Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1988-02-08TCWN OF ITHACA REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 8, 1988 n At a Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tcnipkins County, New York, held at the Town Offices at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 8th day of February, 1988, there were: PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Noel Desch, Supervisor Henry McPeak, Councilinan Shirley Raffensperger, Councilwonan Robert Bartholf, Coimcilitian Patricia Leary, Councilvratian Raymond Bordoni, Councilman Thcmas Cardman, Councilman Robert Flumerfelt, Town Engineer John Barney, Town Attorney William J. Gray, City of Ithaca Engineer Richard Fischer, 135 Pine Tree Road Mary Call, Board of Representatives David Cornelius, City of Ithaca Fire Ccsnmissioners Ed Olmstead, City of Ithaca Fire Chief Don Ellis, Robert Leathers Architect Henry Aron, 106 Woolf Lane Alan E. Euvrard, Tompkins Coimty Hone Builders Association Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Avenue Stu Lewis, Chamber of Commerce Herb Brewer, Chamber of Commerce David Ruether, 1189 East Shore Drive Girard F. Oberrender, Jr. Chamber of Conmerce Paul Glover, 1399 Slaterville Road Robert Congdon, 118 Troy Road Barbara Congdon, 118 Troy Road Ken Jupiter, 202 1/2 E. Tompkins Street Bettsie Ann Park, 202 1/2 Tompkins Street Representatives of the Media: Tom Maskulinski. WTKO/WCNY News John Camobreco, WVBR Debbie Munch, WHCU/WYXL Fred Yahn, Ithaca Journal PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Supervisor led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance, REPORT OF TOWN OFFICIALS Town Supervisor's Report Youth Services Supervisor Desch stated that two sessions have been held with the City, County, Village and Youth Bureau staff in an attempt to seek Town Board 2 Febrxiary 8, 1988 a matually acceptable solution to the delivery of the desired level of service at a cost acceptable to everyone. There seems to be a mutual desire to participate in a master planning effort but the time involved will be far in excess of the Cotimon Council mandate, the so called cotprcmise offer of our paying the $88,000 and having the fees doubled for Town youth. The alternative already adopted by Council is to triple the rates to Town youth, absent a contract. It is not likely that that will change. Our view is that the current arrangonent should be extended as we did with the Fire Master Plan with the recognition that seme kind of substantially increased recovery will occur as part of a long term agreement. Nancy Zahler is drafting a resolution that will atterrpt to obtain approval of the Town, City and the County. Sewer Moratorium Supervisor Desch went on to say that the Town had participated in a meeting with the Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing, Town of Dryden and Town of Lansing to determine what additional capacity is needed to serve the area for the next twenty years or more. It appears that the Cayuga Heights plant would need to be doubled in size frcm 2-4 MGD at least. The Town of Ithaca would need an additional 90,000 GPD of the additional 2 million GPD and even that assumes that one of the golf courses would be developed as housing. The Town and Village of Lansing are looking at the feasibility of building their own plant as one of the options. It is also conceivable that the new City/Town plant could be used for a fixed period of time, i.e., 5 years, vMle a new plant is built but this will take City and Town approval. A review of our contract with the Village reveals no limit on capacity to be made available to the Town of Ithaca, so the limit of 15 units is not appropriate particularly since six of the units were well under construction v^en the moratorixm was announced. There is also seme question as to the number of units to be assigned to the child care center on Warren Road. He stated that he felt that its sewer permit must be the top priority but that load is already connected so v^y not shift those units frcm Cayuga Heights to the Town of Ithaca. Wis have a draft letter to be sent to the Village which needs Board approval. Montessori School Supervisor Desch noted that it was a pleasure for him to have participated in the dedication of the beautiful new school on King Road. All who participated in bringing about the construction in a five month timeframe have reason to be very proud. The school will add a great deal to the sense of community to South Hill. Town Engineer's Report Water and Sewer ImpTOvements Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt reported that the 1987 Water and Sewer Improvement Project vMch is now in three phases instead of two principally because of the Conrail requirement for permanent steel sheet piling along the railroad bed. On the Phase I portion, vdiich is under contract now, Vacri Construction has laid off work for a few weeks in this severe winter weather, frcm January 20th to February 15th. They plan to return with three crews and start on both sewer and water. Up mtil now they have been blasting for vdiat little rock there is between Indian Creek Road and the new intersection v^ere Woolf Lane will ccme down and meet the DuBois Road. That's the back lot portion of the sewer on DuBois Road. Town Board 3 February 8, 1988 The bonds and insurance on Phase II are being reviewed for the proposed contract with F. Rizzo Construction Corpany and we expect to sign that contract within a week. We are negotiating for preparation of easement maps for the necessary water and sewer main connections at the State parks lands and a small piece of City land noridi of the Hanger Theater. Hospital Access Road The Town Engineer went on to say that Hill Construction Caipany has almost ccmpleted the excavation and grading of the Hospital Access Road, almost ready to put on the crusher run base course. They are about 75% corplete and expect to be finished in about three weeks. The County will be doing a little work at the north end of that road to make a better alignment with existing roadway. They will cut the bank back slightly by the "k" house. Highway Garage Town Engineer Fluraerfelt reported that the contract work on the Highway Garage heating has been ccnpleted. They had seme problems with seme of the rigid connections to seme of the heating units so they put in flexible connections and made seme other repairs to the equipment. Their second and final pay request is before the Board tonight for approval. Town Hall Heating The Town Engineer noted that the heating and air conditioning units for this portion building are expected to be shipped from the factory this Friday and should be in the contractors hands next week. They will be installed as soon as they arrive. Town Engineer Flumerfelt went on to say that he had sent out requests for proposals from engineers for conducting an infiltration/inflow study in the sanitory sewers in the Northeast section of the Town. We have received word of interest from two engineers and expect to hear from more. Notices were sent to six engineering firms. Building Inspector/Zoning Officer's Report Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Andrew Frost reported that seven building permits have been issued so far this year. Brocme Developmental Services was one of these permits, vhich is now located in the former Odd Fellows Infirmary. Under multiple residence is the former Odd Fellows Carriage house vhich is being converted to seven apartment units. Rogan's Comers has a permit to construct a building that will house a laundromat and a fast food pizza type business. He noted that he was now including mobile home units under miscellaneous construction and he had issued one permit. We have received one new complaint this month. No sign permits were issued. The three fire inspections were coampleted at Summerhill Apartments. We had four cases for the Zoning Board of Appeal s, one was denied, one withdrawn and one was approved and the four was returned to the Planning Board. Town Planner's Report Town Planner Susan Beeners reported that the Kyong proposal for West Hill has been revised since the Board last saw it as a Special Land Use District proposal. What they are now proposing and has been scheduled for the March 15th Planning Board meeting is a ccnmercial area of about 15 acres with renovation of the existing house and bcim and the addition of four ccitinercial buildings as the first phase of development and then sixty multiple residence imits in ten buildings on about 12 acres. Town Board 4 February 8, 1988 Supervisor Desch rannarked, the subject of iitpact that we talked about, we are hoping next week on our visit to New York to leam some more about that. There is a case in litigation between the Town of Gilderland and the Home Builders Association v^ere a local law was passed creating a traffic assessment district on the basis of Home Rule. The Town Planner stated that she had also attended a local census review workshop a couple week ago describing the process and the inprovements that have supposedly been made since the 1980 census and discribing the amount of time that will be necessary for review _ in this office. Our next workshop is scheduled for next year at about this time. By then, and for sure before the 1990 census is actually taken in i^ril of 1990 she expected to have the County assessment rolls on our catputer system and modified so that we track our building permits and certificates of occupancy as they are issued. Councilwcman Raffensperger asked the Town Planner about the Klondike Manor Proposal, noting that she had received a telephone call this afternoon about the project. She then asked if she was right that that's going to the Board of Zoning T^peals? Town Planner Beeners replied, yes. Councilwcxtian Raffensperger asked if it had been scheduled? Town Planner Beeners replied, it's scheduled for the March 9th meeting. COUNTY BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES County Representative Mary Call reported that the child care facility has moved out of Cayuga Heights School. She stated that she did not know if that made any difference in the Villages — corputation of nimiber of units. County Representative Call went on to say that one thing she wanted to tell the Town, although not all of it will be involved in it, as part of the Phase II report of the Solid Waste Management Plan we are looking at recycling and that is the next step. The Village of Cayuga Heights and possibly the eastern part of the Town of Ithaca have been targeted for possible pilot projects. The Village is most likely because it has a system in place. We are moving into discussions with the Village officials to see if they are interested and then have one educational type meeting. The landfill permitting process is also going on, we keep reading about that and the problons of it and etc., but along with that we are also working on recycling and bailing transfer stations. Mrs. Call went on to say, the other thing you mentioned was a traffic assessment district. Bob Flumerfelt was at the meeting we had at the beginning of January about traffic, mostly in the east corridor and in the northeast, i.e., the Village of Lansing and through Cornell and even over to the east side of Town. We are trying to collect information on traffic assessment districts. The County Planning Department is looking into the possibility of sanething like that being created on the northern side of the Town and the Village of Lansing. ^ Supervisor Desch asked, if Cayuga Heights goes to recycling will they deal with private contractors as well? Mrs. Call replied, none of the details have been worked out yet. Town Board 5 February 8, 1988 BUDGET FOR TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS AND RENOVATIONS Supervisor Desch noted that Bill Gray, City Engineer v^o he stated has been project manager in moving this v^ole process forward is here with us this evening. Also, Fire Chief Ed Olmstead and Fire Ccmnissioner Dave Cornelius. Supervisor Desch noting the resolution, stated that it pretty much recites the City's status of action, the status of the Fire Station Design Ccmmittee and really the only thing that the Committee has not addressed, at this point, primarily because they are awaiting our approval is the detailed schedule of \dien the design will be corpleted and the project put out to bid. He went on to say that he put early summer of 1988 but that they really have not pinned the architect down at this point. William Gray replied, the architect had told him today that he wcnild be willing to discuss this tcmorrow at 4:00 P.M. Councilwcman Raffensperger asked, we anticipate this will be bonded and it will be a ten year period, is this correct? Supervisor Desch replied, primarily twenty years, it could be nineteen but there is a question about Station No. 7 idiich from a structural classification may not qualify as to the useful life as long as the rest of the project could be bonded, so there is a chance that that one may be ten yesurs. RESOLUTION NO. 24 Motion by Councilman Bairtholf; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, WHEREAS, the Joint Town/City Fire Station Design Ccmmittee has successfully developed a program and project scope for the two new fire stations and the renovation of existing Stations #7, #9 and Central acceptable to the Ccmmittee, the Fire Ccmmission, the Fire Department staff and fire fighters, and WHEREAS, the Fire Station Coitinittee reccmmends approval of a project cost for each station at $900,000/station and a renovation project budget of $900,000, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has established a capital project for these improvements and will arrange for financing at the appropriate time v^en bids are received, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board herel^ accepts the project budgets as described above and authorize the Fire Station Ccmmittee to complete design work in the most timely manner possible to enable construction to begin during the early summer of 1988, sxabject to the receipt of acceptable bids within budget, AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is authorized to make the balance of the Town share of the 5% down payment required by the 1986 Tax Reform Act prior to adoption by the City of the necessary bond resolution (approximately April 1988) in the following amounts: ^ New Stations 1,800,000 X .05 X .70 == $63,000 already paid 1987 $15,820 balance due $47,180 Renovations Tcfwn Board 6 Februairy 8, 1988 900,000 X .05 X .27 = $12,150 already paid 1987 4,239 balance due $ 7,911 Total amount due $47,180 + $7,911 = $55,091 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that authorization be given for such aitiount to be borrowed from the Sewer Fund until 1989 Fire Protection tax revenues are available. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). BUDGET AMENDMENTS Supervisor Desch remarked that this would be the first of three payments. Councilman Bordoni asked if this was for a specific engine or just general repairs? Supearvisor Desch replied, three times this amount is 40% of the cost of the renovation of one of their engines. Mid year last year, we agreed with them that they could go forward with the renovation of one of their engines, they were not sure v^t the cost would be. At first they wanted reimbursement in one shot but this would throw the budget out of proportion, so they agreed to three years. RESOLUTION ND. 25 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, WHEREAS, the payment to the Village of Cayuga Heights for vehicle repairs was not included in the 1987 Fire Protection budget, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize and amendment to the 1987 Fire Protection budget by appropriating fund balance in the amount of $4,595.84 and transferring to appropriation line iton SF3410.492. