HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2012-12-10Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, December 10,2012 at 5:30 p.m.
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. Persons to be Heard and Board comments
5. Consider Resolution of Appreciation for George Conneman
6. Consider Resolution of Appreciation for Dave Mountin
7. 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a Local Law amending the Town of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 221 entitled "Signs", to allow certain banners at least 500 feet from public
roads
a. SEQR b. Adoption
8. 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Water Improvement pursuant to
Article 12-C, to be known as the Town of Ithaca Danby RoadAV. King Road Water
Main Water Improvement Public hearing Danby Road water main
a. SEQR b. Adoption
9. Consider appointments to the Community Energy Action Plan Steering Committee
10. Discuss Tompkins County's Request for Lead Agency Status for Pine Tree Road
Pedestrian and Bike Improvements
11. Discuss and consider approval of request for matching funds for the County
Development Focus Area Grant - City/Town form-based zoning proposal
12. Discuss year-end meeting and organizational meeting
13. Consider setting a public hearing regarding contract with the Village of Cayuga
Heights Fire Department for fire protection services
^ 14. Discuss West Hill Traffic Study
15. Consider Consent Agenda Items
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes of Oct 29'*', Nov 13'*^ and Nov 19'*', 2012
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract i
c. Bolton Point Abstract
d. Holiday tree pickup schedule
e. Establish Capital Project fiind for Town Hall parking lot reconstruction
f. Promotional appointment of Senior Engineering Tech - J Slater
16. Report of Town Officials
17. Report of Town Committees
18. Intermunicipal Organizations
19. Review of Correspondence
20. Consider Adjournment
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Paulette Terwilliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompklns County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of
the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official
newspaper, Ithaca Journal:
□ ADVERTISEMENT
□ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
LL Amending the Code re.: "Signs"
to allow certain banners
Proposed Water Improvement - Town of Ithaca
Danby Rd/West King Rd Water Main Improvement - PIO
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting:
Town Clerk's Office Town of Ithaca Web Page
215 North Tioga Street www.town.ithaca.ny.us
Ithaca, NY 14850
Date of Posting: 11/21/2012
Date of ^qblication: 11/24/2012
3
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this—^
, 2012.
Notary Public
Debra DeAuglstine
Notary Public - State of New York
No. 01DE6148035
Ouafified in Tompkins County ^,/
My Commission Expires June 19,20 //^
TODAY'S LEGAL NOTICES
05o|llegals 0501 [legals 05oJ llegals.050 Ugals
available -during regular of- the Town Law; project will separaie ibe wTown of Ithaca Ace hours for public Inspec- NOW, THeFIEFORE, IT IS lnlerlof<en and Roger Lakes Ik
Notice of Hon. and HEREBY ORDERED, by the Trails which ere currently Is
Public Hearings WHEREAS] the area of Town Board of the Town of co-k>c«led. The-newly ere- si
Public hearirrgs will be held jown determined to Ithaca. TompWns County, ated 800 foot section of If
by the Town Board on De- benefited by said Town New York, as follows; the Fir>ger Lakes Trail wlll -rr
cemberlO. 2012 beginning nhgca Danby RoadAY. Seclionl. ' Apubkhear^ be open only to foot traffic.' fl'
at 5:45 p.m. at Town Hall King Road Water Mem Wa- ing shall be held by Town The current trail on the a
on the following topics; 1) improvement consists Board of the Town of Itha- interloken Trail will still al- n
Regarding a Local Law ,^5 entire area of said ca. Tompkins County, New low for equestrian useThe h
Amending the Town of Itha- excepting therefrom York, at the Town Hall, 215 new trail includes con- H
ca Code. Chapter 221 emi- grea conjained within North Tioga Street, inltha- stmctlng approximately 800 a
tied .'Signs'to allow certain jAig Village of Ceyuga ca. New York, in said Feet of Class 3 hiker/pe-, T
^nners al least 500 feel Heights, and Town, on the 10th day of destrian single lane trail n
from Public Roads and 2) a WHEREAS, the proposed December, 2012, at 5;4S with a design width of 18 c
Proposed Water Improve- imprwemenl consists of o'clock P.M., Prevailing Inches, a clearing--wftflh of p
menl to be known as the ,f,e water - improvements Time, to consider the afore- 4 feel, arid a clearing height l(
Town of • Ithaca Danby (grth below, and in the said plan, report and map. of 8 feet. This project will li
loadAV King Road Water g^ees of the Town as set including estimate of cost, affect approximately 0.7 c
dam Improvement. below, and as more and the question of provid- acres total. ' This project s
nformalion regarding both pgfticulariy shown and de- ing the Improvement, and will be Implemented 'by a k
topics can be found on our scribed in said plan, report to hear all persons interest--partner/cboperalor with p
website or by calling the and map presently on file in ed.ln the subject thereof hand tools. Work'will in- c
Town Clerk's office at 273- (hg Qfdcg of the Town concerning the same and to dude mihimai • vegetation 1
1721 Clerk; take Such action thereon as de-brushIng, installation of li
Notice of Adoption: jhe proposed project will is required by law, water drainage structures t
Order Setting a Public mstgn 2,602 ft of .new 8" Section 2. The Town such as waterbars. drain £
Hearing - In the In the Mat- „a|gr main on wrest side of Clerk is hereby authorized dips, and ditches, and m-'(
ler of a Proposed Water oanby Road and 1,809 ft. and- directed to cause a stallalion of signage. The (
Improvement in the Town yy pigg,} between copy of this Order with a. work should be completed <
of Ithaca. Tompkins Coun- Qgnby Road, SR 96B..8nd Notice of Adoption to be in the aummer2013. I
ty. New York, pursuant to sjone Quarry Rood. This published once in the offi- To obtain a copy of the, Fin- (
Article 12-C of the Town ^'m result in the replace- clal newspaper, and also to ger Lakes Trail Re-route 1
Law, to. be known as the n^gn, of 4,411 ft. of existing ,po8t a copy thereof, on the Decision Memo or to re- 1
Town of Ithaca Danby «ater main, together with'town s'gnboard'maintained quest additional informalidn I
RoadAY. King Road Water related ancillary facilities, by the town Clerf*. not less regarding this decision cori- I
{dam Water Improvement thanlen (10) norrnore than tact William BrerKlecke dun 1
.^■^ENT;- Herb Engman, vvHEBEAS. the maximum twenty (20) days tjefore the Ing normal office hours 1/isor; Bill Goodman, proposed 10 be expended day designated for the (weekdays. 8;00 a.rn. to ':y Town Supervisor; by ihe Town of Ithaca for hearing as abresald,'ell fn 4;30 p.m.) '8t the Finger 1iilmDri Rich DePaolo, aForeaeid Improvemenl accordance wiih the provl- Lakes Nallonal Forest of- 'uilman Eric Levine. |g 5 850,000. The pro- sions of Section 209-q of flee located al. 5218 State 1L.ouncilwoman Tee-Ann pgsgd method of fi netiang the Town Law. ' Route 414 Hector'"NY.{funter and Councilwoman pe employed by said Section 3. This Order 14841 Phone; (M7) 546-fpaiLeary. Town of llhaca consials of.shalUake effect immediate- 4470 ext.311; or G-melliWHEREAS, a plan, report temporary' financing under ly. wbfendecke@f8.fed,u8.
and map, including an esli- ^jgg available reserves or- The question of the adop- No comments expreseingmate of 'cost, have been g pond anticipation note, tion of the foregoing Order concerns were receivedduly prepared in such man- ,jpQn maturity of the was duly put to a vote on during the comrrlent periodner end In such.detail as pgnp anticipation note, the roll call, which resulted as. for this project. According'
has heretofore been deter- issuance of serial bonds of follows; Herb Engman. ty, this decision is not Sub-mined by the Town Board ggy gf upacg (g ma- eye; Bill Goodman, aye; Pat ject to appeal per the- 36of the Town of llhaca. igrg jg ggnual installments Leary, aye: Tee-Ann Hur^^- CFR Part 215 appeal regu-Tompklns County, New gygrg pgnod not to exceed er, aye; Rich DePaolo. aye; lalions (36 CFRYork, relating to the crea- 20 years, such bonds to be Eric Levine, aye. 215.12(e)C1)) ThiB decisionlion and construction, pur- pgj^j f^gm assessmerits lev- The Order was thereupon may be Implemented imme-suent to Article 12-C of the ,gjj gpg^ gnd collected from declared duly adopted. - dialely alter publication ofTown Law, of water system tpg several lots and parcels Paulette Terwilliger this legal notice of the deci-
Improvements to be known gf ^ said Town of Itha- TcMm Clerk Sion documented in the De-and identified as the Town gg gys,em benefited 11/24/2012 Cision- Merrio (36 CFR
of Ithaca Danby fl oad/W g^gg „hich are deemed : '2l5.9(cX1)). •King Road Water Main Wa- benefited by said Improve- .. 11/24/2012
tpr Improvement, and here- ment. so much upon and Finger wws :inafter also referred to as (rgm each as shall be in «e-route Project _tjmprovement,' to provide ius, groDOrtlon to the Decision Town of Danby. New Yorksuch water Improvement in- gmoun^of the benefit which Vansel^, District West Danby Water Ois ^tdluding extensions, to the thg jmprovemenl shall con- Ra"9er 'or the Hector Request for Qualjc^wspresent Town water im- fgfun^, the same and Engmeenng Servicesprovement. such water sys- wHE^S it is "now de- ® dacision to implement the Wesl Danby Water District, tern 'Improvement lo be gi.gd ,0 cell a public hearing ^"9®^ Trail Re-route Improvements Proj^^^^^^^constructed.and owned by jg^ (he purpose of consid- ^e project is io- ^be .Town qf JJanby Isthe Town of Ithaca, and gri-g gigg reoort and in the Town of Hec- seeking Statements ofWHEREAS, isald plan, re- mep including'estimate of tor. Schuyier County.New Qualifications from queriedport and map. including es- J,, providing of York on the H«tor fi ercertimate of cost, were pre- ,he improvement, and to "^'Stnci of the Fmger Lakes the im^emenletion Of thepared by a competent engi- ugar at oersons interested "ialional Foresl.TTiis prqect proposed Weal Danby Wa-neer, duly licensed by l^ Jfthe su^«MheroouS ®"'bori« the construe ter District ImprovementsState of New York, and ^TngtHlrTe ^in sc. ben of approximately ■ 8W Project, The project corn-have been filed In the olfice gg^gncg „iib Hie provl- 'eot of newly created Fin-ponents conwsl of con-ol the Town Clerit of said .jog, gj Section 209-q of Q®"" Trail (part of eIructiOn of 0 90.000 gallon• ^j^n, where the same are North Country Trail). This bolted glass- fused-to-steel
HouL ^ .466
w
: Ope'n •*
,486. House
ater storage tank, denjoli- with the Secretary of L
tlon and removal of an ex- Stale on October 11. tiIstlng 50.000 gallon weided 2012- P
alee! water storage tank on 3. The principal office of n
the same site, the replace- the Company is located in tl• ment of 7 below grade Tompkins County. New kflushing hydrants with Yod^- T
abote- grade hydrants, the 4. The Secretary of Stale creplacement of llOhouse- la designated as the agent t
hold meters with new me- of the Company ' upon t
ters, and the conducting of whom process against the sa le^ deieclioo survey. Company may be served, v
The services of the eng>- The post office address to iineerng firm vwll be focused which the Secretary of c
on accomplishing these Stale shall mall a copy of £project components, Serv- any procese against the j
Ices will Include engineer- Company served upon 1ing, design, development of such Secretary of Stele isconstruction documents. 27 Fairway Drive. Ithaca, _submitting design for regu-New York 14850.
lalory review and approvaf. 5.' The purpose of the 'preparation . of bidding Company shall be to er\-
documents, assistance to gage in any lawful act or I
the Town In contractor se- activity for which limited II-
' lection, contract odmlnlstra- ability companies- may be. '
, tion, inspection of work, formed under the New '
I and certification of project York Limited Liability '
• completion. Company Lew.
I Copies of the fl equest-for 10/20,- 10/27, . 11/3. [I Qualifications may be ob- 11/10. 11/17,
lained lay email lo Pamela 11/24/2012
• Goddard. Town Clerk, ati towticl9rk@town:danby.ny. Fribllc Hearing- us or (607) 277-4768. or The Village of Cayuga1 from Susan Beeners, Code Heights Board of Troslees. Eriforoemeni - Officer at will hold a public heanng at- code®lown.donby.ny.u8 or fiOO PM on December 10-5 (607) 277-0799. Quea- 2012 et Marcham Hall, 836> lions related to this Re- Hanshew Rd, for the fol-r quest for Statemehls of 'ow'nfi proposed locaMaw;- Qualifications or concern- Proposed Local Law F, a3 Ihg the scope of work for Local Law to Provide for, this project may be submit- Pe9"'8fion of 'be Time.
i. ted lo Susan Beeners, Place and Manner of Pubfic
ii Code-Enforcemeni Officer Demonstrations.at code0town.donby.riy.u8 Purpose and intent 'g or (607) 277-0799. The purpose of this Locald Statements of Qqalifica- Lew is lo establish reguia-d lions are due al the, Town 'ions governing the lime.of Danby Town Clerk's Of- P'ece end thenner_^of public>- fice, -1830 Danby Road,.demonstrations that take6 ll^8ca. New York, 14650 1^® 'ri the Village ofby no later than Friday. De- Cayuga Heights (the Villa-•cember 21 al 3;00 p.m. 9®"'- Tbe intenl of this Lo-n The Town of Danby re- cal Law la to provide rea-j- serves the ri ght to rejacl restrictions in or-)f any and all proposals, ne- der to maintain public safe-:l- gotiate with the best quail- 'Y- recognizing that thened- firm regarding fees Constitutional nghts toR and/or the scope of serv- peacefully assemble, aaices or postpone the deci- provided .by the Firstsion for an indefinite period. Amendment of the United
L
Stales Constitution and Ar
aw la to establlsh"^ reguia- '
tions governing the time,
place and manner of pa
rades and special events
that take place in the Vil
lage of Cayuga. Heights
(the 'Viliage'). The intent
of this Local Law is to es- ,
tabiish a permit process for
the conduct of parades and
special events and to pro
vide' reasonable restrictions
in connection with the con
duct of parades and special
events In order to maintain
public safety.
11/24/2012
11/24/2012 ticle I. Sections 8 and 9 of
the New York Slate Con
stitution. are not unlimited.
NOTICE OF BID
2007 Dodge Durarrgo SXT
4x4 - Used Police C^<
Fair cotxiilion, 4dr 4x4.
power ateering. power disc
brakes, air, power win
dows. power door locks.
Approx 81.5(X) miles, black
crystal paint. Seeled bids
will be received by the Of
fice of the Village Clerk.
Village of Cayuga Heights.
836 Hanahany Road. Ithaca.
NY 14850 until 4ri30pm on
December ' 10. 2012 at
which time they will be pub
licly opened and read. TheVillage reserves the ri ght to '
reject any or all bids. Vehi
cle and maintenance re
cords may be Inspected byappointment- by calling the,
Village Clerk al 607-257-
1238-
11/21, 11/22, 11/23.
n/24. 11/26/2012
NOTICE OF FORMATION
I OF RED DOOR RENTALS.
LLC
Articlaa of Orgenizalion
; filed with the deperlmeni of
, State on October 5, 2012.
f Office location; Tompkins
. County. Secretary of State
. designated agent of LLC ■
. upon whom procesk
. against It may be served.
, Secretary of Slate shall
, mail process to;, 37 Uptownj.Road. Apt. 11A jthacs NY;
] ,14850. principal business
j address of the LLC. Pur-
j pose; Any lawful aclivity.
. 10/27, 11/3, • 11/10,
.f 11/17, 11/24, 12/1/2012
LE(3AL NOTICE stitution, are not unlimited.
NOTICE OF FORMATION 11/24/2012
OF EASTWND FARMS.
LLC The VHage of Cayuga
Under Section 203 of the t^felghts Board of Trustees
New York Limited Liability will hold a public hearing al
Company Law. notice' Is 7;05 PM on December 10.
hereby gYen of the forma- 2012 at Marcham Hall. 836
lion of the above-named HanshawRd, for the follow-
Limited Liability Company, ing proposed local law;
1. The name of the Limit- Profrosed Local Law 'G.' a
ed Liability Company is Local Uw lo Provide for
EASTWIND FARMS.' LLC fl aguiallon of Parades artd
(the "(Company') Special Events.2. Jhe Company's Articles Purpose and Intenl
of Organization were filed The purpose of this Local
NOTICE OF FORMATION
OFORGAfrlTRIX. LLC
Art- ol_Oig. filed w/Secy of
State of fiJY (SSNY) on
10/15/2012, Office loca-
Hon: Tortlpklns County.
SSNY designated as agent
for' service of procesa.
SSNY shall mall process
to; 378 Brooktondale Rd.
Bfooktondale. NY 14817.
Purpose; Any lawful activi
ty.
10/27. 11/3. , tT/10,'
11/17.Jl/24. 12/1/2012
466 House
W OpiPi
466 House
Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Minutes
Agenda Item #1 Call to Order
Meeting was called to order at 5:30p.m.
