HomeMy WebLinkAboutCB Minutes 1997-07-17TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
DRAFT
17 JULY 1997
PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Frank Baldwin, Elizabeth deProsse, Lois Levitan, Barney Unsworth,
John Yntema.
ABSENT: Vice -Chair Kara Hagedorn, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs.
STAFF: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator.
Chair Phil Zarriello called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBER CONCERNS:
John Yntema asked if there was a ten percent set aside for subdivisions, particularly the Ithacare Project.
Mr. Yntema stated that as far as he knows the only Ithacare Project set aside was for a little path. The
whole Ithacare Subdivision Project involved more than 60 acres. Mr. Yntema asked what percentage was
set aside, if anything, on the Ithacare Project.
Chair Zarriello stated that there is a path that circled the perimeter of the property. There is a wetland near
the Ithacare Project. Mr. Yntema should contact the Director of Planning for further details.
Planner Geri Tierney stated that she could look into the issue for Mr. Yntema for the next meeting.
Lois Levitan asked if the Cornell University's Proposed Soccer Field Lighting had come before the
Conservation Board before.
Chair Zarriello stated that he responded to that issue, and he did not see a big problem with that. It is not a
residential area.
Ms. Levitan stated that she had some comments on the lighting issue. She does not know what the
magnitude of this lighting would be, but the lighting of the football field has a major effect on the entire
Town environment. If this. is anything similar to that, she thinks that there are definite conservation issues.
Planner Tierney stated that the Planning Board discussed this issue at length at the July 15 meeting, and felt
that they needed more information for the Environmental Assessment Form. Cornell University will be
rescheduled in August. They are not planning to do the same lights as Schoellkopf Field, they are planning
to use shielded lights. This should reduce excess light into the sky and towards West Hill. The Planning
Board is trying to get Cornell University to quantify how much light would affect the area. Cornell
University also mentioned that they would like to shield the existing lights at Schoellkopf Field. There will
be an opportunity for the Conservation Board to comment on this issue.
Mr. Yntema stated that the Planning Board would be considering Cornell University's Women's Softball
Fields before the Conservation Board meets again. He visited that site when it was raining, but it seems
like a nice place to put the softball fields.
The Conservation Board discussed the location of the Cornell University's Women Softball Fields that
would be coming before the Planning Board in August.
The Conservation Board discussed having a member from this Board attend or join the Planning
Committee.
COORDINATOR AND CHAIR REPORT:
Chair Zaniello stated that there was a presentation on an innovative technology for dealing with medical
waste in regards to the Cornell University Incinerator Project. The presentation involved the use of alkaline
solution. It would not destroy syringes, but it would make them noninfectious. This may be an alternative
to incineration. Chair Zaniello explained to the Conservation Board what the presentation involved, and
where the representatives were from. The representatives are currently working on a project in Florida.
There is a conference in Oswego (New York) called "Community Development and Transportation" on
Friday, September 15, 1997.
Planner Tierney stated that the revision process has started for the Draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space
Plan. If there are any further comments they should be submitted to the Planning Department.
The Conservation Board briefly discussed the Public Information Meetings for the Draft Park, Recreation,
and Open Space Plan. If the Conservation Board feels comfortable with the Draft Plan, then a letter for
support should be passed on to the Town Board to consider.
Planner Tierney stated that the Monkemeyer/Town Park proposal appeared before the Planning Board ,
again, and preliminary subdivision approval was given to subdivide the park parcels. The Planning Board
made a negative determination of environmental significance for this action. However, the Town Board is
concerned about the presence of wetlands in the area. The Town Board hired a consultant to do a wetland
evaluation to see if there are any significant wetlands on those parcels before the Town accepts the park
location. The evaluation will be the next step, and then the Town Board will consider accepting the
location of the park. The Planning Board accepted the location and the subdivision for preliminary
approval only. The Planning Board did review the Conservation Board's comments on the Monkemeyer
proposal.
Chair Zarriello stated that he received comments for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project. If the Board has any further comments or questions the
representatives for the project could be asked to come back for clarification.
The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling Project.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MARCH 6,1997:
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by Elizabeth deProsse:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of March 6, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema.
NAYS- None.
ABSTAIN - Levitan.
The motion was declared to be carried.
APRIL 3, 1997:
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by John Yntema:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of April 3, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema, Levitan.
NAYS- None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
MAY 15,1997:
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by John Yntema:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of May 15, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema, Levitan.
NAYS- None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
JUNE 5, 1997:
MOTION by Elizabeth deProsse, seconded by Phil Zarriello:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of June 5, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema, Levitan.
NAYS- None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
UPDATE ON STATUS OF GRANT APPLICATION:
Chair Zarriello stated that Ms. Tierney and Ms. Levitan prepared an application to the 1997 Rural New
York Grant Program, to fund a public information campaign about suburban threats to nearby natural
areas.
SOUTH HILL SWAMP - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT LETTER TO DEC:
Chair Zarriello stated that Mr. Baldwin drafted a letter to Ray Knowland of the DEC, stating the
Conservation Board had considered protection of the South Hill UNA, and was requesting that the State
consider designating this a DEC regulated wetland.
Mr. Yntema asked what is the significance if the State decides to proclaim it a regulated wetland under
Article 24. Planner Tierney stated that many activities are regulated by the State in designated wetlands,
and within 100 feet of such a wetland. Chair Zarriello stated that this designation would force a more
complete environmental review for any development in this area.
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by John Yntema:
RESOLVED that the Conservation Board approves of the draft letter and intends to send it as soon as
possible.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Levitan, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
BUTTERMILK FALLS STATE PARK FIELD TRIP FOLLOW-UP:
Chair Zarriello stated that there were two draft letters regarding Buttermilk Falls State Park for the Board's
consideration. One letter is addressed to Supervisor Valentino and Fred Wilcox (Chairperson of the
Town's Planning Board). The second is addressed to the person who manages State Park land to try to get
this land included on a list for acquisition by State Parks. Such an acquisition would mitigate any action
the Town has taken to subdivide this land. Chair Zarriello asked the CB if this was their intention while
taking the tour at Buttermilk State Park.
Ms. deProsse stated that it was one of them.
Chair Zarriello stated that was the first draft, and that these letters had to be careful not to offend the
groups they are trying to persuade.
Ms. Levitan stated that the Conservation Board should draft a letter to the Town stating they are aware that
this area has fallen through the cracks. Chair Zarriello stated that those concerns could be addressed
through the Parks and Open Space Plan.
Chair Zarriello stated that the Board could submit their comments to him, and the letter could be revised
before mailing to Supervisor Valentino and Fred Wilcox.
COY GLEN PROJECT - BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION:
Mr. Yntema stated that Cornell Plantations is exploring Coy Glen's natural area on July 20th from 1:00
p.m. to 4 p.m..
Chair Zarriello stated that a good portion of Coy Glen is owned by Cornell University. Mr. Yntema asked
if this a part that the Conservation Board should be looking at or not. Chair Zarriello stated that we are
looking beyond that because that area is being protected by Cornell University Plantations as a natural
area.
Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Drafted 8/11/97 by DK; edited 08/28/97 by JAY
4
1997 RURAL NEW YORK GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION FORUM
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GRANTS
Administered by the Open Space Institute 666 Broadway, New York, NY 10012 (212) 505-7480
Applications must be postmarked by July 15, 1997. Applicants may apply to only one of the four Rural New York program areas per
cycle. An applicant group which has had a Rural New York -funded project must show successful completion of the project before
submitting a subsequent application. Refer to the Rural New York brochure for guidelines. Please submit the original and four
copies of the application, proposal summary Ietter, organization/agency budget, and project budget (all unbound), and one copy only
of any supporting materials. PLEASE NOTE: Applicants should call Martha Tobias (Ext. 256) to discuss their project before
submitting an application.
1. Applicant: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board County. Tomrkins
Address: 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Contactperson: Ceri Tierney Title: Dlanner and CB Coordinator
Telephone: (b) 6 0 7 / 27 3 - 1747 (h) 607/257-5369
NYS legislative district(s), district number(s): NYS Senate Dist. 50, NYS A s s ermb 1 v Dist. 125
NYS Senator(s): James Seward
NYS Assembly Member(s): martin Luster
2. Please attach a cover letter (two-page maximum) summarizing your proposal, including: (1) the organization; (2) the project;
(3) the specific purpose for which funds are requested (4) the plan of action and timetable; (5) the intended results of the work;
(6) the fundraising status for this project; and (7) how it sustains/enhances the economic viability of the community served.
3. Within the following four lines, summarize the project:
The CB seeks .funding for a multi -faceted public information campaign dedicated
to ir_mnrovi=_ protection of our local natural areas by raising awareness to the
threats nosed by nearbv suburban residential areas, necTfally, we request
funds to produce informational rosters and brochures.
4. Financial statements:
a) organization/agenc 's current annual budget: $ 2 , 0 0 0 (attach one-page summary)
b) project budget: $ 7 8 0 (itemize and attach; lump sum statements will not be accepted)
c) amount requested: S 7 0 0
5. Other sources of funding for this project:
Source Amount Date Requested/Awarded Status
In-kind services from:
planning Staff 40 hrs. x $17.00 = $680.00 Granted
CB Volunteers 20 hrs. x _ -ranfeZt
6. Please attach a list of persons overseeing this project including: (1) Board of Directors or other appropriate committee(s);
(2) staff/volunteers; (3) consultants(s) (if using consultants, attach resumes).
7. Please attach one copy only of the following supporting materials: photographs and/or color slides, brochure, newsletter, press
clippings, etc. Letters of support are optional. Materials will not be returned.
8.Completedby: Jeri Tierney Date: 15 July 1997
Title: Planner and Conservation Board Coordinator
Signature:
-)/1s15�
The Rural New York Program is administered jointly by the Land Trust Alliance of New York, the New York Planning Federation,
the Open Space Institute, and the Preservation League of New York State.
Major funding for the Rural New York Grant program is provided by The J.M. Kaplan Fund and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the
Visual Arts. Additional support is provided by The Margaret L. Wendt Foundation, Philip Nforris Companies, Inc., Coming
Incorporated Foundation, and the Northern New York Community Foundation Inc.
Attachment:
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
1997 Rural New York Grant Program Application
4a) Conservation Board 1997 Budget - Allotted from Town of Ithaca
Annual NYSACC Dues $50
Educational Materials and Conferences $950
Special Projects: South Hill Swamp Ecological Survey $1000
Total
4b) Itemized Project Budget
Research Issues
Develop suggestions for alternative/mitigation strategies
Design brochure
Design poster
Copy and fold brochure (750)
Produce poster (250)
Prepare and distribute press release announcing campaign
Distribute materials
Include information in Town newsletter
6) This project will be overseen by the following:
$2000
In-kind services equivalent to $227.50
In-kind services equivalent to $227.50
In-kind services equivalent to $227.50
In-kind services equivalent to $227.50
$100
$600
In-kind services equivalent to $42.50
In-kind services equivalent to $85
In-kind services equivalent to $42.50
Geri Tierney, Planner and Conservation Board Coordinator, Town of Ithaca
Lois Levitan, Conservation Board Member, Town of Ithaca
Philip Zarriello, Conservation Board Chair, Town of Ithaca
TO: Open Space Institute
FROM: Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
DATE: 15 July 1997
RE: Application to the 1997 Rural Grant Program for Natural Areas Protection Campaign
Objective: The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB) seeks funding to assist in the development and
implementation of a multi -faceted public information campaign dedicated to improving protection of local natural
areas by raising awareness to the most pressing threats to these areas from nearby suburban development.
Background: The Town of Ithaca CB has a short but distinguished history. Established in 1990 as the Town of
Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, and redesignated the Conservation Board in 1993, this group was
established to advise and assist the Town of Ithaca government in protecting the natural and scenic resources of
the Town. The group is currently comprised of nine members and one associate member, all volunteers, and is
coordinated by a member of the Town Planning staff. In addition to the public information campaign described
here, the group has recently been active in reviewing development proposals with potential impacts on open space
resources, identifying unique natural areas within the Town, and considering strategies to protect scenic views.
The group's achievements have been recognized by the New York State Association of Conservation Councils
with awards in 1992, 1993 and 1994.
The Town of Ithaca is a medium-sized town of approximately 18,000 residents surrounding the City of Ithaca
(population 30,000). The Town is currently undergoing landscape -level change as our once abundant agricultural
and open -space land becomes subdivided for residential and other development. We are fortunate in Ithaca to
have a significant portion of open space protected as State parkland, watershed protection land, and privately -
owned preservation land, but these protected lands are often in close proximity to and impacted by residential
development. Wherever possible and practical, the Town strives to incorporate physical protection for nearby
natural areas into development plans, primarily by encouraging local developments to cluster developments and
buffer natural areas with undeveloped strips. However, the threats posed by suburban development near natural
areas are diverse and physical protection is not always possible or effective. Moreover, many suburban residents
choose to live in suburban areas because they seek the amenities provided by nearby natural areas - peace, quiet,
and the exposure to native wildlife and vegetation. However, most of these residents are unaware of the
ecological impacts of their lifestyle on nearby natural areas which they mistakenly perceive as robust "Mother
Nature". In reality, the natural areas left within the suburban development matrix are often very fragile because
of their small size and their fragmented configuration
Proposal: The CB proposes to supplement the protection measures it already advocates with a public
information campaign designed to heighten resident's sensitivity to their impacts on nearby natural areas, and to
provide them with simple measures to lessen this impact. We plan to focus on five significant threats:
• the impacts of free -roaming cats and dogs on nearby natural areas, particularly their impacts as
predators on native wildlife populations and their sub -lethal, disturbance effects on both flora and fauna;
• suburban run-off containing lawn -care pesticides and other pollutants;
• invasive landscape plants colonizing nearby natural areas and out -competing native species;
• noise pollution from suburban lawn -mowers, automobiles and residents on the aesthetic experience in
nearby natural areas; and
• the impacts of off-road bicycles on herbaceous plant communities and erosion in sensitive areas.
The growing body of literature documenting the impacts of these common suburban activities is compelling, yet,
with the exception of run-off, is almost unknown to the general public. For example, most residents simply have
no idea that the artificial maintenance of a population of several hundred or thousand predators (i.e., housecats) in
the vicinity of a natural area is a drastic change and has enormous impacts on the native wildlife.
This message will be distributed in many forms. We will produce a moderate number of informational brochures
to be placed in areas where suburban residents are likely to find them, such as the Town offices, home and garden
shops, pet supply shops, the local cooperative extension offices, etc. Rather than mailing a brochure to every
residence in the Town (which probably would result in many being thrown away), we will reproduce this
information in our Town newsletter, which is produced periodically and mailed to every residence in the Town.
Additionally, the group will produce a smaller number of attractive, 11 x 17 posters to distribute to schools,
government and cooperative extension offices, and other appropriate places, such as the local Science Center,
where they will be seen by many people. These materials will be designed in-house using Microsoft Publisher, and
will creatively use text and pictures to succinctly and memorably convey the threats and possible alternatives.
Additionally, we plan to use the grant funds to leverage additional exposure by generating a press release
announcing the grant award and kick-off of this campaign.
