HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1988-04-11TOWN OF ITHACA
REIGULAR BOARD MEETING
i^ril 11, 1988
At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca,
Tcantpkins Covinty, New York, held at the Town Offices at 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 11th day of ^ril, 1988,
there were:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Noel Desch, Supervisor
Henry McPeak, Coimcilman
Shirley Raffensperger, Coimcilwcman
Robert Bartholf, Councilman
Patricia Leary, Councilwcman
Raymond Bordoni, Councilman
Thomas Cardman, Coimcilman
Robert Flumerfelt, Town Engineer
John Ozolins, Highway Superintendent
John Barney, Town Attoimey
Tom Fursinger, State Equipment, Syracuse
Robert Earle, Kay Street, Board of Fire
Commissioners
David Cornelius, Board of Fire
Commissioners
Edward Olmstead, Ithaca Fire Department
Deborah Dietrich, Board of Representatives
Henry Aron, Woolf Lane
Sean Killeen, Ithaca City Council
Robert Cotts, 115 Northview Road
Barbara Cotts, 115 Northview Road
Susan Fertik, 113 Juniper Drive
Kinga M. Gergely, 106 Juniper Drive
Gary Carlson, 119 Northview Road
Che - Yu Li, 112 Juniper Drive
Robert Greenwood, 1431 Slaterville Road
Doris Greenwood, 1431 Slaterville Road
R. T. Horn, 108 Juniper Drive
Joan Horn, 108 Jxmiper Drive
Aafke Steenhuis, 266 Pennsylvania Avenue
Mary Rollins, 139 Northview Road
N. W. Rollins, 139 Northview Road
Fred T. Wilcox 111, 109 Juniper Drive
Mickey Herzing, 319 Coddington Road
Susan Centini, 103 Juniper Drive
Dale Corson, 144 Northview Drive
Dick Carmen, 213 Northview Drive, Wfest
Laura Holmberg, 1109 Taughannock Boulevard
Herbert D, Brewer, 122 West Court Street
Beverly Livesay, Board of Representatives
Ken Walker, Chamber of Commerce
Roland Marion, Box 54, LaFayette, New York
Representatives of the Media:
Margaret Ramirez, WVBR
Fred Yahn, Ithaca Journal
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Si:5)ervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.
9?:!
Town Board ^ril 11, 1988
REPORT OF COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES
County Representative Deborah Dietrich stated that the good news is
that the neighborhood is a lot happier with the contractors and
everyone vdio is up there doing the water and sewer work. That
project is really moving along although the timing may not be great
now with the road closed. The bad news is that her district is
pretty upset about both the Klondike development and the Kyong
development.
Supervisor Desch replied, on the Kyong proposal for West Hill he
planned on suggesting to the Board that the hearing be held on West
Hill because of the size of the Board roan and because of the
detour.
ANNUAL INVESTMENT REPORT
Supervisor Desch noted that Item #3 actually tums out to be the
Annual Investment Report and the Quarterly Report. The Supervisor
went on to alert the Board that the 1988 investment income would
not be as large because in 1987 we not only had our water and sewer
revenues but in 1988 we do not have a very large Town tax levy so
the interest earned on that levy will be much smaller.
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 97
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman M(a>eak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accept
the Annual Investment Report for the Town of Ithaca for the
investment income for 1987 in the amount of $101,150.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardraan
voting Aye. Nays - none).
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
RESOLUTION NO. 98
Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
C^dman,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts
the following Investment Report for the quarter 1/1/88 to 3/31/88:
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
Date
Acquired
12/1/87
1/25/88
3/11/88
SAVINGS
Amoiant
Rate of
Interest
$ 577,000.00 6.40%
1,277,000.00 6.25%
1,623,508.58 6.15%
Maturity
Date
1/25/88
2/24/88
5/10/88
Interest
Earned
$5,564.49
6,303.08
Month
End of Month
Balance
Rate of
Interest
Interest
Earned
Januairy
February
March
$ 880,287.71
2,597,227.31
529,183,63
5.
5.40%
5.40%
$3,345.76
6,282.77
5,316.94
INTEREST CHECKING
2Zl
Town Board 3 April 11, 1988
End of Month Rate of Interest
Month Balance Interest Earned
January $ 56,805.27 4.25% $704.66
February 46,618.08 4.25% 203.73
March 194,292.56 4.25% 459.60
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
COMPUTER PURCHASE FOR HIGEiWAY DEPARIMENT AND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
Councilman Bordoni asked of the total of $7,455, do these other
figures consume the $10,000 total?
Connie Allen replied that the balance of the $10,000 would be used
for printers v^ich are not included in the proposal.
Councilman Cardman asked if the software had already been
identified to run on these machines.
Connie Allen replied that the Highway Superintendent is looking for
sonething.
Highway Superintendent Ozolins stated that initially he was looking
at using Lotus, most of the software that is available is more for
ccmraercial trucking firms that are dealing with taxes, etc.
Councilman Cardman stated that he was just concerned that we not
buy the cart before the horse.
RESOLUTION NO. 99
Motion by Councilman Cardman; seconded by Councilman Bordoni,
WHEREAS, appropriation of funds in the amount of $10,000 for
purchase of coiputers and related equipment for the accounting and
highway departments was approved at the March 7, 1988 Town Board
meeting, and
WHEREAS, AST Premium 286 Mcxiel 140 ccsiputers are IBM PC ccnpatible
and are available on New York State contract #P30486 through ADD
Electronics Coi:poration, 7 Adler Drive, East Syracuse, New York,
and
WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent and Assistant Budget Officer
have met with the salesperson regarding this equipment and are
satisfied that this equipment will serve the immediate and
long-term computer needs of their departments,
NOW TEiEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby approve the following computer purchase:
Accounting Department
AST Premixm 286 Model 140 $2,516.50
10 MHz 80286 Processor
1 MB FASTRAM Memory
1.2 Mb Floppy Drive
40 Mb Hard Drive (28 MS)
AST 3G Plus Video Adpt.
MS-DOS and GW-Basic
101-Key Keyboard
500511-001 Floppy-360 150.50
Half-height, 5.25" flojpy drive
08T
Town Board 4 Z^ril 11, 1988
500377-001 Premiiim Display/Monochrcme 136.50
80287-10 Math Co-processor 385.00
To upgrade current owned IBM PC XT
500376-001 EGA Monitor 486.50
500496-001 XFormer/286 - replacement board
for upgrading processing speed
of PC XT 591.50
^ Highway Etepartment
AST Premim 286 ffodel 140 $2,516.50
10 MHz 80286 Processor
1 MB FASTRAM Memory
1.2 Floppy Drive
40 Mb Hard Drive (28 MS)
AST 3G Plus Video Adpt.
MS-DOS and O^-Basic
101-Key keyboard
500511-001 Floppy-360 150.50
Half-height, 5.25" floppy drive
500377-001 Premium Display/Monochrcme 136.50
TOTAL $7,070.00
80287-10 Math Coprocessor (optional for
highway department) 385.00
TOTAL with optional Math Coprocessor $7,455.00
Balance of appropriated funds to be used for purchase of printers,
software and tables.
^ Purchase includes ccmplete installation including starter
materials, demonstration materials and qualified on-site
instruction.
Maintenance contract available at the end of the one-year
guarantee.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leairy, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR HICSWAY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 100
MDtion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
WHEREAS, Brian Barry, Highway Department employee, has performed
his duties in a highly satisfactory and dependable manner during
the period of time that he has been on probationary status, and
WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has recanmended that Mr. Barry
be changed to permanent status with a reinstatement of his hourly
salary cut,
mm NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby approve that Brian Berry be removed from probationary
enployment status to permanent oiployment status with a $.50/hour
increase in salary effective i^ril 1, 1988.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
Li!cR Gt'iS f.',rtl034
TOGETHER WITH a temporary easement over Penny Lane
Extension as shown on a survey map entitled "Plan of Lands
Known as The Crescent, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New
York" made by Hunt Engineers, P.C, dated August 3, 1987,
revised December 10, 1987 to add Lots 108, 111 and 112, a
copy of which map is to be recorded concurrently herewith.
SUBJECT TO a 30-foot wide easement for maintenance
and operation of certain sanitary sewer line, designated as
"Easement B", as shown on said survey map, which easement is
to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca.
SUBJECT TO a ten foot wide easement along the
northerly boundary of the premises conveyed for the
installation, maintenance and operation of underground
utilities including electric, gas, telephone and cable
servicing to the above described premises and other dwellings
in. Commonland Crescent Subdivision, as shown on said survey
map, which easement is to be conveyed subsequently to this
deed.
SUBJECT TO the following insofar as they may affect
the edDove-described premises:
1. Easements granted to New York State Electric
and Gas Corporation by instruments recorded in Liber 312 of
Deeds at page 34, in Liber 374 of Deeds at page 445, in Liber
6 of Miscellaneous Records at page 29; and in Liber 616 of
Deeds at page 404 (the latter also running in favor of the
New York Telephone).
2. Easements granted to New York Telephone Co.
by instrument recorded in said Clerk's Office in Liber 174 of
Deeds at page 463, and Liber 616 of Deeds at page 409 (the
latter also in favor of New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation.
TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO a mutual easement for
use and enjoyment for the benefit of the owners of all lots
which comprise Commonland Crescent Subdivision, to that
portion of the above-described premises shown as "Open Space
Easement" on a certain "Map of Commonland Crescent
Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,"
dated June 23, 1987, made by Hunt Engineers and Surveyors,
P.C., a copy of which map was filed in the Tompkins County
• Clerk's Office in Vault Box XI, 69. Such open space easement
shall be graded and planted with meadow grasses where
necessary. No building of any nature shall be constructed in
said Open Space Easement. No trees or shrubs in excess of
eight (8') feet in height shall be planted in the Open Space
Easement.
No addition or improvement to the dwelling
presently located on the premises shall be constructed which
is more than 27 feet in width or which increases the area of
the existing dwelling on the premises by more than twenty-
five percent, and any addition or improvement may not be
closer at any point than five feet from the property line of
which the above-mentioned party wall is located, or closer
than seventeen feet to the oppositfe property line of the
above-described premises.
The color of the exterior of any structure now or
hereafter constructed on the premises shall not be varied
from the ordinary range of wood stain.
The easements, covenants, conditions, limitations
and restrictions contained herein shall be binding upon the
Grantee herein and for the benefit of and limitation upon all
future owners of said land and premises, and the Grantee,
covenants that it will include all such covenants and.
restrictions in any subsequent deed.
These covenants and restrictions may be enforced by
any landowner in the Commonland Crescent Subdivision and/or
utER 632 m1035
by the Town of Ithaca. The Town, however, shall not have any
legal obligation to other landowners to enforce same.
AND the party of the first part covenants that said
party of the first part is seized of the said premises in fee
simple and has good right to convey the same; that the party
of the second part shall quietly enjoy said premises, that
the said premises are free from encumbrances, except as
aforesaid; that the party of the first part will execute or
procure any further necessary assurance of the title to saia
premises; and that said party of the first part will forever
warrant the title to said premises.
AND that, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien
Law the Grantor will receive the consideration for the
conveyance and will hold the right to
consideration as a trust fund to be applied
purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply
the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement
before suing any party of the total of the same for any other
purpose.
AND, in compliance with Section 909 (b) of the
Business Corporation Law, the Grantor warrants that the
above-described premises do not represent all or
substantially all of its assets,
. TOGETHER, with the appurtenances and all the estate
and rights of the party of the first part in and to said
premises,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted
unto the party of the second part, his heirs and assigns
forever.
AND said party of the first part covenants as
follows:
FIRST, That the party of the second part shall
quietly enjoy the said premises;
SECOND, That said party of the first part will
forever WARRANT the title to said premises.
THIRD, That in Compliance with Section 13 of the
Lien Law, the grantor will receive the consideration for this
conveyance and will hold the right to receive such
consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the
purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply
the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement
before using any party of the total of the same for any other
purpose.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part
signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above
written.
IN PRESENCE OF:
COMKONLAND CRESCENT
TRANSFERTAX
TOMPKINS
COUNTY
^ - /■( -V A
Claudia Weisburd, Secretary
HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS, INC.HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS, xww.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIOM;...-f
; /? ( J? t
mi Claudia Weishurd, Secro;^ary^, c ».•.-: I
, vOV • /
STATE OF NEW YORK; COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)SS. :
Uer 632 pACtl-036
On this of i L , 1987, before ne
came CLAUDIA V7EISEUR0, to me known, who beinu by me duly
sworn, did depose and say that she resides in the Town
of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, that she
is the Secretary of COKMONLAND CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, the Corporation described in and which executed
the foregoing instrument; that she knows the seal of said
Corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such
Corporate Seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board
of Directors of said Corporation; and that she signed her
name thereto by like order.
3
.•>il .J
•5
X
1
Notary Public Qualified in Tompkins CounWjl Commission Expires November 30,1
STATE OF NEW YORK; COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)^.:
On this day of , 1987, before me came
CLAUDIA WEISBURD, to me Icnow, who being by me duly sworn, did
depose and say that she resides in the Town of Ithaca, County
of Tompkins and State of New York, that she is the Secretary
of HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS, INC., the Corporation described in
and which executed the foregoing instrument; that she knows
the seal of said Corporation; that the seal affixed to said
instrument is such Corporate Seal; that it was so affixed by
order of the Board of Directors of said Corporation; and that
she signed her name thereto by like order.
lotary Public NouV^waSta^oT^
[ / No. 4721245
• Qualified in Tompkins County <
Ccmmisaion Expires November 30,
1 1
nn
' 'C'
('ompkir>» County, si: ^ r^ »
Recorded on the Doy of...
o'clock ..f?..M., in Liber
ot peg exomlnedW?
of
Jprw.A
■'j..
■
//Oy pCi^^y
5^155^
t
%1
/^2£Z^4ni
^ y^/^/—^^2u-jwjy?y^
,.i
(WHILE YOU WERE OUT 1
M /A^&i&y^ n<^SOyiy o„„„= ^A6-^<&,3i
^.1P^5qi^^F
CALLED TO"
-'See YOU '7:^/'^/P c^Z.STox^y
'Phoned
WILL CALL
AGAIN
PLEASE CALL
TOPS ® FOB[v:4000
V ciriMcn y*'^zyyf^
•^Q-
10645 im ^ach1033
THIS INDENTURE
Made this 29th day of December, 1987
BETWEEN
COMMONLAND CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a New-
York Corporation, having offices at 1459
Slaterville Road, Ithaca, New York 14850, and
HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS, INC., also having offices at
1459 Slaterville Road, Ithaca, New York 14850,
party of the first part, and
STEPHEN M. THOMPSON and PAULETTE CLANCY, husband
and wife, as tenants by the entirety, residing at
28 Uptown Village, Ithaca, New York 14850
party of the second part,
WITNESSETH, that the party of the first part, in
consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) lawful money of the
United States and other good and valuable consideration, paid
by the party of the second part, does hereby grant and
release unto the party of the second part, their successors
and assigns forever,
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate in the
Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York,
more particularly bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the southerly street line
of Penny Lane as shown on the map hereinafter referred to,
which point is located 1,175.82 feet westerly along the
southerly boundary of said Penny Lane from its intersection
with the westerly street line of Lois Lane; running thence
South 23 degrees 18 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of
260.00 feet to a point; thence North 17 degrees 51 minutes 24
seconds West a distance of 173.02 feet to a point in the
southerly street line of Penny Lane Extension; thence
continuing northeasterly along said street line on curve to
the left having a radius of 170.00 feet, a distance of 56.18
feet to a point; thence continuing along said line North 59
degrees 40 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 113.19 feet
to a point in the southerly street line of Penny Lane; thence
easterly along said street line on a curve to the left having
a radius of 60.00 feet a distance of 6.67 feet to the point
or place of beginning, comprising 0.336 acres of land, more
or less. The above described premises are known as 108 Penny
Lane, Ithaca, New York 14850.
