The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2012-05-07n f i 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Agenda Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Report of Tompkins County Legislature Report of Ithaca Common Council Persons to be Heard and Board comments Fire Commissioner's Quarterly Report "fH a. Consider Approval to Amend Capital Projects #761 - Replacement of Heavy Rescue for the Ithaca Fire Department 5:45 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposed Local Law Amending Planned Development Zone #5, Limited Mixed Use - Chamber of Commerce a. SEQR b. Consider Adoption 5:46 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposed Local Law amending Planned Development Zone #1, Limited Mixed Use - Wiggins (LaTourelle) a. SEQR b. Consider Adoption 5:55 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposal to rezone 1407 Mecklenburg Rd from Low Density Residential to Agricultural a. SEQR b. Consider Adoption 6:00 pm Public Hearing re.: Consideration of a request from Cayuga Medical Center to waive temporary Certificate of Occupancy fees associated with the Surgical Wing Expansion Project a. Approval 6:05 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposed Local Law to Rezone a Parcel of Land on Trumansburg Rd from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residential for the Conifer Village at West Hill Project a. Consider Adoption Discuss and Consider Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities and Road to be Dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Conifer Senior Living Project on West Hill 12. 6:10 pm Public Hearing re.: a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Zoning" to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions ^ a. SEQR b. Consider Adoption 13. Discuss requested changes to the Covenants and Restrictions to allow Hospicare and Palliative Care Services to expand 14. Discuss and consider approval of 2013-2017 Intermunicipal Recreational Partnership Agreement 15. Consider Approval and Authorization for the Supervisor to Execute Certain Easements, Encroachment Licenses, and Stormwater Operation, Maintenance and Reporting Agreements 16. Consider Award of Contract and Establishment of Capital Project Fund for the Northview Water Tank Replacement Project Water Improvement Project 17. Consider Award of Contract and Establishment of Capital Project Fund for the Danby Road Water Tank Replacement Project Water Improvement Project 18. Consider Approval of revised Coaching, Discipline and Grievance Procedures and Employer Vehicle Policy t \ 19. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract d. Appointment of Planning Intern e. Appointment of Project Assistant for Engineering f. Approval of Work Study Agreement with Cornell University g. Appointment of Electrical/Code Enforcement Officer - Kelly h. Approval of Revised Sustainability Planner Position 20. Report of Town Officials 21. Report of Town Committees 22. Intermunicipal Organizations 23. Review of Correspondence 24. Consider Adjournment f ^ 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, Tompkins 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 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting; Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 , Date of Posting: Date of O Paulette Terwlllig' Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn tq^nd subscribed before me thiS;^ 0 ,2012. day of otary Public Debra DeAuglstlneNotary Public - State of New York No. 01DE6148035Qualified in Tompkins CountyMy Commission Expires June 19, 20_/■ vr.-' n * \ , TOWN OF ITHACA NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGS if }, The Ithaca Town Board wtll j. hold the Following pubUc )l hearings at Its meeting to 0 be held on May 7, 2012 at It 215 N. Tloga St. Ithaca: I. 5:45 pm re.: Proposed Lo- if cai Lm amending Plaivied 6 Development Zone #5. II Limited Ivlixed Use - Cham- 3 ber of Commerce 5:46 pm re.: Proposed Lo- cat Lw amending Plarvied 1 Davelopmeni Zone 41, Limited Mixed Use - Wlg- . QhistLaToureUe) 5:55 pm re.: Proposal lo ■ razone 1407 Mecklenburg Rd from Low Density Resl- denbal to Agricultural 6:00 pm re.: Consldefation' of a request to waive tern- ^ poraty Certificate of Occu- '■ psncy fees associated with' the Surgical Wing Expan- ' sion Prefect ^ 6:05 pm re.: Proposed Lo- ^ cad Um to rezone a parcel 1 of land on Trumansburg Rd " from Medium Densi^ Rest- . ' dential to Multiple Resl- ' ® dencB for the Conifer Vll- ' fege at West Hill Prefect | 6:10 pm re.: Pressed Lo- ' cal Lw Amending Ch^tar ' _ 270 of the town of Ithaca . 'Code. Titled 'Zoning' to. r Add Stream Setback Prod- <^^ions and Related DefN- Ijnfiarmetion on the above'hevtngs can be prodded the Town Clerk. Please 273-1721 or emad erk@town.lthaca.ny.vs 4/27/2012 •V TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN BOARD SISN-IN SHEET DATE: May 7. 2012 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE ARTA/rADDRESS/AFFILIATCON ^ H<TtW2. • Q P L ;^^-7"5uAdilif //s D~^A 1^6 K:QS?icAg-'il , , !?AVln /■b ^ficAYicr ^Wso i crj> \r V <f^ L-rr^>o Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo, and Nahmin Horwitz Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Supervisor Engman called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Additional items were added with Board approval. Report of Tompkins County Legislature Peter Stein reported that the Legislature debated a resolution in support of the minimum wage increase and did pass a resolution. They also set a target for the 2013 budget with a 3.5% increase. Mr. Stein also reported that the sale of the County’s home healthcare responsibilities to a private organization was finalized. Report of Ithaca Common Council None Persons to be Heard and Board Comments There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Mr. Engman reported that the Town has received an Award of Merit from the Historical Society for the Forest Home Traffic Calming Project. He added that the Forest Home Improvement Association also received an award and Mr. Engman thought it was nice for both to get recognition for the efforts in support of the project. Fire Commissioner’s Quarterly Report (Attachment 1) Commissioner Bill Gilligan presented the report and took questions from the Board Mr. Horwitz asked about Volunteer Companies and Mr. Gilligan gave a history of the Companies. Mr. Engman asked about the budget from the City and the timing of when we might know the recommendations being made to the City by the Department. Mr. Gilligan responded that the point of the message from the Mayor is that it is going to be challenging but he thought the budget process and decision making schedule will remain the same. 05 07 2012 TB Page 2 of 25 Consider Approval to Amend Capital Projects #761 - Replacement of Heavy Rescue for the Ithaca Fire Department Mr. Engman gave a history of the request; basically changing the type of equipment they want to replace and although the price is higher, they will be saving money in maintenance and repairs. Mr. Goodman asked about the heavy rescue replacement and Chief Parsons responded that the usage of the Heavy Rescue is changing and they will be looking at the replacement schedule and looking at possible reductions in fleet according to usage and adjusting the replacement schedule accordingly. Bill questioned the replacement of the aerial in 1013 and the heavy rescue 2014 Chief Parsons responded that the usage is changing and they will be looking at the replacement schedule and looking at reduction of fleets and usage. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-087: AMEND THE CITY OF ITHACA CAPITAL PROJECT #761 – REPLACEMENT OF HEAVY RESCUE TRUCK FOR THE ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT Whereas a project for the purchase of a heavy rescue truck for the Ithaca Fire Department was approved by Common Council for the Budget Year 2012 and Whereas per the contract for fire service between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca approved the project and Whereas the sum of $880,000 had been appropriated (Capital Project #761) and was available for cover the cost of design and construction of a heavy rescue truck and Whereas the costs of maintenance of fire department aerial truck apparatus have been increasing over the past 5 years dues to an aging fleet and increased number of emergency responses and Whereas repair and maintenance costs for the fire department’s two aerial trucks were $74,700 in 2011 and Whereas a 1995 aerial truck is scheduled under a fleet replacement plan for 2015 and Whereas the estimated cost for continued maintenance of the heavy rescue truck will be less than that of an aerial truck in 2013 and 2014 and Whereas the heavy rescue truck replacement can be deferred until 2014 and Whereas the Fire Chief and Board of Fire Commissioners shall review and amend the current schedule for apparatus replacement, which will reflect the current usage, age of fleet, budget restrictions, and best practices for delivery of fire and emergency service and Whereas the amended project budget id projected to be $930,000 comprised of: Preliminary Engineering and Detail Design Cost $10,000 Purchase Aerial/Pumper Combination Truck $920,000 Total Project Cost $930,000 05 07 2012 TB Page 3 of 25 Whereas the Board of Fire Commissioners recommends that the Common Council substitute the replacement of a heavy rescue vehicle with the replacement of a combination aerial/pumper truck and increase the total project budget authorizations to the amount of $930,000 and Whereas the City of Ithaca Common Council amended the capital project authorizations for purchase of a combination aerial/pumper truck and substituted it for the purchase of a heavy rescue truck approved by Common Council in the 2012 budget Now therefore be it Resolved that the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the purchase of an aerial/pumper truck and allocates its contractual level of funding (approximately 33%) necessary for the $50,000 amendment. Moved: Herb Engman Seconded: Nahmin Horwitz Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 5:45 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposed Local Law Amending Planned Development Zone #5, Limited Mixed Use – Chamber of Commerce Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this topic and the hearing was closed. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 088: SEQR: Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled “Zoning: Special Land Use Districts,” Regarding Chamber of Commerce Site Plan Requirements WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled “Zoning: Special Land Use Districts,” regarding Chamber of Commerce site plan requirements; and WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on May 7, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Parts I and II for this action, along with other application materials; and RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed based on the information in the SEAF part I and for the reasons set forth in the SEAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes – Goodman, DePaolo, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and Engman 05 07 2012 TB Page 4 of 25 Motion passed unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-089: Resolution Adopting Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled “Zoning: Special Land Use Districts,” Regarding Chamber of Commerce Site Plan Requirements WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board for the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to beheld by said Town Board on May 7, 2012, at 5:45 p.m. to hear all A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER interested parties on a proposed local law entitled “ 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED “ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS,” REGARDING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS” ; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said local law is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of the local law, has, on May 7, 2012, made an environmental determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA entitled “ CODE, TITLED “ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS,” REGARDING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS”, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 05 07 2012 TB Page 5 of 25 5:46 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposed Local Law amending Planned Development Zone #1, Limited Mixed Use – Wiggins (LaTourelle) Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this topic and the hearing was closed. Mr. DePaolo recused himself from the actions due to a possible conflict of interest because of a working relationship with Mr. Wiggins. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 090: SEQR: Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled “Zoning: Special Land Use Districts,” Regarding La Tourelle Site Plan Requirements WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled “Zoning: Special Land Use Districts,” regarding La Tourelle site plan requirements; and WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on May 7, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Parts I and II for this action, along with other application materials; and RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed based on the information in the SEAF part I and for the reasons set forth in the SEAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter and Levine Abstention/Recusal – DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-091: Resolution Adopting Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled “Zoning: Special Land Use Districts,” Regarding La Tourelle Site Plan Requirements WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board for the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to beheld by said Town Board on May 7, 2012, at 5:50 p.m. to hear all A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER interested parties on a proposed local law entitled “ 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE, TITLED “ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS,” REGARDING LA TOURELLE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS” ; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 6 of 25 WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said local law is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of the local law, has, on May 7, 2012, made an environmental determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 271 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA entitled “ CODE, TITLED “ZONING: SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICTS,” REGARDING LA TOURELLE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS”, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter and Levine Abstention/Recusal – DePaolo 5:55 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposal to rezone 1407 Mecklenburg Rd from Low Density Residential to Agricultural Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this topic and the hearing was closed. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 092: SEQR: Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Rezone Tax Parcel # 28-1-10.42 Located at 1407 Mecklenburg Road From Low Density Residential to Agricultural WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a local law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code to rezone Tax Parcel # 28-1-10.42, located at 1407 Mecklenburg Road, from Low Density Residential to Agricultural; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 7 of 25 WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on May 7, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Parts I and II for this action, along with other application materials; and RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed based on the information in the SEAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the SEAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Mr. DePaolo asked if the changes to the zoning map should be reviewed to explore connecting the patches of Agricultural lands and down-zoning the land to the west. Mr. Goodman welcomed the applicants to the neighborhood. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-093: Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Rezone Tax Parcel # 28-1-10.42 Located at 1407 Mecklenburg Road From Low Density Residential to Agricultural WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board for the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on May 7, 2012, at 5:55 p.m. to hear all “A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER interested parties on a proposed local law entitled 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE TO REZONE TAX PARCEL # 28-1-10.42 LOCATED AT 1407 MECKLENBURG ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL” ; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said local law is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of the local law, has, on May 7, 2012, made an environmental determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 8 of 25 WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said local law “A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA entitled CODE TO REZONE TAX PARCEL # 28-1-10.42 LOCATED AT 1407 MECKLENBURG ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL” , a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 6:00 pm Public Hearing re.: Consideration of a request from Cayuga Medical Center to waive temporary Certificate of Occupancy fees associated with the Surgical Wing Expansion Project Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this topic and the hearing was closed. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-094: Consider waiving the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Fees Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled, Building Construction and Fire Prevention, Sec. 125-7 B(9) (A) [2] [A-E], for Cayuga Medical Center’s Surgical Services project at 101 Harris B Dates Drive WHEREAS, a resolution was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by said Town on May 7, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the proposed waiver of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fees pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled, Building Construction and Fire Prevention, Sec. 125-7 B (9) (a) [2] [a-e], for Cayuga Medical Center’s Surgical Services project; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of, or in opposition to, said proposed fee waiver, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, the Town Board concludes that the fee of the permit may be large enough to cover the cost to the Town; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 9 of 25 WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy fee would be a significant hardship to CMC; and WHEREAS, the Town Board determines that the need for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is not created because of the lack of diligence of Cayuga Medical Center, but rather the staging and length of time of the project, and the need to provide services to the community; and WHEREAS, Cayuga Medical Center has agreed to reimburse the Town for any cost the Town incurs from this project in excess of the permit application fee and provide a notarized statement of such to the Town, per a letter dated April 11, 2012 and signed by Louis J. LoVecchio, Assistant Vice President; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing body of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve and direct the Director of Code Enforcement to waive fees for all temporary Certificates of Occupancy for the Cayuga Medical surgical services project, pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled, Building Construction and Fire Prevention, Sec. 125-7 B (9) (a) [2] [a-e]. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 6:05 pm Public Hearing re.: Proposed Local Law to Rezone a Parcel of Land on Trumansburg Rd from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residential for the Conifer Village at West Hill Project Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board on this topic and the hearing was closed. The Board had a number of comments and questions and Mr. Caruso was PASSERO Associates was available representing the project. Mr. DePaolo asked what types of variances from the Zoning Board the project was looking for and Mr. Caruso responded that they would be asking for variances regarding setback to keep pedestrian access close and a height variance for the peak of the building and the number of units in the building Mr. Goodman asked about the timeline of the project and Mr. Caruso responded that they want to have it ready to submit for the June grant cycle. Mr. Horwitz had a number of questions. He stated that he did not like the use of the notation symbol +/- because it has a very specific meaning in physics and he thought we should use the word approximately instead. Mr. Weber added that in surveying it does have a meaning 05 07 2012 TB Page 10 of 25 different from his physics one and this is standard nomenclature that does not rely on a set value and Mr. Goodman added that lawyers use that also because they dovetail with the surveyors. Mr. Horwitz was also very concerned about the rent restrictions as defined in the law. A large discussion followed on how the law limits and regulates the rent. Using specific percentages would not allow for changes in the programs used by the state and federal governments and the Committee felt they should follow those programs. Mr. Horwitz was still unsure and Board and Staff were able to find the programs online and show Mr. Horwitz how the law as written with current programs would equal a rent of around $615 a month at the 90% of low-income. Mr. Caruso added that there is an audit process so the Town will be assured of affordability as defined by the state and each person could pay a different amount based on their income but they all have to meet the low-income standard. Mr. DePaolo thanked Mr. Caruso for keeping the project going through the various iterations it has gone through. He added that he had doubts in the beginning and although he still has some doubts, he felt this was the lowest-impact plan for this type of development. Ms. Hunter asked about the tax-credit program and also, what in the law would keep Conifer from renting only to people making 90% of median income versus 50% of median income will be able to get an apartment. Mr. Caruso responded that he did not know of any change to the tax-credit program and he did not know of any restrictions to renting the apartments; if you qualify you qualify. Ms. Hunter then asked if a PILOT was going to be requested and Mr. Caruso responded he was not sure they would be asking for one and Mr. Engman responded that he had talked to Mr. Sciarabba who told him that any pilot would be at virtually the same amount as a full tax level because the real advantage was to get points in grant process not a lower payment. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-095: Adoption of a local law amending Chapter 270 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca to rezone a portion of Tax Parcel No. 24.00-04-05.2 located off of N.Y.S. Route 96 from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence (Conifer West Hill Senior Housing Development). WHEREAS , Conifer Realty LLC is proposing to develop a ±5.7 acre portion of a ±35 acre lot currently owned by Cornell University (Tax Parcel 24.00-04-05.2), located south of West Hill Drive, for development of a 72 unit senior independent living facility and adjacent public road; and WHEREAS , the proposed senior independent living facility and adjacent public road were initially referred to the Planning Board by the Town Board on June 7, 2010, and were then part of a larger development proposal and considered for rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), but which due to reconsideration of other elements of the proposal the PDZ concept was abandoned; and WHEREAS , Conifer Realty LLC, in February 2011, then submitted a request to the Town Board for a rezoning from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Multiple Residence (MR), for a portion of the original planned development site for the senior independent living facility, 05 07 2012 TB Page 11 of 25 and on March 7, 2011, the majority of the Board voted to consider the rezoning and directed Planning staff and the Attorney for the Town to draft a local law to create such rezoning; and WHEREAS , the Town Board, on June 27, 2011, discussed proposed language for the local law establishing the MR zone, and agreed to use language from Local Law Number 2 for 2006, related to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, as a framework, and to include affordability requirements, architectural and site planning standards, and requested Planning staff and the Attorney for the Town to prepare such a draft for the Planning Committee; and WHEREAS , the Planning Committee, on July 14, 2011, August 11, 2011, and September 1, 2011, reviewed and discussed the draft local law; and WHEREAS , the Planning Committee, on September 1, 2011, recommended the Town Board refer the draft local law to the Planning Board for a recommendation and to begin the review of the proposed affordable senior living facility; and the Town Board made this referral to the Planning Board at its September 11, 2011 meeting; and WHEREAS , the Planning Board, on February 7, 2012, discussed but did not act on the request to recommend approval of the draft local law, pending revisions to the preliminary site plan and preliminary subdivision plan, to address various concerns of Planning staff, Public Works staff, and Planning Board members; and WHEREAS , the Planning Board, on April 3, 2012, after discussion of the draft local law, revised preliminary site plan, and revised preliminary subdivision plan, recommended that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed local law with suggested edits; which edits have been incorporated into the proposed law; and WHEREAS , a Planning Board resolution, dated April 3, 2012, granted preliminary site plan and preliminary subdivision approval for the Conifer Senior Living on West Hill project, and WHEREAS , a resolution was adopted by the Town Board for the Town of Ithaca for a public hearing to be held by the Town Board on May 7, 2012 at 6:05 P.M. to hear all interested parties on a proposed local law entitled " A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA TO REZONE A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 24.00-04-05.2 LOCATED OFF OF N.Y.S. ROUTE 96 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (Conifer West Hill Senior Housing Development)”; and WHEREAS , notice of the public hearing was advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS , the public hearing was held on the date and time at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the proposed local law, or any part of it; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 12 of 25 WHEREAS , this is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in coordinating the environmental review with respect to this project, made a negative determination of environmental significance on April 3, 2012, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials; and WHEREAS , the Town Board finds it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to adopt the local law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE CODE adopts the local law entitled " OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA TO REZONE A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL NO. 24.00- 04-05.2 LOCATED OFF OF N.Y.S. ROUTE 96 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE (Conifer West Hill Senior Housing Development) ”, a copy of which is attached and made a part of this resolution, and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town Clerk is authorized and directed to file the local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Discuss and Consider Acceptance of the Concept and Locations of the Proposed Public Utilities and Road to be Dedicated to the Town in Conjunction with the Conifer Senior Living Project on West Hill TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-096: Acceptance of the concept and locations of the proposed public utilities (water and sewer), drainage easement, and public road to be dedicated to the Town in conjunction with the Conifer Senior Living on West Hill proposal. WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on April 3, 2012, has granted Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Approval for the proposed Conifer Senior Living on West Hill development located off West Hill Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number No. 24-4-5.2, Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone. The proposal involves developing ±5.7 acres of the property for a new three story, 72 unit senior housing building (±21,000 square foot footprint) on a new road connecting to West Hill Drive. The project will also include new sidewalks around the building and connecting to the existing bus shelter on West Hill Drive, new stormwater facilities, parking, a community garden, signage, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Cornell University, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John F. Caruso, PE, PMP, Passero Associates, Agent; and WHEREAS , the applicant for the above-referenced subdivision and development has proposed to dedicate to the Town of Ithaca the public utilities (water and sewer) as shown on the plan titled “Utility Plan” (drawing C102) dated December 2011, revised March 2, 2012; prepared by Passero Associates; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 13 of 25 WHEREAS , the applicant for the above-referenced subdivision has proposed to dedicate to the Town of Ithaca a drainage easement as shown on the plan titled "Profiles" (drawing C105) dated December 2011, revised March 2, 2012, prepared by Passero Associates; and WHEREAS , the applicant for the above-referenced subdivision and development has proposed to dedicate to the Town of Ithaca the proposed public road on the right-of-way parcel, as shown on the plan titled “Landscaping and Lighting Plan” (drawing C104) dated December 2011, revised March 30, 2012, and preliminary subdivision plan (drawing S1) dated December 8, 2009, revised March 21, 2012, prepared by Passero Associates; and WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Public Works Committee, on April 17, 2012, has reviewed the plans for the above-referenced improvements proposed for dedication to the Town, and have found them generally acceptable and voted to move the request to the Town Board for consideration; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby accepts the concept and locations of the above-described improvements, subject to the following conditions: 1.That the Final Site Plan and Subdivision Approvals be granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, prior to the Town Board accepting the conveyance of the improvements and easements; and 2.Completion of the public utilities and public road, to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works, prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the Town Board; and 3.That the specific surveyed locations, deeds, and abstracts showing good and marketable title for the proposed improvements and easements be submitted in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, the Director of Public Works, and the Director of Planning, prior to dedication and acceptance of the improvements by the Town Board; and 4.Acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed utilities, public road and easements to be dedicated to the Town. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 6:10 pm Public Hearing re.: a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled “Zoning” to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions Mr. Engman opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. A resident thanked the board for passing the law. 05 07 2012 TB Page 14 of 25 The Resident who had requested restrictions on the herbicides and pesticides for all sizes thanked the Board for doing this and asked how residents will be told the law was passed. Board and Staff responded that it has been talked about quite a bit through various committees with different public comment opportunities and it will also go online on our website and probably in our newsletter. We will try to get some media attention and possibly send it to our neighborhood groups to spread as they will. Also, anyone applying for a building permit will find out. The resident suggested a mailing and also asked how it would be enforced. Mr. Bates responded that it will be complaint driven similar to property maintenance violations. Mr. Engman closed the public hearing at 6:42. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-097: SEQR: Proposed Adoption of a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions WHEREAS, this action is the adoption of a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions; and WHEREAS, this is a Type I action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617 and Chapter 148 (Environmental Quality Review) of the Town of Ithaca Code, for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead Agency and the only involved agency in conducting the environmental review with respect to the adoption of said Local Law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, at a public hearing held on May 7, 2012, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts I and II, for this action, prepared by the Town Planning staff; RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the implementing regulations thereof and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF II and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Discussion on the resolution adopting the draft law Mr. Goodman noted that the concern raised about a resident considering an addition was addressed and he thanked Ms. Ritter and Ms. Brock for all there work. Mr. DePaolo expressed his appreciation that a law of this type was done because he felt it could really make a difference. 