Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2005-12-12REGULAR MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2005 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NY 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Report of Tompkins County Legislature - Tim Joseph 4. Report of City of Ithaca Common Council 5. Report of Fire Commission 6. 6:00 p.m. - Persons to be Heard and Board Comments 7. 6:15- Time Warner Public Access - Tom Dohney 8. Consider Setting Date for Town Board 2006 Organizational Meeting 9. Discussion of Board and Committee Appointments for 2006 10. Acknowledge Delivery of Adopted 2006 Budget 11. Consider Approval of Updated Zoning Map 12. Introduction and Discussion of Local Law Amending Zoning Law definition of "lot" 13. Consider Setting Public Hearing regarding Local Law Amending Zoning Law definition of "lot" 14. Discussion regarding Transportation Plan Sidewalk/Walkway Map 15. Consider Acceptance of Commercial Insurance 16. Consider Approving Closing of Capital Fund for South Hill Transmission Main 17. Introduction and Discussion of Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan 18. Approval of Revisions to Attendance at Sponsored Functions and Holiday Policy 19. Consent Agenda a. Town of Ithaca Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract M c. Bolton Point Abstract i 20. Report of Town Committees a. Agriculture Committee b. Agricultural Land Preservation Committee c. Board Policy and Protocol d. Capital Projects and Fiscal Planning Committee e. Codes and Ordinances Committee f. Ethics Committee g. Personnel Committee h. Public Works Committee i. Recreation and Human Services Committee - Discussion j. Records Management Advisory Board k. Safety Committee I. Transportation Committee 21. Intermunicipal Organizations a. Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization b. City/Town Trail Committee c. Joint Youth Commission d. Lake Source Data Sharing rn e. Pegasus Oversight Committee | ! f. Recreation Partnership g. Special Joint Committee (Sewer) h. Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 22. Report of Town Officials a. Town Clerk b. Highway Superintendent c. Director of Engineering d. Director of Planning e. Budget Officer f. Manager of Human Resources g. Network/Records Specialist h. Recreation and Youth Coordinator i. Attorney for the Town 23. Review of Correspondence a. 11/17/05 letter from G. Conneman re willingness to serve on Planning Board b. 11/22/05 letter from H. Ellsworth re willingness to serve on Zoning Board of Appeals c. 11/27/05 letter from F. Willcox III re willingness to serve as Planning Board Chair d. 11/18/05 letter from K. and 0. Beyenback re Hanshaw Road reconstruction e. 11/23/05 letter from NYS DOT re speed limit request on Penny Lane and Lois Lane f. 11/17/05 letter from NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation re Hayt's Corners Chapel and Schoolhouse g. 11/2/05 letter from Tompkins County Environmental Management Council re Model Wind Tower Ordinance h. 11/17/05 letter from Tompkins County Assessment re Real Property Tax Exemptions i. 11/10/05 letter from Time Warner re agreement with Comcast j. 11/30/05 letter from Tompkins County Planning re affordable housing k. 12/2/05 letter from Cornell Cooperative Extension re additions to existing agricultural districts 24. Consider closed session to receive legal advise regarding M. Bailey claim 25. Consider Adjournment December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, December 12, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York THOSE PRESENT: Supervisor Valentino; Councilwoman Grigorov; Councilman Lesser; Councilman Burbank; Councilwoman Gittelman; Councilman Engman; Councilman Stein. STAFF PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Al Carvill, Budget Officer; Judy Drake, Human Resources Manager; John Barney, Attorney for the Town. OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Joseph, Tompkins County Legislature; Robin Korherr, Common Council; Bob Romanowski, Fire Commission; John Gutenberger, Cornell University; Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. and Supervisor Valentino led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3 - Report of the Tompkins County Legislature Tim Joseph appeared before the Board on behalf of the County Legislature and reported the following: There are 7 newly elected members of the County Legislature. There was an orientation session last Friday. There will be one new County Legislator representing the Town of Ithaca, Pam Mackasey. There was a County Public Safety Committee meeting earlier in the day with a full presentation of the emergency communication system. The resolutions authorizing signing of the contracts with Motorola, putting out the bids for tower construction, and approving the EIS will be coming before the Legislature on the 20**^. The Council of Governments idea that has been discussed is beginning to move along. There is a lunch of Supervisors and a couple of County Legislators scheduled for Wednesday to talk further about the idea. Mr. Joseph felt such an effort would need staff support, something neither the municipal officers nor the Intermunicipal cooperation group really have. Additionally, the existing Tioga County group has a level of trust that Mr. Joseph feels does not exist here. He thought the group would work on the issue of trust. One of the ways the group will be doing this is through reopening of the discussions on health insurance, something the Intermunicipal meetings had dropped. Mr. Joseph commented that after the meeting with Tioga County the group realized they had not gone about exploring health insurance options nearly as thoroughly as the Tioga County group. One of the reasons for that is lack of staff support. Mr. Joseph is looking forward to trying to move a Council of Governments ahead that actually does have staff support and is willing to contribute the County's share of that staff support. Supervisor Valentino stated she appreciated Mr. Joseph's comments and offer of support. She is waiting for copies of the Tioga County 1 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 group's bylaws. One of the things they do that is different from both of the municipal officers and Intermunicipal cooperation groups is that each municipal government appoints one person to serve on the Council. Most of the appointed representatives are the supervisors and mayors along with the chair of the county legislature. Mr. Joseph commented that Ms. Sweeney did not really know the particulars regarding voting seats because that was not really how the group worked. They talked about things and worked out issues, and who voted really didn't matter. Supervisor Valentino asked for questions from the Board. There were none. Agenda Item No. 4 - Report of Citv of Ithaca Common Council Ms. Korherr appeared before the Board on behalf of the Common Council and reported as follows: Last month the Common Council voted in a 40 million dollar budget with a roughly .5% increase in the tax rate. While it is a minimal increase in the tax rate, with assessment calculations figured in it's about 1.6 million dollars in new spending. What Council decided to do was basically follow the Mayor's directive and give departments an average 3% increase. There were two issues that came up during the budget discussion that may affect the Town of Ithaca. One is the amount that the City puts in towards TCAT. The City, as a somewhat equal partner to Cornell University and Tompkins County, were asked for an additional $200,00 in 2005 above what the City's partner share was, in 2006 they were asked for an additional $100,00. There was much discussion. At one point there was discussion about not approving the increase because the City felt that other municipalities that benefit from these transportation services could perhaps pay in towards the funds. In the end they decided that it was best to keep the newly non-profit organization as it was created and discuss other municipal sharing for the future. The other item was a municipal training officer for the Ithaca Fire Depart. It is desperately needed and would have made the 2006 budget but for one vote. However, it is not something that is going to go away. The volunteer and bunker programs are going to rely on it for the future. Supervisor Valentino reported she had spoken with Mayor Peterson about this and they are both feeling it stands a good chance of passing through Common Council next year. Ms. Korherr felt the mandated changes in inspections to begin prior to 2007 might bring it a bit quicker. At a recent Common Council meeting there was discussion of aggressive panhandling. One topic was what Constitutional Rights a person has when it comes to solicitation and the item was sent back to committee. Most of the aggressive panhandling problems exist on the Commons. It's being sent back to Committee to determine whether language needs to be established for the City as a whole or just specific to the Commons. Another issue is the exterior property maintenance ordinance that the City is trying to tighten up for pedestrian access and safety issues. Between the Building Department, Department of Public Works, and Ithaca Department they hope to have a program to enforce regulations requiring property owners to remove snow 24 hours after the beginning of snowfall. Each n December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January P, 2006 day that it is not removed is a separate citation. There is also a charge to the property owner to have the Department of Public Works remove the snow. Common Council voted to have the Mayor form a client committee to develop a vision for College Town. Over the next six months, the Mayor will appoint a client committee who will work on developing a vision. Common Council voted to accept requests for proposals for the 2 acres of undeveloped Inlet Island property. The Mayor will appoint a committee to review the RFPs when they come in. Lastly, Common Council voted to offer the owner of the property under the Green Street parking garage $850,00 for the land. The resolution stated that if the owner of the property does not accept the offer the City would proceed with condemnation and go through eminent domain to acquire the property. This was a contested vote: 7 for and 3 against. Supervisor Valentino asked for questions from the Board. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5 - Report of Fire Commission (Attachment #1 - written report) Bob Romanowski appeared before the Board on behalf of the Fire Commission and read his monthly report to the Board. Mr. Engman asked what is the primary reason for the payment of overtime. Mr. Romanowski told him it was response the extraordinary incidents that happen in 2005: emergency at Wal- Mart and 3 gorge rescues. OSHA has had a hand in increased costs requiring for every two people inside on a call there have got to be two people outside all set to go in case there is an emergency or something is needed. That is driving a lot of the overtime costs. If the Department had a larger volunteer force a lot of the overtime costs wouldn't happen because you would have sufficient personnel. Mr. Romanowski and the Board exchanged holiday wishes. Agenda Itenfi No, 6 - Persons to be Heard and Board Comments John Gutenberger, Cornell University Mr. Gutenberger appeared before the Board to present outgoing Board Members Carolyn Grigorov and Bill Lesser with a token of appreciation for their years of public service. Shared Service Agreements Councilwoman Gittelman asked that the Town send copies of our intermuncipal agreements to the Association of Towns who is wanting to compile a resource file of sample shared service agreements. Ms. Hunter said that she would send them copies. Hanshaw Road reconstruction project In response to questions from Councilman Stein, Supervisor Valentino stated that she had heard from Ed Marx. Tompkins County Planning, that the Town should make a decision by the end of January. She thought there were some questions about whether or not that was December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 true. Supervisor Valentino thought the Town still needs to get solid information from the County. To her knowledge the Town has not receive one piece of paper from the County that really outlines what they are proposing or planning to propose. Her suggestion would be that staff and herself and any one else who has questions get working with the County to get solid information including what it will be costing the Town. The Town also needs to work with Cayuga Heights. Mr. Walker is working on some costs estimates for what it would cost Cayuga Heights to complete their part of the walkway. Supervisor Valentino suggested devoting a block of time during the January 9*^ meeting to discussing the project. Alternatively, they could set a special meeting for the discussion. Councilman Stein felt the discussion should go through a committee stating he thought board meetings, particularly when there are public comments; it becomes not the right atmosphere for freewheeling discussion. There are a number of things Mr. Stein state he was unclear about and thought it ought to go through the Public Works Committee. If the Public Works Committee thinks the County and Cayuga Heights should come to a Board meeting that is fine. But first it ought to be filtered through Public Works or some other committee. Supervisor Valentino asked what other Board member thought. Councilwoman Grigorov stated they wanted to be sure they knew what the costs of the project are going to be. One reason it is vague is that they are still trying to adjust the design to what the town wants and what the neighbors want. One element, along with knowing what it is going to cost and exactly what it will be, is knowing the sentiment of the neighbors. Ms. Grigorov reminded the Board of the neighbors' petition, which was very negative. Then some people changed their mind, but the Town does not know how many or what the overwhelming resident sentiment is. Councilwoman Grigorov mentioned the possibility of canvassing the neighborhood, something that was done for a proposed lighting district. Responding to Mr. Stein's recommendation that the issue go back to the Public Works Committee, Supervisor Valentino reported that the Public Works Committee had discussed the project regarding whether the Town would pay for and maintain the walkway. The decision was that, yes, those are things that the Town can do. She did not feel returning the issue to that Committee at this point would be the most effective way. She supposed the Town Board could have a closed meeting to discuss the issue, but did not prefer that. Supervisor Valentino felt that whatever issues there were to talk about should be done in open discussion. All the people interested can hear what is said and share the information. Councilman Lesser endorsed the comments made by Ms. Grigorov stating that since the Board passed a resolution that talked about the sentiments of a majority of land owners he, if he were going to be on the Board, would like to know what that it. He thought that would involve resurveying the neighborhood. Supervisor Valentino asked how they would determine what the neighborhood is? Mr. Lesser believed the resolution stated adjacent landowners. Supervisor Valentino was not sure whether she would agree with just that being the neighborhood. Mr. Engman stated he has been very consistent since he has been on the Board saying all issues ought to go through a committee because that way it gets dealt with a little more thoroughly and more people get to know all the details. It seems to Mr. Engman that December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 regarding this issue there has been a whole bunch of disparate information and he thought a committee would help to focus the information and do some of the leg work to help get the information the Board needs to make a decision. Mr. Engman felt there are some very important decision that have to made such as how do you figure out what all of the potential users of a sidewalk in that area think about it. Mr. Engman did not feel it should be limited to the opinions of just those who live there. All of us who live in commuting neighborhoods have thousands of people going through our neighborhoods everyday and we can't control what goes through and we shouldn't have the ability through our own opinions to control that. Mr. Engman felt it was a very complicated situation and somebody needs to sit down and give it some really deep thought as to how the Town should go about collecting the needed information. A committee seemed reasonable to Mr. Engman, and one of the standing committees the most logical. Mr. Stein responding to earlier comments made by Supervisor Valentino stated he was a firm believer in decisions being made in public. Ms. Valentino told him she was not trying to infer that. Mr. Stein stated the question is how do you prepare for the public meeting at which the decision is made. Mr. Stein stated he was proposing that preliminary meetings involve Town Board Members as well as the staff. He thought there was no question that when a decision is made the information on which the decision is made has to be presented at a public meeting and everyone can hear and understand the information is on which the decision is being based, but in his experience you have to filter a little bit. You have to have conversations, which are little more informal so that you understand exactly what the information is and how to put it all together. He was proposing that be done at a standing committee meeting. Supervisor Valentino stated that was fine, if that is the way the Board wants to deal with it. She has no problem with that; the problem that she has is just what happened during the evening's meeting where Mr. Stein misunderstood what she said. She stated she would like to have the County Board people in the room with all of the Board so that they all hear what they are proposing. Mr. Stein stated he agreed with that. He was wanting a preliminary meeting at a committee level. Mr. Burbank asked for clarity regarding the time constraints. If the decision needs to be made within the month of January that dictates one procedure. If they have the ability to stretch the decision out over several months, he could imagine some other procedures. There are a number of complex issues. There is a question of trying to assess public opinion, both the property owners immediately affected and the larger community of users. Supervisor Valentino asked if there were members of the public wishing to address the Board. Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road (Attachment #2 - Materials regarding right-of- way issue) I'd like to make just one correction. Nobody that signed that petition was under the illusion that we were going to have to pay for the sidewalks. We were under the illusion, perhaps if it was an illusions, that we were going to have to maintain them, shovel the snow off, and that was the issue. At the cafeteria meeting, Dan stood up and explained that the County was perhaps going to take over that chore. So we all knew that. We all knew that when we were December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 down here on the 17^^ and some 20 people stood up and said no sidewalks. Nobody stood up in favor of them. Even knowing about the maintenance. The maintenance issue is one of the things, but it is not the only thing. I wanted to speak about the right-of-way. The problem that we're having with the right-of-way with the County. I brought this up on October 1 meeting down here. On October 19^^ there was a neighborhood walk through by the County and Fisher Association, Rich Brauer specifically. Because I wasn't satisfied with his answer, I sent a letter to Mr. John Woods, the County Attorney on the saying that we wished the County to stay off of our property beyond the 15 feet use right-of-way until such time as they clarified what their position was and I'll leave a copy of that letter with you. I've had no response to that. I did receive the green certified mail card back, that's all. I received no response from the County for the next 6 weeks until at 1:30 p.m. on December 7®' John Lampman sent me an email. This was Just 14 before their so called open house and he said that the State of New York had found conclusive proof of a 25 foot right-of-way in the 1906 plans. I called the DOT office in Syracuse, spoke to Mr. Flynn who is the supervisor of Mr. Young who was John Lampman's contact at 1:45 and he said the State had made no such determination and was not in a position to do that. At 6:00 I went out to the open house. Rich Bauer and John Lampman said the 1906 plans are irrelevant. So they lost their relevancy from conclusive proof to becoming completely irrelevant in a matter of Just a few hours. They said there i/i/as some more recent information they would send me. I haven't received a thing. Then they said, by the way you have a 25-fot right-of-way specified in your deed to your property. I told them no we didn't. They were rather insistent. On December 2ndh I sent them a copy of my deed. It does say there is a 25-foot right-of-way. It's a side easement, it is not the road. It has to do I with a shared driveway between our property and Petak's, Jim Henry, and probably Deb Cowan. So it's probably mentioned in 4 deeds, but it's not the road. What it says about the road is the property is subject to the rights of the public in and to that portion of the above- mentioned premises lying within the bounds of Hanshaw Road. No numbers. Since I didn't receive anything from Bauer, Fisher, the County, I looked it up on the source of all information, Google. Google gave me back this Department of Transportation ROW mapping procedures manual dated June 19^^ 2002. It says there's a Highway Law 189, I'll give you Just 3 brief quotes here: "All land which shall have been used by the public as a highway for a period of ten years or more shall be a highway with the same force and effect as if it had been duly laid out and recorded as a highway and the Town Highway Superintendent shall open up all highways to a width of at least 3 rods". That would be 25 feet. It's apparently the responsibility of the Town. It follows that the legislature did not intend section 189 to allow municipalities to deny property owner's Just compensation or due process while appropriating private property for public use. The 5 and 14*^ Amendment of the US Constitution prohibit the government taking such actions. Then the third thing and final is, in the opinion of the Attorney General, if the prescriptive use of the road has been limited to a width of less than 3 rods the municipality may not widen the road without either the consent of the abutting owners or by following due process and compensating the owners. I don't know what this is, but it's what the State uses to define their right-way-way r-< mapping ^ December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Agenda Item No. 7 - Time Warner Public Access (Attachment #3 - letter from Tom Dohnev) Tom Dohney appeared before the Board on behalf of Time Warner to discuss funding for public access. Mr. Doheny stated he had written letters to Supervisor Valentino, the City of Ithaca, and the Village of Cayuga Heights a few months back to start to address an issue stemming from the franchise agreement that went into place about two years ago. The issue that Mr. Dohney would like to address has to do with the Pegasus public access facility. Mr. Dohney told the Board that what was agreed to in the franchise was that the Town of Ithaca would contribute 14 a percent of their franchise fees to support the staffing of the facility. Of the 18 area municipalities served by Time Warner, they could only get three municipalities to contribute to staff support for the Pegasus facility. The contributors are the Town of Ithaca, the City of Ithaca, and the Village of Cayuga Heights. The City contract called for the creation of an Access Oversight Committee, of which Councilman Burbank is a member. Mr. Doheny has been trying to work through that committee to create a fee structure for people who are not in one of the three contributing municipalities to use the facility. Those efforts were unsuccessful and prompted Mr. Dohney to write the above-mentioned letter. The franchise agreement states that the participating municipalities can create a fee structure to allow other users in. To Mr. Dohney's thinking the spirit of the agreement was to relate the services with the costs of running the facility. Over the past two decades Time Warner has had the Pegasus facility open to all residents of Tompkins County. It has been mainly used for public access purposes; people from the public coming in to use the studio, make shows, and put show on the air. Mr. Dohney admitted disappointment that no more than three municipalities agreed to contribute 14 a percent of their franchise fee revenues. The Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, and Cayuga Height make up about 14 of the subscribers. The money contributed by the three municipalities over the last 4 quarters provided $38,000. The money is used to pay a staff person to man the Pegasus studio. Of the people who use the facility, about two- thirds of those people, or 93, are from the contributing municipalities. If you take the $38,000 and the 93 people, basically the three participating municipalities pay about $420 a year per person for use of the facility. Broken down into 12 months it comes to $35 per month. As a side note, Mr. Dohney reported one of the issues they deal with is that more than half of the people who come to the facility for training never produce any programming. Training takes up a lot of the staff person's time. There has been discussion of a training fee for all interested parties to help with the funding and an ongoing fee for the users who were not in one of the three municipalities. Mr. Dohney assured the Board that Time Warner was very, very interested in creating local programming. They think it benefits their company and is a good deterrent to competitors. User fees are very, very common. When Mr. Dohney wrote the above mentioned letter to the Town, City, and Village of Cayuga Heights he was planning to come before the Board to ask 9^ that they adopt a resolution to charge $35.00 per month to users outside the three contributing municipalities. That's what the Town is currently paying for their residents. While trying to work with the Access Oversight Committee to come up with an agreeable fee. Time Warner has been letting users from outside the three participating municipalities use the December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 studio free of charge. It's close to two years now and the committee has not been able to come up with anything. Mr. Dohney stated he was perfectly willing to stop allowing users from outside the three municipalities to use the facility. His original intent, however, was to come before the Board and ask them to support a $35.00 per month fee for users outside the participating municipalities. Mr. Stein asked what fraction of users come from municipalities that do not pay? Mr. Dohney told him it was about 1/3. Referring to a resolution that Mr. Burbank will be presenting on behalf of the Access Oversight Committee, Mr. Dohney felt that charging users outside the contributing municipalities less than is being paid by the Town, City, and Village for their residents to use the facility would not be in the best interests of the contributing municipalities' residents. Mr. Dohney asked the Board to consider a fee that is equitable to what the Town is paying for its own residents. Mr. Dohney admitted that this might limit the users. He also thought that if they create a fee that is equitable two things might happen. One is that the Time Warner staff member might be able to provide better service to the residents of the three participating municipalities. The other thing is the other 15 municipalities that don't participate might, over the term of the franchises, be convinced that this is a good thing to contribute to. Conversely, if there is less of a fee or no fee the other municipalities have no incentive to join the next time around. Mr. Dohney stated he was before the Board tonight to encourage them to institute a $35.00 per fee per month. The figure could be constantly adjusted to equitably reflect usage. Mr. Dohney stated he was interested in finding ways to create more programming and he would like to use the Pegasus staff person in different ways. For example, they have a live connection to Ithaca High School, but you never see a live basketball game. Mr. Engman commented that the Town had received a letter from Time Warner saying that they are going to become a publicly traded company and asked if that had anything to do with the type of change in policy that Mr. Dohney is suggesting? And is there a concern about the content of the programs that are produced independently? Mr. Dohney told him there was no connection between these two things. That was a business decision. Mr. Dohney asked to hear Mr. Burbank's proposal. Mr. Burbank thanked Mr. Dohney for appearing before the Board and mentioned a meeting on the 20*^^ with the Access Oversight Committee. Mr. Burbank hoped Mr. Dohney could appreciate how hard the committee struggled trying to address the need to create a system that would bring in additional revenue balanced with the reality that the pool of users tend to be frequently people of very modest means. The committee did not want to create an impediment that would be burdensome to those people who do not have the good fortune to live in the participating municipalities but who want to give of their time to produce shows for public access. One thing Mr. Burbank thought they should also understand is that the act of producing shows is not purely benefiting the people that are producing. In fact the goal in all of this is that they will produce programming that is potentially of interest to the larger community. We will have local things produced here that will reflect our communities. We 8 December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 are, in a sense, partnering with these people to produce stuff that will be on public access. It's not that they are the end beneficiaries. Mr. Burbank presented to both the Board and Mr. Dohney a proposal worked out by the Oversight Committee and adopted by the City of Ithaca. That proposal calls for an initial fee for first receiving training of $30.00 for individuals and $100.00 for organizations (up to 4 members) and both would include a six-month of membership. Current users would pay an ongoing membership of $20 for six months, $40 per year. Organizations (up to 4 members) could participate at the rate of $50 for every six months. Mr. Dohney commented that this proposal would charge people from outside the three municipalities less than the Town, City and Village are paying for their residents and he could not support that. Mr. Burbank noted that the source of the money was not tax dollars, but franchise fees. Supervisor Valentino commented that the money comes from all the residents within the Town who have cable service and are the Town's constituents. Mr. Burbank went on to say that Public Access was a service that is directly servicing users of cable; the people