The funds requested from the Rural New York Grant Foundation will be used to cover printing costs for the
posters and brochures. Research, design and distribution of these items will be covered by in-kind services
donated by the Town of Ithaca and the volunteer Conservation Board members.
Outcome: We intend that distribution of this information as outlined above will result both in a significant
change in community awareness to the fragility of our nearby natural areas and the impacts imposed upon them
by our suburban lifestyle, and increased ecological health in these areas due to a decrease in negative impacts..
Further, this project will contribute to sustaining the Town of Ithaca's economic vitality by protecting the natural
setting which makes Ithaca such a desirable community in which to live and work.
We will consider mechanisms for measuring our success, such as surveying residents regarding their behavior
and/or surveying natural areas for visual measures of deterioration.
Transferability: The transformation from a rural to suburban Town and the associated pressure on remaining
natural areas is not unique to the Town of Ithaca. Many Towns across the country are currently facing these
same challenges. What is unique in the Town of Ithaca is that we are considering the ecological impacts resulting
from suburban development and seeking creative solutions to protect these areas. The information, brochures and
posters developed for the Town of Ithaca will be as useful in other Towns as they are here. We will distribute
these materials to neighboring municipal governments, investigate incorporating this information into our future
Town Web Site, and share these materials with the professional groups with which we are affiliated (e.g., the New
York Planning Federation and the American Planning Association). It is our hope that this campaign will inform
and inspire many other towns.
Pian of Action and Timetable:
Activity
Research issues
Develop suggestions for alternative/mitigation strategies
Design brochure and poster
Reproduce brochure (750) and poster (250)
Prepare and distribute press release announcing campaign
Distribute materials
Include information from this campaign in Town newsletter
Identify and implement measures of success
Projected Date
September 1997
September 1997
September 1997
October 1997
October 1997
October 1997
October 1997
November 1997 - November 1998
oily OF 12, TOWN OF ITHACArnpy
- 21 -
\1'ir v (3
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
7/22/97
Mr. Ray Nolan, Wildlife Biologist
Department of Environmental Conservation
1285 Fisher Ave.
Cortland, NY 13045
Dear Mr. Nolan,
The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has been considering protection for a special wetland
area in our Town, known as the South Hill Unique Natural Area. This area lies south of Ithaca
College in the Town of Ithaca, as seen on the enclosed map. As extensive wetlands exist on this
property, we ask that you consider designating this area as a regulated wetland under Article 24
of the Environmental Conservation Law (The Freshwater Wetlands Act).
In an effort to better document the natural features of this area, we hired consultants to examine
this area last fall, and enclose a copy of their report for your consideration. As this report
indicates, the South Hill Unique Natural Area contains rare and scarce flora, much of it wetland
flora, which are susceptible to human development. Several rare ecological communities are
found there, including: a perched white oak swamp, a pitch pine -heath barrens, and a pitch pine -
oak -heath woodland.
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to hearing back from you on this
important matter.
Attach.
Sincerely,
Phillip Zarriello, Chair
/ GL --r
_ 9 TOWN OF ITHACA
4, 21 o4$ 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
>it Y
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
Mr. John C. Clancy, Regional Director
New York State Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 1055
Trumansburg, NY 14886 28 July 1997
Dear Mr. Clancy,
The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board (CB) respectfully asks that New York State Parks and Recreation consider
acquiring lands bordering upper Buttermilk Falls Park in the Town of Ithaca.
As you may know, in June 1996, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted preliminary subdivision approval for
'Buttermilk Valley Estates', a 67 -residential unit subdivision that borders the eastern boundary of upper Buttermilk Falls
State Park. If developed as sketched in the approved preliminary site plan, about 27 single-family homes would bulge on
the eastern park boundary that would be within about 600 feet of Lake Treman and within about a 100 feet of the steep
bluff overlooking the lake (see enclosed site map and Preliminary Plat). These distances include a 60 foot buffer required
by the Town Planning Board as part of this subdivision approval.
Upon recently visiting this area, it became apparent to members of the CB that the proposed development could have an
adverse impact on the habitat and character of Buttermilk State Park. The proposed development could particularly affect
the rich and diverse variety'of wildlife found in the 'upper' park that are enjoyed by many park visitors and used for a
variety of popular nature programs offered by State Parks and Recreation. Degradation of this resource that could be
anticipated from a nearby residential subdivision would include increased uncontrolled access to the area by people and
pets, noise from normal residential activities such as lawn mowing, non -point source runoff, and others.
Although the Town Planning staff, Planning Board, and Conservation Board make every effort to consider the
environmental significance of projects within the Town before they are approved, occasionally, the environmental impact
of a project is not fully realized. We feel this is such an occasion and ask for your assistance in protecting this valuable
resource. The CB believes the best means of protecting the habitat and character of upper Buttermilk Falls State Park is
through direct purchase of the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2. This would eliminate the possibility of a residential
development being surrounded on three sides by the park and increase the buffer between the residential development and
Lake Treman.
The CB is also exploring other mechanisms for increasing the buffer between the park and proposed development through
conservation zoning, purchase of development rights, cluster development, or other means, alone or in combination. We
hope this process will involve the active participation of the property owner, Mr. Wiggins, and the New York State Parks
and Recreation. We also would like to have discussion between involved parties begin before construction moves ahead.
Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to call on us if we can assist in this matter.
Sincerely,
G LT
Phillip J. Zarriello, Chair
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
encl.
cc: Honorable Martin Luster, NYS Assemblyman
Ms. Bernadette Castro, Commissioner of NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Ms. Cathy Valentino, Town of Ithaca Supervisor
Mr. Fred Wilcox, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chair
Mr. Jonathan Kanter, Town of Ithaca Planning Director
TOI Conservation Board Field Trip: Buttermilk Falls State Park
16 June 1997
Vice Chair Kara Hagedorn led a field trip exploring the eastern boundary of Buttermilk
Falls State Park. CB members Libby deProsse, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Jon
Meigs, and John Yntema attended and were accompanied by Town Board Member Ellen
Harrison, Town Planner Jon Kanter, CB Coordinator Geri Tierney, and State Park Employee
Tony Ingraham. Tony Ingraham videotaped part of our visit. The focus of this trip was to
consider the impact of development along the Parks eastern boundary on Park resources. The
group used the attached map.
From the parking lot nearest to Treman Lake, the group walked up the park trail, skirted
Treman Lake to the north and hiked up to the eastern boundary of the Park on unofficial trails.
As the group walked along Treman Lake, Kara pointed out the rich cattail wetland on the
southwest side of the lake that provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife, including beaver and
owls. This seems to be the most important part of the Park for wildlife, and the State Park
naturalist programs use this area to lead visitors from all over the world on wildlife watches. The
group continued up to the eastern boundary, which was marked by private property signs
delineating the edge of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 (the site of the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision),
survey stakes, and a sharp change in forest age. (The trees on private land are significantly
younger and smaller.) The group walked part way south along this boundary, and also along the
topographic break where the relatively flat land breaks and slopes sharply down toward Treman
Lake. Then, after the early departure of Ellen Harrison, Jon Kanter, Eva Hoffmann, Libby
DeProsse, and Tony Ingraham, the group continued south along this boundary to the clearly
marked corner. The group then turned around and headed back to the northwest portion of this
tax parcel, to examine the gorge section that is to be donated to the State Park.
The attached map shows the variability in the relationship between this topographic break
and the border between the State Park and tax parcel 36-1-4.2. This map indicates that along
roughly the northern 1/3 of this boundary, the topographic break intercepts this boundary, along
roughly the middle 1/3 of this boundary, the topographic break veers sharply west and falls relatively
far from this boundary, and along roughly the southern 1/3 of this boundary, this break runs
relatively near and roughly parallel to this boundary. At an undetermined location within the middle
to mid -southern section of this boundary, Jon Kanter paced off the distance between the park
boundary and topographic break at approximately 100 feet. In this area, tax parcel 36-1-4.2 is fairly
flat. Along much of the southern section of this boundary (for perhaps the southernmost 400 feet,
judging from the attached map), the distance between the Park boundary and this topographic break
appeared to group members to be +/- 30 feet. Along this section, Treman Lake was just visible
through the trees from the Park boundary.
Highlights:
The group was impressed by the scenic beauty of Treman Lake and the reports of diverse wildlife
in that area. The group noted the fragility of this habitat, in large part due to the narrow shape of
the Park in this area. On either side, the Park boundary falls within only perhaps 500 feet of
Treman Lake.
The group saw that the unofficial trail entering the park from tax parcel 36-1-4.2 was well worn,
and in some places, marked.
The group was able to investigate the distance between Treman Lake and the park boundary, and
also distance between the park boundary and the steep topographic break which angles down
towards Treman Lake. As noted above, the Park Boundary is sometimes +/- 100 feet of this
topographic break, and at other times is +/- 30 feet. Along the stretch where this distance is +/-
30 feet, Treman Lake can just be seen from this boundary.
Several group members observed that the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 is bounded by
the park on two sides (see attached map). A northwestern portion of this tax parcel will be
dedicated as open space and conveyed to the State. The group members noted that this will
create a situation where the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 will be bounded by the park on
three sides, potentially creating a pocket of development within the larger park area.
The unofficial trail that led the group up to the Park Boundary is said to run from the La Tourelle
Inn, and the group saw a posted sign marking this unofficial "entrance."
Action Items:
1) Several CB members agreed that the CB should write a letter to the State Parks Administration
urging them to place the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 onto the list for State Park
acquisition, and to give it high priority.
2) The CB could urge the State Parks Administration to clearly mark the State Park Boundary,
and perhaps to use fencing to reduce the influx of people and domestic animals from nearby
residential areas.
3) The CB could recommend that Buttermilk Falls State Park and certain adjacent land be
rezoned to a Conservation District, which would limit the density of future development.
4) During future site plan review of any proposed development along the State Park Boundary,
the CB can continue to point out potential impacts caused by the density of development, noise,
domestic animals, and suburban lawn chemical runoff, and to offer specific measures for
mitigating these.
Drafted by GLT, 6/19/97, edited 7/10/97 and 7/22/97.
•�' - -8 77 •
_ TJ•°°-_
BuHermllk Falb / • � F ab•64
Clan T. Leonardo, RD
q.wd
"he-ItMe. M 1N50
P r e I i m i n a ry
a
State Parkkba.'/•• �
b
'
Dralnag.
Gnu 19-y A----
7Eme
Shoulder
1 rt -100'
D.536 :/ _ 1
\ \ "� "'1 51 0.403 ! 0.393 113 d0 +-'3e�u' ,00.09
Ann L•-' - -'- • 1p4.pR o e e
l • , 1 i -
11 91 9 3 y '"
oo. e n x
1 -i -l. ,00.4�/.i J e -'
•
/r 4l2-i4� •
S 864'43'41•
: 0.323 _ _
12 Aan N 47.33-
w
- 1{�50
_
�
tie
•
90.73 •. 4' �� 1
�a y! 47 g' w
a '� wl
-I
•/
S 7 •paa+
I \I
�Gnfertir� Sahlekl. Road
Y/
rli's9 \ _ 0.425
y 3`3� _ 1 1
/ \ .r,y 0 _ a n .off
'0OaS9�
1.117 58 /aYq X82'53',7
V
te•Ea..m.n1 I �I
0.370 -I Q
7 I 8 Rt
_-------
9
_
r
/••
Notes ---c
a Wren:.
••�-' sn•J2S.'2J-F
j'.3
� 4
/ _- ---
---
Culvert
Pm.m«tl
� IJ1.4p Nha a M14850 G Leonardo 1
�•` 57 �°
:Oe /•v 5 6 1:. 55 Iw ! �7�6� 3,, 'p 7ra,•y,gy
0 2.46.
/ Boundary In}ermatlon and lopognphy fey 1Mr-.,S77 - 0. 0. 1132 Danby Rd. r NT 8300'+/-
1
plan. 1. from Internet.- pre,.-- by Yonxarl t L - - . _ E 29ft.... HY 14M a
l N
Lot
Reagan. L.and Sun•yere. All Intw1w.un•y _ = BZ�/� L To Ithaca
L o 1 6 9 InformaHan 1. for g.n.ral artong•m•nt only and 1. _
eubl.d to eanflrmaflon +rlth a neral Plat prepared I - Lot 7 1 1 o Ing Rd
by a Ba.m.d land .urvgw. . Ja).3 (g) _ , .2
Lot #69 Is expected to becomeS.aamr-�
Unlr. ath.-l.. lndlaaf.d, then .hall b. a 15'
a pari o1 Buttermilk Fa113 Slate ! ' I R. ! P. Parkin
bulldlnp ••Ibaok from .oah .Id• 1.1 1]- to � m
Park onto- to Clu.t.r H ... Ing •.parallon I -'• 1146 Danby Rd. u •
nqul-.nf N 30• bet•- bulldlttp.. o I • Ithaca. M 14830 Y 0 al
o Lk K Be..-. RD `
/ All prop.rfy oem--111 be.fok•d=Ilh 3/4- /•r°a..7A111ni of a. Sehickle Rd
r.ban .ffh. -y -p. J I ,eNM..,M1.No al.� S, I < m
o % Subject We Ea..menf. and R..IrlaHen. of Rrord, i I VICINITY M A P
App2000' +/-
, n.lmaf. of IoeaNen - - 3 )a ' 67.77. E • L .. .Oc85 d
a. H .x,•d I"
$
18
3". 73
Acres
B.".rmllk Fall. L -
State Park Cemm., RD /
Tntm.mearf. M 1 ANS-
/, Lot # 70
30' Buffer • ' / •�
1--•--• h--•--•--•- \- '+. '^ /
Inn / / Underground - • I o
---'t-T---------�_•.•�\ 7\ �"` ea ' outdoor T.nn1. /
I uHlHlr not totaled,
ar CO De I Courfi but do •Z In thl. 1
o •N \• -' `•t Trnnle Bubble / 1
^/ `-4
0913 \ •` a 1
.•:•: h/ / /
25 �` \ 5 2 4 2 3 r: D.49, =' t Ea..m..t
Butt.rmnk Fall. \ 1 .-'• ^/ \ \ R.malning Lana. of �^ l 35.93
1 / 1, . J\. \ i / v. 0.541 x /
/� + RefouroM Jot {�N65'S6'1 g"E
W. t J. Wlggln• 1171
Slv}• Pork Comm.. RD • o\ J \ 1 "•• ''' y/ Aan \ 1`
Trvtnan•b,up,M14116 / �\ ,•D64 \ •/ I,,C \\,` - Iw / / a 1
,. • /..::::::::::::: w/-..�
22 rye �
'" l f J0 \ t?•ej / / .uT 7 7` o'
21 Pond /
/ / '•rD\ / .or W 700.Op�=' q \% `~ ='�-_- 30•Buffer
z 0.802 ♦ 6 570'7 act ^'/ 0.39arA• / 1
/ • F '� 7- _ Tompklm rumen County GPS
e /• x 4;r / e/ • / 1 i), • � / Monument T907, Geld 1 '
�' , - / B.ar1.9 l
/ X14, 7,\ rye / �- 1� OO.iO y' N1704eY005W.