05 07 2012 TB Page 15 of 25 Ms. Brock read an email into the record (Attachment #2) from Mr. Brittain regarding the exemption of small lots and Mr. Goodman responded to Mr. Brittain that the Town did intend to provide some exemptions for small lots with no stream on them. Discussion followed with Mr. Goodman and Ms. Brock explaining the rationale of giving people a break who own small lots because of all of the existing setback requirements, adding another would be too onerous and make a small lot un-buildable with the caveat that there is not a stream on the small lot. If there is a stream, the restrictions apply. Ms. Brock added that they did a detailed map of the properties exempted and it is a very small number. TB RESOLUTION No. 2012-098: Resolution Adopting a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions WHEREAS, an undeveloped stream corridor maintained in natural vegetation, and serving as a buffer between the stream and human land uses, is known to help improve stream health and water quality by trapping and filtering pollutants from stormwater runoff, stabilizing stream banks and reducing erosion, and absorbing and slowing the velocity of flood waters, as well as providing important habitat for a wide array of wildlife and contributing to the scenic beauty of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board recognizes the importance of establishing measures to protect stream corridors for the benefits listed above and has worked collaboratively and over many years with the Conservation Board and Codes and Ordinances Committee to draft a comprehensive and effective law, and WHEREAS, at its December 16, 2008 meeting, the Codes and Ordinance Committee finalized an initial draft of the Stream Setback Law to be introduced to the public for comments and input, and WHEREAS, a community informational meeting was held on March 10, 2009 to present the proposed draft Stream Setback Law to the public, as well as to provide information on the benefits of maintaining a vegetated buffer along streams, which was followed by additional local media coverage of the proposed law, including an article in the Tompkins Weekly newspaper on March 30, 2009, and later an article in the Town’s Fall 2010 newsletter, and WHEREAS, the Town received numerous comments from the public on the draft Stream Setback Law which were reviewed and discussed at many meetings of the Codes and Ordinances Committee in 2009 and 2010, resulting in a revised draft law that the Codes and Ordinances Committee referred to the Town Board at their June 16, 2010 meeting, and WHEREAS, at its July 12, 2010 meeting, the Town Board referred the proposed local law to the Planning Board, Conservation Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals for review and recommendation, and WHEREAS, at their respective August 5, 2010 and August 17, 2010 meetings the Conservation Board and Planning Board recommended adoption of the proposed local law with certain suggested revisions; and 05 07 2012 TB Page 16 of 25 WHEREAS, the Codes and Ordinances Committee reviewed these and other comments received from Town staff, Town residents and other stakeholders during various meetings held in 2010 and 2011, and at its February 15, 2012 meeting the Committee determined the review to be complete, revised the proposed local law, and referred the proposed local law back to the Town Board for consideration of approval; and WHEREAS, the Town Board reviewed, discussed and revised the proposed local law “Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions” at its regular meeting on March 12, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted resolutions for public hearings to be held by said Town on April 9, 2012 at 5:45 p.m. and on May 7, 2010 at 6:10 p.m., to hear all interested parties on the proposed local law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearings were duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and WHEREAS, said public hearings were duly held on said dates and times at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said Local Law, or any part thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, adoption of said Local Law is a Type I action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to adoption of the Local Law, has on May 7, 2012 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Parts I and II prepared by the Town’s Planning staff, for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and II referenced above; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts said law entitled “A Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled Zoning, to add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions”, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 05 07 2012 TB Page 17 of 25 Discuss requested changes to the Covenants and Restrictions to allow Hospicare and Palliative Care Services to expand. Hospicare Representatives were available for questions; Mark Wheeler Chairman of the Property Committee of the Board of Directors and David Klein, Architect Mr. Wheeler explained the discovery of the restrictions and the project which involves expanding the building to allow for 2 additional beds for Hospice care with an increase in the footprint of approximately 4,800 feet. In looking at the covenant and older documents when the original building was constructed, it is not clear what area was intended to be left natural as the covenant states; north of the pond or all of the open land. The Board asked them how they want to proceed; remove the covenant and the approval of the Town Board in the future for streamlining? Mr. Wheeler stated that he would go whichever way the Board wished. He did feel that the Planning Board does a thorough review during site plan and coming to the Town Board seems redundant but they would be happy with either. Their main concern was getting a feel from the Board if there would be any issues with changing the covenant before they spent money on going forward with detailed plans for a site plan submission. Ms. Ritter noted that it is unusual to have the Town Board involved in this type of thing and there is nothing in the records to indicate why they were; it may have just been added almost by mistake. Ms. Brock explained that there seems to be a mismatch between what the Planning Board intended to remain as open space (around the pond) and what was filed in the deed restriction which was all of the remaining land remain open. Discussion followed and the consensus of the Board was that they have no issues with the expansion as presented and they would be open to changing the covenant. Discuss and consider approval of 2013-2017 Intermunicipal Recreational Partnership Agreement Mr. Engman and Mr. Levine reported that it seems like the City and the County are planning on renewing their participation. Mr. Levine said the Town of Ulysses is still a question mark and Mr. DePaolo asked about the percentages paid by each municipality. Mr. Levine responded that it is a very complicated formula which changes every year for each municipality. TB Resolution No. 2012- 099: Adoption of the 2013-2017 Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership Agreement WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca is currently a member of the Intermunicipal Recreation partnership by agreement dated August 21, 2007 with an original 5-year term expiring December 21, 2012 and WHEREAS the Recreation Partnership has been an excellent and cost efficient model of intermunicipal collaboration which enable municipalities to jointly plan, finance and share a diverse set of high quality recreation programs and 05 07 2012 TB Page 18 of 25 WHEREAS the Intermunicpal Recreation Partnership agreement by its own terms may be renewed for an additional five years by appropriate resolution by each of the municipal partners on or before December 31, 2012 and WHEREAS any municipality may withdraw from the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership agreement upon a full calendar year’s notice. Now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca agrees to renew the August 21, 2007 Intermunicipal Recreation partnership agreement for an additional 5 years, expiring December 31, 2017 and authorizes the Supervisor to sign same, and be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Intermunicipal Recreation Partnership Board in care of the Tompkins County Youth Services Department. Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Nahmin Horwitz Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Consider Approval and Authorization for the Supervisor to Execute Certain Easements, Encroachment Licenses, and Stormwater Operation, Maintenance and Reporting Agreements Mr. Engman explained that this is the same as what we passed last year and neglected to add to the Organizational Meeting agenda. Mr. DePaolo asked who reviews these types of items before Mr. Engman signs them and Ms. Brock responded that many come from the Planning Board and others come from committee or Public Works for projects and such. Staff prepare and review all of the documents as well as legal review by either herself or Mr. Krogh. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012 – 100: Authorizing the Town Supervisor to Execute Certain Easements, Encroachment Licenses, and Stormwater Operation, Maintenance and Reporting Agreements Whereas the Town routinely enters into certain easements granted to the Town, encroachment license granted by the Town, and Stormwater Operation, Maintenance and Reporting agreements for routine matters such as, but not limited to, the placement and maintenance of public and private sewer and water lines, encroachments into Town easements, and the construction, operation and maintenance of private stormwater facilities, and Whereas such easements, licenses and agreements as listed above are often required by the Town Planning Board as conditions of approval for a project, and they are often reviewed by various Boards, Committees, the Attorney for the Town and/or department heads, and Whereas such matters as listed above require a Town official’s signature, 05 07 2012 TB Page 19 of 25 Now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute on behalf of the Town, until the 2012 Organizational Meeting of the Town Board, water, sewer, stormwater and access easements granted to the Town, and Stormwater Operation, Maintenance and Reporting agreements, where such easements, licenses and/or agreements are required by the Planning Board as conditions of approval for a project, and Be it Further Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute on behalf of the Town, until the 2012 Organizational Meeting of the Town Board, encroachment licenses granted by the Town where structures encroach into Town easements or property, provided the licenses require the removal of all or any part of the encroachments as the Town in its sole discretion deems necessary for the exercise of the Town’s rights or to respond to an emergency or other circumstance, and Be it Further Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby ratifies the Easement between Commonland Community Residents Homeowners Association and the Town of Ithaca signed by Supervisor Engman on April 14, 2012 and any other water, sewer, stormwater and access easements granted to the Town, and Stormwater Operation, Maintenance and Reporting agreements, where such easements, licenses and/or agreements are required by the Planning Board as conditions of approval for a project that have been signed by the Supervisor between the 2012 Organizational Meeting and May 7, 2012 and Resolved that these transactionshereinafter be added to the list of annual contracts for consideration at the Organizational Meeting of the Town Board. Moved: Eric Levin Seconded: Nahmin Horwitz Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Consider Award of Contract and Establishment of Capital Project Fund for the Northview Water Tank Replacement Project Water Improvement Project TB RESOLUTION No. 2012- 101: Authorization to Award Contract for Construction of the Town of Ithaca Northview Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement and to Establish the Town of Ithaca Northview Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund WHEREAS: On April 4, 2012, the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Northview Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement for the Replacement of an existing 200,000 gallon steel water tank with a 500,000 gallon water tank on the same site located above West Northview Road, installation of a new concrete base, and other related ancillary facilities, and 05 07 2012 TB Page 20 of 25 WHEREAS: The Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has recommended that the low bid of $458,017.00 for the total project made by Statewide Aquastore Inc., 6010 Draft Drive, East Syracuse, New York 13057, is a qualified bid, and WHEREAS: At the December 12, 2011 Town Board Regular meeting, under Resolution No. 2011-203 the maximum amount of $450,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this improvement, and WHEREAS: The bids received exceeded the maximum amount, of $450,000, to be expended for the improvement, and WHEREAS: At the April 23, 2012, Town Board Study Session, under Resolution No. 2012-083 the maximum amount of $550,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this improvement, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the Town of Ithaca Northview Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement project to Statewide Aquastore, subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney, and be it further RESOLVED: that if a permissive referendum is held on the Public Interest Order- Town of Ithaca Northview Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement that was adopted by the Town Board on April 23, 2012 as Resolution No. 2012-083, the award of the contract is further subject to approval of the Public Interest Order by the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners of taxable real property voting thereon whose property is situate in the area of the Town outside the Village of Cayuga Heights, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval of the final contract documents and the approval of the Public Interest Order by the voters, if a permissive referendum is held; and be it further RESOLVED: that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $5,000.00 without prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including the contract, engineering, legal and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions transferring $463,017, bid amount plus a 1% contingency, to establish the construction account and $36,983 for ancillary project and bonding costs, for a total budget of $500,000 for the capital project fund “Town of Ithaca Northview Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement” project. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 05 07 2012 TB Page 21 of 25 Consider Award of Contract and Establishment of Capital Project Fund for the Danby Road Water Tank Replacement Project Water Improvement Project TB RESOLUTION No. 2012- 102: Authorization to Award Contract for Construction of the Town of Ithaca Danby Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement and to Establish the Town of Ithaca Danby Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement Capital Project Fund WHEREAS: On April 4, 2012, the Town of Ithaca Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent received bids for the Town of Ithaca Danby Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement for the replacement of an existing 500,000 gallon steel water tank with a 500,000 gallon glass-lined water tank on the same site located above Danby Road, and other related ancillary facilities, and WHEREAS: The Director of Public Works has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has recommended that the low bid of $459,840.00 for the total project made by Statewide Aquastore Inc., 6010 Draft Drive, East Syracuse, New York 13057, is a qualified bid, and WHEREAS: At the December 12, 2011 Town Board Regular meeting, under Resolution No. 2011-204 the maximum amount of $450,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this improvement, and WHEREAS: The bids received exceeded the maximum amount, of $450,000, to be expended for the improvement, and WHEREAS: At the April 23, 2012, Town Board Study Session, under Resolution No. 2012-082 the maximum amount of $650,000.00 was authorized to be expended by the Town of Ithaca for this improvement, now therefore be it RESOLVED: that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the award of the contract for the Town of Ithaca Danby Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement project to Statewide Aquastore, subject to final approval of the contract documents by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney, and be it further RESOLVED: that if a permissive referendum is held on the Public Interest Order- Town of Ithaca Danby Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement that was adopted by the Town Board on April 23, 2012 as Resolution No. 2012-082, the award of the contract is further subject to approval of the Public Interest Order by the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners of taxable real property voting thereon whose property is situate in the area of the Town outside the Village of Cayuga Heights, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute such contract upon such approval of the final contract documents and the approval of the Public Interest Order by the voters, if a permissive referendum is held; and be it further 05 07 2012 TB Page 22 of 25 RESOLVED: that the Director of Public Works is authorized to approve change orders to such contract upon receipt of appropriate justification provided that the maximum amount of such change orders shall not in the aggregate exceed $5,000.00 without prior authorization of this Board, and provided further that the total project cost, including the contract, engineering, legal and other expenses does not exceed the maximum authorized cost of the project, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Town Finance Officer is directed and authorized to record all necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions transferring $464,840.00 bid amount plus a 1% contingency, to establish the construction account and $37,160 for ancillary project and bonding costs, for a total budget of $502,000 for the capital project fund “Town of Ithaca Danby Road Tank Replacement Water Improvement” project. Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Consider Approval of revised Coaching, Discipline and Grievance Procedures and Employer Vehicle Policy Ms. Drake reported that this needed to be updated due to having unions now and lessons learned over actions and hearings that have happened in the past. 05 07 2012 TB Page 23 of 25 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-103: Approval of Revisions to Coaching, Discipline, Grievance Procedure and Employer Vehicle Policies WHEREAS, the Town Board adopted the current Coaching, Discipline, Grievance Procedure and Employer Vehicle Policies in November 2002 as part of the overall Personnel Manual revisions; and WHEREAS , the revised policies have been reviewed and edited by the Personnel Committee due to concerns raised by staff and Attorney for the Town to the Personnel Committee; and WHEREAS , the collective bargaining units have reviewed and agree to the changes recommended; and WHEREAS , Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission as reviewed and approved the recommended changes; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the revised Coaching, Discipline, Grievance Procedure and Employer Vehicle Policies; and be it further RESOLVED , the Human Resources Manager is directed to update the policies in the Personnel Manual. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Added Item Minor changes were made to the draft resolution. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 104: SUPPORTING STATE SENATE BILL S4616 (AVELLA)/ASSEMBLY BILL A7013 (SWEENEY) TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW IN RELATION TO THE UNIFORM TREATMENT OF WASTE. WHEREAS S 4616 (Avella)/A7013 (Sweeney) would require hazardous wastes produced from oil and natural gas activities to be subject to the requirements for treatment of hazardous wastes and WHEREAS currently the oil and gas industry is exempted from New York State laws governing hazardous waste transport and disposal, and even though a great deal of the wastewater generated by hydraulic fracturing meets the state definition of hazardous it is not required to be treated as such and 05 07 2012 TB Page 24 of 25 WHEREAS the oil and gas industry is not required to disclose the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process, but the following chemicals are often found in waste water resulting from the hydraulic fracturing process: benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, salts, heavy metals, and radioactive particles and WHEREAS closing this exemption loophole will require hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water to be monitored through a manifest system and extra safeguards will need to be in place to avoid accidents and ensure proper waste treatment and WHEREAS such a designation will keep fracking wastes out of municipal treatment plants and the waterways leading to sources of drinking water THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca supports the immediate passage of the New York State Senate bill S4616 introduced by Senator Avella which is the same bill as Assembly bill A7013 introduced by Assemblyman Sweeney that would amend Section 27-0903 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be sent by the Town Clerk to Governor Andrew Cuomo; N.Y. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos; Senate Minority Leader Sampson; N.Y. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver; N.Y. Senators O’Mara, Seward, Nozzolio, Avella, Squadron, Kreuger, Perkins, Serrano, and Perrault; U.S. House Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Richard Hanna; N.Y. Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton; U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer; DEC Commissioner Joseph Martens; EPA Region 2 Director Judith Enck. MovedSeconded : Herb Engman : Eric Levine Vote : Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. Consider Consent Agenda Items TB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-105: Consent Agenda BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a.Approval of Town Board Minutes of April 9, 2012 b.Town of Ithaca Abstract c.Bolton Point Abstract d.Appointment of Planning Intern e.Appointment of Project Assistant for Engineering f.Approval of Work Study Agreement with Cornell University g.Appointment of Electrical/Code Enforcement Officer – Kelly h.Approval of Revised Sustainability Planner Position Moved: Pat Leary Seconded: Rich DePaolo Vote: Ayes—Engman, Goodman, Horwitz, Leary, Hunter, Levine and DePaolo Motion passed unanimously. 05 07 2012 TB Page 24 of 24 Report of Town Officials Mr. Engman reported that he did send out the agreement with Computel for the audit of Time Warner. Mr. DePaolo talked to the City again and they used a different company, but they did tell him where the areas of concern were and he can pass those along to our company. Mr. Solvig reported that the auditors are here and Board members may get calls from them with questions. Report of Town Committees - None Intermunicipal Organizations - None Review of Correspondence - None Motion made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Ms. Hunter to enter Executive Session to discuss the potential acquisition of real property where publicity would substantially affect the value thereof. Unanimous 7:40 p.m. Motion made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Ms. Hunter to re-enter open session, unanimous. 7:52 p.m. Unanimous Motion made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Engman to authorize an appraisal of a portion of tax parcel # 32.-1-8 with a maximum expenditure of $3,000. Unanimous. r\ Consider Adjournment Meeting adjourned upon motion and a second, unanimous. 7:55 p.m. Respect ubmitted by Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk 5/7/1^ Board of Fire Commissioners Report to Ithaca Town Board May 7, 2012 The following is a summary of the Board of Fire Commissioners quarterly report to the Ithaca Town Board for the 1st quarter of 2012 including the 1^^ quarter call activity summary: v Included with this report are: > the Fire Chief's Report given at the April 17, 2012 BFC meeting this includes the Fire Marshal's Report & Fire Prevention Bureau activity. > The financial operations summary through March 31, 2012. > The department call activity reports for January 1- March 31, 2012 v Fire Department Operational Staffing (Mar.31, 2012). > As of March 31, 2012 the Active Fire Fighting staffing totaled 65 (on duty staffing-1 Chief, 1 Deputy Chief on per diem, 5 Assistant Chiefs, 9 lieutenants, & 49 Fire Fighters). This includes three new recruit firefighters hired in February. They will complete training (academy and IFD local) and are expected to be on shift by August 1, 2012. > The list of eligible candidates for the open deputy fire chief position has been returned and is under review by the Fire Chief. > The department is currently seeking to replace the vacant office manager position with an administrative coordinator's position. *1* Fire Police Activity: The volunteer Fire Police unit (12 members) continues to develop and meets monthly for training They are available for traffic control at the scene of fire or traffic incidents. Several of the members of the Fire Police unit assisted with traffic control during the recent services for Cpl. Christopher Bordoni. Two new Fire Commissioners, George McGonigal and Lyman Baker have been appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Common Council. Both are residents of the City and they are filling the two city designated positions on the Board that have been vacant - one for over two years and the other since January 2012, when Commissioner Kelly resigned. Items in progress; 1 Charter Review- the Board of Fire Commissioners continues to review and discuss changes in the charter relating to the role and responsibilities of the Board of Fire Commissioners. 2 Resource recovery - with the change in City Administration, the Board will be reviewing the status of a draft recommendation sent for review to the City Attorney. 3 County Fire-Disaster - EMS Advisory Board- no new action on this issue. 4 Training Center Facility Project - this is still under consideration, no construction has been authorized due to the training site being located on land designated as City Park land. 5 The Board is working with the Fire Chief and the City Clerk's Office to begin posting BFC meeting agendas and minutes on the City Website. Agenda's for meetings in 2012 have been posted. BFC Report to Town of Ithaca Board 13 Feb. 2012 http://www.egovlink.com/ithaca/docs/menu/home.asp?path=/public_documents300/ithac a/published documents/Agendas 6 Town Ad Hoc Fire Service Committee and Town concerns about the cost of Fire Service to the Town. Members of the Board of Fire Commissioners have had detailed presentations by the Fire Chief on the cost of IFD operations and the impact on service delivery that would need to occur with various levels of staffing reductions. The Board would like to remain involved with the Town in the on-going discussions on this complex issue. 7 The Board is reviewing the role of volunteers in the Ithaca Fire Department. The Volunteer companies have been asked to submit a roster of their membership to the Board. The City Attorney has been asked to review and advise the Board on laws affecting the organization of volunteers and the volunteer company structure. Respectfully Submitted, Bill Gilligan Chair, Board of Fire Commissioners ' \ \ > >1 Page 2 CITY OF ITPiACA 310 West Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5497 OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF Telephone; 607/272-1234 Fax: 607/272-2793 MEMORANDUM To: Boardof Fire Commissioners From: Tom Parsons, Fire Chief Date: April 17tli, 2012 Re: Fire Chiefs Montlily Report to die Boaid of Fire Commissioners LIFE SAFETY DIVISION Administi'ation 1) Career Personnel Report PERSONNEL STAFFING LEVELS 1 Chief 1 Deputy Chief (per diem) 5 Assistant Chiefs 9 Lieutenants 49 Fire Fighters 64 Uniform Personnel 1 Office Manager 1 Administrative Assistant Total employees as of 3/12/2012 - 67 a) Hiring/Recruitment Committee • No Report c) Retirements: • None d) Promotions: • None e) Recruit Fire Fighters: 'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.' Page 2 of 5 - Fire Chief s Monthly Report April 1?"', 2012 • I \ • Tliedepartment'sSnewfirefightersstartedattheNYSFire Academy last week for their 11 weeks of recmit training. They will be retmiiing for department specific training after they graduate on May 2012. d) . Vacancies: • Firefighter Chris Komicoutis returned to work last Montli and has been assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 2) Budget Status a) A budget status report for tlie montli of March is included in tliis package. Overtime expenses ai-e up for the first tlu'ee months of tlie year. I will be monitoring die overtime usage over tlie next few months. Fm developing contingency plans in Hie event that we near or exceed our budgeted amount for overtime. b) Capital Budget - Botli tlie City and the Town have included die necessaiy funds, $880,000.00, to replace our Heavy Rescue, 944. • The apparatus committee has developed a specification to be used for biding out a new combination aerial/pumper truck,.. Upon completion of die Ladder Truck specification, they will begin work on the specifications for a Heavy Rescue replacement. • At diis meeting, I'm presenting a resolution for your consideration to request both the City of Idiaca Common Council and the Town of Idiaca Board to amend the Capital Project that was created for die replacement of die Heavy Rescue Truck. The amendment will be requesting permission to purchase an Aeiial/Pumper Combination Truck, instead of a Heavy Rescue Truck. The Heavy Rescue Tinclc replacement will be deferred until 2014, and after we've had sufficient time to review the veliicle replacement schedule for the entire fleet. The new Aerial/Pumper Combination Truck will replace a 1995 Aerial Truck diat is due to be replaced in 2015. c) 2013 Budget - The Mayor has announced diat die budget message will be coming out in about two weeks. The City has already identified a shortfall of 3 million dollai's ill next year's budget. It is expected diat veiy significant reductions in personnel costs will be needed to balance die budget In an effort to plan for 2013, I've begun looking at all areas of our budget. Tliis includes starting and maintenance. Wliile I'm not looking to defer maintenance, I am looldng at areas where we can reduce these expenses by using more in house resources, and using the City's DPW more for our vehicle repair services to the extent diat ' I / > Page 3 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report April 17*"', 2012 DPW can handle the increased work load. I've also restiicted funding for optional training for cai*eer personnel. This will save in both tlie direct costs and labor costs. I am unfortunately starting to look at our staffing again, with the • expectation we may need to malce some reductions in roster. Currently, • we have a Deputy Chief Position that is vacant. Deputy Chief Tom Dorman has been working per diem 10 to 16 hours per week, but he is limited in tlie amount of time he can work because of income restr ictions and his availability. Tom's help witli filling in while we're waiting fox- Civil Service Exam Results has helped keep oiir expenses dowii, but this is not a permanent solution to tlie position, and the position is surely needed to be filled. 3) County Communications and 91 IProgram: a) We aie still waiting for a sui-vey to be completed by tlie consultant liired by Tompkins County who is reviewing die 911 Center Operations. i b) There have-been some dispatch errors that have occurred in the last montJi. I've I requested tliat the Manager of the 911 Center to review two calls where tliere i were mistalces witli dispatching tlie coixect department to an emergency incident. 4) Grants and Donations a) Training Center Project Fimding: No Report b) No Report 5) Resoui'ce Recovery Legislation No New Report - The City and Administration Committee of Common Council has voted to send this proposal to tlie Budget Review committee. 6) City Charter Update No New Repoi't - Delegated to a committee established by llie Board of Commissioners Operations 1) Mutual Aid Calls: Quarterly Report 2) Selected Calls - Page 4 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report April 17*'', 2012 No Report _ 3) Support No Report .... Fire Prevention Bureau 1) Code Enforcement Division; The Codes Enforcement Division received 12 complaints in tlie month March. There were 12 complaints forwai'ded to tlie City of Itliaca Building Department. There were 9 complaints closed out, and 13 complaints remain open since January f* 2012. The Code Enforcement Division performed 141 jQre safety and property maintenance inspections or re-inspections. The division also witnessed 5 fire alarm tests; 1 fire pump test; 1 altemative fire protection system test; and 5 fire sprinkler hydrostatic tests. There were 288 violations cited and 38 violations corrected. The Code Enforcement Division issued: 19 Operating Permits for Assembly Occupancies; 2 Fire Alarm Certificates of Compliance; 3 Fire Sprinkler System Certificate of Compliance; 1 Fire Pump Certificate of Compliance; 1 Alternative Fire ' Protection System Certificate of Compliance; 2 Operating Permits for Hazardous Occupancy; and 18 certificates of compliance for Fire and Property Maintenance Inspections. 2) Fire Investigation Unit: There were four fire investigations performed in Mai-ch. There were fire investigations for structure fires at 704 W. Buffalo Street, and 414 Eddy St m the City of Ithaca. There was a incendiaiy fire tliat was investigated at tlie Boynton Junior High School at 1601 N. Cayuga St in tlie Town of Ithaca, and a suspicious outdoors fire at tlie Ithaca High School at 1401N. Cayuga St in the City of Itliaca. 3) Public Education: There were 2 fire drill activities, 5 public education events, and 2 child car seat inspections performed by tlie department in March. OPERATIONS DIVISION Response I s I \ Page 5 of 5 - Fire Chiefs Monthly Report April 17^*^, 2012 1) Quarterly Call Report 2) Emergency Management . No report Support 1) Training Center Quarterly Report Training Quarterly Report Volunteer Recruitment and Retention 1) Summaries of Service Hours: Quarterly Report 2) Requests from Company Members to become active: No Requests Received W-.