who have cable TV are paying for the ability to produce locally and in return are getting local programming. Supervisor Valentino agreed with that statement. Mr. Dohney stated that his initial reason for coming before the Board was to present the idea of $35 per month and offer to coordinate some dialogue amongst the three municipalities before they went to resolution. Obviously as is indicated by the proposed resolution offered by Mr. Burbank and adopted by the City, Time Warner and the Access Oversight Committee are far apart. In the franchise it says that the participating municipalities as a group will set the fees. The fact that the City has passed a resolution without the Town's input is not, to Mr. Dohney's thinking, right. Mr. Dohney stated he was willing to help broker a deal, whatever it is. He told the Board he felt very strongly that $35 a month is not exorbitant, and he thought it would go a long way towards solving the issue of people who come in for training and then disappear. Mr. Dohney stated he understood that the Oversight Committee wanted to get something in place before the beginning of next year when Time Warner will begin restricting the users. Councilwoman Grigorov questioned Mr. Dohney's remarks regarding fairness to the Town stating any increase fees is really extra income for Time Warner. It's a matter of how much you're going to get extra for the same things happening and it's nothing that particularly benefits the Town. Mr. Dohney responded stating that pursuant to the franchise agreement the fees are used for more staff. The reason it would benefit the Town of Ithaca residents is because there is only one person there so if you want to use the studio and you have another 1/3 of a person from Ulysses who's not paying that person is utilizing some of the resource that your are entitled to. Ms. Grigorov comment that what Town of Ithaca residents are paying is going to be the same no matter what and she could not quite see what difference it makes to the Town. Mr. Stein commented that $35.00 a month doesn't sound like so much, but $400.00 a year does. He stated he did not know anything about the people who will be affected, what they December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 are like and what their resources are, he asked if someone knew what fraction of these people would pay $400.00 per year. Mr. Dohney did not know, but stated it could be very low because the make up of the additional users could be people that just come because the facility is there. Mr. Stein asked wanted to know what the advantage to Time Warner would be if the fee was indeed a demand reducer? Mr. Dohney told him it didn't really matter to Time Warner because the fees are used to add support hours. Mr. Dohney stated he felt strongly that unless they did something to influence the other municipalities, seven years from now when they are negotiating another franchise not only will the municipalities have no interest in joining, Mr. Dohney felt Time Warner will have very little interest in continuing their support, something Mr. Dohney said concerned him deeply. Currently, Time Warner provides the studio facility, the building and the maintenance. The staff is paid for by the participating municipalities. Councilman Engman commented that it isn't just the people who produce the programs that benefit from this arrangement; it is all of the cable users. It doesn't make any difference to Mr. Engman whether the person comes from Danby or the City of Ithaca. If he can view their programming, he gets that benefit. He was not quite clear why the focus is on where the person is from. Another way of looking at it would be how many cable users are there in the 3 participating municipalities and how many cable users are there in the remaining municipalities and figure out what the cost would be based on that. Mr. Dohney told him the three participating municipalities make up about half of the subscribers and they make up about 2/3 of the users of the facilities. Supervisor Valentino asked what that was in a real number. Mr. Dohney told her 93. Councilman Lesser asked if Mr. Dohney had any idea how many people watch the public access station? No one knew for sure. Mr. Lesser stated he did not really understand why Time Warner really cares. It's very possible that our residents don't get the full value for their money, which is certainly an issue, but Mr. Lesser did not see why it was a Time Warner issue. He did not understand, if Mr. Dohney does not think our residents are getting full value for their 14 a percent of their fee, that Time Warner will want to withdraw their contribution or commitment to studio space and equipment. It was a bit puzzling to Mr. Lesser to see Mr. Dohney take this strong a position. Mr. Dohney stated that from his chair, the biggest point is that he has nothing to convince other municipalities to join in contributing. Mr. Dohney believed that if there were a fee people would go to their municipalities and ask them to contribute. Additionally, Town residents would get their fair share of staff attention. Ms. Gittelman stated that she had taken the course at the public access studio and made a show that was shown on TV. At that time there was more staff at the studio and she did not understand what happened that people got let go and how Time Warner use those people to make programs that would bring more people in. In answer to her first question, Mr. Dohney stated that since the 1980 franchise there were two cable acts that spelled out that if you were going to have a public access requirement the funding for that had to come from the franchise fees. Mr. Dohney stated that when they negotiated the current franchise they had « to come from providing everything to asking the municipalities to provide everything and Time | ! Warner settled in the middle. They provide the facility; the maintenance of the facility; the n 10 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 utilities, and the municipalities pay for the personnel. Because they only got three municipalities to contribute, they can only afford one person. Mr. Stein stated he was still confused regarding Time Warner's financial interest in this. Mr. Dohney stated they had not financial interest, really. Mr. Stein continued stating if Mr. Dohney really wants to get the other municipalities to chip in something but whatever they chip in won't go to Time Warner it will go to the staff and he asked what difference it makes to Mr. Dohney. Mr. Dohney stated he was not opposed to having more users and providing more staff that would provide more programming. What he is opposed to is having the person that the Town is paying for servicing people that aren't paying. Supervisor Valentino asked how many hours of programming time the 30 non-paying users are getting? Mr. Dohney did not know. Councilman Burbank thanked Mr. Dohney for coming before the Board. Mr. Burbank commended Lauren Stefanelli, Pegasus Coordinator, on her competence and stated he appreciated what Time Warner has done to keep her on staff. He was happy Mr. Dohney said that access to the building to put programming on is open to all County residents. Mr. Burbank continues to be dubious of the Town's ability to convince other municipalities to join as contributors. Mr. Dohney agreed but felt they would not have a leg to stand on in encouraging participation if their residents are let in for free. In Mr. Dohney's opinion on the ^ way to get someone to pay for use of a facility is to make it a nice one and he recommends restricting the users, have a fee that is equitable, and hope that it becomes attractive enough that the people who want to use the facility go back to their municipalities and ask them to contribute. Mr. Burbank stated that because of the pressure created by Mr. Dohney setting a deadline, the Oversight Committee has put forth a recommended fee. It is not the fee that Mr. Dohney would like, but Mr. Burbank asked that Mr. Dohney understand it was far more than the Committee would like. Mr. Dohney responded stating he was perfectly fine going into 2006 without a fee structure and thought it would be interesting to see what happens. He felt it might encourage users to go in front of their municipal boards and ask that they contribute. Mr. Burbank argued that it would be very burdensome and unfair. The Committee has, in good faith, attempted to come up with a fee structure and he encouraged the Town Board to embrace the one put forward by the Access Oversight Committee, and adopted by the City of Ithaca. Once Cayuga Heights has adopted a similar resolution, there will be a fee structure. Mr. Dohney stated he did not feel the fee structure Mr. Burbank is proposing is a good fee. It is too low. In response to questions from Councilman Stein, Mr. Dohney stated Time Warner was bound by federal law and did not have any decisions on program content. The Access Oversight Committee, however, is not. They are allowed to create community standards. One of the concerns of the Ithaca Cable Consortium was improving public access because they had a fl—< lot of shows that were offensive. 11 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Mr. Dohney apologized that discussion had gone on so long and told the Board that he had come to ask them to work together to create a fee that is equitable to what the Town is paying for its residents. That fee is $35/month. Councilwoman Grigorov commented that if the Board did pass the Oversight Committee's proposed resolution it would establish the precedent that there is a fee and then it could be adjusted as appropriate. Mr. Dohney stated he did not deny this and has already written to Dan Cogan asking him to consider amending what was passed by the City. Mr. Burbank stated that the impetus to pass anything comes from Mr. Dohney's decision to shut out people in the absence of a fee. Mr. Dohney stated that his and Lauren's decision to create a deadline follows two years of waiting for the Access Oversight Committee to come up with something reasonable and he did not feel that $50 a year is reasonable. Mr. Dohney stated, if the Board accepted his idea, he promised to work on "it" expeditiously and get a fee structure in place that is equitable. If the Board passes the Committee's recommendation Mr. Dohney stated he would be working to increase it. Mr. Dohney told the Board he would be meeting with the Access Oversight Committee on the 20^*^ and hopefully will be able to find a way to get back on the same page about some of the issue. Mr. Burbank explained that pursuant to the Time Warner contract they could prohibit people outside the contributing municipalities from having any use of the production facilities. Ms. Grigorov asked if Mr. Burbank felt the Committee and Time Warner could come up with an agreeable fee structure. Mr. Burbank thought, unfortunately, that Mr. Dohney's proposal HI represents a huge increase from free. Mr. Burbank felt certain that people who have been | using the facility would perceive even the fees the Committee is proposing as burdensome. Supervisor Valentino proposed that the Board consider the resolution adopted by the City with the understanding that the Committee and Mr. Dohney will continue their work of looking at the effects of the fees. Supervisor Valentino moved that the Town support the City of Ithaca's resolution on the fee structure outlined by Dan Cogan and encourage Time Warner and the Oversight Committee to analyze what happens with the fee structure and continue to try to strengthen the public access. Mr. Dohney asked for direction from the Board for the Access Oversight Committee. Specifically, Mr. Dohney wanted to know if the Board wanted the fee for outside users to be equitable to what the Town is paying for it's resident users. Supervisor Valentino was not sure she was "all that far down the road on that idea". She was, however, in favor of supporting the City's resolution and sending the committee and Time Warner back to keep analyzing things to make sure that we keep public access strong, whatever that takes. Mr. Burbank thought that, pursuant to the contract, the Town Board has to set the fees if they ! are going to be set. ' 12 December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Ms. Gittelman stated that the equitableness of the fee is one concept, but it would not make as much difference to Ms. Gittelman as knowing if you had an increase in fees this is what you would do and this is what you can't do because you don't have enough money because this is what it costs to do "thus and so". Mr. Dohney stated it is really not going to make too much of a difference. Currently the staff person is a 17 or 18-year employee so she has 5 weeks vacation so their first goal with fees is to be able to get some temporary help while she is on vacation. Neither of the proposed fee structures will make little difference. Councilman Stein thought it didn't matter what fee was written down he felt the non-feeing paying people would evaporate. Mr. Stein thought fees for organizations had got two functions: one is to keep out the people who aren't paying it. The other is to provide the revenue to provide services. His guess is that for this particular fee its major function Is going to be to keep out the people who aren't paying it at this point. Mr. Dohney agreed that would be a result. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -182: Resolution to Create PEGASYS Fees for Users from outside the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, and Village of Cavuga Heights. WHEREAS, the public access studio in Tompkins County, New York is funded by the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Cayuga Heights, referred to herein as the Participating Municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement between the City of Ithaca and Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership dated January 2003 contains the following language: "A usage fee for each separate use of access equipment and/or facilities shall be assessed to access users who do not reside in Participating Municipalities in Tompkins County. Such fees shall be established by the Participating Municipalities." and WHEREAS, the Access Oversight Committee (ADC), which includes representatives from all three Participating Municipalities, which oversees the public access operations, proposed the creation of a usage fee, and WHEREAS, in addition to satisfying the terms of the City franchise, a usage fee will bring in additional revenue to help in the funding of the public access studio, and WHEREAS, in the absence of a usage fee set by the Participating Municipalities, as of January 1, 2006 Time Warner will no longer allow users from non-participating municipalities to make use of the public access studio, and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca by resolution adopted December 7, 2005, adopted a usage fee schedule, and 13 December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca concurs with such fee schedule as set forth below, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following usage fee schedule for users of the public access studio who do not reside in a Participating Municipality: Initial Fee when first receiving training Individuals: $30 (includes 6-month membership) Organizations: $100 (includes training and 6-month membership for up to 4 users) The initial fee will only be charged to new users; current users will pay the ongoing fee: Ongoing membership fee Individuals: $20 every 6 months Organizations: $50 every 6 months (for up to 4 users). MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, abstain; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. Agenda Item No. 8 - Consider Setting a Date for the Town Board 2006 Organizational Meeting IB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -183: Setting Organizational Meeting BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold its organizational meeting at 215 N. Tioga Street in the City of Ithaca on the 9^*^ day of January, 2006 beginning at 5:30 p.m. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye Agenda item No. 9 - Discussion of Board and Committee Appointments 14 December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Supervisor Valentino brought the Board's attention to a list of existing committee appointments and upcoming vacancies that was circulated in their packets. She asked that Board members let her know which committees they would be interested in. Agenda Item No. 10 - Acknowledge Deliverv of Adopted 2006 Budget Board members received bound volumes of the 2006 Town of Ithaca Budget. Agenda item No. 11 - Consider Approval of Updated Zoning Map (Attachment #4- Revised Zoning Maol TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - 184 : APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF REVISED ZONING MAP (EFFECTIVE APRIL 1. 2004. REVISED DECEMBER 12. 20051 WHEREAS, a number of zoning changes have been enacted through local laws by the Town Board since the current official Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, including rezonings enacted by Local Law No. 4, 2004 (Overlook at West Hill, Trumansburg Road), Local Law No. 8, 2004 (Former Genex Office Site, Pine Tree Road), and Local Law No. 8, 2005 (South Hill Business Campus, Danby Road), and WHEREAS, a revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 12, 2005, has been prepared and presented to the Town Board for review, and WHEREAS, at the regular meeting on December 12, 2005, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Map referenced above, and WHEREAS, this action is a Type II action pursuant to Part 617.5 (c) (19) and (20) of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and Chapter 148 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca titled "Environmental Quality Review", thereby not being subject to further environmental review, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby determines that the revised Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 12, 2005, correctly incorporates changes made to the zoning since the current official Town of Ithaca Zoning Map (Effective April 1, 2004), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and accepts the revised Town of Ithaca Zoning Map, Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 12, 2005, and determines that such map shall be used as the official Town of Ithaca Zoning Map until superseded by further action of the Town Board, or until further modified by local law. MOVED: Councilwoman Grigorov SECONDED: Councilman Burbank 15 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. Agenda Item No. 12 - Introduction and Discussion of Local Law Amending Zoning Low definition of "lot" - (Attachment #5 - letter from John Barney and two draft local laws) The Board received a copy of the proposed law in their Board Packets. Mr. Barney referred to his December 6^*^ letter and explained that the Town has an ambiguity in the definition of "lot" in the zoning ordinance as it presently stands, particularly in a situation where there is a lot that is bisected by a public road and has never gone through a subdivision process. The objective of the proposed law is to clarify whether such a lot could be used as a lot without going through the formal subdivision process or whether it should be considered lumped with the property on the other side of the road and be required to go through subdivision process before it can be used. Mr. Barney submitted two local laws for Board consideration. One basically says if you have a de facto lot we don't require that lot to be formally subdivided. Obviously if it in turn is further broken up that goes through the subdivision process. The other says exactly the opposite. Whichever one you choose will be the one you set the public hearing for. Councilwoman Grigorov asked if Mr. Barney thought it matter at all about the size? Mr. Barney told here the Town has another section in the zoning ordinance, which deals with substandard lots that we are going to place at the time of the adoption of the ordinance and would presumably apply to this as well. If they are substandard you can build on them, but you must meet the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. For example, you have to meet the setback requirements; you have meet the front yard and back yard, height. So if you have a very small lot and you can't fit anything on it you're probably not going to be able to build on it anyway without getting some sort of major league variance. If it's almost a standard sized lot you probably will be able to build on it. Supervisor Valentino asked if, from the Planning Board and staffs perspective, is one more problematic than the other? Mr. Kanter told her "no", it is really that they need a clarification one way or the other, not that one is a better approach than the other. Mr. Engman asked if, for example, the smaller of the two on two sides of a road is really small, way to small to even think about putting a house, can you still put an auxiliary structure like a garage or storage shed on It? Mr. Barney told him it would depend upon how you treat it. If it's a separate lot, it's a principal lot then it has to have a principle building. You can sometimes have a principle building that is a shed, but more often than not they would be accessory buildings to a principal structure like a house. So the answer is probably not in most instances. It would depend a little bit on each individual circumstance. Mr. Engman asked for clarification of what you would not be able to do. Mr. Barney told him you would not be able to put a shed on as the only building on a small lot. Mr. Engman stated this was what concerned him about treating them as two separate lots because then it might drastically change the ability of the homeowner to use that smaller parcel for any useful purpose. Mr. Barney told him he was corrected, but on the 16 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 other hand if you have a de facto separated lot that is reasonably buildable you can't do anything on it until you go through the subdivision process. I Ms. Grigorov asked for verification that there was no difference between the two laws as to the person's use if they are not going to subdivide, if they don't want to put a house there, if they just want to put something like a garage. Mr. Barney replied stating if you treat it as a separate lot, garage is an accessory building. A garage alone on a lot is not permit in our Zoning Ordinance. Forgetting about this situation altogether if you had any perfectly subdivided lot that is perfectly legal you still can't put a garage on it unless you've got a building that that garage is an accessory building to. Councilman Lesser asked if the de facto decision that the Board makes is to treat this as two separate lots, would it be possible for the land owner to go through a process and have them united, merged into a single lot? Mr. Kanter told him that normally that process would simply be by requesting a consolidation through the department of assessment, which the Town does not interpret as needing to go through the Town's subdivision process. The problem is that there could be cases where they go back and forth. That did happen with the parcel in question. At one point in time it was joined with the parcel across the road, then at another point in time they asked the Assessment Department to split, it's kind of gone back and forth. Supervisor Valentino asked if one of the proposed local laws would clean that up? Mr. Barney told her no. Mr. Kanter stated that to the extent that if they are now two separate parcels, two tax parcels, and the owner requests a consolidation, if we went with the local law that would require subdivision approval to split it again, then it would have to come through the Planning Board to do that. If we went with the version that did not require subdivision approval, that considers them de facto, they could go back and forth as many times as they wanted. Mr. Barney added that the Town could draft a law that says exactly what you want to do, take one of these and add a provision. Mr. Lesser stated if you treated them as being separate and somebody purposely chose to combine them, then the Town could require a process to separate them once again. Once they're combined, they are not both combined and separated by the fact of the existence of the road. Ms. Gittelman stated if the road the bisects the lot, and the smaller lot is near someone else's property, the proposed local law says "it shall not be sold or transferred accept as one lot" so the people couldn't even get rid of it even though it was useful for nothing, even if someone next door said I wouldn't mind adding that little piece to my property. Mr. Barney told her it could be merged with or consolidated with an adjacent piece; the language doe not prohibit it. What could not happen is the adjacent owner could not acquire a fraction of the piece without going through the subdivision process. Mr. Engman asked if there were any tax implication from the perspective of the landowner. Mr. Walker told him generally it will. If you have two lots it probably would increase the property owner's assessment. Mr. Barney added that nothing in the proposed laws prohibit the property owner from consolidating for tax purposes. Tax purposes and zoning purposes don't necessarily have to follow. 17 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Mr. Lesser moved that the Board select the proposed law that treats the land as separate parcels, the second one. Ms. Valentino seconded the selection. There was no further discussion and the Board agreed to go with the law that treats the land as separate parcels. Agenda item No. 13 - Consider Setting Public Hearing regarding Local Law Amending Zoning Law definition of "lot" TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-185: Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider a Local Law Amending Chapter 270 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca entitled "Zoning" to Clarify the Definition of "Lot" RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hold a public hearing at the Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on the 9^'^ day of January, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local law amending Chapter 270 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca entitled "Zoning" to clarify the definition of "Lot"; and it is further RESOLVED, that at such time and place all persons interested in the proposed amendment may be heard concerning the same; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of such public hearing in the Ithaca Journal published in the City of Ithaca, Ithaca, New York, and to post a copy of same on the signboard of the Town of Ithaca, said publication and posting to occur not less than ten days before the designated above for the public hearing. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. Agenda Item No. 14- Discussion regarding Transportation Plan Sidewalk/Walkwav Plan (Attachment #6 - memo from Nicole Tedesco and Mr. Kanter presented the Board with the draft version of a map showing potential walkway locations throughout the Town. It was prepared by the Transportation Committee per the direction of the Town Board. The Transportation Committee has been discussing the map over the past three meetings and wanted to bring it to the Town Board for comments and suggestions so that it can be put into the Transportation Plan over the next month or two. Mr. Kanter referred the Board to a memo by Nicole Tedesco that was in their Board packets. The map is divided into short term and long-term priorities. The short term are intended to be over the next ten years whereas the longer term would be over a 20-year period. Mr. Kanter felt priorities would also be determined as opportunities arise. The process for determining how the map was put together involved a couple of steps. One was taking the interim 18 n December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 sidewalk policy that the Board adopted in 2003 and using the criteria to determine potential needs for connections. The second was to take an overlay of the trail corridors that had been recommended in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan because that helps to get a better overview of an entire walkable system in the Town. Finally, through the Committee discussions, the Committee came up with suggested prioritize locations based on things like severity of the need, estimated difficulty of construction and what role in terms of conductivity the segment might play in the overall system. On the lower right hand portion of the map, they have listed the criteria from the sidewalk policy, both for new and existing development, and then theSy summarized what those mean in terms of factors that might influence the pedestrian infrastructure, either supporting the need for the infrastructure or in some cases factors that might actually identify negatives about that infrastructure. Mr. Kanter highlighted some of the priorities that were shown on the map as follows: The West Hill segments are probably somewhat more conceptual in nature because this are is really less developed than other parts of the Town and really for the most part deal with long term recommendations. All of the ones on West Hill are really in the lower priority class. They are intended to provide future links into the Black Diamond Trail when that gets built and also to provide links from developing neighborhoods into the City sidewalk system. The South Hill segments, primarily circling around Ithaca College, are again longer- term implementation; accept for two very short segments. One on Route 96B and one on Coddington Road, which provide direct links from the edge of the campus into the City. For the most part, Mr. Kanter thought the Committee is going to be working with Ithaca College strongly recommending that the College provide other of the pedestrian links through their own campus. There could be future opportunities for additional walkways for instance on Route 96B and Coddington Road. Coddington Road is one that the Town is looking at with the County road plan in process. For the most part, those areas are serving the campus needs and it's a lot safer to provide direct links through the campus rather than on the external road system. East Ithaca is getting into more developed areas and the Committee does have several high priority segments that, primarily for safety reasons as well as providing important connections in the system, are recommended. One is the southern end of Pine Tree Road. The Town recently received a petition for a walkway on the western section of Honness Lane going from the East Ithaca Recreation Way west over to Route 79. Every resident along Honness Lane in that area, Mr. Kanter believed, signed the petition. The northern part of Pine Tree Road, north of East Hill Plaza, is that very small stretch that goes from Maple Avenue under the very constrained railroad bridge over to Route 366. Mr. Kanter thought that was going to be a very difficult one to figure out how to get through the railroad bridge, but right now it's a fairly unsafe situation. Forest Home is recommended at this point as a high priority area to look at in terms of the Forest Home traffic calming study. The Forest Home neighborhood is where a number of segments are identified as having potential walkways, but a lot of that depends on the completion of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Study and submission to the Town Board for 19 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 a close look at. There are a number of recommendations in that study, some of which may be easier to implement than others. The Northeast area which does include the Hanshaw Road area and the areas off of Salem Drive, Warren Road as well, the Committee is showing Hanshaw Road as a high priority area in conjunction with the County Road project connecting into the Cayuga Heights Sidewalk at Community Corners and at least out to Salem Drive. The segment east of Salem Drive is shown as a longer-term connection into Dryden and the future Monkey Run Trail if the Town Board decides that the eastern segment is not as high a priority as the west segment. Of course, all this is pending further determination as to what is going to happen with the Hanshaw Road project. Mr. Kanter wrapped up stating the Transportation Committee hopes to look further at costs of construction and maintenance with the proposed walkway system on a general level. They are not to get into engineering details of each specific pedestrian link, but want to give the public and the Board at least a pretty good idea of what costs would be involved. Recommendations at this point are very conceptual. Details on the actual type of walkway are decisions that would be up to the Town Board and other committees to look at as things are individually evaluated. Mr. Kanter provided a quick update on the schedule for the Transportation Plan, with Fisher Associates helping and most of the working being done in-house. The Committee hoped the draft recommendations would be ready by mid February. Shortly after that the Committee hopes to put together a complete version of the draft discussion plan document. The third and final public information meeting will hopefully happen in early March. This will be the last of the informal meetings on the plan. After that will be the formal adoption process by the Town Board. In response to questions from Councilwoman Gittelman regarding the Pine Tree Road area, Mr. Kanter explained that the map in front of the Board was a pedestrian infrastructure map. They have not gotten very far into the bicycle element of the plan. Mr. Kanter stated it is likely that they won't be able to get into a lot of detail on the bicycle element in order to complete the plan in the hoped-for time frame. They will probably be recommending that a whole separate bicycle element be done as a follow up. Supervisor Valentino commented that is strikes her that it is going to be very interesting in negotiations with the City because quite a few of the proposed paths really don't connect to the City sidewalk system yet. That is going to be something the Town is going to have to work on with the City. Mr. Engman commended the Transportation Committee on their work and had the following comments. He did not understand why there wouldn't be a priority put on, if there is to be a walkway at all on Hanshaw, it shouldn't go all the way out to Sapsucker Woods Road. His second comment was that he was really concerned about Overlook and its lack of connection to the City. From the beginning of that project, Mr. Engman has said there has got to be a way for children and others to get downtown because Route 96 is just too dangerous. It is dangerous because of the speed of the traffic, the nature of the road, and the steepness of 20 n December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 the road. He was a bit surprised that there is not a very high priority put on getting going on that. He felt something ought to be in place by the time the first residents move in and he felt there needs to be a sense of urgency about working on that. Mr. Lesser explained that they were listing the end of Hanshaw Road as a lower priority because when they walked up there they realized the sidewalk just stopped and it stopped on a really narrow road. Sapsucker Road is really quite narrow and it wasn't obvious that it was going anywhere, connecting with anything. Mr. Lesser felt the plans for the walkway were a little further developed than the similar dotted green lines show because of some initial proposals for development of multiple residency housing in the area. The dotted walkway would serve a couple of purposes: serve as an interior route for a number of additional residences, and as well it would keep people off of Sapsucker Woods Road for that distance recognizing that it is probably the safest way. Mr. Kanter further explained that what isn't development is the proposed Briarwood development of about 40 lots. The green dotted line is from the Park and Open Space Plan that showed a future link from Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary down through the developed area in the northeast, and then down through Cornell land, through the horse farm area and the golf course, over into campus. Mr. Kanter agreed with Mr. Engman that the first choice is, if the Town has the opportunity, to build the walkway on Hanshaw Road and if the Board decides that is what they should do, the first choice would be to build it along the whole length of Hanshaw. If that doesn't happen there is a potential connection over the future Parks and Recreations Plan bicycle/pedestrian part of the system. Supervisor Valentino asked about connection to the Monkey Run Trail. Mr. Burbank explained that the Monkey run would logically connect where they have extended "the yellow" out to Sapsucker. You could essentially turn right, go down Frieze Road. Mr. Burbank stated this is why some of the Board members thought it might not be completely unreasonable to put that portion of that path on the other side because the largest potential of future usage of the Monkey Run Trail. Mr. Lesser commented that concerning 79 (96) the Board could see from their priorities that the Committee looked for fairly near term origins and destinations and along that stretch, although it's certainly dangerous to walk on presently, it's not really very clear where the short term destinations are and it's certainly a considerable walk essentially from the hospital all the way downtown. The Committee thought that would be beyond what most people would be willing to do. And there is moderately good bus service along this route if one is seeking other means and doesn't have access to an automobile. Additionally, considering the distance it would be a fairly substantial cost. What the Committee tried to do is give higher priority to areas where we think we would get the most use for the least expense on the part of the Town. Mr. Burbank commented that someone who lives on the west side of Town and feels completely un-served by any of this, he encouraged the Town not to completely write this off into the far distant future. Supervisor Valentino agreed. Supervisor Valentino felt the plan was a great tool to begin the process and commented that when opportunity presents itself, such as a grant, if we have a plan in place the Town has 21 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 been fortunate so far to be able to move quickly on getting grants because we do have these kinds of plans in place. She commended the Transportation Committee on their work. Mr. Kanter told the Board they would like to put the map out for public comment at a February or early March meeting. Mr. Kanter invited Board members to forward comments on to himself, Councilman Lesser, or Nicole Tedesco. Agenda item No. 15-Consider Acceptance of Commercial Insurance The Town does requests for proposals for the agency every five years. The next request will happen in two years. The Town has the option to change their insurance carrier every year. The Town has been with Selective Insurance for the past five years and Ms. Drake told the Board the Town has a very good relationship with them. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -186: Approval of Commercial Insurance for 2006. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca has had Ithaca Agency for their commercial liability insurance company since January 1,1999; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager has reviewed the quote submitted by Ithaca Agency for the Town's insurance coverage for 2006; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager recommends continuing with Selective Insurance as the insurance carrier for the Town's Commercial Liability coverage and National Grange Mutual Insurance for the Grime coverage; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves Selective Insurance as the commercial insurance carrier for 2006 as quoted by Ithaca Agency at the quoted $114,585 plus an additional $2,780 for Crime (Bond) policy through National Grange Mutual Insurance. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. Agenda Item No. 16 - Consider Approving Closing of Capital Fund for South Hill Transmission Main TB RESOLUTiON NO. 2005 - 187: Approval of Giosure of South Hili Transmission Main Proiect 22 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 WHEREAS, all construction work has been completed on the South Hill Transmission main and all construction contracts have been closed, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that capital project H19, Phase II of the South Hill Water Trans shall be closed and the budget officer is directed to close the account. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Lesser VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. Agenda Item No. 17 - Introduction and Discussion of Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Attachment #7 - Executive Summarv) Mr. Walker distributed copies of the executive summary and directed the Board to the County website for the entire plan. FEMA has accepted the first draft of the plan without any major changes. Mr. Walker will be proposing a resolution at the January meeting to accept the plan _ as the Town's official plan. Mr. Walker told the Board one of the main reasons for doing the report is to be eligible for federal funds if there is a disaster. Mr. Walker told the Board that he would have a resolution for the Board at the January meeting. There is a CD of the plan on file if anyone would like a copy. Mr. Engman asked what the potential civil unrest was in Ulysses. Mr. Walker felt it was probably "mass gatherings" due to the fairgrounds. Agenda Item No. 18 - Approval of Revisions to Attendance at Sponsored Functions and Holidav Poncv Ms. Drake told the Board the policy changes have been through the Personnel Committee and Bolton Point's Personnel Committee. Councilman Lesser asked if this does not significantly affect attendance at the picnic or other functions, that this would be proposed as a permanent policy. Ms. Valentino told him the picnic is what the Town considers the major employee appreciation day and they would like to encourage employees to come. This is also the event that brings the Town staff and Highway crew together. Ms. Drake thought the major change is for the Christmas Eve and the New Years Eve time of actually being >2 day holidays, which they have "untechnically" been for years. Mr. Engman asked if he was correct in thinking that the draft-revised policy applies only to the employee appreciation picnic, not to the end of year luncheon and holiday party, and that those two have been removed totally. Ms. Drake told him that the year-end luncheon and ^ ) holiday part have been removed totally. He asked how they were dealt with. She told him they will become half-day holidays. 23 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - 188: Approval of Revisions to Attendance at Sponsored _ Functions and Holiday Policy. !\ WHEREAS, the Personnel Committee has reviewed and discussed "Attendance at Sponsored Functions" policy and how it relates to the "Holiday" policy in the Personnel Manual, as requested from staff; and WHEREAS, after discussion, the Personnel Committee recommends to the Town Board revisions to the "Attendance at Sponsored Functions" and "Holiday" policy for consideration (see attached); and WHEREAS, the proposed changes have been discussed with the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission and the Commission has approved the changes; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the revised "Attendance at Sponsored Functions" policy and "Holiday" policy for the Personnel Manual as recommended by the Personnel Committee; and be it further RESOLVED, the Human Resources Manager is directed to incorporate the revised policies into the Personnel Manual and provide copies to all the employees. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilwoman Grigorov VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. Agenda item No. 19 - Consent Agenda TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-189: Consent Agenda Items. BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. 24 i December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 IB RESOLUTiON NO. 2005- 189a : Town Board Minutes of November 10. 2005 and November 14. 2005 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has presented the minutes for Town Board Meetings held on November 10, 2005 and November 14, 2005 to the governing Town Board for their review and approval of filing; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the governing Town Board does hereby approve for filing the minutes for the meetings held November 10, 2005 and November 14, 2005 as presented at the December 12, 2005 board meeting. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. IB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-189b : Town of Ithaca Abstract WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1297 -1461 General Fund Townwide $100,679.09 General Fund Part Town $ 15,483.45 Highway Fund Part Town $ 26,160.91 Water Fund $17,492.72 Sewer Fund $9,401.99 Risk Retention Fund $145.32 Fire Protection Fund $205,472.02 Forest Home Lighting District $94.74 Glenside Lighting District $36.51 Renwick Heights Lighting District $52.67 Eastwood Commons Lighting District $132.01 Clover Lane Lighting District $14.68 Winner's Circle Lighting District $51.63 Burleigh Drive Lighting District $51.39 Westhaven Road Lighting District $155.20 25 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Coddinqton Road Lighting District $ 92.34 TOTAL: $375.516.67 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 189c: Bolton Point Abstract. WHEREAS, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and WHEREAS, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 698, 755-761, 767-837 Check Numbers: 8661, 8717-8718, 8720-8724, 8730-8800 Operating Fund $203,837.52 1998 SCADA Capital Project $ 6,866.15 2000 Bolton Road Project $ 2,534.14 2001 Backup Electrical Power $ 842.50 2002 Office Space Addition $ 22,147.09 2003 East Hill Water Tank Proiect $ 72.560.82 TOTAL $308.788.22 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye. 26 n December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 ^ Agenda Item No. 20 - Report of Town Committees Recreation of Human Services Committee Ms. Gittelman reported to the Board that as a new committee this board was not sure what it's direction was going to be. One of the main directions was trying to make the Town of Ithaca an entity for the people who live here. Ms. Gittelman referred the Board to Ms. Kirchgessner's monthly report. One of the things that has been done is to hire and involve a Town Historian. There is currently a history project being worked on by high school students using historical Town records. Ms. Hunter has submitted a grant application to encourage the residents of the Town of Ithaca to understand and access their town government and begin to get the schools involved. The Committee has also been looking at naming Town Parks and plans for Tutelo Park. There has also been discussion of a fee structure for use of future athletic fields. Board Policy and Protocol Committee Ms. Drake reported that the Committee would be sending the draft manual to the Board and there will be an item on the January agenda to discuss a special meeting to review the manual. Codes and Ordinances Committee The Codes and Ordinance Committee is sponsoring a public meeting at Town Hall on Thursday, December from 7:15 to 8:30 p.m. on the proposed conservation zone for the lake slopes area. It is meant to e an informal initial discussion. Notifications have been sent to all the affected landowners and adjacent neighbors. Special Joint Committee Ms. Valentino reported the organization has determined it does not seem that they need to meet every month. They will be getting a financial report monthly, but will probably be meeting every other month. There has been a recent emergency of bricks falling off of the walls of the digesters and are in the process of having some emergency repairs done. Mr. Walker reported they were not structural bricks, but part of a brick veneer over the insulation. It is not affecting the operation of the digester other than it might have to run a littler hard because it won't be quite as well insulated. Mr. Walker reported that Steams and Wheler has a plan for about $20,000 to put steel I-beams up and temporarily support the bricks. Mr. Walker questioned that and the Committee has jointly decided that there has got to be a much cheaper way to do something until the weather gets nicer in the spring when they can do a permanent fix. Because these are emergency repairs they do not have to go back to all the different Boards. Mr. Stein asked what caused the problem. Mr. Walker told him it was probably moisture forcing things out. Until they take some of the bricks down and look at some of the brick ties that were used they may not have bonded well to the brick or they might have failed. They really won't know until they take them all down. Agenda Item No. 22 - Report of Town Officials (Attachment #8 - monthlv reports) 27 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 Supervisor Valentino reported that the Building/Zoning Department changes have been _ transitioning smoothly. Mr. Walker agreed and stated his biggest loss was the resignation of " Kathryn Prybylski, Civil Engineer. He is hoping to fill her position by March. Hanshaw Road Councilman Lesser asked Attorney Barney about the law Mr. Hutchins cited earlier in the meeting. Attorney Barney did not think the gentleman was correct in his attempt to use a Town Highway Law provision on a County road. Councilman Engman commented that he once sued the County on the same basis and did not get anywhere. Attornev for the Town Attorney Barney informed the board that the property that they have been talking about in executive session will accept the Town's appraisal. Hanshaw Road Supervisor Valentino wanted to clarify what the Board would like to do about the Hanshaw Road discussions. Councilman Stein proposed that the discussion should go back to the Public Works Committee. Supervisor Valentino thought the Board should discuss Hanshaw Road as a whole. Councilman Stein stated he thought both things should happen, first in Public Works to collect and review the data and then bring the matter to the Town Board. Councilman Burbank reminded that Board that they needed to be aware of the timeframe and that should weigh in when considering whether to send it to committee. Mr. Walker explained that the County would like to get the final design done during summer 2006 so that utility work can begin fall 2006. The major highway construction would then start in 2007. The County has to receive approval from the State for the final project. The County is really concerned about the funding of the project and if they are not completed early in 2006, in front of the State for funding, the funding may not be there. Councilman Lesser added that the County is over budget and it is not clear what it will do to the schedule. Councilman Stein stated it was not clear to him when a committee of the Town Board could look into various issues surrounding the sidewalks. He thinks that it could be done in parallel and does not need to wait until the whole design is finished. Mr. Walker explained that the design has been basically completed. The County does have a final alignment, but he did not have a copy. Part of the over cost is the curb sections and the sections to reduce the space that the sidewalk would take. He does not have information on what the County feels the sidewalk will cost and what percentage the Town pays. Mr. Walker is also unsure if the State will accept the costs or if they will ask the Town to provide more money towards the cost. He has a meeting scheduled in the near future to talk about drainage issues. Mr. Stein felt these were the issues that needed to be discussed in a committee. Supervisor Valentino proposed setting a Public Works meeting and with Rich Brauer, John Lampman, Ed Marx. Regarding Cayuga Heights, Ms. Valentino reported that Mr. Walker is working up information for Cayuga Heights that they need to have before they can make a 28 December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 decision. Supervisor Valentino felt the Town needed to get a Public Works Committee Meeting set up soon with the important players from the County and get answers to their questions. She asked if that was agreeable to the Board. The Board discussed the availability of Ms. Gittelman and a possible meeting date. Ms. Gittelman stated she would like the meeting scheduled so that she could attend. The Board tentatively set Friday, January 13*^ at 8:00 a.m. at the Public Works Facility. Mr. Burbank felt the Board needed to find a way to assess the happiness level of both the adjacent residents and the larger community. Mr. Burbank commented that the Town Board passed a resolution saying that they would act on the basis of a majority of adjoining homeowners. Mr. Burbank saw no evidence that supports that level of support regarding the Hanshaw walkway. He stated the Board could decide to do it on another basis and say they are doing it despite the express wishes of the adjoining homeowners. Mr. Walker and Ms. Valentino reported they each had comments and responses that they could go through. Ms. Valentino reported that the majority of the comments from people in the neighborhood who say they want a walkway. Ms. Grigorov stated that those people have nothing to lose and did not think their vote should count as much as somebody who is going to lose their trees. With regard to the resolution under discussion, Mr. Engman stated that when he voted on the resolution he was thinking of Coddington Road because there the Town has the issue of some of the people wanted a walkway up to a certain point and then people did no want a walkway beyond that point. Mr. Engman stated that he was not even thinking of Hanshaw when he passed that resolution and does not feel bound by that even though he thought it was a very stupid thing for the Board to do. Mr. Stein commented that, stupid or not, the Board did adopt the resolution, he thought that they could change their minds, but they needed to find out what the answer is before doing it. He thought the Board should stop postulating what they thought each group of neighbors wanted. Either the Board should say they don't care what the neighbors say or they find out what the neighbors say and then maybe decide something else. Ms. Valentino stated that in the end the Board needed to decide what they thought was for the best overall good of the Town. The Board concurred. Agenda Item No. 24 -M. Bailev claim (Attachment #9 - Memo from Dan Walkert The Board received copies of the building permit forms in their packets and Mr. Walker distributed information on some of the expenses that the Town did incur on behalf of the Baileys. Supervisor Valentino asked if the Board was satisfied with the way the permits read? Mr. Engman reported that, as copied for the Board, his permit was incomplete. Mr. Walker provided him with the missing language. Mr. Stein asked whether inspections were carried out to make sure that the owner of the property has got full value or is it in the interests of the Town to make sure that there aren't a lot of violations. Mr. Walker stated that the purpose of the building inspection is to insure compliance with the New York State building code. Mr. Stein asked if it was in every instance or not? In answer, Mr. Walker read language from the Certificate of Occupancy as attached to these minutes. He stated what the Town is looking for is general compliance with the building code based on the plans. The Town is not there inspecting every nail being pounded 29 December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 in. It's a visual inspection. Mr. Stein asked if it would be appropriate to add that wording. Mr. _ Walker felt that was what the certificate of occupancy says. The Board discussed the | responsibility of the homeowner. Mr. Stein asked if it was true that while the inspectors cannot overlook something they see that is wrong, but it is not true that they have to see everything? Mr. Walker replied that on plumbing inspections the rule is that you don't cover something up without the inspector seeing it. There are many times when a contractor will go through and cover up some things and leave a part of it open and then the plumbing inspector has a choice of "I didn't see it all, dig it all up and do it again" and then they get the wrath of the homeowner on them, "you're costing me money and everything else" and they say, "well this looks pretty good, I guess we'll say this is okay". That happens. We have some contractors that push the envelope. Then we do a pressure test on it and if it doesn't leak it meets that part of the code. Mr. Stein stated he was not very happy that we're supposed to see all the plumbing stuff but then sometimes we don't. Mr. Lesser asked whether the purpose of the inspection is to protect the public and general public health and well being and not necessarily the investment being made by the individual homeowner. Mr. Walker told him it is not protecting the homeowner's investment. That is not the Town's job. The Town's job is to make sure the public is safe. Mr. Barney stated that the Town is not guaranteeing to the homeowner construction in accordance with the code, we are doing a check to see if it's constructed in accordance with the code and for us to take action if it is not. That does not translate to an obligation to the landowner to guarantee to the landowner. Mr. Lesser stated he understood what we are not doing, but thought what Mr. Stein was asking is what are we doing? Mr. Lesser asked if what we are doing is trying to verify broad general compliance. Mr. Barney added specific compliance on some elements. Mr. Engman thought that it needed to be stated in the building permit documents so that the homeowner when they come in understands that they can't have confidence in the Town's protecting their interests in this and I better make sure I'm ready to sue my contractor if something doesn't work. Mr. Engman felt that right now it seems to the homeowner that the Town is going to help them. He did not feel we should be giving them that assurance. Mr. Engman felt the wording needed to be changed. Referring to earlier in the discussion Mr. Stein felt that if the contractor covered something up then the contractor needed to be made to open it back up again. Mr. Stein wanted to know how many other examples there are of things that we say we will do and we don't do. Mr. Lesser commented that if a contractor chooses to cheat it would be very difficult to prevent them from doing it. Mr. Walker told the Board that the inspectors are now requiring things to be dug up if they have been buried. There have been some problems like this in the past and the Town has told Bolton Point that if they are going to inspect things for the Town it must be done properly. Supervisor Valentino felt Bolton Point should be made liable if they are failing to do everything that we've directed them to do. Mr. Lesser asked for confirmation that this is not going to happen today; it's not going to happen ever again. Ms. Supervisor told him hopefully not. Supervisor Valentino state her feeling about Ms. Bailey is that there isn't anything that the Town can do beyond what we have already done to help her. Adjournment 30 n December 12,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved January 9, 2006 On motion by Councilman Lesser, seconded by Councilman Stein, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tee-Ann Hunter Town Clerk Next meeting December 30, 2005 31 TSul^aJ d)/r XWCM j)£C^ Ci:>iWy •• J^'^' A'^/^/OdtOS^, /**\ ATTACHMENT jfl \ ^££47r/(/a SuPQtT f^rcJ6 i yT^e S^^a>&£T /u/^s ^c>^?/>7:tz> ^yT/'t£ CoO/OC/L /th v, t.^ 2-<3o5'. Tke /C£^/3-y/iZ^/> /^S yC^^-^^d>S£J> Sy JihAyc^ fi£.7tA^£A) ^ 4 y/tsT /^/AZcATt ATT^m^T TI /^£J/tzp A^7jeA///yaJ& C£^A/c€.je^ ^/^/l£/? Sy mc ^/5 . (Py£C^77/^£, C£^/3' A/y^u) /^jSoyecT- 7h /fpyo£oA,. , EAf^/jb/rv^'l 7S Pa^ (p6\//fy2cos'^ /s 7lH£ /aJo&£^S£ /pJ 7"%^ ScZ^^cT'/^e>^ ApAy £>y^^^/syc>iO/7y' y?^<s^sA?^s ajUJ> /l£c^&c7s 77^7^ £U&£e: T^/j- . CoOaJTy /WJ) /yi/jU/oz/HM y^€JM^s/^/7r£A ^5 Up'f PoAIAAttJC k>£A£ M£>p/£yczi7/c/0s kZ£££. /2> Hi^ops, y"i7A7U££^ 7^^77aJc /6 S£-//J& J^caJc S£^3^ A 73?SSl 77^4Jsr7?DfO /3 0>/ifyoX£77:£> rv ^^P/1£/L Z^spAT^ ' TTY/s ycMS C/-e£4AJ£j> ^y Sczls//c£,^a^7^^^ 9/P/CAi7/£>/CK5 7Z> 7¥£ A££ yOotd Ua)1>£jSmmy 7Z A^A/oT77f£^£CAf 77> PvA^s^ i^TT OS/^^- QPAfSfs -fSj/OAT/pPS - ^A££^(^dJT-Po CO£>AJ>^/^Sy4jy tOAL'MMT OPAaST-- hJy^l'HA/LTy9/Qo\/lT>€0 A ^2-jO Oo (SAaJT p/ACCJ^ Tc/Pi^SAfC SPi^ca77£>a£> .y3~YiAs S££7^ tTtyosfiZ)^ //o a TZpsTi^ As^^cy a^z^coaJT-^^aMat'^j^osa S)Arf£lY ^£.o77by0 ^ Q^a-P /AJs/iCGTTtM A/cub 3ez//^ y>£A^cAAy£l> &zJ peAAOAJAl y?^7£c7h^ £q>otf/iAA/7^ 73 /AJ^cyA£. MAA/y /i>Ayf^ASo/u>Aj££ A£U7> 7S> ptPE tVpJ£ Ob a, //U \/apJ72>A/^ pty^ 1 ' r ——- -X < . 7^A/^/a/C C^,iJ7^s^ /hAjZ> YIAAzpJt fA^/JJTY 77HS ^AAA/ST/nA^ p£A^/Oi>, ' \ December 12, 2005 Town Boatd MeetTLng ATTACHMENT '#2 ' B. Hutchins, Dec. 12,2005,1016 Han^awRd ^ ROW ISSUE - HANSHAW RD Brought Up at T.B. Meeting of Oct. 17 Oct. 19 neighborhood walk-through. Letter to (county) Jon Wood denying use of land, -no response except certified mail receipt No response from county until 1:30 PM Dec. 1 1906 Plans "Conclusive proof of 25' ROW" (John Lampman email) 1:45PM Phone to DOT - Mr. Flynn Syracuse -No such determination 6:00 at Open-House (Brauer/Lampman) -1906 Irrelevant ; -would send me more recent material ^ -25 foot ROW in my deed (!) Dec. 2 Not in deed 25 ft ROW is side easement probably mentioned in 3 or 4 deeds All the deed does say: subject to 1. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the above-mentioned premises lying within the bounds of Hanshaw Road. ^ NO MATERIAL FROM FISCHER AS PROMISED AT OPEN HOUSE, SO I FOUND: DOT ROW MAPPING PROCEDURE MANUAL June 19, 2002 http://www.dot.state.ny.us/design/survey/row/chap_04.pdf Highway Law Sect. 189 "All lands which shall have been used by the public as a highway for a period of ten years or more, shall be a highway, with the same force and effect as if it had been duly laid out and recorded as a highway, and the town [highway] superintendent shall open all such highways to the width of at least three rods, ("manual" pg 4-12) "The Legislature did not intend Section 189 to allow municipalities ; to deny property owners' just compensation nor due process ( while appropriating private property for public use. The fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit the government taking such actions, ("manual" pg 4-12) "In the opinion of the Attorney General, if the prescriptive use of the road has been limited to a width of less than three rods, the municipality may not widen the road without either the consent of the abutting owners or by following due process and compensating the owners, ("manual" pg 4-13) {1962,1995 and 1999 opinions of A.G.