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). COPIER Councilman Bordoni remarked, comparing a 36 month lease at $318.00 a month, did you do an analysis of just borrowing the money from a bank at just bank interest rates and buying the machine, out right? Is there a benefit to that? Assistant Budget Office Connie Allen replied, the Town cannot buy the machine out right because it goes over the bidding amoimt, but we can lease it. Supervisor Desch ronarked, the problem we run into \(dien we bought the machine upstairs, is that most often the low bid is the machine that you don't want and there isn't any way to draw the specification to avoid that from happening. So you end up with not really being in a position of getting a machine that is needed, so the alternative is leasing. Fortunately, the best leasing rate comes from the manufacturer of one of the better machines plus they TCwn Board 7 February 8, 1988 are one of the few willing to place any value on the old Xerox machine. RESOLUTION NO. 26 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Coimcilman Bordoni, WHEREAS, the new state contracts for copying machines have not been finalized, and WHEREAS, the Xerox 4500 currently in use is nine years old, in poor operating condition and beccming increasingly difficult to maintain, and WHEREAS, the cost of the service agreement for the Xerox 4500 is excessive in ccnparison to the value of the machine (approximately $220/month), NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that to expedite the replacement of the current machine, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town to enter into a lease agreement with Ascar of Ithaca, 311 North Fulton Street, Ithaca, New York, to lease a Toshiba copier, model DB-7720, at a cost of $317.75 per month for 36 months. Costs to include maintenance agreement and trade-in allowance for the Xerox 4500. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW LOCAL LAW Supervisor Desch noted that the Town Attorney handed out information on the amendment last month and that at that time he announced the Board would dicuss it at the February meeting and set a date for a public hearing for the March meeting. Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that she had seme questions, not really about the changes but about potential changes, as long as we are doing it. She stated that she wo\ild like to have the Board discuss Type I thresholds in Section 4, for example, number one. She stated that she would like seme discussion of v^ether or not 10 acres is not a rather large parcel, it has to be more than 10 acres in order to be a Type I for industrial or commercial uses within a residential or agricultural district. Town Attorney John Barney replied, its probably based upon vdiat the State requires. Councilwcman Raffensperger replied, this is our section in v^ch we may have lower thresholds. Town Attorney Barney replied, that is correct. Comcilwoman Raffensperger replied, that she felt this was a good opportunity to discuss it. As she looked at v^t was required for residential it basically works out to 10 acres and it occurred to ^ her that residental use at 10 acres and commercial or industrial of 10 acres, it seemed to her there was a big difference in potential environmental impact between residential and industrial and yet when you work out the formulas it comes out to be the same, 10 acres. Additionally, in number 7 in that section it also occurred to her that 2,000 vehicle trips per day, 8 hour period of the day, was something interesting to think about. If you multiply that out by a full day you have a lot of vehicle trips. In number 8 it Town Board 8 February 8, 1988 talks about 10 dual v^eel trucks in 8 hours vMch could mean it could cause 30 during a day period. She went on to say that these were just questions that she thought perhaps we might want to think about and also the mining, she stated that she recalled v^en we put that in there a long time ago and the tonage, we were so pleased to beable to restrict mining to any extent at that time and wonders now v^y we continue to have a tonage limit if we really don't mean that we want any mining v^atsoever to be other than a Type I action? Town Attorney Barney remarked. Type I being those actions for vMch an environmental inpact statement is mandated. Councilwcman Raffensperger responded that's right, and v^t she was talking about is the limits for v^ich we are saying they are not. Town Attorney Barney replied, again its a Board policy determination and he felt we track pretty much v^at the State had in mind or vtot is in our prior law. Councilwcman Raffensperger added, its in our prior one and they are low than the State's. She went on to say that she felt it would be helpful, before a public hearing, to have a copy of the State's SEQR Law and a copy of the rules and regulations, they are referred to so often in here that you don't have any kind of frame to work with. Supervisor Desch remarked, listening to the specific items he noted that he was less troubled by Iton 8 having to do with the level of dxial v^eel truck traffic than he was with the 2,000 and he felt there was a major difference there. Although that does reference 2,000 vehicle trips in an eight hour period, not per hoxir. He went on to say that he thought the thousand tons was the same number that was in the State's requirements. Town Planner Beeners stated that she would like to point out one other thing, in the Type I list for activities near or within a critical environmental area the Town's is more restrictive than the State's law in that any action, not any unlisted action, is subject to Type I review. While she liked being more restrictive than the State in this area, it may turn out to be scmev\^at of an encumbrance if we have to bring in a building permit application to put a deck on the back of a house or something and have to subject that to SEQR. She stated that she could see a lot of nightmares occuring and perhaps we should think about that. Is it going to be too much of an encumbrance to have it relate to all actions or should it perhaps be modified in seme fashion? There may be a way to actually separate out CEA's and define the process of review for them. Supervisor Desch remarked, you could say "any unlisted or Type I action". He noted it then goes on to say "not in conjunction with the construction or alteration of two or more such residences and not in a designated critical environmental area, freshwater wetland, or other specially protected area". We might be alright including unlisted, that would simplify it but you would need to take a careful look. Once you go beyond that it gets pretty ccnplicated. Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked as long as we are on page 5, she stated that she had a question on Type II actions. She stated that it was her understanding that Type II actions are those which are in no case considered to have a potential environmental impact, right? She stated that she had a little trouble with number 5, if that means all tree triming by the Town of Ithaca Highway Department, since we had seme very broad permission. We ran into Town Board 9 February 8, 1988 trouble with this before. She did not know if anybody wanted to have an environmental inpact statement on the trhmiing of trees but there have been projects both in the Coimty and the Town vhere large sections of streets were involved and quite appropriately should have had scsne environmental assessment. Supervisor Desch remarked, the problem is with another part of \hat you are saying here is that it*s not inclusive of the County Highway Department. Town Attorney Barney remarked this specifically references the Town and he felt the reason was to avoid the necessity of every time you go out to trim a tree, to have to make the determination of it is a Type I or Type II or unlisted action significance has to be considered. Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked, putting it on the Type II list is to remove it from the unlisted, vhich is a problem. Town Attorney Barney replied but it reads all tree plantings, so that adding scmething, landscaping is generally adding scmething or trimming vhich he believed might leave a little rocm for dispute but he would certainly say taking down an 8 inch thick tree, at it's base, is more than just trinming a tree and he felt that would be removal vdiich would then not ccme within the definition here. Which are the types of conditions we have been involved with with the Coimty vdiere there has been a row of fairly substantial trees, because of County Highway widening problems, have been leveled or threatened to be leveled. Councilwcman Raffensperger replied, perhaps we can think about the potential in that particular section. RESOLUTION NO. 27 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Tdwn of Ithaca will meet and conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M., on March 7, 1988 to consider a local law providing for environmental review of actions in the Town of Ithaca. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). Town Attorney Barney remarked, the problem he had was that Councilwcman Raffensperger raised seme points and that if the Board set the hearing date today and then ccme to the meeting in March and decide to make changes it will be necessary to go through the hearing process again. He suggested that either to Board ccme to seme conclusion tonight as to how you want him to proceed so he can draft it and have it in final form or go into March with the thought in mind that may be that will be discussion time and then hold a formal public hearing later. Supervisor Desch replied, the only safe way is to go with vdiat you provided. Town Attorney Barney replied, we can get you another version, for example, if you want to change the 10 acres to 5 acres or 15 acres. Supervisor Desch stated that he felt it wouldn't make any sense to do that until the Board held a public hearing. Town Attorney Barney replied, then you are conterrplating a second public hearing? Town Board 10 February 8, 1988 Supervisor Desch replied, that is probable. If there are going to be changes we should tiry to get all of the changes on the table at the hearing so we can adjourn it and adopt vhatever everj^xxly agrees to later. CDUNTY YOUTH BQAED VACMCY Supervisor Desch noted the following letter dated January 14, 1988, \^ch he received frcm Lois D. King, 181 West Haven Road: "I understand there is a Town of Ithaca vacancy on the Toirpkins County Youth Board and that Nancy Zahler has spoken with you regarding iry willingness to serve in that capacity. I would appreciate your appointing me to that position and notifying the County Board of Representatives of yoxir appointment as soon as possible. Since the Board meets on January 19, 1988 (Tuesday), a letter received by that date would enable the Board to take the appropriate action then, and would enable me to become a voting member of the Youth Board by their Januajry 25, 1988, meeting. Thank you very much. I look forward to becoming an informed and active representative of the Town of Ithaca to the Tcmpkins County Youth Board." Councilman Cardman asked \^t was Ms. King's background and vhy is the letter on Probation Department stationary? Supervisor Desch replied that he did not know. It's just a name that came to me frcm Nancy Zahler and that he had suggested to her that if the lady was interested she should write the Town a letter. He went on to say that there has been a vacancy for well over a year, we have had a lot of troiable getting people interested in serving on this Board. Councilwoman Raffensperger remarked, since we have had a vacancy for seme time and there seems to he seme misunderstanding as to what kind of letter we wanted her to write, usually v^en we say to semeone write us a letter they usually write and say they would be terrific on the Youth Bureau Board because I have been involved and that might be helpful to us. County Representative Mary Call noted that Lois King works for the Probation Department, she works with troubled youth in the Probation Department. Councilman Cardman stated that he would personnally just like to know a little bit more about her background and \(diy she wants to serve, and v^y she feels she is qualified. Supervisor Desch asked Councilman Cardman to call Ms. King. 1988 OBJECTIVES 1. Complete design and start construction of two new fire stations in the Town of Ithaca. 2. Establish position on the Route 96 praject to be filed with the City as part of comment on DEIS. 3. Conplete construction of Phases I, II of the 1987 Water and Sewer Improvements. Town Board 11 February 8, 1988 4. Update Town of Ithaca Ccnprehensive Plan including the Highway Master Plan and Drainage Master Plan. 5. Hire new Highway Superintendent and evaluate department needs. 6. Hire new Assistant Planner, Zoning and Building Inspector Assistant, etc. 7. Eval\aate Town space needs, (i.e., may need to move Court Rocm to rented space). 8. Conplete negotiations on future of youth services with City/County. 9. Ccxrplete work of Codes & Ordinance Cormittee on Zoning Ordinance amendments. 10. Update SEQR Local Law and establish a schedule of environmental review fees. 11. Prepare for 1990 Census. 12. Retain consulting engineer to perform I/I Study on Northeast sewers. 13. Ccaiplete East Ithaca Transportation Study. 14. In conjimction with Coimty, iitplement Septage Treatment Program at new Sewage Treatment Plant. 15. In conjunction with County, formulate plan for recycling throughout Town of Ithaca. 16. Develop plan for South Hill bikeway including spur between Aurora Street and Buttermilk Park and a grant proposal for the run easterly to Bums Road. 17. Design and ccnplete construction work on Grandview Park. 18. In conjunction with developer and NYSEG, corplete construction of Park Lane Extension. 19. Develop plan for Bums Road Phase III and Sand Bank Road visibility inprovements. Supervisor Desch asked the Board members if they had any questions as to vhy an item was on the list or if they had an item they wished to add? He went on to say that in putting these together they are clearly done as a guideline. Councilwcman Raffenspeirger noting #4, stated that she would like to add scmething to it, .. .and examine the need for a new zoning ordinance to inplement the Ccirprehensive Plan. The acceptance of that would require that #9 vdiere it says ccnplete work of Codes & Ordinance Ccmmittee on Zoning Ordinance amendments, the word "present" be added before the Zoning Ordinance. In #9, because we now we are talking about looking to see if we need a new one we should say what the Codes & Ordinance Committee presently is working on is the present Zoning Ordinance. She went on to say that she was not sure how to phrase one that she would like to add as Number 20 but we have heard the staff talk about it and that is to proceed with developing a records and information system, a data base. That is a priority for the staff. Tcfwn Board 12 February 8, 1988 Councilman McPeak questioned #7, the need for Court room rented space. He asked if that would be downtown? Supervisor Desch replied that he had no idea but it could be. That is an operation that could be almost anyvdiere in the City or the Town. It is not a large quantity of space but the problem is that this building is just so busy that the need for a little more office space triggered us to look at other options and this may be the easiest option. Town Attorney Barney asked if the enabling legislation v^ch allows the Town to have its Town Hall in the City permits more than one Town function or location of Town functions? Sxjpervisor Desch replied that the permissiveness is in relation to conducting official business within the City of Ithaca, irrespective of location. VJhen the original law was passed, we were renting space, then we went back a few years ago to get tax exempt status for this building. Now your question may be pertinent as far as could be get tax exempt status on a building in a different location, he did not know. Cormcilvonan Leary asked, how about scsnething like a study possibility of regulating taxi cab rates? Supervisor Desch replied, franchise? He stated that he did not know if this cones under franchises or not. Town Attorney Barney responded, Councilwcsnan Leary asked me about this av^ile ago but he had not have time to look into it. Supervisor Desch remarked, stxidy feasibility of regulating taxi cab fares in the Town of Ithaca. Councilwonan Leary asked vtot was the etc., at the end of item 6? Supervisor Desch replied, at one point there was a third position v^ch was a half time additional clerical position in Engineering and Zoning, now that's been coupled together with the Zoning person, so that can be removed. Councilwonan Leary went on to say that she realized these were reminders and, therefore, how about reevaluate salary ranges of staff. Supervisor Desch replied, how about ccmplete the 1988 review of salary ranges? ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS BESOLUTIONS Supervisor Desch remvarked that normally we get a little more information. The Board then considered the following resolution, proposed by the Association of Towns: SOLID WASTE - The management of solid waste has beccme the most important fiscal, environmental and health problem facing town governments throughout New York State. It is a crisis situation. Landfills are being forced to close everywhere. The State has responsibility to support local efforts to address this enormous problem. Those efforts must include: 1) providing real financial help for the closure of landfills and for the construction of other disposal alternatives; 2) providing a regulatory framework under vhich town government can properly plan and ccmimit to a strategy Town Board 13 Februairy 8, 1988 v^ch will resolve the "vdiat do we do with our garbage" question, now and for the future; and 3) by providing technical assistance and advice, including specific recoratiendations on what towns should and can do. As a means to achieve the goals as stated above, the Association of Towns supports the New York State Report entitled "Solid Waste: A State Responsibility" and the reccanmendations contained therein. We also support Governor Cucmo's initiative to convert the unclaimed bottle bill deposits into a fund vhich would provide up to 50% of the costs of a local government landfill closure. SAT.Rq TAX - The Association of Towns supports legislation vMch would require counties to share 50% or more of the proceeds of a county sales tax. The towns of New York State provide essential services such as sewer, water, police, and garbage collection to the very businesses that generate the sales tax. Fairness dictates that we be entitled to share in sales tax revenues. REVENUE SHARING - The Association of Towns urges the Governor and both Houses of the legislatiure to develop a permanent State Revenue Sharing Plan v^ch distributes monies equitably among all general purpose local governments, with a formula distribution vdiich would reflect - as it should - the population growth and increasing services provided by towns throughtout New York State. FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTION IN FUEL PURCHASES - The Association of Towns urges the defeat of Federal legislation vdiich would eliminate the existing federal tax exemption on gasoline and diesel fuel purchases by local municipalities. Local government is a partner with the State and Federal governments in the provision of essential services for our citizens. STATE SEWER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AID - The Association of Towns strongly reccanomends that the State reaffirm its ccnmitment to local government and establish a permanent assistance level of 33% for the reimbursement of sewer operation and maintenance costs. When the State of New York initiated its Pure Waters Program, towns and other local goveamments responded in good faith and cooperated in the construction of sewer systems and water treatment facilities. To encourage local government participation, state aid of up to 33 1/3% was provided for operating costs. However, the actual amount of appropriated aid has never approached vhat is authorized. USE OF STATE OWNED LANDS - Town have long provided essential services such as fire, police, water and sewer to the many State owned lands and facilities located in towns throughout our State. In fairness and equity, that effort should be recognized, and the land use plans and regulations of the local government given full faith and authority v^en the State acts to divert itself of such holdings, either outright sale or long term lease. The Board agreed that all of the above resolutions should receive a favorable vote. PA SYSTEM Supervisor Desch remarked that this was discussed at the last meeting and provides for five microphones with stands that will be placed in front of the tables so that we do not have to use table space for microphones. There would also be one for the public. He r Town Board 14 February 8, 1988 suggested the proposed resolution be changed from $1,800 to $2,000. He went on to say that the problem with the present system is that you cannot pick up soft voices and general noises cause problems. The heaters also drown out the voices. Councilman McPeak asked, vAiat is an AKG? Supervisor Desch replied that he did not know. He suggested that Councilman McPeak contact Michael Ocello since he had written the specification. Councilwoman Leary asked, if we get the heating system fixed and it wasn't so noisy, do we really need this? It's a small roan. Henry Aron, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals stated that he spoke on this matter at the last Board meeting and outline why it was needed. Supervisor Desch remarked vdiat happens, particularly at the Planning Board and Zoning Board meetings, they have a lot more public hearings so you get more background noise and that is the problem. He stated that even though he had held back the proposal for several months, Mr. Aron continues to keep the message clear that a new system is needed. Councilman McPeak questioned the item cassette decks, is that a recorder? Supervisor Desch replied that he did not know. Councilman McPeak renarked, we have a recorder already. Supervisor Desch stated that he would propose voting on the resolution the way it is, pending your review with Mr. Ocello and if Councilman McPeak is ccmfortable with it the Board will go with the vdiole unit and if you are not, then we will bring the proposal back to the Board. RESOLUTION NO. 28 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, MIEREAS, to enchance the public address/recording system in the Town Hall boardroom, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca herd:^ authorize the expenditure of $2,000 for the necessary equipment, and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the resolution is approved subject to further review and authorization from Councilman McPeak. Townwide AIOIO.2 Town Board Equipment $876.00 Parttown B8010.2 Zoning Equipment 246.00 B8020.2 Planning Equipment 246.00 B1670.2 Shared Services Equipment 432.00 To appropriate funds for this e3^)enditure the following budget amendment is approved; General Fund Townwide transfer $776 from A1990.4 Contingency to AlOlO.2 Town Board Equipment. I (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). BENEFIT ASSESSMENT REFUNDS RESOLUTION NO. 29 Town Board 15 February 8, 1988 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, WHEREAS, Lisa Freeditian, 104 Birchwood Drive, Parcel No. 70-10-1.15 was charged 2 \inits of water and 2 units of sewer on her 1988 Town and County Taxes, and WHEREAS, Ms. Freedman should have been charged for 1.10 units of water and 1.10 units of sewer, and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1988, Ms. Freedman paid her 1988 taxes in full, NCW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca herein authorizes a refund of $59.40 for water and $68.20 for sewer, total refund of $127.60 be paid to Ms. Lisa Freedman, 104 Birchwood Drive, Ithaca, New York. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). Councilman Cardman asked about the determination of units. Supervisor Desch remarked it a fairly ccnplicated formula, it combines frontage, acreage. If it has an apartment in the house it is charged as if it were a two family, therefore, 2 its units. If the frontage is over the basic unit size of 100 feet of frontage then you apply a fraction to that footage that is over 100 feet. That's vdiy is an odd number. Similarly the one on 7 Pheasant Lane was presumed to have an apartitoit but it has been shown not to have an apartment. That's a 100 foot lot so its 1.0 units. RESOLUTION 30 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwcman Raffensperger, WHEREAS, Alan D. Personius, 7 Pheasant Lane, Parcel No. 61-1-8.21 was charged 2 units of water and 2 units of sewer on his 1988 Town and County Taxes, and WHEREAS, Mr. Personius should have been charged for 1 unit of water and 1 unit of sewer, and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1988, Mr. Personius paid his 1988 taxes in full, NCW TflEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a refund of $54.00 for water and $62.00 for sewer, total refund of $116.00 be paid to Alan D. Personius, 7 Pheasant Lane, Ithaca, New York. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). RESOLUTION NO. 31 Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman McPeak, ^ WHEREAS, Ning Shih Chiu, 104 Eastern Heights Drive, Parcel No. 57-1-8.15 was charged 2 units of water and 2 units of sewer on his 1988 Town and County Taxes, and WHEREAS, in 1987 the Building Inspector inspected the property and verified that the basement apartment is no longer used as an apartment, and Town Board 16 February 8, 1988 WEffiREAS, on January 6, 1988, the Building Inspector revisited the property and found it to still be a single family hone, and WHEREAS, on January 27, 1988, Mr. Chiu paid his 1988 taxes in full, NCW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of 1 unit of water at $54.00 and 1 unit of sewer at $62.00, total refund of $116.00 be paid to Ning Shih Chiu, 104 Eastern Heights Drive, Ithaca, New York. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). RESOLUTION NO. 32 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, WHEREAS, Carl E. Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road, Parcel No. 27-1-11.1 was chained 3.10 units of sewer on his 1988 Town and County Taxes, and WHEREAS, the existing sewer line will not allow this property to be connected to the sewer, and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1988, Mr. Sgrecci paid his 1988 taxes in full, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $192.20 be paid to Carl E. Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, New York. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman ^ voting Aye. Nays - none). RESOLUTION NO. 33 MDtion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, WEffiREAS, Lawrence P. and Elizabeth H. Fabbroni were charged for 1 unit of water and 1 unit of sewer on Parcel Numbers 66-3-3.521, 66-3-3.522, 66-3-3.523 and 66-3-3.524, and WHEREAS, on December 20, 1985, Lawrence P. and Elizabeth H. Fabbroni purchased frcm John P. and Martha W. Hertel the property now known as Forest Hone Highlands, and WHEREAS, Item 12 of the Tdwn of Ithaca Benefit Formula, adopted September 8, 1981, states that "in an approved subdivision vhere a developer has constructed an approved water distribution main and/or a sanitary sewer collector serving part or all of the subdivision, the benefit on that portion of the subdivision served shall be determined by the standard provisions herein as if the utility improvements did not exist for a period of five (5) years after construction of same has been approved by the appropriate /^\ Town authorities, except that the sale, land contract or least of any lot in any manner or the issuance of a permit to build on a lot I—to anyone will make such lot(s) subject to the standard provisions herein and all the remaining land will be subject to the standard provisions herein at the end of five (5) years", and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Fabbroni, as of this date, own the parcels in question and have nt applied for permits to build, and Town Board 17 February 8, 1988 WHEREAS, the Town Engineer after reviewing the assessments, finds that Mr. and Mrs. Fabbroni were erroneously charged benefit units on the above parcels, and WHEREAS, on February 1, 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Fabbroni paid their 1988 taxes on the above parcels in full, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes a refund of $216.00 for water and $248.00 for sewer, total refund of $464.00 be paid to Lawrence P. and Elizabeth H. Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road, Ithaca, New York. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). Town Engineer Flumerfelt noted that Tcm Richard, 144 Coy Glen Road had requested a refund of water and sewer benefit units, also. He went on to say that the parcel of land located on the south side of Coy Glen Road, 44 1/2 acres, was orginially assessed for 5.5 units each of water and sewer. Water is available at the extreme lower end of the property on Five Mile Drive but the available pressure to that steeply sloping piece of land would only serve a few of the lower acres of land. The sewer is available but on the other side of Coy Glen Road, again only for a portion of the property. He stated that he took a drive by there today to take a look at the topography of the site, it's a former mining site, gravel operation and its all cut up with old mounds of gravel v^ch have brush and trees growing out of them. There is a gully through there, also. To construct a sewer through a large portion of that land would be nearly iirpossible. Looking at just the acreage that could be served by water at a pressure above 20 PSI, he aanrived at 1.7 units benefit for the water and he reconmend the same figure for the pw, sewer although you might on a strictly acreage calculation, calculate more for the sewer because of the slopes and difficulty sewering that area he would still recommend 1.7 units for sewer also. RESOLUTIC^ NO. 34 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, WHEREAS, Tcm Richard, 144 Coy Glen Road, Parcel No. 31-1-3.1 was charged 5.5 units of water and 5.5 imits of sewer on his 1988 Town and County taxes, and WHEREAS, Mr. Richard should have been charged 1.7 units of water and 1.7 units of sewer, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of 3.8 mits of water at $205.20 and 3.8 units of sewer at $235.60, total refund of $440.80 be paid to Tom Richard, 144 Coy Glen Road, Ithaca, New York. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). PERSOSIS TO BE HEARD Alan Euvrard, President of Quail Builders, stated that he was here as a representative of his own business and as a representative of the Toantpkins Cortland Home Builders Association. Mr. Euvrard stated that he comes before the Board tonight confident that you are fully aware of the great hardship deal to us by the sewer moratorium by Cayuga Heights. He stated that he would \irge the Town Board 18 February 8, 1988 Board to negotiate with Cayuga Heights to resolve this problem at its earliest possible point in time. He stated that he would like to point out that size of the scope is horrendous the number of lots involved directly in the Town of Ithaca is not terribly large, you should look at the overall industry. In the past two years, we residential builders in the area effected by the moratorium had added in excess of ten million dollars to the evaluation of that area. We paid directly more than one-half million dollars in sales tax, we have more than one hundred direct enployees and at least an 1^ equal number of sub-contractors that are on our payroll. This results in at least six million dollars in the past two years of payroll. These employees are for the most part local residents, they spend their money at the local business, pay local real estate taxes and pay local sales tax. A secondary, but equally important side effect of the moratoriim is the long term uncertainty. It becomes difficult, if not iiipossible, for developers to invest in land and infrastructure, so as to continue to provide a supply of lots as demand continues. For many this will be a hardship because land has already been bought, money has been spent planning and in seme cases money has already been spet on infrastructure. All of this has costs and the carrying costs will continue to mount and, therefore, ultimately increase the cost of developed lots. We ask your continued cooperation for a long term solution to the problem and offer vhatever resources we have as an organization to help work towards a solution to the problem. Supervisor Desch thanked Mr. Euvrard. He then asked the Board members if they had any opposition to the letter he was proposing to sent to the Mayor of Cayuga Heights? All were in favor of the letter. APPOINTMENT OF HIGHWAy SUPEKENTENDENT Supervisor Desch noted that John Ozolins was present this evening. Councilman Bordoni noted that the resolution says nothing about the fact that the Highway Superintendent would need to move to the Town of Ithaca, however, he assumed that was all taken care of. Supervisor Desch replied that Mr. Ozolins was negotiating for a house in the Town of Ithaca, right at this time. Councilwcman Raffensperger remarked that he xanderstands this is a requirement in order to be appointed Highway Superintendent. RESOLUTION NO. 35 Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman McPeak, WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca advertised for the vacancy in the position of Town Highway Superintendent, and WHEREAS, the Search Comnittee interviewed three applicants for the position and recommends to the Tdwn Board the name of Mr. Janis G. Ozolins to be appointed to fill the vacancy, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby appoints Mr, Janis G. Ozolins as Deputy Highway Superintendent at a starting salary of $27,000 effective February 9, 1988, and BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mr. Janis G. Ozolins automatically become the Highway Superintendent upon establishment of his status as an elector in the Town of Ithaca, his duties during the interim Town Board 19 February 8, 1988 being the same as those identified in the job description for the Highway Superintendent position. Mr. Ozolins will serve the standard six months probationary period and receive a performance evaluation at the end of three months of service. At the end of the probationary period consideration will be given to a further salary adjustment. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AEX)PTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING ORDINANCE REGULATING TRAFFIC AND PARKING IN THE TCWN OF ITHACA, INCLUDING ROAT STREET Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending and restating ordinance regulating traffic and parking in the Town of Ithaca, including Roat Street having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Engineer if there was anything in this draft orddLnance that was not in the original request? Town Engineer Flximerfelt replied, no. As there was no one present wishing to speak for or against the proposed ordinance, the Sr5)ervisor closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING TO COSrSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING ORDINANCE REGULATING TRAFFIC AND PARKING IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA Proof of posting and piablication of a notice of a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending and restating ordinance regulating traffic and parking in the Town of Ithaca having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supeirvisor opened the public hearing. Supervisor Desch stated that this ordinance is without Roat Street, item "L" is not included. Town Attorney Barney remarked, otherwise the stop signs and yield signs are the same. As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed ordinance, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. Councilman Bordoni asked, if there is a question of vhether or not these people were notified, what's next? Supervisor Desch replied, as a group, the neighborhood wrote us a letter specifically requesting vhat's in here, so unless they have changed their minds it is pretty safe to assume this is \^t they want. Quite often that happens, people send letters and then that's it. Supervisor Desch asked the Town Attorney if we would not adopt the one with Roat Street in it to be the most ccnplete? Town Attorney Barney replied, if you want to be roost ccaiplete and incl\:ide Roat Street. Councilman Cardman asked if the Board adopts the ordinance with Roat Street included, we won't need to adopt the second ordinance? Town Board 20 February 8, 1988 Supervisor Desch replied, that is correct. PESOLUTION NO. 36 Itotion by Councilman Cardraan; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, OPDINMSICE AMENDING AND RESTATING ORDINANCE REGULATING TRAFFIC AND PARKING IN THE TCWN OF ITHACA WITH ROAT STREET ADDED Pursuant to Section 130 of the 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, Tcxipkins 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. Superseding and Amending of Prior Ordinances. This ordinance amends and restates the traffic ordinance of the Town of Ithaca adopted September 7, 1961 effective September 26, 1961 and all amendments thereto and to the extent the provisions of said earlier ordinances conflict with the ordinance as set forth herein, this ordinance shall govern. Section 3. Parking Vehicles. The parking of motor vehicles or any part thereof on the paved portion of Town highways, or upon the shoulder or upon or in any ditch adjoining said highways, is prohibited in all of the following locations: (a) On both sides of Mclntyre Place. (b) On both sides of Judd Falls Road from its intersection with Tower Road to its intersection with Forest Hcme Drive. (c) On both sides of Pleasant Grove Road frcm the Village of Cayuga Heights line to the intersection with Forest Hcme Drive (Route 392). (d) On both sides of Snyder Hill Road frcm the Town of Dryden line to the intersection with Pine Tree Road. (e) On both sides of Judd Falls Road frcm Route 366 southerly to the railroad overpass. (f) On both sides of Coddington Road frcm the City line to the centerline of the intersection with Rich Road extended. On the East side of Coddington Road the width of the shoulder is three feet. (g) On the south side of Mitchell Street frcm the Town of Ithaca line easterly to Pine Tree Road. (h) On the north side of Mitchell Street frcm the Town of Ithaca line easterly to Judd Falls Road. (i) On both sides of Judd Falls Road frcm its intersection with Tower Road to its intersection with New York State Route 366. (j) On both sides of Sharlene Drive fron Snyder Hill Road to Eastern Heights Drive during the hours of 1:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. daily. (k) On both sides of Eastern Heights Drive frcm Sharlene Drive to the now or future town road running southerly frcm Eastern Heights Drive shewn as futnre Nancy Streeton the Town of Ithaca tax maps, during the hours of 1:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. daily. (1) On the south side of Roat Street running westerly frcm Blackstone Avenue to the terminus of Road Street, during Town Board 21 February 8, 1988 the hours of 1:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. daily. Section 4. Stopping of Motor V^icles. The stopping of motor vechicles, other than in accordance with erected traffic control devices, or as may be required by traffic conditions, is prohibited in the following locations: (a) ButtenrdUc Falls Road West in its entirety. (b) Buttermilk Falls Road East in its entirety. Section 5. Stop Signs. The intersections enumerated on Schedule A aimexted hereto are designated as stop intersections and stop signs are ordered installed at the entrance to such intersections as set forth on Schedule A. Section 6. Yield Signs. The intersections set forth on the annexed Schedule B are designated as yield intersections and yield signs are ordered installed at entrances to such intersections as set forth on Schedule B. Section 7. Penalties. (a) Any violations of Sections 3 and 4 shall constitute a traffic infraction and any persons violating the same shall be deemed guilty of a traffic infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of not more thatn $50.00 or by inprisonment for not more than 15 days or by both such fine and inprisonment. (b) Failure to observe the signs erected in accordance with Sections 5 or 6 shall be treated as a traffic infraction and shall be punished as set forth in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. Section 8. This ordinance shall be effective 10 days after publication and posting in accordance with Section 133 of the Town Law. SCHEDULE A - STOP SIQUS On Birchwood Drive at Salem Drive On Birchwood Drive North at Salem Drive On Blackstone Avenue at Roat Street, eastbound approach On Blackstone Avenue at Roat Street, westbound approach On Blackstone Avenue at Christopher Lane On Brandywine Drive at Christopher Lane On Canpbell Avenue at Brookfield Road On Christopher Circle (east end) at Christopher Lane On Christopher Circle (west end) at Christopher Lane On Concord Place at Burleigh Drive On Coy Glen Road at Elm Street Extension On Deerfield Place at Salem Drive On Deerfield Place at Winston Drive On Dove Drive at its easterly intersection with Snyder Hill Road On Dove Drive at its westerly intersection with Snyder Hill Road On Drew Road at Woodgate Lane pmm On Forest Hone Drive at Caldwell Road On Forest Hone Drive at Judd Falls Road, eastbomd approach On Forest Hone Drive at Judd Falls Road, westbound approach On Forest Hcme Drive at Pleasant Grove Road, westbound approach On Forest Hcme Drive at Warren Road, eastbound approach On Forest Hcme Drive at Warren Road, westbound approach On Glenside Road at Coy Glen Road On Haller Boxilevard at Elm Street Extension Town Board 22 February 8, 1988 On Harwick Road at Wildflower Drive On Judd Falls Road at Tower Road, northbound approach On Judd Falls Road at Tower Road, southbound approach On Judd Falls Road at Arboretum Road On Lexington Drive East at Burleigh Drive On Lexington Drive West at Burleigh Drive On Lisa Place at Lisa Lane On Longview Drive at Poole Road On Maplewood Drive at Salem Drive On Mclntyre Place at Judd Falls Road On Mclntyre Place at Forest Hcme Drive On Penny Lane at Abbey Road, eastbound approach On Regency Lane at Snyder Hill Road On Renv/ick Place at its northerly intersection with NYS Route 34B On Renwick Place at its southerly intersection with NYS Route 34B On Rosehill Road at Muriel Street On Rosehill Road at Winston Drive On St. Catherine Circle at Siena Drive On Simsbury Drive at Brandywine Drive On Stravtoerry Hill Road at Wildflower Drive On Sugarbush Lane at Snyder Hill Road On Sycamore Drive at Salem Drive On Tareyton Drive at Rosehill Road, northbound approach On Tareyton Drive at Rosehill Road, southbound approach On Terraceview Drive at Honness Lane On The Byway at its easterly intersection with Forest Hone Drive On The Byway at its westerly intersection with Forest Hone Drive On Townline Road at Sandbank Road On Valley View Road at Elm Street Extension On Vera Circle at its northerly intersection with Woodgate Lane On Vera Circle at its southerly intersection with Wbodgate Lane On West Haven Road at Elm Street Extension On Wildflower Drive at Honness Lane On Winston Court at Winston Drive On Winston Court vhere the southerly portion of Winston Court nmning east and west intersects the westerly portion of — Winston Court running north and south On Winston Court at the southerly end of the middle portion of Winston Court vhich runs north and south On Winston Court at the northerly end of the middle portion of Winston Court vdiich runs north and south On Winston Court vdiere the easterly end of the southerly portion of Winston Court running east and west intersects the easterly portion of Winston Court running north and south On Winston Drive at Salem Drive On Woodgate Lane at Poole Road On wydkoff Road at Renwick Heights Road SCHEDULE B - YIELD SIGNS On Blackstone Avenue at Siena Drive On Brandywine Drive at Winthrop Drive On Dove Drive, southbound approach, at the east end of Pheasant Lane On Eastern Heights Drive at Joanne Drive On Eastern Heights Drive at Sharlene Drive, westbound approach On Eastern Heights Drive at Sharlene Drive, eastbound approach On Elm Street Extension at Culver and Poole Roads On Grove Place at Grove Road On Grove Road at Woolf Lane On Hickory Place at Juniper Drive On Hickory Place at Pineview Terrace On Landmark Drive at Eastern Heights Drive On Landmark Drive at Park Lane On Lisa Lane at Texas Lane Town Board 23 February 8, 1988 On Maplewood Drive at Pinewood Drive On Orchard Street at Roat Street On Kendall Avenue at Pennsylvania Avenue On Penny Lane at Abbey Road, westbound approach On Pheasant Lane at Dove Drive, westbound approach On Pineview Terrace at Juniper Drive On Pinewood Place at Birchwood Drive North On Renwick Drive at Renwick Heights Road On St. Catherine Circle at Blackstone Avenue On Sandra Place at Winthrop Drive On Sharlene Road at Snyder Hill Road On Sharlene Road at Tudor Road On Sky-Vue Road at Snyder Hill Road On Snyder Hill Road at Pine Tree Road On Stone Quarry Road at King Road West On Sycamore Drive at Pinewood Drive On Tudor Road at Park Lane On Winston Court at Salem Drive Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Bordoni Voting Aye Coimcilman Cardraan Voting Aye Coimcilwoman Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwcman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye n n The Resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR ASSISTANT PLANNER AND ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTOR Supervisor Desch noted that the job descriptions for Assistant Planner and Assistant Building Inspector were reviewed by the Personnel Conmittee. Councilman Cardman remarked that he assumed that as long as we are going to advertise the positions, the money is already in this years budget? Supervisor Desch replied, yes. Councilwcman Raffensperger questioned, this are full time positions? Supervisor Desch replied, right. Councilman Cardman asked if there had been any consideration as to vhere to put the people? Supervisor Desch replied, we can work this out pretty well but that's the end. The shortage will be in staging space and layout space for looking at large sized plans, that's the problem. Obviously there are uses for the Court Room during the day because there is seldom much activity in the Court Room so we use it for a variety of meetings and there is a table in there v^iere you can lay things out. The only problem with it is you have to pick up everything v^en you are through and put it away. Councilman Cardman remarked, just because he wasn't here during the discussions vAien these position were proposed, he asked if there Town Board 24 February 8, 1988 was a coriplete study done on the need for the positions and backlog as these are considerable on going ccnmitted expenses and budgeted in the out years, you don't usxially hire at the minimum so we are looking at a lot of money. Supervisor Desch replied, we have probably been at it a year or more, evaluating things like where we are with ccarprehensive plans, intregrated review of projects. So far we have been able to stay above water but with the level of activity it probably won * t continue to happen, probably during 1988 unless we have more help. ' There are sane things that we just cannot continue to postpone. Supervisor Desch asked if there was a preference on salary ranges? Councilman Bartholf suggested $16,000 to $23,000 for the Assistant Planner position and $8.00 to $10.00 per hour for the Assistant to the Zoning Officer/Building Inspector position. Councilman Cardman asked if this salary range was catiparable with people already on staff? Supervisor Desch replied, yes. RESOLUTION MD. 37 Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Coxmcilwcroan Raff ensperger, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca her^y approve the job descriptions for the Assistant Town Planner and the Assistant to the Zoning Officer/Building Inspector, and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the salary range for the Assistant Planner be set at $16,000 to $23,000 and for the Assistant to the ~ Zoning Officer/Building Inspector at $8.00 to $10.00 per hour. (Desch, McPeak, Raffenspgerger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none) . ADVERTISEMENT FOR ASSISTANT TOWN PLANNER AND ASSISTANT TO THE ZONING OFFICER/BUIIOING INSPECTOR RESOLUTION NO. 38 Motion by Coimcilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the advertisement for the positions of Assistant Town Planner and Assistant to the Zoning Officer/Building Inspector. (Desch, McPeak, Raff ensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). TOWN BOARD MINUTES Supervisor Desch remarked that Councilman Bordoni and Councilman Cardman might wish to abstain from voting on the December 31, 1987 minutes as they were not on the Board at that time. RESOLUTION NO. 39 Motion by Councilwcman Raff ensperger; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, Town Board 25 February 8, 1988 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the December 31, 1987 Town Board minutes as presented by the Town Clerk. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf and Leary voting Aye. Nays - none. Abstaining - Bordoni and Cardman) RESOLUTION NO. 40 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the January 11, 1988 and January 19, 1988 Town Board minutes as presented by the Town Clerk. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). ELECTION CUSTODIANS Town Clerk Jean Swartwood remarked that there were a few problems in the last election and as there is a primary coming up in i^ril she felt it would be a good idea to send the election custodians to school again. The Town Clerk went on to say that Sequoia (Automatic Voting Machine) will be hold a school here in Ithaca at the Holiday Inn on March 12, 1988. Most of the Towns in Toanopkins Coimty plan on sending their custodians along with perhaps some from Binghamton and Syracuse joining them. This school, being held in Ithaca, will be a lot cheaper than sending the custodians to Jamestown. RESOLUTIC^ NO. 41 Motion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, WHEREAS, there is a need for additional training of the two voting machine custodians employed by the Town of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, Sequoia Pacific will provide such training at Ithaca, New York, on Satiurday, March 12, 1988, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the TOwn Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize Claude Colleyacme and Michael Jfoseley to attend the on-site training for voting Machine custodians to be held at the Holiday Inn at a cost of $150 each, and $10.60 per person for lunch and coffee breaks plus a cost for the Conference Room at the Holiday Inn which should not exceed $3.00 to $4.00, depending on how many Towns participate. Account to be charged - General Fund - Towwide Elections A1450.402. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). ^ ELECTION DISTRICT The Town Clerk went on to say that District #7 v^ich is the Cayuga Heights Community Center will become the Cayuga Heights School again after renovations. We cannot use this facility this year as asbestos has been foimd in the school and must be removed. There is no other location available in District #7 but we can use First Congregational Church on Highland Road. The City uses the Church for a polling place even though it is in the Town. The Church is willing to let us use the Chxirch if it is okay with the City. She Town Board 26 February 8, 1988 went on to say that she had checked with the City and it was fine with them as there is plenty of room. It is handicapped assessable and will only be for this year, in fact it may not be necessary for the vdiole year depending on the asbestos removal. County Representative Call, noting that this was her district, asked if the Cayuga Heights Fire Station had been considered. The Town Clerk responded that the Fire Station was too small to acccnmodate two districts. We considered the Fire Station and also Boynton Jimior High School. Supervisor Desch remarked, they would like us to even move \(tot we have out of the Fire Station. RESOLUTION NO. 42 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, RESOLVED, that the TCwn Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize the moving of Election District #7 from the Cayuga Heights School to the First Congregation Church on Highland Road as a temporary measure for the year 1988 until the Cayuga Heights School is available for use again as an election district. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FEES AND PENALTIES RELATING TO THE ZCaJING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIOTS Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance and setting forth certain fees and penalties relating to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations having been presented the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposal, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 43 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SEITING FORTH CERTAIN FEES AND PENALTIES RELATING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIOJIS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA Pursuant to Section 130 of the Town Law of the State of New York and Section 268 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, does ordain and enact as follows; Section 1. Territory Covered by Ordinance. This ordinance shall be applicable to all territory within the Town of Ithaca outside the incorporated Village of Cayuga Heights. Section 2. Amending of Prior Ordinance. This ordinance amends the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as re-adopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968 and as subsequently amended as follows: (a) Said Zoning Ordinance is amended by adding a new section Town Board 27 February 8, 1988 84 entitled "Fees" reading as follows: "Section 84. Fees. 1. The fees for a building permit shall be as set forth in Section 75 of this Ordinance, 2. Whenever an appeal or an application is filed with the Board of Appeals for v^ich a public hearing is required, there shall be paid a fee of $40.00 to defer the costs of publishing the notice of public hearing, the mailing of notices to appropriate parties, and the taking of minutes of the proceedings relating to the appeal or application. Such fee shall be paid to the Town Building Inspector, Town Planner, or Deputy Town Clerk associated with the Building and Planning Department of the Town. Such fee shall be paid simultaneously, with the filing of any application or appeal requiring such public hearing. 3. The fees set forth below also included in the si:ibdivision regulations of the Town of Ithaca, shall be payable with respect to applications before the Planning Board: A. In general the following fees shall be paid on the filing of any application and prior to the processing thereof: 1. Sketch plan or plat. (a) Two-lot subdivision $10.00 (b) More than two lots 50.00 2. Preliminary plat. (a) Two-lot subdivision 25.00 (b) More than two lots 20.00+ $5.00 per lot or dwelling unit, whichever is larger 3. Final Plat. (a) Two-lot subdivision 10.00 (b) More than two lots 10.00+ $1.00 per lot or dwelling unit, \diichever is larger 4. Plats and Replats whose sole pinrpose is to dedicate land to the public No fee B. The Planning Board, in its discretion, may waive the fee for a final plat in those circumstances vdiere final plat approval is given simultaneously rrnm, with preliminary plat approval. C. In addition to the fees set forth above, an applicant shall pay $40.00 for each application on vdiich a public hearing is being held, said additional fee to offset the costs of publishing and mailing the notice and application to various persons and the costs of transcribing the Town Board 28 February 8, 1988 proceedings at the public hearing. Such fee shall be paid each tirne a new public hearing is held. In the discretion of the Planning Board or the person designated to collect the fee below, such fee may be waived with respect to any adjourned public hearings, particularly if the adjournment was necessitated by actions of the Town officials and not by the applicant. D. The Building Inspector, Town Planner, or Deputy i Town Clerk associated with the Planning and Building Department, will calculate the fee for each application. Each fee shall be paid to one of such individuals v^o shall issue a receipt stating the purpose of the payment. This receipt must be filed with the application as evidence of payment. 4. The fees for review or preparation of an environmental impact statement involving an applicant for approval of funddLng of an action requiring preparation or filing of a draft environmental impact statement shall be determined by the lead ageancy for each such application. The fees shall be based on the actual cost to the Tcwn for reviewing or preparing the draft and final environmental iirpact statement, including the cost of hiring consultants, the salary time of Town oiployees and actual disbursements incurred as a result of the review and preparation of such impact statement, but in no event shall the fees be greater than that established in 6 N.Y.C.R. 61/.7. The Town Superintendent, Building Inspector, Town Planner or Town Engineer may require, prior to the ccmmencement of the review or preparation of an environmental inpact statement, a deposit to be made with the Town in an amount reaonsably estimated to cover the fees set foirth in this section." (b) Subdivision 4 of Section 77 of said ordinance is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof reading "The applicant shall pay $10.00 for the publication of notices of the hearing required by law." (c) Section 79 of said Ordinance is amended to read as follows: "Section 79. Violations and Penalties. Pursuant to Section 268 of the Town Law any person, firm, corporation or other entity violating any provision of this Ordinance or any provision of the subdivision regxilations of the Town of Ithaca shall be deemed guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine or to inprisonment as provided in Section 268. Each week's continued violation shall constitute a separate offense." "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance or the subdivision regulations of the Town of Ithaca, the Planning Board may refuse preliminary or final subdivision approval to a subdivision as long as the subdivider, or any person or entity under the control of ^ or controlled by the subdivider, is in default in the 1 performance of any actions required of them pursuant to ' law or pursuant to conditions imposed in connection with a previously approved subdivision in the Town of Ithaca. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance shall be effective ten days after publication and posting in accordance with Section 133 of the Town Law. Town Board 29 February 8, 1988 Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote. Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Bordoni Voting Aye Councilman Cardman Voting Aye Councilwcman Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwcmian Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye The Resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. RESOLUTIOJ AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA RESOLUTION NO. 44 Motion by Councilwcstian Raffensperger; seconded by Coimcilman Bordoni, WHEREAS, the subdivision regulations of the Town of Ithaca were adopted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on March 24, 1956 and approved by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca on March 24, 1956; and WHEREAS, said subdivision regulations have been thereafter amended frcm time to time; and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and appropriate to further amend such sulDdivision regulations in the manner hereinafter set forth, NCW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that the subdivision regulations of the Town of Ithaca be amended as follows; 1. Article I, Section 8, Subparagrajh 1, is hereby amended to read as follows: "1. In general, the following fees shall be paid on the filing of any application and prior to the processing thereof; 1. Sketch plan or plat. (a) Two-lot subdivision $10.00 (b) More than two lots 50.00 2. Preliminary plat. (a) Two-lot subdivision 25.00 (b) More than two lots 20.00+ $5.00 per lot or dwelling unit, vhichever is larger 3. Final plat. (a) Two-lot subdivision 10.00 (b) More than two lots 10.00+ $1.00 per lot or dwelling imit, whichever is larger 4. Plats and Replats v^ose sole Town Board 30 Febiniary 8, 1988 purpose is to dedicate land to the public No fee 2. Article I, Section 8, Subparagraph 2 is amended by renunibering said subparagraph 4 and inserting two new siA>paragraphs, to be subparagraph 2 and 3, reading as follows; "2. The Planning Board, in its descretion, may waiver the fee for a final plat in those circumstances vdiere final plat approval is given simultaneously with preliminary plat approval." "3. In addition to the fees set forth above, an applicant shall pay $40.00 for each application on vMch a public hearing is being held, said additional fee to offset the costs of publishing and mailing the notice and application to various persons and the costs of transcribing the proceedings at the public hearing. Such fee shall be paid each time a new public hearing is held. In the discretion of the Planning Board or the person designated to collect the fee below, such fee may be waived with respect to any adjourned public hearings, particularly if the adjournment was necessitated by actions to the Town officials and not by the applicant." 3. Article I, Section 8, former subdivision 2 (renumbered to subdivision 4 by this resolution) is amended to read as follows: "2. The Building Inspector, Town Planner or Deputy Town Clerk associated with the Planning and Building Department, will calculate the fee for each application. Each fee shall be paid to one of such individuals v^o shall issue a receipt stating the purpose of the payment. This receipt must be filed with the application as evidence of payment." 4. Article I, Section 9, is amended to read as follows: "Section 9. Violation and Penalty. 1. A violation of these regulations is an offense, punishable as set forth in Section 268 of the Town Law. 2. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these regulations, the Planning Board may refuse preliminary or final siAxiivision approval to a subdivider, as long as the subdivider, or any person or entity under or in the control of such subdivider, is in default in the performance of any actions required of them pursuant to law or pursuant to conditions imposed in connection with a previously approved subdivision in the Town of Ithaca." (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni, and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). SALARy RANGES Councilwcroan Leary stated that she just wished to point out that the Assistant Town Planner is higher level job than the Assistant mm, to the Zoning Officer and that is why she reccramended that the starting salary for the Assistant Town Planner be a little bit higher than the starting salary to the Assistant to the Zoning Officer. As it stands now, the Assistant to the Zoning Officer starts at $16,500 and the Assistant Town Planner starts at $16,000, that's \^y she suggested the Assistant Town Planner salary start at $17,000. Town Board 31 February 8, 1988 Supervisor Desch responded that we will know if we don't get candidates. Chances are we will probably not be hiring at the irdnimum anyway. WATER ACCOUNT REFUNDS RESOLUTION KD. 45 Motion by Councilwanan Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, WHEREAS, Dan Cunningham paid his December water bill for 1314 Hanshaw Road, and WHEREAS, a final bill was sent in the meantime v^ch included the December bill with arrears vhich Mr. Cunningham paid again, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Itown Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $20.49 for water, $2.05 for water penalty, $9.01 for sewer and $.90 for sewer penalty, total refund of $32.45 be made to Dan Cunningham, Route #1, Box 239, Wharton, Texas 77488. Account Number T-1438. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). RESOLUTION NO. 46 Motion by Councilman Bordoni; seconded by Coimcilman Bartholf, WHEREAS, an erroneous penalty was assessed on the Deconber water bill of Ingrid Thomas, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca herety authorize a refund of $12.00 for water penalty and $7.10 for sewer penalty, total refund of $19.10 be made to Ingrid Thomas, 1337 Slaterville Road, Ithaca, New York. Account Number B-330. RESOLUTION NO. 47 ffotion by Councilwoman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Cardman, WHEREAS, the customer made an error in the December meter reading for 206 Tareyton Drive, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $129.43 for water. $12.94 for water siarcharge, $83.99 for sewer and $9.06 for sewer surcharge, total refund of $235.42 be made to Esther Krenzlin, 206 Tareyton Drive, Ithaca, New York. Account Number T-1547. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). RESOLUTION NO. 48 Motion by Councilwcman Raffenroerger; seconded by Coimcilman Bartholf, WHEREAS, the custcmer at 211 Christopher Lane has been reading the wrong meter. Town Board 32 February 8, 1988 NOW TEJEREPORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize a refund of $153.80 for water, $15.38 for water surcharge, $17.69 for sewer and $10.77 for sewer surcharge, total refund of $197.64 be made to Robert J. Clune, 211 Christopher Lane, Ithaca, New York. Account Number V-2980. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). ELECTIONS The Town Clerk continued noting that there has been a proposal put forth suggesting that all voting machines be checked. She went on to say that roughly this would cost $2,000 plus for servicing the machines plus overnight lodging, meals and travel time and that she had not included this amount in her budget. Councilman McPeak questioned, vtot are they certifying, the count? The Town Clerk replied no, they would take the machines apart to make sure they were working good, including the rollers incase of a write in vote. Coimcilman McPeak asked if the custodian could not do this? Supervisor Desch replied, perhaps when they ccme back from the school. The Supervisor asked vhat about the other Tbwn Clerks, they they having their machines serviced? The Town Clerk replied, the Town of Lansing may have their machines serviced. If the City Cotroon Council is interested, then the City Clerk will work with them to increase her budget and perhaps service two or three machines a year. Councilwcman Raffensperger asked how long had it been since the machines were serviced? The Town Clerk replied that she did not know, except in the nine years she had been here they have never been serviced. Supervisor Desch remarked this is sanething that would need to be done on a program basis. Councilman Cardman ronarked that he felt it was an item that should be considered in the budget for next year. FINANCIAL REPORT RESOLUTION NO. 49 Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approve the December 1987 Financial Statement as presented. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). TCWN OF ITHACA WARRANTS Town Board 33 February 8, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 50 Motion by Councilman McPeak; seconded by Councilman Bartholf, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves the Town of Ithaca Warrants dated February 8, 1988, in the following amoimts; General Fund - Town Wide $17,143.13 General Fund - Outside Village $37,694.32 Highway Fund $88,305.84 Water & Sewer Fund $19,531.90 Lighting Fund $ 439.35 Capital Projects Fund $ 559.37 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). Town Engineer Flumerfelt remarked that he would like to add to the Warrants the second pay request for James L. Lewis for the Town Highway facility heating contract in the amount of $4,066.00. RESOLUTION NO. 51 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilman McPeak, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorize payment of the second request frcm James L. Lewis for the Town Highway facility hearing contract in the amount of $4,066.00 (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bartholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). BOLTC^ POINT WARRANTS RESOLUTION NO. 52 Motion by Supervisor Desch; seconded by Councilwoman Raffensperger, RESOLVED, that the Bolton Point Warrants dated February 8, 1988, in the Operating Account are herdDy approved in the amount of $56,102.71 after review and upon the reccmmendation of the Southern Cayuga Lake Interraunicipal Water Commission, they are in order for payment. (Desch, McPeak, Raffensperger, Bairtholf, Leary, Bordoni and Cardman voting Aye. Nays - none). PUBLIC HEARING TO COTSIDER ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (LIMITED MIXED USE) AT 904-906 EAST SHORE DRIVE FOR THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider a local law amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide a mm Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) at 904-906 East Shore Drive for the Tcnpkins County Chamber of Ccramerce having been presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. Supervisor Desch remarked, that by way of review he wished to indicated that at the last hearing that was held the Board decided to add additional conditions relating to the revocation of the Town Board 34 February 8, 1988 certificate of occupancy if an alternative plan relating to the parking was not provided in the event that the license effecting the parking in the City was revoked by the City. This has been inserted in the proposed local law. The other coninent he wished to make was that the Environmental Review has been corpleted and the Town Board has made a determination of negative significance. The Si:^rvisor went on to say that the Board had a letter from Susan Blumenthal \diich will be entered into the record of the ^ hearing and vdiich is available to each of the Town Board members. I I Basically the letter indicates that the Planning and Development Board of the City feels that it is not appropriate to rezone the parcel that the Board is considering from Residential to this Special Land Use District. There are basically three reasons. The Supervisor then asked if there was someone here v^o wished to read the letter. Doria Higgins replied that she felt the letter was inportant enough to be read aloud and agreed to read the letter. Ms. Higgins then read the following letter from Susan Blumenthal, Chair of the City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board, dated February 8, 1988 addressed to The Honorable Noel Desch, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca and The Honorable Meatbers of the Board, Town of Ithaca: "The Board of Planning and Development of the City of Ithaca, at its January meeting, authorized and directed me to convey to you its concern over the proposed Special Land Use District to accommodate the offices of the Tcanpkins County Chamber of Coiratierce, Visitors and Convention Bureau, and Tourist Information Center. The Board feels that it is not appropriate or desirable to rezone this single small residential parcel of land v^ich adjoins a major recreation conplex, to permit establishment of a dissimilar activity. The reasons for this conclusion may be explained as follows:I i First, the existing use of this land, vdiich is fully ccnpatible with a recreational area, would be replaced by business offices, vdiich have little in common with recreation. Second, this change in permitted land use may well encourage further change in the vicinity, v^ch in our estimation is most likely to be commercial in nature. Such change would not only bring activity that is incompatible with the recreational and other nearby uses, but might have other negative environmental impacts. The proposed rezoning would perhaps provide the nucleus and inpetus for further change, incompatible with the recreational and residential uses now dominant, and open the way to undesirable effects of suburban growth that is subject to only nominal control and no ordered plan. Third, there are issues of broader concern related to County-wide planning. The dispersion of major local institutions, of v^ich the Chamber is only the latest in recent years, and of other irtportant activities to locations outside the City should be of serious concern to the Town and other local governments. Although the gaining municipality will enjoy certain benefits, it will also entail certain costs - for infrastructure, services, etc. - that mm may in the longer run be a net loss to the ccmmunity at large. 1 ' ' While we can understand that the Chamber may feel that this proposed rezoning is the only viable solution to their perceived needs and problems, we conclude that it would not be in the best interest of the City to proceed in this fashion. 88 i I Town Board 35 February 8, 1988 I apologize for the timing of this letter, but we had planned on a more structured opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposal. However, there was no format channel for discussion by the City Planning Board of the land use irtplication of this action. I hope this letter will not arouse questions and feelings vdiich divert attention frcan the points being raised. Let me assure you that we are not antipathetic to the concerns and interest of the Chamber of Ccitimerce and would be willing to work with them if they so wish. Thank you for your consideration of these matters." Town Planner Susan Beeners remarked that she was looking at a few letters sent to the City and also copies of letters received from the City indicating that the Board of Planning and Developnent was one of the several boards and ccanranittees at the City v^o were notified about this project and have been notified all along. Supervisor Desch ronarked, that would have started presumably back at the time of the lead agency question? Town Planner Beeners replied yes, vhich was roughly in September. Siapervisor Desch asked if there were other ccraments in favor or against the proposal to rezone the property? Betsy Darlington, Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Council read the following statement: "First, to say that this zoning change would not be spot zoning requires taking considerable liberties with the facts. (a) It does not fit in with an overall planning scheme for ^ the areas, I (b) It does not fit in with neighboring uses, and (c) It does not prcmote the general welfare. A. Merely saying that there is an overall planning scheme does not make it so. The closest thing to an overall plan for the area is the Stewart Park Goals and Guidelines. Having the Chamber of Catitierce right next to Stewart Park would conflict with this plan by increasing the pressure on the Park. The Park is already functiordng about at capacity; in fact, one of the major concerns considered by the Stewart Park Advisory Group of v^ch I was a manber was the increase in traffic and parking problems in the park. These problems are great enought that seme people have proposed altering the roadway and parking setup, changes vdiich would significantly change the character of the park in ways many citizens feel would be undesirable. B. The main neighboring uses in the area are Steward Park, the Youth Bureau, private residences, public schools farther to the south, and seme ccmmercial use farther north. No only would the Chamber of Ccramerce not fit in with any of these uses except the ccmmercial, but I believe it would hurt them. The Town Planner has estimated that 27-81 vehicles per hour would be entering the mm parking lot adjacent to the Youth Bureau. How is having numerous I cars and campers pulling in and out of this spot consistent with the neighboring uses, and how could this do anything but hurt them? Stewart Park is a city park, and v^ile the city has always been willing to have outsiders use it without charge, the ccmmunity does not want to increase such use. The park's presence is used by the Chamber as an iirportant consideration in choosing this location. Of Town Board 36 February 8, 1988 with no consideration of how the local citizens v^o use the park — an I might add, pay for it — would feel about extra crowding fron tourists and their caitpers. C. This move would hurt the general welfare by overloading Stewart Park, by increasing traffic congestion along busy East Shore Drive and at its intersection with Gibbs Drive, as well as at the Route 13 intersection, and by removing tourists frcm downtown Ithaca. The move would probably promote the Chamber of Catmerce's welfare and the welfare of commercial interests at and near Pyramid ; Mall, but it would certainly not promote the general welfare. The city's downtown must wage a constant battle to survive against competition from Pyramid Mall and other outlying sprawl developments. Such enterprises, v^ile apparently fulfilling sane of the needs of consumers, greatly detract from the character of oior area and cause harm to the downtown businesses in the city. If the Chamber locates in the proposed location, visitors will not take the more difficult route to downtown but will take the path of least resistance — much like water running down hill — to Pyramid Mall. Pyramid does not need more business; downtown Ithaca does. 1 find it amazing that the Chamber would abandon the county seat and the county's only urban center. The notion that there are no other spots for it to locate is sinply a convenient excuse, one v^ich does not hold water. No only is there no need for the Chamber to locate here, from the point of view of the general welfare, there is in fact a need for it not to do so. 1 almost get the feeling that the Chamber maintains that vtot's good for the Chamber is good for the general welfare. 1 would suggest that v^at is bad for the city is bad for the Chamber and for the county and for the general welfare. Second, 1 only recently learned that the city's BPW did a short EAF for the granting of this license. It was done on May 28, 1987. Common Council voted to approve the licensing the first Wednesday in June, and did not even consider the EAF. The Conservation Advisory Council never even received a copy of the EAF, yet we are supposed to review these and make recoimiendations to Council on them. 1 saw it for the first time only a couple of weeks ago, and it was not properly filled out. Every question was answered "no" as though the preparer had not even read the questions. Many should have been answered yes. If the Chamber has been following the licensing process for the Farmers' Market, it should know v^at a big chance it would be taking in depending on the annual renewal of a license fron the city for the driveway and parking lot. Automatic renewals are a thing of the past. Future reviews will be most thorough, and if any of the inpacts ^ occur vMch many expect, it's hard to imagine Ccnrnon Council renewing the license. Common Council is taking environmental reviews seriously. 