6 til_ �r�.T� Po\\/ 1 9 /RMD.774 o'ry' 0.4550' ` hl =06.37 3j7 ,29 so•Buffer 1339.45 feel. 1
n 0.476 'n %-� \ ^' vl• ^I �I ~ -� _ 39 �W/ Pond 1
0.566 62 -'n /• .4.4 Sao .Z'�p\p\ /i/ _s.n..t68 nl�/ 31 0/ _ `2.33 oat 96.67 / 521'3
/ 546 • $ , /\'V/ 0.429 3 '_•°I
577:4 !W 2 / /^ /a ,g0 * z.F Park tz' 1 8 �1 ;/ 0.. ]3 31 " /27\ 1. b.rg.ao ��-
a W. 6run
,3+E--•_ / 3 o1I )•'F 17'4.8-910 !. 0.525 �` o' ' a\ 1 �� 11 6 r( o.ss] al _. / �- �La.t.lf.w -
I'1 _
42.
246, ��.+ Acre. /d 17 i 0.379 31 1•t - Sow..er Mta.as °
c 1a l 17 ; 0.359 64 0l^ i= 28 /a; y r61p 0j \ m.00- i L u'I N/ ret 1 5 s 1/ / '"F tJteC, 2 •23.66 .371:43 c
0.66^1 /377 • 2 �! 7 03]7 �-- - - '^ 19 \ ~ - - F 143. z
=N 61 L _ r - ?L�•E /72 f3/ S� = 0.667 ap s84 13.0="Do
- o;:.e'y "1 -9- 5 14 �jf / i,e
H' %- s j° : w g.as] - y !O� J� -.� d! 2 9 ala ,ay4 a.. t.4a 60333 t/. / 0.579 1 3 a'' 17 w.nana Arw ` • /--�
..n /V / 2807-F 247.!1 1 65 n!� ` I y00 :i s 0.424 �.4 n' 1`.. Zit X8.99 111 Eceem S)9'2J• ISf2'1_ I19 5/ 4 I
o / It �•J` w/ 30 �.e v• -�•� 101. o6'E \ D.11.nlatlen. per Weeley
o< •.v s7j n „1
'-00.3
.{'+' 0.369 -1 �1a" int a. .ext Par •� 1S\.\ f r
0.614 I 42'9j^-- �w I' 003 :/ �• f .J fix. a7rare! \ X14 12 �--. J7
1 / 60 F I 1 11o.�J' ` �I �1 s j� r; ¢I 3 1 ' ^I 3 4 Lot.
- ` _ Wil` �3 Ja•fae. \ i'. r '�I%� to \a
/ I 0.434 '� �1 ova ae, s •°p.s7 _! n/ ' 0.330 ;- 0.575 3 3 5 r4 _1 T 99.64 \ °� / I
, _. ; 1 0.363 r 3 6 t` - _ „
-1- s ' - - - - 1 3• street u m o 10 ' / ' I � B 359 3' a sae / A• •01 \
/
/
87 1 J3 E 270.37 _ NYSE4t0 b I bl. oI ' r J
\ 66 ei :1 31 �. d 3 2
•S � 4 ° e
0.771 0.3a5 �1 �`�
0.77, 59 \ ! 67 'S 3 of 3/
YI 3 3 a i 1
:'�
1 a '
0.360 • ► Aan '1 D.2ao
1 it
:1 /'/
- 1 1 =►
1 0 /^'
S
t \ \
`'
'
Dralnag.
Gnu 19-y A----
7Eme
Shoulder
•�
D.536 :/ _ 1
\ \ "� "'1 51 0.403 ! 0.393 113 d0 +-'3e�u' ,00.09
Ann L•-' - -'- • 1p4.pR o e e
l • , 1 i -
11 91 9 3 y '"
oo. e n x
1 -i -l. ,00.4�/.i J e -'
•
/r 4l2-i4� •
S 864'43'41•
: 0.323 _ _
12 Aan N 47.33-
w
- 1{�50
L..LI�,
•
90.73 •. 4' �� 1
�a y! 47 g' w
a '� wl
-I
E,•,7�5
r 6j "�'
w120'Se•-
- • , -
Rit9.gs
�Gnfertir� Sahlekl. Road
l
1
rli's9 \ _ 0.425
y 3`3� _ 1 1
/ \ .r,y 0 _ a n .off
'0OaS9�
1.117 58 /aYq X82'53',7
_
'} w
1 0.3"3 3' 0.393 3' 0.Ma _1
te•Ea..m.n1 I �I
0.370 -I Q
7 I 8 Rt
_-------
9
_
r
-w 'r h
_ �Do.9a , foo: �� R 45
►� -Qv.� P� °9
1
a 43 41 :i
39
t
.. 03,9
37 •- 6566 I ;1
j'.3
� 4
/ _- ---
---
Culvert
Pm.m«tl
!ry /
. -
�•` 57 �°
:Oe /•v 5 6 1:. 55 Iw ! �7�6� 3,, 'p 7ra,•y,gy
0 2.46.
R _ ;tl Vt
n'+ I f1
- - •�'
�� 3643 ,01.64
/
1eLJe
Shoulder k Drainage
L
1 0.591 . a . •a
a
?� ' Aen•' 1 v 1" '= ; rl DQ pO F t Y7.
IW
_ _ .r-
- -
at.R
, OO.D4
0
S
-
'
_ , 5 4 /W 52 i 50 �o`•01
217.17 ��_ !o i7 0.4"{
`
/ '1 0.330
O
•' 0.449 (�,"• /"r /' `S If0y4084•t7.42'E 'ilfll EaNm Haa •10'34^E H87 .43'!0'E
• • ~ 0.301 v _.- Tae �g.f4_
h
OMP, p,"3{ '•eR'1 t§
s' 1•
o.
i o w1-
m
_1"2-41 _ a ^
Iz is 48 a
30' Coneenallen Ea.•mMl S )7 •", •. _121.17` 1 IZ /�° / i+ 0.469 C7 ry 3 O
_ _�-
p. lopyo _ �,.g�
�'1 y,
_-n
-107'Q9 1.
6 ! 5
Ei
IN 4 \�• YI
3 2
-i_-
Adlelning Shat.
Part 42'•1146.20 ' - .-.,00.3 / ~ T - i �^ w z W 4 6
0.514
ei 4 0
44
i
3 fJ id 1 Yoh
U 1'
0.42"
"�n�-
0
," or n 0.550
' X00.03
j
^1 42 0l
0.39{ 0.365
eII D.SSa
!7.1 esu
1�
_ .Y.7.� - -E
4L.3a----
1• - -'' -
p�
1
�••/
BvH.rmnk Fall. - �. J / •:S ^
00 F
SfateParkCemm..RO -_03 �_=
State
3)d'21• _l•�gIZ
_ a 133.{9
1 A.r•.-lt=--------1"-
+A.-
o. -�--- 1 07_00-1.-.•--
- 1•
of
(D
Phasing---
I laf. 1 - 14, as
V /
Trarrr M/4eN ; ---3
kvr1. I7+ f 37 -
J•JI
Z 10o�0a-- -
t_ 101.50 101.64 ;;- - - 4TW W 12110.39
S85•
n Late l5-39
1ns3
N)4'� ---•_--1
//// -.J-----
III Lot. 37-31
F.D. Cha.., R0 f 'T2•a/
Y. 6: A. Wakley Wall. RD
1172Denby4056
Iv lob SS -l7
104 C.tnl•rt R••d
".-try "so J. W. John.... RD
30'S.Iboak--- Clu.f•r Heueltp
Sher•M tlpo
4 Appl•er.d Rra
An4•ver. YA aut0-uu
Adl.... t to R..Identlal tom
M
William F. Albern. P.E.
Engineering Consultant
Sunnyslops Terrace
Ithaca. New York 14850
607-272-5077
Date: April 26, 1996
of 6
O
`B /^A
"'
>-
'
V)
L..LI�,
In1
0c)
V
�
O
r
C 0
LTJ
0
V
z
V!
LSI
0
S
O
O
Lit
m
�
U
�
-i_-
O
O
O
8d
0
s
LTJ
F0
Lj
p�
1
m
(D
_j
(D
V /
Q
TT
V
O
Date: April 26, 1996
of 6
What Is NYSAEMC?
The New York State Association of Environmental
Councils is an umbrella organization whose mem-
bers are county and regional Environmental Man-
agement Councils.
The goals of NYSAEMC are:
• to advocate sound environmental manage-
ment in NYS
• to assist and enhance the work of county
and regional EMCs
• to coordinate information and present oppor-
tunities for EMCs to learn from each other
• the formation of new councils
• to interact with governments regarding envi-
ronmental legislation, regulation and manage-
ment
• to network with statewide agencies, such as
NYSACC and the NYS Association of Coun-
ties
• to plan and participate in the Conference on
the Environment with NYSACC
What Is NYSACC?
The membership of the New York State Association
of Conservation Commissions consists of village,
town and city conservation commissions and con-
servation boards.
The goals of NYSACC are:
• to speak with a clear voice in matters of envi-
ronmental planning and protection
• to encourage and support sound environmen-
tal policies and actions locally and throughout
NYS
• to promote formation of conservation commis-
sions across NYS
• to provide networking opportunities for conser-
vation commissions throughout NYS
• to sponsor an annual conference, and regional
workshops to assist commissions and councils
• to publish a newsletter which contains reports
of commission activities, major problems and
pending legislation and the exchange of ideas
and information
• to interact with county EMCs and with their
umbrella organization - NYSAEMC
NYS Association of Environmental
Management Councils
Susanne Quarterman, President
NYS Association of Conservation
Commissions
Joy Squires, President
Conference Co -Chairs
Lee Hanle Younge
Chemung County EMC
Joy Squires
17 Clarissa Lane
E. Northport, NY 11731
(516) 368-6949
FAX 516-368-4796
Any questions, call
Conference Coordinator
Arlene Kaufman
3 Andover Drive
Port Jefferson Station
NY 11776
516) 928-3277
F X 516-331-4526
Conference Committee
Joy Squires, Chair
James Bagg
Thomas W. Cramer
Theresa Elkowitz
Michael Frank
Honorable Stephen Hackeling
Michael Kaufman, Esq.
Richard Meyer
Margo Myles
Paul Ponturo
George Proios
Dr. Lawrence Swanson
Dr. Basil Tangredi
Susan Taylor
Carole Wilder
New YorkState
Association of Environmental
JKanagement Councils
and
x w TorkState
Association of Conservation
Commissions
announce the
1997
New `YorkState
Conference on the
Environment
October 17, 18, 19, 1997
Danfords Inn
Port Jefferson, New York
Conference Theme
Environmental Management -
Creative Solutions
Workshop Topics
SEQRA - Rules & Regulations, Changes
How to Write & Review EIS
Risk Management
Coastal Management Issues
Groundwater Problems and Supply
Wetlands Restoration
Turning Science Into Action Items
Creative Land Preservation
Golf Courses - Making Them Environmentally
Friendly
Wildlife Toxicology - Animal Indicators of
Environmental Toxins
Establishing a Greenbelt Trail System
Natural Resource Management Planning -
Pine Barrens - a Model for Cooperation
How to Develop an Environmental Center
With Your Town
Open Space Planning
Ejegistration Brochure
ent by August 15
Speakers
Cnote Speaker
Legislative Roundtable
Owen Johnson, NYS Senator
Kenneth LaValle, NYS Senator
Carl Marcellino, NYS Senator
Steven Engelbright, NYS Assemblyman
Thomas DiNapoli, NYS Assemblyman
Stephen Hackeling, Suffolk County Legislator
Michael Caracciolo, Suffolk County Legislator
Field Trips
• Port Jefferson Village Walking Tour
• Long Island Sound Boat Trip
cruise aboard the State University of New York
at Stony Brook Marine Sciences Research
Center Research Vessel - the ONRUST
• Hike the Long Island Greenbelt Trail
• A Sailing Adventure
3-4 participants will sail on each privately
owned sailboat, hosted by the Mount Sinai
Sailing Association
• Tour of the Mount Sinai Nature Center
located at Mount Sinai Harbor
• Historic Center Tour
including wetlands and a winery
Lodging
at
Danfords Inn
The New Danfords Inn, located on the water-
front in historic Port Jefferson Village, has cre-
ated a tradition of quality and excellence over
the last decade. The-�}i►.� •�
Inn combines the 4
quaint, inviting am-
biance of an old
country inn with the . • -
utmost in modern
convenience. Visit- •
ors can relax over a c.
drink at the Inn's _
antique -filled Lobby •
Bar, get revitalized at the health spa, or enjoy
the breath -taking waterview just footsteps away
from the rich variety of shopping and recre-
ational activities in the historic maritime village
of Port Jefferson.
Adjacent to Danfords is Port Jefferson, a
walker's delight and a treasure chest for casual
browsers, history buffs, and boutique lovers
alike. The village includes an array of fine old
captains' homes - many with the old widow's
walks. The downtown area is dotted with shops
made for browsing.
Transportation
• Fly into Islip -MacArthur Airport - less than 30
minutes from Danfords
• Take the ferry from Bridgeport, Connecticut
right to Danfords' door
• Come by bus with NYSAEMC/NYSACC
colleagues - meeting at several upstate
locations
• Be adventurous - drive
However you come, just come!
JUL - 9 1997
TOWN OF
.JINNI ZONI ENGINEERING
C A T
LANDS END, a steep, sparsely forested
stretch of San Francisco parkland
plunges to the sea just beyond the Go.
Gate. One sunny Saturday morning, a thin,
60ish woman with blazing auburn hair scrambled from
a public sidewalk and down a twisting pathway to a
tiny clearing in the underbrush and dumped cat food
from a plastic box into a black plastic dish. Two full-
grown, mottled -gray cats suddenly appeared, arching
and undulating and mewing around her feet. She was
feeding these cats, she said, because "somebody just
dumped them here, poor things—just dumped them."
A moment later the woman, who said her name was
Rose, was back at the top of the path, scowling and
shaking the plastic box at me. I had asked the seeming-
ly infuria'Cing, if inevitable, question: What about the
damage that stray cats like these do when they prey on
birds and other wildlife? Her reaction wasn't helped by
the fact that she had probably sighted, 50 yards down
the road, the battered blue pickup of Alan Hopkins, a
housepainter and the vice-president of the Golden
Gate Audubon Society.
"Audubon goes too far!" she shouted at me. "These
cats are well fed! They don't kill
irds!" In the next breath, she told me
her own cats sometimes came home
with dead rodents or birds. "But -that's part of
the balance of nature!" she shouted, and stalked off to
her car, ending our chat.
Back in the pickup, Hopkins shook his head. "Pretty
typical stuff," he said.
He and I were in the midst of an unusual tour of
San Francisco. In a city park on the edge of Fort
Mason, near Fisherman's Wharf, we'd found a cluster
of a half-dozen cats, a motley array of breeds and
types, including one that looked eerily like the presi-
dential feline, Socks. The cats were milling around
plastic food dishes that were presently empty but
would apparently soon be filled. We moved on, from
national parkland at the Presidio to Lands End and
Lincoln Park, to Golden Gate Park, and down to Coy-
ote Point, on the bay at San Mateo.