} 1016 Hanshaw Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Oct, 19,2005 Mr. Jonathan Wood Tompkins County Attorney 125 E. Court St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Wood: In connection with proposed work in rehabilitating Hanshaw Road between Sapsucker Woods Road and the Cayuga Heights Village Line, Tompkins County (as represented by Mr. John Lampman of your highway department and Mr. IWchard Brauer of Fisher Associates, Rochester) maintains that the county has a right-of-way (ROW) over our property at 1016 Hanshaw Road beginning at the center line of Hanshaw Road and extending for a width of 25 feet to the north. As of this writing, we have not been provided with any written proof of this ROW or easement. To the contrary, it has been suggested that no written documents granting the ROW can be located, and may never have existed, and that the coimty would claim a "use easement." This letter is first of all a request for the county to provide a copy of any written easement concerning this matter, and failing to do that, to provide information as to what sort of search (if any) for the document has been made, and why it has failed. At the Monday (Oct. 17,2005) meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, concerning sidewalks on Hanshaw, Supervisor Valentino and attorney John Barney felt that die county needed to dig into its file cabinets a bit more, and said they would so inform the county. If you can claim only a "use easement" then we would need at least a letter stating that you do claim this, and the basis for claiming it was 25 feet. The actual use at my location is just 15 feet (the road plus the shoulder). There is no ditch or anything beyond that, except as I maintain my own property. Any such figure as 25 feet is arbitrarv. just the "county standard" and unsupported by the evidence on the ground. In fact, the evidence on the ground is counter indicating, as old trees are growing, presumably planted intentionally, adverselv to anv use bv the public, and never challenged. By this letter we deny Tompkins County any rights to bur property further than 15 feet firom the centerline, imtil such time as you are able to provide written proof of a wider easement, or imtil the county negotiates a satisfactory easement agreement with us, or until you state your position completely and in writing (addressing ^ my concems above). General verbal statements by the highway department and/or its consultants are of course insufficient. Sincerely, Bemard Hutchins December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting pir'"~"T~4TT.AeHMEIftt€3 W J l ^ TIME WARNER V CABLE ■piji 1) i'#S I! ■~fll!i jlNOV.IilMo I IB irl ATTE^i ITHAC(A''TOftfyrciIE!W" Via Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested November 10,2005 Supervisor Catherine Valentino Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Supervisor Valentino: I am writing as part of our ongoing efforts to keep you apprised of developments involving your local cable system. As you know, an affiliate of Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWCI") operates a cable television system in your community (the "System") and does business as Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of, and controlled by, Time Warner Inc. ("TWI"). As you may have read, TWI recently entered into an agreement with Comcast to redeem Comcast's interests in TWCI and an affiliate, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., that are currently held in FCC-mandated trusts pending divestiture (the "Transaction"). Upon completion of the Transaction, TWCI will become a publicly-traded company. The Transaction will have absolutely no impact on the System and its operations or local management. In particular: TWCI will become a publicly-traded company, with TWI owning stock representing approximately 84% of the equity in Time Warner Cable and 90% of the voting power. The remaining 16% of the equity will be held by public shareholders. • There will be no transfer of the System, or any applicable local franchise, which will continue to be held by the same affiliate of Time Warner Cable. • The local management and staff will remain the same. • There will be no change in control. TWCI will continue to be solely and exclusively responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the System, and T'M will continue to hold ultimate control of TV/CI. • There will be no change in our commitment to provide our customers with the best in programming choices and customer service at a competitive rate. • This Transaction will have absolutely no impact on our business policies or practices. • Local management will continue to report to the same executives of Time Warner Cable. This Transaction does not require any action on your part. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. We certainly value the fine relationship we have with your community. Very truly yours. Maiy Cotter President, Syracuse Division 6005 Fair Lakes Road East Syracuse, NY 13057 • P.O. Box 4733 Syracuse, NY 13221 Tel 315.634.6200 Fax 315.463.6584 AGE"DA?^11 nf Mlvsses Ithaca mM-i 1—Irnrllz rrP " i' n 1 II M 1 irt-rraxn:: Town of Newfield Town of Ithaca Zoning Map 12/12/06 Attachment 4 (Effective April 1, 2004, Revised December 12, 2005) 0.5 A N Lakefront Residential (LR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) High Density Residential (HDR) Mobile Home Park (MHP) Multiple Residence (MR) Vehicle Fuel and Repair (VFR) Office Park Commercial (OPC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Community Commercial (CC) Lakefront Commercial (LC) Agricultural (AG) Conservation (C) Planned Development Zones (P) Light Industrial (LI) Industrial (I) Cayuga Lake 0 0.5 1 Miles Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 TE: Refer also to Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and to 'n Board local laws and ordinances rezoning certain areas additional Information on specific boundaries. fficial signatures below certify this map as the Official Zoning if the Town of Ithaca, effective April 1, 2004, adopted by the Board by Resolution No. 195 on December 8, 2003, and id December 12, 2005, by Town Board Resolution No. . rine Valentino, Town Supervisor nn Hunter, Town Clerk December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #5 A€ENDA#13 BARNEY, GROSSMAN, DUBOW & MARCUS f* Attorneys at law SENECA BUILDING WEST r- RA»«,rv SUITE 400C. BARNEY FACSIMIUB P-i BR G. Grossman ^9 EAST SENECA STREET (607) 272-6806 David A. dubow ITHACA, NEW YORK I4850 (not for service of papers) Randall B. Marcus JONATHAN A. Orkin (607) 273-6841 Kevin a. Jones December 6,2005 Honorable Catherine Valentino and Members of the Town Board r of the Town of Ithaca Ladies & Gentlemen: In the course of reviewing a building permit application recently, an issue arose as to whether a parcel of land that had a road running throu^ it was one or two lots. Historically, the parcel had been treated as one lot for real estate taxation purposes, but a couple of years ago, the Assessment Office, presumably at the request of the parcel owner, had assigned separate tax parcel numbers to the lot Attached are two maps which show the parcel. On the first map, both pieces of the parcel, on each side of King Road West are shown as tax parcel 39.-1-20. On the second map, the piece on tiie southwest side of King Road West is now assigned a separate tax number as 37.-1-28. The changeover in tax parcel number was not done a result of any subdivision process at the Town. The issue was whether the division of the lot required subdivision approval by the Town, hi trying to answer this question, the definition of "lot" was reviewed in the zoning ordinance, since if the original configuration represented only one lot, subdivision was necessary, but if the original configuration, with two pieces of property on two sides of a road, was already a de facto two-lot parcel, no subdivision was necessary. The zoning definition was ambiguous--reading as follows: LOT ~ Any area of land bounded by property lines which is not divided into parts by a public road, railroad, or public utility right-of-way. Each part of an area so divided is considered an individual lot for zoning purposes but is not exempt from applicable regulations of Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. What is unclear is whether the subdivision regulations apply to the lot before it is separated into two parcels divided by the road, or only to any subsequent subdividing that may occur to either of the already separated lots. To remove the ambiguity, it is suggested the definition of Lot be amended. Two amendments have been drafted-one assumes subdivision approval is required for any division of the parcel, even though it is physically divided by a road, the other assumes the physical subdivision is acceptable and requires subdivision approval only for subsequent further divisions. It is requested that the Town Board consider which policy it wishes to follow, and then the appropriate draft local law will be submitted for consideration at the Januaiy meeting. 1 JCB:jb If there are any questions or comments, please call. Veiy truly vours. IllI'AC.CAI. 2 B AC 2 a AC.CAL Hxnos fii T4Tt PMK 46.6 AC 21.3 AC buttermilk k state park s 16.29 AC. CAL26 AC STREET BUTTERMILK r. STATE PARK 43 1.02 Ac ("I TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2005 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "ZONING" TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "LOT" Be It enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Section 270-5 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, entitled "§ 270-5. Definitions," is hereby amended by deleting the current definition of "LOT" and Inserting a new definition reading ;as follows: LOT - Any area of land bounded by property lines. Any area which is bisected by a road or railroad but which is considered only one tax parcel for real estate taxation purposes shall be deemed one lot for zoning and subdivision purposes, notwithstanding the physical separation caused by such a road or railroad. Any area so bisected shall not be sold or transferred except as one lot until subdivision has been approved pursuant to the applicable regulations of Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. Section 2. If any provision of this law is found invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which ^ \ shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. This local law shall take effect upon publication of the local law or an abstract of same in the official newspaper of the Town, or upon its filing with the New York Secretary of State, whichever Is the last to occur. ' \ TOWN OF ITHACA < I LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2005 ^ A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 270 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "ZONING" TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF "LOT" Be It enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Section 270-5 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, entitled "§ 270-5. Definitions," is hereby amended by deleting the current definition of "LOT" and inserting a new definition readingras follows: LOT - Any area of land bounded by property lines which is not divided into parts by a public road or railroad. Each part of any area so divided by a road or railroad is considered an individual lot for zoning and subdivision purposes, but any further division of any such part shall occur only upon compliance with the applicable regulations of Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. Section 2. If any provision of this law is found invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. This local law shall take effect upon publication of the local law or an / ^ abstract of same in the official newspaper of the Town, or upon its filing with the New York Secretary of State, whichever is the last to occur. / > , 1 ' \ December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #6 i\ TOWN OF ITHACA Jy 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water& Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 To: Town of Ithaca Town Board From: Nicole Tedesco, Planner fjt Date: December 5, 2005 RE: Map of Potential Sidewalk or Walkway Locations As requested by the Town Board, the enclosed map shows the Transportation Committee's proposed sidewalk or walkway locations, prioritized for short-term and long-term implementation. The Transportation Committee is looking to incorporate this map into the Transportation Plan to detail the development of the Town's pedestrian network, which is based on a long-term goal of an inter-connected pedestrian system. The map was created in several steps. First, the Committee used the existing Interim Sidewalk Policy to identify factors that indicate the need for a sidewalk. The map shows the Sidewalk Policy's criteria and other factors that affect sidewalk or walkway need in the lower right corner. Next, corridors that fit the criteria were overlaid on layers showing existing and planned infrastructure, including trail corridors identified in the Park, Recreation, & Open Space Plan. Please note that the map shows approximate segment location only and does not distinguish between an off-road walkway and a sidewalk adjacent to the road. Finally, the Committee prioritized the locations based on severity of need, the estimated difficulty of sidewalk or walkway construction and maintenance, and the role of the segment in the network. Most of the segments on the map fulfill circulation needs beyond those of the immediate vicinity, so the Town will likely own and maintain many of these sidewalks or walkways. The Committee will detail the anticipated costs of construction and maintenance in the Transportation Plan. The Transportation Committee seeks your guidance on this conceptual map before continuing with the pedestrian section of the Transportation Plan. Your comments are welcomed and appreciated Input does not constitute a commitment to the map as drafted, because there are many unresolved issues, including cost, type of walkway or sidewalk, and so on. You may contact me at 273-1747, or via email at ntedesco(gtown.ithaca.ny.us. Regards, Nicole Tedesco cc: Jonathan Kanter, Fred Noteboom ACE?; DA# 11 V n • •• PROPOSED DRAFT: Short V. Long Term destrian Infrastructure '•••..N Town of Ithaca ''••.Tompkins County, New York >hes goals in approximately ten years. >hes goals over twenty years. ecome priorities based on changes In 'funding, with another project, etc). Town of Ithaca 215N.Tioga St. Ithaca. NY 14850 The West Hill connections show conceptual con'klors; locations have not been identifiect. ^ Infrastrijcture Legend Jr L. nfrastructure •ential corridors itified with restrictive interpretation riteria; immediate need :ommended corridors itified with broader interpretation riteria; long-term need Proximate corridors; no lime frame nned Corridors (Recreation Plan) :k Diamond Trail Existlno Conditions Trails & Recreation Ways Existing infrastructure Roads Creeks mHII Existing Town Parks Lakes About This Mao This map was created by amalgamating the criteria in the Interim Sidewalk Policy with fectors affecting sidewalk need that were identified by the Town Transportation Committee. These factors are listed at right. Planning staff used their knowledge of transportation conditions in the Town to identify corridors that fit the factors. The corridors are broken into two categories. Segments that easily met the criteria and are needed for safety reasons are high priority segments; segments that met the criteria and will play important roles in the network, but are not needed immediately for safety, are low priority. I a Interim Sidewalk Policy iditions <pment> lies. ^ay also require sidewalks on • ® connect into existing sidewalks. school: future presence of numerous environment where, in the idewalk, many children can * be present on the road shoulder; xjnvenient walking distance; • ler sidewalks; 0 trail system or public park; ■frians. velopment lust apply. x^mmendation of the Planning •val from the Town Board of children •isting or planned system ina distance of ped. generator 1 shoulders Inadequate s to public transit or easement reasonably obtained 'o forseeable connection _iour traffic >f Ped. Circulation Plan) Factors Favoring Pedestrian Infrastructure Higher density/ intensity of land use (Medium and high density residential, neighborhood/ office park commercial) Located along the route of a bus Within Yt mile of an elementary school Within Yi mile of other pedestrian generators 85th percentile speed > 25 mph High volume/ classification (arterials, collectors. > 4.000 vpd) Outside funding is available; hence, cost to Town is low Links into existing or planned pedestrian network Sufficiency of existing infrastructure Factors Against Pedestrian Infrastructure Detrimental to environmental resources including natural, historic, scenic, agricultural, etc. Negative neighborhood concensus NPata Smirr»<- Tompkhs CounJy Intoimalion Technology Seivieos. CISDivision: Town ot tOiaca Public Worics Departmenl;Town of Ithaca Town Code; Town of llhaca Transportation Commjtlee., two 1983. SlatePtaneCentra)™ September 28,2005Contact: nie<Jesco@town.ithaca.ny.us * December 12, 2006 Town Board Mei^ng ATTACHMENT #7 Agenefa # i j ^ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / This Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared in response to The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). DMA 2000 (also known as Public Law 106-390) improves the disaster planning process by increasing hazard mitigation planning requirements for hazard events. DMA 2000 requires states and local governments to prepare hazard mitigation plans to document their hazard mitigation planning process and identify hazards, potential losses, and mitigation needs, goals, and strategies. This type of planning supplements already strong disaster response, recoveiy, and relief capabilities. Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process Hazard Mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long- term risk and effects that can result from specific hazards. FEMA defines a Hazard Mitigation Pian as the documentation of a state or local govemmenfs evaluation of natural hazards and the strategy to mitigate such hazards. DMA 2000 requires state to submit comprehensive all hazard mitigation plans to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by November 2004 to be eligible for disaster relief grant funding in the future. Local entities must also develop plans. To comply, Tompkins County and seven towns located in the county (Caroline, Danby, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, and Ulysses) have developed this Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan (also to be referred to as the mitigation plan). The City of Ithaca and Towns of Dryden and Newfield have elected to complete individual mitigation plans and therefore, are not included in the assessments of this document. Once mitigation plans for all of the jurisdictions in Tompkins County are completed and approved, the Jurisdictions will begin to work collaboratively to address data gaps and implement complementaiy mitigation actions. f To support the planning process for this all hazard mitigation plan, Tompkins County and the seven ^ participating jurisdictions accomplished the following: • Developed a planning group; • Identified hazards of concern; • Profiled and prioritized these hazards; • Estimated inventory at risk and potential losses associated with these hazards; • Developed mitigation strategies and goals that address the hazards that impact the area; and • Developed mitigation plan maintenance procedures to be executed after obtaining conditional approval of the plan from the New York State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) and FEMA. As required by DMA 2000, the participating jurisdictions and Tompkins County have informed the public about these efforts and provided opportunities for public comment and input on the planning process. In addition, several agencies and stakeholders have participated as core or support members to provide input and expertise to the planning process. This All Hazard Mitigation Plan documents the process and outcomes of the jurisdictions' mitigation planning efforts. Tompkins County and the seven participating jurisdictions intend to incorporate mitigation planning as an integral component of daily government operations through existing processes and programs. A notice regarding the existence of the plan and the location of copies of the mitigation plan has been publicized in the Ithaca Journal and the plan will be posted on the Tompkins County web site and made available for review at local libraries. Updates to the plan will be similarly announced after annual plan reviews and 5- year updates. Each jurisdiction will be responsible for receiving, tracking, and filing public comments f ^ regarding this plan. Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York ES-1 Tompkins County Mitigation Plan Adoption To obtain plan approval, specific prerequisites for plan approval have been met by the participating partners and Tompkins County. This multi-jurisdictional mitigation plan will be reviewed and adopted by both Tompkins County and each participatingjurisdiction. The signatures of the appropriate representatives will be found on page 3-2 of this plan to document formal adoption. Copies of the resolutions regarding adoption of the plan will be included as Appendix A. Tompkins County Risk Assessment to Support Mitigation Plan A key component of a mitigation plan is the accurate idenfication of risks posed by a hazard and the corresponding impacts to the community. The process of identifying hazards of concern, profiling hazard events, and conducting a vulnerability assessment is known as a risk assessment. The risk assessment portion of the mitigation planning process included the steps shown in Figure ES-1. Each of these steps is summarized below. Step 1: Hazard Identification The area considered as the study area for this risk asessment includes the Towns of Caroline, Danby, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, and Ulysses (Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area). The risk assessment process was initiated by implementation of the Hazards New York (HAZNY) analysis, a qualitative initial ranking system developed by the American Red Cross and SEMO. HAZNY is an automated interactive spreadsheet designed to evaluate hazards on a statewide scope and basis. The program interface asks specific questions about potential hazards in a community and records and evaluates the responses to these questions. HAZNY also includes historical and expert data on selected hazards. HAZNY is designed specifically for group, rather than individual use. Figure ES-1. Risk Assessment Process STEP 1; IDENTIFY HAZARDS STEP 2: PROFILE HAZARD EVENTS VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT STEP 3: INVENTORY ASSETS STEP 4: ESTIMATE LOSSES STEP 5: EVALUATE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS STEP 6: PRESENT MULTI- JURISDICATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENTA full range of natural hazards was considered by the planning ASSESSMENT group. Initially, some hazards were screened out from consideration based on their low frequency of occurrence in this 1 geographical area; for example, tsunamis and earthquakes were ^ considered to be unlikely and of low potential impact in the area. The HAZNY screening process included consideration of 25 hazards. Some Tompkins County recognized other hazards of concern beyond those included with HAZNY and considered the following initial pool of hazards, many of which are defaults in the HAZNY program: blight, civil unrest, dam failure, drought, earthquake, epidemic, explosion, extreme temperatures, fire, flood, food shortage, hazardous material (HazMat) (fixed site), HazMat (in transit), hurricane, ice jam, ice storm, landslide, mine collapse, severe storm, structural collapse, tornado, utility failure, water supply contamination, and winter storm (severe). All geographically relevant hazards were considered and a list of 13 hazards was selected from the initial pool of hazards. Hazards retained for further evaluation included those with HAZNY scores of at least moderately low severity based on the HAZNY scoring system (i.e., the hazard scored at least 161 points out of a possible 400 using the model). The order and grouping of the 13 hazards was re-configured by the planning group based on additional research and the professional Judgment and evaluation of the planning group regarding the frequency, Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York magnitude, geographic extent, possible direct and cascading effects, impacts to critical facilities and vulnerable populations, and historic costs associated with each hazard. Two hazards, landslide and drought, were screened out at this point based on the historically low frequency of landslide events and the low financial losses associated with droughts in Tompkins County and the seven participating jurisdictions. The following list of 11 hazards of concern, in order of significance to the community, was selected for further evaluation in the mitigation plan: 1) Flood 2) Severe Winter Storm (Including Ice Storm) 3) Utility Failure 4) Severe Storm (Including Hurricane) 5) Epidemic (Agricultural) 6) Major Transportation Accident (Including HazMat Release In Transit) 7) Water Supply Contamination 8) Terrorism 9) Epidemic (Human) 10) Fire (Urban and Wild) 11) Civil Unrest Of the 11 selected hazards, only one, flood, was ranked as moderately high severity based on the initial HAZNY scoring system. The remaining 10 hazards are considered to present moderately low to moderate risk. Step 2: Hazard Event Profiles As shown above, some hazards initially considered were consolidated with, or separated from, other I hazards to avoid redundancy and to facilitate conceptualization of the hazards. The hazards are grouped ^ by their root causes, natural (flood, severe winter storm, severe storm, agricultural epidemic, human epidemic, fire), technological (utility failure), and human-caused (transportation accident, water supply contamination, terrorism, civil unrest). Profiles of these hazards are grouped by these categories in Section 4 and are addressed in order according to the priority of each hazard. Water supply contamination is categorized as human-caused because most historical instances in the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area have resulted from spills or tank leaks that caused HazMat to impact a water supply. For each hazard listed above, a hazard event profile presents following information: 1) Background and local conditions 2) Historic frequency and probability of occurrence 3) Severity 4) Historic losses and impacts Sy Designated hazard areas Other factors considered in the profiling process include the potential impact, onset, frequency, hazard duration, cascading effects and recovery time for each hazard. For this mitigation plan, considerable research was conducted to complete the profiles for the 11 hazards of interest. Where applicable, the source(s) of information and data and maps showing vulnerable areas, relevant community components, and GIS coverage also are provided. Table ES-1 summarizes the hazards identified for the Tompkins ^ County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area and those that impact particular jurisdictions. Input from each town, the public and local agencies and hazard experts were used to complete the town-specific columns of the table. Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York ES-3 Table ES-1. Summary of Muiti and Single Jurisdiction Risk Assessment Outcomes - Risks of Particular Concem Town of Lansing Town of ithaca Town of Groton Town of Enfield Town of Danby County- Town of Hazard Natural Hazards Flood Severe Storm (including hurricane) Epidemic-Agricultural Epidemic-Human echnological Hazards Utility Failure Human-Caused Hazards Transportation Accide ncluding HazMat in trai Water Supply Contamination Terrorism Civil Unrest For each hazard, the Tompkins County's mitigation planning group provided a preliminary overall assessment of the relative risk of that hazard as part of the profile. The overall assessment of each hazard ranges from no concem to severe concem. The Hazard Risk Gauge presented with each profile summarizes the preliminary ranking assigned to each hazard. Vulnerability Assessment The vulnerability assessment is summarized below. Step 3: Inventory of Assets After a prioritized ranking of hazards of concem was developed, a GIS-based risk assessment methodology called Hazards U.S.-Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) was used to prepare and display the inventory of assets for the multi-jurisdictional study area. The inventory of assets considers the range of resources that could be lost or damaged if a hazardous event occurs. Local data supplemented the HAZUS-MH provided data. Specific assets evaluated for this risk assessment include: population, general building stock (residential and commercial), critical facilities (including, hospitals, schools, police and fire stations), and infrastructure (transportation systems and utility systems). Over $2.5 billion of assets (including buildings and infrastructure) were identified in the Tompkins County study area. Step 4: Loss Estimates Quantitative loss estimates were obtained for the flood and severe storm (hurricane) hazards. Qualitative evaluations were performed for those hazards with limited past event and total loss data. All of the hazards of interest were analyzed using the best available data and FEMA tools and methodologies. Where quantifiable loss estimates are not yet feasible, comparative evaluations present the types of impacts that could occur, current knowledge of the study area relative to each hazard, and a qualitative assessment of each hazard. For these hazards, future efforts will include the development of additional data so that in the long term, quantitative loss estimates may be feasible. Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - tompkins County, New York For this portion of the risk assessment, available data, methodologies, and assumptions were used to select and apply a risk assessment methodology for each hazard. Table ES-2 shows the risk assessment methodologies selected for each hazard. Table ES-2. Summary of Risk Assessment Methodology Selection HAZUS-MH Methodology Rood Hurricane (Part of Severe Storm) HAZUS-MH Supported Methodoloc Severe Winter Storm (Including Ice Storm) Utility Failure Severe Storm (Non-Hurricane Portion) Epidemic (Agricultural) Transportation Accident (Including Hazmat Release [In Transit]) Water Supply Contamination Terrorism Epidemic (Human) Fire (Urban and Wild) HAZUS-MH-provided data were used and supplemented with local data for critical facilities. The HAZUS-MH models were used to obtain exposure and loss estimates. Sufficient historic data were not available to forecast the probability of future hazard events. However, available historic and professional expertise regarding areas at risk for each hazard was compiled from a variety of sources. Professional judgment and available data were then used to evaluate past and potential events, and assess risks in a qualitative manner. HAZUS-MH was used to support inventory evaluations and graphical presentations of areas at risk. HAZUS-MH Exposure and Loss Estimate Maps, Tables and Text HAZUS-MH Supported Exposure Estimates and Input to Data Needs Portion of Mitigation Strategy (Section 5) Civil Unrest Table ES-3 present the total exposure value for buildings in the flood zone considered "at risk" for both the 100-year and 500-year MRP flood events. Table ES-3. Estimated Exposure Values for General Building Stock from Floods in Tompkins County Study Area Residential Exposure (Single and Multi- Family Dwellings) Commercial Exposure At-Risk Industrial Exposure At-Risk Educational (Universities) TOTAL AT-RISK $89.9M $6.8M NA NA $96.7M 422 $99.9M 4 $11.2M 0 $a.6M 0 NA 426 $111.7M Note; TBD indicates to be determined. NE indicates not evaluated. Dollars rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Although terrorism and human epidemic hazards are addressed, detailed planning for these events is the purview the Tompkins County Office of Emergency Response and the Tompkins County Heath Department; therefore, close coordination with these agencies will be included for the terrorism and epidemic hazards. Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York For this risk assessment, loss estimates and exposure calculations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the inventory, or built, environment. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate and does not predict precise results but are used to characterize risk and assign priorities for mitigation efforts. Step 5: Evaluation ofPopulation and Land Use Trends Tompkins County, located in the Finger Lakes region of central New York, contains a mixture of rural and urban landscapes, dramatic terrain and natural features, agriculturally productive areas, an internationally renowned academic institution and major research center (Cornell University), and two smaller, higher education institutions (Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College). The Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area is a primarily rural area located in central New York, approximately 250 miles northwest of New York City. The area occupies approximately 500 square miles and serves a population of approximately 100,000 (Tompkins County and 2000 Census). While the population density of the area is low compared to the densely populated New York Boroughs, it is typical of the other counties in the region. Development Increases population and structures and therefore, can InCTease the impact of hazards on a comrnunity. For example, heavy development planned for a flood-prone.area would likely increase the impact of the flood event as time progresses. ) This mitigation plan provides a general overview of current and anticipated population and land use within the study area. This information provides a basis for making decisions regarding the type of mitigation approaches to consider and the locations in which these approaches should be applied. This information can also be used to support decisions regarding future development in vulnerable areas. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan and Vital Communities Initiative focus on long-term plans for the area. Mitigation strategies in this plan, therefore, align with and will be coordinated with the Tompkins County Comprehensive plan and the Vital Communities Initiative principles. Therefore, these efforts are discussed below, followed by a summary of population, land use, and the potential impact of ^ development trends on the hazard assessment. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan and Vita! Communities Initiative The purpose of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is to address in a coordinated way those issues that can best be considered on a county or regional scale and for which solutions often require cooperation and collaboration across local, county. State, and Federal levels of government. Key elements of the comprehensive plan include transportation, economic development, housing, land use, open space and water resources, and a guide to the County government's facility and infrastructure plans, which are also addressed in the hazard risk assessment and mitigation activities in this plan (Tompkins County Planning Department, 2003g). The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan also will provide a mechanism for coordination of topic-specific plans (such as this hazard mitigation plan) that are being developed by county departments, other independent agencies and other levels of government. Successful implementation of such topic-specific plans will require coordination across program areas and levels of government. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan builds on the Vital Communities Initiative Principles, and the County Legislature's mission statement. These principles and the mission statement identify specific policies and strategies to achieve a secure and sustainable community and also focus on community participation in the development process (similar to the public involvement elements of this plan). By identifying population and land use trends and projections and considering mitigation actions within a broader context, areas of opportunity and potential conflict between existing plans can be identified and addressed. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, therefore, provides a framework within which ' i Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York ES-6 community goals can be addressed in a proactive, coordinated manner (Tompkins County Planning f > Department 2003g). Population From 1990 to 2000, The Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area saw a population increase of only 3%. This represents a decrease in the rate of population growth from the previous two, 10-year periods. Growth was approximately 13% from 1970 to 1980 and approximately 8% from 1980 to 1990. Based on available data and input from the planning team, the 1990 to 2000 level of population growth is projected to continue for the next few years. Land Use Land use regulatory authority is vested in New York State's towns, villages, and cities. However, many development and preservation issues transcend local political boundaries. The Tompkins County Multi- Jurisdictional Study Area's land cover can be divided into five major categories. The first category is forest, which makes up approximately 53 percent of the study area. The second category is agriculture, including crops, pastures and inactive farmland (30 percent coverage). The third category is residential usage at 7 percent. Water and wetland usage is the fourth category, comprising 6 percent of land use. The fifth categoiy, industrial, commercial, educational and recreational land use comprises an estimated 4 percent of the land area. Projected land use is anticipated to remain relatively stable, with some pockets residential and commercial development anticipated as discussed in the body of this plan. f , f \ Impact on Hazard Assessment Development can be expected to increase the population and inventory at risk over time and these increases in inventory will increase the potential losses for the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area. By focusing on development, appropriate mitigation planning can be conducted in a timely manner. By projecting land use and population trends in the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional Study Area, the communities can evaluate if future land use and development will increase the risk posed by some hazards. For potential increases in vulnerability, the towns can then plan ahead to mitigate those vulnerabilities early in the development process or can direct development to areas of lower risk. The planning group will revisit the mitigation plan regularly to ensure that mitigation strategies support growth in a manner that minimizes increased risk and that supports the implementation and targeting of specific mitigation actions to address the potential impacts of development over time. Step 6: Multi-Jurisdictioiial Risk Assessment Because Tompkins County has prepared a multi-jurisdictional risk assessment, the risk assessment section also summarizes any particular rislU faced by individual towns adopting the plan. See Table ES-1 for the results of the multi-jurisdictional risk assessment. Losses for each town for particular hazards are included in the vulnerability assessment for those hazards, as appropriate in Section 4.4 and are summarized in Section 4.5. Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York ES-7 Tompkins County Mitigation Strategies The outcomes of the risk assessment, supplemented by community input, provided a basis to review past mitigation actions, future goals, and appropriate countywide and town-specific mitigation strategies. Tompkins County identified the following four over arching mitigation goals or general guidelines that summarize the hazard reduction outcomes that the county wants to achieve: 1. Protect life and property 2. Increase public awareness 3. Encourage partnerships 4. Provide for emergency services The mitigation strategy portion of the plan includes: • A summary of past and current mitigation efforts and foundations Local hazard mitigation goais and objectives identification and analysis of mitigation measures and projects being considered Multi-Jurisdictionai mitigation strategy (goals and objectives) Mitigation action plan (summary of specific activities) The county developed several corresponding objectives for each goal that further define the specific strategies or implementation steps that will be needed to attain the identified goals. The goals, along with their corresponding objectives, then guided the development and evaluation of specific mitigation activities. The text below summarizes mitigation activity identification, analysis, and implementation. Identification Outputs of the risk assessment combined with significant partner, planning group, and public input helped to identify potential mitigation activities. Potential activities were submitted from each individual planning group member during the brainstorming sessions such as the meeting of the planning group on March 4,2004. Many of the mitigation objectives and action items were identified based on current programs and activities in Tompkins County. The mitigation activities developed for this plan are grouped by hazard and presented in a series of tables in Section 5 of this plan. Analysis Throughout the mitigation planning process, the mitigation activities were evaluated at the various planning group meetings. At various intervals, members of the planning group met and communicated via email and telephone to analyze mitigation activities for the hazards identified in this plan based on the criteria listed above, current programs and policies, public considerations, and results of the risk and exposure assessments. Each alternative mitigation activity was evaluated qualitatively using several evaluation criteria, including the social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental (STAPLEE) opportunities and constraints of implementation. Particular attention was given to those mitigation activities that addressed existing and new buildings and infrastructure. Few mitigation activities were removed from consideration based on the concept that it is best not to rule out any activity that may help make the communities more disaster resistant (even if funding was not currently available or an action was a lower priority at present). As a result only infeasible options were ruled out, including those mitigation actions that were considered to present prohibitive costs, low benefit/cost analysis ratios, or other concerns based on community priorities and needs. Implementation Prioritization of mitigation activities was based on several factors: (1) "the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review" as required by DMA, (2) maximization of benefits, (3) prevention of future losses, and (4) possibility of using existing programs and efforts for implementation. n I ^ Multi-Jurisdictionai All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York ES-8 ^*1 These ranking criteria will help ensure that the money allocated to these mitigation projects is being spent ! efficiently and effectively. For example, many mitigation activities focus on public awareness and j education programs or integrating the mitigation plan into current programs. These types of mitigation ^ measures are more affordable and achievable and have an inunediate benefit. The implementation of new and/or additional mitigation activities is dependent on approval of the local elected governing body as well as obtaining funding from outside sources if funding has not already been secured. Tompkins County Plan Maintenance Procedures Hazard mitigation planning is an ongoing process. Section 6 of this plan presents procedures for plan maintenance and updates. Therefore, the Tompkins County Planning Group will continue ongoing mitigation efforts to implement the mitigation plan and revise and update the plan as necessary. To monitor implementation of the mitigation plan, the planning group members will meet annually to discuss the status of plan implementation and will prepare a summary report of the plan status and any needed updates. The mitigation evaluation will address changes as new hazard events occur, as the area develops, and as more is learned about hazards and their impacts. The evaluation will therefore, include an assessment of whether the planning process and actions have been effective, whether development or other issues warrant changes to the plan or its priorities, if the communities' goals are being reached, and whether changes are warranted. In addition, the mitigation plan will be updated at a minimum within the 5-year cycle specified by DMA 2000. t \ i-Jurisdicticnal All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Ran - Tompkins County, New York ES-9 POINT OF CONTACT —^^ To request information or provide comments regarding this plan, please contact the Tompkins County Planning Department: Mailing Address: Tompkins County Department of Planning 121 E. Court Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 274-5560 Fax: (607) 274-5578 E-mail: planning@tompkins-co.org I n / ) Multi-Jurisdiclional All Hazard DMA 2000 Mitigation Plan - Tompkins County, New York ES-10 TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Department's Monthly Board Report November 2005 for the December 12,2005 Meeting ROADS: n Initial pickup of leaves started in November. The majority of leaves hadn't fallen until late, so we extended the leaf vacuum pickup and continued to pick up bagged leaves every Monday throughout November. n Voting machines, along with tables, flags and signs, were put out for the elections. When we picked up the voting machines after the election, they were all delivered to Tompkins County at the old library site. n Removed some problem trees along our roads and easements. Our proactive approach to removing problem trees has saved us problems and overtime in several high wind situations that occurred during November. n Finished hot patching for the winter—making sure that we repaired sites where our snow plows might catch. n Sign maintenance continued in November. n Lake effect snows (water main breaks and a sewer blockage) kept the crews busy during the holidays in November. n Finished shoulders with the help from the Towns of Lansing, Ulysses, and Enfield. n Repairs due to flooding—mainly caused by garbage cans, recycling bins, and garbage plugging culvert pipes. BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS: n Repairs and maintenance work at Town Hall. n Repairs and maintenance work at the Public Works Facility. n Inspection and repairs to boiler systems at Town Hall and Public Works Facility. PARKS AND TRAILS: n Weekly site inspections at all sites were performed. n Marked numerous dead trees and shrubs for removal. This summer's severe drought stressed many marginal trees, which have since died. We expect to see greater than normal mortality of trees throughout the area, which may result in a heavier than normal amount of brush for spring cleanup. n Work continued on the interior spaces at Tutelo Park's comfort station. The parking lot was paved and material added to back up the edges of the blacktop. The steeper, un-mowable banks, which resulted, will be planted with ground- covering shrubs and will be mulched next spring. WATER: n There were five water main breaks during the month of November. They were at 332 Siena Drive, East King Road, 1111 Danby Road, 118 Troy Road, and on Christopher Circle. n Ground water was found to be following the water line on Westhaven Road. n Confined space entry was conducted for Bolton Point at the Ulysses Water Tank site. SEWER: n Daily inspections of Overlook sewer and Wildflower subdivision. n Assisted ITT Flygt with the annual inspection of pump stations and panels. n Hooked up and trained employees on generators to use at the pump stations. n Mark outs for Dig Safely New York continued in November. Projects to be worked on in December: 1. Snow removal as necessary. 2. Tree and brush trimming. 3. Manhole repairs. ^ 4. Continue working at Tutelo Park. 5. Sign maintenance. ghk December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting TOWN CLERK'S MONTHLY REPORT ATTACHMENT #8 AGEFDA#22 NOVEMBER, 2005 PAGEl TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK t^HE SUPERVISOR: f uant to Section 27, Subd 1 of the Town Law, I hereby make the following statement of all fees and moneys received le in connection with my office during the month stated above, excepting only such fees and moneys the application aiid payment of which are otherwise provided for by Law: A1255 8 MARRIAGE LICENSES NO. 05119 TO 05126 140.00 2 MISC. COPIES 9.80 1 ZONING ORDINANCE 12.80 2 TAX SEARCH 10.00 2 RETURNED CHECK - CLERK 10.00 11 MARRIAGE TRANSCRIPT 110.00 TOTAL TOWN CLERK FEES 292.60 A1556 1 SPCA CONTRACT 50.00 TOTAL A1556 50.00 A1557 1 SPCA IMPOUND FEES 30.00 TOTAL A1557 30.00 /^4 / < DOG LICENSES 560.95 TOTAL A2544 560.95 B2110 15 BUILDING PERMIT 3,110.00 3 BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSIN 237.50 2 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 200.00 1 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS 50.00 5 ZONING BOARD MTG 500.00 TOTAL B2110 4,097.50 B2115 1 SUBDV. REV. PRELIM. PLAT 620.00 1 SUBDV. REV. FINAL PLAT 140.00 1 SITE PLAN INIT. APL. FEE 100.00 1 SITE PLAN PRELIM. PLAN 750.00 1 SITE PLAN FINAL PLAN 500.00 1 ASS. MTG. FEE P.H. PROCE 50.00 1 SPECIAL PERMITS 100.00 TOTAL B2115 2,260.00 ( \ TOWN CLERK*S MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER, 2005 page 2 DISBURSEMENTS PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR GENERAL FUND 933.55 PAID TO SUPERVISOR FOR PART TOWN FUND ^»357.50 PAID TO COUNTY TREASURER FOR DOG LICENSES PAID TO AG & MARKETS FOR DOG LICENSES PAID TO NYS HEALTH DEPT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSES ^ 80.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 7,594.10 : \ ' ) DECEMBER 2,2005 ^ ^ SUPERVISOR STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF TOMPKINS, TOWN OF ITHACA I, TEE-ANN HUNTER, being duly sworn, says that I am the Clerk of the TOWN OF ITHACA that the foregoing is a full and true statement of all Fees and moneys received by me during the month above stated, excepting only such Fees the application and payment of which are otherwise provided for by law. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Town Clerk day of 20 r\ Notary Public commission town of ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 ^ Jonathan Kanter, A.I.C.P. (607) 273-1747 Director of Planning FAX (607) 273-1704 Planning Director's Report for December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW November 15.2005 Meeting: Cornell University transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t- GEIS): The Planning Board discussed the draft Scope Outline, which was submitted for the proposed Ten-Year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) and associated t-GElS. A public scoping meeting was scheduled for the December 6, 2005 Planning Board meeting. Bowes Dock & Boat Lift, 955 Taughannock Boulevard: The Planning Board considered Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-1, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock and constructing a new dock (8' X 60' with a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the end of the dock) with a 14' x 24' covered ' boatlift. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub, Agent. The Planning Board adjourned this matter until the November 29^^ Special meeting. Wedemeyer Equestrian Center, Trumansburg Road: The Planning Board granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-1-19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a hunter-jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls (+/- 23,000 square feet), and a hay storage and machinery bam. The project will also include a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. The applicant will be submitting separate plans for approval of three duplex rental units as a future phase. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding a Request to Extend a Previously Granted Special Approval, Former Eddy Gravel Mine (now Rancich), Mecklenburg Road: The Planning Board issued an affirmative recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a request to extend the time of the previously granted Special Approval for the excavation of fill material on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Agricultural Zone. The Planning Board also recommended approving the applicant's request to modify the condition of the previously ^,0^ granted special approval to allow the use of cmshing and conveying equipment on the site, subject , to a condition regarding noise levels. John Rancich, Owner/Applicant; George Frantz, Agent. \December 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting '" B November 29, 2005 Special Meeting: ' ( Pine Tree Road Office Building, 391 Pine Tree Road: The Planning Board granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Special Permit for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing bams and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000 square foot office building for Comell University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. Comell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant. Longview Addition for Skilled/Adult Care, 1 Bella Vista Drive: The Planning Board reviewed a Sketch Plan for the proposed Skilled / Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39-1-1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the constmction of a +/-24,000 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to serve up to 30 additional residents. The proposal will also include approximately 16 new parking spaces and a new driveway. The Town Board referred the proposed amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner/Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent. Continuation of Review of Bowes Dock & Boat Lift, 955 Taughannock Boulevard: The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Special Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax ' Parcel No. 25-2-1, Lake front Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock and constmcting a new dock (8' x 60' with a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the end of the dock) with a 14' X 24' covered boatlift. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub, Agent. The Planning Board had adjourned this matter from the November 15^*^ meeting. Revised plans were submitted which addressed possible impacts on the neighboring property that had been discussed at the November 15^*^ meeting. CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECTS/FUNCTIONS The following have been accomplished over the past month. SEOR Reviews for Zoning Board: Three SEQR reviews for the Zoning Board were done since the November report: (1) request for an extension of a time-limited variance to allow the continuation of an antique shop, located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Low Density Residential Zone, Colleen Shuler, Appellant; (2) request for variances and/or interpretation to modify an existing vineyard and winery with a building addition, in part to determine whether receptions are a normal function of a vineyard/winery, located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones, Nancy Battistella, Six Mile Creek Winery, Owner/Appellant; and (3) request for an extension and modification of a previously granted special approval to continue a gravel mining operation, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road about 500 feet west of the intersection of West Haven Road, Agricultural Zone, John Rancich, Owner/Appellant. / , Towttpf Ithaca Blaming Directo^ Rpp Building and Zoning Reorganization: Planning Department staff continues processing applications for the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) under the recent re-organization, and is working with the Code Enforcement Officers on Zoning Code interpretations, processing variances, etc. Chris Balestra, Planner, has been assigned as liason to the ZBA, and is working under the direction of the Director of Planning on ZBA actions. This work is taking a significant amount of Planning Department time, and we will have to continue monitoring this in conjunction with the other work priorities of the Department. Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC): The Committee met on November 16, 2005 to discuss plans for the upcoming public information meeting regarding the proposed Conservation Zone for the Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area. The Committee also continued their review of the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone, with boundary adjustments and information on properties affected. Staff and several Committee and Town Board members went on a site visit to confirm some of the natural features in parts of the proposed zone. The Committee had a preliminary discussion regarding work plan priorities for 2006, and approved a tentative schedule for 2006. The next COC meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2005. Transportation Committee: The Committee met on November 17, 2005 to discuss the Hanshaw Road walking tour (see below). Fisher Associates' analysis of intersections and road segments for the Transportation Plan, and continued review of the sidewalk/walkway selection criteria and map (scheduled for discussion with the Town Board at the December 12^ meeting). The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss follow-up work on the intersection analysis, bicycle issues, and where we stand with the overall Transportation Plan. Fisher Associates has completed work on Plan analysis elements, including traffic counts, intersection analysis, and technical review of the Plan sections prepared so far, and has submitted their first invoice in the amount of $8,816.03, which has been processed for payment. That will leave a balance of $21,183.97 in Account A3310.406 for the Transportation Plan. Because consultant work on the Plan will have to carry over into 2006, the Supervisor has authorized the extension of the Consultant Agreement with Fisher Associates through April 30, 2006 (pursuant to the Town Board resolution), and the carry over of the remaining balance in Account A3310.406 into 2006. Conservation Board: The Board met on December 1, 2005. Discussion items included committee reports and updates, and status reports on the proposed Conservation Zones for the Lake Slopes and Coy Glen areas. The next meeting is scheduled for January 5,2006. Hanshaw Road Reconstruction Project: A number of Town Board members, Planning Board members and staff attended the site walk at the Hanshaw Road project area that was led by Fisher Associates and Tompkins County on December 8, 2005. The site walk focused on how significant features along the roadway, such as trees, shrubs, fences and wails could be preserved or re-located as part of the project. The County held an open house on December 1, 2005 at the Cayuga Heights Fire Station to review the revised Hanshaw Road reconstruction plans based on their meetings with the homeowners along Hanshaw Road and Town officials. The revised plan incorporates modifications of the walkway details to accommodate the preservation of many of the significant features identified. yecember 12, 2005 Town Board Meeting MOA Planning Coalition: The Planning Coalition met on November 30, 2005. Agenda items included a presentation and discussion regarding two Tompkins County Planning Department Comprehensive Plan implementation projects: Natural Features Preservation Program and Housing Needs Study. The Natural Features Program identifies a number of Focus Areas around the County, and will include recommendations for a strategic approach to conservation and management, coordination of current efforts, funds to leverage outside funding, GIS database and mapping assistance, and models for management of natural areas. The Housing Needs Study will include an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the housing market in Tompkins County. A consultant has been hired, and much of the data collection and preliminary analysis has been completed. The study is providing specific information for the City of Ithaca and Towns of Ithaca, Dryden and Caroline, and approaching the other rural areas more generally. The County will be sponsoring a stakeholder discussion to present the preliminary results of the study on December 15, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. at the County Library (RSVP to Kathy Wilsea at 274-5560). The next meeting of the Planning Coalition is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, January 25, 2006. ITCTC Planning Committee: The Planning Committee met on November 15, 2005. Agenda items included an update on the park-and-ride study, the survey of downtown commuters, a description of possible TIP amendments by Tompkins County, and miscellaneous member reports. The Joint meeting of the Policy and Planning Committees is scheduled for December 20, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. at the Transit Center, Willow Avenue. Among the business items at that meeting will be the election of officers for 2006 on the Policy and Planning Committees. Park and Trail Names and Mapping: After several discussions at the Town Board and Recreation & Human Services Committee, the Director of Planning and Highway Superintendent met to discuss the naming of Town parks and trails. A memo was prepared (dated November 22, 2005) and discussed with the Recreation & Human Services Committee at their November 30"^ meeting (a copy of the memo has been provided to Town Board members not present at that meeting in Town Hall mail boxes). Discussion focused on Town parks and trails that do not appear to have official names, whether parks can or should be named as a "preserve" or "natural area", and suggestions for mapping parks and trails in a form appropriate for the general public. Discussion will continue at the next meeting of the Recreation & Human Services Committee. West Hill Transportation - Countv. Citv. Town Planners Meeting: This group met on November 7, 2005 to continue discussions regarding development and transportation on West Hill and along the Route 13 corridor. Focus was on how the nodal development concept expressed in the County Comprehensive Plan might be utilized on West Hill. A status report to elected officials from the participating groups will be prepared by the County Planning Department shortly. Inter-municipal Trail Committee: The Committee met on November 17, 2005 for the first time in a number of months for a discussion regarding the status of the "Gateway Trail" project in the City and Town. The Town of Ithaca, having been notified of the awarding of the federal grant (earmarked in the SAFTEA-LU reauthorization by Congress and signed by the President), indicated the need to begin the process of working with the State Dept. of Transportation (DOT) on grant administration and project planning. The Town offered to take over the administrative aspects of the Committee as well (Nicole Tedesco will be the Committee coordinator for items such as meeting minutes, notices and agenda, and communication with Committee members). Another meeting will be scheduled some time after more details of the grant are known. . V / ' Town Engineer's Report for 12/12/2005 Town Board Meeting GENERAL Staff Kathryn Prybylski, Civil Engineer, resigned from the Town Engineers staff effective December 2,2005 to take a position with an engineering firm in the Boston area. Kathiyn worked for the Town for over 4 years and was an intern for the 3 previous years. She was an excellent engineer and employee and will be missed by the rest of the staff. We wish her well on her new endeavors in Boston. The Town has advertised the open position and a civil service exam has been scheduled for Januaiy 7,2006. We hope to have a qualified candidate from that exam to enable us to fill the vacancy by March of2006. Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan FEMA has approved the Tompkins County Multi-Jurisdictional All Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the plan is being brought to each municipality for acceptance early in 2006. The plan will be available in the Town Offices for review on December 12,2005, and is currently posted on the Tompkins County Planning Department web page. The Executive summary is being provided to the Town Board in the December Board packet. EARTH FILL PERMITS No fill permits issued in November 2005. t ^ WATER PROJECTS SCLIWC Office Addition There are still a number of punch list items remaining to be completed before the General Construction Contract with Keuka Construction can be closed. East Hill Transmission Main and Storage Tank LRS Excavating, a sub contractor to Natgun Corp, has completed the mass excavation and has in stalled the water main and part of the drainage for the Three Million Water Storage Tank. The project is a SCLIWC funded and contracted project and the Town Engineering Staff is providing Construction Inspection and project management services with reimbursement from the Commission. Trumansburg Road Water Tank The Engineering staff is preparing plans and specifications to make minor improvements to the tank overflow and for recoating the interior and exterior of the tank in 2006. Trumansburg Road Water Main The Engineering staff is beginning planning of a replacement for the 70+-year-old 6" cast iron water main, which serves Trumansburg Road from the City line up to Dates Drive. The age of the water main and the limited flow capacity are the basis for the replacement plan. TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 12/12/2005 ^ Hanshaw Road Water Main Replacement The final design for the Hanshaw Road water main replacement, scheduled in conjunction with the County Project to reconstruct Hanshaw Road, is being completed. This capital project will be brought to the board for approval in the late winter or spring of 2006. SEWER PROJECTS South woods Subdivision Force Main Final transfer of the property to the Town is pending. lAWWTF Phosphorus Removal Project Installation of the process equipment is substantially complete. Testing and start up of the treatment process is expected to begin in mid December with several months of operation required prior to final acceptance of the project. DEC will be monitoring the effectiveness of the Phosphorus removal process. Joint Interceptor Sewer Projects The First Street Interceptor construction is proceeding with City of Ithaca forces doing the work. Town Staff^ monitoring the construction process, which has been proceeding smoothly although slowly. i i I N STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The Town Engineers office is continuing to work on the watershed plan and model for the Town. Data that was collected by the engineering interns will be processed and developed into a stormwater model for the Town. Northeast The Town Engineer provided the County Consultant for Hanshaw Road the watershed analysis and drainage plan for the Salem Drive area and the Hanshaw Road drainage system. Drainage improvements for the reconstruction of Hanshaw Road will be designed based on this information. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CAYUGA MEDICAL CENTER Engineering staff is monitoring the sediment and erosion control practices. /^ I I ' ] Town Engineer's Report December 12,2005 Daniel R. Walker Page 2 12/7/2005 TOWN ENGINEERS REPORT 12/12/2005 WEIDERMEIR SUBDIVISION Sediment and erosion controls are being monitored. One of the lots has been sold and a house built. The NYS stormwater monitoring regulations require a subdivision developer to maintain the sediment and erosion control components of the entire site until all construction is completed on all lots in the subdivision. SOUTHWOODS Construction of phase II improvements is substantially complete. The developer is working on final stabilization and restoration of the road cuts and drainage system. Legal responsibility for maintenance of the permanent storm water management measures is in the process of being finalized. WESTVIEW SUBDIVISION The Engineering staff is monitoring the sediment and erosion control program for the site, which is currently in compliance with the sediment and erosion control plan and general permit from DEC. OVERLOOK ON THE WEST HILL Site work has continued with the mass grading for Phase 1 substantially complete. Both onsite and off site water and sewer improvements are substantially complete. Dedication of the portions to be owned by the Town will occur after all tests and certifications are complete and record drawings are received. The Engineering staff is monitoring the site sediment and erosion control measures. Town Engineer's Report December 12,2005 Daniel R. Walker Page 3 12/7/2005 TOWN OF ITHACA REPORT OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2005 MONTH YEAR TO DATE PERMIT YEAR # OF PERMITS AMOUNT # 1 AMOUNT Si FAMILY Rt -NCES 2005 2004 1 150,000 1 200,000 35 7,380,130 34 6,554,536 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES 2005 2004 o o oo 2 277,000 1 149,700 RENOVATIONS 2005 2004 0 0 0 0 20 226,984 16 403,792 CONVERSIONS OF USE 2005 2004 0 0 1 30,000 0 0 7 237,300 ADDITIONS TO FOOTPRINT 2005 2004 1 81,000 2 38,900 20 887,764 22 1,492,050 MULTIPLE RESIDENCES 2005 2004 oo o o 28 5,675,650 0 0 BUSINESS 2005 2004 I 6 Mile Creek Vineyard convert open deck into enclosed tasting room 35,000 1 TC County of Commerce 2,093 square foot, 2 story addition 450,000 1 South Hill Business Campus reroof cafeteria and 4th floor 149,000 I South H'" RncirMHt* rampiiR ftre reRistant harrier 100.000 4 734,000 0 0 27 28,223,148 9 3,078,500 AGMIBLJLTURAL 2005 2004 oo oo 0 0 2 39,000 / IN \RIAL 2005 2004 o o oo oo oo EDUCATIONAL 2005 2004 I Comell Water Filtration Plant replace overhead door 8,000 I Cornell Library Annex extend security system 26,000 14 Comell Hasbrouck Apartments modify heat system 175,000 16 209,000 4 7,012,000 64 49,840,329 27 12,154,462 MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION 2005 2004 1 Tear off and replace roof 12,000 I Reroof house 5,000 I Bus shelter 5,000 I Accessory building 20,000 I Freestanding solar array 48,534 5 90,534 5 76,375 48 558,705 33 369,261 TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED 2005 2004 27 1,264,534 13 7,357,275 245 93,196,910 151 24,478,601 TOTAL FEES RECEIVED 2005 2004 27 3,295 13 7.345 241 102,564 151 37,855 Date Prepared: December I, 2005 Dani L. Holford November 2005, Page 2 TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED THIS MONTH - 15 1. 865 Taughannock Boulevard - additions and alterations to single-family home. ^ ^ 2. 210Tareyton Drive-convert carport into garage. . ^ f ; 3. 405 Palm Road (CU) - addition to library annex storage building - temporary. 4. 1585 Slaterville Road - rebuild fn)nt porch and reroof main house. 5. Dryden Road (CU) - install new electrical panel and exhaust fan. 6. 165 Iradell Road - replace rubber roof. 7. 261 Coddington Road - install 2 wood stoves and metal chimney insert. 8. 61 Whitetail Drive - rear deck addition. 9. 386 Stone Quarry Road - covered porch. 10. 654 Elmira Road - add dwelling unit in existing space at Wonderland Motel. 11. 303 Old Gorge Road - new 4 bedroom, single-family home with attached 2-car garage. 12. 24 Helen's Way - new 2 bedroom single-family home. 13. 110 Westhaven Road - new attached garage and family room addition. 14. 313 Old Gorge Road - new 4 bedroom, single-family home with attached 3-car garage. 15. II50 Danby Road - caf6 and lounge addition at La Tourelle - temporary. TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY YEAR TO DATE. 2005 - 181 TOTAL CERTIFICATES OF OC CUPANCY YEAR TO DATE. 2004 - 188 INQUIRIES/COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED THIS MONTH - 6 1. 1028 Ellis Hollow Road - building code - pending. 2. 110 Pineview Terrace - property maintenance - pending. 3. 113 Pineview Terrace - property maintenance - pending. 4. Vine Street - parking - no violation found. 5. 350 Pine Tree Road - building code - pending. ( ) 6. Danby Road - building code - no violation found. From October 2005: 1. 302 Pine Tree Road - signs - pending. 2. 1399 Slaterville Road - building code - pending. 3. 9348 East Shore Drive - property maintenance - pending. 4. 819 Taughannock Boulevard - building code - pending. 5. 825 Taughannock Boulevard - building code - pending. 6. 1035 Taughannock Boulevard - building code - pending. From September 2005: 1. 208 Cypress Court - building code - pending. From April 2005: 1. 823 and 825 Danby Road - signage - pending. From August 2004: 1.312 Salem Drive - building code - pending state variance. From May 1995: 1. 1152 Danby Road - zoning and building code - Building Permit applied for corrections - sprinklers installed - partial abatement. / ^ TOTAL COMPLAINTS INY'ESTIG.ATED YEAR TO D.4TE, 2005 - 31 TOTAL COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATED YEAR TO DATE. 2004 - 33 November 2005, Page 3 '' TAL FIELD VISITS THIS MONTH - 89 iform Building Code - 77 ^ocai Law and Zoning Inspections - 7 Fire Safety -4(1 multiple dwelling, 3 private school buildings) Fire Safety Reinspections - 0 Fire/Emergency Occurrences -1 (carbon monoxide at Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments) Fire Occurrence Reinspections - 0 TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2005 - 1045 TOTAL FIELD VISITS YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 929 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS THIS MONTH - 0 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 2005 - 2 TOTAL SIGN PERMITS YEAR TO DATE, 2004 - 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I MEETING, 4 CASES, AGENDA ATTACHED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY. NOVEMBER 21.2005 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, November 21, 2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.. on the following matters: APPEAL of Colleen Shuler, DBA City Lights Antiques, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Sections 270-54 and 270-55 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain an antique shop located at 1319 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28-1-26.6, Low Density Residential Granted- 2°"®- A" original, time-limited variance to allow the antique shop was granted in 1990 and extended in 1995. The most recent variance extension of December 13,2000 is set to expire on December 13,2005. APPEAL of Nancy Battistella, DBA Six Mile Creek Vineyard, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements Granted of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-66 and Section 270-71(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted tomodify an existing vineyard/winery with a building expansion, located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-2-1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said vineyard has previously been granted a use variance to allow its use in a residential zone. An area variance is being requested as the proposed building addition encroaches on the western side yard setback. An interpretation is being requested for consideration as to whether "receptions" are a normal function of a vineyard. Otherwise, a request for a modification of the previously approved use variance is also being made. The Zoning Board of Appeals referred the matter to the Tovra of Ithaca Planning Board for a recommendation at their November 15,2005 meeting. Granted APPEAL of Luke Bowes, Appellant, Ron Knewstub, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII Section 270-45 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct an open pile dock that exceeds the maximum 8-foot width and the 300 square foot surface area required by Code. The proposed dock will be 8' x 60' with a 10' X 24' "L" extension at the end and a 14' x 24' covered boatlift, and have an overall square footage of 1056 square feet. The property is located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-1, Lakefront Residential Zone. APPEAL of John Rancich, Appellant, George R. Frantz, Agent, to modify the conditions of a previously granted special approval (9/23/02) to continue a gravel pit mining operation, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road approximately 500 feet west of the intersection with West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone. The previously granted special approval was issued for a three-year period and expired on October 1, 2005. The Appellant requests that the special approval be extended through August 31, 2008 to coincide with the expiration date of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Mining Permit that was issued. The Appellant also requests the modification of two other conditions of the previous special approval: 1) to permit the use of crushing and conveying equipment on the site to process the mined gravel for use in the planned street and infrastructure system on other portions of the property (where the previous approval included a condition that there be no processing or crushing of any of the material at the Project site or any lands adjacent to the site at any time...), and 2) to increase the maximum number of truckloads of gravel permitted to be removed from the site from 32 to 64 truckloads per day, and from 4 truckloads per hour to 8 truckloads per hour (where the previous approval included a condition that there be no more than four truck trips per hour, one trip being ingress and egress, and no more than 32 truckloads removed per day. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 607-273-1747 Dated: November 10,2005 Published: November 15,2005 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board, December 12, 2005 Human Resources Report for November 2005 1 j ^ Personnel Committee: The committee did not meet in November. Safetv Committee: The committee continued discussion on dangerous Intersections, Creig reported that the Interns finished the project of pictures at the Intersections. CreIg will be bringing to a future meeting mapping and picture program. Sub committees continued progress on the building Inspection forms. Judy reported on her experience as a public works employee and discussion on personal protective equipment. Bernle Morse will be subbing for Tim Elghmey while Tim works the night shift for the winter. Board Policv and Protocol Committee: The committee met the to discuss any changes recommended at the Town Board meeting the night before. Peter emailed suggestive changes to the committee later that week. The committee also discussed the draft local law regarding committee structure. Herb agreed to look closer at the language In the manual and local law and bring back suggestions. Personnel - Civil Service: All employees received the 2006 compensation and benefits letters. Open enrollment notification and meetings were held at all three locations. Letters to retirees went out Informing them of the new rates for health Insurance beginning with their December payment. Letters were sent out to the two new board members and justice welcoming them to Town of Ithaca employment. I will be meeting with each of them to complete any necessary papenwork. Justice Clarence Larkin has filed for retirement through the State Retirement System. He will be continuing on the Town's health Insurance as a retiree paying 95% of the premiums. Kathryn PrybylskI, Civil Engineer, turned In her letter of resignation effective December 2, 2005. She Is moving to Massachusetts and has accepted a position with a private engineering firm there. The process has begun In filling this position. The civil service exam will be given January 7^*^ and candidates will be Interviewed once the eligible listing Is released. An advertisement was put In the newspaper to encourage eligible people to apply to take the exam. Cralg Fuller, Distribution Operator, SCLIWC, has turned In his letter of Intent to retire, effective February 2006. Training and Development: Town staff attended the Brainteaser program offered in November. ^ \ The annual wellness fair has been organized and will occur Thursday, December 8**^ from 12:30 to 2:30pm. Commercial Insurance (Ithaca Aoencv - Selective Insurance ComoanvT The Town's insurance agent, Charlie Gibson and I have been working on the Town's commercial insurance for 2006. Selective has requested for the second year in a row a straight increase of 4% added onto our property values. After a great deal of discussion they have submitted an estimated increase over all of 3% with no changes made to the property values. More information regarding this will be presented at the December meeting. There was one new accident reported. This accident was another trip and fall going into the Post Office. The area that has caused the accident has been repaired to alleviate any future claims. Workers' Compensation (Public Emolovers Risk Management Assoc- PERM A): No new claims to report. I have been communicating with Perma regarding the Town's 04-05 audit. The final ^ figures are still not available, but should be prior to the end of the calendar year. As a safety personal protection program, public works employees were provided a safety ^ orange winter coat with reflective striping. These coats have already shown their great use during late November's cold days for final leave collection along the roadways. Disabilitv Insurance: No new claims submitted. Unemplovment Insurance: There is currently one person claiming unemployment. Submitted By: Judith C. Drake, PHR, Human Resources Manager i ' \ November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, November 14, 2005 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY THOSE PRESENT: Supervisor Valentino; Councilman Lesser; Councilman Burbank; Councilwoman Gittelman; Councilman Engman; Councilman Stein. STAFF PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Clerk; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Al Carvill, Budget Officer; Judy Drake, Human Resources Manager; John Barney, Attorney for the Town. EXCUSED: Councilwoman Grigorov OTHERS PRESENT: Patricia Leary, 316 Highland Road; Mike , Tompkins County Legislature; Debby Kelley, Town of Ithaca Receiver of Taxes; Jeff Cowie, 624 Elm Street Extension CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. and Supervisor Valentino led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3 - Report of Tompkins Countv Legislature Mike Koplinka-Loehr appeared before the Board on behalf of the Tompkins County Legislature. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr asked for questions from the Board. Supervisor Valentino told Mr. Koplinka-Loehr that she would be coming to the County's meeting on sales tax abatement scheduled for the following day. She stated the Town Board had taken a straw vote that resulted in 5 to 2 with the majority vote requesting that the County not eliminate the sales tax on clothing items under $100.00. Supervisor Valentino thought the proposed abatement would be devastating to the Town's budget and would not help the people that need it as much as some other County programs that target the real needs of people that do not have a living wage. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr stated it was unclear whether the proposal had the support to go forward, but it will be debated. Councilman Stein stated it strikes him that it is an unfocused way to help low income people. The Town cannot adjust sales tax receipts and so the adjustable parameter is the real estate tax so if somebody knocks down the sales tax it will result in an increase in the real property tax. The real estate tax is something everybody pays. Mr. Stein felt there were a lot of luxury clothing items that cost less than $100, so it was not clear to him that this would be an effective way of helping needy people. Mr. Lesser stated he was concerned that if Tompkins County continues the tax and the surrounding counties don't the Town could end up leading a lot of shoppers out of the area. It may not sound like a lot but if somebody's taking a family to outfit them for periods of time it amounts to a fair amount of money. It is also a visible savings so many people might make 1 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 what amounts to fairly irrational choices in terms of costs and time. Mr. Lesser hoped the ^ Legislature would consider what the surrounding counties were doing. I Mr. Lesser brought the discussion to the Hanshaw and Coddington Road reconstruction projects. He told Mr. Koplinka-Loehr that the Town has passed a resolution supported by the great majority of residents at the various public hearings to have 10-foot lanes. The concern being not only the size but the speeding that is going to be engendered with a larger roadway. Mr. Lesser stated the Town Board was not quite sure where the County stood on the whole process and who in the County system makes the decisions to request a waiver. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr thought that Peter Penniman is trying to arrange a meeting with the County staff to figure out where they can put some leverage to the State. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr felt it was an opportune time to put this pressure on the State. Supervisor Valentino thought a resolution from the County Legislature along with resolutions from the Town and City would show the State that the communities are all on board in thinking this is very important. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr stated he could work with Mr. Penniman to move this forward. Supervisor Valentino brought up discussion of a park she had spoken with Mr. Koplinka- Loehr about. The location is near the downstream bridge on Forest Home Drive. The reason the Town had not accepted it when the Plantations previously offered it to the Town was because of liability concerns having to do with the creek and the waterfall. They would have to work to figure out how to overcome that worry and liability before considering it as a park. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr felt those concerns could be resolved. Mr. Burbank asked who maintained the property now. Mr. Koplinka-Loehr told him it was maintained by the n Plantations who had approached Forest Home to see if they would take it, but they are not a 501 (c)3 or entity that could. Forest Home in turn approached the Finger Lakes Land Trust, but it was too small for them to consider. Supervisor Valentino thanked Mr. Koplinka-Loehr for $2,000 received from the County for a celebration for Tutelo Park. Hanshaw Road Supervisor Valentino reported that Mr. Lesser wanted to add discussion of Hanshaw Road to the agenda and asked for Board approval. There was not objection. Agenda Item No. 4 - Report of Fire Commission (Attachment #1 - Fire Commission Monthlv Report) Mr. Romanowski appeared before the Board on behalf of the Fire Commission. He read his monthly report to the Board. Mr. Romanowski reported that he was looking into how to recover the resources expended as a result of people trespassing and getting into trouble in the gorges. The resultant rescue efforts cost time and money. There are places within the State that have ordinances on the books enabling municipalities to charge individuals for trespassing and bill them or their | insurance companies for the cost of their rescue. Mr. Romanowski reported that Troy, New November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 York has a gorge ordinance. Their trails are marked and if someone gets into trouble and has to be rescued the billing goes into the thousands of dollars. Agenda Item No. 6 - Persons to be Heard and Board Comments Supervisor Valentino asked for comments from the Board. Councilman Burbank reported trying to locate a resolution on the Town's website and found it somewhat difficult. After speaking with Ms. Carrier-Titti, Councilman Burbank felt there was a bit of a problem in the site's functioning. It appeared to Mr. Burbank that you could not, as it is presently set up, look at what was talked about at a particular meeting. Mr. Burbank encouraged other Board members to visit the site and see what they thought and consider asking Ms. Carrier-Titti to devote some time to improving the search capabilities of the site. Councilman Burbank reported learning that residents could put their name on a list by the Public Works Department to receive a delivery of woodchips when the men are out chipping. Mr. Burbank put his name on the list and received what he described as a humongous pile of chips, which he is now sharing with his neighbors. He thought it was a great service but thought the Town might want to think if there could be slightly better notification. Association of Towns Annual Meeting The Board discussed the upcoming Association of Towns Annual Meeting. Supervisor Valentino suggested that those who are going coordinate attendance at and share information from the various workshops. Cost of attending per persons is approximately $1,500. Supervisor Valentino felt it might help the Board think of the things they want to accomplish in the upcoming year. Mr. Engman wondered if this conference was as systematic in its training as the Newly Elected Officials' programs that are being held in Rochester and Albany. Because of the dates, Mr. Stein and Mr. Cowie did not think they would be able to attend the New York City Conference. Persons to be Heard (Attachment #5 - Draft Local Law regarding the Creation and Appointment of Committees) Ms. Leary, while interested in attending the New York City Meeting, stated she did not want to financially burden the Town and would be fine with however the arrangements worked out. Ms. Leary expressed concern about the proposed local law regarding the Town's committee structure. She stated her reason for concern was that it seemed to call for a pretty dramatic change in the governance of the Town and especially having to do with the Town Board. She thought it would be better if the new members could vote on the issue rather than having the outgoing Board vote on it. She noticed there were lots and lots of committees which was something she wanted to get into later; keeping it more to Town Board members rather than just opening it up wide. November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Supervisor Valentino told her what the proposed law does is basically confirme what the town is currently doing regarding committee structure. Attorney Barney added that what the ! proposed law does is basically confirm the process that has been used in the Town for probably the last 15 years. Councilman Engman initiated Mr. Barney examining the process a little more closely and discovering there is some question as to whether the process the Town has been using is an appropriate process under the law. Mr. Barney stated that it appears according to opinions of the State Comptroller that the process the Town has been using can be made legal by the adoption of a local law and that is what the proposed local law is attempting to do. It is not intended to be a change in procedure from what we've been doing, it is intended to make legal that which we have been doing for a number of years. Ms. Leary felt this was something for the Board to discuss but felt when she read it that it was a change and felt any change like that would be better done with the new Board. Supervisor Valentino stated her point was well taken and that the two new Board members should be in the loop of how the Town constructs their committees. Mr. Cowie came fon/vard to speak about the same issue. He too asked that this discussion be postponed and had by the new Board. Supervisor Valentino felt it was important to look at each of the committees, who are the people on them, why it is felt it is important for those people to be on the individual committees. It will take some time, but Supervisor Valentino felt it was an important exercise. Mr. Cowie also felt the power to appoint who was on the committees and who has voting rights needs to be brought up and made explicit. There was no on else wishing to address the Board. Agenda item No. 7 - Discussion with M. Bailev regarding sewer line problem Attorney Barney stated that since a claim of sorts has been filed on this issue and there is a potential for litigation he thought it would be appropriate for the Board to listen to what Ms. Bailey has to say but if the Board wants to discuss the merits of it that should probably be an executive session item. Ms. Bailey told the Board that there is no legal action pending and she did not intend to take legal action. She is hoping that the Board will reconsider the decision that has already been rendered to her from Mr. Walker and Ms. Drake. Michelle Bailey, 17 Fairway Drive, Ithaca Ms. Bailey told the Board she had a house built on Fain/vay Drive in 2001. The house is served by the Town's municipal sewer system so the contractor had to tie her house into the sewer line that goes down the road. The installation was inspected and passed by the inspector appointed by the Town. Her sewer system backed up in August and December of 2003. At that time they didn't know what the problem was and attributed it to toilet paper use « and type or family members with long hair. However in 2004 there was a major sewer back | i up that led to extensive damage in the house. At that time, Ms. Bailey called the Town and dealt with Mr. Sincebaugh who was very helpful. They worked on the problem and it turned November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 out that there were 7 violations of the code that were passed by the inspector. First of all, here house was tied into the wrong spot, it was tied into the lot next door. There was an illegal turn in the pipe, which didn't have a clean out. Both are violations. The pipes were not bedded in gravel so that they were crushed and broken when they excavated. The pipes went up and over and up and over two very large boulders that were about 3 and 4 feet in diameter. There was only a 2-inch drop from Ms. Bailey's home to the sewer in the street and by code you needed a minimum of 30 inches and the slope from the clean out to her house was actually back into her house. When Ms. Bailey reported this to the Town, they discussed it with the Town's insurance company and decided not to accept responsibility because Ms. Bailey would have had to make the claim within 1 year and 90 days from the time of inspection. But given the nature of the problem, it took more than that period of time to realize that there had been a false certification. The problems were underground, they were out of sight, and they were absolutely undetectable in that timeframe. Ms. Bailey stated that from the time she contacted the Town in July of 2004 it took over 10 months to really discover what the problem was and get it rectified. Ms. Bailey told the Board that, so far, she has spent almost $30,000 rectifying the problem and that's without the needed repairs to her dug-up driveway. Her point to the Town was that had they carried out a proper inspection she understands that it would have had to have been corrected before a certificate of occupancy would have been issued. If it had been inspected properly it would have been the problem of the contractor and he would have been the one that was liable, but now, because it is passed that 1 year and 90 days, Ms. Bailey has no recourse with the contractor who, also, has gone bankrupt. Ms. Bailey was before the Town to ask if they would reconsider the decision that has already been taken and perhaps consider assisting with the cost of the reconstruction. Ms. Bailey distributed and reviewed with the Board pictures detailing her problem. In summary Ms. Bailey asked the Town to consider, when there were violations of the inspection and she has the signed inspection forms, what good is an inspection if the Town is not going to stand behind it? She hoped the Town would reconsider its decision. The Board thanked Ms. Bailey for her clear presentation of the problem. Ms. Bailey thanked Mr. Sincebaugh for his help in diagnosing the problem. Councilman Stein asked Ms. Bailey what she was asking for from the Board. She stated she would like help towards the $30,000 she put out. Supervisor Valentino thanked Ms. Bailey for her presentation. There was no on else to come before the Board for Persons to Be Heard. Agenda item No. 8 — Tompkins County Assessment Department regarding Real Propertv Tax Exemptions Mr. Franklin reviewed the proposed exemptions with the Board. 