The above description is in accordance with a
survey map entitled "Plan of Lands Known as The Crescent,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" made by Hunt
Engineers, P.C. dated August 3, 1987, revised December 10,
1987 to add Lots 108, 111 and 112, a copy of which map is to
be recorded concurrently herewith.
BEING a portion of the premises conveyed by House
Craft Builders, Inc. to Comroonland Crescent Development Corp.
by deed dated June 30, 1987 and recorded July 1, 1987 in the
Office of the Tompkins County Clerk at Liber 627 of Deeds at
page 850. House Craft Builders, Inc., joins in the execution
of this deed to convey rights across Penny lane until the
same has been dedicated to and accepted as a public highway
by the Town of Ithaca.
TOGETHER WITH a temporary easement for ingress and
egress to the above-described premises over the highway shown
on said map as Penny Lane, until such time as the said
highway has been dedicated to and accepted by the Town of
Ithaca.
S,
£
£
^ a.
Town Board 5 /^ril 11, 1988
CXayMOSILAND ACCESS ROAD
Supervisor Desch asked if everyone vdio cared to, has had the
opportunity to look at site and were there any particular ccnroents?
Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that she could not find that the
Board ever had a resolution, including March 7, vhen we discussed
it. She asked the Town Planner if this was correct.
^ Town Planner Beeners stated that she was not sure that a resolution
was ejqsected.
Supervisor Desch remarked that the only one we have is the Planning
Boards resolution of March 1st.
Town Planner Beeners added, that she believed the Board received at
the last meeting the March 17th Planning Board resolution vdiich was
actually the last action by that Board.
Action was deferred until later in the meeting.
ADVERTISING AND JOB DESCRIPTION FOR PARKS GROUND ASSISTANT
RESOLOTIOSf NO. 100
Motion by Councilman Bordoni; secxDnded hy Councilman Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the TOwn Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the job description for the Parks Ground Assistant and the
advertisement to fill said position.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
^ voting Aye. Nays - none).
CULVERT POLICY
Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that she had a question about
this vdiich relates to an item the Board which the Board dealt with
a number of years ago. We have maintenance of culverts damaged by
Highway Personnel, she stated that it was recollection that a Mr.
Drew vAio lived on the comer of Drew and Sheffield Road came to the
Town Board because we hadn' t destroyed a culvert but we had
destroyed his access. She stated that she thought Councilman
Bartholf was the one v^o went to look at it. Councilwcman
Raffensperger stated that v^ien she read through this it made her
feel guilty because she recalled voting against the Town's doing
anything to assist Mr. Drew in repairing the damage that basically
we had done and vdiile he did not have a culvert, he had access.
She stated that she felt that perhaps we ought to consider that
case again since we are talking about the culvert policy and
include seme kind of a reference to if indeed we necessitate the
need for a culvert then the Town should take the same kind of
responsibility as if we had damaged a culvert.
Svpeirvisor Desch remarked, \dienever anyone builds a driveway we
establish, in a sense, the need for a culvert.
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied, no we did it. It says vdien the
Town Highway Department... .under maintenance of culverts damaged by
the Highway Personnel. She went on to say that it seemed to her
that with along with that goes, if what the Highway Department does
necessitates the need for the addition of a culvert vdiere there was
not one needed for access before.
vex
Town Board 6 P^pril 11, 1988
Highway Superintendent Ozolins remarked that in most cases, he did
not see this as a problem. If we do cane in an put a lift of
asphalt over road, we will go back as part of the entire paving
process to level it out and as far as ditching, the ditches are
there unless there is new development in the area, and then the
contractor would have to cone in and there is a provision further
on that if because of development that the existing drainage
structure is not adequate there are provisions there that the Board
give prior approval to upgrade an existing drainage structure.
Supervisor Desch asked if Councilwotian Raffensperger was suggesting
that if the Town, because of one of its projects, needs to have a
property owner install a culvert then the Town would assume that
responsibility or see that it was done?
Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, that the Town would take that
responsibility.
Councilman Bordoni remarked, because this gentleman had access at
one point but then it was removed.
Councilman Bartholf replied, the problem was that they had to clean
the ditch all the way down through there because there was no place
for the water to run, it was running in the road and all over. Mr.
Drew had just built dirt \xp there to drive into his property.
There was no culvert underneath, he just built up dirt. The Town
went along and was cleaning out the ditches so that the water run
more freely.
Supervisor Desch remarked that the Board felt they did not have a
responsibility to do that.
Councilman Bartholf continued, if he wanted a culvert put in we
^ would have put it in but he had to pay for putting the culvert in.
Supervisor Desch stated that he was not so sure we should consider
this as a blanket policy. There are so many different
possibilities that in one given situation we might choose to do it
and in another no.
Town Attorney Barney asked Coimcilwcman Raffensperger if this
wasn't covered under 5a, \^iich says the Town Board will make the
final determination on an upgrading and he felt cleaning of ditches
would cone under this.
Coimcilwonan Raffensperger replied, it says all culverts but as
long as we imderstand that this is scmething has ccme in the
past. She stated that she remembered Councilman Bartholf
recoiimending that the Board help Mr. Drew out and that she had
voted against it. Since then she stated that she had had the
opportunity to see the site and rather regretted her feeling Itot
it was not equitable to do scmething so she felt obligated to bring
it up as a matter of policy.
RESOLUTION NO. 102
Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilwotian
Raffensperger,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approved
the following DRIVEWAY CULVERT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE POLICY:
The following policies and responsibilities apply for the
installation and repciir of driveway culverts in residential areas
served by the Town of Ithaca Highway Department.
Town Board 7 ^ril 11, 1988
1. New Culvert Installation Responsibilities
A. The Owner or Developer
(1) Buy the pipe and all required materials.
(2) Install the pipe to ensure proper drainage.
B. Town Engineering Department
(1) Determine the proper size and head wall
requirements.
(2) Determine alignment information.
(3) Provide requested stakes for excavation if no
developer or contractor.
C. Town Highway Department
(1) Provide advice on installation of culvert and head
walls.
(2) Provide advice on canpaction of materials around the
pipe.
(3) Provide requested on site inspection of the culvert
by the owner.
(4) Provide on site visit to resolve problems the owner
may experience during culvert installation.
2. Maintenance Responsibilities of Existing Culverts
A. The Owner
(1) Keep the area clean of trash and debris.
(2) Piovide routine maintenance on the outlet end of the
culvert.
(3) Inform the Highway Department of culvert maintenance
problems.
(4) Have Highway Department order replacement culvert
and bill owner.
(5) Culverts damaged by age or inproper installation
^ will follow the same procedures outlined in the new
culvert installation paragraph.
B. The Highway Department
(1) Conduct periodic inspections of all roadside
culverts.
(2) Maintenance of roadside shoulders and ditches.
(3) Thaw out frozen culverts.
(4) Wash out/clean out blocked serviceable culverts.
(5) Place gravel, as needed, in areas of water damage
caused by a blocked culvert.
3. Maintenance of Culverts Damaged by Highway Personnel
A. The owner will report any damage to the Highway
Superintendent either verbally or through correspondence.
B. The Highway Department will:
(1) Repair the existing culvert.
(2) Replace any culvert that was damaged by Highway
Personnel. All materials and labor will be provided
by the Department.
4. Culverts placed by contractors as part of a housing
development project will follow the procedures outlined in
Paragraph 1. Additionally, the developer will have to check
with the Town Zoning/Building Inspector for Street Opening
Permit requirements.
5. Exceptions
A. In situations vdiere all culverts along a road or street
Tcfwn Boaind 8 April 11, 1988
need to be replaced due to an upgrade of the existing
drainage facilities, the Highway Superintendent will
provide the Town Board with a cost estimate, and the Town
Board will make the final determination on ^o will
provide the materials and the installation.
B. Ccsrmitments made by the Highway Department prior to the
release of this policy will be honored.
C. Culverts inadequate due to development of an area;
(1) The Highway Department will inspect the culvert for
- serviceability and repair.
(2) The Highway Superintendent will check with the Town
Engineer.
(3) If it is determined that the problem is due to added
runoff due to development then:
(a) The property owner will buy the pipe.
(b) The Highway Department will:
(1) Remove the old pipe.
(2) Provide the fill materials.
(3) Install the pipe and add head
walls as needed or arrange for
the developer to do the work.
6. Any questions on this policy should be directed to the Town
Highway Superintendent.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
SELECTION OF ENGINEER FOR I/I STUDY
RESOLUTION NO. 103
____________
Motion by Councilman Bordoni; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
WEiEREAS, six (6) proposals were received by the Town of Ithaca for
conducting an Infiltration/Inflow study of the sanitary sewers in
the Northeast area of the Town bounded by the Village of Lansing,
the Town of Dryden, the Village of Cayuga Heights, and the
imsewered area south of Hanshaw Road, and
WHEREAS, the cost quotations for acccmplishing the outlined work
ranged frcxn $4,845 to $38,500 with the lower range quotations
generally encompassing only certain initial phases of the work
involved, and
WHEREAS, it cannot be known with certainty the extent of ccraplete
investigation of sanitary sewers necessary until completion of
initial investigations and flow monitoring phases, and
WHEREAS, after thorough review of all the proposals received, the
initial investigation program proposed by Pickard and Anderson
Engineers of Auburn, New York, is believed will accomplish the most
useful results for the Town at the most reasonable of the costs
proposed in the amount of $10,210 (upset amount), and can
accomplish the work within the time specified by the Town, and
WHEREAS, this cost amount can be further reduced by limited
participation of Town employees in the study (periodic monitoring
of flow measuring instruments, etc.) to an amount of $3,000 if the
Town purchases a flow meter for $1,820 and assumes responsibility
for its operation, making Pickard and Anderson's cost quotation
then not to exceed $7,210,
Town Bocird 9 ^ril 11, 1988
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca accepts the proposal of Pickard and Anderson Engineers in
the initial phase amount of not to exceed $7,210, and that the Town
of Ithaca Town Board agrees that a flowmeter be purchased by the
Town for approximately $1,820, and further agrees that the Town
will be responsible for its use in the Infiltration/Inflow study
under the tentis outlined by Pickard and Anderson, with the Town
continuing to own the flowmeter upon ccnpletion of the study for
use the Town in future sewer investigations.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
replacement of HIGHWAy DEPARTMENT TRUCK #1
The Highway Superintendent showed pictures of the truck to be
replaced. He then went on to say that to give the Board seme
background, we have two Brockways. One is a 1970 and one is a
1972. In the past, five years on #2 we spent $22,000 on repair
parts and on #1 we spent $19,900 on repair parts. Those trucks,
for v^t they are worth, to keep them running and running safely we
are going to have to continue spending even more money. We have
ccrapleted service on #1, there are cracks in the structural members
of the vehicle as well as on the dump box itself. There are
several places v^ere the "I" beams have rusted right through. To
make that vehicle safe, over a longer period you are looking at
several thousand dollars, at least five to ten thousand dollars for
a new box. Even if you spend the money on the box the frame on
several areas \^ere we could not get a good picture is cracked. He
went on to say that he saw the need for replacing one and possibly
both trucks by buying one this year and place the second oirder this
year but have it delivered in the early part of next year using
next years funds.
Supervisor Desch asked the Hi^way Superintendent if he would ccme
back with the specifications.
The Highway Superintendent replied yes, this is a fore warning.
Councilman Cardman asked if there was money in the budget for
replacement of a truck this year?
Supervisor Desch replied, yes.
The Highway Superintendent remarked, this truck was supposed to
have been replaced in 1985 and Truck #2 in 1988. There are three
items listed on this years replacenent. Truck #2, the 1973
Brockway, the custom Dodge pickup and the 4-6 ton roller.
COMMONLAND ACCESS ROAD
Supervisor Desch asked the Town Engineer to bring the Board up to
date on the talks he had held with Mrs. Clausen.
Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied that he saw Mrs. Clausen a few
weeks ago and she indicated at that time that a relative might want
to add on to the shop or garage building that is on the other side
of this Alternate "A" access road. He went on to say that he got
the feeling at that time that she would be quite happy with the
access road in that location and be able to use it as an access to
that building. He stated that he had tried to assure her that we
would ronnove as little vegetation as possible and not do any heavy
ditching along the sides of this road and try to restore it so that
Tcfwn Board 10 April 11, 1988
it would look at natural as possible and seem more like a
residential driveway.
Supe^isor Desch asked if fron a grade standpoint does it seean
feasible without difficulty?
Town Engineer Flumerfelt replied, yes. The grade would be about 9
to 10%. The grade for Alternate "B" was quite steep, especially
near the bottcm \diere we have to maintain a certain cover over that
existing sewer main. So if the sewer main were not relocated the
grade at the bottcm would be scmething like 20%.
Si;5)ervisor Desch noted that in the Planning Board resolution there
are ten conditions vMch he stated the Board needed to judge as to
v^ether they are acceptable or not in terms of v^at the Board might
wish to do. He went on to say that the Town Planner noted today
that this alignment will line up opposite the access to the park,
the Grandview Park.
Councilman Bordoni remarked, didn't we also have a concern about
the signage so that we could guarantee to seme degree that it would
only be used for onergency access only? We had seme concerns about
how we were going to control scmething like that so that everyone
does not use it as a short cut to get into the site.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked, we discussed this last time.
She stated that she would like to make a couple of suggestions as
to vdiat could be incorporated with the Planning Board resolution.
That it be posted for one-way onnergency vehicles only at the top
and for one-way do not enter at the bottcm. She stated that she
understood the Planning Board discussed this. Also, she would like
it to iDe clear that it is the intent of the Town Board that this
right of way be used as a tenporary one-way emergency access only
and that it is not the intention of the Town Board that this
emergency access beccme parb of the permanent road system in
providing access to Ccnmonlands or other developed or undeveloped
land in the area.