Everywhere we went, Hopkins, who is trying to
determine the extent of cat feeding, was able to lead me
down short paths to places littered with food dishes
and, often, piles of cat food. The sites we visited are
A U D U B 0 N 85 JULY -AUGUST 1997
s�
"It's working!: Thpusands
:✓
of -you- are,carr,�trig;Audubon
National checks. Help u� ntinue to
A%udubo#1►; gad oriti �ir iessages."
S&. �ety James A. Cunningham }
Senior Vice President. N 'onal Audubon Society'�NEKS ARE
FOR THE BIRDS!
m -=� AUoueoN soaiTY
ermmsec* Ha&
fes, 11 &S*)
elea's"Go.,wa0000coo
4151
�—
' ' 0
NprONAr,AUDUBON
soatry
Sesies (N 3 desi9m)
•.O15
41s1
Message!Products'
1.800-243-2663
INTERNET: http://www.messageproducts.com
See our page or call us for a full product catalog
to support the National Audubon Society.
SELECT YOUR DESIGN AND CHECK STYLE BELOW:
Protecting Habitats -1 design (NA)
_200 single checks @ $13.95
_150 duplicate checks @ $14.95
Audubon Series - 3 designs (NS)
_200 single checks @ $15.95
_150 duplicate checks ® $17.95
Checks include deposit tickets & check register.
INCLUDE ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. Reorder form from present checks OR
a voided check with starting f
2. Deposit ticket from the same account
3. Payment check made payable to.Message!Products
(No CODs please)
CHECK ORDER $
MN RESIDENT ADD 6.5%
DELIVERY S
—Normal $1.75/box .
— First Class $3.50/box
CUSTOM LETTERING .'':-=:$ "FREE
_ Heivetica _•Lubalin
_,Cydiati _ (91d English
TOTAL ENCLOSED • S
Daytime telephone number (_)
TO ORDER, mall complete form and check payable to.
Message!Products P.O. Box 64800 St. Paul, MN 551.64-0800
1 - . UJ
called feeding stations by those who
maintain them. They are part of what
appears to be an expanding, increasing-
ly well -organized effort by individuals
and advocacy groups across the country
to ease the suffering of abandoned,
free -ranging house cats and their off-
spring. Estimates suggest that the num-
bers of feral (semiwild) and abandoned
cats in the United States run well into
the millions—and may exceed 30 mil-
lion. From nearly all indications, these
animals live lives of near -starvation,
disease, and early death.
The feral -feline feeders believe that
they have come up with an effective,
humane solution to the problem.
Rather than killing feral cats or round-
ing them up to be sent to a shelter
(where many would
sia), they advocate an
approach bearing the
acronym TTVAR.
Unadoptable strays
are Trapped, Tested
for some diseases,
Vaccinated, Altered
(i.e., sterilized), and
Released back into
the great outdoors,
to be fed for life by
good-hearted "care-
givers" like Rose.
Groups with
names like Alley
Cat Allies and For-
gotten Felines are
promoting the ap-
proach in places
from Boca Raton,
Florida, to Washing-
ton, D.C., to northern California. They
insist that TTVAR is both humane and
environmentally sensible. But a wide
range of wildlife biologists, conserva-
tionists such as Hopkins, and even
prominent animal -welfare groups vehe-
mently oppose the practice, suggesting
that it is ultimately more wrongheaded
than good-hearted.
The debate over feral -cat -feeding
programs has raged in recent years on
college campuses, in at least one
national park, and among city and
county agencies responsible for manag-
ing public parks. But in many ways the
feral -feeding issue is only a microcosm
of a much larger issue: a growing con-
cern among wildlife biologists that
roaming cats in general—including the
friendly household tabby—cumulative,-
ly do far more damage to wildlife—
birds, small mammals, and reptiles—
than anyone ever suspected.
What dismays environmentalists
about TTVAR is the idea of parks and
other public lands as ideal places in
which to maintain cat colonies. They
point to cases of large numbers of cats'
being regularly fed near habitat for
endangered or rapidly declining wild
species, from the burrowing owl on the
campus of Florida Atlantic University
to the clapper rail and the least tern in
San Francisco Bay—area wetlands.
Ron Jurek, . a wildlife biologist
with the California Department of
Fish and Game who is studying the
-��_cts of introduced
predators, says,
"These colonies cre-
ate a perpetual pop-
ulation of cats in an
area—at a predator
density unknown in
nature." Living adja-
cent to wild habitats
but fed by people,
he says, "cats can
number into the
scores or hundreds
per square mile."
And the overall
impact on local
wildlife, Jurek says,
can be "devastating."
Americans are cat
lovers in a big way.
Data from the U.S.
Census show that
the number of house cats grew from
30 million in 1970 to 60 million in
1990. That doesn't include animals not
considered pets (such as the less -than -
tame cats that are allowed to proliferate
on many farms) or the uncounted mil-
lions of stray and feral animals.
Contrary to what seems like com-
mon sense—that a cat with a full belly
has no reason to hunt—the evidence is
overwhelming that even contented,
well -cared -for house cats are often
instinctive, prodigiously effective
predators. In the early 1980s British
researchers Peter Churcher and John
Lawton closely monitored house cat
predation in a village in Bedfordshire.
The two convinced the owners of 77
A U D U g O N 86 JULY -AUGUST 1997
cats to collect in polyethylene bags the
remains of animals caught by their pets
over a full year. The results: Although
some cats brought home nothing, oth-
ers dragged home as many as 100 kills.
The total was 1,100 dead prey, an aver-
age of about 14 per year per cat. The
amount of food the cats ate at home
seemed to make no difference. "Well-
fed and apparently contented cats are
often ruthless killers," the researchers
wrote. And, they continued, it was
unlikely that "the cats would even
bring home all of their catch:'
Churcher and Lawton found that
birds were not the cats' most common
prey. That dubious distinction be-
longed to small mammals, from baby
rabbits to mice and voles. Still, birds
accounted for roughly one-third of the
victims. Other studies, from Europe,
North America, and various Pacific
islands, have produced varying results,
and the data are often difficult to com-
pare. Many studies focused on what the
cats ate, usually determined by examin-
ing the stomach contents of dead cats
or the feces of live ones, and therefore
did not count prey animals killed but
never consumed. In an attempt to com-
pare all the data, researcher B. M. Fitz-
gerald analyzed scores of studies and
concluded in 1984 that a cat's prey
averaged about 21 percent birds on
continents, 51 percent on islands. A
recent study in the United States—
conducted in 1991 in suburban neigh-
borhoods near the Sonoran Desert in
Tucson, Arizona—found that cats
killed an average of slightly more than
80 small animals each per year: about
26 percent birds, 62 percent mammals,
and 11 percent reptiles.
The overall impact of cat predation
on bird populations can only be esti-
mated. Stanley Temple, a biologist at
the University of Wisconsin, has calcu-
lated that 18.9 million birds reside on
Wisconsin's agricultural land (45 per-
cent of the state's total acreage) at the
start of the breeding season. They pro-
duce about 16.1 million young, so the
state's bird population on this land is
approximately 35. million from May
through September. During those five
months, he estimates, cats kill at least
3.25 million birds. As a result, at least
9 percent of Wisconsin's summer bird
population on agricultural lands is
THE BEST IN _
BIRDINd BINOCUIARS.-,
CALL THE rINd EXPERTS 800-624-810
Our Midwest service guarantees friendly, expert advice, the best selection
and competitive prices on binoculars & spotting scopes.
We carry Bausch & Lomb, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Swift, Zeiss & more.
Your satisfaction is guaranteed. Call us today for your free catalog!
BUSMELL OLYMPUS
BUSHNELL 8x40 BIRDER SWIFT 8x42 ULTRALITE OLYMPUS
The 8x40 is the best inexpensive Great for birding. The Ultrolite 8X42 PATHFINDER
birding binocular offered today has fully multi -coated lenses & A lightweight full-size binocular
It has good close focus & includes Ion g eye relief which is ideal with a rubber coated body,
a birding book for beginners. for eye glass wearers. BAK-4 prisms & long eye relief for
$4995 $19995 comfort when wearing glasses.
&WZ1914 $14995
National Came= g. =h=ge
9300 Olson Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427. We take trade-ins. Hours: Mon.. -F(1. 9-9, Sat. 10-6,
& Sun. 12.5 (CST . All prices subject to change. Call 800-624-8107 to order or for customer service.
http://www.ncepro.com
MEMBER OF MINNESOTA ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION & FRIENDS OF HAWK RIDGE
A U D U B 0 N 87 JULY -AUGUST 1997
Leica, Zeiss, Swarovski, Swift, Nikon, Celestron, Kowa, Optolyth
(800) 289-1132 Bausch & Lomb, Questar, Tele Vue, Pentax, Meade, Steiner,
Leupold, Bushnell, Fujinon, Canon, Redfield, Brunton, Mirador
Call and ask for your FREE Comprehensive Optic Buying Guide &
Discount Price List on optics from all major manufacturers
Web Site: http://www.eagleoptics.coml�P,GL�
EagleOptics
716 S. Whitney Way Madison, WI 5371140t OA GCO
Technical Assistance: (608) 271-4751 TI o
Order Line: (800) 289-1132 Fax: (608) 2714406
erased by cats each year. The toll is not,
of course, spread evenly over all of the
state's bird species. Ground -nesting
birds =such as the sharply declining
eastern and western meadowlarks and a
host of sparrows, including the Hens -
low's and the LeConte's—suffer much
higher proportional losses.
In Virginia, biologists Joseph Mitch-
ell of the University of Richmond and
Ruth Beck of the College of William
and Mary estimated in 1992 that
1,048,704 "domestic free -ranging" cats
in that state were killing at least 3 mil-
lion birds.
Scott Craven, a University of Wis-
consin biologist, suggests that even if
the level of predation of native wildlife
turns out to be somewhat less than the
low-end numbers, "the actual numbers
aren't what's important. The only
important factor is that they're surpris-
ingly large. We know there are millions
of free -ranging cats in this country,
and if each individual cat averages one
or two animals each year [from species]
that are already in jeopardy—millions
of cats times even a small number of
prey becomes really significant."
At present—in part because of the
sheer complexity of linking cat preda-
tion to specific declines among some of
their prey species—it is hard to deter-
mine precisely the effects that cats are
having on bird and small -mammal
populations. Feral -feeding advocates
insist that the amount of wildlife killed
pales by comparison with other ecolog-
ical threats. "Feral cats make useful
scapegoats," declares Sarah Hartwell in
an article distributed on the Internet by
the San Diego—based Feral Cat Coali-
tion. She suggests that birds in San
Francisco's Golden Gate Park, such as
the California quail, have gone into
population decline because of new
landscaping, not because colonies of
feral cats are being maintained there.
Donna Best, president of Forgotten
Felines of Sonoma County, California,
attributes most bird declines to habitat
destruction: "So many people want to
blame every feral cat for every bird
that's been destroyed. But just go look
at the bulldozers out there,"
Dan Knapp, director of the Humane
Society of Sonoma County and a
TTVAR advocate, argued to a member
of the county Board of Supervisors
A U D U B 0 N 88 JULY -AUGUST 1997
that "eliminating the feeding of the
wild cats or attempting to trap and
remove them will not result in dimin-
ished predation." Instead, Knapp sug-
gested "properly maintained feral -cat
colonies," which would "stabilize the
level of predation." He and others con-
tend that well-fed cats would protect
their territory from other ferals, and
the colonies would gradually decrease
in size through normal mortality. But
the Humane Society cites the research
of Carol Haspel, a biologist at
LaGuardia Community College, in
New York, who says her studies of
feral -cat behavior show that cats
"absolutely do not" keep out other
cats, "particularly if there is a feeder."
Biologist Temple points out another
danger of feeding. Free -ranging cats, he
says, "are not animals functioning the
way native predators do. They are sub-
sidized predators getting most of their
food from people, so that as they drive
a mouse or lizard or songbird popula-
tion down, they don't slack off, they
continue to hunt the area."
Temple points out that the real con- .
servation worry is not for abundant
bird or small -mammal species, whose
reproductive efficiency is almost cer-
tainly robust enough to handle steady
predation. The concern, he says, is for
species already endangered or in
proven, steep population declines.
Biologist Craven points out that a
host of native rodents in Wisconsin are
subject to cat predation, including the
woodland jumping mouse, which is
uncommon in the state, and the possi-
bly imperiled western harvest mouse.
Craven notes that the destruction of
even nonendangered native species
bears an ecological cost for native
predators such as owls: "Anything they
consume is one less bit of prey for a
native predator."
Temple does not dismiss the argu-
ment that other factors—from rainfor-
est destruction on critical wintering
grounds to fragmentation of habitat on
summer nesting grounds—are harming
songbirds. "But you have to look at the
sum of all the mortality factors that
affect a species," he says. The dilemma
for species in decline, he adds, is,
"Which 'is the straw that breaks the
camel's back? It can be impossible to
>4CLJS
e d e n
NEXUS SWEDISH COMPASSES.
single any one out, but you can at least
eliminate those that are easiest to elimi-
nate. Controlling cats looks like a man-
ageable problem,"
Craven, like Temple, says the answer
for those who own cats is to restrict
their access to places where they might
do harm and to keep them indoors if
possible. As for feeding ferals, particu-
larly on public lands that provide habi-
tat for native species, he says, "I find it
bizarre that anyone would think we
should use public land to put an abun-
dant, nonnative species over a rare or
declining native species."
In fact, the notion that feral cats
should be fed is far from universally
popular among animal -welfare organ'-
zations. The Humane Society of the
United States, for instance, has long
opposed it. Marc Paulhus, former vice-
president for companion animals, once
called it "subsidized abandonment,"
declaring that even ferals that are fed
live "short and desperate lives."
"The best thing to do is bring them
in and find them homes if we can," says
the Humane Society's wildlife -issues
specialist, Susan Hagood. "These cats
A U D U 8 0 N 89 JULY -AUGUST 1997
AUDUB0N
and the Art of
NATURAL HISTORY
Fir
SPECIALIZING IN THE FINEST
ORIGINAL NATURAL HISTORY ART
FROM THE 17TH TO 19TH CENTURIES.
FEATURING WORKS BY AUDUBON,
GOULD, BESLER AND MANY OTHERS.
KENYON OPPENHEIMER, INC.
410 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611
312-642-5300 • FAX 312-642-5175
Established 1969
For
with you.
Ask for your FREE
Summer and Fall
Vacation Packages Brochure
on neighbourly Quebec.
Call toll free
1 600 363-7777
(Operator 110)
009—NK
. Quebec o
Closer than you think
Subject: Long -Range Observation Binoculars
If you're shopping for high-powered optics, you need to take a
hard look at OPTOLYTH. Call 1$00-225-9407 for a catalogue.
Opt®lyth
o ewra ...wv eiHce lase
are as much victims as the wildlife they
impact, and the wildlife doesn't need
cats out there."
Ingrid Newkirk, president of the
hard-line animal-rights group People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
vigorously opposes releasing trapped
cats as well. She told The Washington Post
in March that she has seen too many
"cats torn apart by car engines [cats
often climb under car hoods for
warmth in cold weather], by pit
bulls—the horror stories are end-
less .... I believe once you have your
hand on that stray, once you anes-
thetize them, why bring them back to
take their chances again?"