1 feel that the rezoning would be illegal and the choice of sites is ill-advised." ^ Doria Higgins for Citizens to Save Stewart Park read the following ' letter: I "In a January 20, 1988 memorandum to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Ccxtmitte, City Attorney Ralph Nash defined the legal limitations of "conditional rezoning" which is the type of rezoning proposed for the Bowman lot, although you are calling it a Special District. 7,H Town Board 37 February 8, 1988 In this inemorandum he spelled out the "limits on the ability" of a legislative body to undertake "conditional rezoning," and he wrote, "the zoning change must be in conformance with a cotiprehensive zoning schone for the ccmmunity and must pronote the general public welfare of the ccmmunity," We don't think that rezoning a tiny residential lot, to ccmraercial usage to serve the welfare of a private organization, the Chamber of Cortinerce, prcmotes the "general public welfare." We are not saying that the Chamber of Ccmmerce is not a worthy organization. We think it is. We think Tonpkins County Hospital is worthy. We think the Department of Social Services and the Salvation Army are worthy. But we do think that they should move onto residential lots that are too small for their needs and then be given public park lands to make their ventures work. Such inefficient planning and such public giveaways are not for the public good no matter how you define it. It is not for the general welfare of the conmunity to significantly increase traffic flow to a public park v^ich is, according to the Master Plan for Stewart Park, already seriously overcrowded. Page 7 of that plan says, "overcrowding is increasing in seriousness and frequency," and page 10 says that there is "already a higher density than is desirable in the park." How then can you reasonably or rationally argue that increasing the traffic flow into the park to get to the Chamber's new building will promote the welfare of the ccmmunity? On the January 20 memo Mr. Nash also states that to justify a "conditional rezoning" a rational ccnprehensive planning process must have taken place vdiich "logically led to the need for the rezoning." We have not yet seen any need to rezone the Bowman lot \^ch serves the public welfare. The only need involved is the need of the ^ Chamber of Conmerce. In other words the only person to benefit is the single property owner and by definition this means that such rezoning is spot zoning and that's illegal. The Full Environmental Assessment Form filled out by the Town Planning Department argues that there is a ccmmunity need for rezoning because of "the desirability and benefits of encouraging public access to lands near Cayuga Lake adjoining Stewart Park in the East Shore neighborhood." What possible public benefit is involved by encouraging public access to lands near Cayuga Lake? Especially when the tiny lot involved is directly next to a public park which is directly on the lake. With all due respect, that EAF statement just doesn't make sense. The Town Planning EAF gives as further reason for a need to rezone the lot "the benefits of complimenting adjacent public land uses with the quasi-piablic land uses proposed." How in heaven's name is Stewart Park going to be "catplimented" by having a business organization set up next to it viiich is going to markedly increase the traffic entering the park? Stewart Park is not going to be helped by this rezoning, it is going to be hurt. The vegetative growth v^ich now protects the park from Route 34 is going to be cut down. The Chamber sees this as an inprovement! The fact that they see removing a green vegetative barrier v^ich screens the noise and traffic on Route 34 as an improvonent worries us about all their mtn other reassurances about their proposed building. The Youth Bureau will not be helped by placing directly next to it the parking lot and access road to the Chamber buildings. In fact seme of us think it is irresponsible planning to direct such a large increase in traffic (up to 81 vehicles per hour) so near to a building and grounds to v^ich the children in the ccmmunity are invited to congregate. Rezoning v^ch is conditional on bringing fH Town Board 38 February 8, 1988 such an increase in hazards to the children of the ccaiiiiunity is not in our opinion "for the general public welfare of the camtunity." This rezoning is against the welfare of Stewart Park. It is against the welfare of the Youth Bureau and the children who go th^e. And it is against the welfare of the iinmediate residential neighbors. For the sake of the general welfare this rezoning should be denied by you. rr And finally, we think it iirportant to remind you again that the conditions of this rezoning are out of your control and out of your municipality. If the City decides not to grant a license or not to renew a license, you will be stuck with this rezoning. The wording of yaor ordinance seems to promise the Chamber that you will make it workable for them no matter vtot. You know that there is no other convenient parking available. Or at least we have been led to believe that is true. You know the Bowman lot is too small for the parking and access needs of the Chamber. But your ordinance reads that both of these apparent impossibilities will be considered by you if the City doesn't license the park land to the Chamber. We don't think the public can be blamed for wondering what is going on here." Ms. Higgins went on to say that finally, it seems to her that there are four separate items \(^ich added together make up a very significant total to weigh on the side of rejecting this proposed rezoning. Those items are the statement made by Jon Meigs, City Planner of the October Town Planning meeting at which he said he was not aware of any Comprehensive Plan for the Stewart Park area and at vdiich he said the proposed rezoning would change the character of the area and that it would not be a change for the better. The second item is the statement of the Ithaca City Planning and Development Board read to you tonight viiich clearly says that they think this rezoning would be undesirable and would ' bring changes incompatable with the recreational uses near by. Three, the January 20th memorandimi from the City Attorney to the City Planning and Development Committee, from v^ich she has quoted, vdiich makes clear to us that your proposed rezoning does not fulfill the necessary requirement of being for the public welfare. And four, the fact that irtportant conditions attached to your ordinance are outside of your control and outside of you municipality. Stuart Lewis stated that he was a downtown retailer working on the Ccmmons also working very actively on this ChairiDer project for the new building. He stated that he was very troubled emotionally over this project in the last week and he stated that he would tell the Board why. He stated that he had been watching very very interestingly the Wegman project on Meadow Street. Wegman's, v^oever they are, they are retailers, are a hugh conglomerate that comes into our conmunity with power. Power is a big store, big advertising, tremendous promotions, etc., it will be great for the consumer v^o wants to buy a couple of quarts of milk and a head of lettace but it won't be so good for the smaller retailer who is down the road or up on the hill v^o will get squeezed a little bit. And yet we don't seem, in this community, to be too concerned about that kind of growth, v^at we seem to be concerned about right now is this project which if anything isn't going to hurt anybody at all. And that's vhat flustrates him. Why do we seem some how to put our priorities in such funny areas? Mr. Lewis went on to say that he wanted to pick up a couple of things Ms. Darlington said, "I'm a retailer downtown and why would I want to have that project there v^en I'm a downtowner"? You don't draw people away with this project, in fact you draw people to our community. This project is based upon quality tourism. 98 Town Board 39 February 8, 1988 There is vdiat we call poor tourism, like you have in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. Here we have quality tourism, the kind of people that cone here are confused right now, they don't know how to get off the highway, don't know v^ere they are, viien they get here they don't v^ere to go. They are basically confused. That's basically the reason we want to locate our building from Court Street to that area. We must be adjacent to a main highway. We are not bringing people into the park, as you keep reminding us, you keep hairaiering that point through, we are not dragging people into the park. Very siitply put he said, here is what he visualized was going to happen at this building. This is the reality of it as it happens. Mr. and Mrs. Smith pull in, may be they are with a child or not, they pull into this area and go into the building. As the article in the Grapevine had it this weekend v^ch he felt was very poorly written, they refer to a section there called "the chamber will have an auditorium", we are not having an auditorium in that building. We have a small part of a room that is going to show a quality video presentation of our ccmmunity. He went on to say, Mr. and Mrs. Smith get out of their car. They walk into there and say excuse me we are lost. We are here to see Ithaca College or Cornell or we are here to see the Finger Lakes. Somebody gives them the brochures, they direct them to a hotel, so the people will stay here. We don't want people driving into Coming, v^at they are doing now and then day tripping back here. We are really putting people in this area v^ch is really replacing this run down building v^ich is down there now and next door Leo Wells has two very bad run down properties, we are not taking anything beautiful away and putting sanething there that's ugly. We are not doing anything wrong at all. He went on to say that it brothers him to think that people are attacking this project that is doing something very caring for the ccmmunity. We are not driving people into the park in mass. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have gotten out of their car, they are there for sane infonnation and the little youngster tugs at his mother's arm and say, Mem I'm hungry and she responds ! we are going to eat in a few minutes. May be an attendant might say, excuse me but if you are hungry vhy don't you take your lunch and go over in the park and sit on a park bench and watch the lake. There is nothing wrong with that, that's is exactly vdiat this cotmunity is all about. He stated that he wanted to share that with other people who come in here. He was not worried about the kind of people v^o ccme in here and throw their papers down and ruin our corraunity and ruin our vegetation and ruin this and ruin that. What he was concerned about on the other side of the fence was the fact that in this ccmmunity alone, we are very lucky with vdiat we have here with the two large universities that unfortunately they don't pick up their share of the taxes is that we are at a $50.00 per thousand tax level in this community. We need seme help with getting seme sales tax dollars, we need it badly because if we don't you are going to have a lot of problems in the next forthcoming years. You are going to find hugh taxpayer groups getting up and attacking these jurisdictions for what they are doing tax wise. They can't help it they are strapped. We are at a crossroads here with this situation, it's time we really looked at the futxire of our community. He stated that he did not particularly want a large, hugh conglomerate coming here anymore than you do. We are all pretty much alike. He went on to say that v^at he did want to see was to do something and if you do, do it appropriately, bring in quality type of tourism. We have some beautiful things to show the people, there is nothing wrong with sharing them as long as people know vbo is to take care of them and protect them and that is vbat our project is all about. We will direct people to the right hotel, we will direct them how to get to the universities, we direct them properly how to go down and see the Commons and if they want, we will direct them to Pyramid Mall. We will direct than properly, they will spend some quality time here and leave something quality behind, that's what this is all 88 Town Board 40 February 8, 1988 about, its not to ruin this ccmmunity. He then thanked the Board for listening, David Ruether, 1189 East Shore Drive stated that one of the conments he had was about traffic. Right now you have a situation where Route 13 cones in and joins Route 34 v^ich is a very busy pair of roads and they join with a very avkward little curved thing with an intersection at each end. We are proposing here to add traffic to the middle of that little curve. As it is now, viien he * leaves Stewart Park or get off Route 13 to go up East Shore Drive he has a terrible time making a left hand turn onto East Shore Drive, it blind coning down the hill around the curve and its difficult coning the other end because of so many trying to make left hand turns onto the road and then to keep track of all of the left turners as you are looking around the curve and down the hill. Adding traffic at this point is not a good idea. He stated that he believed there should be a good tourist stand there to pass out the information to show v^t we have but may be that is what we ought to have is a developed tourist stand there that people can find easily off these main routes but still keep the Chamber of Ccmnerce elsevdiere. As no one else present wished to speak, Supearvisor Desch declared the public hearing closed, Councilwonan Raffensperger stated that she had a telephone call this afternoon frcsn Dooley Kiefer v^o is ill and is not able to attend, Ms, Kiefer asked Coimcilwcman Raffensperger to raise seme questions which she stated she had talked to the Town Planner about because she was not sure that she understood the complexity of these questions, Ms, Kiefer stated that she had talked to Jack Naska at DEC today, vdio says that he told her that we cannot particularly in our SEQR determinations condition what we do on action by any other board, not by a board from another municipality but even including not a board of our own. For example, the Planning Board or the ZBA, She stated that she had passed this information on to Susan Beeners as soon as she got it with the name of the person who had said this and the telephone number. She went on to say that she was not only concerned with this type of an interpretation for this project but that she looks back and think about others, so she felt we desperately need to clarify these regulations and she hoped that either Susan Beeners or John Barney can give the Board seme guidance, Ttown Attorney John Barney replied, we attenpted to reach Mr, Naska and he had left for the day. Supervisor Desch asked if he was the attorney or is he a staff member? Town Attorney Barney replied that he did not know \ftot he was. It's interesting, he felt, because he felt that anybody v^o reads these regulations, if five people read them you get five different opinions. He may be in a position to know or at least be in a position v^ere he is dealing with these on a more day to day basis than we are. He went on to say that he looked through to see what a conditional negative declaration may or may not say. The regulations are very, very loose. They spell out that the process ^ for doing the conditioned negative declaration but they don't really define vhat it may contain and vhat it may not contain and indeed vhen they did a generic impact statement on these regulations themselves, they were scmevhat all over the lot. One of the suggestions made was that there