Councilman Cardman, speaking to Councilwcman Raffensperger asked,
if we do that vdiat does that mean. Does it mean that if there is
more land to be developed in that area we force ourselves into
another road?
Councilwcman Raffensperger responded, we look elsev^ere. As the
Town Attorney pointed out it is only 20' wide at seme points. She
went on to say that at any rate, in the past as you noticed the
Planning Board rescinded the approval of another alignment and
there has been a lot of confusion about this in the past and she
just wanted to be very clear v^at we are approving. This is not to
beccme, seme how or another by neglect the possibility of a primary
access to undeveloped land in the area.
Supervisor Desch stated that he would be scmewhat reluctant to bind
a future Town Board, if it can be shown by the Planning Board that
it is in the interest of the Town to have this as an access for
future opportunity. He went on to say, however, that he imderstood
vdiat Councilwcman Raffensperger was trying to do. He stated that
he guessed that perhaps the wording to soften it might be that
unless it can be shown that this was the only feasible location for
access to the Slateirville Road that it not be shown as a primary
access. It doesn't totally foreclose it if it makes sense to
consider it at a later time. He noted that actually the deed vmld
not be restricted anyway.
Town Attorney Barney remarked that you would probably want to amend
the Traffic Ordinance to provide that this street will be one-^way.
Town Board 11 J^ril 11, 1988
down hill, to make it enforceable. The question is does Mrs.
Clausen want this because it would mean that every time she ccmes
out she would have to go down hill around the house to be legal.
Supervisor Desch remarked that Mrs. Clausen understood this. He
went on to say that the only question that could not be answered is
vdien is it likely to happen.
Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that she still felt comfortable
^ with the statement she had made about the intention of the Town
Board vMch was certainly no more binding than any other of our
intentions. She then proposed to the Board that they make that
statement. The statement being "it is not the intention of the
Town Board that this emergency access become part of the permanent
road system in providing access to Commonlands or other developed
or undeveloped land in the area".
Town Attorney Barney noted that it was the intention that it
becomes part of the system to the point of being plowed, he
assumed.
Councilwcman Raffensperger responded that before it says that this
right-of-way be used temporary one-way emergency access only. So
she assumed that meant the Town was going to maintain it for that
purpose.
Supervisor Desch replied, right.
Town Attorney Barney asked if the word "permanent" could be
switched to "primary". He stated that he was troubled with the
Towns legal responsibility, it's either a Town highway or its not a
Town highway. If it's a Town highway certain responsibilities and
rights flow with respect to it. If its not a Town highway they
don't. If the Boaixi is accepting it as a Town highway then we
accept those rights and responsibilities and he felt some of the
concerns could be taken care of by amending the Traffic Ordinance
to indicate it is one-way South and also to accept less than the
normal size right-of-way and by posting it in the manner by vMch
it has been suggested.
Councilwcman Raffensperger agreed to change the word "permanent" to
"primary".
Supearvisor Desch recapped, saying that vtot we have basically done
is to incorporate the conditions and requirements of the Planning
Board resolution and added two requirements.
Coiancilwcman Raffensperger replied, one for signage and this
statement of intent.
RESOLUTION ND. 104
Motion by Councilwcxnan Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
Alternate "A" as an emergency one-way access road incorporating the
following conditions and requirements approved March 1, 1988 by the
tmm Planning Board:
1. That the resolution of the Planning Board be reported to the
Town Board.
2. That the service road shall be primarily used for ingress by
emergency vehicles and vehicles necessary for maintenance of
said road, and to ingress by the owner of Parcels No.
Town Board 12 ;^ril 11, 1988
6-58-1-20 and 6-59-1-33.3, except as may be subsequently
amended by the Town of Ithaca.
3. That the Planning Boaid recognizes the potential value of
using this road as a pedestrian and bicycle trail, absent more
appropriate trail routes at this time, and would consider a
reconmendation of later amendment of this resolution for this
potential use unless more appropriate routes are found.
4. That the service road be located in such a manner, as to be
determined by the Town Engineer, as to minimize iirpact on the
adjacent residence to the West.
5. That the final design for such road, showing as-built
locations of all utilities, proposed road grading and
alignment, proposed signage, proposed landscaping, and
proposed drainage improvements be subject to final approval by
the Town Engineer and Town Planner, and that the final road
entrance design be subject to the approval of the New York
State Department of Transportation.
6. That the service road shall be ccsrpleted prior to May 31,
1988, and that the developer shall place in escrow any funds
determined by the Town Engineer to be necessary for 2x>ad
construction, for release by the Town Board upon acceptance of
the completed service road.
7. That the developer work with the Town Planner and Town
Engineer to minimize any impact upon the adjacent properties,
to minimize the restoration of grounds adjoining the service
road, and minimize removal of existing vegetation.
8. That the Town Board accept the location of the road.
9. That the developer provide the usual abstract of proposed deed
and convey the road by good and marketable title to the Town,
subject to the approval of the Town Attorney.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the statement "it is not the
intention of the Town Board that this emergency access become part
of the primary road system in providing access to Ccmmonlands or
other developed or undeveloped land in the area" and proper signage
be included.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
PURCHASE OF HEAVY RESCUE VEHICLE FOR CITY OF ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT
Supervisor Desch welccmed Sean Killeen, David Cornelius and Fire
Chief Edward Olmstead. He then noted that the Town had a request
frcm the City of Ithaca to consider a number of topics, primarily
the authorization to move forward with the purchase of a heavy
rescue vehicle and subsequently two pumpers.
Fire Chief Edward Olmstead responded that it was actually a light
rescue vehicle, a heavy rescue vehicle and then two punpers. He
went on to say that his ccming here was planned for one specific
item and then at the regular meeting of the Ci-t^'s Budget Ccmmittee
they tabled action on some items because it requires joint
discussions between Ccamnon Council and the Town Board. He went on
to say that the Fire Department is pretty much staffed and equipped
based on the way things were back in the 1960 to 1970 time period.
In truth, in terms of career personnel, even though we have two
more bodies than we had in 1967 we have scxnev^ere between 20 and
Town Board 13 ^ril 11, 1988
25% fewer nan-hours available. The biggest thing that drives that
is a State nandated reduction in the wcrk we^ for fire fighters to
40 hours per week and there never was a increase in the people to
nake up the difference. The second factor in that is negotiated
benefits. The response to business is sonev^diere between 7 and 10
times vdiat it was in that time period and the third factor is the
gradual steady decline in the average response of volunteer fire
fighters. For a long period of time we have been trying to deal
with all the technical things we could deal with in terras of
equipment and apparatus and all those things you can do to
substitute things for labor. This was a thread of discussion all
through the Fire Master Planning and subsequently the discussions
between the Town Board and Coanmon Council for the fire protection
contract.
Chief Olmstead stated that what he was here to talk about first was
strictly fire apparatus bids. We are in the beginning stages of a
fire apparatus replacement program that provides for the
replacement of a major piece of fire equipment every other year.
We operate six engines and two ladder trucks. As part of the
discussion in the Fire Master Planning contract the 15 year
replacement cycle was worded in the contract for replacement. In
1985 we were inspected by the Insurance Service Offices. They set
the fire protection base rate for fire insurance in both the City
and Town of Ithaca. The result of that study was their statement
that they were going to rate us from a Class 4 down to a Class 5.
We have been working with than and we believe have a handle on
softening that. One of the major problems that that study sited
was the condition of the apparatus, the way it is used in relation
to the number of people. We are dealing with a lot of things here
and vhen, he stated, he was appointed Chief five of seven engines
would not pass a required annual punp test. Both air ladders had
major structural problems. There are two things going on, right
^ now we are out to bid for body renovations to engine #9 v^ch is a
1976 punper. Then we are going out to bid on a ladder truck.
The Fire Chief went on to say that the first replacement would be
for a siaburban that was purchased in 1972, a light rescue vehicle.
The bids were open last week and are just short of $100,000. We
are presently working on specifications to replace two engines
vhich should have been replaced in 1983 and 1986, so we are playing
seme catch up. We hope to bid in 60 to 90 days and the receipt of
those will be about one year from date of award of bid. Last is
the replacement of engine #1 vMch is a 1981 vehicle. If you take
all of these things in the next 18 to 24 months, it's about
$800,000 to $1,000,000 in capital apparatus purchases and repairs.
The contact has seme language in it that calls for the Town to pay
27% of capital purchases and repairs to equipment that exceed
$25,000. That percentage is based on the actual money that is
expended during the term of the contact. The final part of the
contract is that expenditures in any year for new equipment items
costing over $25,000 shall not exceed $200,000 absent mutual
agreonent. Nothing we are doing at the present time in terras of
requests requires the mutual consent of the Town Board and the
City. We probably won't spend over $200,000 this year, however, he
felt the spirit of the agreement was such that if we take a look at
vtot we are talking about in terras of miniraura costs over the next
18 to 24 months, we really feel we need to go at this thing
together so that nobody feels they are getting blind sided six
months from now vdien it might be necessary for me to come back and
say oh by the way we need some more money.
Supervisor Desch asked if financing had been discussed yet, at this
point?
Town Board 14 April 11, 1988
Sean Killeen replied that that was vdiy he was here. He went on to
say that he was here in two capacities, Chairman of the Fire Master
Planning Canmittee which has now become the New Fire Stations
Committee and also a member of the City's Finance Comnittee. We
received a proposal vhich Chief Olmstead has worked very hard in
bringing this to the City's Finance Ccamdttee attention for many
many months. The upshot of it was he was looking for 17 new
positions and three or four vehicles and we were looking at a good
million dollars. He felt it would be appropriate for the Town
Board to be alerted to this. He was not sure how or when the City
would be funding these positions and buying these vehicles. The
commitment is there to do it. It doesn't make any sense to do all
this work, create a new organization and new facilities and not
have them maxiraumly effective. We are in the process of
deliberating this, we tabled specific consideration and discussion
so that the Town Board would be specifically aware of these
discussions and possibly we can organize some kind of a intergroup,
working group. He then invited the Board members to the Budget
Ccramittee meeting on the 28th of ^ril vhere they will take up the
Fire Chief's proposals in greater detail. There is a ccmmitment in
principal but specifically it' s something that has to be
collectively agreed upon because we cannot unilaterally make the
decision because it is a cost iitposed upon the Town.
Mr. Killeen went on to say that Bob Rcmanowski was to be here
tonight but could not make it, however, he would like to repeat
Bob's concern. That is that there is a move among the volimteers
to fill these new positions is really a professionalization of paid
volunteers within the ranks and its kind of an easing out of
volunteers. We like you but not that much, this is what he was
going to say this evening as a comment he has been hearing. We
have to renew our efforts to make this untrue.
Supervisor Desch remarked that there seemed to be two issues, one
is in the case of equipment vhat the most sensible financial plan
is. He felt that the Mayor, himself, the B&A Ccxnmittee Chairman
and Dominic Cafferillo should try to develop a plan that all could
agree upon and then bring it back to our respective boards.
Chief Olmstead noted a vehicle replacement schedule attached to the
memo and that vhen you hit 1991 you are looking at replacement of
ladder trucks v^ich at that time will be somev^ere in the vicinity
of a million dollars just for two trucks. Is bonding the best or
putting money in the bank best? The City always puts some money in
the bank then purchased out of a capital reserve fund.
Supervisor Desch went on to say that on the second question, it
would seem as though may be a joint meeting between the B&A
Committee and this Board on the staffing should be held. He felt
this was the toughest question to resolve. The Supervisor asked if
the B&A Committee would be discussing staffing on the 28th?
Sean Killeen replied yes, also vehicles, these are not disconnected
items.
Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, this is a new system and a new
contract and she was not clear atxDut the structure. She asked
vdiere the Fire Conmissioners fit into this decision making or
recoranendation kind of process.
Chief Olmstead replied, the Charter of the City of Ithaca give the
Board of Fire Commissioners conplete control over the apparatus and
equipment in terms of acquisition, distribution, location and
starting of companies. So that all of this material originates in
the Fire Department with the Board of Fire Commissioners and all
the equipment items, for instance, are resolutions of the Board of
Town Board 15 i^ril 11, 1988
Fire Catimissioners, that's the start. The only thing that we need
to deal with in terms of the Ccmnon Council and now the Town Board
is the money. The appropriation, the same is true of the Fire
Department budget. Once tliat money is appropriated by Council it's
pretty much the last time we see thon until the next budget season.
The apparatus requests came out of a meeting two months ago with
the Fire Ccmmissioners the personnel requests were also brought
back to the Board because it was about a year old. These are
unanimous reccnimendations of the Board of Fire Commissioners.
Councilman Cardman asked, the contract you are referring to is our
obligation then to contribute to the request?
Supervisor Desch replied, depending upon the amount. Our
obligation is to pay, depending on vhich year it is, a certain
percentage of the acquisition costs of that equipment. The major
equipment is a flat 27%. On the other hand, we do have an interest
in how the replacenent program is set up because we really should
do the first phase right so we know that we can handle the other
later phases because we can't walk away from them.
Councilman Cardman renarked, so it's an issue of the mechanics of
how it is going to be handled, upon the recommendation of the Fire
Ccnmissioners ?
Supervisor Desch replied, right. It's a matter of how you spread
the cost to deal with vhat is required. The equipment is not so
much a scope question as a timing and financing question.
Councilman Cardman asked vhat the contract says about staffing.
Supervisor Desch replied, that is frozen at the current level.
That is contractually a different matter than the equipment.
TAX STABILIZATION ADJUSTiyENT FOR ELLIS HOLLOW ELDERLY HOUSING
PROJECT
Supervisor Desch noted that the Board had two memoranda. One is
the March 30th memo vhich tried to layout the various parameters of
the resolution of agreonent and then one dated today vhich is a
supplement vhich follows on with a discussion vhich Councilwcman
Raffensperger and he had with regard to seme possible alternatives.
Councilwcman Raffensperger speaking to the Town Attorney noted that
the resolution says that they are not exeirpt from the payment of
any and all assessment for local improvements including assessments
for all iirprovements and approvement districts as defined in Town
Law and it gives references. Is the fire charge a tax or a benefit
levy, as defined in Town Law?
Town Attorney Barney stated that he would have to look it up but he
thought it was a benefit levy. We have a fire protection district
which is a town-wide district vhich contracts for fire protection
with the City and the Village of Cayuga Heights and he felt it was
done through a fire protection district and that suggests that it
would be a levy on assessed valuation. However, he had not
researched that question.
Supervisor Desch remarked that the problem was that it falls
scmevhere in between. It's in a gray area vhere there are seme
restrictions on vhat a Town Board is authorized to do with fire
protection money that makes it sound like a benefit district and
yet there is no authority to borrow for improvements within fire
protection districts so, therefore, it's sanevhat like any other
part of the operating budget.