Yet feral -feeding operations have
continued to spring up, sometimes in
surprising places. Dan Sealy, natural
resources manager for the National
Park Service's George Washington
Memorial Parkway, in Virginia, discov-
ered a feeding station on national park-
land along the Potomac River in the
early 1990s. Posted on it was a note
explaining that those feeding the ferals
were doing so, Sealy says, "because the
cats would help kill rodents and snakes.
Of course, native rodents and snakes
are some of the things the Park Service
is supposed to be here to protect."
After a contentious debate between
the cat feeders and conservationists and
humane groups, park staff began live -
trapping the cats and bringing them to
a local shelter, removing the last one in
1995. Feral -cat advocates insisted that
the removal of the colony would sim-
ply create a "vacuum effect"—more
ferals flooding into the vacated zone.
But Sealy reports that now that the
food subsidization has ended, the trap-
ping program has not yielded one addi-
tional feral.
Trapping is labor intensive, however,
and domestic cats have a breathtaking
reproductive potential. Capable of pro-
ducing multiple litters in a year, a sin-
gle female and her descendants could
theoretically produce hundreds of
thousands of offspring in an approxi-
mate 10 -year lifetime. That suggests
they will eventually populate any area
where they can find adequate food: pre-
cisely the reason so many biologists
oppose feeding them in the first place.
Feral -feeding advocates favor neutering
the animals; Forgotten Felines has
A U D U B 0 N 90 JULY -AUGUST 1997
Carl Zeiss
0 tolym.
models available:
15x60 BGA
15x63 BGA
type of construction:
porro prism
roof prism
weight:
55.7 ozs.
41 ozs.
center focus:
yes
yes
rubber armored:
yes
yes
fully multi -coated:
yes
yes
nitrogen filled:
no
yes
exit pupil:
4
4.2
twilight factor:
30
30.73
made in Germany:
yes
yes
extended warranty:
yes
yes
suggested retail price:
$1695
$999
If you're shopping for high-powered optics, you need to take a
hard look at OPTOLYTH. Call 1$00-225-9407 for a catalogue.
Opt®lyth
o ewra ...wv eiHce lase
are as much victims as the wildlife they
impact, and the wildlife doesn't need
cats out there."
Ingrid Newkirk, president of the
hard-line animal-rights group People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
vigorously opposes releasing trapped
cats as well. She told The Washington Post
in March that she has seen too many
"cats torn apart by car engines [cats
often climb under car hoods for
warmth in cold weather], by pit
bulls—the horror stories are end-
less .... I believe once you have your
hand on that stray, once you anes-
thetize them, why bring them back to
take their chances again?"
Yet feral -feeding operations have
continued to spring up, sometimes in
surprising places. Dan Sealy, natural
resources manager for the National
Park Service's George Washington
Memorial Parkway, in Virginia, discov-
ered a feeding station on national park-
land along the Potomac River in the
early 1990s. Posted on it was a note
explaining that those feeding the ferals
were doing so, Sealy says, "because the
cats would help kill rodents and snakes.
Of course, native rodents and snakes
are some of the things the Park Service
is supposed to be here to protect."
After a contentious debate between
the cat feeders and conservationists and
humane groups, park staff began live -
trapping the cats and bringing them to
a local shelter, removing the last one in
1995. Feral -cat advocates insisted that
the removal of the colony would sim-
ply create a "vacuum effect"—more
ferals flooding into the vacated zone.
But Sealy reports that now that the
food subsidization has ended, the trap-
ping program has not yielded one addi-
tional feral.
Trapping is labor intensive, however,
and domestic cats have a breathtaking
reproductive potential. Capable of pro-
ducing multiple litters in a year, a sin-
gle female and her descendants could
theoretically produce hundreds of
thousands of offspring in an approxi-
mate 10 -year lifetime. That suggests
they will eventually populate any area
where they can find adequate food: pre-
cisely the reason so many biologists
oppose feeding them in the first place.
Feral -feeding advocates favor neutering
the animals; Forgotten Felines has
A U D U B 0 N 90 JULY -AUGUST 1997
•d
>f
.a
e-
ts
•e.
tg
as
neutered 9,000 and claims that this
will reduce the feral problem over time.
But veterinarians Karl Zaunbrecher
and Richard E. Smith tried the neuter-
ing approach in an experimental
TTVAR program at a hospital in
Louisiana where attempts to stop the
feeding of fertile stray cats by patients
had been "consistently ignored or cir-
cumvented." After three years, a colony
of about 40 cats had been reduced to
30. But in a 1993 report in the Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association,
the researchers pointed out that an
additional six cats had moved into the
area. Zaunbrecher later amplified his
views: "Feral cats are not a benign enti-
ty," he wrote, adding that both he and
his coauthor "wholly support [the]
assertion that eradication is the only
real answer, however unpleasant."
DURING OUR TOUR, Alan Hopkins took
me to a park where a minuscule water-
fall trickles into a tiny pool under a
dense green canopy of low shrubs. On
this day, a Townsend's warbler flitted to
the pool, then an Allen's hummingbird.
Yellow-rumped warblers sang, in coun-
terpoint to a distant foghorn.
Hopkins says he has seen feral cats at
the same waterfall. "Think of all the
migrating birds that fly up and down
this peninsula. They see a green spot to
rest. They need to stop somewhere for
a drink of water. How can they know
that this place is full of cats?"
But Hopkins readily agrees with cat
caregivers on one key point. "It isn't
the cats' fault they were dumped here,"
he says. "And the feeders are not the
villains. The real villains are the people
who dump cats." But he adds that the
mere existence of the feeding stations
aggravates the problem. "People think,
'I don't want to take my cat to a shel-
ter, where it might be euthanized. I'll
just leave it here, where I know nice
people will feed it.'
Best insists that in the absence of
funding for comprehensive programs to
deal with feral cats, it is only through
the concerted efforts of volunteer
organizations that anything is being
done to address the issue. "There are
areas we don't agree on," she says, "like
what the impact is on the wildlife. But
at least we're trying to do something
The multi-purpose tool with
precision locking components.
■ Introducing the Saf-T P1usTM Locking
System -10 components lock safely and
securely into position.
■ Independent Tool Rotation—each
component rotates easily into position.
■ Gerber's legendary quality backed by our
Limited Lifetime Warranty.
■ Exceeds other multi -tools in durability,
safety, and ease-of-use.
GEPER"
LEGENDARY% .A&BLADES
A D,4sbn of Flskm Ina
Medium 4
Screwdriver
PO Box 23088, 14200 SW 72nd Avenue, Portland, OR 97281 USA
about the problem."
It is a problem public officials have
long showed a reluctance to confront.
"The cat versus bird problem is as old
as time," wrote Adlai Stevenson when
he was governor of Illinois in 1949. "If
we attempt to resolve it by legislation,
. we may be called upon to take sides
as well in the age-old problems of dog
versus cat, bird versus bird, and even
bird versus worm."
The Washington, D.C.—based Ameri-
can Bird Conservancy established a cat -
predation campaign this year—with
participation from the National
Audubon Society, the Humane Society
of the United States, and other
groups—to focus attention on the
problem of cat predation on native
wildlife. "I realize these people think
they're doing something about the
overpopulation problem among cats,"
says Linda Winter, the program's coor-
dinator. "But now you've got a healthy
population of predators. These cats
don't need to kill in order to eat, but
they kill anyway. These are perfectly
sincere and loving and caring people
who simply have the wrong idea." *
NEW LOCKING
FEATURE
Sliding Lock Release
Button is designed
for added strength
and safety.
Needlenose PLier
Standard
PLier
A U D U B 0 N 91 JULY -AUGUST 1997
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
TO: Conservation Board Members
FROM: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator
DATE: 10 July 1997
RE: Our next meeting - July 17, 1997
Greetings. Enclosed is the agenda and materials for our July 17th meeting. I apologize again for
the confusion over the date of this meeting.
Enclosed please find draft minutes from March 6, April 3, May 15, and June 5. Please disregard
any previous drafts of these minutes which you might have, and review these newly edited drafts.
I have enclosed my summary of our field trip to Buttermilk Falls State Park, and the group will
discuss follow-up items at this July meeting, particularly the option to draft a letter urging the
NYS Parks to purchase the western part of tax parcel 36-1-4.2.
I have re -circulated the draft letter to DEC urging reconsideration of South Hill Swamp area a
state -regulated wetland. Hopefully, we can finalize this letter at this meeting. Also, Richard
Fischer has performed a second bird survey of this area (report enclosed).
As you may know, Lois and I have been working on an application to the NYS Rural. Grant
Program, to obtain a small sum of money for a public information campaign on suburban threats
to our natural areas. We will update you on this process.
Finally, we will revisit the Coy Glen boundary designation project.
As always, please call me at 273-1747 if you have any questions. See you on July 17th.
TOWN OF ITHACA
CONSERVATION BOARD
7:30 pm, Thursday, 17 July 1997
Town Hall Board Room
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(Handicap -accessible entrance ramp on West side of building)
(607) 273-1747
AGENDA
7:30 pm 1. Persons to be heard
7:35 pm 2. Member Concerns
7:40 pm 3. Coordinator and Chair Reports
7:45 pm 4. Committee Reports
7:55 pm 5. Business
a. Approval of minutes from 3/6/97, 4/3/97, 5/15/97 and 6/5/97
8:15 pm 6. Buttermilk Falls State Park Field Trip Follow-up - discussion of follow-up action
including letter to NYS Parks
8:30 pm 7. South Hill Swamp - consideration of draft letter to DEC
8:45 pm 8. Update on Status of Grant Application
9:00 pm 9. Coy Glen Project - boundary identification
9:30 pm 10. Adjournment
CB Members and Associate Members:
Phil Zarriello, Chair
Kara Hagedorn, Vice Chair
Frank Baldwin
Elizabeth deProsse
Richard Fischer
Eva Hoffmann
Lois Levitan
Jon Meigs
Barney Unsworth
John Yntema
(File Name: c:\28plan\cb\07-17-97.agd)
TOI Conservation Board Field Trip: Buttermilk Falls State Park
16 June 1997
Vice Chair Kara Hagedorn led a field trip exploring the eastern boundary of Buttermilk
Falls State Park. CB members Libby deProsse, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Jon
Meigs, and John Yntema attended and were accompanied by Town Board Member Ellen
Harrison, Town Planner Jon Kanter, CB Coordinator Geri Tierney, and State Park Employee
Tony Ingraham. Tony Ingraham videotaped part of our visit. The focus of this trip was to
consider the impact of development along the Parks eastern boundary on Park resources. The
group used the attached map.
From the parking lot nearest to Treman Lake, the group walked up the park trail, skirted
Treman Lake to the north and hiked up to the eastern boundary of the Park on unofficial trails.
As the group walked along Treman Lake, Kara pointed out the rich cattail wetland on the
southwest side of the lake that provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife, including beaver and
owls. This seems to be the most important part of the Park for wildlife, and the State Park
naturalist programs use this area to lead visitors from all over the world on wildlife watches. The
group continued up to the eastern boundary, which was marked by private property signs
delineating the edge of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 (the site of the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision),
survey stakes, and a sharp change in forest age. (The trees on private land are significantly
younger and smaller.) The group walked part way south along this boundary, and also along the
topographic break where the relatively flat land breaks and slopes sharply down toward Treman
Lake. Then, after the early departure of Ellen Harrison, Jon Kanter, Eva Hoffmann, Libby
DeProsse, and Tony Ingraham, the group continued south along this boundary to the clearly
marked corner. The group then turned around and headed back to the northwest portion of this
tax parcel, to examine the gorge section that is to be donated to the State Park.
The attached map shows the variability in the relationship between this topographic break
and the border between the State Park and tax parcel 36-1-4.2. This map indicates that along
roughly the northern 1/3 of this boundary, the topographic break intercepts this boundary, along
roughly the middle 1/3 of this boundary, the topographic break veers sharply west and falls relatively
far from this boundary, and along roughly the southern 1/3 of this boundary, this break runs
relatively near and roughly parallel to this boundary. At an undetermined location within the middle
to mid -southern section of this boundary, Jon Kanter paced off the distance between the park
boundary and topographic break at approximately 100 feet. In this area, tax parcel 36-1-4.2 is fairly
flat. Along much of the southern section of this boundary (for perhaps the southernmost 400 feet,
judging from the attached map), the distance between the Park boundary and this topographic break
appeared to group members to be +/- 30 feet. Along this section, Treman Lake was just visible
through the trees from the Park boundary.
Highlights:
The group was impressed by the scenic beauty of Treman Lake and the reports of diverse wildlife
in that area. The group noted the fragility of this habitat, in large part due to the narrow shape of
the Park in this area. On either side, the Park boundary falls within only perhaps 400 feet of
Treman Lake.
The group saw that the unofficial trail entering the park from tax parcel 36-1-4.2 was well worn,
and in some places, marked.
The group was able to investigate the distance between Treman Lake and the park boundary, and
also distance between the park boundary and the steep topographic break which angles down
towards Treman Lake. As noted above, the Park Boundary is sometimes +/- 100 feet of this
topographic break, and at other times is +/- 30 feet. Along the stretch where this distance is +/-
30 feet, Treman Lake can just be seen from this boundary.
Several group members observed that the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 is bounded by
the park on two sides (see attached map). A northwestern portion of this tax parcel will be
dedicated as open space and conveyed to the State. The group members noted that this will
create a situation where the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 will be bounded by the park on
three sides, potentially creating a pocket of development within the larger park area.
The unofficial trail that led the group up to the Park Boundary is said to run from the La Tourelle
Inn, and the group saw a posted sign marking this unofficial "entrance."
Action Items:
1) Several CB members agreed that the CB should write a letter to the State Parks Administration
urging them to place the western portion of tax parcel 36-1-4.2 onto the list for State Park
acquisition, and to give it high priority.
2) The CB could urge the State Parks Administration to clearly mark the State Park Boundary,
and perhaps to use fencing to reduce the influx of people and domestic animals from nearby
residential areas.
3) The CB could recommend that Buttermilk Falls State Park and certain adjacent land be
rezoned to a Conservation District, which would limit the density of future development.
4) During future site plan review of any proposed development along the State Park Boundary,
the CB can continue to point out potential impacts caused by the density of development, noise,
domestic animals, and suburban lawn chemical runoff, and to offer specific measures for
mitigating these.
Drafted by GLT, 6/19/97, edited 7/10/97.
TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
DRAFT
MARCH 6, 1997
PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Vice Chair Kara Hagedom, Frank Baldwin, Elizabeth DeProsse, Eva
Hoffmann, Jon Meigs, Barney Unsworth, John Yntema
ABSENT: Richard Fischer, Lois Levitan
STAFF: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator; JoAnn Cornish, ERC Coordinator
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS:
Kara Hagedorn had a discussion with Planning Board Member Gregory Bell in regards to a role as a
Planning Board Member. He offered to speak to the Conservation Board to give a perspective of what the
Town Planning Board does. The Planning Board takes the advice seriously from the Conservation Board on
projects it reviews. Mr. Bell wants to give a background of what the Planning Board does, and what the
Conservation Board could do to be more effective.