Agenda Item #2 Report of Tompkins County Legislature – None
Agenda Item #3 Report of Ithaca Common Council – None
Agenda Item #4 Persons to be Heard and Board comments
Mr. Engman asked to add two items to the agenda prior to the Consent Agenda; one discussing
the septage project at Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the other regarding an
extension to the comment period for fracking. The Board approved both additions.
Mr. Engman also noted that we have only received one applicant for the vacancy on the Ethics
Board. Discussion followed on how much we have advertised and Ms. Leary suggested that we
send the announcement to the Democratic Committee for them to send out to their list.
Ms. Hunter ask if Item #11 was when the Board would be discussing committee appointments
and Mr. Engman responded that the intent was to just discuss dates of the end of year and
organizational meetings. Discussion followed on when the Board as a whole would be
discussing citizen committee appointments and board member appointments. Mr. Engman stated
that he was not making his appointments until the new board member was selected because that
would influence his decisions. Discussion followed and the Board decided to discuss
appointments at its end of year meeting.
Agenda Item #5 Consider Resolution of Appreciation for George Conneman
TB Resolution No. 2012- 207: Recognition of George Conneman’s Dedicated Years of
Service to the Community
WHEREAS, George Conneman has served the Town of Ithaca with dedication for a combined
total of 27 years; and
WHEREAS, George was appointed to the Planning Board on January 1, 1999 and has served
continuously on the Planning Board through December 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, prior to serving on the Planning Board, George had 14 years of service with the
Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission as a Commissioner and Chair; and
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 2 of 19
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has greatly benefited from George’s thoughtful consideration,
devotion, intelligence, time, energy and his desire to serve our community in order to make it a
better place to live; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca is indebted to George for his invaluable contributions and
devotion to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, on behalf of the Town and its
citizens, expresses its sincere appreciation, admiration and gratitude to George Conneman for his
distinguished and dedicated service to our community.
MOVED: Tee-Ann Hunter SECONDED: Pat Leary
VOTE: Ayes – Tee-Ann Hunter, Pat Leary, Herb Engman, Rich DePaolo, Eric Levine and Herb
Engman
Agenda Item #6 Consider Resolution of Appreciation for Dave Mountin
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-208: Recognition of David Mountin’s Dedicated Years of
Service to the Community
WHEREAS, David Mountin was appointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals as an Alternate
member on June 12, 2006 and further appointed as regular member from January 1, 2008
continuously through December 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, David has served on the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals with
distinguished devotion for over 6 years; and
WHEREAS, David provided his insight and devotion to the town as a member of the
Comprehensive Plan Committee and by working on other short term special projects for the
Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has greatly benefited from David’s thoughtful consideration,
devotion, expertise, enthusiasm and his desire to serve our community in order to make it a better
place to live; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca is indebted to David for his invaluable contributions and
devotion to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, on behalf of the Town and its
citizens, expresses its sincere appreciation, admiration and gratitude to David Mountin for his
distinguished and dedicated service to our community.
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 3 of 19
MOVED: Eric Levine SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE: Ayes – Eric Levine, Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo
and Pat Leary
Agenda Item #9 Moved up due to timing of the Public Hearing not being reached
Consider appointments to the Community Energy Action Plan Steering Committee
Mr. Engman noted that the full committee will have voting privileges regardless of residency as
noted in the resolution. Ms. Hunter congratulated Mr. Goldsmith on the spectrum of members he
was able to put together.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-209: Appointment of Community Energy Action Plan
Advisory Committee
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca formalized its commitment to sustainability
in 2009 by passing a resolution to join the Climate Smart Communities initiative,
WHEREAS, the Town Board approved the Government Energy Action Plan 2011, which
recommends actions to decrease energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in government
operations, and government operations are responsible for less than three percent (3%) of
greenhouse gas emissions community-wide,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town and its constituents to establish a Community
Energy Action Plan that recommends actions that individuals, businesses and government can
take to decrease energy use and greenhouse gas emissions community-wide,
WHEREAS, public input and assistance will be needed on a regular basis, both to gather and
evaluate the information needed to produce the Community Energy Action Plan, and to build
public support for the implementation of the Plan,
WHEREAS, input and assistance should be acquired from a diverse group with representation
from a variety of demographic groups and stakeholder groups,
Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints the following persons
to the Community Energy Action Plan Advisory Committee:
Nick Goldsmith, Town of Ithaca (Chair)
Andy Goodell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, Ithaca Carshare
Brian Eden, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
Charlotte Roberts, Ithaca College
Danielle Dunn, Cornell University
Elisabeth Harrod, Snug Planet
Erin Moore, Cornell University
Herbert Dwyer, ASI Energy & ASI Renovations
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 4 of 19
Hollis Erb, Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Katie Stoner, Park Foundation
Michelle Jones, Ithaca College
Rich DePaolo, Town of Ithaca Town Board
Roger Segelken, TCAT Riders Advisory Group
RESOLVED, that the following persons, although not residents of the Town of Ithaca, bring
specific knowledge and qualifications (as summarized in Energy Action Plan Advisory
Committee Members v2, dated December 10, 2012) necessary to accomplish the objectives of the
Committee, and are therefore appointed as full voting members:
Nick Goldsmith, Town of Ithaca
Danielle Dunn, Cornell University
Elisabeth Harrod, Snug Planet
Erin Moore, Cornell University
Herbert Dwyer, ASI Energy & ASI Renovations
Katie Stoner, Park Foundation
Michelle Jones, Ithaca College
MOVED: Tee-Ann Hunter SECONDED: Herb Engman
VOTE: Ayes – Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Eric Levine
and Pat Leary
Agenda Item #10 Moved up due to timing of the Public Hearing not being reached
Discuss Tompkins County’s Request for Lead Agency Status for Pine Tree Road
Pedestrian and Bike Improvements
TB Resolution No. 2012 - 210: Concurrence with designation of Tompkins County as Lead
Agency to coordinate the review of the Pine Tree Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
Project
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2008 the Ithaca Town Board passed a resolution supporting an
application by Tompkins County for a NYS Transportation Enhancement Program Grant for the
Pine Tree Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, Pine Tree Road is a County owned and maintained roadway (CR 174); and
WHEREAS, Tompkins County is the “Sponsor” of this federal aid project and has identified this
project as an “Unlisted Action” in regards to the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA); and
WHEREAS Tompkins County is requesting the concurrence of all involved agencies on this
proposed lead agency designation;
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby finds that Tompkins County would be
the most appropriate agency to serve as lead agency to coordinate the review of the Pine Tree
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 5 of 19
Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths Project since they are the “Sponsor” of the Federal Aid
Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Board, as an involved agency, will forward a list
of concerns expressed to it by its residents to the County as Lead Agency for careful
consideration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby concurs with the
designation of Tompkins County as Lead Agency to coordinate the review of the proposed Pine
Tree Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths Project.
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Herb Engman
VOTE: Ayes – Goodman, Engman, Hunter, Levine, Leary and DePaolo
Added Agenda Item Request for an extension for time for review of Hydro-Fracking
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 – 211: Request for an Extension of Time for Review of the
Revised Regulations for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
WHEREAS the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has
filed a Notice of Continuation with the Department of State to extend the rulemaking process by
90 days in order to give New York State Commissioner of Health Dr. Nirav Shah time to
complete his review of the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(dSGEIS) on the Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program: Well Permit Issuance for
Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and
Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs and
WHEREAS NYSDEC has established a 30-day public comment period on the revised draft
regulations from December 12, 2012 through January 11, 2013 and
WHEREAS the documents released for public review by NYSDEC number 338 pages including
the revised regulations 6 NYCRR Parts 52, 190, 550 - 556, 560, 750.1, and 750.3; a summary
and assessment of public comments; and additional analyses and impact statements and
WHEREAS Dr. Shah is providing a review, in consultation with outside experts, of whether
NYSDEC has adequately addressed potential impacts to public health, and the release of the
proposed regulations and the 30-day comment period prohibit inclusion of the results of the
independent review of potential impacts to public health in the formation of the regulations as
presented for public review and
WHEREAS many substantive comments on health issues were included among the thousands of
public comments on NYSDEC’s dSGEIS and it is unclear if the “outside experts” have been
given sufficient time to consider these comments as part of their review and
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 6 of 19
WHEREAS the 30-day review period is completely inadequate for a thoughtful and thorough
public review of the released documents and encompasses a period of time with major religious
and national holidays and
WHEREAS due to Open Meetings Law requirements for advance public notice of agendas and
supporting materials, the 30-day comment period essentially eliminates or severely hinders the
ability of any municipal legislative or regulatory organization to review the released documents
and draft, approve, and issue comments
Now therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Town Board urges that:
1. The NYSDEC extend the public comment period on the revised regulations to a minimum of
90 days and
2. The NYSDEC also allow public comment on the results of the independent review of potential
public health impacts during the same 90-day period and
3. No final decision whether to allow fracking in New York State be made without full
consideration of said public comment on the regulations, the health impact review, and the
revised SGEIS as well.
RESOLVED further that a certified copy of this resolution be sent to: Governor Andrew Cuomo;
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens, New
York State Department of Health Commissioner Nirav Shah, New York State Association of
Towns, Tompkins County Board of Health, Tompkins County Planning Department, Tompkins
County Health Department, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC),
Tompkins County Council of Governments.
MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Tee-Ann Hunter
VOTE: Ayes – Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Eric Levine and
Pat Leary
Agenda Item #7 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a Local Law amending the Town of
Ithaca Code, Chapter 221 entitled “Signs”, to allow certain banners at least 500 feet from
public roads
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 5:45 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
board on this item and the hearing was closed.
The Board considered SEQR. Mr. DePaolo asked about the County’s GML response and Mrs.
Terwilliger responded that they had no concerns.
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 7 of 19
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 212: SEQR: Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of
Ithaca Town Code, Chapter 221 Entitled “Signs,” To Allow Certain Banners At Least 500
Feet From Public Roads
WHEREAS, this action is the enactment of a local law amending Chapter 221(Signs) of the
Town of Ithaca Code regarding banners; and
WHEREAS, said proposed local law would permit banners that are no larger than 24 square feet
in area, located at least 500 feet from a public road right of way and from the lot line of any
adjoining owner in residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial districts in the Town on
issuance of a permit, provided that all corners are attached to poles by grommets or pole pockets
and the banners are made of heavyweight fabric or have air slits; and
WHEREAS, this is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is the lead agency
in the environmental review with respect to the enactment of this local law; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on December 10, 2012, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Long 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: Herb Engman
VOTE: Ayes – Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo, Eric Levine
and Pat Leary
The Board considered adoption. Mr. Goodman noted that the changes requested by the Board at
the last meeting were made, regarding distance from any property line and also explained that the
Planning Board had concerns regarding the laws’ applicability on Conservation Zones and those
will be addressed when the full sign law is revised and the zones all matched. Mr. Engman
questioned why a sign permit is required and Ms. Ritter responded that it is to treat them like all
other signs and so that the Town is aware that they are going up and to ensure that they meet the
law’s requirements.
TB Resolution No. 2012- 213: Adopt a Local Law amending the Town of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 221 entitled “Signs”, to allow certain banners at least 500 feet from public roads.
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Sign Law was first adopted in 1980, amended in its entirety in
1996 and further amended since then; and
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 8 of 19
WHEREAS, the Sign Law does not currently allow the placement of Banners anywhere in the
Town, but the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals have received requests from
property owners for variances from that prohibition and the ZBA has granted those requests with
modifications and/or conditions after receiving positive recommendations from the Planning
Board; and
WHEREAS, as part of its review of the entire Sign Law, the Town’s Codes and Ordinances
Committee has discussed allowing some banners under certain circumstances that would not
affect the purpose of the law to “protect and enhance Town appearance”; and
WHEREAS, at its October 17, 2012 meeting the Codes and Ordinances Committee voted to
recommend that the Town Board amend the Sign Law to allow some types of banners that were,
among other requirements, no larger than 24 square feet and were at least 500 feet from a public
road right of way, because a majority of the Committee felt banners of that size were not visually
objectionable from that distance; and
WHEREAS, at its November 19, 2012 meeting the Town Board decided to add a provision to the
amendment requiring banners to be at least 500 feet from neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town
on December 10, 2012 at 5:45 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; 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 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, it has been determined by the Town
Board that adoption of this local law is a Type I Action for which the Town Board, acting as lead
agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this local law, made a
negative determination of environmental significance on December 12, 2012, after having
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long 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 does hereby adopt the Local Law
amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 221 entitled “Signs”, to allow certain banners at
least 500 feet from public roads, 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: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Pat Leary
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 9 of 19
VOTE: Ayes – Bill Goodman, Pat Leary , Herb Engman, Tee-Ann Hunter, Rich DePaolo, and
Eric Levine
Agenda Item #8 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a Proposed Water Improvement
pursuant to Article 12-C, to be known as the Town of Ithaca Danby Road/W. King Road
Water Main Water Improvement Public hearing Danby Road water main
Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 5:52 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
board on this item and the hearing was closed.
The draft SEQR motion was moved and seconded for discussion. Mr. DePaolo asked why this is
being considered a modification instead of an expansion in #5 based on the diameter of the pipe
increasing and although the Engineer’s Report notes justification for the larger size to provide
existing users correct pressures, the report also mentions new development as a justification. A
lengthy discussion followed regarding anticipated growth in the area, the Comprehensive Plan
and the anticipated densification of the area. Mr. Weber noted that the improvement was needed
due to multiple repairs to the system and its not being put in correctly and to meet the needs of
the current residents on the main as well as to hook into the addition that Longview is
undertaking for their Senior Living Cottages. Mr. Weber noted that the density is expected on
the other side of the road which has a different water main and the current 6” pipe will not
supply pressure for fire suppression so the decision was made to install an 8” pipe. Mr. DePaolo
also stated that he did not understand why we get in this discussion every time and why it is a
bad thing to identify it as an expansion. Ms. Leary thought that we were catching up with
growth needs that have happened over the last 20 years. Mr. DePaolo noted that under the
current rationale, every 20 years one could install a bigger pipe without calling it an expansion
and it would be a net expansion allowing growth to happen. Mr. DePaolo moved to amend the
designation to “expansion” and Ms. Hunter seconding the amendment. Vote was Ms. Hunter,
Mr. DePaolo, Mr. Levine, and Mr. Goodman for the amendment and Ms. Leary and Mr. Engman
against. Motion carried and amendment made.
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 214: SEQR – Danby Road/West King Road Water Main
Water Improvement Project.
WHEREAS this action is the replacement of sections and relocation of the existing route to
increase efficiency known as the Danby Road/West King Road Water Main Water Improvement
Project and
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 project and
WHEREAS the Town Board, at a public hearing held on December 10, 2012, reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II for this action
submitted by the Town Engineer, along with other application materials;
Now therefore be it
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 10 of 19
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 EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II.
MOVED: Bill Goodman SECONDED: Herb Engman
VOTE: Ayes – Goodman, Engman, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary and Levine
TB Resolution No. 2012 - 215: PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER In the Matter of A
Proposed Water Improvement in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the Town of Ithaca Danby/W.
King Road Water Main Water Improvement
Present: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine and Pat
Leary. Motion made by Bill Goodman, seconded by Rich DePaolo
WHEREAS, a plan, report and map, including an estimate of cost, have been duly prepared in
such manner and in such detail as has heretofore been determined by the Town Board of the
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, relating to the creation and construction, pursuant
to Article 12-C of the Town Law, of water system improvements to be known and identified as
the Town of Ithaca Danby/W. King Road Water Main Water Improvement, and hereinafter also
referred to as the “Improvement,” to provide such water Improvement including extensions, to
the present Town water improvement, such water system Improvement to be constructed and
owned by the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, after said plan, report and map, including estimate of cost, were prepared by a
competent engineer, duly licensed by the state of New York, and filed in the office of the Town
Clerk, the said Town Board did, on November 19, 2012, duly adopt an Order reciting the
proposed Improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed benefited area, the
maximum amount proposed to be expended for the Improvement, the proposed method of
apportioning the costs of such Improvement, the proposed method of financing to be employed,
the fact that a plan, map and report describing the same are on file in the Town Clerk's office for
public inspection, and specifying that said Town Board shall meet at the Town Hall, 215 North
th
Tioga Street, in Ithaca, New York, in said Town, on the 10 day of December, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Prevailing Time, for the purposes of conducting a public hearing on such proposal to provide
said Improvement, and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same,
and
WHEREAS, copies of said Order were duly published and posted according to law, and said
Town Board did, at the time and place specified in said Order, duly meet and consider such
proposal and held a public hearing in which it heard all persons interested in the subject thereof,
who appeared at such time and place, concerning the same, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board now desires to authorize the Improvement based on the evidence
offered at such time and place, and
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 11 of 19
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on December 10, 2012, the Town Board determined approval,
construction and implementation of the Improvement, which is an Unlisted Action pursuant to
the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, will not result in any significant
adverse environmental effects; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board that it be and hereby is
determined as follows:
(1) The notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise
sufficient.
(2) That all of the property within the proposed benefited area is benefited by the
proposed Improvement.
(3) That all of the property benefited is included within the proposed benefited area.
(4) That the proposed method of apportioning the costs of the Improvement should not be
changed.
