Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1987-10-20 TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL BOARD MEETING October 20, 1987 At a Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 12:15 P.M. , on the 20th day of October, 1987, there were: • PRESENT: Noel Desch, Supervisor Henry McPeak, Councilman Shirley Raffensperger, Councilwoman Marc Cramer, Councilman Gloria Howell, Councilwoman Robert Bartholf, Councilman Patricia Leary, Councilwoman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. 1988 ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES Supervisor Desch noted the proposed salaries for the Town Board members at $4,200 each, Town Justices at $8,000 each and Town Supervisor/Chief Fiscal Officer at $16,000. RESOLUTION NO. 221 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the elected officials salaries for the year 1988 for Town Board members at $4,200 each, Town Justices at $8,000 each and Town Supervisor/Chief Fiscal Officer at $16,000. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . STREET LIGHTS Eric Whitney, Assistant Engineer reported that NYSEG has a program where the Town can replace the mercury vapor lamps, as they burn out with high pressure sodium lamps. If the units are more than 15 years old there is no charge to the Town. Currently the Town of Ithaca has 207 lamps in service. By replacing them as they burn out, once they are all replaced with high pressure sodium lamps • there will be about an $8,200 a year savings, to the Town, in energy costs. However, the extra service charge for the higher priced sodium lamps is about $5,600, so the Town would save approximately $2,600 a year, overall. Councilman Cramer asked what was the difference in illumination between the two lamps? Mr. Whitney replied, roughly per killowat of engery the sodium is about twice as efficient. Town Board 2 October 20, 1987 Councilwoman Raffensperger asked what they looked like? Some of them are awfully ugly colored. Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, they are more golden in color. They are easier on the eyes. Supervisor Desch remarked, they are also on Route 13. They are not like the bright red lamps. RESOLUTION NO. 222 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, • RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize NYSEG to replace, as they burn out, the 207 lamps in service with high pressure sodium lamps at no charge, for those over 15 years of age, and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lighting Districts be excluded, at this time, from replacement with high pressure sodium lamps. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1988 PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA RESOLUTION NO. 223 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct at public hearing at 7:00 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to consider approval of the 1988 Preliminary Budget for the Town of Ithaca. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1988 PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 224 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:15 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to consider approval of the 1988 Preliminary Budget for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . • SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CLOVER LANE LIGHTING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 225 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:17 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to Town Board 3 October 20, 1987 consider approval of the Clover Lane Lighting District budget for 1988. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE EASTWOOD COMMONS LIGHTING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 226 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, • RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:19 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to consider approval of the Eastwood Commons Lighting District budget for 1988. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOREST HOME LIGHTING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 227 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:21 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to consider approval of the Forest Home Lighting District budget for 1988. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE GLENSIDE LIGHTING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 228 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:23 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to consider approval of the Glenside Lighting District budget for 1988. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RENWICK HEIGHTS • LIGHTING DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 229 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board. of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:25 P.M. , on November 5, 1987 to consider approval of the Renwick Heights Lighting District budget for 1988. Town Board 4 October 20, 1987 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1988 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 230 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., on November 5, 1987 to • consider approval of the 1988 Fire Protection District Budget. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WATER AND SEWER BENEFIT UNITS Supervisor Desch stated that this item was not quite ready for Town Board approval. It will be ready for the meeting on November 5th. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISE LOCAL LAW # 2 - 1980 Supervisor Desch remarked that this local law has a restriction in it regarding through trucks over 5 tons. The law enforcement agencies are hamstrung in enforcing it because they do not have portable scales. They and the people of Forest Home are suggesting that the truck ban be all through trucks. RESOLUTION N0, 231 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M., on November 16, 1987 to consider an amendment to Local Law # 2 - 1980. Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell and Bartholf voting Aye. Nays - none) . (Councilwoman Leary arrived at this time) . REVISIONS TO DEER RUN COVENANT Town Attorney John Barney stated that he had had some discussions with Mr. Seifter and Mr. Hallberg regarding some changes in the Covenant for Deer Run. The Town Attorney stated that he never saw a final copy of the Deer Run Covenants and several days ago, Mr. Seifter sent him a copy. He went on to say that in going through it he found that some of the changes the Town Board had wanted were • not included. On the definition of a family, Mr. Hallberg is willing to have the definition of a family inserted, however, he would like not to be solely limited to two unrelated persons in those units where there are three bedrooms. What he would like, for these units, is to have the authorization to have an owner occupy it with possibly two additional persons. We just made this deviation a couple of weeks ago with Black Oak. The second problem that Mr. Seifter had with the language was that it required the person to have his primary residence, and he understood that at least one of the units has been sold to some people who live in Town Board 5 October 20, 1987 Florida and will be up here only in the summer. Their primary residence for tax purposes and other purposes is in Florida. In reflecting on it he felt it didn't make that much difference if the Town puts restrictions rentals, but this is a Town Board decision. The third change that was requested was that there are circumstances where the developer may build the units but because of market conditions may not be able to sell and they would like the privilege of being able to rent for a period of time after the initial construction. In Cayuga Vista we limited it to twelve units. The Town Attorney stated that he thought this project was being constructed in four unit phases but he was wrong, it is sixteen unit phases and when he drafted the language he had slipped in four, they are requesting sixteen. • Supervisor Desch asked the Board for comments about family and rental, family first. He asked the Board if they were comfortable with three unrelated persons in the case of three bedrooms? Councilwoman Raffensperger noted, it says owner plus two, though, that is an additional restriction, as opposed to just three unrelated. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney how he proposed to word this? Town Attorney Barney responded, probably in subparagraph 3, would say something like except that if the unit is a three bedroom unit and owner and up to two unrelated other persons can occupy. Councilman Bartholf asked if this follows the procedure used in other developments? Supervisor Desch responded, this one is slightly different. we had a fairly lengthy discussion at the last Board meeting on the Black Oak Lane project and this is similar to what we came up with. Mr. Hallberg asked if something could be put in to identify what is a bedroom. He went on to say he did not want someone trying to say is the basement a bedroom or is this room a bedroom? He stated that on his plans he refers to the bedrooms. Del Grover, Cayuga Vista developer asked if these were the same restrictions that were put on Cayuga Vista that you are now putting on Deer Run? Supervisor Desch replied, pretty similar. Mr. Grover replied, something similar, they should be the same shouldn't they? Supervisor Desch replied, not necessarily. Mr. Grover asked, why? Supervisor Desch replied that each project should be judged on its own merits. • Town Attorney Barney responded, with the possible exception of the three bedroom question, which was not raised when we discussed Cayuga Vista, that the rest of this is identical language. Mr. Grover replied, you put restrictions on us that we cannot have absentee owner units, do they have the same at their place? Town Board 6 October 20, 1987 Town Attorney Barney replied, yes. The rentals part of it comes directly from the Cayuga Vista language, it tracks it word for word. Mr. Grover replied, in other words they can rent up to three unrelated people without having it owner occupied? Town Attorney Barney replied, no. Mr. Hallberg responded, the only time you can rent to three unrelated is if one of them is the owner. Mr. Grover asked if there were restrictions on all three projects? • Supervisor Desch replied that he could not remember the language on Cayuga Vista but it might not be on your project. You would have to go back and look at it and then follow it word for word. Mr. Grover responded, I would have to go back and look at it, doesn't the Board judge all three of them on the same merits? Supervisor Desch replied no, we do each one on their own merits, depending on configuration, depending on size, depending on mix of units, depending on location, traffic, open space, many many criteria. Mr. Grover remarked that when they got involved with Cayuga Vista, the first thing that was brought up in this room was that Rocco Lucente 'can't do something so we can't do it. If we are judge the same with Rocco and us why can't everybody else do the same? Supervisor Desch replied that he was not sure that statement was ever made. Maybe that's your interpretation, but it doesn't make any difference. Mr. Grover replied, it was said that we couldn't give Cayuga Vista something that we couldn't give to Rocco Lucente. Mr. Grover stated that he was not asking for an argument but if you put these kinds of restrictions on us, you can't give us any different than you give to Rocco Lucente project then how can you change these other two projects? Supervisor Desch stated that he could not satisfy Mr. Grover with an answer unless he took a lot of time and went back and compared the language on the four projects. You do that then come back and tell us where it agrees or where it disagrees. Supervisor Desch then asked if there were any questions on rentals under subparagraph "i"? Councilwoman Raffensperger noted, under subparagraph "ii", does it really take care of that? Supervisor Desch questioned, how would you change the wording? • Town Attorney Barney replied that he would simply change it to read that all owners of units except the declarant must have one of their residents, if they have more than one residence, at Deer Run. Councilman Cramer asked, are you taking about an out of state resident or an in state resident, or is there no difference between the two? Town Board 7 October 20, 1987 Town Attorney Barney replied, all they are concerned about is the ability to rent to somebody who may technically be a resident of another state. Councilman Cramer asked, what about a person who has another residence in Ithaca and decides he will have his residence at Deer Run and thus allowing him to have two additional unrelated. Supervisor Desch replied that he did not feel the Board was too worried if this happened. He stated that he could not see where that would be a problem. Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that in the first one, her • assumption was that the owner would be a resident. Town Attorney Barney replied yes, and that the owner is a family. Supervisor Desch asked to Town Attorney to give the Board the proper language again. Town Attorney replied, that what he was suggesting was that all owners of units with exception of the declarant must have one of their residents, if they have more than one, at the premises. Supervisor Desch remarked, but that doesn't deal with your comment about the owner being an individual, does it. Town Attorney Barney replied, that's covered under the occupancy, under (iii) , except that he would add after no more than two unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit except that if the unit is presently defined by the developer as a three bedroom unit it may be occupied by the owner, if an individual, and no more than two unrelated persons all living together as a single housekeeping unit. Supervisor Desch asked, how about (ii) ? Town Attorney Barney replied, that will remain the same. Supervisor Desch asked the Board if they were comfortable with sixteen units? Councilman Cramer asked what was the total number of units? Mr. Hallberg responded, 152. He went on to say that the reason he asked for sixteen was that that's the blocks that we build in, or our line of credit is for sixteen. We have sixteen starts at a time. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney if he wanted to deal with paragraph "b" next, leases? The Town Attorney responded that that is just additional language that was being required and to which they are agreeing to. The Town Attorney went on to say that the one of his comments on the original declaration was that there was a provision that said under the architectural control provisions of the Declaration said that if you are going to make any changes it had to be submitted and if no action was taken by the Board, it was deemed disapproved and reading through the language it went on to say something like this section will be met and complied with but it shall not effect any future type of action requested under this same section or any prohibitions under any other segments of the Declaration. The Town Attorney stated that the word disapproved seemed out of character there, and that he felt the way the whole thing was structured the Town Board 8 October 20, 1987 word should be approved. When Mr. Seifter took a look at the comments he really did mean diapproved. The Town Attorney stated that quite frankly, he could not get excited about this. If something is submitted to the Board for a change in plans and if the Board does not approve it, it doesn't happen. He stated that he did not feel the Town really cared, so he had no problem with this. Mr. Hallberg added, that Mr. Seifter's concern was if we so much as changed the size of a door, that the Homeowner's Association could stop us dead in our tracks. Town Attorney Barney responded no, this related basically to • architectural control. You are one ahead of me. The architectural control starts out saying no building, fence, wall or other structure, no change in togopgraphy, etc. , shall be commenced upon the properties without submitting it to the Association or an Architectural Control Committee, then they have 60 days to react, if they don't react in 60 days its deemed disapproved. Mr. Hallberg remarked, that's the individual owners. Town Attorney Barney replied, actually it's anybody except that it does not apply to the developer. He stated that his feeling, after reading it through, was that it does not make too much difference as the developer has to comply with the plans that were submitted to the Town of Ithaca for subdivision approval. The other problem that Mr. Seifter had was that a lot of this had already gone to the Attorney General and they really didn't want to monkey with the language if they could help it. Supervisor Desch questioned, what you just said applies to paragraph 2? Town Attorney Barney remarked yes, my last content was directed to this also. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, just discuss what this means, a little more. Town Attorney Barney replied, Article 6 in these Declarations is entitled Architectural Control. It sets out in paragraph 1 restrictions that nothing can happen without the approval of the Board of Directors of the Association, that's section 1 and that's where the 60 day limit comes in and they either approve or disapprove. Section 2 says that this section 1 does not apply to the developer, plain and simple. So really what it does it Prohibits anyone living up there from putting up a fence or can change the development in any way without the approval of the Homeowner's Association. The developer can. He stated that his initial reaction was why shouldn't the developer be subject to that same restriction and that was what my comment was that went back to Mr. Hallberg and on to Mr. Seifter. Their response is that we are making a multi-million dollar investment up there, we are going to build and have to build according to the plans that have been approved by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca. But we don't • want our hand tied everytime we shift a door or decided to put in a fence or something like that, that are permitted by the plans that we have to go to the Homeowner's Association for consent to do it. This Board approved the development Declarations with the language in place that it was going to be modified so that is why we are bringing it back to you. It up to the Board, it's really a policy decision. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked, where does the phrase overall nature of the project cone from? That is a very broad statement. Town Board 9 October 20, 1987 Town Attorney Barney replied, that came from me. He stated that he had suggested some language that said they would not make any changes except that would change the overall nature of the project. If you change the overall nature of the project you would have to go back to the Planning Board and get approval. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, if they want to change the location of a building, build a garage or a carport, any of that has to go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Hallberg added, the intention was that if we want to go from townhouses to single family homes, or fee simple to apartments that we would absolutely have to run it by Homeowner's Association to let them know what was going on. RESOLUTION NO. 232 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Cramer, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approved the recommend changes in the Deer Run Covenants. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . Town Attorney Barney noted one other change that he stated he did not know about until twenty minutes ago which he stated he would like to have the Board consider. The original document, when submitted to the Board, defined Class A and Class B members, Class B member being typically the developer, and Class A being the individual lot owners. As originally proposed to the Board, the Class A members had voting rights from day one, but the Class B member had four votes for every Class A member so there was a 4-1 ratio. The Class B membership terminated automatically when eight units were conveyed or two years from the date of the first closing, whichever event occured first. That was the way it came before this Board and the way that you approved it. In discussing it with the Attorney General, Mr. Seifter told him that they rewrote it to change it around somewhat and principally at the suggestion of the Attorney General. And that is that the Class A members are specifically denied voting rights until the earlier of two events, (1) is the closing of the 76th unit in the development. You have 152 units so that means a majority of the units have to be sold or three years after the closing of the first unit and the Class B members instead of having 4 votes only has 1 vote. It accomplishes the same thing but it does it a little differently in that the 4-1 ratio is gone. He went on to say that, however, there is a significant difference in that before, the Class B membership evaporated after eight units were sold. The problem is that the developer wants to control the subdivision for a period of time and, as he told Mr. Seifter this was a change and he felt the Town Board ought to be aware of it and approve it if they so agree. • Supervisor Desch remarked, the real question is whether three years is reasonable or not. That's three years from when? Town Attorney Barney replied, date of sale of first unit. Three years is consistent with a number of other provisions that are in here. RESOLUTION NO. 233 Motion by Councilwoman Howell; seconded by Councilman McPeak, Town Board 10 October 20, 1987 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the revised definition of Class A and Class B membership. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . REVISION TO ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WITH JEROLD WEISBURD Town Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Weisburd has not yet completed all of the improvements that he is required to have done on the Cresent part of the project and he has a closing scheduled in two or three days and he wants a Certificate of Occupancy. We have put • together a modification of an agreement that we already have with the prior entity which provides for a deposit of $9,000 in escrow to secure completion of the items which are principally the control panel for the sewage pump stations and some surfacing of the roads. The Town Attorney stated that he had drafted an amendment to the agreement which is essentially the same agreement that was in place before. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Engineer what the exposure was? Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt replied, $1,500 for the pump station panel and oil and stone for the road at a figure close to $4,000. Supervisor Desch stated that the question was is there enough in the escrow to cover this. Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, there is plenty of money in there to cover these two items. Councilwoman Howell asked if the escrow account was being cut down. Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied no, they are adding $4,000 more to the $5,000 already in the escrow. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked, what is Mr. Weisburd getting for this, this is what we are missing. Town Attorney Barney replied, Certificates of Occupancy so he can close. Supervisor Desch remarked that the key question is, he is getting a Certificate of Occupancy on a building which can be occupied without any problems. The discussions that the Town Engineer and I have been having on this is whether the timing is right and who will maintain the road? Mr. Weisburd has to maintain the road because we do not want to accept it since there will be more construction traffic going over it to build the units that are at the end of the road, which have not been built yet. It is really to our advantage, if we are comfortable, that the people who are moving in there can live there without having problems and that the Town's rights are protected to recover the costs of whatever we might have to do that Mr. Weisburd might not do. • Town Engineer Flumerfelt remarked that the fact that the sewage pumping station is not entirely completed is not really Mr. Weisburd's fault, the control panel which controls the operation of the pumps has just a long time in coming. It's one of those things that's expected daily and it doesn't seem to be there yet. They have a way to manually run the station, in the meantime. Town Board 11 October 20, 1987 Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, we are not giving a Certificate of Occupancy with any uncertainty as to services for them. Supervisor Desch replied that is was certain that the Certificate would not be issued unless the system is operational and in compliance with the code, both the water and the sewer. Councilman Cramer asked, what has been Mr. Weisburd's position in the past on other projects that we have had a security deposit on, has he complied with everything the Town has asked for? Supervisor Desch replied, yes. He has left sufficient funds in • there longer than he was required to. He is complying very thoroughly on roads, water lines and landscaping, etc. RESOLUTION NO. 234 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwoman Howell, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the revisions to the escrow agreement with Jerold Weisburd. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Cramer, Howell, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none) . DRAINAGE - IVOR JONSON'S DEVELOPMENT Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had received a couple very firm complaints about drainage in the Ivor Jonson development. She asked if this really met the specifications that the Town set for drainage? She went on to say that she remembered all of the discussions about how wonderful the drainage was going to be, does it mean the requirements that the Planning Board imposed? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, that he thought it does. He went on to say that he felt it was mainly a question of the size of the stone that in the ditches. Councilwoman Raffensperger asked, what about the size of the pipes? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, that as far as he could recall they were the right size, the size that is called for. Supervisor Desch questioned what has happened, is erosion moving some stone? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, it's moving stone a little bit and also the banks aren't entirely stabilized yet, also so there is some mud washing down in. Councilwoman Raffensperger noted that one culvert does not take the water, the ditch fills up, runs across the road into the yards of the people on the downhill side. It looked like the pipe may be undersized. It's the same size as the ones underneath driveways • and yet it is on a corner and is a drainage culvert. How do you get ones under individual driveways the same size as ones at a right angle, major drainage way and I just wondered if he had met the requirements. Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that he would double check the size again but that he thought Mr. Jonson had met the requirements. Councilwoman Raffensperger went on to say that obviously they are having lots of problems. Town Board 12 October 20, 1987 Supervisor Desch remarked, that culvert under the road does not seem to be handling the water so it jumps over the road? Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, goes over the road and into Mr. Bloomfield's yard. She went on to say, also the house up the hill from him is also being flooded from further up hill, so you have a real progression of flooded houses and these don't have any basements so there is no safety valve. Instead of being in the basement it's in the first floor of the houses. Supervisor Desch remarked that where Mr. Jonson is working now, he must have a fair amount of bare earth there. • Councilwoman Raffensperger noted that Mr. Bloomfield had lived there for over a year and the yard was well seeded and landscaped and the house across is seeded and landscaped also. Town Engineer Flumerfelt remarked that there is another drainage problem. In the Hungerford Heights subdivision, Dove Drive and the new section of Dove Drive. There has been several discussions in the past two years or so with Cornell University and Ralph Varn, the developer, and the Town of Ithaca, Lou Cartee was involved in it. It finally boiled down to the drainage which cuts across both sections of Dove Drive and then down through a corner of Cornell's land to Snyder Hill Road. That's really a bad situation and Cornell is very upset about it. He went on to say that he walked the land with them and we had a fairly hard rainfall about three weeks ago and he then showed pictures of what is happening in the drainage way down through Cornell's land. He stated that he really thought that that drainage way going across the Hungerford Heights subdivision is dumping too much water in that drainage way and that he had a suggested method of attack. The Town Engineer stated that he just wanted to pass it by the Board to see what they thought. He went on to say that he thought the Town may have some responsibility in this drainage problem. He appeared to him that we could try to divide the flow which canes across that ditch so that about 1/3 would go down one side of Dove Drive toward Snyder Hill Road, 1/3 on the other side and perhaps leave 1/3 in either that drainage way right there or try to get a channel in the existing ditch along the backs of those houses on Dove Drive. There is a general Swale there that he felt would handle 1/3 of the flow. It would involve some expenditure to improve ditches and culverts on both sides of Dove Drive but he felt the impact could be spread out in that manner. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Engineer how many culverts was he talking about replacing? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, that he didn't even have them itemized yet but not to many really. He just wanted to pass the concept by first to see if that looked like a possible solution to look into a little more fully. Councilman Cramer asked, how much construction is taking place on Dove Drive? • Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that he felt those units were pretty well built. Councilwoman Howell asked if this was a regular waterway? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, Cornell says they used to mow that field and it was usable, they could run a tractor across there where they can't now. Cornell University and Ralph Yarn, the developer, made an agreement to construct this Swale down through there and they put in a culvert at the top end of their land and Town Board 13 October 20, 1987 one underneath the fence down at the bottom end and those have caused problems. They wanted to have grates over the ends of the culverts so that animals wouldn't get in with the horses and those quickly clogged up, the erosion and gravel plug up the culverts then the water goes around the culverts. Councilwoman Raffensperger questioned, are you saying this is our responsibility and not the developers? Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied that he felt it should never have been done that way, in the first place. That drainage way should never have been diverted over to that point, on Cornell's land. • Councilman Cramer asked if the Town Engineer had examined the original development plans of the developer? Town Engineer Flumerfelt responded, that if he remembers correctly it shows using the existing swale down along the boundary along the back of the houses on Dove Drive and Cornell land. As it turned out, it is a very shallow swale and not really suitable for carrying that amount of water. Supervisor Desch suggested that Mr. Varn be brought in to discuss this problem. ADJOURl V= The meeting was duly adjourned. Town Clerk •