The Conservation Board was in agreement to have Mr. Bell attend a meeting. Mr. Bell will give a brief
overview of what the Planning Board does, and how the Conservation Board could be more effective with
reviews.
Chair Zarriello received "The Environmental Notice Bulletin," which is published weekly. In region seven,
which is the Town of Ithaca's region, that there are several permits for Stream Protection Clean Water Act.
The gravel bars can be removed to install rip -rap, which seems to have a negative impact on stream
protection and clean water. After floods, the State has permitted people to enter streams to clean out gravel
bars. This is starting to raise some concerns. This could be a very expensive process to do. Cleaning these
areas could disturb the habitat. The Conservation Board would need to discuss buffer issues at some point.
There are no activities like this in the Town.
Ms. Hagedorn described some areas in the Buttermilk Falls State Park that might fit into this category.
Chair Zarriello stated that he spoke to the Planning Committee, and they have provisionally agreed to have
a designee from the Conservation Board to be part of the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee is
for strategic planning of development issues to help people through the process. If a Conservation Board
member is interested in volunteering for the Planning Committee, please contact Chair Zaniello for more
information.
Chair Zarriello stated that a former member of the Conservation Board, Cheryl Smith, sent a letter on DEC
Camper Programs. She was looking for a sponsorship. It could be a monetary sponsorship. This is a
Conservation Workshop Camp to expose children to Conservation issues and the wilderness of the
outdoors. The cost is approximately $150 to $200. Part of the sponsorship is a non -monetary part where
the child is sponsored by a group that needs to report back to the group. This is set up for low income
families to help sponsor children that would not be able to go to camp on their own. The Board will discuss
this matter further at a later date.
COORDINATOR AND CHAIR REPORTS:
Geri Tierney briefly listed the items distributed in the member's folders for this meeting. First, there is an
updated draft resolution from Jon Meigs. In regards to the review logs requested last week, there is a list
of all the projects currently scheduled for review before the Planning Board. There is a memo from Planner
Cornish in regards to park regulations, particularly related to dogs. There is a publication from Westchester
County from the Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter. It is an advisory piece that Westchester County
wrote up describing how Conservation Boards should function, what they should do, and some common
problems the Board might run into. This publication gives advice, and Planner Cornish recommended that
the Board review it. The new members also received background information of the Conservation Board.
There is a copy of the Town's Environmental Review Law that the Town has implemented for SEQR.
There is a copy of the background legislation designating the Conservation Board and the bylaws. There is
a copy of the Town's Wetland Guidelines that was written by this Board. There is a copy of the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. The Coy Glen Biological report can be supplied to anyone wanting a copy.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
There are no official committees set up at this point, so there are no reports.
PROPOSED COMMUNITY PARK ON SOUTH HILL:
Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that she would talk about the Community Park that is being recommended
for the Monkemeyer land on South Hill. The concern for this park is that it is very close to the South Hill
Swamp. Given the charge to design this park, she took some of the concerns that Planner Tierney had
expressed to her and common sense for planning this.
She presented a brief history of this plan on how the Town is going to acquire land from Evan
Monkemeyer. Mr. Monkemeyer came before the Planning Board with a sketch plan. Planner Cornish
pointed out on the survey map done by Nancy Ostman and Bob Wesley of the South Hill Swamp, where
the proposed park would be located. The Monkemeyer family owns a lot of land on the South Hill, which
Mr. Monkemeyer would have most of the control of. Mr. Monkemeyer came before the Planning Board
with a sketch plan for a subdivision.. Phase I was for lots 1 through S. This was a conventional 30,000
square foot lot subdivision. Phase R would be another subdivision to total 22 lots in this area.
There is a piece land that was dedicated as park land that Mr. Monkemeyer wants to sell to the Montessori
School. The Planning Board agreed that it would be a good idea because it is adjacent to the Montessori
School property. It makes sense for Mr. Monkemeyer to sell that piece of land to the Montessori School for
them to use. In return, the Planning Board wants an even exchange of land in addition to the 10 percent set-
aside that the Town requires for subdivisions.
There is a definite need for some type of park in this area. It was explained to Mr. Monkemeyer that he
could sell these lots with a 100 -foot buffer to the South Hill Swamp that people cannot build upon. Planner
Cornish stated that the Town would require a 4.5 acre park from Mr. Monkemeyer if he was to develop
these lots.
The park area would be a community green space with a play structure. A buffer is being planned to keep
people and pets away from the South Hill Swamp area. The drainage on South Hill is a problem. The
Town is looking for a level land for the park space with minimal grading. Mr. Monkemeyer is planning to
M
develop all of his properties over the next few years, which would come in phases to the Town. There has
always been intent to connect to Ithaca College through this parcel. The terrain is very steep, and it is
questionable whether this type of grading could be done to construct a road. There has always been an
intent to connect to the commercial property, which would mean another road way.
Mr. Monkemeyer is insisting on preparing a Site Plan proposal for Phase I, and the Planning Board is
going to allow him to do that. Phases II and III would be considered more of a clustering and conservation
design for the subdivision, rather than the standard 30,000 square foot lots all over the 100 -acre parcel on
South Hill. If Mr. Monkemeyer clustered his property he would be able to get more units on less space.
There would be a large area for open space. The Planning Board tries to encourage developers to look into
clusters.
Planner Tierney pointed out to the Conservation Board where the commercial properties are in this area on
a map.
Planner Cornish stated that if Mr. Monkemeyer develops Phase I and II he would have to give the Town a
4.5 acres for open space for a park development. Since the Town is unsure what is going to happen with
the other parcels, the Town would need to plan on what they could get at this point. If Mr. Monkemeyer
develops all his parcels, the Town would receive an 11 -acre park. However, Mr. Monkemeyer has indicated
his willingness to give the Town the 11 acres. He has also indicated that he may get control of his sister's
property, and that would help the open space park plan. These were just schematic plans to show what Mr.
Monkemeyer could do. There has been several discussions with Mr. Monkemeyer about this issue. This
park would be considered regional, and the Town would own the park and maintain it. Hopefully, the
developer would pay for the road way.
Planner Cornish stated that in the Town's Park and Open Space Plan, a connector walkway was going to go
straight through the Unique Natural Area. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz, Planner Tierney, and
herself had a lengthy discussion about the problems if a trail was put through this area. They wanted to
discourage the idea of having people walking through the Unique Natural Area. There is an existing trail,
but it is overgrown now. Ms. Cornish pointed out the Unique Natural Area on a map, and where the
proposed trail would go in this area. The topography is steep in the South Hill area for bike paths and
pedestrian paths. These plans are to give the Board an idea of the direction that the Town is going with the
community park, and to ask for any suggestions or comments that the Town should be considering from an
environmental stand point.
In discussions, the Town Engineer and the Town Supervisor indicated that they do not want the pond as
part of the park because they would have to assume liability for the pond and maintenance. It does not
mean that it cannot be recommended or that a water feature in the park couldn't be a part of it, it is just the
direction the staff was given. Houses could be built around the pond. The pond would need drainage work
done if houses were built near that for retention. The location and accessibility of the park have been
recommended for a community park. Mr. Monkemeyer is willing within the next four months to give the
Town 11 acres for this park. There is not a lot of contiguous parcels that would allow an 11 -acre park that
would be buildable for some of the things the Town wants. The 11 acres is more than 10 percent of the land
Mr. Monkemeyer wants to be developed. The most leveled land in this area is where the proposed park land
is suggested to be. This park would be available to anyone, it would not be a restrictive park. The
Conservation Board suggested that the Planning Staff work with Ithaca College in regards to a path way
from the Campus to College Circle for the students. Ithaca College is working with the Planning Board on
campus construction proposed for Ford Hall and the J and M lot parking areas.
RA
Ms. Hagedom stated that she walked the boundaries of the upper part of Buttermilk Falls State Park. It
was interesting to see how many people whose property borders the Park have started to use the Park.
There is garbage and tree forts near the boundaries. There are several unofficial trails to the Park. There is
a small buffer area between the proposed Wiggins development and the Park. Restrictions could be added
to the deeds to require a buffer.
The Board discussed fencing for the boundary, to act as a buffer to keep people and their animals out of the
Park. This possibility would need to be addressed to the Attorney for the Town, for any legal issues on
fencing.
SOUTH HILL SWAMP UNA - PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND DEC STATUS:
The Conservation Board had a lengthy discussion on the proposed resolution to DEC to make some
changes and amendments for the language.
MOTION by Jon Meigs, seconded by John Yntema:
WHEREAS the Conservation Board has been asked to make recommendations for protecting the "South
Hill Unique Natural Area," an area of the Town of Ithaca containing special flora, rare ecological
communities, old-growth forest, and wetlands, as documented by an inventory conducted in 1996 by
experts Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley, and
WHEREAS Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley consider the South Hill Swamp to be one of the two most
unique natural areas within the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS such flora are susceptible to destruction or reduction in number to below a level at which they
can remain naturally viable within their habitat, through human activity or by activity controllable by
humans, such as development or the activities of humans and domestic pets within the area, and
WHEREAS such flora are of value to the people of the Town of Ithaca because of their scarcity, their
aesthetic qualities, their illustration of the history of occupation and -development -of the Town, and their -
utility to education and scientific research, which are ultimately of economic importance to the Town, and
WHEREAS the Conservation Board intends to continue and complete its work of defining the area meriting
protection, including the South Hill Unique Natural Area, and to make recommendations to the Town
concerning appropriate protective measures, in 1997, and
WHEREAS a complete assessment of the area's resources will not be obtainable until the 1997 growing
season is well underway, thus leaving development plans which are currently under discussion for property
in and adjacent to the area without benefit of a complete assessment, be it
RESOLVED that the Conservation Board asks the Town Planning Board, Planning Department and other
agencies responsible for regulating development in the Town, to take into consideration the above matters
when reviewing applications for the development and use of property in and adjoining the South Hill
Unique Natural Area, and to consult the Conservation Board before deciding on any such applications.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Zarriello called for a vote.
AYES - Zarriello, DeProsse, Hagedorn, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Frank Baldwin stated that DEC suggested that the State would be able to protect the South Hill Swamp
UNA, or the Town or County would also be able to protect the area. The only areas that the State needs to
protect are Class I areas. If the Town writes DEC on why this should be considered an Unique Natural
Area, that they might reconsider it. The area does not need to any specific size to be protected. If the area
is to be considered special for protection, the State should be informed of the Town's interests are. Mr.
4
Baldwin will draft a letter for the Conservation Board to review to pass along to the Town Board for
review.
COY GLEN UNA BOUNDARY CRITERIA:
The criteria would be passed along to the subcommittees of the Board for review, and they would bring the
information back to the Board for further discussion.
ELECTIONS:
MOTION by Jon Meigs, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby elects Phil Zarriello as Chair for the 1997 term.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - DeProsse, Hagedom, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Zarriello.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by Jon Meigs:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby elects Kara Hagedorn as Vice Chair for the 1997 term.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, DeProsse, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Hagedorn.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 16, 1997
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Phil Zarriello:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of January 16, 1997 as written.
with the following corrections: Page 2, paragraph 5, states "the report indicates an extent to an area," shall
read "the report should indicate an area larger than 12 acres."
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, DeProsse, Hagedom, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 6, 1997
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Phil Zarriello:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of February 6, 1997 as written
with a spelling convection:
AYES - Zarriello, DeProsse, Hagedom, Unsworth, Baldwin, Hoffmann, Meigs, Yntema. NAYS - None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS:
Planner Cornish stated that the Environmental Review Committee meets separately from the Conservation
Board to review the projects at hand. Not all the projects warrant Environmental Review, because the
Environmental Impact Statements prepared by Staff, containing their views of the significance of impact
The Planning Board and Staff take the review and comments from the Environmental Review Committee
seriously. This Committee, of the Conservation Board, has an important function, and is the most powerful
5
tool it has, to become involved with what happens in the Town of Ithaca, environmentally. The Committee
has met separately for each project that warrants the proper environmental review.
The Conservation Board will discuss the subcommittee appointments at the next meeting for review and
voting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Minutes transcribed by DK 4/14/97; edited by JAY 06/26/97 & 6/29/97.
M
TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
DRAFT
APRIL 3, 1997
PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Vice -Chair Kara Hagedorn, Elizabeth DeProsse, Eva Hoffmann,
Lois Levitan, Barney Unsworth, John Yntema
ABSENT: Frank Baldwin, Jon Meigs, Richard Fischer
STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; JoAnn Cornish, ERC Coordinator; Geri Tierney,
CB Coordinator
GUESTS: Fred Noteboom, Town Highway Superintendent; Lachlan Chambliss
Chair Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
The Board had a discussion on the recent Town Newsletter and the article by Chair Zaniello. The
Monkemeyer proposal was pulled from the Planning Board and the Town Board agendas because Mr.
Monkemeyer did not provide the needed information to proceed with this proposal. Mr. Kanter stated that
the agreement that Mr. Monkemeyer and the Planning Department had was not acceptable TO Mr.
Monkemeyer. The idea of a larger area for a park space would be ideal, but further discussion with Mr.
Monkemeyer is needed. The Board discussed which members could contribute time to the Earth Day
Celebration on the Commons, April 18-26. The Board also discussed what would be on the table for this
celebration. The Planning Staff agreed to work with the Conservation Board on the displays.
Planner Tierney passed around an article about green parking lots and a handbook on the Unique Natural
Area in the Town of Ithaca for the Board to review. Chair Zarriello reported on the Cornell University
Veterinary Incinerator Project which is moving very slowly.
DISCUSSION OF TOWN HIGHWAY POLICIES:
Highway Superintendent Fred Noteboom explained how the Highway Department deals with sedimentation.
The Highway Department has become more sensitive to this issue over past year. Road stabilization work
is needed in several areas of the Town including the Coy Glen area. In some areas, the Highway Dept. has
used fabrics fences for sedimentation control. The Dept. is also attempting, instead of cleaning an entire
length of a ditch, to only clean portions of it, as a means of slowing runoff. On some of the steeper roads,
piping is being considered as an alternate to ditching because of high erosion rates and road safety. The
Dept. plans to buy a hydro seeder to seed the ditches after construction had been done. Herbicides are
limited to use of Roundup for poison ivy control. Lois Levitan stated that she has some concerns on the
steep ditches on Elm Street, mostly for safety reasons. Mr. Noteboom stated that Elm Street is narrow, with
little shoulder and deep ditches. Ms. Levitan asked if there are alternatives to digging the ditches deeper.
Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that the deepest ditches on Elm St. are in the City. Mr. Noteboom stated that
installing storm drains in some of these areas would be costly, but desirable. The Board expressed concern
about the deep ditches along the road and the safety of pedestrians and bicyclist on Elm Street. Kara
Hagedom expressed concern about the ditches overflowing on King Road, and asked what could be done.
Mr. Noteboom stated that King Road would be repaved with new drainage being installed this year. Ms.
Hagedorn asked if the Highway Department was responsible for cutting the trees on Sand Bank Road. Mr.