^ iWA-tI>i>n:rpi8tn8NfaudQBudgetAccountNuntbersAdministration &Planning 12050Fire PreventionBureau 12100Safety Section12150Response Section12200Support Section12250EmergencyManagement12300Training Bureau12350MembershipSection 12400Service / DulySection 12450lihaoa Festival12500BalancePercentExpended03CD.(Q<0O(Q3 3o toO oocD03D)3O<D(0to^ I ))2012 REVENUE SUAAAAARY BY ACCOUNT 11 1 J ]AAarchRevisedREVENUEYTD REVENUEPCICollectedRemainingREVENUEAverageMthlyProjected-Rre Code Inspection1565$17,450$5,83133%$11,619$1,944$23,324Home & Comm Services2189$700$390%$661$20$234Public Safety Services2260$5,000$61612%$4,384$308$3,696Fire Protective Services2162$3,135,000$518,70217%$2,616,298$259,351$3,112,212Rental of Real Property2410$10,900$0 .0%$10,900$0$0Rental of Equipment2414$0$00%$0$0$0Public Safety Permits2550$7,000$81212%$6,188$406$4,872Fines & Forfeited Bail •2610$1,500$00%$1,500 n$0$0Minor Sales2655$100$44%$96$2$26Sale of Equipment2665$0$00%$0$0-$0Insurance Recoveries2680$8,000$00%$8,000$0$0Ottier Compensation for Los2690$50$00%$50$0$0Refund Prior Year B(pense2701$200$20,87410437%-$20,674$10,437$125,245Gifts & Donations2705$730,485$00%$730,485$0$701,445Unclassified Revenue2770$600$00%$600$0$0Home & Community Service3989$0$00%$0$0$0$0$3,916,985 .$546y878U.0%$3,370,107$272,467$3,971,054 Ithaca Flit: ut;partmentResponses - 1/1/2012 through 3/31/2012700600500400300200100Q-H.o.Q.OrO.a\\\%O,\\\\\\hn Othern Severe Weathern Alarms/No Firen Good intent Calin Service Cail□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/Rupture■ FireDistrict Ithaca Fire Department Responses by MunicipalityJanuary 1st to March 31st 2012800700600500400300200100n Othern Severe Weathern Alarms/No Firen Good Intent Calln Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS/Rescue■ Overpressure/Rupture■ FireTotal CityTotal TownMunicipalityOutside Ithaca )Ithaca Fire Department Responses by MunicipalityJanuary 1st to March 31st 2012100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%igmbbi1Town of IthacaiiiIjsCity of IthacaBbbbihij|H[[H1■BBHHI Outside IthacaITown of IthacaI City of Ithaca Ithaca Fire Department ResponsesJanuary 1st to September 30th 2011Overpressure/HazardousGood IntentSeverePercentage ofDistrictFireRuptureEMS/RescueConditionService CallCallAlarms/No FireWeatherOtherTotalIncidentsCity of Ithaca1802983538642110066462.52%City of Ithaca • Cornell Property20523225430012711.96%City of Ithaca - Ithaca College00100000010.09%Town of Ithaca401231165330018217.14%Town of Ithaca • Cornell Property0041031400222.07%Town of Ithaca - Ithaca College40361131001565.27%Outside Ithaca212112010100.94%Overpressure/HazardousGood IntentSeverePercentage ofDistrictFireRuptureEMS/RescueConditionService CallCallAlarms/No FireWeatherOtherTotalIncidentsTotal City2003513840892540079274.58%Total Town8016313711570126024.48%Outside Ithaca212112010100.94%Total1082)33 )IFD Responses 1/1/2012 through 3/31/2012sOn Other□ Severe Weather■ Alarm / No Fire■ Good Intent■ Service Call□ Hazardous Condition■ EMS Rescue■ Overpressure Rupture■ Fire^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. O, O,. . . . . . . . . . » « > . . • « <<5, «;!, <;i <5- i?, 5 ^ -a ^ B- o- o- 5 5 5 5 5 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. 9-^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 'i' % % ^ ^p. ^ 6- 6- -3,'o. o. *0. 'o. 'o.O O O O o o. o u. c;. u. y u, y y - 1 " - " - P r*S? C? Cj O* O* O' O* *■ 3 " tI'V ' ' . '?.'^riftaQ.aaaaaaaa--yi^'>^^Q}«. (T 2- i» o « »9. ^Election District Election DistrictRreRuptureEMS RescueConditionService CallGood IntentAlarm / No FireSevere WeatherotherTotalQty - 1st Ward, District 1. NE. West Hill10932230020City - 1st Ward, District 2. W, West Hili0024011010038City - 1st Ward, District 3. SW, Southwest002033430033City - 1st Ward. District 4.8. Ixjwer South Hill101013300018City - 1st Ward, District S, S, Upper South Hill001000240016City - 2nd Ward, District 1, NE, Triangle301541560034City - 2nd Ward, District 2, S, Southside, Titus50535864400121City • 2nd Ward, District 3, W, Fulton, Court, Un10404411250085City - 2nd Ward, District 4, Commons East Business20473108281099City - 3rd Ward, District 1, E, Cornell Campus004431203700105City • 3rd Ward, District 2, E, Collegetn BelSher007311230035City - 3rd Ward, District 3, SE, BelSher, E State0022012007City - 4th Ward, District 1, NE, West Campus108005150029City - 4th Ward, District 2, E, Middle East Hill105002130021City - 4th Ward, District 3, E, Lower Collegetown0029312270062City - 5th Ward, District 1, N, Fall Crk and Wiliw0040022008City • 5th Ward, District 2, N, Fall Crtt, Gun Hil20621380022City - 5th Ward, District 3, NE, Cornell Heights208222130029City - 5lh Ward, District 4, Farm, Aurora, King00801020011Town - District 1, NW, Trumansburg Rd001233000018Town - District 2, SW, Bostwick & Elmira Rds10621000010Town - District 3, S, Stone Quarry and South Hill202700240035Town - District 4, E, Ellis Hollow to Slaterville1027001130143Town • District 5, NE, Cornell Campus to NE00210180012Town - District 7, N, Village of Cayuga Hgts0000010001Town - District 9, N, East Shore and Renwick1001003005Town - District 10, S, Ithaca College4043113150067Town - District 11, SE, Troy Coddingtn Slaterville00820140015Town - District 12, E, Maple Ave0041001006Town - District 13, S, South of King Rd0051002008Town - District 14, W, Mecklenburg Rd003113150041Town - District 15, N, Hanshaw, Highgate, Trip.0000010001Out of District2021120019) 33 3 Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012}and {03/31/2012} Incident Type 01/01/2012 01/01/201 01/01/2010 01/01/2009 to 1 to to to 03/31/2012 03/31/201 03/31/2010 03/31/2009 100 Fire, Other 0 i 0 2 0 111 Building fire 8 11 8 11 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 12 3 4 9 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 0 1 0 2 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 2 1 .1 4 131 Passenger vehicle fire 2 4 4 2 140 Natural vegetation fire. Other 0 0 0 1 143 Grass fire 1 0 0 1 150 Outside rubbish fire. Other 1 1 1 2 151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 3 1 0 1 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 1 1 1 0 160 Special outside fire. Other 0 1 0 0 240 Explosion (no fire), Other 0 0 0 1 ^1 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 0 1 0 0 00 Rescue, EMS incident, other 4 9 8 12 11 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 4 3 8 51 320 Emergency medical service, other 2 0 0 0 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 464 502 415 344 322 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 18 31 11 25 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Fed)9 2 2 4 324 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 8 8 8 1 3311Lock-in / Knox Box Access Required 1 0 1 0 341 Search for person on land 2 0 0 0 342 Search for person in water 0 0 1 1 350 Extrication, rescue. Other 1 0 0 0 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 1 1 1 0 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 1 2 8 1 356 High-angle rescue 0 0 1 0 360 Water & ice-related rescue, other 0 1 1 0 381 Rescue or EMS standby 1 1 3 0 400 Hazardous condition. Other 12 21 11 15 410 Combustible/flammable gas/liquid condition, other 3 6 0 0 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 1 0 2 7 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)12 17 20 6 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 2 0 1 0 421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak)0 0 0 1 422 Chemical spill or leak 1 0 0 0 ,''^^24 Carbon monoxide incident 1 4 8 8 . ,40 Electrical wiring/equipment problem. Other 4 0 1 0 41 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn 0 1 1 0 442 Overheated motor 3 0 0 1 04/08/2012 07:45 Page 1 Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and {03/31/2012} 03/31/2012 03/31/201 n 03/31/2010 03/31/2009 443 Breakdown of light ballast 0 1 2 1 4 444 Power line down 4 7 0 0 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 6 5 3 2 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 0 1 0 0 460 Accident, potential accident. Other 0 1 0 1 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 0 2 0 1 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 0 0 1 12 480 Attempted burning, illegal action. Other 3 0 1 0 500 Service Call, other 28 36 32 45 510 Person in distress. Other 3 2 5 2 511 Lock-out 0 4 2 3 520 Water problem. Other 2 5 6 6 521 Water evacuation 0 5 2 1 522 Water or steam leak 6 7 8 531 Smoke or odor removal 2 1 2 f \ 550 Public service assistance. Other 1 4 3 ! I 551 Assist police or other governmental agency 6 4 3 6 552 Police matter 0 2 1 1 553 Public service 0 1 2 0 554 Assist invalid 0 1 2 0 561 Unauthorized burning 0 1 0 1 571 Cover assignment, standby, moveup 0 1 0 2 600 Good intent call. Other 16 20 23 21 611 Dispatched & cancelled en route 2 4 5 26 6111Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Dispatcher 2 6 1 0 6112Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Bangs 31 16 18 25 6113Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CUEMS 14 16 13 5 6114Dispatched & cancelled en route - By CU EH&S 11 10 8 3 6115Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IC Safety 3 1 0 0 6117Dispatched & cancelled en route - By MA Dept 2 3 0 1 6118Dispatched & cancelled en route - By IPD 0 2 3 1 6119Dispatched & cancelled en route - By Other Police 0 1 0 0 621 Wrong location 1 2 0 0 622 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 5 6 3 0 631 Authorized controlled burning 0 2 1 1 632 Prescribed fire 0 0 2 1 641 Vicinity alarm (incident in other location)0 0 1 0 650 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke. Other 0 2 2 651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 3 11 1 652 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 4 1 1 f 653 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 2 0 0 1 04/08/2012 07:45 Page 2 Ithaca Fire Department Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} and (03/31/2012) Incident Type 01/01/2012 to 03/31/2012 671 HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat 6 700 False alarm or false call. Other 1 7001False alarm or false call. Other - Medical Alarm 2 710 Malicious, mischievous false call. Other 1 711 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 0 712 Direct tie to FD, malicious false alarm 0 713 Telephone, malicious false alarm 0 714 Central station, malicious false alarm 6 721 Bomb scare - no bomb 1 730 System malfunction. Other 23 731 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 1 733 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 7 734 Heat detector activation due to malfunction 1 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 34 36 CO detector activation due to malfunction 8 10 Unintentional transmission of alarm. Other 20 741 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 4 743 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 112 744 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 53 745 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 31 746 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 6 900 Special type of incident. Other 0 Totals 1059 01/01/201 1 to 03/31/201 1 7 6 1 2 0 0 0 14 1 13 0 11 2 23 0 38 2 159 29 34 6 0 1177 01/01/2010 to 03/31/2010 0 0 2 0 1 5 0 13 0 14 0 14 0 29 7 127 44 25 8 1 994 01/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 2 9 0 4 6 3 0 7 0 13 14 17 4 15 1 97 6 139 9 7 0 1 1067 04/08/2012 07:45 Page 3 Ithaca Fire Department IFD - Primary Action Taken Report (Summary) Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {03/31/2012} Type of Action Taken Count Percent 00 Action taken. Other 11 Extinguishment by fire service personnel 21 Search 22 Rescue, remove from harm 30 Emergency medical services. Other 31 Provide first aid & check for injuries 32 Provide basic life support (BLS) 40 Hazardous condition. Other 41 Identify, analyze hazardous materials 42 HazMat detection, monitoring, sampling, & analysis 43 Hazardous materials spill control and confinement 44 Hazardous materials leak control & containment 45 Remove hazard 51 Ventilate 52 Forcible entry 55 Establish safe area 60 Systems and services. Other 63 Restore fire alarm system 64 Shut down system 66 Remove water 70 Assistance, Other 73 Provide manpower 75 Provide equipment 80 Information, investigation & enforcement. Other 81 Incident command 86 Investigate 861 Investigate Alarm Condition 862 Investigate EMS, Released by Bangs EMS 863 Investigate EMS, Released by CU EMS 864 Investigate EMS, Released by Other EMS Agency 865 Investigate, Hazardous Condition 866 Investigate Non-EMS, Released by Police 87 Investigate fire out on arrival 92 Standby 93 Cancelled en route 1 1 11 2 3 16 32 318 1 1 6 2 2 8 2 1 7 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 36 5 309 95 69 26 2 15 1 5 5 61 0.09 % 0.09 % 1.04 % 0.19 % 0.28 % 1.51 % 3.02 % 30.00 % 0.09 % 0.09 % 0.57 % 0.19 % 0.19 % 0.75 % 0.19 % 0.09 % 0.66 % 0.28 % 0.19 % 0.28 % 0.19 % 0.19 % 0.19 % 0.28 % 3.40 % 0.47 % 29.15 % 8.96 % 6.51 % 2.45 % 0.19 % 1.42 % 0.09 % 0.47 % 0.47 % 5.75 % Total Incident Count:1060 ( \ 04/08/2012 05:55 Page Ithaca Fire Department IFD False Alarm Cause Report Alarm Date Between {01/01/2012} And {03/01/2012} False Alarm Cause Total Percent of All: Bomb Scare, No Bomb 1 0.4 % Detection Device, Cleaning 2 0.9% Detection Device, Damage 1 0.4 % Detection Device, Dust 23 10.7 % Detection Device, Insects 2 0.9% Detection Device, Malfunction 24 11.1 % Detection Device, Water 5 2.3 % Dispatch Error 6 2.7% Malicious, Pull - Private Alarm 5 2.3 % None 7 3.2 % PERS, Emergency Button 2 0.9 % Pull Station Unintentional 15 6.9 % Smoke, Cooking NO FIRE 55 25.5 % ^Hoke, Soldering-Welding 1 0.4 % roke. Solid Fuel Appliance 3 1.4 % .oke. Tobacco Product 1 0.4 % Sprinkler, Flow Switch Malfunction 1 0.4 % Sprinkler, Frozen Pipe 4 1.8 % Sprinkler, Water Surge 5 2.3 % Steam, Laundry 1 0.4 % Steam, Other 8 3.7 % System Activation, Contractor 8 3.7 % System Activation, Malfunction 34 15.8 % Trouble Alarm 1 0.4 % Total Incident Count 215 04/08/2012 07:47 Page 1 'age Paulette Terwilliger From: Susan H. Brock [brock@clarityconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:17 PM To: Paulette Terwilliger Subject: Fw: Re: Revised Stream Setback Law & Assoc materials Paulette, Here is the e-mail from Bruce Brittain that I read at the May 7 Town Board meeting. Susan Susan H. Brock, Attorney at Law 12 Pheasant Way Ithaca, NY 14850 tel.: 607-277-3995 fax: 607-277-8042 brock@ciaritvconnect.com This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect) or send an electronic mail message to brock@claritvconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. — Original Message — From: Bruce Brittain To: Susan H. Brock Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:28 PM Subject: PS: Re: Revised Stream Setback Law & Assoc materials Hi Susan- Here's a further wrinkle: I just talked with Bill Goodman, and he had a different interpretation. He thought that 1/2 acre parcels that did NOT contain a stream had to comply with the standard regulations that apply to larger parcels. That is, they were not let off the hook the way 1/2 acre parcels WITH streams are. Looking at Sections C.2.a and C.2.b, there appear to be only two possibilities: 1/2 acre WITH stream (C.2.a) and greater than 1/2 acre (C.2.b). There is no clear indication of what provisions of the law would or would not apply to 1/2 acre parcels that do NOT contain a stream, but are otherwise located in a setback zone. One suggestion for a quick fix would be to make Section C.2.a read: For parcels that are 0.5 acre or less as of the effective date of this section and contain a stream OR STREAM SETBACK Tor portion thereof! described in Subsection Pni below, only the provisions in § 270-219.5(D)(l), (4)-(5), and (12)-(15), EOSVal and fbL H and I shall apply. Paee 5/16/2012 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Section D.12 would have to be similarly worded. ! ) Bill said that he would try to talk with you and Sue before the meeting. Good luck getting this ironed ' ' out. -Bruce I f I n 5/16/2012 Page 1 of 3 Paulette Terwilliger From: Bill Goodman Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:42 AM To: Paulette Terwilliger Subject: FW: Revised Stream Setback Law & Assoc materials Hi Paulette, here's the email I had from Bruce - in reading this, I realize that the one Susan Brock read was one she received later In the afternoon and Bruce must have just sent it to her since I don't see it in any of my email accounts. The Tax Parcel # to insert in the Resolution is 32.