HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2014-01-27 Town Board Meeting
Monday, January 27, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
dF gf7 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting
3. Town Official's Reports
4. Discuss Preliminary Draft of GEIS for the Comprehensive Plan
5. Discuss Proposed Change to EcoVillage PDZ to allow an existing radio transmission
facility to continue and consider setting a Public Hearing
6. Committee Reports
7. Consider Consent Agenda Items
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes January 21, 2014
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
8. Review of Correspondence
Town Board Meeting
Monday,January 27, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
MINUTES
Item 1 Call to Order—Meeting called to order at 4:32 p.m.
Item 2 Review Draft Agenda for Regular Meeting
Two projects are starting to move along through the planning process; Amabel on Five Mile
Drive and the Troy Rd Triangle.
Item 3 Town Official's Reports
Mr. Engman talked about the Governor's new plan to enforce the 2% tax cap and the media
coverage of it. There are incentives for residents to get refunds if a municipality stays below the
2% which would have been around $16 for our typical resident in the first year and then in the
second year we would have to stay under the cap and have a plan for intermunicipal cooperation
or collaboration but nothing we have in place could be used as a credit towards that. Then the
third year you have to prove you have saved I% or they will take it out of money they send to us.
Area officials are trying to set up meetings with State representatives to voice concerns but the
we are going to have to be ready for this and start at the Budget Committee level figuring out
what we might have to do.
Mr. Solvig added that there are not a lot of details and they like to change things as they go along
so there are a lot of grey areas. They are still changing how they define and do things with the
original 2%tax cap calculations.
Mr. Engman noted that Barbara Lifton had some wonderful graphs at a recent presentation which
explained why we are in this situation; and that is that back in the 1980s the income tax was cut
dramatically and it has basically bounced along at that low level and the State has shifted that
income stream to property taxes in the form of unfunded mandates. The State has a propaganda
machine to use and this is a perfect example of manipulating public opinion by giving half
information etc. He also noted that Mr. Mareana with the County has done a great paper on how
this happened and the real costs of unfunded mandates which is published on the County website
and he would like to develop one detailing the Town's costs. Some discussion followed and this
is going to be a very hot topic for the next few years.
Item 4 Discuss Preliminary Draft of GEIS for the Comprehensive Plan
(Attachment#1)
Mr. Tasman read from his report outlining the draft GEIS.
Ms. Ritter noted tonight is just for an initial go through with any glaring mistakes anyone found,
noting that the first chapter is historical in nature and might not need a lot of attention or focus
1
TBS 1-27-2014 Final
from the Board but that she would like everyone to come prepared to talk about the key chapters
at the regular meeting.
Mr. DePaolo and Mr. Engman had reviewed the first chapter and had a number of simple
changes which the Board discussed and agreed upon.
Mr. Howe thought we might have to look closer at the Alternative Chapter because it is short and
not as detailed as what he thinks people in the community are going to want to see and expect.
Mr. Tasman responded that this is actually very long for a DGEIS without specific zoning and
Mr. Howe responded that there are a few sentences that sound dismissive and we could work on
those. Ms. Ritter asked him to email her suggestions.
Ms. Hunter was concerned about Mitigations and virtually nothing has any adverse impacts. She
wondered how this document informs the EIS as far as the impacts we know will be there. Ms.
Ritter responded that this is a broad stroke and the EIS for the zoning would be specific and
address those localized impacts. Mr. Tasman restated that this DGEIS is a comparison of the new
Comp Plan and the 1993 Comp Plan and we address mitigations through policies throughout the
Comp Plan but we could look at the introduction and stating that more clearly. Mr. DePaolo said
that he recalled asking Ms. Brock the same questions and he did not recall her answer being that
unequivocal as to whether we are supposed to consider the impacts of what we are proposing on
a stand-alone basis or as it relates to what already exists now and he would like to ask her again
because everything envisioned in the 1993 Plan did not come to fruition so you have to compare
it to what is on the ground now, not what was planned.
Discussion followed and staff will endeavor to state more clearly throughout the DGEIS the fact
that we realize there will be impacts which will be addressed either through mitigations during
rezoning and/or through policy statements contained in the new Plan which self-mitigate impacts
and allow for more control through our Boards based on the new Plan.
