the
Cornell University campus, the Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House at Robert Treman State
Park and the Hayts Chapel and Schoolhouse on Hayts and Trumansburg Roads. The other listing
is the Forest Home Historic District, which encompasses approximately 40 acres and 75
properties. In addition, a survey of historical resources in the Town of Ithaca was conducted by
the Historic Preservation Planning Workshop at Cornell University. This survey is described in
the report, "Final Report for the Intensive Level Survey" (September 2005). The report
highlighted twenty-eight "especially interesting" individual properties, out of "scores" that were
considered architecturally or historically significant.
C2. Aesthetic, agriculture, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources,
or community or neighborhood character?
None Anticipated. This action is intended to help protect historically significant properties by
providing a regulatory mechanism to allow, where deemed appropriate by the Town Board,
i' limited commercial uses of properties that have lost viability for, most particularly residential
use. The action would allow a range of re -use and redevelopment options for historically
significant buildings.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered_ species?
None Anticipated. Each request for a rezoning will undergo an individual SEQR review and
examination of impacts on vegetation, wildlife, habitats and other important ecological
consideration. While properties potentially eligible for the rezoning under this action will tend to
be those that have already been developed, and are less likely to contain significant ecological
resources, impacts will nevertheless be addressed during any rezoning request.
C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or
intensity of land or other natural resources?
None Anticipated.
The possible subsequent creation of a Limited Historic Commercial Zone, as a result of this
action, will allow the Town Board to consider, on a case by case basis, the rezoning of
historically significant properties/structures to allow limited commercial use of these buildings.
The objective of this action is to offer a means of maintaining historic structures in the Town by ,..�
providing reuse and redevelopment options. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan identifies protection
of historic structures and sites as a Town objective.
Requests to rezone property to a limited commercial zone will be subject to specific review and
procedures, including an individual SEQR review to insure that the particular commercial use is
appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood surroundings.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the
proposed action?
None Anticipated.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-05?
None Anticipated.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?
None Anticipated.
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental
impacts?
',4 1
No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated.
PART III. — Staff Recommendation. Determination of Sienificance
Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and
the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended
for the action as proposed.
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board
Reviewer: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning
Review Date: April 6, 2011
1.0 1
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
MONDAY, April 11, 2011
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 072: Project Staging Policy
WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca has heard concerns from residents regarding staging for
non -emergency projects in the Town and
WHEREAS the topic was discussed by both the Public Works Committee and the Town
Board and
WHEREAS a policy was drafted and submitted for approval to the Town Board which
sets forth a mechanism for consideration of options by the Town Board
now therefore be it,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the
attached Project Staging Policy
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED -Tee -Ann Hunter
VOTE: Ayes: Engman, Goodman, Leary, Horwitz, Levine, Hunter and DePaolo
Motion passed unanimously.
4/6/2011
Town of Ithaca
Department of Public Works
To: Town Board Members
From: James Weber, Director of Public Works
Re: Project Staging Policy
Emergency Repairs — During emergency repairs, of any Town owned infrastructure, the
work will be staged from the closest Town owned property or within the Public ROW.
Project Planning — As plans are developed for potential improvement projects, including
grant funded projects, staff shall provide the Public Works Committee with an
assessment of staging options, after which process the Public Works Committee will
recommend possible strategies to the Town Board for consideration and approval. As the
project design progresses, the options shall be better defined, including impacts to the
adjacent property owners, estimated costs for each option, and consideration of
applicable balancing tests.