901
Town Board 16 i^ril 11, 1988
Coxmcilwoman Raffensperger stated that she had tried to figure it
out herself. She stated that it did occur to her that the tax
exCTipt institutions in the Town of Ithaca do not pay fire tax
although they pay water and sewer benefit. This leads you to think
there is a substantial difference from the other tax stabilized as
opposed to an exenpt facility does not pay fire tax either although
they pay sewer benefit. It is a legal question she felt as to
v^ether of not it was a tax because clearly the resolution and the
agreenient vdiich references the resolution says they will not pay
i taxes outside of the in lieu of payment but they will pay benefit
assessment outside of it. So it is a very important question in
our looking at this.
Town Attorney Barney replied, in looking at it fron what little bit
he knew was the history. They have infact paid the fire protection
charge right along in addition to the $20,000 in lieu of taxes.
That's been the case since the beginning. They didn't bother to
inform us, in accordance with the resolution and agreement, that
they had exceeded the 13% rent roll, that that exceeded $20,000, so
now they are caught in a position vdiere they have not really been
totally fair with us as we would have no way of knowing v^at those
rent rolls are short of their producing them for us to see.
Because that now cotes back to haimt them they want seme abatement.
If the Board chooses to abate this, that's fine, but in terms of
abating the fire protection you are tanpering with vhat the past
history has been here and vdiat everybody had understood even though
maybe the agreonent was not as explicit as it should have been.
Councilwonan Raffensperger noted that there are lots of problems in
terms of vhat we have done with the agreement. For example, it
says they are supposed to pay taxes on the basic land value that
was existent before the inprovanents on it vdiich was never done.
There was also no requirement for notification of the Town of their
total gross rents.
Town Attorney Barney remarked, even more significant, the v^ole
thing was supposed to have been approved by the County. As far as
he knew that never occurred.
Councilwcman Raffensperger added, the agreement actually says that
the County has not given a tax abatement.
Town Attorney Barney noted that the resolution by v^ich that
agreement was authorized says it' s conditional on the County
signing.
County Representative Beverly Livesay remarked that it went to the
County and the County turned them down.
Councilwcman Raffensperger noted that really there were two
proposals and the basic difference between them is the treatment of
the fire tax, that is really the difference and vdiat it really
amounts to is a difference $3,928 as a charge on the in lieu of
sum. Supervisor Desch's proposal in his mono of ^ril 11th would
mean they would pay a total of $43,208. The proposal that she came
up with was $39,280. $39,280 would be a 7% increase over last year
and $43,208 is a 18.5% increase.
Councilwcman Leary asked Councilwcman Raffensperger if her figure
assumed that the fire benefit assessment is an assessment or does
it assume it is a tax?
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied, it assumes that it is a tax and
therefore it shares in the in lieu tax sum of $20,000. Which would
mean that the Town would receive $825 for fire tax as opposed to
the total amount of $5,753.
Town Board 17 ^ril 11, 1988
Councilvonan Leary asked, if it wasn't a tax and it was a benefit
assessment, v^t would that mean?
Supervisor Desch replied, they would pay the full amount.
Councilwoman Raffensperger added, it it is a benefit assessment
they pay the whole thing vhich would be $5,753.
Councilwanan Leary remarked, so you are guessing it's a tax?
CouncilwoiBn Raffensperger replied that she was making the
assumption, treating it as a tax.
Supervisor Desch added, which it is hasn't been for the past
twenty-five years.
Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that it was a legal question that
certainly was going to be addressed by the owners of facility.
Supervisor Desch asked if the Board would prefer to hold off making
a decision until that was addressed?
Councilman Cardman remarked that his question was going to be,
either stance that we take, vhat does that mean for the future?
Supervisor Desch replied that the future was a totally separate
discussion in terms of amending the agreement to do any number of
things v^ether it be changing the percent of shelter rents that the
determination is based on or leaving it $20,000 or making scmething
else exenpt.
Councilman Carx3man remarked, this is a one time fix?
Sipervisor Desch replied right, the manager of the project has been
urged to apply to the County for an exenption for the year 1990
because the County has recently granted exenptions to other
projects.
County Representative Livesay stated that because of the way the
tax was done, with the County tax being off set by the sales tax
they apparently were not charged their County tax but allowed that
sales tax to offset it. It's like they have had a County tax
abatement all the time. It never should have been treated this way
on that property.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked that on the other hand the
agreement says things like vdiat they paid in County taxes was
supposed to be subtracted frcm the in lieu of payment, vMch we
have not done.
Councilman Cardman asked if the Town Supervisor felt that at sane
point this might be litigated no matter v^at we do?
Supervisor Desch replied, and Town Attorney Barney agreed that they
did not feel the project did not want to go into litigation. The
Supervisor stated that vdiat he meant was that if we don't handle
this consistently, there could be seme exposure.
Town Attorney Barney ronnarked, vtot has happened over a period of
25 years, $20,000 has been paid plus the fire tax, up vintil this
year plus the water and sewer. Out of that $20,000, occasionally
the County was paid v^en there was a County Tax, the Town was paid
the part it was entitled to and the balance was sent to the School
District. The amount paid to the School was never close to the
amount they would have paid had they been paying full taxes. The
shifting of the sales taxes this year brought this into blosscm.
08T
n
Town Board 23 i^ril 11, 1988
using the abandoned railroad right-of-way. She asked v^at this
means.
Town Planner Beeners replied that there were two possibilities as
far as connections, one would be the Juniper Drive and it would be
possible for a road to be built bet\««en Juniper and the
Pennsylvania extension.
Councilwcman Raffensperger asked, on the NYSEG right-of-way?
Town Planner Beeners replied, on the NYSEG right-of-way.
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied, and again we don't have that
confirmed?
Town Planner Beeners replied, we have made that a condition.
Councilwcman Raffensperger asked what does it connect to?
Town Planner Beeners replied, by bringing it to the point just
opposite Pennsylvania extension, v^ere Town maintenance currently
ends, there is the possibility for the Town to take over the
Pennsylvania extension so that there would be a catplete connection
between Juniper and Pennsylvania Avenue v^ich is needed.
Councilman Cardman asked how would you get access to the parcel of
land between the railroad right-of-way and Coddington Road?
Town Planner Beeners replied, a couple of ways. It would be
possible to subdivide two lots, off of the Coddington Road
eliminating any type of a road connection.
Councilman Bordoni remarked, any type of road connection, with
^ development relative to Coddington Road?
i Town Planner Beeners replied, if one were to make the decision that
Juniper Drive is sufficient to meet the main connector road needs
that are needed in this area, in long range planning, and that a
Spruce Way new intersection opposite Spruce Way would be redundant
then v^t could be looked at as a road circulation pattern would
minimize the iitpact that the neighbors have expressed about another
road in the back yard kind of thing would be to have two lots
subdivided off the front, then either run a cul-de-sac road up into
the parcel frcm the NYSEG right-of-way and the grade for that would
work quite well or a scheme that would not be too practical and
that is one that could have an open space parcel within the center
behind the two lots of Coddington Road and then lots could be
accessed off of that. She went on to say that the problon with
that is that there is a very steep bank and it would require
probably having to blast separate driveway entrances.
Councilman Bordoni remarked, we keep talking about connecting up to
Juniper Drive and that his first reaction is that he does not like
it because it takes it takes an awful lot of traffic and puts it up
and down that street. The lesser of the two evils seems to be to
have the new road built as shown and not have a connection to
Juniper Drive at all. He asked vdiat was wrong with that train of
thought?
r Town Planner Beeners replied, one thing would be that there would
be a cul-de-sac, at this time, that would exceed 1,000 feet and
would not meet the sijbdivision requirements. She felt that as far
as she was concerned, we have a railroad bed that has been graded,
exists and in a case like this it might be a good idea to use it
for limited road irrprovonents, vhether it be just to Juniper or be
a connection to Pennsylvania.
06X
Town Board 24 i^ril 11, 1988
Councilman Cardman romarked, with Councilman Bordoni's concern
about additional traffic on Juniper Drive, couldn't the road come
down, turn left and then go back up toward Pennsylvania and not
effect Juniper Drive at all?
Town Planner Beeners replied if that were done,the grade would be
10 1/2 to 11% and the earth work and grading that would be involved
having a fairly steep embankment in front on one of the houses.
Councilman Cardman replied no, you misunderstood me, go all the way
down to the railroad bed, now ccme back up it.
Town Planner Beeners replied, possible.
Councilman Cardman remarked as opposed to going to Juniper Drive
and putting traffic on it.
Supervisor Desch added, you still want to shove that traffic away
frcxn Juniper if you can. The more you do it the steeper it gets
but you can do it to a certain degree.
Councilwoman Raffensperger noted the reservation at the North end
for a future connection to Pennsylvania Avenue. She asked if that
reservation by this developer would not go all the way through to
Pennsylvania Avenue?
Supervisor Desch replied, no.
Councilvranan Raffensperger asked vdiat was the status of the rest of
the land?
Town Planner Beeners replied that the parcel is in the same
ownership as it has been for many years. The former Baker parcel,
has changed hands within the last few months.
Councilman Bordoni noting the Pennsylvania Avenue extension, or
dotted line, asked if that was Town property?
Supervisor Desch replied that it was owned by a number of property
owners.
Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that in her opinion there are an
awful lot of maybe's, vdiether or not roads can go in certain
places, v^ether NYSEG will permit a road, vdiether Juniper has the
kind of configuration to make a main connector road, she stated
that in her opinion the proposal ought to go back to the Planning
Board with a notation of our concerns about the uncertainty of the
overall circulation pattern because once you put a road in there,
anyvdiere we have already made sane assunptions about \tot the
remainder of the pattern will be and we don't even know if it's
possible.
Councilman Cardman remarked that he kind of agreed with
Councilwoman Raffensperger. The uncertainty of access to
Pennsylvania Avenue through those other parcels.
Supervisor Desch remarked that the Board should give the Planning
Board seme guidance otherwise they are likely to cone back with
something that would be equally unacceptable.
Councilman Cardman replied that his guidance would be to use the
railroad bed and go back toward the Pennsylvania Avenue extension.
We have an established extension that may not belong to us but we
are maintaining it now and it still leaves the alternative to go
down and connect up with Juniper Drive. It does not put any
r,6T
Town Board 25 April 11, 1988
pressure on us for that cul-de-sac to go through those other two
properties that we have no idea vdiat is going to happen.
Coxincilman Bordoni replied, if you do that if we take advantage of
the railroad bed and take a left to Pennsylvania extension, then
you bring your road into the development up towards Spruce Way. He
asked v^y the road had to ccme near Juniper Drive?
Councilman Cardman replied, we don't have to. That relieves the
problem but it still reserves the right to do that.
Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked that one of the few parts she
liked in the resolution was an instruction that says to the extent
that at all possible, that all lots should meet the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that she felt this was kind of a
minimum instruction to the Planning Board.
Town Engineer Flumerfelt stated that the main concerns are that we
end up with a road way that is not another overly long cul-de-sac,
that if it intersects with Coddington Road that the intersection be
a safe one, that strong consideration be given to more extensive
traffic on Juniper Drive as it effects those residents. Also,
keeping in mind the present grade of Juniper Drive and its ability
to carry more traffic, especially in the winter time. Vie need to
consider the grades of any new streets that are being considered.
The think that is needed most is a clear and well planned proposal
by the developer that meets the objectives that are proposed in
this resolution.
Supervisor Desch asked Councilwcman Raffensperger if it wasn't a
normal part of the process of the Planning Board to require the
developer to pin down any of the conditions betv^^en the process
between preliminary approval and final approval? By giving options
does not mean that all of the options will ccme back as viable
j ones. Whatever we send back we should send back vtotever options
I we consider to be potentially viable rather than trying to force it
in one direction or the other.
Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that her major concern is that
she did not consider the road plan for Klondike Manor to be
acceptable at this time because there are so many uncertainties as
to how it will effect the road circulation in area immediately
outside of Klondike Manor and that the Planning Board has not given
us the information or the developer or v^oever's responsibility it
is.
Supervisor Desch asked Councilwcman Raffensperger if she felt it
was more of an environmental question? Are you taking about
traffic data?
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied no, there are ownership
questions, availability of land, \^ether or not the circulation
plan can ever ccme about. Once ws put one road in then we have
made seme kind of a statement about the peripheral too, and she
that felt the Town Board did not have the information, nor has the
Planning Board given the Town Board the information to be able to
do this.
Supervisor Desch asked the Board vtet action they would like to
take on the Klondike Project?
Councilman Bartholf stated that he had a question on the Highway
Master Plan. Councilman Bartholf asked if the Board was the follow
the Master Plan or not? What are we supposed to be doing?
Town Board 26 April 11, 1988
Supervisor Desch replied, ncminally yes. He went on to say that
the access to the Sincebaugh parcel is related to this v^ole
subject. So obviously vdiat we do here should be consistent and
corpatible with v^at is likely to happen with that particular
parcel. That's a consideration we should keep in mind.
Councilman Cardman remarked, that amplifies Councilwcman
Raffensperger' s concern, that vfetever we do here is going to
effect the periphery.
Supervisor Desch replied, except the Planning Board took that into
account. The reason you have all of these maps is because you have
all the alternatives that the Planning Board looked at plus seme
others.
Town Planner Beeners added, v^t the northward extension seems to
present, at the time the Planning Board was to review, was a
connection to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Planning Boaid being aware
that there is one landowner v^o has a two family hcme at the end of
the paper Pennsylvania Avenue, a swiimiing pool that is close to the
road and that gentleman owns property on the opposite side of the
road too. In her researching the files, it appears that at one
time it was considered that might not be desirable or possible to
have that Pennsylvania extension pursuant to the Highway Master
Plan all the way through because of that. She stated that she felt
this was chiefly because of that land ownership and the swinming
pool. So v^en this proposal for having a northward extension or
possibly going to the east, came up, it a^^ared there might be an
opportunity to solve that circulation problem in that area.
Councilwcman Raf fensperger remarked, then vdiat she would like to
have from the Planning Board is a recommendation on how they are
proposing that the Highway Master Plan be changed, be altered, so
as to acccmnodate v^tever the road system for Klondike Manor will
" be. We don't have a reccnmendation that says that circulation will
be provided from an existing street or that there will be a
northward extension or that any of these connections will be made.
She stated that it seemed appropriate to her to have this
recommendation proceeding the approval of the Klondike Manor road.
Town Attorney Barney, speaking to Councilwcman Raf fensperger stated
that we don't generally require that of any developer.
Councilwcman Raffensperger replied that she was not asking the
developer to do that she was asking the Planning Board.
Town Attorney Barney replied that he was concerned a little bit
here, he did not want to face the situation vdiere the Town is
exposed to a law suit because we are discriminating in a fashion
against one developer in a way we have chosen not to discriminate
against others. He stated that he felt the entire issue may be
moot over the NYSEG easement and he felt v^tever the Board did he
would like to see the Board make the action conditional on
demonstration in writing frcm NYSEG or the owner, and he assumed
NYSEG was the owner of the property, that they will indeed grant
for all Town highway purposes to the Town of Ithaca. He felt that
once that condition is put in, that things will have to ccme to a
grinding halt because he felt NYSEG would not give that easement.