Noteboom responded, yes, that some trees needed to be removed for safety reasons.
Ms. Hagedom stated that the State Park directs many people to Sand Bank Road to get from Lower to
Upper Buttermilk Park and the appearance of Sand Bank Road is part of their Park experience. Mr.
Noteboom explained the Highway Department maintenance operations along Sand Bank Road. Ms.
Levitan asked if there is a way to change ditch slopes; presently, steep ditches act like storm drains and
offer little mitigation of storm runoff and accelerate erosion along the ditch. Mr. Noteboom stated that there
are possible drainage structures that could be installed to alter slope. Ditches along Orchard Hill Road have
some of these structures, which work well. The Highway Dept. also has to maintain the capacity to handle
a certain amount runoff volume to prevent street flooding. Additionally, the capacity of the ditches
generally needs to be increased as areas upstream are developed to handle the increased runoff. This has
been experienced along Elm Street and West Haven Road from the EcoVillage project. Ms. Hagedorn
asked if Sand Bank Road was widened when the trees were removed. Mr. Noteboom responded no, but it
appears wider because of armoring the shoulder with asphalt along one section of the road. Trees were
removed for safety reasons, and also to help keep the ditches clean. Mr. Noteboom stated that he would be
glad to help anyone with questions or concerns. He can be contacted at the Highway Department.
DISCUSSION OF COY GLEN UNIQUE NATURAL AREA BOUNDARIES:
Chair Zarriello reminded the Board of the CB draft report on "Coy Glen as a Biological Corridor". The
Board needs to address what areas of Coy Glen should receive attention and be protected (i.e. conservation
easements and zoning). The CB needs to identify boundaries for protection, mainly to protect the Unique
Natural Area (UNA) of Coy Glen. Planner Tierney pointed out on a map the area of Coy Glen and the
ownership of the area. She pointed out possible boundaries of where the Conservation Board should
consider. She also showed a map of the land use in the area.
Signage about the UNA should be considered for people to understand the uniqueness and fragility of the
area. While inventorying the area for the boundaries, if and where the signage could go should be
considered. Dogs should not be allowed into the UNA, or they should be kept on a leash. The Board
discussed having literature at the Earth Day Celebration, about keeping dogs leashed while walking on
Town trails and in UNAs. EcoVillage borders on the Coy Glen UNA, so putting signage up about dogs
being on leashes make more sense. John Yntema asked if there are places in the Town where dogs are not
permitted. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there are leash laws, but because of lack of enforcement
many dogs are allowed to run loose, such as along the South Hill Recreationway. Mr. Noteboom stated that
this has been a problem with a lot of the Town trails; people are walking their dogs in areas where dogs are
not allowed or they are not leashed. Chair Zarriello stated that dog awareness is one component of
protecting UNAs, but the Board also needs to consider protection zones that limit development.
Planner Tierney suggested that a committee, composed of the Conservation Board members, Planning
Staff, and other interested groups walk the Coy Glen area to determine appropriate boundaries for its
protection. Planner Cornish asked if this committee would need to contact the landowners for permission to
walk private lands. In the past, many landowners did not respond to this type of request. Ms. Levitan stated
that there was a proposal in the late 1970s to make this area into a State Park. Many of the problems
associated with the towns interest in this area probably is a carryover from the proposed State Park. Ms.
Levitan thought landowners would be more receptive to the Town if they were aware of its interest in
protecting this area as a UNA. Planner Cornish stated that the landowners should still be contacted before
the group walks the area.
Ms. Hagedorn asked what would happen after the boundaries are defined to protect the area. Chair
Zarriello stated that conservation easements would be one option. Director of Planning Kanter stated that
acquisitions would be another option, and perhaps a purchase of development rights program, which the
Town is considering at this point. Chair Zarriello stated that this Board needs to find out what needs to be
protected, and along the way think about mechanisms to do it. This time of year would be a good time to do
2
this. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Committee would be meeting on April 14. If this
Board thinks it is a good idea to start a committee with other groups and boards, then he would mention it
to the Planning Committee. The Conservation Board agreed with Mr. Kanter's idea. Planner Tierney will
produce copies of a map for the Coy Glen area for each member to take and review while walking the site.
Some members of the CB volunteered to walk the UNA.
The Town Newsletter also has an article about dog control from the Parks Department. If the SPCA is
notified, they would follow up on all complaints of dogs. The Planning Department would be coordinating a
field trip to the UNA for people to review the area.
Ms. Hagedorn stated that Planning Board member Greg Bell would not be able to attend the meeting. Mr.
Bell will be asked to come back at another time. Director of Planning Kanter gave a brief description of
what the Planning Committee and the Planning Board do separately and together. The Planning Committee
meetings are open to the public.
Chair Zarriello stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from Cornell University Lake
Source Cooling Project has been submitted to the Planning Department. It is a large draft that should be
divided up into pieces for the Conservation Board to review. This review of the DEIS is for completeness
and adequacy, as addressed in the scoping process. Comments are needed by April 21, 1997. Director of
Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board and the Town Board are also involved agencies. The
Planning Board is reviewing the site plan for the East Shore Drive site where the facility is going. The
Town Board might be asked to rezone the property because a lake source cooling facility is not one of the
allowed uses. Planner Tierney has agreed to review the sections of DEIS that relates to the site plan and
zoning issues. The Planning Board has already concurred that Staff will do that on their behalf. DEC
wanted additional input from the involved and interested agencies before they accept the project for full
public review and comments.
Chair Zarriello closed the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Minutes transcribed by DK 04/07/97; edited by PJZ 06/06/97, and JAY 06/26 & 29/97.
3
TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
DRAFT
MAY 15, 1997
PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Vice Chair Kara Hagedorn, Elizabeth DeProsse, Lois Levitan,
Barney Unsworth, John Yntema.
ABSENT: Frank Baldwin, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs.
STAFF: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator; JoAnn Cornish, ERC Coordinator; George Frantz, Asst.
Town Planner.
Chair Zarriello called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Chair Zarriello stated that the Town Board approved the money for the contract between Nancy Ostman
and Robert Wesley for a survey of the Unique Natural Area in the South Hill area. Planner Tierney stated
that the contract is still being worked out with Ms. Ostman and Mr. Wesley, on details of the survey. The
Town Board approved approximately $4,500 total (the Town Board would contribute $3,500 and the
Conservation Board would contribute $1,000). There was a brief discussion of the contract between Ms.
Ostman and Mr. Wesley that the Town of Ithaca would be entering into for the survey of South Hill Unique
Natural Area.
GRIGOROV SUBDIVISION:
Planner Cornish stated that the family of Town Board Member Carolyn Grigorov owns a large parcel on
the South Hill. Her family is dividing the back part of the land (approximately 30 acres) to give to the City
of Ithaca for their Watershed/Park land. This would be part of the City's park land substitution program.
There should not be any environmental concerns. Ms. Levitan asked if the Grigorovs would receive any
money for the land. Planner Cornish stated that she is not sure of all the details for the exchange, except
that the land would be for City park land.
Chair Zarriello asked if this would be an actual exchange. Planner Cornish stated that this is part of the
park land substitution program through New York State. The Board had a discussion of the issue of park
substitution for the Inlet Island.
Mr. Yntema asked if the Town of Ithaca owned any land in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area or is it all
owned by the City of Ithaca. Planner Cornish stated that the Town of Ithaca owns two parcels in the Six
Mile Creek Natural Area, which are located on Coddington Road. There are several pieces of land in the
Town of Ithaca owned by the City of Ithaca.
The Board did not have any problems with the Grigorov subdivision.
NAZER LOT LINE MODIFICATION:
Planner Tierney stated that the Suwinskis purchased the 93 acre agricultural parcel next door to the Nazers
on Mecklenburg Road. The Nazers own a small frontage lot that they thought was a larger piece. The
Nazers thought their property extended to the fence, which is shown on the survey map. When the
Suwinskis surveyed their parcel for the purchase of the property, it was noticed that the Suwinskis owned
land beyond the fence, towards the Nazer house. The Nazers would like to purchase 0.14 acres from the
Suwinskis to correct this lot line. Planner Tierney had prepared an Environmental Assessment Form, and
did not see any concerns.
The Board did not have any concerns about the lot line modification to the Suwinski and Nazer properties
on Mecklenburg Road. The Conservation Board will write a brief report to the Planning Board showing
that they do not have any objections to this proposals.
MONKEMEYER DEDICATION:
Planner Cornish stated that the Monkemeyer dedication of park land issue would be coming before the
Planning Board for further discussion. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) should review this
issue before the next Planning Board meeting. There were some issues with which Mr. Monkemeyer was
not comfortable, and there were also some issues with which the Town was not comfortable. The attorneys
and planning staff met with Mr. Monkemeyer to discuss a few ideas. On an enlarged map, Ms. Cornish
pointed out the parcel that was supposed to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for park land. The
Montessori School would like to purchase land near the proposed park land site for future expansion of
their school. The Town feels that it would be in the best interest of the school to purchase that land for their
expansion. The Town does not have a problem with the Montessori School purchasing that land.
Currently, Mr. Monkemeyer only needs to donate 4.5 acres of his property for the 10 percent of dedicated
park and open space land for Phase I of his subdivision proposal. Mr. Monkemeyer's father's land (in
trust), and his sister's land, both connect to his own land, and the proposed new park land would be
developed in the corner of the three parcels. From the Town's point of view, there would be a lot of
advantages. There are very few pieces of property on the South Hill that are contiguous and could be
graded out for a park. The Town is feeling very lucky that Mr. Monkemeyer has come to the conclusion
that he would give the 12.5 acre park up front. Discussions with Mr. Monkemeyer included the Unique
Natural Area (UNA). There was a brief discussion about Mr. Monkemeyer's concerns regarding buffering
the UNA from the park land and his property. The buffer would not be built upon.
The Board discussed the areas of boundary for the UNA on the South Hill. Chair Zarriello had concerns of
drainage issues in this area. Mr. Yntema stated that he was also concerned about that issue, because there
is a drainage ditch behind College Circle which drains onto his property in South Hill.
Planner Cornish stated that the Planning Staff would be reviewing the drainage issues, and they would be
discussing them with Mr. Monkemeyer during the development review process. No approvals have been
given to Mr. Monkemeyer yet. The Planning Board could require clustering in this area, which would mean
Mr. Monkemeyer could fit the same amount of houses in a much smaller area. Mr. Monkemeyer was
requested originally to come in with a cluster plan, but he was very hesitant and resistant to that. The
Planning Board has the power to ask for clustering in this area. This proposal would be before the
Planning Board for a 12.5 acre park to be accepted in this location conceptually, meaning the Town does
not have a legal survey, but the concept and location would be accepted. The Planning Board would be
recommending that the Town Board accept the 12.5 acre parcel in concept, so Mr. Monkemeyer could sell
the property that is contingent upon the survey of this land he needs to have done for subdivision approval.
The resolution would go to the Town Board for the June meeting.
Planner Cornish stated that there were discussions of bicycle paths in this area to connect to the future
park. The Conservation Board could make any type of recommendation to the Planning Board and the
Town Board on this issue. There has been a strong movement to have a developed park on the South Hill.
2
The Planning Board could ask the developer to cluster in an area, because it is part of the subdivision
regulations to develop a cluster plan for environmental reasons. The Planning Board cannot demand that
the developer cluster, but it could require that a cluster subdivision plan be submitted for review.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that if Mr. Monkemeyer condensed the lots to 100 feet wide, he
would have five lots for Phase I. The length of the cul-de-sac would be reduced, and then there would be a
200 foot wide buffer zone. This would be a rationale for clustering a subdivision. This proposal may
require an environmental impact statement for a cluster subdivision of a negative determination. There have
been times the Planning Board requested a clustering subdivision plat and the developer responded to the
cluster subdivision. There have been times when clustering was suggested and the developer pulled out.
Ms. Levitan will develop a memorandum from the Conservation Board informing the Planning Board of
CB concerns about the proposed park. The Conservation Board Members gave their concerns to Ms.
Levitan to include in the memorandum to the Planning Board.
DRAFT TOWN OF ITHACA PARK, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN DISCUSSION:
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there would be three informational meetings scheduled for June
for public input. The idea is to brief the public on the draft plan. The three meetings would be on South
Hill, West Hill, and East Hill. He does not expect the Town Board or the Planning Board to hold any
public hearings until September on the draft plan. This would give the public the summer to read the plan.
Hopefully, the plan could be adopted in early fall.
Chair Zarriello asked if the Conservation Board should supply their comments of the plan.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this Board could take the summer to correlate their comments
for presentation to the Planning Board and Town Board in late August or early September. This version
would not be changed because this draft was supplied to the public for review. This plan would be revised
upon the decision of the Town Board before being adopted as a final plan. This plan is a revision of the
1994 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. The plan discusses new community parks and
neighborhood parks that are recommended for the Town of Ithaca to develop. The plan also discusses the
cost of these parks for the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Frantz pointed out on an enlarged map where the future
parks should be located and what neighborhoods need a park facility in the Town of Ithaca.
The Conservation Board will discuss this matter further at a later date when all members are in attendance.
Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Minutes transcribed by DK 06/02/97; edited by JAY 06/26/97.
TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
DRAFT
5 JUNE 1997
PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Vice Chair Kara Hagedorn, Elizabeth DeProsse, Richard Fischer,
Eva Hoffmann, Lois Levitan, Jon Meigs, John Yntema
ABSENT: Frank Baldwin, Barney Unsworth
STAFF: CB Coordinator Geri Tierney (left at 8:00 pm), Assistant Town Planner George Frantz
GUEST: Lachlan Chambliss
Chair Phil Zarriello opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBER CONCERNS:
Lois Levitan asked what happened with the Monkemeyer parkland. Geri Tierney stated that all the
information is not in yet. The Planning Board approved the proposal to the location seen by the
Conservation Board. The Planning Board received the Conservation Board's comments. More information
needs to be gathered for the Monkemeyer proposal. The proposal has not been heard by the Town Board
yet. Ms. Levitan asked what information needs to be received for this proposal. Planner Tierney stated
that she is not sure what information has not yet been submitted.
Chair Zarriello asked what has been happening with the Monkemeyer Garden Center on the intersection of
Danby Road and East King Road. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that proposal is up for
preliminary site plan approval with the Planning Board within the next couple months.
CHAIR REPORT:
Chair Zarriello asked if Nancy Ostman and Bob Wesley received an approved contract for a new South
Hill Swamp Unique Natural Area (UNA) survey. Planner Tierney responded, yes, and they have started
their survey.
COORDINATOR REPORT:
Planner Tierney stated that the Finger Lakes National Forest is going to revise their management plan,
which happens about every 15 years. They have started the process, and it will take several years to
complete. They sent some information to the Town Planning Department, and invited us to participate in
this project. They are looking for people to join an interest group that meets on a regular basis in Hector.
If someone is interested in participating in that group, an application needs to be filled out. The Board
could receive the material, and provide written comments to them.
Ms. Levitan asked when would the meetings start. Planner Tierney stated that the meetings would start at
the end of this month. There is going to be a meeting at the end of June, July, August, and September.
These would be preliminary meetings, and a new Forest Management Plan would be drafted from there.