1. Historic Barn Exemption - Allows for a 10-year exemption, 100% the first year, on any increase in value due to the rehabilitation of an historic barn. Not for residential November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 purposes but for farm use. The exemption drops 10% per year. The County decided to enact this exemption. No one has applied for it. Regarding a financial impact, it would not decrease the Town's tax base, it would only increase it based upon whatever work a property owner did to their historic barn. Mr. Engman asked if he was correct in understanding that the exemption applies only to the increased value of the barn as a result of the work, not the original assessed value of the barn? Mr. Franklin told him he was correct, it is only on the increase. 2. Improvement to Property Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - This is only on the increase in assessed value due to these improvements. There is a 50% exemption in the first year and decreases 5% per year for 10 years. The County did opt into this. No one has applied for it yet. The first time it would be applicable is in the 2006 assessment roll to be filed on May 1®^ 3. Mr. Franklin, reviewed the history of the Veteran's Exemption with the Board. Historically there was one exemption for veterans called the Existing Veterans or Eligible Funds. Veterans could use their mustering out pay in order to have decrease in their assessed value based upon the amount of mustering out pay they used to purchase the property up to a $5,000 limit. Back in 1986 the State Legislature allowed municipalities to opt out of the Existing Veterans Exemption into the Alternative Veterans Exemption that allowed a percentage decrease in their assessed value if they served during a period of conflict. It would also allow for a greater exemption if ^ they served in the combat theater and it would also allow for a greater exemption if ! they were disabled as a result of their service. The County took a look at this this year. Out of the 16 municipalities within Tompkins County, 5 of them still only offer the Existing Veterans Exemption. The remaining 11 offer the Alternative Veteran Exemption at a various levels. This year the County raised theirs from $9,000 up to $15,000. The Town's current level is $12,000. Supervisor Valentino asked if Mr. Franklin had any idea of the financial impact for the Town. Mr. Franklin stated that right now there is about 5.44 million exempted off of the tax base due to the Veteran's exemption within the Town of Ithaca. Increasing it up to $15,000 from $12,000 for the basic exemption would add an additional 1.21 million taken off of the tax base. Multiplying that out times last year's tax rate of 1.38 would result in approximately $1,671 being shifted to the rest of the tax base. It would make the total Veteran's Exemption around 6.66 million. The Veterans Exemption is not eligible for the school taxes, it's only available for Town, Village, and County. Mr. Stein asked if he was correct in thinking that if this is a change in the assessment, it changes how much the County collects as well as how much the Town collects on a property in the Town. Mr. Franklin told him, no, there's a different taxable for each taxing authority. There's a different taxable value for your County tax purposes, for Town, for Village, for Fire Districts. Mr. Stein stated he always thought the assessment was the same. Mr. Franklin told him the assessment was the same, but once you start to levy taxes on it, you have to take the assessment and subtract out exemptions, so you come up with ^ taxable values that are different. As an example, Mr. Franklin sited taxable State- owned land in Caroline, Dryden, Danby, and Newfield that only pay Town and School Tax, they do not pay County Tax. Mr. Burbank asked, other than a general wanting to November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 reward people who have given to their country, what is the rationale for a different level and is there a demonstrated need, or is this purely a thank you for service, and is it getting to the people who need this exemption the most. Supervisor Valentino told him there is not consideration for their income. Councilwoman Gittelman asked for an idea of the impact per household. Mr. Franklin told her for the basic person that served during a period of conflict it would result in an additional $4.00 savings, anel added $3,000 exemption times the 1.38 rate. The Board should make their final decision not later than their March meeting so that any changes made can be factored into the Tentative Assessment Rolls. Supervisor Valentino asked the Board for their feelings. Councilman Lesser stated that it looked as though the Town is pretty much in line with many of the other communities so it is not clear to him that there's a need for an major addition. If the Town did increase it he did not know how the Town would decide on what basis. Mr. Engman stated he had said before that he is not very fond of exemptions. It seems to him that it doesn't apply equally to people and to those most in need. However, of the exemptions one can give these seem to be the very best. Mr. Engman reported having looked at the Governor's report of foregone taxes and has added up those going to agriculture and it's over 200 million dollars a year in foregone taxes just for agriculture. If you look at the rest of the society you're probably getting into billions in exemptions, so that is billions the State doesn't collect because everybody seems to have gotten some sort of special exemption from taxes. Supervisor Valentino asked the Board to give thought to the proposed exemptions. Agenda Item No. 9 - Tompkins County Budget and Finance regarding Tax Collection David Squires appeared before the Board to report on the change in the time when the Town will turn collection of the Town and County Property Taxes over to the County. Previously the Town has collected the taxes until May 31 beginning in 2006 they will turn collection over to the County on March 31®^ In explaining why the County is doing this, Mr. Squires stated that the County has to enforce and keep the records for unpaid taxes. While the taxes are in the hands of the Town collector, especially in the months of April and May when there are a lot of spring real estate transactions, they cannot rely on their records because they do not know whether the current taxes have been paid or not. The sooner the County gets that information in the more complete the inventory is. The other issue is that this preferential treatment of extending the warrant until June 1®^ is not afforded to the school districts. They have a 60-day period of collection. Supervisor Valentino told Mr. Squires that the County is going to have to do a lot of public outreach to re-educate the tax paying public. It has been the tradition of the Town, although we do not legally have to do it, to send out second notices to people. Supen/isor Valentino asked if the County going to be sending second notices. Mr. Squires told her that they would mm, be doing second notices. Supervisor Valentino asked if the extra 5% of penalties will be starting in April instead of June. Mr. Squires told her yes and that the County was hoping that penalty might change habits and drive people to pay their taxes in installments. Right now you can pay your tax late at lesser cost than paying in installments, because the installment November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 charge is 10% interest. So if you paid your Town tax in the month of April you wouldn't be ^ charged 10% interest, you'd be charged 8% interest. Supervisor Valentino stated she had two concerns. One on the public relations side, making everybody aware of the change so they know what is going to happen and can make arrangements not to get hit with any of the penalties because now they are going to be required to pay tax in an earlier time than they could before. The second concern for the Town of Ithaca is that this has been a source of revenue for the Town in the neighborhood of $8,000 per year. In response, Mr. Squires stated he "was here bearing gifts". The County recognizes that the Town will lose some money and what the County is going to do starting in January is distribute sales tax revenues to the Town monthly rather than quarterly. Mr. Squires stated that monthly sales tax receipts will more than compensate for the lost revenue. Mr. Carvill responded stating the compensation is providing the money is not touched and that Mr. Squires is talking yield versus declining balances for cash flow, which is distinctly different. Mr. Squires encouraged the town to look at the banks for collection of taxes. He felt it was very convenient. Typically the banks charge about .32 cents a bill to collect. Mr. Stein asked if his calculation that for $2,000 dollars the Town could farm out the tax collection was correct. Mr. Squires told him that was what it cost for what is called a lock box service. Mr. Carvill cautioned that this would not alleviate the need for the Town to keep a daily record of the payments and enter the information into the Town's tax collection program. Councilman Stein asked if there is an advantage to the Town in having Tompkins Trust collect the taxes for the Town. Mr. Carvill thought that it just provides larger flexibility, but there would still be paperwork on the part of the Receiver of Taxes. It is a convenience for the taxpayer. Supervisor Valentino and the board thanked David Squires for coming to the meeting. Sales Tax Mr. Squires mentioned that the County Legislature would be voting on the clothing sales tax exemption on Tuesday, November 15, 2005. The County would lose approximately $750,000 and the Towns would lose about $375,000 for 2006. Councilman Burbank wondered if Mr. Squires knew what the surrounding counties would be doing. Mr. Squires explained that counties such as Tioga and other counties along Route 17 already have a tax exemption on clothing because of the competition they have from Pennsylvania retailers. Agenda Item No. 10-7:00 p.m. - Public Hearing regarding the Cavuqa Lake Waterfront Plan Supervisor Valentino opened the public hearing and the Town Clerk had proof of posting and publication. With no one present to be heard. Supervisor Valentino closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board. 8 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Agenda Item No. 11 - Consider adoption of the Cavuqa Lake Waterfront Plan Councilwoman Gittelman mentioned that the southern end of Cayuga Lake is listed as an impaired water body and wondered if something was being done to clean it up. Supervisor Valentino explained that there is a very large phosphorous removal project unden/vay between the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca and Town of Dryden. They are hopeful it will have a significant impact on reducing the phosphorous load in the southem end of Cayuga Lake. Councilman Lesser endorsed final adoption of the plan, but would like the board to consider recommending that there be more attention given to public access of the lake. Councilman Lesser made a motion that the preparers of the plan give additional consideration to the acquisition of lands for public access to Cayuga Lake. Councilwoman Gittelman seconded the motion. IB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-171: Amendment to Resolution Adopting the Cavuaa Lake Waterfront Plan Be it resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca amend the proposed resolution of adopting the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan by adding the recommendation that the preparers of the plan give additional consideration to the acquisition of lands for public access to Cayuga Lake. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172: Resolution adopting the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan Pursuant to the New York State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program WHEREAS, Town of Ithaca representatives have been participating with the other Cayuga Lake waterfront municipalities, including the City of Ithaca, Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing, and Towns of Lansing and Ulysses, in the preparation of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan (the Plan), and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department has been coordinating the preparation of the Plan under a grant from the NYS Department of State pursuant to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), and if adopted by the participating municipalities and accepted by NYS, the Plan would become the LWRP and would provide the participating municipalities with more leverage in acquiring state and federal funds for implementing waterfront projects, and November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 WHEREAS, the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan - Final Report (December, 2004) has f-n been completed and circulated to the participating municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Plan contains 13 Waterfront Revitalization Policies (outlined in Chapter Three of the Plan), which would provide guidance to the participating municipalities for planning and development in the waterfront area, and these policies are consistent with the goals and objectives in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993), and WHEREAS, adoption of the Plan would require that certain local, county, state and federal actions proposed within the waterfront boundaries are consistent with the adopted policies in the Plan, and would provide a process for consistency review based on those policies, and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2005, the Town of Lansing Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the Plan on behalf of the participating municipalities, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, made a negative declaration of environmental significance in regard to the adoption of the Plan, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board referred the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation regarding adoption of the Plan, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed and considered the Plan at their meeting on August 2, 2005, and recommended that the Town Board adopt the Cayuga | Lake Waterfront Plan pursuant to the NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (in PB Resolution No. 2005-073), and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board has reviewed and considered the Plan, and held a public hearing at their November 14, 2005 meeting to obtain public comments regarding the Plan, now therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca acknowledges and concurs with the Town of Lansing Planning Board's negative declaration of environmental significance regarding the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan, that the Plan will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and that no further environmental review with respect to the Plan is required; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca recommends that the preparers of the plan give additional consideration to the acquisition of lands for public access to Cayuga Lake; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby adopt the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan (December, 2004) pursuant to the New York State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program; and it is Either ^ RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca is hereby authorized and directed to notify the New York State Department of State regarding the adoption of the Plan. 10 November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No. 12 - Discussion of Town Parks Supervisor Valentino put this discussion back on the agenda because she was not sure if the board understood that the Recreation Committee had voted in favor of using the Westhaven Park and Glenside Park as the names of the parks. Councilman Burbank contested the point because he did not remember that from the Recreation Committee meeting. He did not think the minutes of that meeting were correct. Supervisor Valentino recalled that they had voted at the committee meeting to vote on the parks. Councilman Burbank thought that at the committee meeting they had agreed to look into the idea of preserves and not make a decision. Supervisor Valentino thought that was on future parks. Ms. Kirchgessner had additional comments about the committee minutes. Comments were not heard because Ms. Kirchgessner was not near a microphone. Regardless of who was correct. Supervisor Valentino wanted to bring it back before the board for consideration. Councilman Burbank explained that the Town is acquiring parkland that it would like to remain undeveloped. He thought the board might want to look into the possibility of so defining that land through a name, such as preserve. The Board discussed various terms for defining a park as undeveloped. Attorney Barney reported having done some research and as long as the Town accepts land as parkland, the name of the park does not impact its status as parkland. Mr. Kanter and Mr. Noteboom are putting together a list of parks that need official naming and will be attending the next Recreation Committee meeting. Agenda Item No. 13 - Presentation of Proposed Outdoor Lighting Law (Attachment #2 - Copy of PowerPoint presentation. Memo from M. Smith. Draft Outdoor Lighting Law) Mr. Smith gave the board a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Outdoor Light Law. Councilman Stein was not very comfortable with the proposed law because it seemed very subjective and arbitrary. He was not comfortable telling people that they have to conform to 11 November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 this particular code. Councilman Engman explained that the law went through the Codes and Ordinances Committee. The committee spent months working on the draft law. It represents one small attempt to try to get some of the lighting under control so that we can reduce the total affect on the environment. Councilman Engman thought that there were actually some children who had never seen the stars because there is so much light that you cannot see the sky. Mr. Smith added that it would not cost new development more money to put in the "good" lights. Councilman Stein would feel more comfortable if it was a national standard and if it was recognized everywhere as what should be done with lights. Mr. Smith explained that the law they put together came from hundreds of other ordinances around the country. He has pulled together pieces from a lot of different ordinances to make it fit situations in the Town. Councilwoman Gittelman mentioned that she has been in many cities in the West with these types of ordinances and it is a pleasure to look up into the sky and see the Milky Way, which she hasn't seen since she moved here. Councilman Lesser thought that if they are really concerned about it, then they should start with themselves. He lives on Coddington Road and there is light pollution out there, but it is from the Town street lights. He felt that if the Town was going to do it, then they should do it themselves. Councilman Engman pointed out that there is a national movement to try to get light spillage under control. It isn't just Ithaca, New York, and Ithaca is a little late getting on the bandwagon. Supervisor Valentino hoped that this law would do away with the light that is lighting things unnecessarily. She thanked Mr. Smith for the nice presentation. Councilwoman Gittelman directed the board's attention to the written material provided on the proposed lighting law and how it mentions the need for education. She thought that there was a real need for education. Mr. Kanter said that the committee wanted to introduce the subject to board members who had not seen the law before and to start the process of setting up a public information meeting and the education process soon. They are thinking about organizing a public meeting within the next month or so before it comes to the public hearing stage. Councilman Burbank was curious and concerned about the financial impact on individual homeowners and businesses. He would feel more comfortable with transitioning over time and wondered if anyone has estimated what the financial costs would be cumulatively to Town residents and businesses. Mr. Smith responded that they have not. He has looked at websites on how to adapt lights to meet the requirements and there are companies that offer products to help people retrofit existing lights. Mr. Smith explained that some of the handouts given to the board have a lot of information and they can be distributed. More information could also be on the website. 12 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Councilman Lesser thought that there would be a lot of people who were concerned about sufficient light and in order to get people to accept the idea, people need to be convinced that they are going to be able to get enough light to see. Councilwoman Gittelman asked if solar lights along walkways were within the limits. Mr. Smith said that they were well below the 1,000 lumens. Mr. Smith provided the board with information he found on the internet comparing good lighting with bad lighting sources. The board thanked Mr. Smith for his hard work. Agenda Item No, 14 - Introduction and Discussion of Local Law regarding Committee Structure Supervisor Valentino thought it was wonderful that Ms. Leary and Mr. Cowie came to the meeting and showed interest in the proposed local law. She thought it was appropriate to listen to their concerns and defer any discussion of that until they are able to participate in the discussions. The board agreed that it was a good idea. Agenda Item No. 16 - Consider Acceptance of Alison Drive Mr. Noteboom explained the road was built and ready to be accepted by the Town Board. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-173: ACCEPTANCE OF ALISON DRIVE FOR DEDICATION AS A TOWN OF ITHACA ROADWAY. WHEREAS, The Leonardo family is offering for dedication to the Town of Ithaca for highway and utility purposes approximately 300 lineal feet of property 60 feet wide shown as Alison Drive running North from the intersection with Sesame Street on the Subdivision Map entitled "Revised Subdivision Plat, Leonardo Lands, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, prepared by Lawrence P Fabbroni, P.E. L.S., Sheet 1 of 2 dated 12-9-94"; and WHEREAS, The owner has constructed the roads and storm water facilities to Town of Ithaca specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways has advised the Town Board that said road has been constructed in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Highway specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Superintendent of Highways has recommended the acceptance of said parcel for dedication for highway and utility purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts as public roadway 300 lineal feet of property 50 feet wide known as Alison Drive subject to the following conditions: 13 November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 m (a) Approval of title to said road by the Attorney for the Town. ; (b) Receipt of deed for the road Parcel. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, absent; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No. 17 - Consider Approvals regarding Reorganization of the Building and Zoning Functions (Attachment #3 - Job Descriptions! a. Consider Creation of Senior Code Enforcement Officer Position b. Consider Provisionai Promotionai Appointment to Senior Code Enforcement Officer c. Consider Aboiishing Assistant Director of Building and Zoning Position d. Consider Approval of Revised Job Descriptions Mrs. Drake walked the board through the materials provided in the packet. A change needs to be made to the Provisional Promotional Appointment of Senior Code Enforcement Officer because the State determined that Senior Code Enforcement Officer is comparable to the position of Assistant Director of Building and Zoning. The resolution was amended to delete any references to "provisional". Councilman Stein asked about the financial implications of the changes. Mrs. Drake explained that Ms. Rice will receive a promotion to the Senior Code Enforcement Officer Position. Ms. Rice is already at that pay rate because the board had approved a temporary salary increase last month. Mr. Walker added that there are actually savings because a Director's position is being eliminated. TB RESOLUTION NO, 2005-174: Creation of Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Position WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca established compliance under the New York State Civil Service Agency to qualify employment positions in the Town of Ithaca in accordance with Section 22 of Civil Service Laws, Rules and Regulations; and WHEREAS, by regulation of Civil Service Law the Town must create a position and approve the job description before making an appointment; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby establish the ^ following position in accordance with the applicable New York Sate and Tompkins County ! Civil Service rules: 14 November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 iw 1. The following position is established and is a position in the competitive class pursuant to Section 44 of the Civil Service Law: (a) One Senior Code Enforcement Officer And be it further RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby approve the attached job description for the said position, with the said position being in the Job Classification "P"; and be it further RESOLVED, the Human Resources Manager is directed to coordinate any necessary filing with Tompkins County Personnel Department to obtain certification of the position. MOVED: Councilman Engman SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. ^ TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-175: Appointment to Sr. Code Enforcement Officer WHEREAS, there is presently one vacancy in the full time position of Senior Code Enforcement Officer; and WHEREAS, the Building and Zoning Department Committee has determined that Kristina Rice, Assistant Director of Building and Zoning, possess the necessary knowledge, skills and ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of a Senior Code Enforcement Officer and recommend her for a promotional appointment; Now, Therefore, Be It RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the provisional promotional appointment of Kristina Rice as a full time Senior Code Enforcement Officer, effective November 14, 2005; and be it further RESOLVED, this is a 3714 hours a week position, at the hourly wage of $25.16, which is an estimated annual salary of $49,062, in Job Classification "P", with full time benefits. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Burbank fmm VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. 15 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-176: Abolish Assistant Director of Building and Zoning Position WHEREAS, the Town Board has approved the restructuring of the Building and Zoning Department and the creation of and appointment to the Senior Code Enforcement Officer position; and WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager recommends the abolishment of the Assistant Director of Building and Zoning position; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, does hereby approve the abolishment of the Assistant Director of Building and Zoning position, effective November 14, 2005; and be it further RESOLVED, the Human Resources Manager is directed to file all necessary documents with Tompkins County Personnel Department. MOVED: Councilman Burbank SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-177: Approval of Revised Job Descriptions WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager recommends revisions to the following job descriptions, so that they are a better reflection of the organizational structure due to the restructuring of the Building and Zoning Department; ¨ Director of Engineering ¨ Code Enforcement Officer Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the attached revised job descriptions for; ¨ Director of Engineering ¨ Code Enforcement Officer and be it further 16 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 RESOLVED, the Human Resources Manager is directed to file the approved revised job descriptions with Tompkins County Personnel. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Engman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No. 18 - Consider Recommending Appointment to the Environmental Management Council IB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-178: APPOINTMENT TO TOMPKINS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby recommends and requests that the Tompkins County Board of Representatives appoint Conservation Board member, Larry Sallinger, for the term January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 to serve as a Town of Ithaca Representative on the noted council. MOVED: Councilman Engman SECONDED: Supervisor Valentino VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No. 19 - Consider Appointment to the Planning Coalition Councilman Engman explained that this committee is an advisory committee to the Tompkins County Planning Department. Supervisor Valentino added that the Planning Coalition comes under the auspices of the Municipal Officers Association and is a group that has representatives from every municipality. TB RESOLTUION NO. 2005-179: Recommend Appointment to Planning Coalition BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca recommends the appointment of Herb Engman to the Planning Coalition for a term ending December 31, 2006. MOVED: Supervisor Valentino SECONDED: Councilman Burbank 17 November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; i Councilman Stein, aye. Agenda Item No. 20 - Discussion of Chapter 5 Rules of Order from Draft Board Protocol and Procedures Manual Supervisor Valentino thought the manual was well done and clear. The one problem she had was on the first page. Orders of Discussion, where it states, "a board member may also suggest a reordering or addition to the agenda". She wanted the committee to consider revising it so that a majority of the board was needed to make the addition to the agenda. The board discussed the difference between a majority vote and two-thirds majority vote. Also discussed was how many board members constitute a quorum and if the majority and two-thirds voting requirements changed based upon the number of board members present. Attorney Barney clarified that a quorum of the board equals four board members and according to State Law (General Municipal Law), any action of the board requires four votes. Councilman Stein stated that he thought the Board should follow Robert's Rules of Order. Councilman Stein reported he had read through the chapter very quickly, but with regard to reordering an agenda, the manual says that a member may suggest reordering the agenda but does not say how it would be decided. Councilman Stein thought that reordering of the agenda should be subject to a majority vote of the board. i Councilman Lesser added that the suggestion of writing down what is done is reasonable, but you cannot write down common, standard practice if something has never come up. Should something come up, there needs to be a way to resolve it. He suggested that if the board decided to follow Robert's Rules, he would encourage a training session. If there is a situation where some people know it and other people do not know it very well, then it becomes very difficult. Supervisor Valentino thought that the reason she liked this version of chapter 5 was because she felt comfortable with it. It outlines what the board does. She did think that if there was some sort of disagreement, then they should refer to Robert's Rules. There needs to be a way of resolving things. Councilman Engman mentioned that the committee talked about having somebody really study Robert's Rules so that if there was ever a situation that could not be resolved that did not appear in the chapter, then there would be someone to refer to. Councilwoman Gittelman also wanted people to look at the chapter and if there were things that are left out that have not been put in, to please let the committee know. Councilman Stein stated that he is familiar with Robert's Rules and have been in a number of organizations that follow Robert's Rules of Order. He felt that people should not be afraid of a training session with Robert's Rules of Order because it is not very complicated. 18 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Supervisor Valentino thought that the board should work on the current chapter and take care of some of the things that are not included. Most of the simplified rules have already been copied into the chapter. Councilwoman Gittelman explained that the committee does not want to leave out things. Councilman Engman mentioned that the committee also wanted the board and staff to think about the issue of public hearings and the fact that the board tends to vote on the matter right after the public hearing. As someone who has spoken at various public hearings under various bodies, it always seemed sort of insulting to him to come and give an opinion and then have the body vote on it right after the public hearing as If they never heard the public comments. The committee was thinking of suggesting that it at least would be the intent to try to have public hearings and then vote on the matter at a subsequent meeting. It would allow the board to take into consideration what the public has said. The committee realizes that it would not always be feasible, but if the board started thinking a month ahead, maybe some of the them could be done that way. Councilman Burbank agreed with the suggestion. Councilwoman Gittelman suggested that when the board is having a hearing that has already had hearings, the public hearing should be opened by stating that it is the V number of public hearing on this particular issue, the board has learned a lot from these public hearings and has changed x, y, and z, now the board would like to present and have the public hear what the final plan is. Supervisor Valentino responded that herself and Fred Wilcox, Chair of the Planning Board, have started to outline all the meetings and newspaper articles on a particular item so that people know that it is not the first meeting. She agreed that it would be good to say that ahead of time and it sets the tone for the meeting. Councilman Stein wondered what question Councilman Engman was asking because the board does not set the public hearing unless they have decided that they want to pass it. He thought that when the board is in that frame of mind, it is rather hard to believe that the board would hear anything that anyone says in a public meeting that would make the board want to vote against it. He thought that there was a problem there, but didn't know a way around it. Councilman Stein went on to state that unfortunately, State Law requires the board to have the public hearing and the board is really not soliciting public opinion at that point because the board has already made the decision to move forward and pass the law. Supervisor Valentino felt that by the time the board gets to a public hearing, the board has looked at the materials and decided that they want to hold a public hearing and have decided how they wanted to vote. It has been her experience on the public hearings that the board has had in the past that the majority of the time, the board has heard everything pretty much that there is to hear. Once in a while, someone in the public has come up and has mentioned something the board did not consider or research. At that point, the board decides not to vote on it at that point. 19 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Councilman Engman commented that the board understands the process and that the board is ready to make a decision, but the public does not. What they get is the feeling that they are being disrespected. He would just like whenever possible that the board show some respect to the public, as if their input is being considered and so forth. He is not saying that it ought to be the majority of time, but he would like people to think about the possibility of it happening whenever feasible. Supervisor Valentino agreed that there were probably times when it is a wise thing to do. Mrs. Drake read language that addressed this issue, which could be added to the chapter. Supervisor Valentino admired the diligence of the committee. It turned out to be more work than originally thought. Agenda Item No. 21 - Consent Agenda IB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-180: Consent Agenda Items BE IT RESOLVED, that Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the resolutions for Consent Agenda Items as presented. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-180a: Approval of Floating Holldav for 2006 WHEREAS, there is an annual poll conducted of all Town and SCLIWC employees to determine their preference for the next year's floating holiday; and WHEREAS, the majority of the combined employees of Town Hall and Public Works Facility have indicated, Monday, July 3, 2006 as their preference for the floating holiday; and WHEREAS, the majority of the SCLIWC employees have indicated, Monday, July 3, 2006 as their preference for the floating holiday; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the Floating Holiday for 2006 as Monday, July 3, 2006 as requested by the majority of the employees of Town Hall, Public Works and SCLIWC. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank 20 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-180b : Holidav Tree Pick Up WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Highway Department will be picking up holiday trees for the residents of the Town of Ithaca; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that on January 16, 2005, the Highway Department will pick up holiday trees for the residents of the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilman Burbank VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilwoman Grigorov, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye. HANSHAW ROAD Councilman Lesser suggested that the board adopt a resolution saying if the Town builds sidewalks on Hanshaw Road, the sidewalks would be the property of the Town and the Town would assume liability and maintenance. It would give the message to landowners because there is still ambiguity about that point. Secondly, Councilman Lesser believed that before the board moves ahead, they really need a definitive answer from Cayuga Heights about what they are going to do. It doesn't make sense to Councilman Lesser to build a sidewalk along a significant length of the road to not have it connect to anything at either end. He thought that there would be a more serious safety problem to encourage people to walk and then they end up walking in an area that is clearly unsafe on a blind corner. Supervisor Valentino stated that she talked with Brent Cross and Walter Lynn. Mr. Lynn felt very strongly that if the Town built the sidewalk that they would build their end of it because it would make no sense for it to end in a field. Supervisor Valentino pointed out to him that there was no money to cover their costs to build the sidewalk and he thought that they should probably do it anyway. Supervisor Valentino suggested that when they looked at the cost of it, maybe the Town could share in someway the money it's receiving to make sure that it happens. Mr. Lynn thought that it would be good to talk about, but thought that they could do it at that point. Supervisor Valentino asked the board if they wanted a letter from Mr. Lynn or the Village Trustees regarding their commitment to the sidewalk. Councilman Lesser asked Mr. Walker if it would be difficult to figure out an estimate. Mr. Walker said they could come up with an estimate. Supervisor Valentino would talk with Mr. Lynn and then come back to the board. Supervisor Valentino asked Councilman Lesser if he wanted the board to pass a resolution at the next board meeting on the walkway or if he would prefer the board vote at the current 21 November 14, 2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 meeting. Councilman Lesser explained that the consultants were having an informational fm, meeting at the beginning of December to layout the project. He thought that it would be most valuable for people there to know what the Town's conditional plans would be. It would be good to know what Cayuga Heights was going to do as well. Councilman Stein asked about the maintenance of walkways. Mr. Noteboom stated that the Town maintains the walkways within the Town. He added that there is a sidewalk on Renwick Heights Road, which the landowners are responsible for. It is the only real sidewalk that is in the Town at the moment. Councilman Lesser proposed the following language for a resolution: Be it resolved that if the reconstruction of Hanshaw Road incorporates a walkway for part or all of its length, that the Town of Ithaca will assume ownership, liability and maintenance responsibilities for the sections of the walkway within the Town of Ithaca. Councilman Burbank wondered about the possibility of changing it in the future. Supervisor Valentino explained that there would have to be a contract between the Town and the County stating that the Town has taken over the responsibility of the walkway. It will not be a resolution that the Town could back out of. Supervisor Valentino suggested adding language regarding a contract with the County to take over ownership. Attorney Barney thought that the language in the proposed resolution ^ covered it. i I Councilman Burbank stated that it was clear to him that the main usage of the walkway is not so much people living on Hanshaw Road, but on the people living in the cigarette streets, who will be filtering out on the walkway into Cayuga Heights. It is unclear to him how many people would use it from Muriel Ave to Sapsucker Woods. There has been conflicting information from neighbors. There is no hard planning data with regard to uses. Councilman Lesser thought the Town might need to do their own survey where the Town controls what statements are made. Mr. Kanter responded that anywhere from all to none of the residents could use the sidewalk. Councilwoman Gittelman added that the Town could come out with the position that it supports walking and biking instead of driving and at this point people living on the cigarette streets have to drive their cars to Cayuga Heights or wherever because it is dangerous on Hanshaw Road. Sidewalks would encourage independence and children who could walk to Community Corners or the church safely. Councilman Stein added that he walks through Cayuga Heights every day from the Northeast School to Cornell. He passes a number of people who use the sidewalks. There are people who walk their dogs, people are jogging, people are pushing baby carriages. He guesses that the Town will see the same thing if the walkway is built on Hanshaw Road. He sees seniors and young people and everything in between. He doesn't think that any of those I people would be doing that on Triphammer Road if there was not a sidewalk. If there is not a sidewalk, then they don't know that they want to do it. 22 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Councilwoman Gittelman responded that Snyder Hill Road is crowded with people walking and biking with all the cars going by. Everyone in the neighborhood loves the trail. People did do it without the sidewalk. Supervisor Valentino thought that the walkway would be beneficial to many more people than just the few people that don't want it. It comes down to sort of the really hard decision that we had on Overlook. The board needs to weigh everything and work with everyone to come to a decision that is best for the community. TB RESOLUTION NO. 2005-181: Town Willingness to Assume Ownership. Llabilitv and Maintenance of Hanshaw Road Walkway Should it be Built Be it resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby determines if the reconstruction of Hanshaw Road incorporates a walkway for part or all of its length, that the Town of Ithaca will assume ownership, liability and maintenance responsibilities for the sections of the walkway within the Town of Ithaca. MOVED: Councilman Lesser SECONDED: Councilwoman Gittelman VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Lesser, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye Councilman Lesser added that based upon Mr. Smith's presentation, the board should also consider illumination because a lot of the walkway is going to be really dark. Agenda Item No. 22 - Report of Town Committees Codes and Ordinances Committee (Attachment #4 - Indian Creek Gorge & Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area Draft Report) The Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area report was included in the packet. This is a heads up on a proposal that will be working its way through the process. The Codes and Ordinances Committee has had a number of meetings discussing the potential for the Conservation Zone. The area has been recommended for Conservation Zoning in the Town's Comprehensive Plan, in the Park, Recreation, Open Space Plan, and in the County's Comprehensive Plan. COC has come up with the recommendation for the Conservation Zone and the committee would like to start contacting affected property owners and set up a public information meeting. They would like to have the meeting after Thanksgiving and before Christmas. A limited number of people are affected. Pegasus Committee, Gateway Trail Committee Pegasus Committee is meeting November 15, 2005. The Gateway Trail Committee is meeting November 17, 2005. 23 November 14,2005 Town Board Meeting Approved December 12, 2005 Agenda Item No. 23 - Report of Town Officials (Attachment #6 - Monthly reports Human Resources Mrs. Drake mentioned that open enrollment will be starting soon. Attorney for the Town Attorney Barney updated the board on the property that has been discussed several times in executive session. The landowner is going to be getting his own appraisal and will get back to the Town. Agenda Item No. 26 - Consider a closed session to receive leaal advise regarding Bailev claim Board entered into closed session. Agenda Item No. 25 - Consider Adjournment Moved by Councilman Stein, seconded by Councilman Lesser. Adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \ui- i\oC\i Tee-Ann Hunter Next regular meeting December 12, 2005 24 File Ei View Favofiles Tools Network/Record Specialist Report December 12, 2005 Site of the Month page...This month: IthacaNet Did You Know link ... This month: Public Information form New animation added to top left corner of menu structure featuring photos from the Town's Scenic Resources Committee. Two new top level menus added, Boards and Departments, to accommodate growing number of pages on website and create a more Intuitive navigational structure. In response to Councilman Burbank's concern regarding the search feature on the Town's website, Google's free website search feature has been added to the Resolution page It is being tested there to see if it is a viable option over the current search feature. It will only search the entire site for a keyword versus narrowing the search to one particular page or section of the site. A more elaborate, enhanced search feature would need time and resources to be utilized on our site. This topic will be explored further through the Town's Records Management Advisor Board Committee. Network I am attending meetings regarding the History Project grant to assist staff with any of their technology needs, including posting information of their work to the History page of the Town's website and creation of display materials. Additional: The Town Clerk and I have postponed work on revisions to the Records Management Policy and Procedure Manual until next year. ^Town of Ithaca - Mb... TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 To: Cathy Valentino, Supervisor Town Of Ithaca Sandy Gittelman, Chair Recreation & Human Services Committee Will Burbank, Councilperson Peter Stein, Councilperson Carolyn Grigorov, Councilperson William Lesser, Councilperson Herb Engman, Councilperson From: Mamie Kirchgessner, Recreation and Youth Coordinator November 2005 Youth Employment Primary activity for month was monitoring of youth hired for History grant project. Tee Ann Hunter, town clerk and Judy Drake, human resource manager and I meet monthly with project coordinator and assistant town historian David George (With others as appropriate). The project is moving along successfully. The youth are transcribing Town Board notes from 1821 for public access. They are learning about changes in handwriting as they proceed and observe common themes and trends. The youth are all actively engaged in the process and report enjoying it. Sandy and Will met briefly with the team on November 30 after the recreation and human service committee meeting. I also met with program staff of the Tompkins County Public Library and Longview both as potential youth employment sites and collaborative program sites. The library wants to increase its teen users. I was identified by staff as an individual who be effective in assisting in this goal. On November 17,2005 I met with librarians Adelle Leise and Bonnie Wojnowski to discuss their ideas, which include the creation of a teen council. The library has funds for programming but past efforts were not as well attended as hoped. I'm using the history project youth as a volunteer focus group to discuss these issues. I also referred the names of three youth for consideration for the teen council. On this same date the "inner ring" of the joint youth commission met so I was able to share the information with the group as a safe, low cost program option. The new facility has a variety of spaces for all types of activity. Similarly Longview is interested in participating in programming such as "family game time" for mutual benefit. The facility has residents, space and games to conduct such an activity and would like to outreach in the community to provide this intergenerational programming. The Town Historian is particularly interested, as she would like to talk with "long time" residents of the area. The facility is especially interested in youth for summer positions to replace Ithaca College students who leave the area for the summer. Joint Youth Commission This months meeting was a combined meeting of the "Inner ring" Commission and youth planning groups for municipalities outside the city whose youth primarily attend the Ithaca City School District. The group heard a presentation from coimty youth planner Kris Bennett who has been involved in the administration of a grant to ascertain substance use in the middle school and high school populations. The meeting was well attended and informative. The group had concerns about the social norms approach that educates youth with information on the "reality" versus perception of activities their peers are actually engaged in. JYC were especially interested in how the information from the survey would used. The point was made although less children then an individual might believe were engaged in an activity such as alcohol use youth who had issues with it needed intervention and not punitive actions such as suspension from school. Recreation Partnership Again both Sandy and Will attended but there was no quorum at the November meeting. Most of the partner mxmicipalities have passed the bylaws change to address this issue in the future. The changes in all of the partner boards affect appointments and potential officers thus the work of the organization and the formulation of goals for next year. The hope is to expand committees by adding individuals with special expertise in meeting goals. Some good and seemingly productive conversation occurred. Fall and Winter Program Brochures are now available in the Foyer of Town hall. The second page describes the city's new software system to manage and process all registrations. This system should offer current, accurate information on users of facilities/programs. Recreation and Human Service Committee The committee met on 11/30 because the holiday. Sandy Gittelman, Chair led the group in a discussion of accomplishments and set the following: Goals for 2006 Move ahead with park map effort Continue growth of youth employment program Investigate Community Foundation (initially A1 and Cathy) as an option for donor support of recreation activity/ components Consider appropriateness of possible corporate support of same Explore additional options on how to fund including cooperative sponsorship that has been proven effective in other communities such as Scottsdale, Arizona Possible review of fee structure and/or priority use of community park (Tutelo) Plan for opening of Tutelo Park and utilization of celebrations grant I I ' N . • Outreach to bring more residents of all ages into building and educate them on the / ^ "process" of government and how to be effective in communicating with their municipal officers (Suggestions of classes, presentations such as the budget power point done for board, internet, and media articles.) • Implement policy on adopt a park/road to build on neighborhood community structure • Appreciate fiscal and structural considerations on program expansions • Review Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan for implications on possible "forever" wild property acquisitions and naming process • Consideration of possible "Good Neighbor" Award Sandy intends to provide a verbal report at the board meeting. Related Activity I continue to be active on the Human Services Coalition Board and advocate for services that will benefit the community and enable me to provide accurate information to public inquiries as well as identify potential program resources. December 12, 2006 Town Board Meeting ATTACHMENT #9 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM FROM:Dan Walker, Director of Engineering TO:Cathy Valentino, Judy Drake, Andy Frost CO:Wayne Sincebaugh DATE:July 13,2005 RE:17 Fairway Drive, Sanitary Sewer service line I have reviewed the letter of Claim from Michele Bailey dated June 14,2005 and received by the Town on June 17,2005. I have also reviewed the files and discussed the problems encountered with the sanitary service to the property with Wayne Sincebaugh, Town of Ithaca Water and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor. The background information provided by the letter regarding the problems with the sewer is consistent with the information I received from Wayne regarding Ae sequence of events. There are several other points of fact that must also be considered. 1. During the construction of the house on 15 Fairway Drive it was determined that the sewer line from 17 Fairway Drive had been incorrectly connected to the lateral installed by the developer to serve 15 Fairway Drive. On April 4 2005 Wayne Sincebau^ met with the owners of 15 and 17 Fairway Drive to discuss a plan to install a 6" lateral to the property line between the two lots to accommodate the connection of two 4" sewer service laterals to the Town sewer main. 2. On May 10,2005 Bomak Construction installed the 6" sewer lateral to the property line at the common lot corner of 15 and 17 Fairway Drive to allow both houses to be served from the same point of connection to the Town sewer. At that time Town staff provided a video inspection of the sewer service line to 17 Fairway Drive, which ended at a water filled area of the pipe past the first cleanout indicating that the lateral had a considerable dip that was the cause of the backup of sewage. 3. May 13,2005 Anytime Excavating, a contractor hired by Michele Bailey, started excavation to explore problem with the sewer lateral to 17 Fairway Drive. The Town Staff checked pipe with the video and found the pipe full of sewage and that the pipe was not laid at a proper grade, and would have to be replaced at a / ^ proper grade. C:VSewer\17 Fairway Dr sewer problem.doc DWalkerAD Pagel 12/12/2005 4. Saturday May 14,2005, Wayne Sincebaugh was called by M. Bailey and asked to > . assist in the repair. The Contractor was working and the grades did not seem ( \ right. Wayne shot grades and found that there was only 4" of fall to the invert of ^ the manhole, a distance of 104 feet, resulting in a potential slope of .3% with a minimum of 2.0% required. At that point it was determined that a sewer pump would be required to serve the property and Town Staff assisted the homeowner and her contractor in the design of the system and allowed the connection of the sewer force main to be connected directly in to the manhole on Fairway drive. The following items all contributed to the failure of the sewer for 17 Fairway Drive: • The design elevation of the house was too low for gravity sewer service from the basement floor elevation. The architect did not verify that the grade between the house and the sewer service connection constructed by the sub division developer was adequate to serve the house by gravity. • The building contractor for 17 Fairway drive did not locate the proper sewer service connection • The sewer line was not installed with proper grade to allow for gravity flow. I.e. a minimum slope of 1/4" per foot of run. The Responsibility for proper construction of a building and utilities is always the responsibility of the building owner and any contractor installing components of the system. The issuance of a plumbing permit or a building permit does not release the Architect or Engineer from the responsibility to design a building or utility line which meets the building code and the water and sewer regulations. The agent signing the permit is certifying that they will construct a facility that complies with the appropriate code or regulation. The piupose of inspections by the municipal agent is to review the general construction for compliance with the Codes. The inspection is not represented as an exhaustive check of every finite element of the project. The Owner or Owner's Agent has the responsibility to ensure that all construction is compliant with the code, and that all work has been properly completed. ; C:\Sewer\17 Fairway Dr sewer problem.doc DWalkerAD Page 2 12/12/2005 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, tttiaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273-1656 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX (607) 273-1704 ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM FROM: Dan Walker, Town Engineer TO: Town Board DATE: 12/12/2005 RE: 17 Fairway Drive Town Costs for correction of the problem 4*^ ( \ The Town of Ithaca has expended the following amounts in the effort to correct the sewer problem at 17 Fairway Drive: Date Description of Work Hours Unit cost Cost 4/4/05 Wayne field meeting with owners to plan sewer connection 3 $34,00 $102,00 5/10/05 Installation of 6" sewer lateral by Bomak Construction $2450.70 5/10/05 Town Inspector for sewer lateral 8 $27 $216,00 5/10/05 Town Crew inspected lateral to 17 with sewer camera 2,5 $75,00 $187.50 5/13/05 Town Crew inspected lateral to 17 with sewer camera 2 $75,00 $150.00 5/14/05 Wayne on site to assist contractor (Saturday OT)4 $51,00 $204,00 6/2005 Town Crew Hot patched road and driveways 3 $100.00 $300,00 6/2005 Asphalt (tons)6,5 $40,00 $260,00 Total Estimated Town Cost $3870,20 t ^ C:\Sewert17 Fairway Drive Town Costs.doc DWalkerAD Page 1 12/12^005