(5) It is in the public interest to authorize, establish, and make the Town of Ithaca
Danby/W. King Road Water Main Water Improvement as hereinafter described, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby approve, authorize and establish the
Town of Ithaca Danby/W. King Road Water Main Water Improvement in the area of the Town
described as follows and as more particularly shown and described in said plan, report and map
presently on file in the office of the Town Clerk: The proposedproject willinstall 2,602 ft of
new 8” water main on the west side of Danby Road and 1,809 ft. on W. King Road, between
Danby Road and Stone Quarry Road. This will result in the replacement of 4,411 ft. of existing
main, together with related ancillary facilities, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the area hereby determined to be benefited by said Town of Ithaca
Danby/W. King Road Water Main Water Improvement is all of that portion of the Town outside
of the Village of Cayuga Heights, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that all of the allocable costs of said Improvement shall be borne
wholly by property within the Town of Ithaca water improvement benefited area, being the entire
area of the Town outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum proposed to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for
the Improvement, including costs of rights of way, construction costs, legal fees and other
expenses, is $ 850,000, which shall be financed as follows:temporary financing under a bond
anticipation note, and upon maturity of the bond anticipation note, the issuance of serial bonds of
said Town of Ithaca to mature in annual installments over a period not to exceed 20 years, such
bonds to be paid from assessments levied upon and collected from the several lots and parcels of
land in said Town of Ithaca water system benefited area which are deemed benefited by said
Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of the
benefit which the Improvement shall confer upon the same, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Order is subject to a permissive referendum in the manner
provided in Town Law Article 7 and Town Law Section 209-q, and be it
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 12 of 19
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the estimated expense of the aforesaid Improvement does not
exceed one-tenth of one per cent of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of
said Town outside of villages and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision
13(a) of Section 209-q of the Town Law, the permission of the State Comptroller is not required
for such improvement, and be it
be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to subdivision 6(d) of Section 209-q of the Town Law,
the Town Clerk is hereby directed and ordered to cause a certified copy of this Order to be duly
recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins within ten days of the date this
Order becomes effective pursuant to Town Law Section 91, which when so recorded, shall be
presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings and action taken by the Town Board in
relation to the aforesaid improvement
The question of the adoption of the foregoing Order was duly put to a vote on roll call, which
resulted as follows: Herb Engman, aye; Goodman, aye; Rich DePaolo, aye; Tee-Ann Hunter,
aye; Eric Levine, aye; and Pat Leary, aye. The Order was thereupon declared duly adopted.
Agenda Item #11 Discuss and consider approval of request for matching funds for the
County Development Focus Area Grant – City/Town form-based zoning proposal
Mr. Engman explained that the County had a chance to go for this grant and the Town seems the
logical entity to oversee it. Minor typographical errors were made to the contract and the
addition of a statement to the resolution stating that any changes are subject to the approval of
the Attorney for the Town.
Noah Demerest, David West, and CJ Randall gave an introduction to the project. The plan is to
do a trial run of what a form-based code would look like spread across the city and town of
ithaca and they chose the inlet area out to Route 13 to the conservation areas. The thought is that
this area would combine different zones and uses currently used by the city and town and
provide a good example of form based codes. The boundary was affected by topography and
ecological constraints also, but includes everything from industrial to conservation areas. This
would be a small headstart to show what would be involved and that could be a starting point for
the two municipalities to have.
Ms. Hunter asked about going further up West Hill via Cliff and Hector Streets since this is a
problem area and would affect any planning. Mr. Demerest noted that they would be open to
shifting boundaries and in fact the City has already asked them to include the Northside although
they had specifically avoided the West Hill because there are studies that have been or are
ongoing in that area already and they did not want to overlap. Ms. Hunter also asked about
Elmira Rd area and Ms. Ritter commented that they are very interested in seeing the ideas that
come from this to merge town and city planning in that area.
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 13 of 19
Mr DePaolo asked if this was a full-build out scenario under current zoning through the lens of
Smart Code development and Mr. Demerest agreed to an extent but also using the characteristics
of the area and integrating both increases and decreases where indicated and give a vision of
what could be done through Smart Code.
Added Agenda Item Discuss Septage Receiving Facility project
Mr. Engman explained that this project has been in the works for a long time and Mr. Ramer has
asked the town to pass a resolution authorizing him to sign the contracts when they are ready.
He asked Ms. Brock for her opinion and Ms. Brock had a number of questions and did not think
the Board should agree to or pass anything until they were answered. Mr. Engman explained the
project and asked Ms. Brock to work with the City and report back to the Board.
Agenda Item # 12 Discuss year-end meeting and organizational meeting
st
Mr. Engman explained that with the 31 falling on a Monday, the suggestion has been made to
have the meeting on Friday instead so that those who would like to have the option of being
away for a long weekend would be able to do so. The Board agreed with having the meeting on
Friday at 10:00 with the discussion of committees and appointments, the public hearing
regarding the fire contract with the Village of Cayuga Heights and well as setting a public
hearing regarding the septage project if possible as well as possibly appointing a new board
member.
th
The Board then set the Organizational meeting for January 7 at 5:30 p.m. Motion made by
Tee-Ann Hunter, seconded by Herb Engman, unanimous.
Agenda Item #13 Consider setting a public hearing regarding contract with the Village of
Cayuga Heights Fire Department for fire protection services
TB Resolution No. 2012 - 218 : Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Contract with the
Village of Cayuga Heights for Fire Protection Services
BE IT RESOLVED
, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a public hearing at
the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the day of , 2012 at
p.m. for the purpose of providing full opportunity for citizen participation and input in the
consideration of entering into a contract with the Village of Cayuga Heights for Fire Protection
Services; and it is further
RESOLVED
, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local law may be
heard concerning the same; and it is further
RESOLVED
, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to
publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal and to post a copy of same on the
signboard of the Town of Ithaca.
MOVED: Tee-Ann Hunter SECONDED: Rich DePaolo
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 14 of 19
VOTE: Ayes – Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Eric Levine and
Pat Leary
Agenda Item #14 Discuss West Hill Traffic Study
Mr. DePaolo gave the history of the study noting that the impetus for the study was concern
among West Hill residents and Town Board members regarding traffic impacts of development
on West Hill. He felt that they produced a good study after much time and with the help of Tom
Mank and Town staff. the study did not reveal any surprises and gives us a fairly good idea of
what will happen and the majority of the impact will be on Route 79 with the proposed
developments working through the process right now.
Dan Tasman, Town Planner explained some of the methodology used in the study. The different
scenarios are based on different mixes of types of housing such as condominiums, single-family,
etc. The build out of this area could take up to 50 years so there are a lot of unknowns as far as
the timeline of when these effects would occur. It was important to remember that the letter-
coding is similar to school letter-coding but it does not mean the same thing. For example, an F
is not failing it is just a longer wait than E or C. There is a table explaining the letter-coding and
Mr. Tasman said that traffic engineers generally shoot for a C or D. Mr. Engman asked if out-of-
town travel through the same corridor was considered and Mr. DePaolo responded that Mr.
Mank did not figure that in because the outside municipalities are not anticipating growth.
Many of the Board members have been to numerous meetings on this Study. The Board
discussed the environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan and how this study would be
used and Mr. Engman stated that the Comprehensive Plan has to get to the Town Board and then
the Town Board has to decide if it is going to be the Lead Agency followed by public hearings
and decisions will be made on what type of SEQR process will be done.
Ms. Ritter explained that we are not required to address mitigations unless there are
environmental impacts associated with the Comprehensive Plan and that is what the Town Board
will have to talk about and decide. There are two SEQR paths that can be taken and Ms. Hunter
asked if traffic studies such as this one would be what we would base our determination of
impacts on. Mr. Tasman responded that it would be difficult because the West Hill Traffic Study
is a build-out study whereas the Comprehensive Plan is what we envision development in our
town to be over the next 10-15 years. He felt that we can’t pick through the numbers in the
Study for what the traffic will be at any given point during the build-out process. Ms. Ritter
added that under our current zoning we could have had a full build out already and we haven’t
and in the Comprehensive Plan we are actually not looking to attract businesses or commercial
and we are actually changing the zoning so we can concentrate development where we think we
want it and decreasing the ability to develop in areas that we do not. We are expecting growth
and we are trying to manage it through the Comp Plan.
Ms. Hunter responded that the Comprehensive Planning Committee agreed that the assumption
was we have people clamoring to move into the Town who will move into the Town if housing is
available. Ms. Hunter wanted to know when effects and mitigations will be discussed. What is
the timeline.
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 15 of 19
Ms. Ritter responded that is the question for the Town Board. The Board needs to discuss and
decide if it wants to do a generic environmental impact statement or if there are too many
unknowns and elect to do a smaller environmental assessment recognizing that there are going to
be smaller densified areas and stating that we will address those in a simple environmental
assessment and get more specific when new zoning for each area is adopted. There are ranges
and a lot of unknowns in the Comprehensive Plan as a whole and she thought we would be able
to address the traffic when the zoning was known. Ms Hunter wanted to know when the
environmental assessment was going to be done on the recommendations in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. Leary responded that the Comprehensive Plan is not a traffic study and that Ms. Hunter was
assuming that the Comp Plan is something to be mitigated or that the future that the Comp Plan
describes needs mitigation. She felt that the whole idea of the Comp Plan and going with the
zoning changes and new kinds of units assumes that the growth will not be the same as it has
been and the accommodation for that growth and associated traffic will be different than the
present.
Mr. Engman stated that the idea of smart growth is a type of mitigation in his mind because if
you can get people closer to where they live they won’t have to travel as much and he is more
concerned about traffic traveling through the town from beyond. He added that he went to a
housing meeting the other day and Ed Marx from the County produced more information on
houses and how many units have been produced in the last decade and the affordability of them.
It was very clear that some municipalities have made no effort to make housing affordable and
others have done quite a bit. The city is really getting going on housing which may affect our
build-out as well as the town of Dryden is also putting in some major projects of affordable
housing and that may affect how many people do still want to live in Ithaca. We can only get
ready through Smart Growth.
Mr. DePaolo pointed out that this study was borne out of the perception that mitigations were
already called for and putting it off does not help and we shouldn’t be looking for reasons why
we can’t do it. The more we can work integrate our growth projection into Intermunicipal
planning the better.
Mr. Engman noted that the Traffic Study can inform our future but there are a lot of sections in
Town that think that their traffic is horrendous also. Ms. Hunter thought that the report was done
very well and it was careful not to say or assume that traffic on West Hill was worse or better
than anywhere else and in fact it states that. Her comments were made because the Study did
have some findings and she wondered when and how the Board would act on those findings and
she still isn’t clear on that.
Mr. DePaolo asked if the Board is going to accept this report and if so, if it could be put on the
web for residents’ information. There were no objections to posting it and Mr. Engman said he
would ask Ms. Carrier-Titti.
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 16 of 19
Agenda Item #15 Consider Consent Agenda Items
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-219: Consent Agenda
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or
adopts the following Consent Agenda items:
thth
a.Approval of Minutes of October 29, November 13 and 19 , 2012
b.Town of Ithaca Abstract
c.Bolton Point Abstract
d.Approve Holiday tree pickup schedule
e.Establish Capital Project fund for Town Hall Parking Lot reconstruction
f.Promotional appointment of Senior Engineering Tech – J Slater
MOVED: Rich DePaolo SECONDED: Bill Goodman
VOTE: Ayes – Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Eric Levine and
Pat Leary
TB Resolution No. 2012 – 219a: Approval of Minutes of October 29, November 13 and
November 19, 2012
WHEREAS, the draft minutes of the October 29, November 13 and November 19, 2012
meetings 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 October 29, November 13 and November 19, 2012
of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
TB Resolution No. 2012 - 219b: 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. 3006 -3087
General Fund Town wide 70,750.43
General Fund Part Town 7,229.43
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 17 of 19
Highway Fund Part Town 212,167.82
Water Fund 27,284.25
Sewer Fund 3,311.86
Fire Protection Fund 374.00
Risk Retention Fund 1,101.74
Forest Home Lighting District 167.27
Glenside Lighting District 43.83
Renwick Heights Lighting District 62.55
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 147.97
Clover Lane Lighting District 17.43
Winner’s Circle Lighting District 57.78
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 59.25
West Haven Road Lighting District 180.23
Coddington Road Lighting District 107.42
TOTAL 323,063.26
TB Resolution No. 2012-219c: 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: 1380-1433
Check Numbers: 14257-14310
Burdick Hill Tanks Project $ 279,365.00
N. Trip Rd T-main Project $ 288,813.97
Operating Fund $ 71,171.53
TOTAL $ 639,350.50
Less Prepaid $ 28,908.77
TOTAL $ 610,441.73
TB Resolution No. 2012 - 219d: Set Holiday Tree Pick Up Schedule
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department picks up holiday trees for the
residents of the Town,
Now, therefore, be it
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 18 of 19
RESOLVED, that January 22, 2013 will be final day for holiday tree pickup by the Public Works
Department, and be it further
RESOLVED, that after January 22, 2013, residents may bring their holiday trees to the Public
Works Facility for recycling.
TB Resolution No. 2012- 219e: Authorization to Establish the Town of Ithaca Town Hall
Parking Lot Reconstruction Capital Project Fund
WHEREAS, the 2012 Ithaca Town Budget identifies a capital project for the Town Hall Parking
Lot Reconstruction budgeted in the amount of $250,000, and
WHEREAS, construction activities to repair the City of Ithaca parking garage adjacent to the
Town Hall parking lot have resulted in delaying the reconstruction of the Town Hall parking lot
until 2013, and
WHEREAS, various expenses have been incurred by the Town in connection with the Town
Hall Parking Lot Reconstruction Capital Project during the 2012 fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby establishes the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall Parking Lot Reconstruction Capital Project Fund, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary
and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions to reflect those expenses incurred in the 2012
fiscal year, and transfer up to $10,000 to this capital project fund from the Town’s General
Townwide Fund until permanent funding for this capital project has been established.
TB Resolution No. 2012- 219f: Promotional Appointment of Senior Engineering Technician
WHEREAS, there has been a vacant Senior Engineering Technician position for several years;
and
WHEREAS, Joseph Slater has been an Engineering Technician I since August 2001, and has
demonstrated the knowledge, skill and ability required to be promoted to the senior level
position; which is supported by Creig Hebdon, Senior Civil Engineer and Jim Weber, Director of
Public Works; and
WHEREAS, the Personnel and Organization Committee evaluated and approved the
recommendation of a promotional reclassification for Joseph Slater from Engineering Technician
I to Senior Engineering Technician;
Now, Therefore, Be It
Adopted 1/28/2013
TB 12-10-12
Page 19 of 19
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the promotional
appointment of Joseph Slater as Senior Engineering Technician, effective December 17, 2012;
and be it further
RESOLVED, this is a full time position at 40 hours a week, at the hourly wage of $27.01, in Job
Classification "V", with full time benefits; and be it further
RESOLVED, the said appointment is a provisional appointment pending the results from the
next civil service exam for this position, which will be a non-competitive, promotional exam;
and be it further
RESOLVED, Mr. Slater will need to satisfactorily complete the promotional eight (8) week
probationary period ending, February 8,2013.
Report of Town Officials
Ms. Hunter asked about the Lake Source Cooling and Mr. DePaolo responded that the DES is
coming to Town to talk to the Intermunicipal Watershed Organization about the supplemental
grant and then there is a meeting in the Borg Warner room between the DEC and various lake-
monitoring entities and stakeholders to discuss the modeling plan and permit revision.
Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 7:40 p.m.
Submitt
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
Adopted 1/28/2013
-"'v. -•
617.20
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may
be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of
a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal
knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge
in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process
has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts:
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site, By identifying basic project data, it assists
a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance
as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-large impact. The
form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is
actually important.
THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 0 Part 2 □ Part 3
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and
considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that:
H A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have asignificant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
□ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effectfor this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore
a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
□ C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on theenvironment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared.
*A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Amending Chapter 221, "Signs," of the Town of Ithaca Town Code Regarding Banners
Name of Action
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Name of Lead Agency
Herbert Engman Town of Ithaca Supervisor
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer
S^a'Wr'e'of R^s/ons\b\^q^\^r in Lead Agency Signature of Kreparer tir"mfferent from responsible officer)
• InatQDate
Page 1 of 21
PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor \
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the
environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the
application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe
will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies,
research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so Indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action Amending Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 221, "Signs," To Allow Certain Banners At Least 500 Feet From Public Roads
Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County)
The zoning changes will affect areas throughout the Town.
Name of Applicant/Sponsor Town of Ithaca
Address 215 N. Tioga Street
City/PO Ithaca State NY Zip Code 14850
Business Telephone 607-273-1747
Name of Owner (if different) n/a
>
Address
City / PO State Zip Code
Business Telephone
Description of Action:
The proposed action is the enactment by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of a local law that would amend Chapter 221 of the Town of
Ithaca Code, entitled "Signs," by permitting banners within all zoning districts in the Town that are no larger than 24 square-feet in area
and at least 500 feet from a public road right of way and from the lot line of any adjoining property owner. Such banners will require a
sign permit and must be made of heavyweight fabric or have air slits and all comers must be attached by grommets or pole pockets.
Page 2 of 21
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. SITE DESCRIPTIOIM
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: □ Urban □ Industrial □ Commercial □ Residential (suburban) □ Rural (non-farm)
□ Forest GAgriculture □ rve.. The zoning amendments will affect all zoning
districts in the Town.