He stated that he had some information that led him to that
conclusion. They may but he felt before any Board spends a great
deal more time on this he would like to see that in writing.
Councilman Carx3man asked, v^y don't we just direct that? Why don't
we just direct that question to NYSEG?
r
Town Board 27 ^ril 11, 1988
Supervisor Desch remarked v^at you have really touched on is really
an issue that goes well beyond this particular proposal. It goes
beyond the road issue of the road network in the entire airea. No
matter \tet scheme you ccxne up with, in keeping with \diat
Councilworaan Raffensperger and Councilman Bartholf are suggesting
unless you have taken a real hard look at the entire road network
there are you really going be able to satisfy yourself that you
have answered your own question. He stated that he felt that if
the issues we are hearing frcm the public and members of Board
^ suggest to him that may be vhat we need here is like a six month
moratorium on building imtil we know vhat we want in the way of a
road network. It may turn out that we don't satisfy the folks in
the end but at least potentially we would have the facts before us
^-#1^ that we would be able to say okay you have to give a little on this
one and so on.
Town Attorney Barney stated that he did not like the word
moratorium, just simply because he felt there was a question of
legality of forcing that.
Supervisor Desch replied, but we need and "x" period of time in
order to do the land use study. He stated that he was thinking now
of the area between Coddington Road and the edge of the properties
by Northview. There is a provision to do that, you can call it
scmething besides moratorium. He asked the Board how they felt
about that?
Councilman Cardman replied that he felt that would be an excellent
idea.
Councilwoman Raffensperger agreed that she would be comfortable
with this also.
Supervisor Desch ronarked that there were several issues no only
integrated into this small development but you can take those and
translate them into three or four times the number of issues if you
talk with different people in that area he was sure they could make
as good a case as the folks vho are here tonight.
Coimcilman Cardman asked the Town Attorney if that would make him
comfortable from the developers standpoint?
Supervisor Desch asked vhat would be too long in terms, three
months? We owe it to the developer as well as these people to have
a finite time frame so that we are moving along a track. Attorney
Barney stated that he did not know what was achievable or \^ether
it can be done in three months.
Town Planner Beeners asked if this wasn't partly what .Mr.
Flumerfelt said, a request for more information frcxn the applicants
engineer for the irtpact or influence of the proposed road system or
development into the larger area?
Supervisor Desch replied right, except he felt the Board could not
look to the developer to provide the answer.
Town Attorney Barney agreed, saying that once you go outside of his
area that's not his problem He went on to say the he wondered if
it couldn't be handled this way. He stated that he liked the Town
Planner's approach in asking the developer for more information and
he did not think it was unreasonable to request absolute assurance
that vdiatever is done with the roadway across the NYSEG easement
can be done. He suggested that the Board adjourn the matter, for
the time being, until that is provided. That is clearly an
obligation of the developer to provide. Concurrently we can go
ahead with our own land use study of the entire surrounding area.
86T
Town Board 18 ^ril 11, 1988
Now all of a sudden there is a large County tax bill vhich these
people are going to have to face that they have never had to face
before and this is vhat has brought this forth. During that
period, the original agreement was that they would pay either
$20,000 or they would pay 13% of their rent rolls. Initially 13%
of their rent rolls was considerably less then $20,000, now 13% is
considerably more than the $20,000 and has been for a nimiber of
years and they have been getting away with paying just the $20,000.
The benefit, up until this year, has been a windfall for thorn.
I
Councilman Cardman speaking to the Supervisor remarked, your
concern is that if we modify the agreement because of the situation
with the sales tax now caning to the Town instead of the County and
^4^ everybody elses taxes going up that we would be treating other
people imfairly.
Supervisor E)esch replied, right. He stated that he was concerned
about the fact that we have an existing agreement v^ch has been,
right or wrong, consistently followed throughout it's history. He
stated that he would prefer not to tamper with that agreement for
1988 to do vdiatever needs to be done to it to improve it for 1989.
That's coupled two ways and that is why he listed two points here,
the second one being there was a subsidy to the Coimty tax rate
v^ch came from taxpayers fund balance being accumulate over the
years vdiich in actuality suppressed the County rate, even for 1988,
vAiich was not contributed to in any major way by this project.
That is another reason vdiy they are already getting a benefit even
with that 18% increase. Everybody else saw scmething like a 30%
increase so the 18% is scme\diere in between.
Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she guessed she would just
make one last point and that is that it is clear that the intent
and it says so in the resolution was to stabilize the taxes. That
^ the only way in v^ch the taxes can be paid is for the group that
owns this facility to apply to HUD to increase the rents and this
is a low income elderly facility and she was concerned, not that
they get gradual increases she felt that was appropriate, but vdiat
she was concerned about was because of the change in the sales tax
allocation and etc., that we getting a very large junp in one year
vdiich they have a lag to recover from HUD and it's going to come
from rents.
Councilman Cardman replied, but the Town Attorney makes the point
that they have been getting a windfall in past year anyway because
13% of their rent receipts is now greater than the $20,000.
Comcilwoman Raffensperger replied, you can say that but its the
Town \iho gave it to them, v^ether they took it or we gave it to
then, that's the real question. We had a responsibility to sent
them a bill based on their gross rents.
Councilman Cardman and TOwn Attorney Barney both asked, how would
we know the gross rents?
Councilman McPeak speaking to the Town Attorney asked, assuming the
worst case, v^at kind of a rent increase would we be talking about?
Town Attorney Barney replied that he would have to refer the
** question to the Siapervisor, he only knew there were 100 units.
Supervisor Desch replied that the immediate question before the
project is the question that the mortgage holder wants to increase
the escrow account to cover the $20,000 in lieu of in addition the
County tax that has been paid. They put the project under a
certain amount of pressure but that he had talked to the mortgage
holder and assured them that it was unlikely we would be charging a
Town Board 19 i^ril 11, 1988
penalty. They were concerned about a penalty on the tax and the
tax being a lien, so he stated that he had convinced them that we
were working on it and trying to find a mutually acceptable
solution to their problem and we would be back to them.
The Board decided to study the problem further before taking
action.
WATER SYSTEM MADTONANCE PROGRAM
Introduction
The Town of Ithaca is ultimately responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the Town water syston. The Southern Cayuga Lake
Interraunicipal Water Ccanmission performs or arranges for the repair
of the Town system including operation of pump stations,
reservoirs, hydrants, valves and mains.
The Ccnmission, on behalf of the members including the Town of
Ithaca, participate with the City and Cornell in an emergency
operating procedure to assure delivery of water from any
combination of the three major sources.
Statement of Purpose and Need
There is a need to assiare that Town of Ithaca interests are served
by actions taken by others in the operation and maintenance of the
Town water system. The Town Engineering Department is responsible
for the monitoring of such services. A Maintenance Management
Program will also provide planning data necessary for system
irrprovements and extension.
^ Scope
A system of operational reports shall be developed in conjunction
with the Ccramission monitoring/maintenance program to establish a
profile of system capability and reliability.
Trouble Reports
A Trouble Report will be completed by the Town Engineering
Department on every water main break, mechanical failure, in the
Tdwn system. Such reports will result in work orders for repairs,
clean up, etc.
The Trouble Report will identify the probable cause of the break,
contributing factors and recommendations on ways to prevent
recurrence.
^fonitoring Reports
The Engineering Department will continually monitor operating costs
of each punp station and PRV including the plotting of electrical
consumption and cost of each system component.
As Built Drawings
Once annually the Town will provide copies of as built drawing of
the water system to the Commission of all inprovements performed in
the previous year. Siabmittal will include valve ties, curb stop,
service and hydrant locations, etc.
RESGLUTIOg NO. 105
^8T
Town Board 20 i^ril 11, 1988
Motion by Coimcilvranan Raffensperger; seconded by Coimcilman
McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the Town Water System Maintenance Management Program.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
STATE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR TIER I AND TIER II
Si:5)ervisor Desch stated that basically this is evolved out of a
number of sessions. The Town Personnel Canmittee endorsed the 75-e
plan but at the review at the Ccaranission level there are several
people v^o are sanevtot near retirement on the Commission staff v^o
would benefit far and away greater than the cost to us would be.
Supervisor Desch stated that it was felt that he should come
forward to you with the reccsnmendation that adopt the best plan
v^ich is 75-i. As time goes on, the cost to the Town will go down
because people will be retiring. This is of coxirse limited to Tier
I and Tier II so no new employees that are hired from now on into
the future will be eligible. These are long term enployees. It is
an employee benefit that would be very much appreciated hy the
employees and at a low cost to the oiployer.
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 106
Motion by Councilman Cardman; seconded by Councilman Bordoni,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby
elect to provide the additional pension benefits of Section 75-e;
Section 75-g; and Section 75-i of the Retirement and Social
^ Security Law, as presently or hereafter amended, and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that this election shall become effective
on the 1st day of May, 1988.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Carx3man
voting Aye. Nays - none).
KLCMDIKE MANOR ROAD NETWORK
Robert Cotts, 115 Nbrthview Road presented the following petition
from the Northview Road Association, dated April 10, 1988 viiich was
signed by 21 residents:
"We the undersigned wish to express our opposition to the plan for
the South Hill subdivision known as Klondike Manor as presently
proposed.
The Plan fails to meet minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
in regard to lot frontage and lot depth; it has a proposal for a
cul-de-sac road which exceed permissible length. We feel that a
subdivision of this magnitude cannot be allowed the number of
variances it includes".
p* Also a letter written by Mr. Cotts dated T^ril 11, 1988 as follows:
"The Northview Road Association met last night to review the plans
for the proposed "Klondike Manor" Subdivision. The Association and
its resident members are very seriously concerned about this
proposal vAiich so blatantly pushes on R-15 zoning requirements in
the direction of Multiple Dwellings in an area that has fully
family-oriented R-15 character.
981
Town Board 21 i^ril 11, 1988
The Board is, therefore, urged to not allow a variance on the
proposed road plan that would extend a cul-de-sac beyond the
maximum of 1,000 feet.
It was reported at our meeting that the Town Zoning Officer hold
evidence, a lease, that shows that the Klondike Manor developer is
currently in violation on renting to too many unrelated persons on
the one house on this subdivision property".
^ Supervisor Desch stated that by way of backgroimd, the Subdivision
Regulations of the Town of Ithaca require any facility viiich is
ejqpected to be dedicated to the Town, v^ether it be a park or a
road be accepted by the Town. The Town Board, in this case, is
limited to identifying v^ether the proposed road network serves
both the subdivision and the adjoining land effectively or not.
The Town Board does not consider, in it's review of the road
network, the question of the subdivision layout in so far as the
lot size and density. In this particular case we are looking at
strictly a subdivision in accordance with the current Zoning
Ordinance so our primary concern has to deal with v^ether those v^o
would choose to buy parcels within the subdivision would have
proper ingress and egress and \diether or not the adjoining
properties will continue to be properly seirved by the existing and
proposed roadway network.
The Supervisor noted that the matter had been discussed briefly
primarily from a procedural question as to the timing and etc. The
Town Board has now had the opportunity to look on site at the
proposed subdivision at the proposed road network. This is not a
public hearing but he stated he was delighted to see everyone here
and he knew there were a lot of questions and concerns related to
the subdivision. Not all are questions about the road but seme of
vMch may be related to the road.
Councilwcman Raffensperger asked if the Board was now discussing
the resolution distributed by the Supervisor?
Supervisor Desch remarked, for the benefit of the public there is a
resolution v^ch he stated he prepared in attenpt to identify the
different concerns with regard to the road layout. In reviewing
the record in regard to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board
there are some things that stand out in relation to the proposed
roads. For example, the new road frcm Coddington to the
intersection with the abandoned railroad comes very close to some
four properties on Juniper Drive that raises the question as to
v^ether that is the best alignment that could be achieved with
relation to that road. He felt that in putting any kind of a
resolution together he tried to focus on the different areas of
concern. What this resolution does is to look at the group of lots
below the abandoned railroad, how ingress and egress should be
provided to those lots. It looks at the question of necessity for
any road to be constructed to connect to Coddington Road and
further it looks at alternatives for getting in and out of the area
above the abandoned railroad. Whether that should be totally
through to Juniper Drive, v^ether it should be totally through to
Pennsylvania Avenue or some combination of the two.
Councilman Bordoni remarked, in looking at the map vdiere it shows a
iT line indicating a connecting to Juniper Drive and an outlet on the
Coddington Road near or directly across from Spruce Way, it doesn't
show anything on the North end. Does that mean at this point it is
~ not a viable way out.
Town Planner Beeners replied, by pointing out on a map that the
road aligned would be opposite of Spruce Way with a connection to
Juniper and with a potential for extension north ward through
06i:
Town Board 22 ^ril 11, 1988
undeveloped land to Pennsylvania Avenue. To the East is the forty
acre Sincebaugh lot for v^ch in the Official Highway Master Plan
was plotted out an extension of Pennsylvania and Kendall along
v^ch the existing sewer line is, then on to connect into Juniper.
There was always the assunption that there would be a connection
between these roads to Juniper Drive. Because of the grade of
Juniper Drive being about 10%, it appeared to the Planning Board
that this new alignment off Spruce Way would offer sane advantages.
It would be, for exaitple, about a 7% average grade from opposite
^ Spruce Way down on through with a potential connection to
Pennsylvania Avenue. Because of the concern that has been
expressed by many of residents, there are a couple of alternatives.
There are a couple of questions, is there a redundance of two roads
here or should seme alternative alignments be looked at v^ich might
eliminate an additional intersection on to Coddington Road.
Supervisor Desch replied, that the answer to Councilman Bordoni's
specific question is that if this road network were approved, the
developer would be required to reserve a piece of land from the end
of the cul-de-sac to end of his property line v^ch is ccmmonly
done as a future connection to the other lands. He went on to say
that one important factor that he did not mention in the beginning
was that if the Town Board choose to accept this resolution or
something like it the matter would be referred back to the Planning
Board for a review of the different road schemes and, therefore, it
would not come before the Zoning Board on Wednesday.
Councilwonan Raffensperger questioned whether the alignment of the
street serving lots 9 and 15 is the one with a connection to
Juniper Drive across the abandoned railroad right-of-way. Does
that also include going across the NYSEG right-of-way?
Town Planner Beeners replied, it's the same thing.
Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if NYSEG had given their
permission for this connection?
Town Planner Beeners replied, the developer has indicated that that
is feasible to get, that is to use part of the NYSEG right-of-way
for a road.
Councilman Cardman asked, "but we don't have it guaranteed fron the
developer that that can happen"?
Town Planner Beeners replied no, it's a condition of the
preliminary plat approval that that connection be built prior to
any construction of the houses.
Councilwonan Raffensperger asked if this intrudes on the recreation
way as planned by the Town because it is along the railroad
right-of-way?