would be a list provided of vhat could be in a conditioned negative declaration. That was rejected by the Department of Environmental Conservation vhen they put the regulations in. He went on to say that he was not going to 06 Town Board 41 February 8, 1988 sit here and tell you that he can define precisely vtet can and what cannot be in here, and he did not feel anybody could today. He felt it was going to wait an on going process of perhaps litigation and a court decision \^ch will interpret both the underlining statue and the regulations. He then asked, what is the thrust of the vdiole environmental process here about? Why are we doing it? The main reason is to bring to the fore front, \^en you are considering seme action, and to bring it to you at the earliest stage possible v^at could be possible environmental effects of the ^ proposed actions. So on the one hand we are asked as a Board to review the environmental materials very early on in a process vdiich, as is this, sonetimes is a two or three step process. It comes to the Town Board for action, then goes back to the Planning Board for action, and sometimes with recommendations from the Planning Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals. But you are asked by the law and by the regulations to make a determination on the environmental aspects of the matter very early on and before, in some instances, the other Board has acted and indeed has had an opportunity to act. Again in this case, normally we would refer the actual detailed site plan review process back to the Planning Board as this is what they are established for and to v^iom we delegate these kinds of things. In getting back to Mr. Naska's comment, he may be right, he may be wrong, there is no court that says he is right there is no court that says he is wrong. But he felt that in the way the environmental system is set up, this Board has viewed this particular project up one side, down the other side and across. He felt that if there has not been literal and absolute conpliance with the environmental requirements here there has certainly been conpliance completely in terms of the spirit of the process of \idiat is going on. Any action that you take is always subject to possible appeal to the courts. There are issues with this particular project which we have talked about over the months here that could generate court proceedings. He stated that in terms of the conditional negative declaration he did not think ^ there was a clear cut rule that says you cannot irtpose a condition what requires an affiliated Board to do its job and that's basically vhat was done here, the Town Board is saying its conditional on the Planning Board's approval of the site plan. Supervisor Desch remarked, but in effect the local law is vhat has the teeth in it to make the conditions happen anyway. The environmental review process cannot be expected to be the enforcement mechanism that makes it happen. That's another way of answering that question, he could very well have said that no you cannot count on the declaration vhether it be negative or positive to provide the legislation that you must have to make the conditions enforceable, that's vhere the local law ccmes in. Councilworoan Raffensperger stated that she would like to make just one other ccmment, because she felt scmev^t responsible for scmething that has happened with this vdiole project that is being severely critized and that is the spot zoning Icind of thing. She went on to say that v^en this proposal first came to us, the proposal was for a much wider rezoning to allow an area that would be ccramercial and she stated that she was very much concerned about the environmental impact of that in that area and that the Board had worked rather haird to make sure that this wider area would not be rezoned with uncertain uses but that we only rezoned the small parcel that we were very confident we knew v^iat was going to happ^ on. She went on to say that because she was very much involved in I this she felt obligated to say that she did not think this was spot zoning in the negative sense one that one usually discusses it. Town Attorney Barney remarking about the letter from Ralph Nash noted that Mr. Nash is rendering his opinion to his group and that he was rendering his opinion to his client, but he did notice in )' <1 Town Board 42 February 8, 1988 Mr. Nash's letter that with reference to the spot zoning issue, Mr. Nash specifically says the courts have held that the zoning is not invalid for saying mearly because a single parcel is involved. He vmt on to say that it is important that the conraents that Ms. Higgins alluded to in this letter be taken in context of the entire letter. Supervisor Desch remarked, the other interesting point is that v^en the Youth Facility was being planned, as you know it was part of r*) the Town of Ithaca, and the City at that time convinced not only : I this Board but the Planning Board that the Youth Facility was consistent with the Ccnprehensive Plan of the Town of Ithaca so it's a little bit ironic that the City would, on the other hand, ^0^ with this project now that that's in the City say that this is inccnpatable with the Youth Facility. Councilman Cardman remarked that he could not understand the significance of this letter fron Susan Blumenthal is, dated today. If we would have gotten this letter three months ago it would seem to him to then have significance impact. They are telling us they don't support it. He then asked if someone could explain to him v^y? Granted he had not been part of this v^ole process, were we led to believe that the City supported this, this move, this idea? Councilman Bordoni asked if he could conment on this? Coiincilman Bordoni went on to say that he thought that in fact. Common Comcil the law making body of the City of Ithaca does support it. The Planning and Development Board is a lay board and they are not elected officials but they are the ones viio are against it, or so the letter would led you to believe. Town Planner Susan Beener remarked, in June of 1987, Cotimon Council endorsed the licensing subject to the review of the final site plan by the Department of Public Works. Then in around September, all n of the boards and committees including the Planning and Development i j Board were asked to comment on lead agency status. Since that time all of those boards have been apprised of every public hearing through the contact person, Jon Meigs and also the notifications that are given to the City Clerk. She went on to say that it was her opinion that there has been the opportunity all along for input from the City. Comcilwoman Leary replied that she thought, it was her impression, that the letter was sent imder the same assumption that a public hearing was held and that was that we hadn't voted on it until we voted on it and just because it comes at the last minute that doesn't make it less important or any less of an expression of the position of the Planning Board. Councilwcman Raffensperger stated that it occurred to her that the proper place for the Planning and Development Board in the City to have influenced this process was in the City before Common Council voted, before the Board of Public Works did this and we were notified of all of this action. She went on to say that she thought the Town Board had the right to assume that that kind of process had taken place. Evidently, now tonight we find out it did not. Councilwcman Leary remarked that the only other ccnment she would make is that she is glad that the Board has Stu Lewis' personal assurance that the tourists that will be coming in because of this will be quality tourist and not sleazy tourists. She went on to say that she did not know how he could guarantee this but she is reassurred. n Tcfwn Boaird 43 February 8, 1988 LCCAL LAW NO 2 - 1988 Motion by Councilman Bartholf; seconded by Councilman Bordoni, LOCAL LAW NO. 2 - 1988 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A 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. Article II, Section 2 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be and hereby is amended by adding to the permissible districts itonized in said section a district designated as "Special Land Use District No. 5." 2. The uses permitted in Special Land Use District No. 5 are: (a) Any use permitted in a R-15 residence district; (b) Professional offices for occupancy by non-profit entities (subject to the further provisions stated herein); and (c) Visitors information center or tourism center for the area, in either instance operated by a not-for-profit or municipal entity. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no uses shall be permitted if not pursuant to and consistent with a unified plan for the Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) as such is initially approved " by the Planning Board and subsequently amended with the approval of i I the Planning Board. 4. Any use in this district shall be governed by all of the requirenents, including parking, sideyards, setbacks, building coverage, accessory uses, and similar requirements (except for permitted occupancies vhich shall be only as set forth above) relating to an R-15 residence district. 5. In addition to the requirements and restrictions iitposed above there shall be no new construction in this Special Land Use District unless and until all of the requirements of this ordinance have been complied with and, in addition, the following requirements to the extent not required by other provision of this ordinance: (a) The exterior design, specifications, and plans for the buildings and other improvements to be constructed on the premises and the development of the grounds and construction of all outside facilities including lighting, drainage plans, landscaping, signage, and traffic circulation approved by the New York State Department of Transportation shall have been shown on a final site plan approved by the Planning Board. Anyn construction thereafter shall be in accordance with said ' site plan as finally approved. In determining vhether or I not to approve the site plan, in addition to the requirements set forth specifically relating to this Special Land Use District No.5, the Planning Board may enploy the same considerations it would employ in approving a site plan pursuant to Sections 46 and 78 of this ordinance. r Town Board 44 February 8, 1988 (b) Building permits shall be required for any construction, including construction of signs, walls, and outdoor lighting facilities. Such permits shall not be issued until the Planning Board has approved the design and specifications for any items for v^ich a building permit is sought. (c) Any construction for vdiich a permit is granted shall ccirply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. 6. In addition to the requirements and restrictions set forth above occupanby and use of the permises shall be further limited as follows: (a) No building permit shall be issued unless and until the City of Ithaca has granted a license to the owner of the property in the Special Land Use District authorizing the use of City lands for access and parking shown on the preliminary site plan sutinitted to the Town Board or, in the event such a license is not granted or if granted not renewed, no building permit shall be issued (or, if a building permit or certificate of occupancy has been issued it shall be revoked) until a revised plan shall be sutanrLtted to the Planning Board for their reccramendation to the Town Board and approved by the Town Board, such revised plan to show provisions for adequate parking at another location adjacent to the Special Land Use District or a modification of the proposed use of the Special Land Use District so that parking and access adequacy can be maintained within the district itself. (b) Once constructed, any building on the premises shall have no more than ten persons eiiployed in the building at any i one time. (c) No activities will be conducted in the Special Land Use District between the hours of 10:30 P.M., and 7:00 A.M. (d) No activities will be conducted in said Special Land Use District vrfiich will cause disturbing noise, odors, or glare to any adjacent landowners. 7. The area encorpassed and rezoned in accordance with this local law to Special Land Use District No. 5 is described on Schedule A to this local law. The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding such district at the location described. 8. In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the romining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of invalidity. 9. This law shall take effect 20 days after its adoption or the date it is filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, v^ichever is later. r SCHEDULE A ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tornpkins and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: Town Board 45 February 8, 1988 COiyiMElNCING at a point in the west line of East Shore Drive, State Route 34, at the northeast comer of preniises of the City of Ithaca (see Liber 204 Deeds, page 274); running thence northerly and along the westerly line of said East Shore Drive 60 feet to the southeast comer of lands of Leo M. Wells (379/410); thence westerly and along the southerly line of said Wells premises 264 feet to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly and parallel with the west line of East Shore Drive 60 feet to the north lands of the City of Ithaca afor said; thence easterly and along the north line of said City of Ithaca lands to the point or place of beginning. Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote. Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Coiancilman Bordoni Voting Aye Councilman Cardman Voting Aye Councilwcman Leary Voting Nay Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwcman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No. 2 - 1988 was thereupon declared duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINfiNCE OF THE TCWN OF ITHACA REGARDING RESTORATIC»t OF DAMAGED BUILDINGS Proof of posting and publication of a notice of a public hearing to consider a local law amending the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca regarding restoration of damaged buildings having been ^ presented by the Town Clerk, the Supervisor opened the public hearing. i I As no one present wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the Supervisor closed the public hearing. LOCAL LAW NO. 3 - 1988 Motion by Councilwcman Raffensperger; seconded by Councilman McPeak, A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA REGARDING RESTORATION OF DAMAGED BUILDINGS The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, be further amended as follows; 1. Section 56 of said Ordinance is amended to read as follows: "SECTION 56. Restoration. Nothing herein shall prevent the continued use and substantial restoration of a building damaged by fire, flood, earthquake, act of God, act of the « public enemy or catastrophe beyond the control of the Owner provided such restoration is ccnpleted within one year of the ' ' loss of the building and provided that the use of the building in the manner in which it was used prior to the loss is recaxmenced within one year. The time limit may be extended by the Board of ^^jpeals in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship." Town Board 46 February 8, 1988 2. This Local Law shall take effect twenty (20) days after its adoption or on the date it is filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, v^chever is later. Supervisor Desch called for a roll call vote. Councilman Bartholf Voting Aye Councilman Bordoni Voting Aye I j Councilman Cardman Voting Aye Councilwotian Leary Voting Aye Councilman McPeak Voting Aye Councilwoman Raffensperger Voting Aye Supervisor Desch Voting Aye Local Law No. 3 - 1988 was thereupon declared duly adopted. ADJGUENMEINT The meeting was duly adjourned.