2. Total acreage of project area: N/A acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural)
Forested
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL)
Water Surface Area
Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
Other (Indicate type) N/A
PRESENTLY
N/A acres
N/A acres
N/A acres
N/A acres
N/A acres
N/A acres
N/A acres
acres
AFTER COMPLETION
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? A high variability of soil types exist within each zone.
a. Soil drainage: [I]well drained % of site D Moderately well drained % of site.
% of sitePoorly drained
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land
Classification System? acres (see 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? |» | Yes | | No Areas of bedrock outcropping are common in parts of the
Town and occurrences are possible in each of the zones.
a. What is depth to bedrock (in feet)
5.Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: Slope percentages highly variable within each zone.
PHo-10% % I ) 10-15% % □ 15% or greater %
6. Is project substantiallv contiouous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers ofHistoric Places? Yes □ No Forest Home Historic District, Hayts Chapel/Church, bigs, on the Cornell campus, etc.
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? □ Yes I * Ino
8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) Water table is variable within each zone.
9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? I I Yes No Not applicable
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? H Yes □ No
Hunting and fishing may occur in the agricultural zone.
Page 3 of 21
1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Bves B Mo
According to NYS DEC Heritage Program (Nature Explorer website) there are several species of endangered plants/animals
whose presence in the Town have been documented. The proposed action will have no adverse impact on these species.
Identify each species
12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations?
Hves B No
Describe:
Lands within the Town vary significantly, but include gorges and waterfalls; many of the gorges are considered geologically
significant for having walls of exposed shale and sandstone from the Devonian age.
13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
B Yes Bmo
If yes, explain:
Several NYS and Town parks and trails exist within or are adjacent to the project areas.
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Eves □ No
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
The Town's draft Scenic Resource Inventory & Analysis report (dated 12/7/11) identifies important scenic views located
throughout the Town.
Streams of various sizes exist throughout the Town and occur within the zones addressed in this action.
Ponds and wetlands occur in many areas of the Town and are common within the agricultural zone.
b. Size (in acres):
—i———i-i———————
Page 4 of21
„ rHw n^. Includes areas served and not served by utilities.
^ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? | j Yes | \ No
a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? D Yes No
b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Yes j^No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Article 25-AA, Section 303 and
304? 0Yes Qno Proposed action will apply to some areas designated as Agricultural District.
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL,
"Hno
IS the site located in or substantially cc
and 6 NYCRR 617? pnYes [i|l_ _ , . , . , ^*—■ *—' The proposed action may apply m the future to an area designated as a CEA; the
Town's one CEA is proposed to be rezoned from Residential to Conservation.
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? n Yes □ No N/A
B Project Description The proposed action will apply to lands throughout the Town.
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate).
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: N/A acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion. Indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A %
t f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed
g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: N/A (upon completion of project)?
h. If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially
Ultimately
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: height; width; length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft.
2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A tons/cubic yards.
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ^^Yes ^]no [5 N/A
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed?
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ^ Yes No
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes Ho
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? N/A acres.
Page 5 of 21
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
□ Yes □ No N/A
6. If single phase project; Anticipated period of construction: months, (including demolition) N/A
7. If multi-phased: N/A
a. Total number of phases anticipated (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: month year, (including demolition)
c. Approximate completion date of final phase: month year.
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? □ Yes □ No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? □ Yes □ No N/A
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A ; after project is complete N/A
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . N/A
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? □ Yes □ no WA
If yes, explain:
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? □ Yes I Ino N/A
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? □ Yes □ No Type N/A
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? nYesFn No N/A
If yes, explain:
15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? □ Yes PIno N/A
16. Will the project generate solid waste? □ Yes □ No N/A
a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? □ Yes □ No
c. If yes, give name ; location
m Id. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyos C No \
Page 6 of 21
e. If yes, explain:
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? □ Yes □ No N/A
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life?years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? □ Yes □ No N/A
19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? □ Yes N/A
20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? □ Yes □ No n/A
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? I \ Yes □ No n/A
If yes, indicate type(s)
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity
23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. N/A
gallons/minute. N/A
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? □ Yes □ No n/A
If yes, explain:
Page 7 of 21
25. Approvals Required:
City, Town, Village Board H Yes □ No
Type
Town Code Modifications
Submittal Date
12/10/12
City, Town, Village Planning Board □ Yes H No
City, Town Zoning Board □ Yes H No
City, County Health Department □ Yes III No
Other Local Agencies
Other Regional Agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
B Yes □ No
□ Yes B No
Dves B No
□ Yes I" Ino
Tompkins County Planning 11/30/12
GML referral for
County recommendation
C. Zoning and Planning information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Byos □ No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
□ Zoning amendment □ Zoning variance □ New/revision of master plan □ Subdivision
□ Site plan n special use permit □ Resource management plan B Other '
(Town Code amendment)
Page 8 of 21
2. What is the zoning ciassificatlon(s) of the site?
The proposed action will apply to lands in all zoning distncts in the Town
3. What Is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the present zoning?
4. What Is the proposed zoning of the site?
See #2 above
5. What Is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses In adopted local land use plans? B Yes n No
The proposed action is intended to permit banners with certain restrictions in all zoning districts in the Town.
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Va mile radius of proposed action?
The proposed action will apply to lands in all zoning distncts in the Town,
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Va mile? □ Yes □ No N/A
9. If the proposed action Is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
a. What Is the minimum lot size proposed?
Page 9 of 21
10. Will proposed action require any authorizatlon(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? □ Yes No
11, Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection?
nYes H No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? n Yes □No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? □ Yes E No
a. if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. n Yes □ No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts
associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them.
E. Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name Town of Ithaca Date 12/3/12
Signature (Christine Bakslia
Title Planner
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this
assessment.
Page 10 of 21
Part 2 PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE
Responsibility of Lead Agency
General Information (Read Carefully)
I In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been
reasonable? The reviewer Is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
! The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of Impacts and wherever possible the threshold of
magnitude that would trigger a response In column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for
most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a
Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation In Part 3.
! The Impacts of each project, on each site, In each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are Illustrative and have been
offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of Impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
! The number of examples per question does not Indicate the Importance of each question.
! In Identifying Impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects.
Instructions (Read carefully)
a. Answer each of the 20 questions In PART 2. Answer Yes If there will be any Impact.
b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers.
c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box(column 1 or 2)to Indicate the potential size of the Impact. If
Impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If Impact will occur but threshold Is lower than
example, check column 1.
d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that It Is also necessarily significant. Any
large Impact must be evaluated In PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an Impact In column 2 simply asks that It
be looked at further.
e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the Impact then consider the Impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3.
f. If a potentially large Impact checked In column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) In the project to a small to moderate
Impact, also check the Yes box In column 3. A No response Indicates that such a reduction Is not possible. This must be
explained In Part 3.
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
impact on Land
1. Will the Proposed Action result In a physical change to the project
site?
NO Q YES 0 See "other impacts" below:
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot
rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes
In the project area exceed 10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table
Is less than 3 feet.
Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more
vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock Is exposed or
generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or
Involve more than one phase or stage.
• Excavation for mining purposes that would remove
more than 1,000 tons of natural material (I.e., rock or
soil) per year.
□
□
□
□
□
□
n □ Yes Dno
l~l O Yes I~Ino
□ □ Yes Qno
n □ Yes ^No
n n Yes [ZIno
n □ Yes Qno
Page 11 of 21
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated by
Impact Impact Project Change
Construction or expansion of a santary landfill.□□□ves nNo
Construction in a designated floodway.□□Dves riNo
Other impacts:n □n^es rnNo
The proposed action will permit banners in the Town of Ithaca. The proposed size restriction, material requirements, and
setback restrictions will mitigate any physical, aesthetic/visual impacts and traffic distractions associated with banners.
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on
the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)0NO QYES
Specific land forms:□
Impact on Water
n ^^Yes No
3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected?
(Under Articles 15,24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law,
ECL)gNO Qyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.□□riYes □ no
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of
a protected stream.
□□CjYes I I No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water
body.
□□□ Yes □ no
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts:
□
□
□
□
11 □□
oo zz □□
Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?[^NO Qyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
* A10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of
water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
□□□ Yes
o
z
□
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface
area.
□□LjYes
oz
□
•Other impacts:□□□Yes □ no
Page 12 of 21
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
3
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or
quantity?
gNo Qyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.□□en Yes □ no
• Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not
have approval to serve proposed (project) action.
□□rives CUno
Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater
than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity.n □riYes
□
z
o
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water
supply system.
□□riYes
oz
□
Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.□□riyes LjNo
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
□□riYes □ no
Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons
per day.
□□n Yes
□
z
o
• Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into
an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
' obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
□□rives
oZ
□
• Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or
chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons.
□□riYes
oz
□
Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without
water and/or sewer services.
□□1 Ives
□
z
o
Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses
which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment
and/or storage facilities.
□□riYes Ono
• Other impacts:□□rTves
oz
□
Page 13 of 21
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?□no Oyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Proposed Action would change flood water flows □□nYes CD No
• Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.□n riYes □no
Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.□□rives □no
• Proposed Action will allow development in a designated
floodway.
□□riYes Ono
Other impacts:□□^Dves □ no
IMPACT ON AIR
Will Proposed Action affect air quality?□ NO □YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any
given hour.
Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton
of refuse per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour
or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per
hour.
Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land
committed to industrial use.
Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of
industrial development within existing industrial areas.
Other impacts:
□
□
□
□
□
□
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?[^NO Qyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or
Federal list, using the site, over or near
the site, or found on the site.
□
□
□
□
rHves
CD Yes
[Z|no
Dno
cnYes n No
^Dyos CD No
□
□
CDves Dno
CD Yes [^No
C] ^Yes Cno
Page 14 of 21
1 2 3
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated by
Impact Impact Project Change
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.□□□ ves Dno
Appiication of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year.□n ClYes CDno
other than for agricuitural purposes.
Other impacts:□□C^Yes ^3 No
9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-tfireatened or non-
endangered species?□ NO □ YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident
or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of
mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important
vegetation.
Other impacts:
□
□
□
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?□ no IJYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to
agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard,
orchard, etc.)
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
The Proposed Action wouid irreversibly convert more than 10
acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District,
more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
□
□
□
□ Dves nNo
□ n^es QNo
i i rn v-g ^jno
n n^es D No
n dlYes
n n^es fino
Page 15 of 21
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of
agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain
lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such
measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to
increased runofO-
Other impacts;
□
□
□ □ Yes No
n Gives Gi No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use
the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.)□no Eyes See "other" impacts below:
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different
from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use
patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of
aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce
their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or
significant screening of scenic views known to be important to
the area.
Other impacts:
□
□
□
E
n giyos n
n Gives n
□ Dves □
n Gives n
No
No
No /
No
The proposed action will permit banners in the Town of Ithaca. The proposed size restriction, material requirements, and
setback restrictions will mitigate any aesthetic and visual impacts and traffic distractions associated with banners.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic,
prehistoric or paleontological importance?□no □yes
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or
substantiaily contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State
or National Register of historic places.
• Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within
the project site.
• Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive
for archaeological sites on the NVS Site Inventory.
□
□
□
□ DYes □
G G Ves G
G G Ves G
No
No
No
Page 16 of 21
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Other Impacts:□
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?0NO Qyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
• The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
• A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON GRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established
pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)?0NO □yes
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of
the CEA.
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action to locate within the CEA?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the
resource?
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the
resource?
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the
resource?
Other impacts:
2
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
□ □ Yes n No
□□□ Yes □no
□□□ Yes □ no
□n □ Yes □ no
□□□ Yes □no
□□□ Yes □no
□□□ Yes □no
□□1 1 Yes □no
□□^^Yes □no
Page 17 of 21
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
in NO Q YES
Examples that would apply to column 2
• Alteration of present pattems of movement of people and/or
goods.
Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts:
□
□
□
IMPACT ON ENERGY
16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or
energy supply?
□no Qyes
Examples that would apply to column 2
Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the
use of any form of energy in the municipality.
• Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an
energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50
single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial
or industrial use.
Other impacts
□
□
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT
17. Wili there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the Proposed Action?
□no □yes
Examples that would apply to column 2
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive
facility.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
• Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the
local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a
noise screen.
Other impacts:
□
□
□
□
□
2
Potential
Large
Impact
□
□
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
□ DYes □No
Dybs d No
Dyos n No
□Yes dl
d dYes d No
No
d dYes dNo
\
d dYes d No
d dYes d
□ □ Yes □ No
d dYes dNo
d dYes dNo
Page 18 of 21
1
Small to
Moderate
Impact
2
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Mitigated by
Project Change
IMPACT ON PUBUG HEALTH
18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?
0NO QYES
Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation,
etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be
a chronic low level discharge or emission.
Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes"
in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied
natural gas or other flammable liquids.
Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous waste.
• Other impacts:
□
□
□
□
n
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?0NO QYES
Examples that would apply to column 2
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the
project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this project.
Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or
goals.
Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures or areas of historic importance to the community.
Development will create a demand for additional community
services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)
□
□
n
□
□
□
n dves n
n n^es n
□
□
□
No
No
n dves CUno
O [Uves [Uno
n Dves □No
C Oves [Uno
n nves n
n Dves n
No
No
NoCves n
f^Yes FIno
□Yes FIno
Page 19 of 21
Small to Potential Can Impact Be
Moderate Large Mitigated by
Impact Impact Project Change
Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future □□Cves Dno
projects.
Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.n n Qves riNo
Other impacts:□□dves [Uno
20. Is there, or Is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environment Impacts?□ no
If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of
Impact, Proceed to Part 3 \
Page 20 of 21
•PROJECT ID NUMBER
'ART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION
617.20
APPENDIX 0
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
(To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor)
SEQR
1. APPLICANT / SPONSOR
Town of Ithaca
2. PROJECT NAME
Danby/W King Road Water Main Water Improvement
3.PR0JECT LOCATION;
Town of Ithaca
Municipality
Tompkins
County
4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prominent landjnarks etc - or provide map
See attached Map
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION :^ □New Expansion /Modification / alteration
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY;
The Danby Rd portion of the project is to replace 2602 ft of existing 6" cast iron water main with new 8"
polywrapped ductile iron water main.The West King Portion of the project is to replace 1809 ft of existing 8" ductile iron with 8" polywrapped
ductile iron water main.
AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
"nitially .4 acres Ultimately .4 acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS?
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 I Forest / Open Space Other (describe)
Institutional
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY (Federal, State or Local)
0 Yes I I No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval:
Tompkins County Health Department
11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
□ Yes I ^ j No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval:
1^AS A ^ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?□Yes [7] No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
jplicant / Sponsor Name Date:
Signature_
If the action Is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency,
complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
..^ART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency)
DOES ACTiON EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617 4?
□ Yes No
If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
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 [7] No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten. If legible)
01. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or fl ooding problems? Explain briefly:
During Construction Traffic will be affected; No road or lane closures are expected.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
None Anticipated. Main replacement will follow existing alignment
03. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
None Anticipated Work will be done in road ROW or Easement from land owner. Replacement will follow existing alignment
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:
None anticipated Currently water improvement area is within Town boundaries
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-C5? Explain briefly:
None Anticipated
C7. other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly:
None Anticipated. Replacement of existing facilities
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:□ Yes □no
E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If yes explain:I I Yes [Tj 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 FULL
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 actlor
WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thi$
determination.erm^tion. .
Name of Lead Agency
AgencyPrint or
nsible Ore of Re in Lead Agency
Date
Title of Responsible Officer
Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Short Environmental Assessment Form Cont...Danby/W King Road Water Main
Water Improvement
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by
the proposed actions?
The Danby Rd water main is being increased from 6 inch to 8 inch. The
increase in size will conform to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission (Bolton Point) rules and regulations for municipal water mains. This
increase in size will allow for required fire flows and consumptive demand of the
existing Town customers.
This new main will be connected to an existing 8 inch water main
increasing the redundancy in the system. This loop will provide the system with
redundancy so that a break in the main will allow repairs with reduced impact to
customers.
No significant growth or development will be induced by this action. The
current zoning in the area served by this project is HDR and LDR. The HDR zone
is made up of parcels that front on Danby Rd that will have the new main directly
in front of the parcel. Two new developments (Cleveland Estates and Long view
Patio Homes) are approved for the HDR zone. When these developments are
built out the HDR will have few buildable parcels left. The LDR section of the
service area has limited road frontage and is on steeper terrain. The new water
main does not directly front these parcels and would require new main
connections be built to provide water to this area. This precludes the ability to
build large amount of housing in this area without rezoning and a large
investment by a developer.
*
West Hill Traffic Report
4
af
A. • 'f ¨.·· .•'V '
> t..' „.v- .---it:*'.- :■•■
I
■ ■ ■ • 1
V. f •• '"T... , . ^
' •:::■>\-'m
'•».'>*^«" 'vi#" * •' - .•i-i^-"' J- V
irtlfc-.. f,'-m,:.^'.,- \
*'■ ' ■'■^■/-^ >■*»"' '
-. ''♦ 1.^'••!Mi-"* ^'•» J-- "-.fi X-•
•"*••' '*■ 'T-
1
■ f-'. lb'-'' 4*' • '-^
5>/ro ; .