Town Planner Beeners replied that vrfiat she had plotted out was it
would be coning along the old railroad right-of-way that Thenn owns
and then have sons connections to Pennsylvania and Kendall. What
she had plotted at the time of the Parks and Open Space
Coiprehensive Plan was to use an existing path along the sewer line
through the Sincebaugh lands to cone up to the base of Juniper and
then go out the NYSEG right-of-way. To use the NYSEG right-of-way
toward the City it gets a little more coiplex. Use of this section
of the right-of-way would really not intrude on the recreation way.
Councilwonan Raffensperger noted that the resolution says it really
does not require a connection fron Klondike Manor to Coddington
Road provided that circulation is provided fron an existing street,
she asked v^t existing street, possibly with an interconnection
Town Board 28 i^ril 11, 1988
Supei^isor Desch remarked, except it doesn't go quite far enough.
Suppose someone wants to come in for a building permit right down
on the end of Pennsylvania Avenue. He felt it shouldn't be granted
because it's the same problem that we are faced with here. He
stated that he would be comfortable in doing vdiat the Town Attorney
suggested and coming back with a formal resolution and saying \tot
it is that we want to put on hold.
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought, just tonight, for tliis
project he would like to discuss this further in Executive Session
as he felt there could be some significant legal ramifications
here.
Councilvonan Raffensperger asked if this would not prejudice vtot
we would do after this period of adjoximment. We can do anything
we would please at that point.
Town Attorney Barney replied this is correct. He went on to say
that Councilwoman Raffensperger had made a very good point and that
he felt in terms of considering v^t can happen here and in terms
of whether it is even feasible to talk about an extension on up the
NYSEG right-of-way toward the extension of Kendall Avenue. You
really need to know v^ether NYSEG is going to give that or at least
consider giving that and he felt the Board did not know that. He
noted that in one other case that has ccsoe up in his office in the
last few days, NYSEG has declined to allow that kind of a
consideration.
RESOLUTION NO. 107
Motion by Councilman Cardman; seconded by Councilwcman
Raffensperger,
_ RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adjourns
the consideration of the location of the Klondike Manor road until
there is received either by the Town Planner or the Town Engineer
or the Town Si:5)ervisor or the Town Attorney, written assurance of
the owner that the NYSEG right-of-^way or the former railroad bed
that it can be used for all Town highway purposes, at least in the
parts necessary to ccnplete this particular requested subdivision.
(Desch, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting
Aye. Nays - none. Abstaining - McPeak).
ENVIRCMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHANGES FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PROPOSED SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT
Town Planner Susan Beeners noted one correction on the EAF, that
being on page 3, Blf, the number of off street parking spaces
proposed is 30 not 29.
/^\
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW REVISING THE SPECIAL LAND
USE DISTRICT #5 TO INCLUDE 912,910 AND 904-906 EAST SHORE DRIVE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A FACILITY FOR THE TCMPKINS COUNTY
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to
consider a local law revising the Special Land Use District #5 to
include 912, 910 and 904-906 East Shore Drive for the purpose of
developing a facility for the Tcmpkins County Chamber of Ccmmerce
having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the
public hearing.
Town Boaid 29 ^ril 11, 1988
As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed local
law, the Si:5)ervisor closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTIOJ KO. 108
Itotion by Councilman Bordoni; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the TOwn of Ithaca hereby declare
a negative declaration of environmental significance for the
^ rezoning of 912, 910 and 904-906 East Shore Drive to be included in
the Special Land Use District.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
LOCAL lAW NO. 4 - 1988
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilwcman
Raffensperger,
LOCAL LAW NO. 4 - 1988
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZOJING ORDINANCE BY ENLARGING THE SPECIAL
LAND USE DISTRICT (LIMITED MIXED USE) AT 904-906 EAST SHORE DRIVE
FOR THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended,
and revised effective February 26, 1968, and thereafter further
amended, be further amended as follows:
1. Local Law No. 2 for the year 1988 of the Town of Ithaca
creating Special Land Use District No. 5 is hereby amended as
follows:
(a) Section 6(a) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) No building permit shall be issued until a plan shall
have been submitted to the Planning Board and approved hy the
Planning Board showing adequate parking and access to be
maintained within the district."
(b) Schedule A to said local law describing the property
contained within said Special Land Use District No. 5 is
deleted and the annexed Schedule A inserted in place thereof.
The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby
amended by adding and expanding such Special Land Use District
No. 5 to enccmpass all of the area described on Schedule A
annexed to this local law.
2. In the event tliat any portion of this law is declared invalid
by a court of ccmpetent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining
portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity.
3. This law shall take effect immediately.
SCHEDULE A
DESCRIPTICX^ OF ENLARGED SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 5
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the TOwn of Ithaca,
County of Torpkins and State of New York, bounded and described as
follows:
7M
Town Board 30 2^ril 11, 1988
(XWMENCING at a point in the center line of East Shore Drive, State
Route 34, at or near the northeast comer of premises of the City
of Ithaca (Liber 204 of Deeds at Page 274) v^ch premises are known
generally as the site of the Ithaca Youth Bureau; running thence
northerly and along the center line of East Shore Drive 60 feet to
the southeast comer of lands reputedly of Leo M. Wells (see 379
Deeds 410); continuing northerly along the center line of East
Shore Drive a distance of 79.5 feet to the northeast comer of said
Wells property and also the southeast comer of other premises
reputedly owned by Wells (see Liber 466 of Deeds at Page 230);
continuing northerly along the center line of East Shore Drive
117.3 feet to the northeast comer of said second Wells parcel;
running thence southwesterly and along premises now or formerly
reputedly of Signorelli (590 Deeds 1128) a distance of
approximately 223 feet to the east line of premises now or formerly
of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Conpany; thence southwesterly along
the easterly line of said railroad ccitpany a distance of
approximately 141 feet to a point; thence southerly running along
the westerly line of the second Wells parcel described above; the
first Wells parcel described above and the premises now or formerly
of Bowman (see Book 585 of Deeds at Page 594) a total distance of
82,8 feet to a point, vdiich point is the southwest comer of said
Bowman parcel; running thence easterly and in part along the City
of Ithaca Youth Bureau site and in total along the southerly line
of said Bowman parcel a total distance of 264 feet to the east line
of East Shore Drive; continuing thence in the same direction a
distance of approximately 33 feet to the center line of East Shore
Drive at the point or place of beginning.
Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote.
Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye
Councilman Bordoni Voting Aye
Councilman Cardman Voting Aye
Councilwoman Leary Voting Nay
Councilman McPeak Voting Aye
Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye
Supervisor Desch Voting Aye
Local Law No. 4 - 1988 was thereupon declared duly adopted.
Councilwoman Leary stated that she had voted against the local law
because it was still a move away from the central business district
and in the Town's draft Conprehensive Plan statement, the Town
recognizes the City as the County seat and the center of coninercial
activity so she felt it went against that too.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CCTSIDER THE ADOPTION OF TEffi OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to
consider the adoption of the Official Zoning Map having been
presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public
hearing.
Town Planner Susan Beeners remarked that the purpose of this public
hearing is to have an updated map where were changes made since the
adoption of the last official map, date unknown, are shown and this
will bring everything up to date and correct.
Supervisor Desch noted that there will be a set of tax maps vhich
will be the next level of detail so that you can see where your
fOZK
Town Board 31 Z^ril 11, 1988
particular parcel relates to the boundaries that have been
established. The person will need to go back to the particular
action that happened v^en using the tax maps in order to get the
precise boundaries so there is a risk in using it. You can't scale
a map like this but it does depict the zones. He went on to say
that the only question he would have if the Board choose to adopt
this as the Official Map is v^ether or not you would want to
include the boundaries of the new Special Land Use District that
the Board just expanded. Obviously, this map does not show that
J**! because it was put together before the vote, we just took. He went
' on to say that there were not changes built into this map, it's all
past action.
Town Attorney Barney remarked that legally he would just as soon
not include the expanded district because the legal date of that
will not be imtil it has been filed.
County Representative Beverly Livesay asked if there wasn't some Ag
District land down in the southeast comer of the Town?
Si^jervisor Desch replied. County District but not zone. They were
not zoned agricultural, that's totally different.
Town Planner Beeners remarked, those ag zones are referenced on
reduced tax parcel maps.
As no one present wished to speak, the Supervisor closed the public
hearing.
Councilvotian Raffensperger noted that the maps used to be shaded
differently for different areas, it was easier to look at.
Town Planner Beeners agreed and stated that it may be possible to
^ shade one or two districts.
]
Supervisor Desch noted a foot note on the map with reference to the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 3 vdiich tells you how to interpret
district boimdaries and asked the Board if they were comfortable
with this?
The Board felt it was not necessary to reduce the size of the map
because it would need to be folded or rolled anyway and the larger
size is more legible.
RESOLUTION NO. 109
Motion by Councilman Cardman; seconded by Councilman Bordoni,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopted,
as the Official Town of Ithaca Map, the map dated ^ril 11, 1988.
Official copy of v^ch is on file.
Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote.
Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye
Councilman Bordoni Voting Aye
Councilman Cardman Voting Aye
lami Councilwoman Leary Voting Aye
' Councilman McPeak Voting Aye
Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye
Supervisor Desch Voting Aye
The Resolution was duly adopted.
9oe;
Town Board 32 i^ril 11, 1988
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCE IN THE
TOWN OF ITEiACA TO TEayPPORARILY MODIFY THE STOP SIQJ A THE
INTERSECTIOJ OF CAMPRFT.T. AVENUE AND BROOKFIELD ROAD
Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a pi±)lic hearing to
consider amending the Traffic Ordinance in the Tdwn of Ithaca to
tertporarily modify the stop sign at the intersection of Campbell
Avenue and Brockfield Road having been presented by the Town Clerk,
the Supervisor opened the public hearing.
As no one present wished to speak for or against the amendment to
the Traffic Ordinance, the Supervisor closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Desch then signed the following "Certificate of
Necessity" dated ^ril 11, 1988:
"The undersigned. Town Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, hereby
certifies as to the necessity for the immediate passage of the
Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Regulating Traffic and Parking the
the Tcwn of Ithaca."
The purpose of the change is to accaranodate the request of the City
of Ithaca to use Cairpbell Avenue as a detour for Cliff Street
construction.
RESOLUTIOSr NO. 110
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf,
ORDINANCE AMENDING TEJE ORDINANCE REGULATING
TRAFFIC AND PARKING IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA
Pursuant to Section 130 of Town Law of the State of New York • and
Section 1660 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New
York, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tcmpkins County, New
York, does ordain and enact as follows:
Section 1. Territory Affected. This ordinance shall be applicable
to all territory within the Town of Ithaca outside of the
incorporated Village of Cayuga Heights.
Section 2. Amending of Prior Ordinances. The ordinance amending
and restating ordinance regulating traffic and parking in the Town
of Ithaca adopted February 8, 1988, effective Febinary 23, 1988, is
hereby amended by deleting from the list on Schedule A dealing with
stop signs the entry reading as follows:
"On Campbell Avenue at Brodkfield Road".
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote.
Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye
Councilman Bordoni Voting Aye
Councilman Cardman Voting Aye
Councilwcatian Leary Voting Aye
Councilman McPeak Voting Aye
Councilwcman Raffensperger Voting Aye
Supervisor Desch Voting Aye
: ; (_,
n
n
Tcwn Board 33 April 11, 1988
The Ordinance was thereupon declared duly adopted.
EITOIOnyEMAL ASSESSMEasrr of proposed seqr local law
Councilman Bordoni stated that he had a question on the first page,
looking at #3, it reads EAF, everything else seems to be in order
but that is in reverse order. Instead of calling it a full
environmental assessment its called an EAF, is there seme magic
there?
Attorney Ruswick replied yes, that*s the standard designation. The
environmental assessment form is the EAF. The usual designations
are not referred to as a full EAF its just an EAF. We said full to
define it frcm the short EAF.
Councilman Bordoni stated that he thought at a point around March
7th, v^en we went over this the first time, if you look at page 4,
item 6, he thought the 1,000 tons was going to be deleted and start
the sentence out with "Any Mining".
Supervisor Desch replied that a discussion was held at the meeting
Councilman Bordoni missed with regard to the thresholds vdiich
because of the amount of staff time that should go into reviewing
all the thresholds that we decided that we would handle those
separately and ccme back with a six month of time with a
reccnmendation as to changes throughout all the thresholds. So we
will have to look at the v^ole subject.
Councilman Bordoni questioned page 6, item 5, "all routine tree
planting"? Was there a discussion on that?
Supervisor Desch replied right, at the earlier meeting.
ft
Councilman Bordoni questioned item 6 on page 6, we v^t through
facilities, roadway, ditching and equipment. He stated that he
thought these were things we were going to do and he did not see
them done in the latest version. Maybe something was done at the
meeting he missed. He went on to note page 9, section 14, item 1,
"An application shall be deemed received for the purposes of
he stated that he thought the Board had added the word "assessment"
before purposes.
Supervisor Desch replied no, that wouldn't be pertinent.
Supervisor Desch stated that he had a question on the material
Dooley Kiefer distributed, the first having to do with
environmental assessment forms. He went on to state that those
forms have already been adopted, isn't that correct?
Town Attorney Barney replied, yes.
Supervisor Desch remarked, then Mrs. Kiefer's conments can be
consider v^ienever we choose to change the forms. He went on to say
that there were a series of questions on page 3 of her handout
which you need to decide. Part of this relates to thresholds. You
have to ask yourself vtether you wish to table the matter until
this can be further discussed with these specific things in mind or
mm not.
Councilman Cardman remarked that they seemed to be pretty detailed
and he didn't think he could do it justice by just looking at it
tonight.
Sipervisor Desch replied that seme are similar to \tot Mrs. Kiefer
talked about before. He asked the Town Attorney for his opinion.
96Z
Town Board 34 i^ril 11, 1988
Town Attorney Barney replied that not having a chance to read them,
no. Vfe spent quite a bit of time after the last meeting going back
thirough and trying to come up with vtot we thought you wanted us to
ccme up with.
Councilwonan Raffensperger ronarked that one thing in this
correspondence fron Dooley Kiefer today, that was discussed before
and that was the posting of the action of negative declarations and
etc., in the Town Hall. She asked if there was a substantial
^ objection to doing this? A reason not to do it?
Town Attorney Barney replied that the reason he would suggest not
formalizing it is that if we imbody it in legislation it then
requires us to do it and then if we fail to do it administratively,
not any reflection on the present personnel, but things do slip
through the cracks occasionally and then you have created a
situation vdiere you can void the action that was taken. People
that are concerned, for the most part, get notice of the hearing
they can ccme to the meeting and the minutes reflect vhat actions
are taken so its not like it was buried away in seme attic vhere
nobody hears about it. The only people vho are really going to
care vhether there was an environmental decision made are those
that are probably going to challenge the action in seme fashion and
those people in 99% of the cases, if not 100%, are going to be
aware of \hat's going on and will be pounding on Jean Swartwood's
door step asking for copies of the minutes.
Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that it was her understanding
that the intent of v^at we are doing today was not to review
thresholds and addition, however desirable, requirements but to
bring this into cempliance with the revised State regulations.
Town Attorney Barney replied, that is correct.
Councilwoman Raffensperger replied, we could do that tonight and
then say that we wished to have the Type I actions reviewed within
a period of six months and other suggested changes to the Town's
environmental law reviewed during that period.
As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed local
law, the Supervisor closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTiaj NO. Ill
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby declare
a negative declaration of environmental significance on the
environmental assessment of the SEC3R Local Law.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffenspeiqer, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
^ RESOLUTION NO. 112
Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, wishing to
bring the Town's environmental law into ccnpliance with the revised
State regulations, hereby authorize action to be taken on said
revised regulations with the stipulation that Type I actions be
reviewed within a period of six months and other suggested changes
to the environmental law reviewed during that period.
v<^7
' J KJ U
Town Board 35 April 11, 1988
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
LOCAL LAW NO. 5 - 1988
Motion by Councilwoanan Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
Bartholf,
LOCAL LAW NO. 5 - 1988
A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR ENVIR(M1ENTAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS IN THE
TOWN OF ITHACA
SECTION I. Pmrpose. The purpose of this Local Law is to
itrplement, for the Town of Ithaca, the State Environmental Quality
Review Act ("SEQRA") and the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617 as
hereinafter defined.
The intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and this
Local Law is to provide a procedural framework for the inclusion of
environmental considerations into the local decision-making process
at the earliest possible time and for the mitigation of negative
environmental innpacts.
It is the purpose of this Local Law that a suitable balance of
social, econonic, and environmental factors be incorporated into
the planning, review and decision-making processes of the Town of
Ithaca. It is not the intention of SEQE^ and this Local Law that
environmental factors be the sole or, necessarily, controlling
consideration in the decision-iiiaking process.
^ SECTICN II. Definitions. The words used in this Local Law shall
have the same meaning as such words are defined in Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law and 5 NYCRR Part 617.2 as the same
may be amended frcm time to time, unless the context requires a
different meaning.
The following terms shall have the following meaning:
1. SEQRA - The State Environmental Quality Review Act as set
forth in Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
2. Part 617 - Volume 6 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations Part 617 (6 NYCRR 617).
3. EAF - Full Environmental Assessment Form.
4. S/EAF - Short Environmental Assessment Form.
5. EIS - Environmental Impact Statement.
6. D/EIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
7. Town - the TOwn of Ithaca.
The following terms shall be defined and have the meaning as set
mm forth in 6 NYCRR 617.2; "Actions"; "Exenpt Action"; "Excluded
Action"; "Type I Action"; "Type II Action"; "Unlisted Action";
"Lead Agency"; "Involved Agency"; "Critical Environmental Area."
SECTION III. Classification of Actions.
1. All actions may be classified as set forth in (a) through (e),
Town Board 36 April 11, 1988
below, and as are defined in 6 NYCRR 617.2.
a) Exesrpt - enforcement proceedings, ministerial acts,
maintenance and repair involving no substantial ch^ges,
and emergency actions on a limited and tenporary basis;
b) Excluded - Generally, those actions approved prior to
November 1, 1978; or requiring a ceirtificate of
environmental ccmpatibility under the Public Service Law;
c) Type II - actions v^ich have been determined
legislatively not to have a significant effect on the
environment, consisting of actions listed in 6 NYCRR
617.13 or in Section VI of this Local Law;
d) Type I - actions vMch are most likely to require
preparation of an Environmental Irtpact Statonent,
consisting of actions listed in 6 NYCRR 617.12, in
Section V of this Local Law, or in any similar listing
adopted by an involved agency;
e) Unlisted - not otherwise listed but vdiich require
environmental significance to be determined.
2. If any action meets the definition of an Exorpt action or an
Excluded action, the SEQE?A review shall terminate in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.6 (a) (1) regardless of \diether
such action would otherwise meet the definition of a Type I
action.
SECTION IV. Designated Person or Department. A person or
department of the Town of Ithaca designated by the Town Board
^ shall;
1. Aid in determining Whether the proposed action is (a) Exenpt,
(b) Excluded, or (c) Type II, using the strictest
interpretation of Part 617 and this Local Law. Where any
doubt exists, such determination shall be referred to the lead
agency as designated under the provisions of Section IX of
this Local Law and to the Town Board in all other cases.
2. Aid in designating the lead agency and make reccaranendations
therefor.
3. Perform preliminary review of all applications, EAF's, S/EAF's
D/EIS's, EIS's and supporting documents to determine probable
sufficiency as to scope, form and content.
4. Require that the applicant ccaiplete an EAF if:
a) any question in Part II of the S/EAF has been answered
"Yes", (b) the scope of proposal requires more detail or,
(c) in the first instance, if the S/EAF would not
provide the lead agency with sufficient information on
vdiich to base its determination of significance.
5. Aid the applicant with any questions concerning forms or the
environmental review process.
6. Determine Wiether applications, including all pertinent
environmental documents, appear to be sufficient; and forward
such application materials to the appropriate Town lead agency
with a reccmmendation concerning environmental significance
within a reasonable time to allow for review at the Town lead
agency meeting at which the applicant is scheduled to be
Town Boaird 37 ^ril 11, 1988
considered.
7. Assist agencies and applicants to identify other agencies
including, federal and state agencies, that may be involved in
the approving, funding or carrying out of Type I and Unlisted
actions. The burden for determining other involved agencies
shall nevertheless less rest solely on the applicant.
8. Assist in the scoping of the D/EIS (vdien a Town agency is
, either a lead agency or an involved agency.)
SECTIC^ V. Type I Actions. In addition to those actions listed in
6 NYCRR 617.12, the following are hereby designated as Type I
actions:
1. Any of the following changes in the uses allowed by local law,
ordinance, rule, regulation, special permit, variance or
otherwise, within any zoning district or districts vMch
result in such change in use applying to a parcel or parcels
of land of ten (10) or more acres in the district or
districts:
a) authorization of industrial or conmercial uses within a
residential or agricultural district;
b) authorization of residential uses within an agricultural
district.
2. The construction of new residential units vMch meet or exceed
the following thresholds:
a) ten (10) units not to be connected (at commencement of
habitation) to ccninunity or publicly-owned utilities;
b) thirty (30) imits to be connected (at the ccnmencement of
habitation) to community or publicly-owned utilities.
3. The construction, alteration, or demolition of non-residential
facilities vdiich meet or exceed any of the thresholds set
forth in "a" through "d" below, or the expansion of an
existing non-residential facility by more than fifty per cent
(50%) of any such thresholds, provided that the e3q)ansion and
the existing facilities, v^en combined, meet or exceed any
threshold contained in Section V and 6 NYCRR 617.12:
a) an action v^ich involves the physical alteration of ten
(10) acres;
b) an action v^ch would use groimd or surface water in
excess of 100,000 gallons per day;
c) parking for 100 vehicles; or
d) a facility with more than 25,000 square feet of gross
floor area.
4. Any action vMch takes place in, or within 250 feet of, any
Critical Environmental Area designated by a governmental
agency pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.4.
5. Any facility, development or project vdiich is to be located in
a designated freshwater wetland.
6. Mining of more than 1,000 tons of minerals removed frcm the
earth within twelve (12) successive calendar months. The
8
Town Board 38 i^ril 11, 1988
definition of mining and minerals shall be the same as that in
the New York State Mined Land Reclamation Law, being Section
23-2705 (7) and (8) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
7. Any facility, development or project \^ch would generate more
than 2,000 vkiicle trips per any eight (8) hour period per
day.
8. Any facility, development or project vdiich, vdien ccmpleted,
^ would generate dual^vdieel truck traffic of more than ten (10)
vehicles per any eight (8) hour period per day.
9. Any facility, development or project vMch would exceed New
York State or Federal Ambient Air Quality standards, vMchever
is more restrictive.
10. Any facility, development or project \(^ch would exceed New
York State or Federal Water Quality standards, whichever is
more restrictive.
11. Abandonment of a Town highway or highways, or any portion
thereof, vdiether or not such highway or highways is shown on
the Official Town Highway Map.
SECTION VI. Type II Actions. In addition to those actions listed
in 6 NYCRR 617.13, the following are her^y designated as Type II
actions:
1. The construction or alteration of a single or two-family
residence and accessory struct\ires:
a) not in conjunction with the construction or alteration of
^ two or more such residences and,
b) not in, or within 250 feet of, a designated Critical
Environmental Area, designated freshwater wetland, or
designated area specially protected by legislation of any
local, county, state or federal governmental body.
2. The extension of water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone, or
television cable utility facilities to serve new or altered
single or two-family residential structures or to render
service in approved subdivisions, if not in, or within 250
feet of, and area specified in paragraph 1 (b), or this Section
VI.
3. The construction or alternation of a store, office, or
restaurant, provided:
a) such use is permitted under any local law, ordinance,
rule or regulation,
b) such store, office, or restaurant is designed for a
maximum occupancy of twenty (20) persons or less, and
c) such store, office, or restaurant is not in, or within
250 feet of, an area specified in paragraph 1 (b) of this
(»» Section VI.
4. The operation, repair, or maintenance of existing structures,
facilities, land uses, or equipment.
5. All tree planting, landscaping, and trirrming by the Town of
Ithaca Highway Department.
01
Town Board 39 ^ril 11, 1988
6. The reconstruction, replacement, or restoration of existing
structures, facilities, roadways, and equipnent located on the
same site and having the same purpose, including, but not
limited to:
a) roadways, shoulders, curbs, ditches, bridges, culverts,
and intersection safety devices.
b) deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities or
mechanical equipnnent v^ich need reconstruction,
replacement or restoration to meet current standards of
public health and safety.
SECTION VII. Types of Actions. Actions may include projects or
physical activities v^ch change the use or appearance of any
natural resource or structure or are planning activities of an
agency that ccmmit an agency to a course of further decisions, or
agency rules, regulations, procedures and policy making, or a
ccnibination of any of the above actions. Such actions may be
classified as:
1. Direct actions - directly undertaken by an agency;
2. Funding actions - involving funding by an agency;
3. Permitting actions - requiring one or more permits from an
agency or agencies.
SECTION VIII. Required Forms - Initial Review.
1. All direct actions, funding actions, or permitting actions to
^ be carried out, funded or approved 1:^ any agency, board, body,
or officer of the Town shall require the preparation of:
a) an EAF if a Type I action or if an Unlisted Action where
a S/EAF would not provide the lead agency with sufficient
information on vdiich to base its determination of
significance.
b) a S/EAF for all other Unlisted actions. If any question
on Part II of a S/EAF is answered "Yes", or, if the lead
agency or person designated pursuant to Section IV of
this Local Law deems that more detailed information is
needed, and EAF is required.
2. All application materials shall be sutmitted at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the meeting of the lead agency at vdiich the
application is scheduled to be heard.
SECTION IX. Lead Agency. The lead agency shall be determined as
follows:
^0^ 1. Action involving one agency. Vfere a single agency:
a) has proposed to directly undertake an action v^ch does
not require funding or aj^roval of any other agency, or
b) has received an application to fund or approve an action
over \^ch no other agencies have approval authority,
that single agency shall be called the "lead agency" and
such final designation of lead agency shall be made as
follows:
zi
Town Board 40 i^ril 11, 1988
i) The Tcwn Board shall be the lead agency with respect
to the following; the adoption, the amendment, or
change in any zoning law, ordinance, rule or
regulation governing the use of land and the
construction, alteration or maintenance of
improvements to real property; the amendment or
changing of the Town Zoning Map; the abandonment of
a Town highway or hi^ways, or any portion thereof;
the construction or expansion of Town building,
structures and facilities within the Town; the
purchase, sale or lease of real property hy the
Town.
ii) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall be the lead agency
with respect to interpretation of all zoning laws,
ordinances, rules or regulations, and the granting
of variance of special permits.
iii) The Planning Board shall be the lead agency with
respect to subdivision approvals, site plan
approvals and sign approvals.
2. Action involving Multiple Agencies. Where an agency has
proposed to directly undertake an action or has received an
application for an action requiring funding or approval by
more than one agency, the agency may conduct an uncoordinated
review of the action or the "Lead Agency" shall be determined
in accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.6 (d).
3. Where the lead agency cannot be determined by application of
the above guidelines and all involved agencies are Town
agencies, the Tbwn Board shall designate the lead agency,
unless any provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law,
or any rules and regulations adopted the Department of
Environmental Conservation supersede or prevail in this
respect over this Local Law.
SECTIC^ X. Determination of Environmental Significance.
1. After being duly designated, the lead agency shall make a
determination of environmental significance pursuant to Part
617. All determinations by the lead agency shall be by
resolution duly adopted the lead agency.
2. Such determination of environmental significance shall be one
of the following:
a) Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. Upon
a determination having been made and filed that the
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
environment, the action shall be processed without
further regard to SEQE^A, Pail: 617 or this Local Law.
b) Conditioned Negative Declaration of Environmental
^0^ Significance. Upon a determination having been made,
filed and published that the action, as initially
proposed, may result in one or more significant adverse
environmental effects, but that mitigation measures,
identified and required by the lead agency pursuant to
the procedures in Part 617, will modiify the proposed
action so that no significant adverse environmental
irrpacts will result, the action will be processed as a
negative declaration; provided, however, that no comments
are received during the public ccmnent period \diich will
require the sutmission of a D/EIS pursuant to 6 NYCRR
n
Town Board 41 April 11, 1988
617.6 (h) (2). A conditioned negative declaration can
only be given for an Unlisted Action in which an full EAF
has been prepared and coordinated review has been
undertaken.
c) Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance. Upon
a determination having been made and filed that the
proposed action may have a significant effect on the
environment, the applicant and all other involved
agencies shall be notified in accordance with 6 NYCRR
617.10 that a D/EIS is required.
SECTION XI. Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. A
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance shall be
prepared, filed and mailed as prescribed in 5 NYCRR 617.10 (a).
SECTIca^ XII. Conditioned Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance. A Notice of Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance shall be prepared, filed and published in the
Environmental Notice Bulletin pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6 (h), and
617.10 (a) (2). The Notice shall state that the conditioned
negative declaration has been issued, idiat conditions have been
imposed and the length of the ccsiiment period established by the
lead agency. In no case shall the ccmment period be less than 30
days. Notwithstanding the above, a D/EIS shall be prepared if any
of the conditions set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.6 (h) (2) or (3) are met
within the public ccmment period.
SECTION XIII. Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance.
1. If the lead agency makes a Positive Declaration of
Environmental Significance, thus requiring that a D/EIS be
prepared, the matter shall be processed as provided in Part
617.