Item 5 Discuss and consider setting a public hearing regarding a proposed Local
Law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code entitled "Zoning: Special Land
Use Districts" to change EcoVillage Planned Development Zone provisions to include a
radio transmission facility as a permitted use in the EcoVillage Agricultural Area
TB Resolution No. 2013 - 021: Setting a Public Hearing Regarding a Local Law Amending
Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code Entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts" to
Change EcoVillage Planned Development Zone Provisions to Include a Radio
Transmission Facility as a Permitted Use in the EcoVillage Agricultural Area
Be It Resolved that the Ithaca Town Board will hold a public hearing at 5:30 p.m. at a meeting
to be held at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,New York on the 10th day of
February, 2014 regarding a proposed Local Law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca
Code entitled"Zoning: Special Land Use Districts"to change EcoVillage Planned Development
Zone provisions to include a radio transmission facility as a permitted use in the EcoVillage
Agricultural Area, and
2
TBS 1-27-2014 Final
Be it further resolved that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed local
law may be heard concerning the same; and
Be it further resolved that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and
directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal and to post a copy of
same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Ayes—Howe, DePaolo, Engman, Hunter, Leary, Levine Abstention—Goodman
Item 6 Committee Reports
Public Works Committee—Mr. Engman reported that Mr. Lucente's family would like to put
up an honorary sign naming Briarwood Drive Lucente Drive. The Town does not have a policy
or procedure for these types of requests but the Committee did talk to 911 and Codes and there is
no problem with placing a commemorative sign but they request it be a different color than the
official sign. Mr. Engman noted that Mr. Lucente has done a lot in the past providing affordable
housing in the northeast and he is not it good health and his family would like to honor him in
this way. The Planning Committee did recommend allowing the commemorative street sign.
The Committee also discussed the Northeast Water Study which will be presented to the Board
in February or March and the replacement of mailboxes during the winter. Right now the town
replaces them even though sometimes they were obviously not in good repair to begin with and
they cost about $50 each. The Committee could not think of a way to change the practice. The
speed indicators are up and running and Mr. Hebdon is reviewing the water and sewer chapters
of our code which need to be updated.
Mr. Engman stated that he would also like the committee to start thinking about roads that may
have to be abandoned due to repair costs that are coming in the next 10 years; the two examples
were Judd Falls Rd and Elm Street Ext,both of which are going to be multi-million dollar
repairs.
Ms. Hunter asked about the status of a resident's complaint regarding a problem with the ditch in
front of her house on Bundy Road. Mr. Engman stated that public works has offered different
solutions which she has rejected. Ms. Hunter suggested that something be put into writing to
close the complaint so that Board Members would be aware of the status and conclusion of the
complaint. Discussion followed and Mr. Engman will discuss it with Mr. Weber but he was
loathe to get into the habit of having to resolve each complaint or request in writing because we
get a lot of these and the staff time would be significant.
Mr. DePaolo added that the Committee also looked at the Amabel project on Seven Mile Drive
which will be coming before the Board for a rezoning and the radio tower at EcoVillage also
talked out some details and that is also being referred to the Town Board.
3
TBS 1-27-2014 Final
Mr. Goodman reported that the Tompkins County Priority Trail Strategy is moving forward
which includes our major trails and the County wants to get these developed and use them as a
tourism attraction so that works well for us. Mr. Engman stated that he and other supervisors
have written a letter to the State about the Game Farm Rd area which is the only roadblock right
now to the trail. It seems the manager of the property does not want the trail but the State
controls the property so we are appealing to the State.
Mr. Engman reported that the requirement for an easement for the town trail through Emerson
was included and the development is moving along. On that same subject, some other things are
going to have to be discussed such as a combined Planning Board to oversee the project instead
of having them have to go to two separate boards and things like that.
Mr. DePaolo addressed the topic of rental housing and his wish to address the occupancy and
non-compliance issues that are picking up in number. He went to the Planning Board and
expressed his opinion that they are applying too much latitude in their approval(s) of
subdivisions that result in lots for which variances would be required, where if the law was
interpreted more strictly, we would not have the same number of people living there. After being
scolded by them and being told that the Town Board is the policy making board and the Planning
Board has to follow the law, Mr. DePaolo would like to take this topic up and investigate our
alternatives.
There are ways other communities have dealt with student populations and similar issues and we
need to make an attempt at controlling this. Other Board members noted that there are other
issues such as short term rentals for vacations, special events, etc. that impact the neighborhoods
also. The consensus was that something does need to be done and we should look at our options
and try to engage the Colleges in helping us.
Personnel Committee — Mr. Goodman reported that they are meeting tomorrow and agenda
items include the wife language, the wage and benefit study which will help with preparation for
union contract negotiations.
COC — Mr. Goodman reported that they are moving through the sign law revisions which are
almost done as well as outdoor camp fires and wood boilers which will end up being two
separate laws. They also went through the list of pending items and will be setting priorities.
Ms. Hunter asked about the scenic viewshed protection and Ms. Ritter responded that she felt it
will get folded into the Comprehensive Plan and the Board has to approve the inventory and it is
basically ready but the timing would be after the DGEIS.
Budget Committee—Mr. Solvig noted that he has sent out an agenda and packet for next week
with a tentative schedule of topics.