November 2012
^("■■r':'S'\'}'--.'-f^r -If i.'■ r-2Vf
-
West Hill Traffic Report
November 2012
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
Rich DePaolo, Chair
Bill Goodman
Pat Leary
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING STAFF
Susan Ritter, Planning Director
Dan Tasman, Assistant Planning Director
Chris Balestra, Senior Planner
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner
The Planning Committee gratefully appreciates the work and insight of Tom Mank, Planning Analyst with
the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council.
1900 USGS topographic map
V--
Mk Kiriii'ev
West Hill Traffic Report
November 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUaON 1
2 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 5
3 METHODOLOGY 13
3.1 Traffic modeling and TransCAD 13
3.2 Input data 13
3.3 Limitations and assumptions 14
4 ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS 17
4.1 Comparing conventional development and TND 17
4.2 Traffic forecasts 17
4.3 Traffic volume and capacity 18
4.4 Level of service at selected intersections 28
5 FINDINGS 43
6 FUTURE CONSIDERATION 45
7 APPENDIX 47
Scenario 1 - conventional zoning with 15% MR rezoning 47
Scenario 2 - Scenario 2 - medium density TND 51
1 INTRODUCTION
"This study was prompted by pressing development questions of
an immediate nature, and problems of a longer-range nature.
There have been several recent indications that the northwest
part of Town may be on the threshold of a period of substantial
development."
The paragraph above was the introduction to the Proposed Land
Use Plan forthe Northwest Section of the Town of Ithaca from
1959. A frequent theme in newspaper editorials of the day was
traffic congestion on Trumansburg Road / Cliff Street (NY 96).
In the following decades, many local plans and studies have
asserted that development in the West Hill area is imminent, and
traffic on Trumansburg Road and in the Cayuga Inlet area in the
City of Ithaca has been a much debated and contested subject.
The time when development begins in earnest may finally be
arriving.
Relative distance from Cornell University, Ithaca College, and
other major employers, insulated the West Hill area from the
same kind of development pressure that faced East Hill and South
Hill. Recent proposals indicate growing interest in development
in the West Hill area. Factors drawing development towards
West Hill include:
rnhirircnlttirt or ttie
hie Httriild Jenx-n, { pimonally ^
. think Ihi' Tm-.n of Tihiica rinimtnje
Board j* pitiiiug ihc tnrl
the hojvp 111 tiif nifjitof of the
Nnth Wpst imibkm.
Tttf ni. Jnr diffiruUl"* orp b«Ui
Ihp txjtli mvk it iJip
. irossinu and Iho narr<n\nc>% of
lf»f rntnmi-p lo tho Ciiv of tihara
Mliff hi'
Tht \prth WpK} art a will ntvpr
Ciov. i)i(< uoy it uniif as*
• m-r iK.d it buitt |» rhmtnate
Kndmcrkt.
TV.it tu nio tti of par-am-itjct bii*
P'tfitrri' Mill o^jj ihvB can n rp-
<.pnic »urvcy i>c
niartf f! til'- poicnital futurr of tho
N'orth ttf:M aroa.
At flie pre teat lim* Ihrrp U
KttillYrl)' on fiPtd fur any lAnp-
_ iDR In lhl» nrpo aiMl H
culd be pi'»7 r<-p
•ay liAv»t 00^ ctipb
tal in sii arv.t v.isU-i! v.iii tup* :
pert tbr ti42'UJ bi'MUi '* VffjiUU'C.
By liw i Uvptf lU !»»U 1
Btra ft.-. S't ijod havi'
, fhrvp rtWiric-iMS-'t frov mcr the
huMmformnaidj fho rfforl* '
ihr (liy of ithaoB ba\p tipirn
ronrC'Rtratcn t-j!> oU other ateas
o*iTpt li'p UVm Jlill KTtion
Wiib tlio pfrt-pnce of Tomphins
Cuuntv Hotplial lo this area Iht
Inipftrli'nrc {4 a b^pats is ihe No.
i problotn and ton duup the Hid
as Ihc Mflic of .\c« Vork fnsUtt
OR placias the project. .
Portion of a letter to the editor In the
Ithaca Journal, August 1960Availability of targe parcels of land that have not been
developed or subdivided through the years.
Underlying zoning that allows suburban residential development.
Availability of sewer and water service.
Location close to the City of Ithaca.
A shortage of workforce and middle market housing in the area.
Growing population of senior citizens, and a growing demand for senior housing, Independent living
facilities, and similar facilities.
The prospect of rising fuel prices that make long distance commuting from outlying towns and
counties less attractive.
The Octopus "detangling" project in the City, which relieved some traffic congestion on some roads
that lead to the West Hill area.
Recent planning efforts
The Tompklns County Comprehensive Plan (2004), Route 96 Corridor Study (2009), and the draft Town
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (in progress) all contemplate and make recommendations for how the
West Hill area should grow, and what form that growth would take.
Town of Ithaca j West Hill Traffic Report 1
The Tompkins County Development Focus Areas Strategy recommends establishing several nodes,
relatively dense concentrations of mixed use development where the bulk of residential and commercial
development outside City of Ithaca should be concentrated. The strategy recommended a 500 acre
West Hill node centered on Cayuga Medical Center and located entirely north of Bundy Road, with a
growth potential of 2,950 to 5,200 housing units.
The Route 96 Corridor Management Study was a cooperative effort involving the Tompkins County
Planning Department, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Town of Ulysses, TCAT, and ITCTC (Ithaca-Tompkins
County Transportation Council). The study, which included a series of technical reports, proposed an
intermunicipal strategy for mitigating traffic by promoting a nodal pattern of development in the
Corridor; improving public transportation, providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, access
management, traffic calming. Infrastructure improvements, and zoning and land use modifications.
The Town began the process of updating its comprehensive plan in 2008. The Town's draft
Comprehensive Plan breaks with the suburban mold that was the basis of development in previous
decades. The draft Plan recommends denser, pedestrian oriented, mixed use Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND) for areas of West Hill south of Cayuga Medical Center and close to the City of
Ithaca, where the 1993 Comprehensive Plan called for lower density conventional suburban residential
development.
A closer look at West Hill
The natural features that give the Ithaca area its scenic beauty have also strongly influenced, and
constrained, the area's transportation network, making traffic a long-standing issue throughout the
Town. In 2008, a convergence of planning efforts - the Focus Area Strategy, Route 96 Study, and Town
Comprehensive Plan update - along with development proposals for three large projects - Carrowmoor
(±400 dwelling units), Holochuck Homes (±110 dwelling units), and Cornell/Conifer at West Hill, gave rise
to renewed concerns about the road network in the West Hill area, and its capability to accomodate
anticipated growth. There was also a disconnect of the emerging vision for the West Hill area - a
compact, mixed use, pedestrian oriented neighborhood - with policies of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan
and the underlying zoning.
2 Town of Ithaca j West Hill Traffic Report
The Planning Committee first contemplated a development moratorium in June 2008, to allow time for a
more cohesive vision of the West Hill area to emerge from the Comprehensive Plan update project, and
to conduct a supplemental traffic study of the road network throughout the West Hill area, focusing on
the impact of future development. Funds were allocated to hire a consultant, but it was later decided to
conduct the study in-house.
The Town Board enacted a year-long development moratorium in a portion of the West Hill area in June
2011. The moratorium was intended to prevent development that could frustrate long-term efforts to
establish a mixed use neighborhood in the area. During the moratorium, the Planning Committee was
tasked with researching potential traffic issues in the area.
This report, the culmination of work that took place during the moratorium, summarizes a traffic
analysis for the West Hill and Cayuga Inlet area, and examines the possible impact future development
would have on its roads and intersections. The analysis includes long-range development scenarios
proposed by Town of Ithaca Planning staff, and traffic modeling analysis prepared by staff from the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council.
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 3
2 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Conceptual development scenarios
Three conceptual development scenarios were considered for the traffic models; one based on existing
lower density, single use suburban zoning and development patterns, the other two based on mixed use
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) recommended by the draft Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan. One of the two TND scenarios, with much higher residential density than the low-
density conventional suburban and medium-density TND scenario, was contemplated but ultimately not
used for modeling or traffic forecasting.
Conceptual development area
The conceptual development area used in this study comprises about 500 acres (about 200 hectares or
0.8 square miles) in the West Hill area near the City of Ithaca boundary, extending from Hayts Road
south to Elm Street. Most of this area is included in the New Neighborhood character district in the
draft Comprehensive Plan. Lots included in this area are mostly undeveloped, relatively large and intact,
shaped and located where their individual development in the context of a larger neighborhood is more
feasible than on smaller parcels, and either now zoned for residential development (MDR - medium
density residential) or being considered for rezoning (Carrowmoor site). Frontage/strip residential lots,
and lots with intensive development where short-term redevelopment is unlikely, were not included.
TransCAD traffic
analysis zone area
NORTH: between Hayts Road and Bundy Road
GY Corporation (buildable area of larger 66.9 acre lot)
Cornell University (excluding future Conifer West Hill site)
Ithaca Land Holdings
CENTRAL: between Bundy Road and Mecklenburg Road
Richard and Mary Perry
John Rancich (Carrowmoor)
Conifer Realty
SOUTH: between Mecklenburg Road and Elm Street
Kadeli Trade
Deborah Mitchell
Carl Carpenter
Christian Hailer
Marcia Osborne
TOTAL
201
201
201
20""
±97.1 acres
±44.6 acres
±33.7 acres
±18.9 acres
±262.0 acres
±56.2 acres
±157.0 acres
±48.8 acres
±140.4 acres
±71.2 acres
±32.5 acres
±19.3 acres
±10.3 acres
±7.0 acres
i±499.5 acres
a.-..
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 5
Conceptual development area .K>.
North
Central
City of Ithaea
'rTP-V. Ul'
Town of Itha South
. X. 0>7>?V
Mip preductd bY Dnvn oi tthm
PUontni Dcptrtnwnt rtaff
6 Mtnh »U
0 «00 800 1.600 2.400 3.200 4,000 A
6 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
r
«
i- ' ..|v
1^r:J0
i
I ^••2^-.4
<»- iai • ^.r s .- \s . *
SCENARIO 1: lower density suburban development
Scenario 1 is based on continued conventional suburban development. The recent Comprehensive Plan
(1993) and zoning code would guide development in the area. Based on current rezoning and
development trends in the area, the scenario considers that 15% of land in the area would be rezoned to
MR (multiple residence), while the rest would remain MDR (medium density residential). Developed
density is slightly lower than the maximum permitted by the zoning code. The conceptual development
area does not include any retail, office, educational or institutional uses.
MDR zoned areas
Area:
Developed density:
Housing units:
MR zoned areas
Area:
Developed density:
Housing units:
±425 acres (85% of total)
2 units/acre (gross, excluding accessory units)
1020 total
850 single family
170 accessory (accompanying 20% of above, treated as apartments)
±75 acres (15% of total)
7.5 units/acre (gross)
561 total
56 cottage (10% allocation in zone)
56 duplex/two-flat (10%)
112 townhouse/rowhouse (20%)
337 apartment/condominium (60%)
I '
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 7
■rimr}:'-'
>#-w- • -1.!.
i^' 0^-^ ''■^M -o>V'jT,/^ " -^Sv - , —? .-r-^
-V" ^11-' ■'.
Total 1,581 housing units
850 single family, 56 cottage, 56 duplex/two-flat,
112 townhouse/rowhouse, 507 apartment/condominium
8 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
r
%r ■•
SCENARIO 2: medium density Traditional Neighborhood Development
Scenario 2 is based on mixed use, mixed density Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND).
Development would be guided by form/transect-based zoning regulations. Transect zones permit a
range of uses and building types, and are based on a range of intensities with shared character, from
rural to urban. Transect zones with higher residential densities are located closer to pedestrian
oriented, mixed use neighborhood centers, which include some commercial uses. There would be
enough households to support a small elementary school, the traffic impacts of which are included In
the forecast. (The future capacity of existing schools in the area is unclear.)
T3 (neighborhood edge - suburban residential) zoned areas
Area: ±225 acres (45% of total)
Developed density: 3 units/acre (gross, excluding accessory units)
Housing units: 810 total
675 single family
135 accessory (accompanying 20% of above, treated as apartments)
T4 (neighborhood general - mixed residential) zoned areas
Area:
Developed density:
Housing units:
±175 acres (35% of total)
5 units/acre (gross, excluding accessory units)
910 total
175 single family (20% allocation in zone)
175 cottage (20%)
88 duplex/two-flat (10%)
262 townhouse/rowhouse (30%)
210 apartment/condominium (20%, plus accompanying 20% of single family)
T5 (neighborhood center-mixed commercial/residential) zoned areas
Area; ±50 acres (10% of total)
Developed density: 8 units/acre (gross)
Housing units: 400 total
120 townhouse/rowhouse (30% allocation in zone)
280 apartment/condominium (70%)
10% of land in rural/agricultural transect zones with no traffic generating uses.
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 9
ije>£Siasr.
n
Total 2,120 housing units
850 single family, 175 cottage, 88 dupiex/two-flat,
382 townhouse/rowhouse, 625 apartment/condominium
Other traffic
sources
Elementary school: 300 K-5 students, 35 employees
Office space: 53,000 square feet, 212 employees
Office space: 53,000 square feet, 212 employees
10 Town of Ithaca ] West Hill Traffic Report
r Conceptual Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND): Scenario 2 ! 'n K -*■ »
-» 4 .'j ■'J f -aundfUd- - ,-l _• ^
I MtwUfflbcnRdimn)
J
Conceptual transect zones / densities
Open space / parks (all transect zones)
Neighborhood Edge; detached residential 2-4 du/ac gross (T3)
Neighborhood General; mixed residential 4-6 du/ac gross (T4)
m Neighborhood Center: mixed use 6-10 du/ac gross (T5)
■"N /
Map produced by Tonm of Rhaca
Plamlnc t>«p»rtmeid jt»ff
11 April 20U
0 400 800 1,600 2.400 3,200 4,000
It
A
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 11
Typical housing: Scenario 1 (suburban)
Single family house
f
Cottage
Apartment / condominiumTownhouse / rowhouseDuplex/ two-flat
n
Typical housing: Scenario 2 (TND)
Single family house Cottage
Apartment / condominiumTownhouse / rowhouseDuplex/ two-flat
£
12 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Traffic modeling and TransCAD
Traffic forecasting includes four factors; trip generation (frequency of origins or destinations of trips),
trip distribution (matches traffic origins with destinations), mode choice (the proportion of trips
between an origin and destination that uses a certain mode of transportation), and route assignment
(the path between an origin and destination).
TransCAD is a special geographic information system (GIS) used to store, display and analyze
transportation data, and automate the traffic forecasting process. TransCAD uses data based on existing
and future sources of vehicle trips in geographically defined traffic analysis zones to create a forecast
showing the amount of traffic along a section of road, turning movements, and level of service at
intersections throughout a road network.
The ITCTC has a base TransCAD model of the current road transportation network in the Ithaca area,
including traffic counts, road capacities and attributes, intersections and signals, and traffic origins and
destinations. The base model was modified with new sources of traffic as described below, and a new
north-south route between Trumansburg Road and Elm Street, which would connect the new
neighborhoods, to create a forecast that would show the how the buildout of a specified conceptual
development area in West Hill affect the road network during afternoon rush hour (5:00 PM - 6:00 PM).
3.2 Input data
Source data for creating the forecasts used in this report include the following.
A
Number of households, enumerated by household size and vehicle ownership. The scenarios
above determine the number and type of housing units. A customized dataset from the 2009
National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) by the U.S. Department of Transportation
enumerates residence type, household size, and household vehicle ownership, based on data
gathered in a nationwide survey. This breakdown is important because the number of vehicle trips from
a household can vary depending on its size and how many vehicles it owns. For example, single family
houses generally have larger households with more cars, and thus generate more rush hour trips than
the same number of townhouses or apartments, which generally have smaller households with fewer
cars.
Number of school employees. The number of likely elementary school students determines
the number of school employees; teachers (student-teacher ratio of 11.8:1 in New York) and
staff. About 300 K-to-5 aged students are needed to make a small neighborhood elementary
school viable. (Making Current Trends in School Design Feasible, North Carolina Department
of Public Instruction, November 2000) Student yields for various types of housing are based on
guidelines followed by school facility planners throughout the United States. Different housing types
will have different student yields at different grades, with single family houses having the greatest
student yield. The mixed use TND scenario would have a student yield that makes a neighborhood
elementary school viable, while buildout under Scenario 1 does not.
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 13
Number of retail and office empioyees. The model considers there will be one employee for
every 250'^ of office or retail space. The mixed use TND scenario includes 25*^ of retail space
and 25'^ of office space jper housing unit. This is a more conservative allocation than the
regional average of 25.5'^ of office space^ and national average of 47'^ of retail space^ per
person.
Traditionai Neighborhood Development adjustment. Several studies from transportation
research organizations and institutes^ have found individual uses in a Traditional
Neighborhood Development will generate about 25% less vehicle trips than the same use in a
suburban-style neighborhood. Residents in TNDs take the same number of trips as those in
suburban neighborhoods, but some trips are shifted from cars to other forms of transportation, with
more destinations being in the same neighborhood. The input data for the TND scenario is adjusted to
account for a 25% reduction in vehicle trips.