-1-8. Thanks, Bill From: Bruce Brittain [mailto:bruceb2@mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 3:09 PM To: Susan H. Brock Cc: Susan Ritter; Bill Goodman Subject: Re: Revised Stream Setback Law & Assoc materials Hi Susan- Thank you for the reply. If that was the Town's intent, then I am fine with that. I can now see how the pre-existing rear-lot set-back legislation would keep a structure from being located too close to a stream. It would not, however, restrict the use of pesticides and herbicides on small, near-creek-side parcels, but I'm not going to go to the mat for that. Thank you again for your diligence and efforts on behalf of our little part of the world. -Bruce On May 7, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Susan H. Brock wrote: Bruce, I understand your question about the small parcels, and the answer is yes, the law is drafted to reflect the Town's intent to apply the limited restrictions only if the small parcels contain a stream or a portion of a stream. The fact that a stream setback might extend onto a small parcel does not by itself trigger any limitations on the small parcel. As the COG worked through the small parcel issues, it originally was going to exempt smaller parcels from all limitations. Town staff then asked for limited restrictions on small parcels, because they recently had to deal with a property owner who wanted to build a house practically on top of a stream. Town staff wanted to have the authority under the stream setback law to require small parcel owners to set back structures a minimum of 15 feet from streams. The law as currently drafted accomplishes this. If a stream is located off, but near, a small parcel, the underlying front, rear and side yard setbacks wiil always (or nearly always) prevent the structure from being located too close to the off-parcel stream. As for the "and" language, the law follows the convention used in the Town Code. The publishers of the Code would just change the wording back to the convention they use even if the law as adopted does otherwise. Thanks to you and Doug for your thoughtful comments and careful readingi Susan Susan H. Brock, Attorney at Law 12 Pheasant Way Ithaca. NY 14850 tel.: 607-277-3995 fax: 607-277-8042 5/16/2012 Page 2 of 3 brock@claritvconnect.com This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect) or send an electronic mail message to brock@claritvconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. — Original Message — From: Bruce Brittain To: billa@intertoad.ev.ithaca.nv.us; Susan Ritter; Susan H. Brock Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 3:56 PM Subject: Re: Revised Stream Setback Law & Assoc materials Hi Bill, Sue and Susan- Thank you, and all those involved, for cleaning up this draft legislation. It now appears to be complete and internally consistent. Doug and I are even willing to drop our previous request for the addition of the word "and" to the end of Sections E.S.e.l and E.5.e.2. However, we did have one remaining concern, which has to do with how parcels of one-half acre or less were intended to be dealt with by this legislation. Did you really mean there to be no restrictions whatsoever on small streamside parcels, provided that the property line is at the edge of the stream, rather than actually in the stream itself? It was our understanding that the one-half acre parcels that would be affected by this legislation were those that would otherwise contain a stream SETBACK (or portion thereof) as described elsewhere in the legislation, rather than those that actually contained a stream ITSELF (or a portion thereof). That is, the maximum setback would be no more than 15 ft (35 ft for herbicides and pesticides), regardless of how much of the parcel would otherwise be affected. The way the legislation has been reworded, however, it appears that these one-half acre parcels are not affected unless they actually , , contain a stream or a portion thereof. For example. Section C.2.a reads: For parcels that are 0.5 acre or less as of the effective date of this section and contain a stream Tor portion thereof) described in Subsection D(F) below and Section D.I2 reads: For parcels that are 0.5 acre or less as of the effective date of this section and contain a stream for portion thereof) described in Subsection D(l) above This seems like a much less restrictive provision than what we thought was intended. It doesn't matter to the creek if the rear property boundary is at the creek bank or a few feet either way. It would seem that the Stream Setback restrictions should still apply to these small parcels, but just to a lesser extent, as described in the legislation. Thus, it would seem to make more sense if the legislation were revised to read: Section C.2.a: For parcels that are 0.5 acre or less as of the effective date of this section and contain a stream setback for portion thereof) described in Subsection DfF) below and Section D.I 2: For parcels that are 0.5 acre or less as of the effective date of this section and contain a stream setback for portion thereof) described in Subsection D(l) above If the wording is as intended, and you really did mean to let small parcels completely off the hook if they were near, or even immediately adjacent to, a creek or stream, then we have no objections. But if the intent was to still restrict these small > * streamside parcels, just to a lesser extent, then perhaps the legislation should be reworded slightly to accomplish this. ' Thank you again. It's nice to see this legislation finally being wrapped up. 5/16/2012 Page 3 of 3 -Bruce On May 1, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Susan Ritter wrote: Bruce, Attached are revised documents pertaining to the Stream Setback Law (law, appendix A, map). Thank you again for providing your comments. I have included a clean and red-lined version of the law so you can see the changes that have been made. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for you input. Sue Susan Ritter, Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-1747 sritter(3).town.ithaca.nv.us <Stream Setback Law Appenix A - revised 4-25-12.pdf> <Stream Setback Law revised 04-26-12.doc> <Stream Setback Map.pdf> <Local Law-Stream Setback redline 04-26-12.doc> 5/16/2012 617.20 SEQR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ,RT 1 . PROJECT INFORMATION {To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) PROJECT ID NUMBER ..APPLICANT/SPONSOR Town of Ithaca 2. PROJECT NAME Chamber of Commerce - PDZ Amendments S.PROJECT LOCATION: Town of Ithaca Municipality Tompklns County County 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map 904 East Shore Drive Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-2-10 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION : □ New □ Expansion |^|Modification /alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: The proposal Is to modify the existing Planned Development Zone (No. 5) for the Tompklns County Chamber of Commerce. Proposed modifications include changes to the site plan requirements and to update the terminology and references to conform to the current Town of Ithaca Code's. \MOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: .titially +/- 1 acres Ultimately +/- 1 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.) 0 Residential □ Industrial | [Commerdal | [Agriculture | 3 [ Park / Forest / Open Space | ] Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) j [Yes 1^1 No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? □ Yes [^No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?12. AS A RESULI [yos W] No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name Michael Smith, TOWn Of IthaCa Date:Aprll18. 2012 O y ' / s 'Signatured If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment Chamber of Commerce - PDZ Modification PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town) .. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. J. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO _X_ If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The proposal is to modify the site plan requirements for the Chamber of Commerce Planned Development Zone (PDZ) and to change some of the terminology and references in the PDZ to conform to the cunent Town Code. There are no changes to the permitted uses of the PDZ. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C4. The Town'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. The proposed change to the site plan requirements for this PDZ will make it consistent with how other modifications of site plans in the Town are dealt with. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: V None Anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identifled 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. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If ves, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff , CB , other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions; For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise signiflcanL 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 (0 magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board C ^/■< 7 j Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Sign&lure(lf different from Responsible Officer) Herb Eneman. Supervisor 'Name & t]tl5;pf Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE:_ €j ^I signature of Resp^sible Offi^ inLead Agen^ 617.20 SEQR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only .RT 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) PROJECT ID NUMBER 1. APPLICANT / SPONSOR Town of Ithaca 2. PROJECT NAME La Tourelle Resort - PDZ Amendments 3.PR0JECT LOCATION: Town of Ithaca Municipality Tompklns County County 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prominent landmarks etc - or provide map 1150- 1154 Danby Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-1-4.5 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: | [ New | | Expansion Modification / alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: The proposal is to modify the existing Planned Development Zone (No. 1) for the La Tourelle Resort and Spa (Wiggins). Proposed modifications include changes to the site plan requirements and to update the terminology and references to conform to the current Town of Ithaca Code's. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially +/- 15 acres Ultimately +/- 15 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/ Forest/Open Space | [Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) [ [Yes No If yes. list agency name and permit / approval: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?j I Yes ||/|No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Yes W] No 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name Michael Smith, Town Of Ithaca Date: April 18, 2012 Sionature y If the action Is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment LaTourelle - PDZ Modification PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town) . Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If ves, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The proposal is to modify the site plan requirements for the LaTourelle Planned Development Zone (PDZ) and to change some of the terminology and references in the PDZ to conform to the current Town Code. There are no changes to the permitted uses of the PDZ. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C3. Vegetation or fauna, flsh, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C4. The Town'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. The proposed change to the site plan requirements for this PDZ will make it consistent with how other modifications of site plans in the Town are dealt with. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: ^ None Anticipated. 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. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff , CB . other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) lastnictions: For each adverse effect identifled 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 material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that aU relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board ^-4^-" '^"''" ¥/'^ ^7//-^ Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Sig6ature(If different from Responsible Officer) Herb Eneman. Supervisor &^tle,of Responsible Cfficer^In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE: dstble Offidep^in Lead Agency>ignature of Resp^ftible Offider/n Lead Agency TT ty MAR-7 2012L_.. □□□□□□□ Town Assigned Project !D Number rv Town of Ithaca Environmental Review f, —SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR|^£l^^^^^ "if For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Applicant/Sponsor Sharon R. Tregaskis & Dean R.S. Koyanagi 2. Project Name Tree Gate Farm 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) 1407 Mecklenburg Rd Ithaca NY. 14850 Tax Parcel Number: 28.-1-10.42 4. Is proposed action: NEW? X EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): We are a small ^rm producing various fruit, vegetable, pastured livestock and hay. We vnsh to continue our operations under agricultural zoning rather than low density residential. We intend to build several small outbuildings fo r farm use, including washing, packing, and storage fo dlities. We also anticipate the possibility of building a fo cility for value-added processing and one or two residences with worker housing attached. (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project) 6. Amount of land affected: ^itiallv (0-5vrs)*^ Vb Acres (6-lOyrs)'- XX (>10 yrs^- Acres How is land zoned,presently?Low Density Res)ijidential 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use r^trictions? Yes X NO If no, describe conflict briefly: 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water? YES NO X Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential X Commercial X Industrial Agriculture X Park/Forest/Open Space X Other Please Describe: Several houses and a warehouse along Mecklenburg Rd., YMCA owns land to the East, residential and agriculture to the West, Comell's Coy Glen Natural Area to the South. 11. Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO X If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE DIFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): ye^r\x?j31 Signature and Date: March 1,2012 Tree Gate Farm - LDR to AG PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town) . Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The property to be rezoned has been in agricultural production for many years, mostly as one large open field. The current owners are using the property for a variety of agricultural activities including various fruit and vegetable crops, pastured livestock and hay. The Agricultural Zone allows them to continue with the current farm operation, but would also allow the expansion of the farm in the future by adding uses or facilities such as additional farm outbuildings, farm labor housing, a larger farmstand, or retail sales related to agriculture operations. C3. Vegetation or fauna, flsh, shellflsh, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The Coy Glen Unique Natural Area is located on the western edge of the property on the existing forested lands and creek. Aerial photo's from 1938 and 1980 both show the majority of this parcel as a cleared open field. C4. The Town'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. This property is located within the Tompkins County Agricultural District No. 2 and is shown in ''^^e current and proposed Town Comprehensive Plans as Agricultural for the majority of the property with Conservation ^signated along the western edge. The Town's Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan includes this parcel within the jea designated as "Farmland Targeted for Protection" and is also shown as a parcel targeted for the PDR program. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None Anticipated. The Agricultural Zone will allow additional agriculture/farm related activities to occur on the property; some are listed above in C2. 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. D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff . CB . other attached. (Check as applicable.) PART in - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in coimection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occuning; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (0 magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identiil^ and adequately address. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. JC Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Town Board ^ UjJamp of Lead Agency Preparer's Sfgnature(if different from Responsible Officer) Herb Engman. Supervisor Name & t^le of Respon^ibie^Q'ffice^ In Lead Agency Sign^re of Contributing Preparer DATErVr^^p^sible in Lead AgencV 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 tlie Portions of EAF completed for this project 13 Part 1 □ Part 2 □ Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. □ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be 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 Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions 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 V S^JiatnSR^Spon^^OfficerilT^d^g«T^"^~"''''~ Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) ^t/r^ Date Page 1 of21 PART 1-PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor ' I 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 Zoning Chapter of the Town Code to Add Stream Setback Provisions and Related Definitions Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) The changes to the Zoning Chapter will affect areas throughout the Town that are in or near streams that meet the size thresholds specified in the law (generally ^ose having a drainage area of 35 acres or above). Name of Applicant/Sponsor Town of Ithaca Address 215 N. Tioga Street City / PO Ithaca State KV Zip Code 14850 Business Telephone 607-273-1747 Name of Owner (If different) n/a ' \ Address CHy / 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 the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code and establish restrictions on certain activities within specified distances of Town streams; requiring said activities to be "setback" a specified distance firom a stream. Key features of the law include: (1) Applicability of the law to streams having upstream drainage areas equal to or greater than 35 acres; (2) Establishment of three different setback widths (35ft, 50ft, 100ft) depending on the size of the upstream area draining into the stream; (3) Establishment of two different "zones" of protection (Zone 1 and Zone 2) within a setback width, with Zone 1 being streamside and requiring the most protection; (4) Setback width adjustments when streamside wetlands exist or when slopes of 25 percent or greater exist widiin Setback Zone 1; (5) A Stream Setback Map referenced in the law identifying streams having a drainage area equal to or greater than 35 acres along with their required setback widths; (6) Exemption for parcels 0.5 acres or less in size (a minimum setback for new construction would still apply); (7) Numerous prohibited activities applicable to one or both zones (Zone 1 and/or Zone 2); (8) Added definitions to the Zoning Chapter relevant to the Stream Setback provisions. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Questlon--lndlcate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: CD Urban □ Industrial □ Commercial CD Residential (suburban) □ Rural (non-farm) □ Forest GAgriculture □^h-r amendments wiU affect areas throughout the Town. The locations encompass a wide varied of physical settings and include both developed and undeveloped areas. 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) I Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate ^pe) PRESENTLY n/a acres n/a acres nM acres n/a acres n/a acres n/a acres n/a acres acres AFTER COMPLETION aaes acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3. 6. What Is predominant soil ty pe(s) on project site? Not applicable: a high variabilitv of soil tvpes exist within affected areas. a. Soil drainage: I iwell drained of site □ Moderately well drained % of site. _% of siteLJ Poorly 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). Are there bedrock outcropplngs on project site? Yes □ No Areas of bedrock outcropping are common in parts of the Town and occurrences are possible in affected areas. a. What Is depth to bedrock (in feet) Approximate percentage of proposed prefect site with slopes: Not applicable; slope percent is highly variable throughout Town. □o-10% % □lO-1S% % □ 15% or greater % Is project substantiaH^^ontiguous toOT contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers ofHistoric Places? [^Yes | | No The Forest Home Historical District is known to be within a stream setback area. 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) Not applicable, water table is variable throughout the Town. 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? 1 lYes I I No Not applicable 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 1 * \ Yes □ No These activities are likely to occur within affected areas. Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is Identified as threatened or endangered? Qves Q No NYS DEC Heritage Program (Nature Explorer website) has identified several species of endangered plants/animals whose presence in the Town have been documented. Some occurrences are likely to be within close proximity to Town streams. j Identify each species: Several wetland plant species have been identified; 3 sedge species (Glaucous, Reflexed, James) last documented in early 2000; Swamp Lousewort last documented in 1977; Marsh Horsetail in 1999. Exact locations of these species are not specified by DEC. No other threatened/endangered species have been documented in the Town within the last 50 years. The proposed action will have no adverse impact on the species; it would instead offer protection to plants within a streamside wetland. 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? Hves n No Describe; Streams in the Town are foimd within a number of area gorges; many of the gorges are considered geologically significant for having walls of exposed shale and sandstone firom the Devonian age. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? 0Yes Qno If ves, explain; Ntunerous open space and/or recreational areas used by the community are located in and/or partially along or near stream corridors. Ilie most prominent areas include Buttermilk Falls and Robert Treman State Parks, Six Mile Creek Natural Area, East Ithaca and South Hill Recreationways, Lick Brook and the Cayuga Inlet public fishing areas. The proposed action will have any adverse impact on these current uses. 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be Important to the community? "13 Yes "n No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area; a. Name of Stream and name of River to which It is tributary The Town's draft Scenic Resource Inventory & Analysis report (dated 12/7/11) identifies important scenic views and some of the locations contain, or are along, streams and stream corridors. The proposed action applies directly to streams (generally those with drainage areas greater than 35 acres) and is intended to provide protection to diose streams. 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: Ponds and wetlands occur alongside many Town streams. b. Size (in acres); Page 4 of 21 ,^0^ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? LJ Yes LJ No|~[ Q Includes areas served and not served by utilities. a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? Yes 0! No b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? [^No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and [^Yes No Proposed action will apply to some areas designated as County Agricultural District 1. 19. Is the site located in or substantiallycpntiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR617? riYes flNo ^ ^ ^ ^ jn The proposed action will apply to the Town s one CEA which is Coy Glen and contains the Coy Glen creek. 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? n Yes □ No unknown - some areasmay include old disposal sites. B. Project Description The proposed action will apply to lands throughout the Town where streams exist. 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 % ' 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 LjYes LJno 0 N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ^]Yes FH No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? |Q Yes No 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 Not applicable 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: months, (including demolition) Not applicable 7. If multi-phased: Not applicable 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 Not applicable 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A; after project Is complete Not applicable 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A . Not applicable 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? I I Yes I I No Not applicable If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal Involved? LJ Yes Qno Not applicable 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 I I No Type Not applicable 14. Will surface area of an existing water body Increase or decrease by proposal? I lYes I I No Not applicable If yes, explain; 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Yes ^3No Not applicable 16. Will the project generate solid waste? □ Yes □ No Not applicable 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 d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyos n No N Page 6 of 21 e. If yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Yes ^]no Not Applicable 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? I Ives □ No Not Applicable YesLjNo Not Applicable 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? [^Yes Q]no Not Applicable 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? I 1 Yes □ No Not Applicable If yes, indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from weils, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. Not Applicable 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. Not Applicable 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I i Yes □ No Not Applicable If yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board Yes n No Type Zoning modification Submlttal Date ^ 4/9/12 ' City, Town, Village Planning Board □ Yes H No City, Town Zoning Board i Ivfig 1 * i No City, County Health Department □ves H No Other Local Agencies 13 Yes □ Other Regional Agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies No i ivgs i * I 1 Ives El No No lOves 1*1 No CounQr recommendation. Tompkins County Planning 3/13/12 GML referral for 0. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [^Yes No If Yes, Indicate decision required: Zoning amendment Zoning variance □ New/revlslon of master plan □ Site plan □ Special use permit □ Resource management plan □ □ Subdivision ' S Other Page 8 of21 2. What is the zoning classificatlon(s) of the site? The proposed action will apply to lands throughout the Town and in all zones 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Not applicable 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? Not applicable 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Yes □ No The proposed action is intended to protect streams, stream corridors, and the water quality of streams and Cayuga Lake. This is consistent with the stated goals and recommendations in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. 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 areas of various land use types and zonmg classifications. 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a Ya mile? □ves □ No N/A ^ 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? Not applicable a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? □ Yes 0 No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? 0 No a. If yes. Is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 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. Qyos Q No D. Informaticnal 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 Date Signature Title If the action is in tha Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 ' S 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. I 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. I 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. I The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. 1 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(coiumn 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? NO0 YESQ 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 nNo □ □ Yes Qno □ □ Yes Qno n n Yes C^No n n Yes □ □ 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.□□Yes in No Construction in a designated floodway.□□□ves Dno Other impacts:□□□Jves 1 INq 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (I.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)igNO QTES • Specific land forms: Impact on Water 3. Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, C^Yes I^No The proposed action will help to protect many of the Town streams including those identified as protected by NYS law. 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?0NO □yes 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. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: □ □ □ The proposed action will help to protect many of the Town streams including those that have not been designated as protected by NYS law. ECL)QNO 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. □□□ ves □ no • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.□□riYes □ z o • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.□□riYes □ no Other impacts:□□□ves □ no □n Yes □ no □□ves oz □ □□ves Oz □ 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 □yes Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit.□□Qves Qno • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. □□nYes Dno • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. □□Qves Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. □□Qves 0|no Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.□□C^Yes ^]no • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. □□□ Yes Dno • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. □□ yss nNo • Proposed Action will likely cause siltatlon or other discharge into ^ an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. □□□ yss Qno Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. □□□yss FIno Proposed Action will allow residential uses In areas without water and/or sewer services. □□□ yss Ono • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or Industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other Impacts: □ □ □ □ □yss Qno riYes [^No The proposed action is intended to protect water quality by prohibiting certain activities within a specified distance of streams and by protecting a vegetated buffer between streams and human land uses; the vegetated buffer would serve to trap and filter pollutants from stormwater runoff and stabilize stream banks thus reducing stream bank erosion. Page 13 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?□no □yes Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows □□rives [^No • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.□□^^Yes Qno • Proposed Action Is Incompatible with existing drainage patterns.□□riYes □no • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. □□Dj^es □no Other Impacts:□□^^Yes □no The proposed action to maintain an undeveloped vegetated corridor along streams will help to lessen flooding along streams by absorbing and slowing the velocity of flood waters. IMPACT ON AIR Will Proposed Action affect air quality?□ NO QYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will Induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips In any given hour. □□[^Yes □no • Proposed Action will result In the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. □□^lyes □no • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. □□CHyes oz □ • Proposed Action will allow an Increase In the amount of land committed to Industrial use. □□Qyes Oz □ • Proposed Action will allow an Increase In the density of Industrial development within existing industrial areas. □riyes □no •Dther Impacts:□□Qyes oz □ IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Wilt Proposed Action affect anv threatened or endanaered species?□ NO □YES 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. □□ Dyes Dno Page 14 of 21 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.□□n^es Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. □□^^Yes IZIno Other impacts:□□nYes C]no 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species?□ NO QYES 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: □ □ □ n nves nNo □ Dves QNo n Qves Qno The proposed action seeks to protect and maintain a naturally vegetated corridor along streams which will benefit a variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species which use these areas for habitat and as travel routes between habitats. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?□ no □yes 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 would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. □ □ 13 dves No □ □ves Qno □ nYes Qno Page 15 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact 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 □ 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 Qyes 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 pattems, 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: □ □ n IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action Impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontologlcal Importance?[5] NO □yes Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially 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 NYS Site Inventory. □ □ 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change □ Gves Qno □ ves n □ Qves n Q Qves n No No n Qves n No n Q Yes D □ □ Yes Q n n Yes n No No No □ DYes Dno \ 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?□ no pVES 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 CRmCAL 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)?|3no □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 wiil 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 wiil Impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? Other Impacts: 2 Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change □ nves □ No □□□Yes □no □□riYes □no □□i~lYes 1 iNn □□□Yes FIno □□C] Yes □no □□CIyss □no □□CIyss Dno □□CIyss Qno Page 17 of 21 1 Small to Moderate Impact IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? QNO QYES Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns 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 nYES 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. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? □no Qyes 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 wouid act as a noise screen. • Other Impacts: 2 Potential Large Impact □ □ Can Impact Be Mitigated by Project Change n Oives ^3 No nVes CJno Qves Qno Qves Qno □ves Qno □□Dves Dno □□Dves Qno □□nVes □ no □□Oves No □□Qves □ no 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? [gNO 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: □ □ □ □ □ IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NBGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?ijjNO □YES 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.) □ □ □ □ □ Dyos □No □ QYes Dno ^3 dlYes Qno O Dyos CIno [H Qyos d No □ Dyos Dno n ciyos qno □Qyos Qno □Qyos Qno □riYes Ono □ 0( □ □no Page 19 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Proposed Action will set an Important precedent for future □□n^es nNo projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment.□□□ ves Dno Other Impacts:□Yes ^^No 20. Is there, or Is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment Impacts?[3 NO riYES General comment applicable to action: No negative impacts are anticipated. The proposed action seelcs to establish restrictions on certain activities from occurring within specified distances of Town streams in order to reduce harm to the stream, the stream corridor, and water quality. if Any Action in Part 2 is identified as a Potentiai Large impact or if you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Planning Department Report - For March & April 2012 Submitted to the Ithaca Town Board for May 7, 2012 meeting Planning Board - Development Reviews Holochuck Homes Subdivision - Received final subdivision/site plan approval. The project will involve the construction of 106+/- town home type units in a clustered development with two entrances off from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Density Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mostly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The Planning Board also provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the two proposed freestanding community signs. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner/Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Conifer Senior Living on West Hill (West Hill Drive) - Received preliminary site plan and subdivision approval. The proposal involves developing approximately 5 acres of a +/-33 acre parcel for a new 3-story, 72 unit senior housing facility (21,000 +/- square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. The proposal requires rezoning approximately 4.796 +/- acres from Medium Density Residential Zone to a new Multiple Residence Zone by the Town Board. Cornell University, Property Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; Passero Associates, Ag Ithaca College Athletics and Event Center - Received preliminary and final site plan approval and Special permit for several site and building modifications to the A&E Center. The modifications include changes to the plantings, entrance features, walkways, lighting, bleachers, storage building, emergency generators, and speakers for the bleacher area. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent. Belle Sherman Cottages - Received preliminary and final site plan approval for project modifications to allow homeowners the option to change from a 1-car garage to a 2-car garage for the 19 single family lots. Belle Sherman Cottages, LLC, Owner/Applicant. IC Carp Wood Field Scoreboard - Provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the scoreboard at the Ithaca College Carp Wood Field. The proposal involves replacing the existing scoreboard with a new 21 +/- foot tall, 174 +/- square foot scoreboard in the same location at Carp Wood Field. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice-President for Facilities, Agent. Elizabeth Ann Clune Montessori School - Considered a Sketch Plan proposal for a new building addition (approximately 11,215 square feet) between the existing Main School and Middle School buildings (120 and 122 King Road East) to provide a larger gymnasium, performance and after school facility, along with new offices, restrooms and support space. The project also involves renovations to the existing main building to create an additional classroom along with new office and reception space. Site improvements for this project include creating a dedicated parent drop off area, additional parking, and associated walkways, plantings and stormwater facilities. Elizabeth Ann ^00^ Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owner/Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Architect, Agent. Other Planning Board Activities: / Presentation by Ed Marx on the Tompkins County's draft Preliminary Concept for the Biggs ^0^ Property Development RFP (Request for Proposal) and subsequent discussion/comments by the Board. Comprehensive Plan Update/Comprehensive Planning Committee The Comprehensive Plan Committee focused attention the last few months on reviewing Chapter 3 - Future Land Use Plan from the draft Comprehensive Plan (dated 8/25/11). The Future Land Use Plan includes a map of proposed-future land uses and associated descriptions of the proposed land use categories. The committee completed its review of Chapter 3 at the 4/25/12 meeting and requested staff to make several modifications to the land use descriptions and map. A joint meeting of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee and the Town Comprehensive Plan Committee took place on 4/25/12. The meeting was productive and allowed an exchange of mutual issues of concern. The committees hope to re-convene in the next 2-3 months. Planning Committee The committee reviewed additional transportation modeling results provided by Tom Mank (Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council) at the March meeting. The modeling compared current 2012 traffic conditions (peak hour traffic during 5-6PM) with a scenario that combined the planning staff s "Scenario 2" for a medium-high density Traditional Neighborhood Development for the West Hill area with projected future (20-30 years) growth conditions occurring elsewhere in the County, developed by Tompkins County Planning Department during the County Comprehensive Plan. The results presented at the March meeting featured level of service (LOS) ratings for numerous intersections throughout the West Hill area including the City. \For the April meeting, several members of the Conservation Board attended and gave an update on ^ their renewed efforts for developing a proposal for conservation zoning in the areas of the Coy Glen, Coy Glen Road Hackberry Woods, and Culver Creek Ravine and Woods designated Unique Natural Areas. Conservation Board members and planning staff provided background on the efforts undertaken thus far, including the partially drafted report to justify the rezoning to Conservation, and the anticipated necessary steps to move the proposal along. Planning Committee members expressed support for the Board's efforts and encouraged the Board to move forward on revising the draft report. A joint meeting of the Town and City Planning Committees took place on March 14. The meeting focused on a presentation and discussion of the Tompkins County Planning Department's Development Focus Areas proposal. Codes and Ordinance Committee The committee began reviewing revisions to the Town Sign Law; a revised version of the law was prepared by planning staff following considerable research and input from codes staff, planning staff and attorney for the Town. The committee also considered modifications to the Town Sprinkler Law, revisions to garage/accessory building setbacks and definitions, and whether woodsheds should be exempt from the zoning regulations pertaining to accessory structures. Conservation Board The Board announced the recipient of the 2011 Fischer Award. This year's award will go to Cayuga Compost; a locally owned food waste collection and composting business that services local businesses, diverting their food scraps from the waste stream into high quality compost. The award will be presented at the West Hill Park Community Garden on Sat. May 12 at 11 a.m. until noon. \ where a Honeycrisp apple tree will be planted. The Board continues to make progress on a scenic resources informational display for the East Shore Drive Park. The Coy Glen Committee, recently established by the Board, began holding meetings and establishing a work plan. The Communication Committee has started to talk about the idea of developing a Facebook page for the Conservation Board, and plans to discuss this more with the Town Board soon. The Board is looking at possible education and outreach efforts over the summer concerning invasive species and timber harvesting. Agricultural Committee Planning staff organized and coordinated a reconvening of the Agricultural Committee. The Ag Committee had not met in approximately 6 years and one of the first recommendations from the newly adopted Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (AFPP) was to reactivate the Committee. The main agenda items were organization of the Committee (new organization structure, membership, officers) and discussion of a couple implementation items from the AFPP that the Committee would like to start with (agricultural webpage, sign law revision). The Committee plans to meet four times a year (January, March, July, and November), with the next meeting planned for July to discuss the Sign Law revisions and the draft Comprehensive Plan, if they are ready. Other Department Activities • Indian Creek Farm Agricultural Conservation Easement - Staff has discussed the requested changes to the draft easement language and the preliminary site plan with the Attorney for the Town and the property owner. Staff has updated the easement and site plan and will be sending them back to NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets for further review. • Planning staff coordinated a presentation by consultants hired by NYSERDA, Newport Ventures, to provide information to municipalities regarding Green Building Codes. ^ • Planning staff attended Cornell's resource-sharing event for counties and municipalities held at the NYS Armory on April 20*^. Staff also participated in a roundtable discussion on a Cornell municipal shared services study, • Planning staff met with Cornell staff to discuss a proposal for replacing the Plantations Road underpass with a bridge on Judd Fall Rd and modifications to the "jug handle" portion of the road. Also discussed was a proposal for re-locating the fleet parking lot to the Palm Road area, south of Route 366. • Planning staff also held meetings with various groups/individuals concerning potential development proposals, including: - potential buyers of the Kyong property on Trumansburg Road. The prospective buyers are pediatricians interested in keeping the facility as a medical practice; - YMCA CEO concerning the use of their large wooded parcel off Mecklenburg Road for outdoor youth activities; - Larry Fabbroni Sr and Larry Fabbroni Jr. with a revised proposal for the Briarwood area consisting of clustered townhouses. The proposal would utilize much less land than the previous proposal for single family houses. After some refinement, the proposal is anticipated to be presented formally to the Town; - represenatives from Groundswell Center for Local Food & Farming regarding a new irrigation pond at EcoVillage for the Farm Enterprise Incubator program. • Planning staff interviewed several candidates for the Planning Intern position. Stephen Albonesi was selected and accepted the position. Stephen is an Ithaca native currently working on his Masters in City and Regional Planning at Rutgers University. • Planning staff attend webinar sponsored by ICLEI entitled "Communicating Sustainability and Responding to Critics" on April 5th. 05/03/2012 Town clerk Monthly Report April 01,2012 - April 30,2012 Page 1 At ,it#Account Description Fee Description Qty Local Share A1255 Marriage License Marriage Fee 11 192.50 Marriage Transcript Marriage Transcript 5 50.00 Tax Search Tax Search 1 5.00 Sub-Total:$247.50 A1557 Impound Fees Impound Fees 1 20.00 Sut)-Total:$20.00 A2191 Park Rental Fee Park Rental Fee 2 125.00 Sub-Total:$125.00 A2544 Dog Licensing Female, Spayed 33 405.00 Male, Neutered 37 423.00 Male, Unneutered 1 17.00 Replacement Tags 1 5.00 Sub-Total:$850.00 B2109 Electrical Permit Electrical Permit 17 2,600.00 Sub-Total:$2,600.00 B2110 Zoning Board Meeting Appl.Zoning Board Meeting Appl.3 300.00 Sub-Total:$300.00 B^^Building Permit Building Permit 27 10,605.00 Building Permit Extension Building Permit Extension 2 50.00 Sign Permit Sign Permit 1 1,000.00 Sub-Total:$11,655.00 B2113 Operating Permit Fee Operating Permit Fee 1 100.00 Sub-Total:$100.00 B2115 Add. Mtg. Fee Agenda Proc 3SS Add. Mtg. Fee Agenda Process 1 30.00 Add. Mtg. Fee PH Process Add. Mtg. Fee PH Process 1 50.00 Site Plan Final Plat Site Plan Final Plat 2 1,000.00 Subdiv. Rev Final Plat Subdiv. Rev Final Plat 1 140.00 Sub-Total:$1,220.00 TA30 Bid Spec Deposit Bid Spec Deposit 1 5.00 Sub-Total:$5.00 TA61 Park Security Deposit Park Security Deposit 2 0.00 Sub-Total:$0.00 05/03/2012 Town Clerk Monthly Report April 01,2012 - April 30,2012 Page 2 Account#Account Description Amount paid to: NYS Ag. & Markets for spay/neuter program Amount paid to: State Health Dept. Total State, County & Local Revenues:$17,465.0(1 To the Supervisor: Pursuant to Section 27, Sub 1, of the Town Law, I hereby ce me, Pauletle Terwilliger, Town Cierk, Town of Ithaca during the pe monies, thtapplication of which are otherwise provided for by law r1 ify that the foregoing is a iod stated above, in conne Supen^dr /i?— Fee Description Qty Local Share Total Local Shares Remitted:$17,122.50 95.00 247.50 Total Non-Local Revenues:$342.50 rue statement of all fees and monies received by umy office, excepting only such fees and Town Clerk Date \ From: 4/1/2012TompkinsIthaca)To: 4/30/201250DOG LICENSE MONlHirf REPORTSend Copy To: Animal Population Control06)05/03/2012Town Clerk/Deputy Town ClerkijXV..C<lNOO llCCiOAND FEESDogsYrsUnpsyaUnspayedStatutory Fee(B)SpayedStatutory(C)FeeLocalFee (D)Late Penalty(E)Spayed Fee (F)Unspayed Fee (G)1. Spay/Neuter7092NO FEE@0.000.0009.00828.00000.000.0001.0092.00NO FEE2. Unspay/Unneuter111@0.000.00NOFEE017.0017.00000.000.00NO FEE03.003.003. Exemption00NO FEENOFEENO FEENO FEENO FEENO FEE4. Purebred (1-10)000@0.000.00@0.000.00040.000.0000.000.0001.000.0003.000.005. Purebred (11-25)000@0.000.0000.000.00065.000.0000.000.0001.000.0003.000.006. Purebred (26+)000@0.000.0000.000.000115.000.0000.000.0001.000.0003.000-007. TOTALS71931n $0.00$0.00n - - $845.-00$0 .-otr—$-92.00$3.00REPLACEMENT AND PUREBREDTAG ORDERS PROCESSED8. Replacement Tags9. Purebred Tags10. TOTALSColumn H# Each10Column I (Local) Column J (Statutory)Tag Fees Tag Fees5.00. 0.000.00 0.00$5.00$0.00DISBURSEMENTS (to T.C.V.)12. Local% of 7B + 7C13. Local% of 7D + 7E + 10114. Total$0.00$850.00$850.00Amount paid to: County Treasurer for Dog LicensesAmount paid to: NYS Ag. & Markets for spay/neuter program(to County)15. Stat% of 7B + 7C $0.0016. Stat% of lOJ $0.0017. Total $0.00(to Animal Population Control)18. 100% of 7F + 7G $95.00$0.00$95.00LICENSE SUMMARY1. Number of Original Standard Dog Licenses:2. Number of Original Purebred Dog Licenses:3. Number of Standard Renewals (including New Owner Licenses):4. Number of Purebred License Renewals:5. Total of Lines 1-3:8063071 NEW YORK STATE DGRARTMENT OF HEALTH Empire Slate Plaza - Corning Tower Bureau of Accounts Management - Revenue Unit - Room 1258 Albany, New York 12237-0016 Monthly Report of Marriage Licenses Issued Report for the month of City or Town of Ithaca County of Totnnkins SEE INSTRDCITONS AT BOTl CM OF PAGE DEP NO. Check # DO NOT WRITE IN ABOVE SPACE Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of the Domestic Relations Law, as last amended by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2003,1 herewith transmit to the Stale Commissioner of Health a fee of twenty two dollars and fifty cents for each marriage license issued by me during the month covered by this report. Licenses issued were numbered from 23 inclusive. (If ONE license was issued place number in the first space only!) (If NO licenses were issued write "NONE" in the above space.) Make remittance by CHECK or MONEY ORDER payable to the Stale Department of Health DO NOT SEND CASH Amount of remittance with this report 247.50 Name of City or Town Clerk (Please Print) •—'-A' f^j, /I —Signature^of City or Town Qerk ^ Mailing Address " ^ 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 E-mail Address Pterwilliger(a'town.ithaca.ny.us 0510312012 607-273-1721 INSTRUCTIONS ir- THIS MONTHLY REPORT OF MARRIAGE LlCENvSES ISSUED MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS FOR EACH MONTH regardless of whether or not any licenses were issued. If no licenses were Issued, Indicate NONE in the space provided for license numbers. The issuance of a marriage license makes you responsible for the remittance fee of $22.50, regardless of whether or not the marriage ceremony is ever performed. Marriage licenses must be numbered and reported consecutively throughout the year starting with number 1 at the beginning of EACH calendar year. Pursuant to the autliority of Section 19 of the New York State Domestic iiclations Law, the Commissioner of Health has directed that this report, together with any fee must be transmitted to the State Department of Health by the 15lh of the month following the month which the report covers. New York State Domestic Relations Law 22 provides that any Town or City Clerk who violates or fails to comply with any of the above mentioned reporting or filing requirements, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall pay a fine not exceeding the sum of one hundred dollars on conviction thereof. DOH-963 (09/2004)