Other—Mr. DePaolo reported that the 2014 Draft 30D De-List came out and the State is
proposing that the lake be delisted for pathogens, claiming there was an issue about why
swimming is prohibited and that new data supports the delisting. Mr. DePaolo understood that
4
TBS 1-27-2014 Final
data was averaged from several points to lower the numbers to support the delisting, and that this
may or may not be an acceptable practice. Lengthy discussion followed regarding nutrient
pollution in the lake and the causes, and the study being done in conjunction with the Lake
Source Cooling permit renewal. Mr. DePaolo will continue to monitor and report.
Mr. Engman reported that 14 municipalities have formed a coalition and petitioned TWO for a
new service agreement. He noted Mr. DePaolo's hard work on this and that this is the beginning
of a long process but we are on our way.
Mr. Engman reported that the Town has received notice that we are being sued re.: the Zoning
Board's denial of a drive through associated with a Dunkin Donuts at East Hill and we are suing
TWO for back fees we think are owed to us.
Item 7 Consider Consent Agenda Items
TB Resolution 2013 - 022; Adopt Consent Agenda
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 Meeting Minutes of 1-21-2014
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Appointment of ChairA^ice Chair - Agricultural Committee
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: Ayes - Goodman, Levine, Leary, Hunter, DePaolo, Howe and Engman
TB Resolution 2013 - 022a; Approval of Minutes of January 21.2014
Whereas, the draft Minutes of the January 21,2014 meetings of the Town Board have been
submitted for review and approval, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes as the final minutes of
the meeting January 21, 2014 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca.
TB Resolution No. 2014 - 022b: Town of Ithaca Abstract
Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for
approval of payment; and
Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now
therefore be it
Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in
total for the amounts indicated.
TBS 1-27-2014 Final
VOUCHER NOS.
General Fund Town wide 41,218.86
General Fund Part Town 1,549.86
Highway Fund Part Town 76,738.52
Water Fund 8,006.91
Sewer Fund 278,942.73
Forest Home Lighting District 174.76
Glenside Lighting District 45.86
Renwick Heights Lighting District 65.26
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 153.33
Clover Lane Lighting District 17.94
Winner's Circle Lighting District 58.48
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 60.87
West Haven Road Lighting District 186.77
Coddington Road Lighting District 111.21
TOTAL 407,331.36
TB Resolution 2014 - 022c: AuDointment of Chair an
Agricultural Committee
Whereas the Agricultural Committee has recommended the appointment of Sharon Tregaskis
(Tree Gate Farm) as Chair and Christianne White (Steep Hollow Farm)as Vice-Chair for 2014;
now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board hereby appoints Sharon Tregaskis as Chair and Christianne White
as Vice Chair of the Agricultural Committee for a term of January 1,2014 through December 31,
2014.
Item 6 Review of Correspondence
Mr. Engman noted that we have been turned down for the sidewalks in Forest Home.
Mr. Goodman noted that the rescheduled presentation by the Cornell students regarding West
Hill will be Saturday at 2:00 at PRI.
Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Submitte(^y
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
TBS 1-27-2014 Final
Town Board Meeting 1/27/2014 Attachment#1
DGEIS is an acronym for Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. A DGEIS is required under the
path the Town has chosen for environmental review of the draft Comprehensive Plan. (1'm going to talk
a bit about what a DGEIS is, and what it isn't.)
A DGEIS is intended to give the public,the Town Board, and other agencies an understanding of
potential environmental impacts and benefits that could be associated with adoption of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan. Where there may be an impact,the DGEIS discusses potential mitigation that
would limit or eliminate those impacts.
According to the SEAR handbook, a GEIS is "a type of EIS that is more general than a site-specific EIS,
and typically is used to consider broad-based actions or related groups of actions ... (it) differs from a
site or project specific EIS by being more general or conceptual in nature ...". A DGEIS for a comp plan,
such as this one,will have a broad, area-wide scope; consider the name, a generic environmental impact
statement.
Evaluation of impacts is more general than an EIS for a development project, because of the general,
area-wide "big picture" nature of a comprehensive plan. Analyses are based on reasonable assumptions
about the practical impact of proposed changes. Economists might call this a meso-scale study. DGEISs
for comp plans don't use a granular approach, and they aren't intended to study micro-scale impacts,
such as those on specific neighborhoods or specialized services. However,this study does include some
specifics for housing and traffic projections,which we felt was necessary to determine a possible level of
induced growth and its related impacts.
When a DGEIS looks at the impact of a comp plan, it's not the impact of development period, compared
to no development. It's not the impact of a plan, compared to no plan. Instead, it examines the impacts
of a change in course; in this case the impact of policies in the proposed plan compared to a baseline of
established trends and current policies, such as the 1993 comp plan.