3.3 Limitations and assumptions
TransCAD forecasts only cover the weekday evening rush hour (5:00 PM - 6:00 PM), the time of the
afternoon where traffic counts in the county are at their highest. They do not reflect the conditions of
the road during other times of the day or during the weekend.
TransCAD forecasts show single occupancy vehicle traffic only. Other modes of transportation (walking,
cycling, public transit) or car pools are not considered or modeled. Mode choice, a critical factor of
traffic forecasting, is not considered. The Traditional Neighborhood Development adjustment described
above is an attempt to address this limitation.
Forecasts assume full residential and commercial occupancy, and a new north-south road between
Trumansburg Road and Elm Street through the new neighborhood area.
Traffic generated by other institutional uses, such as parks, athletic fields, and places of worship, is not
considered, because most trips to and from such uses happen outside of rush hours.
The time for the conceptual development area to become built out is unknown, so effects of a partial
buildout of a scenario for a specific year cannot be reliably forecast.
' Syracuse Office Report 2nd Quarter 2010, Cushman Wakefield
^ 2007 Economic Census, United States Census Bureau
' Asad J. Khattak, John Stone, William E. Letchworth, Traditional Neighborhood Deveiopment Trip Generation Study, Carolina Transportation
Program, North Carolina State University, 2004
Asad J. Khattak, Daniel Rodriguez Travei behavior in neo-traditionai neighborhood developments: A case study in USA, Carolina Transportation
Program, 2005
Brent Lacy, Traditional Development Trip Generation Characteristics, FLITE: Florida Institute of Transportation Engineers, September 2005
Robert Cervero, University of California, Berkeley; G. B. Arrington, PB Placemaking, Vehicie Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing,
2008
Mark Feldman, Reid Ewing, Jerry Walters, Evidence on Mixed use Trip Generation - Local Validation of the National Survey, paper presented to
to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010 '
i
Randall Crane, On Form Versus Function: Will The New Urbanism Reduce Traffic or Increose It?, University of California Transportation Center,
1936
14 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Traffic forecasting is based on reference class forecasting, which is a method of predicting the future,
through looking at similar past situations and their outcomes. Traffic forecasting is far more accurate
than weather forecasting, but future societal, technological, economic and political changes that could
have a major impact on personal mobility, and how people use a transportation network, cannot be
predicted.
As population and priorities change, so can thresholds of tolerance for different levels of service at
intersections. Traffic statistics and forecasts show traffic volume, road capacity and graded levels of
road performance. They cannot predict how that traffic is perceived by drivers and pedestrians, or its
importance or relevance in how one views their quality of life.
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 15
4 ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
For each of the three scenarios described in Section 2 (Development Scenarios), spreadsheets were
made using the methodology described in Section 3 (Methodology) to generate the source data that
would be used In creating the TransCAD traffic forecasts.
4.1 Comparing conventional development and TND
The HE Trip Generation Handbook includes studies of traffic generated by different types of commercial
and residential development. According to ITE data, the number of daily vehicle trips that would be
generated by each of the three different scenarios is as follows.
Scenario
Residences in
study area at
buildout
Weekday
vehicle trips
Weekday vehicle
trips/residence
8.17Scenario 1: conventional suburban development 1,581 12,916
Scenario 2: medium density TND 2,120 14,540^ 5.78*
Scenario 3: high density TND 2,967 19,496^ 5.49*
t Includes traffic generated by both residential and non-residential uses (retail, restaurant, office, school) in a mixed use TND.
t Traffic generated by residences only.
The lower number of vehicle trips per residence in Scenarios 2 and 3 is the result of TNDs having a wider
variety of housing types (detached houses generate the most vehicle trips), with 25% of trips that would
otherwise use a car shifting to other modes—walking, cycling, or public transit.
4.2 Traffic forecasts
Scenario 2 (medium density TND) was chosen to be studied further and forecasted, because It reflected
the most likely development pattern if the goals and recommendations of the proposed comprehensive
plan were implemented.
Some maps and diagrams in this report depict a future trend that incorporates Scenario 2 Into Tompkins
County forecasts for 2030 or 2032 that considers future population and employment trends in the Town
and throughout Tompkins County. Because Scenario 2 is a buildout scenario with no fixed endpoint, and
the Town historically has a moderate growth rate (about 0.7% per year since 1970), the Tompkins
County 2030/2032 forecasts should not be considered a baseline for direct comparison with Scenario
2 forecasts over the same time. Depictions of future trends that Incorporate Tompkins County
2030/2032 forecasts Into Scenario 2 should be considered as having an endpoint beyond 2050.
Scenario 2 includes a new north-south route that would connect the north, central and south areas
described in Section 2-Development Scenarios. The route reflects one of the core principles of TND
design; a high level of interconnectivity. This study cannot forecast when the route will be completed.
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 17
4.3 Traffic volume and capacity
Traffic volume: number of vehicles on a road during a certain time, in this case between the evening
rush hour (5:00 PM - 6:00 PM). Volume over capacity or V/C is the ratio of road volume to Its capacity.
A V/C above 1.0 means traffic on the road is higher than its design capacity.
The following maps produced by ITCTC compare traffic volume and capacity in 2012 between 5:00 and
6:00 PM to projected conditions based on households and employment as predicted in the Tompkins
County Comprehensive Plan, the Route 96 Corridor Study, the Route 13 Corridor Study, and Scenario 2 .
Depictions of future trends that incorporate ITCTC 2030/2032 projections into Scenario 2 should be
considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or later.
The model shows the following road segments in the West Hill and West End/Octopus area that now
have a volume over capacity ratio of 0.8 or higher, or which may increase to 0.8 or higher between 2012
and Scenario 2 buildout. Volume over capacity ratios under 0.8 are considered optimal.
Road Segment
2012
V/C
Buildout
V/C
Meadow St (NY 13/34)Hancock St to 3rd St 0.75 0.91
Meadow St (NY 13/34)3rd St to Dey St 0.80 0.90
Mecklenburg Rd (NY 79)New N/S road to Warren PI 0.49 0.88
Mecklenburg Rd / Hector St (NY 79)Warren PI to Campbell Av 0.49 0.98
Mecklenburg Rd / Hector St (NY 79)Campbell Av to Floral Av 0.43 0.88
N Fulton St Fulton/Meadow split to W Court St 0.71 0.97
N Fulton St W Court St to W Buffalo St 0.66 0.94
W Buffalo St Taughannock 81 to N Fulton St 0.48 0.98
W Buffalo St N Fulton St to N Meadow St 0.05 1.03
W Seneca St W State St to Taughannock Bl 0.71 0.86
W Seneca St Taughannock Bl to N Fulton St 1.03 1.07
W State St Taughannock Bl to N Fulton St (1)0.07 0.87
W State St Taughannock Bl to N Fulton St (2)0.10 0.91
18 Town of Ithaca j West Hill Traffic Report
Traffic volume in 2012: West End. This map shows current traffic volume between 5:00 PM and 6:00
PM on selected roads in the "detangled" Octopus area in the City of Ithaca.
A«BETH WAY
O JQPP^^
NRise SUNRISE R
F PARK RD
rFClLAMAlwNE OR
2012 Current Conditions
Traffic Volumes
In the PM Peak Hour (5-6 PM)
Pfepared by the ithaca-TompKins
County Transportation Council-7/11^2
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 Miles
Scale
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 19
Traffic volume in 2032 (no Scenario 2): West End. This map shows projected traffic volume between
5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads in the on selected roads in the "detangled" Octopus area in the
City of Ithaca., without Scenario 2 (new TND).
dBETH WAY
HOPP^
SUNRISE RDNRISE
ESTYST
fF PARK RD
cn 493
3>329
CECIL A
Legend
Roads in Networti
Traffic Volumes In the 5-6 PM
Peak Hour 2032 Trend Conditions Pccpaiedby Rhaca-TampidM
Coufrty Tranipoftation Couflcil- S'1Sf12
0 0.05 0.1 Miles
Scale
NOTE' 'Blue' number denotes
combined volume (both directions) for 2032 (Trend - no 82)
20 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Traffic volume with Scenario 2 buildout: West End. This map shows projected traffic volume between
5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads in the In the "detangled" Octopus area with Scenario 2 (new
TND) (in blue). This is a buildout scenario that incorporates the ITCTC 2032 projection, and should be
considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or later.
HQPP^
SUNRISE RDNRISE
1699
PF PARrt RD
cecilamaone
Legend
Roads In Networ1<
0 0.05 0.1 Miles
Scale
Traffic Volumes in the 5-6 PM
Peak Hour 2032 Conditions
NOTE: 'Blue'number denotes
combined volume (both directions) for 2032 (Trend • with 82)
Ptaptrad by tha Ittiaea-Tonipklni
Cfluirty TrantportaSen Coinel'ail&riZ
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 21
Traffic volume in 2012 vs 2032 (no Scenario 2); West Hill. This map shows projected traffic volume
between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads In the West Hill area for 2032, without Scenario 2
(new TND) (in blue), comparing them to current volumes (in black).
Allen H.
Treman
State
BUNDY RD
TOWN OF ITHACA ITHAC
. 747 McrwlCMRIIRGRD 732
OpKF .
17 42
I
Legend
Roads in Netwoilt
Traffic Volumes in the 5-6 PM
Peak Hour 2032 Conditions
Compared to 2012 Conditions Preparad by ttia Ittiaca-TompUm
Couniy Tnnspeftaben Cewci-7/11/12
0.25 0.5 Miles
Scale
NOTE: 'Black' number denotes cambined volume
(both directions) for 2012. 'Blue' number denotes
combined volume (txDth directions) for 2032 (Trend - no 82)
22 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Traffic volume In 2012 vs Scenario 2 buildout: West Hill. This map shows projected traffic volume
between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads in the West Hill area with Scenario 2 (new TND) (In
blue), compared to current volumes (in black). This is a buildout scenario that incorporates the ITCTC
2032 projection, and should be considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or later.
Allen H.
Treman
^ State
Par
' Park
BUNDYTO
TOWN OF ITHACA ITHACA.
916 MECKLENByRGR0®8f
i
!■■■
ro<«>o| U70)(0 I CO
17 42
3Atr
Legend
Roads in Network
Traffic Volumes in the 5-6 PM
Peak Hour 2032 Conditions
Compared to 2012 Conditions Preowad by the Ibiica-TanpUm
County Tfupertalton Coundi - 7/11/12
0.^ 0 5 Miles
Scale
NOTE" 'Black* number denotes combined volume
(both directions) for 2012 'Blue' number denotes
combined volume (both directions) for 2032 (Trend - with S2)
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 23
Change in traffic volume between 2012 and Scenario 2 buildout: West Hill. This map shows the change
in projected evening rush hour traffic volume between 2012 and the time when Scenario 2 is built out.
This incorporates the ITCTC 2032 projection, and should be considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or
later.
n
Allen H
Treman
State
Par
0 BurfoYRO
TOWN OF ITHACA ITHACA.,
301 Mrrki FNBURG RD_
•36 HOpK^.^
60 ELM STELM BT EXT
LETRD
Legend
Change in Traffic Volume (2012-2032)
no increase in vehides
1 - 50 more vehicles
51 • 100 more vehicles
101 -ISOmore vehicles
151 - 2O0 more vehicles
201 - 250 more vehicles
251 - 681 more vehicles
Change in Traffic Volume
5-6 PM Peak Hour
2012-2032
Future Trend with Scenario 2
Prepared by the nhaee-Tompkkis
County TrentportatMn Ceundi- 7111/12
0 015 0.3 Miles
NOTE: 'Black' number denotes change in volume
24 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
r Volume over capacity In 2012: West End. This map shows the projected ratio of volume to road
capacity (V/C) between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads in the "detangled" Octopus area in the
City of Ithaca.
SI NRlSClO SUNRISE R
COf^sTY
I
C1
^ 0.05
FPAR
"0.52fe 0.39
i!2PKjp{.
CECILAMW^NE OR
VOOOST
NCfTE;
1.0 denotes roads over capacity
8.5-1.0 denotes roads approaching capacity
spared bytho ittiaea-TcmpMns
County Transpotaticn Ccundt-7/11/12
Current Conditions
Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
In the PM Peak Hour (5-6 PM)0,1 0,05 0
Scale
0,1 Miles
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 25
Volume over capacity in 2012 vs Scenario 2 buildout; West Hill. This map shows the projected V/C
between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads in the West Hill area with Scenario 2 (new TND) (in
blue), compared to the current V/C (in black). This is a buildout scenario that incorporates the ITCTC
2032 projection, and should be considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or later.
Allen H.
Treman
BUNDY RD
0.04
OF ITHACATOWN ITHACA.,
0.69 mecw-Enburgrd
OOKrf 3:
0.06 10.241lmst
iNi-ET^
Legend
Roads h Network
0.25 0.5 Miles
Scale
Volume-Over-Capaclty in the 5-6 PM
Peak Hour 2032 Conditions
Compared to 2012 Conditions
NOTE: 'Black' number denotes highest VOC
in either direction for 2012. 'Blue' number denotes
highest VOC in either direction for 2032 (Trend - with 82)
Pr«pir«d by tti* Ittita-TcrnpUnt
County Trwiiportatton Council • 7/11/12
26 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Volume over capacity in 2012 vs Scenario 2 buildout; West End. This map shows the projected V/C
between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on selected roads in "detangled" Octopus area, with Scenario 2 (new
TND) (in blue), compared to the current V/C {in black). This is a buildout scenario that Incorporates the
ITCTC 2032 projection, and should be considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or later.
/
Legend
Roads In Nehvotk
Scale
Volume-Over-Capacity In the 5-6 PM
Peak Hour 2032 Conditions
Compared to 2012 Conditions
NOTE: 'Black" number denotes highest VOC
In either direction for 2012. 'Blue' number denotes
highest VOC in either direction for 2032 (Trend - with 52)
Pr«(M/*d by lh« nhaca-Tempkbii
County Tr««poitatien Ceunel • 11/6/12
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 27
4.4 Level of service at selected intersections
Level of service (LOS) is a designation that describes a range of operating conditions on a part of a road
or at an intersection during a certain time, in this case during the evening rush hour (5:00 PM-6:00 PM).
Speed, travel time, traffic density, and traffic delay are considered in measuring LOS. The letter
designations include:
n
Average delay at
intersections
w/stop signs
Free flow. Traffic flows at or above the posted
A speed limit. All motorists have complete mobility £10 seconds
between lanes. (Late night, rural roads)
Reasonable free flow. LOS A speeds are
B maintained. Maneuverability within the traffic
stream is slightly restricted.
Stable flow. Ability to maneuver through lanes is
restricted and lane changes require more driver
^ awareness. Roads remain safely below but
efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is
maintained. (Considered an acceptable LOS for
some urban/suburban and most rural highways.)
Approaching unstable flow. Speeds slightly
decrease as traffic volume slightly Increases.
Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream Is
much more limited. Driver comfort levels
decrease. (Considered an acceptable LOS for
urban/suburban streets during peak hours.)
Unstable flow. Flow becomes irregular and speed
varies rapidly because there are virtually no usable
^ gaps to maneuver in the traffic stream. Driver
comfort levels become poor. (Common standard
in larger urban areas, where some roadway
congestion is inevitable.)
Forced flow. Flow is forced. Every vehicle moves
F in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with >50 seconds
frequent slowing required.
Delay per Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board
10.1 -15 second
15.1 - 25 second
25.1-35 secon
35.1 - 50 secon
Average delay at
intersections
w/slgnals
£10 seconds
s 10.1 - 20 seconds
s 20.1 - 35 seconds
ds 35.1-55seonds
ds 55.1 - 80 seconds
>90 seconds
LOS designations are not the equivalent of school letter grades, where "C" and "D" identify mediocre
performance. Roads in urban and suburban areas typically do not function at LOS A, which implies
nearly empty roads. In urban and suburban areas, transportation engineers and planners consider LOS
D to be acceptable. LOS F implies a road where traffic may still be flowing, and other parts of the road
may still be functioning at higher levels, but waiting time and delays may be unacceptable.
The following maps produced by ITCTC compare traffic conditions in 2012 between 5:00 and 6:00 PM
(top) to projected conditions based on households and employment as predicted in the Tompkins
28 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
County Comprehensive Plan, the Route 96 Corridor Study, the Route 13 Corridor Study, and Scenario 2.
(bottom). Depictions of future trends that incorporate ITCTC 2030/2032 projections into Scenario 2
should be considered as having an endpoint of 2050 or later.
Diagrams Include these terms:
LOS level of service (see previous page)
EB eastbound traffic
NB northbound traffic
SB southbound traffic
WB westbound traffic
L left turn
R right turn
RL right and left turn
T straight through the intersection
TR through and right turn
TL through and left turn
TRL through, and both right and left turns
Of the six cross-street (four way) intersections In the model, one is projected to have a general
performance level that drops to F at buildout; Buffalo Street at Taughannock Boulevard, currently LOS B.
The LOS at the intersection of Buffalo Street and Fulton Street is forecast to fall from C to E.
The forecast shows the following intersections now have turning movements that are at LOS E or F; or
which may experience a change in LOS from A, B, C, or D, to E or F, between 2012 and buildout.