2. In the case of an application for approval or funding, the
D/EIS shall be prepared the applicant or by the agency, at
the option of the applicant. The applicant shall notify the
agency within 30 days of the filing of the Notice of Positive
Declaration as to vhether the applicant or the agency shall
prepare the D/EIS. If the applicant does not elect to prepare
the D/EIS, the agency shall prepare it, cause it to be
prepared, or terminate its review of the proposed action.
Upon receipt of the D/EIS, the lead agency shall determine 1:^
resolution v^ether to accept the D/EIS as satisfactory as to
scope, form and adequacy.
3. Upon the adoption by the lead agency of a resolution to accept
the D/EIS, the lead agency shall file a Notice of Ccmpletion
of the D/EIS in accordance with the requdLrements provided in 6
NYCRR 617.10.
4. All time limits applicable to the processing of a D/EIS and
EIS shall ccmmence to run on the date of filing of the Notice
of Completion of the D/EIS.
SECTIC^ XIV. Time Limits.
1. An application shall be deemed received for the purposes of 6
NYCRR 617.6 (a) v^en the lead agency has deemed the
application, along with pertinent environmental forms, to be
coanrplete.
012
Town Board 42 ^ril 11, 1988
2. An aj^lication for a permit or funding shall be deoned
complete insofar as the SEQE?A process has been ccnpleted v4ien,
as is appropriate in each case, one of the following events
occurs:
a) The action has been determined to be Exenpt, Excluded, or
a Type II action.
b) A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
^ been issued and such declaration has been filed pursuant
to 6 NYCRR 617.10.
c) A Conditional Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance has been issued and such declaration has
been duly filed and published pursuant to Part 617;
provided that no canments have been received within the
coiment period vMch would require the submission of a
D/EIS pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.6 (h) (2).
d) A written findings statement on a final EIS has been
approved and filed pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.10, except
that the lead agency may, in its sole discretion,
determine that an application for funding or approval
shall be deemed ccnplete upon the acceptance by the lead
agency of a D/EIS as to scope, form and adequacy.
SECTION XV. Public Hearings. Public hearings on the D/EIS shall
be held concurrently with any hearings required to be held by other
involved agencies to the fullest extent practicable.
SECTICN XVI. Fees. The fees for review or preparation of an EIS
involving an applicant for approval of funding of an action shall
be determined the lead agency for each such application. The
fees shall be based on the actual cost to the Town for reviewing or
preparing the EIS, including the cost of hiring consultants, the
salary time of Town employees and actual disbursements incurred as
a result of the review or preparation of the EIS, but in no event
shall the fees be greater than that established in 6 NYCRR 617.17.
SECncaj XVII. Critical Areas. Critical areas of environmental
concern may be designated by the Tdwn Board pursuant to 6 NYCRR
617.4.
SECTION XVIII. Actions involving Federal Agencies. Environmental
review of actions involving a federal agency shall be processed in
accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.16.
SECTION XIX. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect
inmediately upon its filing in the Office of the Secretary of State
in accordance with Section 27 of the Municipal Hcme Rule Law.
Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote.
Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye
Coimcilman Bordoni Voting Aye
Councilman Cardman Voting Aye
Councilwanan Leary Voting Aye
Councilman McPeak Voting Aye
CouncilwOTian Raffensperger Voting Aye
Town Board 43 ^ril 11, 1988
Supervisor Desch Voting Aye
Local Law No. 5 - 1988 was thereupon declared duly adopted.
MAIOl FINANCIAL REPORT
RESOLUTION NO. 113^
I Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the March Financial Report, as presented.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
WITEIDRAWAL FROM NEW YORK STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
Supervisor Desch noted that the Town had received a letter fran the
State, today, indicating that there is bill before the legislature
proposing a four year bail out of the health insurance system
resulting and, therefore, no action will be taken this evening.
AWARD OF BIDS FOR ROT.T.ER
Hi^way Superintendent John Ozolins stated that for the roller, we
had two corpanies that bid two different machines, the one frcm
State Equipment was the Dresser and the other from C. S. Hansen was
a Case machine. He stated that taking a look at the
specifications, the Dresser, the more escpensive one, meets the
! specifications. The drum on the cheaper priced machine is smaller
as well as the turn angle. Plus, the Case machines is about 1,000
pounds lighter. Option I is without a trade and Option II is with
a trade, we plan on trading in two rollers one being a 1944 Buffalo
and the other a 1968 Gallion model.
RESOLUTION NO. 114
Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Coimcilman Cardman,
WtffiREAS, on April 5, 1988, bids were received frcm two firms for a
new 4-6 Ton Double Vibratory Roller with a Towing Package or
Trailer ranging in amounts from $34,362 to $23,828 for Option I and
$29,862 to $20,828 for Option II, and
WHEREAS, upon examination of the bids by the Highway Superintendent
it was determined that the firm sutmitting the low bid for both
Option I and Option II did not meet the required specifications,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the TOwn of
Ithaca hereby accepts the bid of State Equipment, 7000 Schuyler
Road, P.O. Box 3470, East Syracuse, New York for Option II in the
amount of $29,862.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
' voting Aye. Nays - none).
agreement with RDCCO LUCENTE FOR BRIANWOOD SUBDIVISION
213
Town Board 44 April 11, 1988
Town Attorney Barney stated that the agreement pretty much follows
the fom of agreements we have used in the past, however, he noted
that he has not seen the letter of credit form yet.
Supervisor Desch noted that there was a very brief letter from
Rocco Lucente backed up with an agreement that set forth the
financial requirements needed to be set aside to insure that the
infrastructure required hy the Town is constructed. The numbers
were derived from the Town Engineer' s recommendations in
^ conjunction with the developer's engineer,
i ;
RESOLUTION NO. 115
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bordoni,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the agreement between the Town of Ithaca and Rocco Lucente for
Brianvwxd Subdivision, and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is authorized to make
any alterations and changes he deotis necessary in the process of
esiecuting the agreement.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
CENTENNIAL TREE PLANTING
The S\:ipervisor noted that the Town Planner had handed out a packet
of information which shows approximately ten sites where we might
wish to proceed with centennial plantings. The City asked us to
contribute sane $5,000 toward the centennial celebration and we
said no we could not do that but what we would do would be to
consider sane memorial plantings that would ccmplement both the
i ! Town and the City at various entrances to the ccmmunity and that is
what these do. Ihe resolution is asking for is authority to
formalize those plans and to carmit an expenditure of $5,000 for
the purpose. The second issue has to do with the donated
centennial tree caning from the City, v^re we might wish to plant
that.
Town Planner Susan Beeners felt the City Centennial tree should be
planted at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. It seems like it would
be a good location because it is a joint facility and also the
plague could be placed in the lobby of the Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
The Board agreed to the site for the planting of the centennial
tree.
Councilwcman Leary asked v^y was the Town spending $5,000 when we
refused to donate $5,000?
Si:5)ervisor Desch replied, because its an irrprovonent not a gift. A
gift we have problems with. This is something that will be
maintained and enjoyed by the people of both ccffrattunities.
rmm, RESOLUTION NO. 116
i
Motion by Councilman McPeak, seconded by Coimcilwoman
Raffensperger,
WHEREAS:
211
Town Board 45 ^ril 11, 1988
1. The City of Ithaca is celebrating its centennial anniversary
in 1988, and has invited cotrounity-mde participation.
2. The Town Planning staff has recoiroended that cormeraorative
plantings be installed by the Town at up to then City-Town
boundaries, to consist of plantings such as cherries and oaks, with
such plantings estiinated to cost under $5,000,
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED;
1. That the Town Board endorse and hereby does endorse the
participation of the Town in conmemorative plantings at selected
Town/City boundaries.
2. That the Town Board authorize and hereby does authorize the
expenditure of up to $5,000 for camiemorative plantings at up to 10
planting sites.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Bordoni and Cardman voting
Aye. Nays - Leary).
AGREEMENT TO EXPEND TCWN EIQM^ FUNDS
Si:pervisor Desch stated that this set forth the program that the
Board is already aware of and formalizes the action listed in the
Newsletter.
RESOLUTIOJ NO. 117
Motion by Councilman Bordoni; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the Agreement to Expend TDwn Highway Funds.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REZOJING OF
PORTIONS OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-24-4-14.2, 1290
TROMANSBURG ROAD FROM R-15 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT "B" AND MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE DISTRICT
Supeirvisor Desch stated that the Planning Board has reccmmended the
rezoning of basically the Kyong parcel on Trumansburg Road, so the
question before us if do you wish to set a public hearing to
consider that rezoning proposal. He remarked that he would
reccitinend setting the location for the public hearing for sane
location on West Hill like the hospital, the County or Mayers
School so that all those people vto might choose to cone will avoid
the inconvenience of the detour.
RESOLUTIOSf NO. 118
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will meet and
conduct a pijblic hearing at 7:00 P.M., on May 9, 1988, at a site on
West Hill to be annoxmced at a later date, to consider the rezoning
of portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-4-14.2, 1290
Trumansburg Road from R-15 to Business District "B" and Multiple
Residence.
Tcfwn Board 46 April 11, 1988
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVE
County Representative Beverly Livesay stated that she was sorry to
have been late in arriving but she wanted to make sure the Board
knew about the Youth meeting to be held Thursday at 7:00 P.M.
"*1 Also, that a couple of meetings ago she mentioned the Town of
, Ithaca in the Phase II Solid Waste Report and that the eastern part
of the Town of Ithaca was one of the portions of the County being
mentioned as a possible pilot recycling program. We adopted at oxir
last meeting a sort of plan for moving ahead on recycling and we
are taking a slightly different approach. Areas of the Town of
Ithaca may or may not be part of the pilot project, it will depend
on proposals that we receive. It was decided to put out proposals
both to municipalities and to private haulers. There is a request
form and if you are interested you should contact Barbara Eckstron.
She went on to say that there was a little bit of confusion as to
the intention but she felt it was for those Towns who do their own
trash pick up to put in proposals, now if any Town wants to get
into the trash pick up business they are being asked to put in a
proposal.
APPRCfVAL OF MINUTES
RESOLUTIOSF NO. 119
Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
McPeak,
^ RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve
the minutes of the February 29, 1988 and March 7, 1988 Town Board
I meetings as presented by the Town Clerk.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT REFUND
RESOLUTION NO. 120
Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman Ccu::x3man,
WHEREAS, Andrew Starostecki, 306 Birchwood Drive, North was charged
2 units of water and 2 units of sewer on his 1988 Town and County
Taxes, and
WIffiREAS, Mr. Starostecki should have been charged 1.10 units of
water and 1.10 units of sewer, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Starostecki paid his 1988 taxes on February 1, 1988,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $48.60 for water and $55.80 for
sewer, total refund of $104.40 be made to Andrew Starostecki, 306
Birchwood Drive, North, Ithaca, New York. Tax Parcel No.
70-10-1.143.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
Town Board 47 Pipril 11, 1988
SALARY INCREASE FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECRETARY
RESOLOTIOJ NO. 121
Motion by Councilman Bordoni; seconded by Councilman Bartholf,
WHEREAS, the ccnplexity and length of the minutes of the meetings
of the Zoning Board of Appeals has greatly increased over the past
few months,
. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca hereby authorize that the fee for the Zoning Board of
Appeals secretaary be increcised frcm $60 per meeting to $75 per
meeting. This fee to include transcription of the minutes in final
form.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
INTERSECTION LIGHTING PLAN
RESOLOTIOJ NO. 122
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak,
WHEREAS, street lights are needed to sufficiently illuminate the
following road intersections within the Town of Ithaca;
(1) Terraceview Drive/Sunnyview Lane
(2) Whitetail Drive/Troy Road
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the TOwn Board of the Town of
Ithaca, to authorize the installation of the above two street
lights as part of the Townwide intersection lighting policy, the
locations to be determined by mutual consent of the Town, County,
and NYSBG.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
TOWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS
RESOLUTIC»J NO. 123
Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman
McPeak,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves
the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated April 11, 1988, in the following
amounts:
General Fund - Town Wide $ 67,876.42
General Fund - Outside Village $ 30,281.58
Highway Fund $ 34,339.30
Water & Sewer Fund $247,637.19
Lighting Districts Fund $ 445.89
Capital Projects Fund $ 69,501.49
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
BOLTON POINT WARRANTS
33
Tc3wn Board 48 April 11, 1988
RESOLUTIOJ W. 124
Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bartholf,
RESOLVED, that the Bolton Point Warrants dated i^ril 11, 1988, in
the Operating Account are hereby approved in the amount of
$62,448.66 after review and upon the reccramendation of the Southern
Cayuga Lake Intennunicipal Water Catimission, they are in order for
payment.
(Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman
voting Aye. Nays - none).
ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Supervisor Desch noted that the Assessment Advisory Caranittee will
meet on May 10th from 3:00 to 6:00 P.M., and two people are needed.
Councilman Bordoni and Councilman Cardman agreed to serve on this
ccnmittee.
REPORT OF TOWN OFFICIALS
Supervisor's Report
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Supervisor Desch remarked that other than agenda information that
you have, some late news. We and the City of Ithaca and the Town
of Dryden are preparing to return $700,000 to DEC as savings on
construction on the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Basically, this is
the deobligation of grant funds that will not be needed for our
^ project. Those funds will be used elsev^ere in the State. We
I ej^ct probably to deobligate more than that but we need to reserve
a safe contingency to ccsrplete the punch list on the project. He
stated this was scanething the cotimunity can be pretty proud of.
Very few projects in the State end up in this kind of a situation.
Park Lane Road Way
Supervisor Desch stated that the Park Lane construction be at the
lower end on Slaterville Road will be stajrted in about a week.
NYSEG has purchased their gas line materials and the contractor
will starting their excavation. The Town will be working on
drainage and the removal of the excavated material at the lower
end.
Route 89
Supervisor Desch noted that on Route 89, everybody is concerned
about the detour and rightly so, and he just want to make it clecir
as there have been questions raised as to why the Town of Ithaca
would permit construction of water and sewer lines to take place at
the time of the Route 96 detour. The Town has been under contract
with the contractor there since bids were open in late 1987 and the
contractor was of course waiting for winter to be over with so we
have been under contract for a long period of time and would be
1*^ subject to very substantial claims if we were to ask the contractor
' to defer his activities until the detour were over. There have
been quite a few conments as to \^y it should take so long to have
the road closed to build the project and he has referred those
ccmments to the S\:^rintendent of Public Works and the Mayor.
Si:^rvisor Desch noted that the Board matibers had the written
report of the Town Engineer, he asked if there were any questions.
Town Board 49 April 11, 1988
We put these in the middle of the agenda in case we had quiet
moments during the meeting but obviously that did not happen. You
may wish to take thana with you and then ask the staff members if we
have questions.
NOISE ORDINANCE
Supervisor Desch stated that this item would be tabled and
discussed at another meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was duly adjourned.
2
Tov^€lerk