Communities update their comprehensive plans on a regular basis to address emerging issues and
changing trends, and incorporate new best practices. The lifespan of a typical comprehensive plan is
about 10 to 15 years. A lot can happen in that time; consider the "new normal" and other major societal
and economic shifts that the 1993 plan didn't anticipate. Projections in this DGEIS use an end date of
2030, by which time the Town should have begun work on a new plan. A DGEIS for a comp plan alone
will not include a buildout study with an indefinite end date. A buildout study may be conducted as part
of environmental review for a new zoning code and any associated rezoning.
There are four sections of the DGEIS.
Chapter 1—Project description and environmental setting. This section includes a description of the
Town's environmental setting(this includes current conditions and trends),the purpose and need for a
new plan, and a general description of the proposed plan's policies, changes,goals, and
recommendations.
(As you review chapter 1, and all the other chapters, if you find any issues with grammar, typos, and non-
substantive content, please email me. This will save time at later work sessions.)
Chapters 2 and 3 are the heart of the document. If you have limited time to review the DGEIS,these
sections should receive the bulk of your attention.
Chapter 2—Potential environmental impacts. This chapter looks at potential benefits and impacts of
the plan on 10 subject areas—development pattern, community character, housing, transportation,
community facilities, parks and recreation, utilities, agriculture, natural resources, and the economy.
Some subject areas have subtopics that are examined in more detail.
Sections of chapter 2 are generally written in a sequence that describes plan actions regarding a subject
area, benefits and impacts under existing and proposed policies, and possible mitigation. As work
progressed on the DGEIS, we found that adding general current conditions usually didn't contribute to
the findings, interrupted the flow of the topical sections and subsections, and created redundancy with
the first chapter. Therefore, most descriptions of current conditions and trends are in Chapter 1.
Current conditions are included in Chapter 2 when they're directly related to a specific impact or
benefit.
(As you read through the subject areas in Chapter 2, consider any questions you might have, if the
content addresses the scoping document, and if potential impact and mitigation is adequately
addressed.)
Chapter 3—Other impacts. This chapter includes a broad-based examination of impacts that aren't
necessarily related to a specific subject area. This includes unavoidable environmental impacts,
commitment of resources,growth-inducing aspects, and energy use.
Chapter 4—Alternatives. This chapter describes the range of alternatives considered for the proposed
plan. This includes keeping the 1993 plan with no changes, keeping the 1993 plan but making
amendments, having a new plan with different conceptual approaches, and having a new plan with a
more limited scope.
The appendix includes supporting material; right now this is the methodology and "show your work"
calculations for induced or captured growth. The appendix will eventually include SEQRA
documentation (FEAF, positive declaration,this DGEIS scope, and applicable resolutions);this has been
left off the draft to conserve paper. References have been included as footnotes throughout the
document, so they aren't repeated as endnotes in the appendix.
2014 TOWN OF ITHACA ADOPTED BUDGET
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/ HIGHWAY
2014 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
2014 CAPITAL TOTAL ACCOUNT ENGINEERINGT TOWN STORMWATER PLANNING HIGHWAY WATER SEWER
PURCHASE PROCESS ITEMS
BUDGET NUMBER A1440 A7110 A8540 B8020 DB5130 F8340 G8120
---------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------
State Bid or Piggy Back Staff/Inspection
Vehicle 25,000 270 - - - 25,000 - - -
State Bid or Piggy Back Cargo Van
(Engineering) 30,000 270 30,000 - - - - - -
State Bid or Piggy Back Mechanic's Truck 45,000 .273 - 9,000 2,250 - 22,500 6,750 4,500
State Bid or Piggy Back Utility Truck 45,000 .273 - 9,000 2,250 - 22,500 6,750 4,500
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
State Bid or Piggy Back Lt-Duty Pickup
Truck 35,000________.273 - 7,000 1,750 - 17,500 5,250 3,500
Town Bid Process Skid-Steer Loader 42,000 .274 - 8,400 2,100 - 21,000 6,300 4,200
Town Bid Process Heavy Excavator 250,000 .275 - 50,000 12,500 - 125,000 37,500 25,000
-------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Tractor w/Constr. - ------------
Town Bid Process Broom 55,000 .276 - 11,000 2,750 - 27,500 _8,250________5,50_0
Obtain 3 Quotes Grasshopper
Mower 20,000 .276 - 4,000 1,000 - 10,000 3,000 2,000
Town Bid Process Leaf Vacuum 35,000 .277 - 7,000 1,750 - 17,500 5,250 3,500
Town Bid Process Crack-Fill Machine 42,500 .278 - 8,500 2,125 - 21,250 6,375 4,250
Obtain 3 Quotes Air Compressor 20,000 .279 - 4,000 1,000 - 10,000 3,000 2,000
Town Bid Process Flo-Boy Trailer 90,000 .279 - 18,000 4,500 - 45,000 13,500 9,000
TOTAL-CAPITAL
ITEMS 734,500 30,000 135,900 33,975 25,000 339,750 101,925 67,950