Intersection
Buffalo at Fulton
Buffalo at Fulton
Buffalo at Taughannock (NY 89)
Buffalo at Taughannock (NY 89)
Mecklenburg (NY 79) at Hopkins
Mecklenburg (NY 79) at Campbell
Seneca at Fulton
State at Fulton
Trumansburg (NY 96) at CMC
Traffic direction and turn
Fulton southbound left
Buffalo westbound through/left
Taughannock southbound left
Buffalo westbound through/right/left
Hopkins eastbound right/left
Campbell right/left
Fulton southbound through
State westbound through
Trumansburg southbound through/left
2012 Buildout
LOS LOS
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 29
Rt 79 @ Campbell Ave
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition ("above)
Route 79EBCT)=LOSB
Route 79 WB (T) = LOSC
Campbell Ave SB (RL) = LOS C
•Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition (above')
Route 79 EB (T)=LOSB
Route 79WB(T) = LOSC
Campbell Ave SB (RL) = LOS F
30 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Rt 96 @ Hopkins PI
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 96 NB (T) = LOS A
Route 96 SB (TR) = LOS A
Hopkins Pi EB (RL) = LOS C
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 96 NB (T) = LOS A
Route 96 SB (TR) = LOS A
Hopkins Pi EB (RL) = LOS F
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 31
Floral Ave @ Coy Glen Rd
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 13A NB (TL) = LOS A
Route 13A SB (T) = LOS A
Coy Glen Rd EB (R) = LOS A
Floral Ave @ Coy Glen Rd
'Future Scenario 2": 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 13A NB (TL) = LOS A
Route 13A SB (T) = LOS A
Coy Glen Rd EB (R) = LOS A
Os
32 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
n
Rt 79 ® Floral Ave
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 79 NB (TR) = LOS A
Route 79 NB (L) = LOS A
Route 79 SB (TR) = LOS A
Horal Ave WB = LOS B
Rt 79 @ Floral Ave
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 79 NB (TR) = LOS A
Route 79 NB (L) = LOS B
Route 79 SB (TR) = LOS A
Floral Ave WB = LOS B
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 33
Floral Ave Elm St
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Floral Ave NB (T) = LOS B
Floral Ave SB (TR) = LOS B
Elm St EB (L) = LOS B
Floral Ave @ Elm St
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Floral Ave NB (TL) = LOS B
Horal Ave SB (TR) = LOS B
Elm St EB (L) = LOS B
34 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Rt79Ca} West Haven Rd
18^761
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 79 E13 (T) = LOS D
Route 79 WB (T) = LOS A
West Haven Rd NB (L) = LOS B
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Route 79 LB (T) - LOS B
Route 79 WB (T) = LOS A
West Haven Rd NB (L) = LOS C
Town of Ithaca 1 West Hill Traffic Report 35
Rt 96 @ liajts Rd
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Rt 96 NB ( T) - LOS C
Rt96 NB (L)=LOS A
Rt 96 SB ( IR) = LOS A
Hayts Rd (R) = LOS A
Rt 96 @ Hayts Rd
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Rt 96KB(T)=LOSC
Rt 96 NB (L) = LOS A
Rt 96 SB (IR) = LOS A
Havts Rd (R) = LOS A
36 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Rt 96 @ Hospital P^ntrance
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection; LOS C
Rt 96 KB (T) = LOS C
Rt 96 MB (R) = LOS C
Rt 96 SB (TL) = LOSF
Dates Dr (R + L) = LOS B
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS C
Rt 96 NB (T) = LOS C
Rt 96 NB (R) = LOS C
Rt 96 SB (TL)=LOSF
Dates Dr (R + L) = LOS B
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 37
RufTiilo St (§; Tauglmiuiock Blvd
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS B
Taughannock Blvd MB (TR) - LOS C
Taughannock Blvd KB (L) ~ LOS D
Taughannock Blvd SB (TR) = LOS C
Taughannock Blvd SB (L) = LOS C
Buffalo St EB (TRL) - LOS B
Buffalo St WB (TRL) = LOS B
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS F
Taughannock Blvd MB (TR) •' LOS D
Taughannock Blvd MB (L) = LOS D
Taughannock Blvd SB (TR) ~ LOS B
Taugliannock Blvd SB (L) = LOS F
Buffalo St EB (TRL) = LOS B
Buffalo St WB ( ITIL) = LOS F
38 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Seneca St @ Taughannock Blvd
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: I.OS B
Taughannock Blvd NB (TR) - LOS D
Taughannock Blvd NB (L) = LOS D
Taughannock Blvd SB (TR) = LOS C
Taughannock Blvd SB (T.) = LOS C
Seneca St \VB (TRL) = LOS A
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS B
Taughannock Blvd NB ('I"R) = LOS D
Taughannock Blvd NB (L) = LOS D
Taughannock Blvd SB (TR) - LOS C
Taughannock Blvd SB (L) = LOS C
Seneca St (TRL) = LOS A
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 39
Buffalo St @ Fulton St
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection; LOS C
Fulton St SB (TR) =LOSC
Fulton St SB (L) = LOS C
BufTalo St EB (TR) = LOS B
BufTalo St WB (TL) = LOS B
Z72J11662J^
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection; LOS E
Fulton St SB (TR) = LOS C
Fulton St SB (L) = LOS F
Buffalo St EB (TR) = LOS C
Buffalo St WB (TL) = LOS F
40 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Scncca St Fulton St
41502
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS B
Fulton St SB (T) =LOSB
Fulton St SB (R) = LOS A
Seneca St WB (TL) = LOS C
'Future Scenario 2": 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS D
Fulton St SB (T) = LOS E
Fulton St SB CR) = LOS A
Seneca St WB (TL) = LOS C
Town of Ithaca | West HillTraffic Report 41
n
Stale St Fulton St
*6^502
2012: 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection; LOS B
Fulton St SB (TR) =LOSB
Fulton St SB (L) = LOS A
State StEB(TR) = LOSC
State St WB (TL) = LOS C
'Future Scenario 2': 5-6 PM Peak Condition
Intersection: LOS D
Fulton St SB (TR) = LOS C
Fulton St SB (L) = LOS A
State St EB (TR)=LOSC
State StWB(T) = LOSF
State St WB (L) = LOS C
42 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
5 FINDINGS
Increased rush hour traffic and congestion will be an unavoidable Impact of
development on West Hill and throughout the town
Under the Scenario 2 buildout forecast, during the evening rush hour, 11 of 55 road siegments In the
West Hill and West End/Octopus area are expected to have a volume over capacity ratio (V/C) above
0.8, and two will have a V/C above 1.0.
Eight road segments, three along Mecklenburg Road/Hector Street, and five in the Fulton
Street/Octopus area, will see a V/C increase from a current level below 0.7 to a buildout level of above
0.8.
Among 13 major intersections in the West Hill and Cayuga Inlet/lsland/Rhine area, during the evening
rush hour, one four-way intersection will see its general level of service drop to F, and one drop to E,
below a generally acceptable LOS of C or D for an urban or suburban intersection.
Of 50 possible movement choices (through the intersection or turn) at all intersections in the model,
seven are forecast to have a LOS that drops to F, and one to E. One is already at LOS F. Forty-one
movement choices are forecast to function at LOS D or better.
Traditional Neighborhood Development is anticipated to generate less traffic per
household than conventional suburban development.
Because single family houses are more likely to be occupied by larger households with children, they
generate more traffic - about 10 vehicle trips a day on average - than other types of housing. A TND
with a variety of housing types, meeting the needs of a wider range of household types, will typically
generate fewer vehicle trips per residence than a subdivision dominated by single family houses, or a
mix of houses and apartments in a suburban setting. In a TND, some trips that would otherwise be
made in a car would instead be made by walking, biking or riding public transit instead, because of its
more compact and walkable nature. Some mitigating features, such as commercial uses within walking
distance, may not be viable when development begins, but may become more plentiful as more
residential units are built, and the critical mass needed to support nearby commercial uses increases.
Based on the forecast for buildout of the conceptual development area, Mecklenburg
Road/Hector Street (NY 79) will experience the greatest impact from development in
the West Hill area.
In the recent past, most of the concern about traffic in the West Hill area has been focused on
Trumansburg Road (NY 96) in the Town, and the "detangled" Octopus area in the City. However, the
buildout forecast shows that Mecklenburg Road/Hector Street (NY 79) will experience the greatest
numerical and percentage increase in rush hour traffic.
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 43
Traffic in
2012
(5:00-6:00
PM)
Traffic at
bulldout
(5:00-6:00
PM)
A count A percent
615 916 +301 +48.9%
622 884 +262 +42.1%
622 1302 +680 +109.3%
626 1293 +667 +106.5%
716 1292 +576 +80.4%
1203 1264 +61 +5.1%
1247 1265 +18 +1.4%
1161 1346 +185 +15.9%
79/Mecklenburg: Rachel Carson to West Haven
79/Mecklenburg: West Haven to new n/s road
79/Meck)enburg: new n/s road to Warren
79/Hector: Warren to 13A/Campbell
79/Hector: Campbell to 13A/Floral
96/Trumansburg: CMC to Bundy
96/Trumansburg: Bundy to Campbell
96/Cliff: Campbell to Taughannock
Mecklenburg Road crosses through the center of the conceptual development/new neighborhood area.
The conceptual north/south road feeds Into Mecklenburg Road, which provides a more direct route
from the new neighborhood to central Ithaca than other streets in the West Hill area.
The rate of growth in traffic on streets in the West Hill area will be gradual.
The population growth rate of the Town has been moderate; about 0.7% per year or 6.75% per decade
from 1970 to the present. In 2010, the population of the Town (including Cayuga Heights) was 19,930.
Projections in the draft Comprehensive Plan estimate there will be about 22,600 residents in 2030.
The Town's population is spread among its three "hills", with West Hill having the smallest share. In
2000, 2,373 residents 13% of the town's population lived in the West Hill area. In 2010, West Hill was
home to 2,888 residents, or 14% of the town's population. The population of West Hill increased 22%
between 2000 and 2010, compared to 6.5% of the town as a whole. Population growth is accompanied
by decreasing household sizes from demographic shifts such as delayed marriage and smaller family
size, making the Increase in number of households outstrip the population growth rate.
Development in the form of a TND could happen at a faster rate than conventional suburban
development, because it would include a wider range of housing types, appealing to a broader range of
potential residents, with broader appeal. The time at which the West Hill target area develops depends
on many factors, among them availability of property for development, the local and national economy,
continued demographic changes, and the rate of development outside of the Town.
In Northeast Ithaca and the East Hill area, there are still some vacant parcels suitable for development
scattered among otherwise built-out subdivisions, 60 years after residential development in the area
first began. Considering historic and current growth patterns and trends, development of the West Hill
new neighborhood area would likely happen over several decades.
44 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
6 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Whether development takes place on West Hill or not, traffic will increase on roads in
the area.
The demand for housing in the region won't change if development doesn't take place in the West Hill
area, but instead be met elsewhere, some of it in more remote towns and villages where land is less
expensive, zoning regulations are fewer, and a lack of infrastructure makes more compact development
impossible. The rate of sprawl in the region would likely continue unabated, with low density, large lot
subdivisions and frontage development (residential strips along rural and exurban roads with no tandem
development to the rear) in outlying towns and counties. Traffic from commuters in outlying areas
would still funnel through the Town and the West Hill area.
The Town should begin planning for traffic mitigation.
In previous decades, solutions to traffic issues and addition of capacity to roads usually involved brute-
force engineering solutions; additional travel lanes, dedicated turning lanes, bypasses, overpasses, and
upgrading roads to expressways. Such solutions, recommended for the West Hill area in previous plans
and studies, come at a very high financial, social and environmental cost.
In recent years, transportation engineering and planning has taken a more holistic approach, with new
methods to increase road capacity and decrease congestion in a less intrusive manner. Roundabouts,
access management (limiting curb cuts and traffic conflict points, intelligent signaling, and signage.
Complete Streets (streets designed and operated to enable access and travel for all users and modes),
and staggered work hours are a few of a growing number of approaches to improve mobility without
resorting to more destructive measures. More new technologies and methods to address traffic will
likely emerge in the coming years.
A holistic approach to solving traffic problems includes looking beyond the transportation network, at
the sources and generators of traffic. The Town of Ithaca's draft Comprehensive Plan recommends a
form of development that decreases dependence on cars, and generates less traffic per resident, with
shorter vehicle trips, than conventional suburban development.
While it may be many years or decades before the effects of development are felt on the area's road
network, improvements to mitigate those effects should be performed sooner rather than later. If
mitigation is done at a much later time, after some amount of development takes place, it would cause
more disruption to more drivers than if it was performed earlier. A higher level of traffic would also
complicate road improvements, making them most costly and time-consuming.
Traffic in the West Hill area affects more than just Town residents.
In this report, roads and intersections in both the Town and City of Ithaca were studied. While traffic
generated by development in the West Hill affects roads in the City, increased development in the
Cayuga Inlet/Island area in the City will also impact motorists that regularly have to make their way
through the Fulton/Meadow/Taughannock/Buffalo/State/Green "detangled Octopus" complex.
Exurban development in Ulysses, Trumansburg, and points beyond will add traffic to roads in both the
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 45
City and Town. Also, Cayuga Medical Center attracts workers, patients and visitors from throughout the
region.
Whether improvements take place in the City or Town, planning should involve both municipal
governments, Tompkins County, and other local government agencies that may be indirect
stakeholders.
Traffic Is one of many concerns the West Hill area and the town faces
The Town of Ithaca has changed much in the last several decades. Traffic is one of many issues facing
the West Hill area, and the Town as a whole. Transportation and ease of mobility is also just one of the
many attributes considered in how people view quality of life. Planning for the area should consider the
traffic issues of the West Hill area in the broader context of other planning issues facing the Town, and
in concert with housing goals and other recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
46 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
7 APPENDIX
Development scenario spreadsheets
Scenario 1 - conventional zoning with 15% MR rezoning
Traffic analysis zones • acres
200-
199-north central 201-south Total
153.3 205.8 140.42 499.52
Zoning district • percent a99-north
200-
central 201-south Average
MDR - medium density residential 85%85%85%
MR - multiple residential 15%15%15%
13 - neighborhood edge/suburban
14 - neighborhood general
15 - neighborhood center
Open space / T1 /12*0%0%0%0%
* Does not include smaller neighborhood
parks, community gardens, playgrounds,
plazas and the like, which would be
Included In the gross acreage of
SmartCode/TND transect zones. Does not
include undeveloped land for parks owned
by the Town of Ithaca. Actual total
park/rec/open space percentage will be
larger.
200-
Zoning district - acres (calculated)199-north central 201-south Total
MDR - medium density residential 130.3 174.9 119.4 424.6
MR - multiple residential 23.0 30.9 21.1 74.9
13 - neighborhood edge/suburban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
T4 - neighborhood general 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15 - neighborhood center 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Density - units/acre gross (exc accessory)199-north
200-
central 201-south Average
MDR - medium density residential 2 2 2
MR - multiple residential 7.5 7.5 7.5
T3 - neighborhood edge/suburban
T4 - neighborhood general
T5 - neighborhood center
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 47
Base housing units (calculated, exc
accessory)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
MDR - medium density residential 261 350 239 850
MR - multiple residential 172 232 158 562
T3 - neighborhood edge/suburban 0 0 0 0
T4 - neighborhood general 0 0 0 0
T5 - neighborhood center 0 0 0 0
Total 433 582 397 1412 ^
* May have rounding discrepancies. Does
not include accessory units added below.
Residence types and distribution MDR MR T3 T4 T5
Detached - single household 100%100%20%
Detached - single household cottage 10%20%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 10%10%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 20%30%30%
Attached - apartment/condominium 60%20%70%
Accessory n single household^ % with*20%
Total
* all zones, will be considered
apartment/condominium
100%100%100%100%100%
Housing units (calculated, Inc accessory)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total %
Detached - single household 261 350 239 850 53.8%
Detached - single household cottage 17 23 16 56 3.5%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 17 23 16 56 3.5%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 34 46 32 112 7.1%
Attached - apartment/condominium 155 209 143 507 32.1%
Total 484 651 446 1581
* May have rounding discrepancies.
Transcad LU code
Household members
Vehicle ownership
LUl
1
0
LU2
1
1
LU3
1
2
LU4
1
3+
LU5
2
0
LU6
2
1
Detached - single household 1.5%14.0%3.5%1.1%0.7%5.9%
Detached - single household cottage 2.5%16.6%3.6%0.9%1.3%7.6%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 3.4%19.1%3.6%0.6%1.8%9.3%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 3.9%20.2%3.9%1.4%1.3%10.0%
Attached - apartment/condominium 4.4%21.2%4.2%2.2%0.8%10.6%
Transcad LU code
Household members
Vehicle ownership
LU7
2
2
LU8
2
3+
LU9
3+
0
LUlO
3+
1
LUll
3+
2
LU12
3+
3+
Detached - single household 20.1%9.9%0.7%4.3%19.1%19.1%
Detached - single household cottage 18.4%6.9%1.6%8.0%18.2%14.8%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 16.7%3.8%2.4%11.7%17.3%10.5%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 14.9%5.6%1.9%10.3%15.5%11.6%
Attached - apartment/condominium 13.1%7.3%1.4%8.8%13.6%12.6%
48 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
LU codes per analysis zone (calculated)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
LUl 13 18 12 43
LU2 82 111 76 269
LU3 18 24 17 59
LU4 7 9 6 22
LU5 4 5 4 13
LU6 38 51 35 124
LU7 84 113 77 274
LU8 41 55 38 134
LU9 5 7 5 17
LUlO 32 43 29 104
LUll 82 111 76 269
LU12 78 104 71 253
Total 484 651 446 1581
* May have rounding discrepancies.
LU codes per analysis zone (TND
adjustment)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
LUl 10 14 9 32
LU2 62 83 57 202
LU3 14 18 13 44
LU4 5 7 5 17
LU5 3 4 3 10
LU6 29 38 26 93
LU7 63 85 58 206
LU8 31 41 29 101
Lug 4 5 4 13
LUlO 24 32 22 78
LUll 62 83 57 202
LU12 59 78 53 190
. Total '---..'-.7 366 488 336 im
Retail/office space and employees 199»north
200-
central 201-south Total
Retail space per residence (sq ft GFA)0 0 0 0
Retail space total (sq ft GFA)0 0 0 0
Office space per residence (sq ft GFA)0 0 0 0
Non-retail space total (sq ft GFA)0 0 0 0
Retail employee area (sq ft each)0 0 0 0
L15 retail employees total
L15 (TND adiustment)
Office employe area (sq ft GFA each)0 0 0 0
L18 non-retail employees total
L18 (TND adjustment)
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 49
r>
K>5 pupil yield Yield
Detached - single household 0.23
Detached - single household cottage 0.15
Attached - duplex/two-flat 0.1
Attached -townhouse/rowhouse 0.1
Attached - apartment/condominium 0.05
K-5 students (calculated)
Detached - single household 196
Detached - single household cottage 8
Attached - duplex/two-flat 6
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 11
Attached - apartment/condominium 25
Total 246
* Threshold for elementary school - ~300
students
School employees
Student-teacher ratio (11.8:1 / NYS)11.8
Teachers 21
Staff 10
LU17 educational total 31 ^
Vehicle trips per day (ITE and estimate)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
VTDfor
use
Detached - single household 2498 3350 2287 8135 9.57
Detached - single household cottage 119 161 112 392 7.00
Attached - duplex/two-flat 119 161 112 392 7.00
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 199 270 188 657 5.86
Attached - apartment/condominium 1021 1377 942 3340 6.59
Retail 0 0 0 0 44.32
Office 0 0 0 0 3.32
School n/a n/a n/a 0 0.00
Total 3956 5319 3641 12916
Total (TND adjustment)2967 9989 2731 9687
Trips/residence 8.17
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
1000'2
GFA
Employee
Employee
Trips/residenca (TNP adjustment)6.13
50 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Scenario 2 - medium density TND
Traffic analysis zones - acres 199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
153.3 205.8 140.42 499.52
Zoning district - percent 199-north
200-
central 201-south Average
MDR - medium density residential
MR - multiple residential
T3 - neighborhood edge/suburban 45%45%45%
T4 - neighborhood general 35%35%35%
T5 - neighborhood center 10%10%10%
T1/T2 - natural/rural*10%10%10%10%
* Does not include designated open space,
neighborhood parks, community gardens,
playgrounds, plazas and the like, which
would be included in the gross acreage of
SmartCode/TND transect zones. Does not
include undeveloped land for parks owned
by the Town of Ithaca. Actual total
park/rec/open space percentage will be
larger; 1Q% to 20% of all land.
200-
Zoning district - acres (calculated)199-north central 201-south Total
MDR - medium density residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
MR - multiple residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13 - neighborhood edge/suburban 69.0 92.6 63.2 224.8
T4 - neighborhood general 53.7 72.0 49.1 174.8
15 - neighborhood center 15.3 20.6 14.0 50.0
Density - units/acre gross (exc accessory)199-north
200-
central 201-south Average
MDR - medium density residential
MR - multiple residential
13 - neighborhood edge/suburban 3 3 3
T4 - neighborhood general 5 5 5
15 - neighborhood center 8 8 8
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 51
Base housing units (calculated, exc
accessorv)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
•|.. i • J
MDR - medium density residential 0 0 0 0
MR - multiple residential 0 0 0 0 ' • •
T3 - neighborhood edge/suburban 207 278 190 675
T4 - neighborhood general 268 360 246 874
T5 - neighborhood center 123 165 112 400
Total 598 803 548 1949 1
* May have rounding discrepancies. Does
not include accessory units added below.
Residence types and distribution MDR MR T3 T4 T5
Detached - single household 100%20%
Detached - single household cottage 20%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 10%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 30%30%
Attached - apartment/condominium 20%70%
Accessory - single household, % with *20%
Total
* all zones, will be considered
apartment/condominium
0%0%100%100%100%
Housing units (calculated, inc accessory)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total %
Detached - single household 261 350 239 850 40.1%
Detached - single household cottage 54 72 49 175 8.3%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 27 36 25 88 4.2%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 117 158 107 382 18.0%
Attached - apartment/condominium 192 258 175 625 29.5%
Total 651 874 595 2120
* May have rounding discrepancies.
Transcad LU code
Household members
Vehicle ownership
LUl
1
0
LU2
1
1
LU3
1
2
LU4
1
3+
LU5
2
0
LU6
2
1
Detached - single household 1.5%14.0%3.5%1.1%0.7%5.9%
Detached - single household cottage 2.5%16.6%3.6%0.9%1.3%7.6%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 3.4%19.1%3.6%0.6%1.8%9.3%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 3.9%20.2%3.9%1.4%1.3%10,0%
Attached - apartment/condominium 4.4%21.2%4.2%2.2%0.8%10.6%
Transcad LU code
Household members
Vehicle ownership
LU7
2
2
LU8
2
3-t-
LU9
3+
0
LUlO
3+
1
LUll
3+
2
LU12
3+
3+
Detached - single household 20.1%9.9%0.7%4.3%19.1%19.1%
Detached - single household cottage 18.4%6.9%1.6%8.0%18.2%14.8%
Attached - duplex/two-flat 16.7%3.8%2.4%11.7%17.3%10.5%
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 14.9%5.6%1.9%10.3%15.5%11.6%
Attached - apartment/condominium 13.1%7.3%1.4%8.8%13.6%12.6%
52 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
LU codes per analysis zone (calculated)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
LUl 19 26 18 63
LU2 115 154 105 374
LU3 25 33 23 81
LU4 9 13 9 31
LU5 6 8 6 20
LU6 54 73 49 176
LU7 109 147 100 356
LU8 51 69 47 167
LU9 8 11 8 27
LUiO 48 64 44 156
LUll 109 146 99 354
LUX2 98 132 90 320
■xem 551 876 m
* May have rounding d;5i .r.-ij incies
LU codes per analysis zone (TND
adjustment)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
LUl 14 20 14 47
LU2 86 116 79 281
LU3 19 25 17 61
LU4 7 10 7 23
LU5 S 6 5 15
LU6 41 55 37 132
LU7 82 110 75 267
LU8 38 52 35 125
LU9 6 8 6 20
LUIO 36 48 33 117
LUll 82 110 74 266
LU12 74 99 68 240
Total 1 .. . .w 490 659 450 1594
Retail/office space and employees 199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
Retail space per residence (sq ft GFA)25 25 25 25
Retail space total (sq ft GFA)16275 21850 14875 53000
Office space per residence (sq ft GFA)25 25 25 25
Non-retail space total (sq ft GFA)16275 21850 14875 53000
Retail employee area (sq ft each)250 250 250 250
1-' fC:l ;''VcC-'7 tvLfit 65 3i CO 212
L15 (TND adjustment)49 65 45 159
Office employe area (sq ft GFA each)250 250 250 250
L '.d .. i.ijUli G5 t/60 212
L18 (TND adjustment)49 65 45 159
Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report 53
K-5 pupil yield Yield
Detached - single household 0.23
Detached - single household cottage 0.15
Attached - duplex/two-flat 0.1
Attached -townhouse/rowhouse 0.1
Attached - apartment/condominium 0.05
K-5 students (calculated)
Detached - single household 196
Detached - single household cottage 26
Attached - duplex/two-flat 9
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 38
Attached - apartment/condominium 31
Total 300
• Threshold for elementary school - ~300
students
School employees
Student-teacher ratio (11.8:1 / NYS)11.8
Teachers 25
Staff 10
LU17 educational total 35
Vehicle trips per day (ITE and estimate)199-north
200-
central 201-south Total
VTD for
use
Detached - single household 2498 3350 22&7 8135 9.57
Detached - single household cottage 378 504 343 1225 7.00
Attached - duplex/two-flat 189 252 175 616 7.00
Attached - townhouse/rowhouse 686 926 627 2239 5.86
Attached - apartment/condominium 1265 1700 1153 4118 6.59
Retail 721 968 659 2349 44.32
Office 216 289 199 704 3.32
School n/a n/a n/a 0 0.00
Total 5953 7989 5443 19386
Total (TND adjustment)4465 5992 4082 14540
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
1000'2
GFA
Employee
Employee
Trips/residence
Trips/residence (TND adjustment)
7.70
5.78
54 Town of Ithaca | West Hill Traffic Report
Town of Ithaca
Department of Code Enforcement
Monthly Activity Report for December 2012
Category Description Entries
Building Permit Inspection In the Field inspection tied to a building permit 139
Building Permit Consuitation In-office or in-fieid consuitation w/project managers or
contractors regarding buiiding projects
24
Building Permit Review Review and processing of buiiding permits 103
Compiaint New Investigation New complaint investigation 3
Complaint Foliow-Up Processing of complaints 8
Continuing Education Training, seminars, CEU's 4
Fire Incident Investigation Fire Incident Investigation following dispatched cali 0
Fire Safety/Operating Permit
Inspection
Fire Safety inspection for and/or operating permit.
Processing of notes and issuance of permit.21
Fire Safety/Operating Permit
Re-inspection
Processing of Fire Safety re-inspection notes and
issuing operating permit/foiiow-up.3
Legal Processing Order to Remedy, issuing Appearance
Tickets, and actual court appearances 4
Meeting Attendance at Departmental meetings. Board
meetings, Committee meetings & Staff meetings, etc.26
Miscellaneous Counter service, phone calls not associated with an
active file.54
Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Pian Review Field Inspection/Report
0
Zoning Board of Appeals Review and research of ZBA appiications 4
Addresses (911)Ali related work for address changes 3
Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report
12/1/12-12/31/12
Building Permits issued
BP#Date Value Description fee category
9477 12/3/2012 $2,000,000.00 New educational building and
connections to existing
$4,500.00 Renovations &
Additions to
Commercial
9516 12/3/2012 $150,000.00 Construct single family residence with
2 bdrms and 2 rooms designated as
study rooms.
$600.00 New 1 & 2 Family
Homes
9497 12/4/2012 $250,000.00 Construct a 2 story house on a full
basement
$900.00 New 1 & 2 Family
Homes
9500 12/5/2012 $12,672.87 Renovate kitchen $80.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9498 12/6/2012 $14,187.00 Strip roof to deck and reshingle $80.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9502 12/6/2012 $95,000.00 Interior renovations to existing two
family house
$300.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9517 12/7/2012 $150,000.00 Construct single family residence
without basement; 2 bdrms; 2 studies
and 78 SF Porch/storage area.
$600.00 New 1 & 2 Family
Homes
9504 12/10/2012 $541,200.00 Fleet Services Consolidation Project in
former Mail services building
$2,000.00 Renovations &
Additions to
Commercial
9510 12/10/2012 $9,400.00 Reroof main part of house & garage to
be metal Everiast brand roofing. Slight
slope on back side of house to be GAF
Liberty Self-
$65.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9518 12/10/2012 $150,000.00 Construct new single family residence
with 2 bdrms; 2 studies; 78 sf
porch/storage area attached.
$600.00 New 1 & 2 Family
Homes
9422 12/12/2012 $191,953.00 Strip roof to steel deck, re-insulate and
reroof.
$900.00 Renovations &
Additions to
Commercial
Friday, January 04, 2013 Page 1
Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report
12/1/12-12/31/12
9514 12/13/2012 $6,552.00 Strip roof to deck and reshingle
cemetery vault building.
$65.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9513 12/13/2012 $6,500.00 Install metal roof panel cover over
existing single layer of asphalt roofing
$65.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9512 12/14/2012 $7,500.00 Construct a detached garage/wood
storage building of pole type
construction - no electric or plumbing
is planned for it at this
$65.00 Miscellaneous
9505 12/18/2012 $230,000.00 Construct a new 2 story single family
house on a concrete foundation with
an attached 3 car garage.
$900.00 New 1 & 2 Family
Homes
9522 12/18/2012 $500.00 Demolish garage and attached shed $50.00 Miscellaneous
9519 12/20/2012 $16,444.00 Strip roof to deck & reshingle w/ridge
vent (existing eve vents)
$80.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9520 12/20/2012 $25,000.00 Remodel 2 existing bedrooms into 1
master suite, incorporating existing
bathroom with new fixtures
$150.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9525 12/20/2012 $8,500.00 Tear off roof cover on existing structure
and replace with like material
$65.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9528 12/21/2012 $5,590.00 Construct new stairway and landing on
existing exterior deck
$65.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9511 12/21/2012 $19,500.00 Remodel basement from utility space
to living space w/new partition walls,
ceiling surface, electric and emergency
escape window
$80.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
9523 12/27/2012 $12,700.00 Add R30 blown-in insulation in attic to
existing insulation. Remove & replace
3 exterior doors and storm doors.
$80.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
Friday, January 04, 2013 Page 2
Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report
12/1/12-12/31/12
9524 12/27/2012 $13,800,000.00 Exterior improvements. New HVAC
System, installation of fire sprinkler
system, demolish and add floor at pool
area etc.
510,000.00 Renovations &
Additions to
Commercial
9526 12/31/2012 $9,200.00 Tear off vinyl siding: install 1/2 foram
board insulation; install new vinyl
exterior covering
$65.00 Renovations and
Addition to 1 & 2
Family Homes
Totals 1 $17,712,398.87 |$22,355.00 1
Certificates of Occupancy Issued
BP#Address Description CO Temp
9065 120 Homestead Cir Replace rear deck, add screened porch,
remodel kitchen
12/7/2012 □
8725 651 Sheffield Rd Install inground pool 12/7/2012 □
8712 653 Coddington Rd Convert detached garage into habitable
space with fire separation from existing
two car garage.
12/7/2012 □
9429 4 Amber Ln Replace siding and roof cover on south
side of structure.
12/11/2012 □
9435 152 RidgecrestRd Remodel existing bathroom & add 14 sf
to size of bathroom by removing closet
area from existing bedroom
12/12/2012 □
9437 950 Danby Rd Alteration of existing office space and
extend "B" occupancy into "F-1" section
of building
12/17/2012 □
9398 1154 Danby Rd Construct storage area along north wall
of yellow bam building - upper level
12/17/2012 □
9375 200 Conifer Or Construct 288 square foot prefabricated
shed on site
12/19/2012 □
Friday, January 04, 2013 Page 3
Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Monthly Report
12/1/12-12/31/12
9455 115 Walnut St Build single car detached garage 12/20/2012 □
9446 115 Walnut St Erect a 1 family, 2 story modular house
on masonry foundation with crawl space
12/20/2012 □
9418 106 Seven Mile Dr Addition to Town Annex Building - add
new ceiling lighting and receptacles from
existing panel to new addition
12/21/2012 □
9417 106 Seven Mile Dr Addition to Town of Ithaca Pole Barn 12/21/2012 □
9493 1215 Mecklenburg Rd Add 2nd layer of roof cover on existing
garage roof
12/26/2012 □
9253 1095 Taughannock Blvd Construct 288 Square foot addition onto
existing structure
12/26/2012 □
Complaints Received
Date Address Compiaint Type Disposition
12/6/2012 1028 Ellis Hollow Dr property maintenance
12/12/2012 2 Candlewyck Dr building code
Existing Buiiding CO
Friday, January 04,2013 Page 4
Town of Ithaca Codes Department
Building Permit Applications Received December 2012
DateRec'd CEO BP it SI#Street Name Status
12/3/2012 MK 9520 111 Burleigh Dr Issued
12/3/2012 MK 9521 110 Snyder Hill Rd Pending
12/10/2012 MK 9522 1305 Hanshaw Rd Issued
12/11/2012 MK 9523 118 Snyder Hill Rd Issued
12/13/2012 MK 9524 134 Conservatory Dr Issued - DEMO Only
12/17/2012 SW 9525 240 Stone Quarry Rd Issued
12/18/2012 SW 9526 1486 Trumansburg Rd Issued
12/18/2012 SW 9527 171 Seven Mile Dr Pending
12/18/2012 SW 9528 239 Coy Glen Rd Issued
12/27/2012 MK 9529 143 Lexington Dr Pending
Friday, January 04,2013 Page 1 of I
Press Release /Agenda
NOTICE
The Town Board is calling a Special Town Board Meeting on Thursday, December 13,
2012 at 2:00 with the sole agenda item of: Consider Setting a Public Hearing regarding A
Proposed Sewer Improvement in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,
pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, to be known as the Town of Ithaca Ithaca Area
Waste Water Treatment Plant lAWWTP Septage Receiving Facility Renovation Sewer
Improvement
Posted to the website and send to media contact list on Weds., Dec 12,2012 at 2:40 p.m.