Richard Fischer asked if the information says what the group would be discussing. Planner Tierney stated
that the plan would be determining what the priorities are during the meetings.
The Rural Grant Program applications for 1997 are in. In past years, grants up to $5,000 were granted for
four different areas: Environmental Action Grants, Land Conservation Grants, Historic Preservation
Grants, and Planning Grants. Deadline for applications is July 15, 1997. If anyone has a project for one
of these categories, please contact the Planning Department. The Tompkins County EMC received one of
these grants last year. Ms. Levitan stated that the Finger Lakes Land Trust has received several grants.
Planner Tierney handed out information on training courses the Conservation Board could consider
attending.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Ms. Levitan asked what is the fill site map of the HSHP building for. Jon Meigs stated that the fill site
map goes in conjunction with the Ford Hall, Mot and M -lot parking expansion that were previously
discussed. Ithaca College reacted to the comments of the extension of barriers to prevent filtration
problems, and making the contour layout more natural looking. Mr. Yntema asked if the fill site map is the
same for the other projects reviewed. Mr. Meigs responded, yes.
Chair Zarriello stated that the plans do not say how much fill would be removed. Ms. Levitan stated that
the plans say "raw fill volume = 9,300 cubic yards." Mr. Meigs stated that amount would include all
projects happening on the Ithaca College Campus.
Chair Zarriello stated that the Planning Board would be informed that the Conservation Board does not
have any comments for the HSHP building.
SOUTH HILL SWAMP SURVEY DISCUSSION:
Mr. Fischer made some comments on how many birds are in the South Hill Swamp area. Mr. Fischer also
told the Board about the different species that could be found in this area. Ms. Levitan asked how big of an
area did he and John Confer cover for their survey. Mr. Fischer stated that they covered approximately 50
acres. Mr. Fischer also explained the different flowers he saw in this area. He would be giving the
Conservation Board an update soon along with the new survey being done.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 1, 1997:
MOTION by Jon Meigs, seconded by Richard Fischer:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of May 1, 1997 with the following
corrections:
Page 2, at the end of the third paragraph, there is a spelling error: "there" should be "their".
Mr. Yntema stated that "submitted by" should be added to the minutes.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that Mr. Fischer's name should be added to the minutes as "present".
Chair Zarriello stated that corrections should be given to Ms. Tierney to pass along to the secretary for
corrections.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Fischer, Hagedorn, Levitan, Meigs, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
ABSTAIN - Hoffmann, DeProsse.
The motion was declared be carried.
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 3,1997:
Top of page 2 where it states "Herbicide use is minimal, but some roundup is used on poison ivy and wild
rose.", roundup should be a capital "R".
Top of page 3, which reads "Ms. Hagedorn asked if Sand Bank Road was wider with the trees being
removed.", and the response read "Mr. Noteboom stated that it looks like that. One of the reasons to move
the trees away from the ditch for safety reasons and to help keep the ditches cleaner." This should be
changed to read "Mr. Noteboom responded, no, but that it looks like that because of armoring the shoulders
with asphalt along one section of the road. One of the reasons to move the trees away from the ditch is for
safety reasons, and also to help keep the ditches cleaner."
Page 3, during the discussion of Coy Glen it reads: "Chair Zarriello stated that the draft reports Coy Glen
as a biological corridor.", should be changed to read "Chair Zarriello stated that the draft of the Coy Glen
Biological Corridor Plan reflects Coy Glen as a biological corridor."
"EcoVillage residents have a connection on a back road to Elm Street through the Coy Glen UNA, which
the residents tend to walk a lot.", should be changed to read "EcoVillage borders on the UNA, so putting
signage up about dogs being on leashes make more sense." Ms. Hagedorn stated that the Conservation
Board discussed talking to EcoVillage to present this issue.
"Chair Zarriello stated that dog awareness is one component of this. The other component is an area that
should delineate from be protected from building.", should be changed to read " Chair Zarriello stated that
dog awareness is one component of protecting UNAs, but the Board also needs to consider protection zones
that limit development."
The Conservation Board would like Planner Tierney to clarify the paragraph, which reads 'Planner Tierney
stated that the Elm Street and Elm Street Extension is a particular are of interest for boundaries. Ms.
Tierney pointed out on a map the area of Coy Glen and the ownership of the area. She pointed out possible
boundaries. She also showed a map of the land use in the area."
Mr. Meigs asked to table the Minutes of April 3, 1997, for corrections and additional clarification of
wording.
Chair Zarriello admitted that he did not review the minutes as well as he should have.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 6,1997:
Page 1, paragraph 1, which states "The Planning Board takes advice from the Conservation Board on
projects they review.", should be changed to read "The Planning Board takes the advice seriously of the
Conservation Board on projects it reviews."
Page 1, paragraph 3, which states "The gravel bars can be removed to install rif-rap, which seems to have a
negative impact on stream protection and clean water.", should be changed to read "The gravel bars can be
removed to install rip -rap, which seems to have a negative impact on stream protection and clean water."
Page 3, during the discussion for Proposed Community Park on South Hill, which states:
"In return, the Planning Board wants an even exchange of land in addition to the 10 percent that the Town
requires for subdivisions.", should be changed to read "In return, the Planning Board wants an even
exchange of land in addition to the 10 percent set-aside that the Town requires for subdivisions."
"The buffer is being planned to be kept away from the South Hill Swamp area.", should be changed to read
"A buffer is being planned to keep people and pets out of the South Hill Swamp area."
"Mr. Monkemeyer is insisting on Phase I, so the Planning Board is going to allow him to do that.", should
be changed to read "Mr. Monkemeyer is insisting on preparing a site plan for Phase I, and the Planning
Board is allowing him to do that."
The Conservation Board would like Planner Cornish to clarify the sentences "If Mr. Monkemeyer clustered
his property he would be able to get more units in less space. There would be a large area for open space.
The Planning Board tries to encourage developers to look into clusters."
Middle of Page 4, which reads "Ithaca College is working with the Planning Board for construction that
would be happening on campus to Ford Hall and the J lot parking area.", should be changed to read "Ithaca
College is working with the Planning Board on campus construction proposed for Ford Hall and the J and
M lot parking areas."
Middle of page 4, which reads " It was interesting to see how many people who's property borders the Park
have started to use the park.", should be changed to read "It was interesting to see how many people whose
property borders the Park have started to use the park."
Ms. Hoffmann stated that her name should be added to the voting on the resolution for the South Hill
Unique Natural Area under "ayes".
Ms. Hoffmann stated that Chair Zarriello's vote to be appointed chair of the Conservation Board should be
changed from "ayes" to "abstain".
Ms. Hoffmann stated that Ms. Hagedorn's vote to be appointed vice -chair of the Conservation Board
should be changed from "ayes" to "abstain".
Mr. Yntema stated that in the votes for chair and vice -chair, the words "appointed" should be changed to
"elects".
Ms. Hoffmann stated that the last paragraph of the meeting, which reads: "Planner Cornish stated that the
Environmental Review Committee meets separately from the Conservation Board to review the projects at
hand. Not all the projects would warrant Environmental Review because the Environmental Impact
Statements and significance does the review. There are projects that the Planning Board and Staff takes the
comments from the Committee seriously for reviewing the projects. This Committee is an important
function of the Conservation Board and the most powerful tools to become involved with what happens in
the Town of Ithaca environmentally, is to review some of these projects. The Committee has meet
separately for each project could the proper review.", should be changed to read "Planner Cornish stated
that the Environmental Review Committee meets separately from the Conservation Board to review the
projects at hand. Not all the projects warrant Environmental Review because the Environmental Impact
Statements are prepared by Staff, containing their views of the significance of the impact. The Planning
Board and Staff take the review and the comments from the Environmental Review Committee seriously.
This Committee, of the Conservation Board, has an important function, and is the most powerful tool to
4
become involved with what happens in the Town of Ithaca, environmentally. The Committee has met
separately for each project that warrants proper environmental review."
Chair Zarriello asked the Conservation Board if the Minutes of March 6, 1997, should be tabled for further
clarification and corrections. The Conservation Board was in agreement to table the Minutes of March 6,
1997, until corrections and clarification have been done.
DISCUSSION OF TOWN OF ITHACA PARK, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN, 3/10/97
DRAFT:
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that this Board was supplied with a memorandum from the
Planning Department announcing the three public information meetings on the draft Park, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan. Mr. Frantz reviewed the memorandum with the Board discussing the dates, times, and
places. The Planning Department will receive comments to correlate into one report for the Town Board to
review.
Ms. Hagedom stated that she had a concern about the creation of a buffer on the east side of the Buttermilk
Falls State Park. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Zoning for Open Space, and the Purchase of
Development Rights, described in the draft Plan, could help alleviate those concerns.
Ms. Hagedom pointed out on an enlarged map where the boundaries of the Buttermilk Falls State Park are
located. Ms. Hagedom asked if anything outside the Park boundary would be zoned anything different than
it is already zoned for. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes. There would be a few areas to the°
east of the Park's boundary to be proposed. Some of the areas are zoned R-30, which means one house
every 30,000 square feet. A subdivision would have to have 30,000 square foot lots.
Ms. Hagedom stated that she has strong concerns about that, because as a naturalist for the Buttermilk
Falls State Park, she can very strongly say that Upper Buttermilk Falls State Park is one of the richest
wildlife areas of Ithaca. She can hike Taughannock Park's three mile trail, and see many different wildlife
animals. She could hike Robert Treman State Park's four mile loop, and see about the same thing as
Taughannock Park. The Upper Buttermilk Falls State Park has beavers, Great Horned Owl, Red-tailed
Hawk nests, woodpecker nests, etc. She has documented wildlife in books of the Park. The existence of
wildlife attracts people to the Park. If the area outside the Park is rezoned in the Town's Open Space Plan
as Conservation Zoning, it could offer protection to the area and wildlife in the Park. She feels that a huge
development on the corner of West King Road and Route 96B would be a concern to her. Last year, a
developer sent the State Parks a letter with a proposal for 128 units of low income rental units. Ms.
Hagedom pointed out on a map where the developer wants the low income rental units to be. If the
development progresses, the people could make illegal trails into the Park. Then there would be security
problems, because people could enter the Park through these illegal trails when they felt like it. The buffer
would help the wildlife in the Park, and would help keep people from coming into the Park illegally.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the developer's subdivision would be approximately 3,500 feet
westward of the park to within 500 to 1,000 feet of Lake Treman.
Ms. Hagedom stated that she has a concern about drainage from the developed land. There are also
concerns of erosion in the Lake Treman area and Buttermilk Creek from the developed land. She feels that
any development would increase erosion in these areas. The subdivision would be bordered on both sides
by deep ravines. She is not opposed to allowing strips of development towards Route 96B like the houses
on West King Road, that help buffer the Park.
5
Assistant Town Planner Frantz explained the different areas of zoning around the Buttermilk Falls State
Park. Mr. Frantz stated that the changes to the draft plan were done in November during Planning Staff
discussions. The Planning Staff discussed areas around the Buttermilk Falls State Park as to what could be
considered as Conservation District.
The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on the draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan for
zoning and development close to the Buttermilk Falls State Park.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that 1991 was when he first drafted the Conservation Zoning District
for Six Mile Creek Valley. The original goal of the Conservation District Zoning was essentially to reduce
the potential for residential development to about 10 percent that is allowed under the R-30 zone and five
percent that is allowed under R-15 zone. The Walter Wiggins parcel is 70 acres with 10 homes allowed
instead of 70 homes that was proposed. Another benefit for Conservation District Zoning, when the
development potential is knocked down from 70 homes to 10 homes, those 10 homes could be clustered on
20 acres. Since there is public water and sewer available, the 10 homes could be located on 10 acres closest
to Danby Road leaving 60 acres, as either private ownership or possibly deeded over to the State Parks for
addition to the Buttermilk Falls State Park. This is one of the concepts in the draft plan, the use of cluster
subdivisions, in order acquire additional buffering in the Town of Ithaca. The landowners that have been
approached on this idea have been in support of Conservation District Zoning. The Park, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan needs to be in conjunction with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. The
Conservation Board could help by thinking of areas in the Town of Ithaca that on what they think could be
Conservation Zoned.
NOTHING ELSE RECORDED.
Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Minutes transcribed 06/25/97 by DK; edited 06/29/97 by JAY
Town of Ithaca Conservation Board
5/7/97
Ray Knowland
Department of Environmental Conservation
1285 Fisher Ave.
Cortland, NY 13045
Dear Mr. Knowland,
The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has been considering protection for a special wetland
area in our Town, known as the South Hill Unique Natural Area. This area lies south of Ithaca
College in the Town of Ithaca, as seen on the enclosed map. As extensive wetlands exist on this
property, we ask that you consider designating this area as a regulated wetland under Article 24
of the Environmental Conservation Law (The Freshwater Wetlands Act).
In an effort to better document the natural features of this area, we hired consultants to examine
this area last fall, and enclose a copy of their report for your consideration. As this report
indicates, the South Hill Unique Natural Area contains rare and scarce flora, much of it wetland
flora, which are susceptible to human development. Several rare ecological communities are
found there, including: a perched white oak swamp, a pitch pine -heath barrens, and a pitch pine -
oak -heath woodland.
Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to hearing back from you on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
South Hill Swamp Survey Number 2
Richard Fischer and Linda Buttel
June 10, 1997
BIRDS
Red -winged Blackbird - 4
Cardinal - 2
Baltimore Oriole - 1
Common Crow - 5
Towhee - 6
Ovenbird - 6
Song Sparrow - 2
Crested Flycatcher - 4
Scarlet Tanager - 2
Red -eyed Vireo - 2
Solitary Vireo - 2
Field Sparrow - 1
Northern Yellowthroat - 1
Brown Thrasher - 1
Veery - 1
Hermit Thrush - 2
White -breasted Nuthatch - 1
Black -capped Chickadee - 1
Common Flicker - 2
Pileated Woodpecker (feeding holes only)
Wood Pewee - 1.
Catbird - 2
Yellow Warbler - 1
MAMMALS
Eastern Chipmunk - 6
NOT SEEN BUT PROBABLY PRESENT
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Tufted Titmouse
Mourning Dove
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX (607) 273-1704
PENDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
July 11, 1997
The following is a list of proposed land subdivisions or development projects for which an application has been received. These
proposals are subject to Planning Board review under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, or other
Town Laws. For more information contact the Planning Department at
273-1747.
Project No.: 9705236. Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road. HSHP Building
Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a three story,
91,000+/- sq. ft. Health Sciences and Human Performance building and associated site work, said facility
being located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 41-1-30.1, -30.2 and -30.5, Residence District R-15. Ithaca
College, Owner, Robert O'Brien, Hoffman, O'Brien, Look, Taube & Chiang, P.C., Agent.
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: July 15, 1997.
Project No.: 9706242. East King Road. 4 -Lot Subdivision.
Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of
Town of Ithaca Tax parcel No. 44-1-4.312, +/- 2.64 acres in size and located on the north side of East King
Road opposite Ridgecrest Road, into four lots, +/- 0.82 ac., +/- 0.69 ac.,+/- 0.66 ac. and +/- 0.47 acre in size
respectively Residence District R-15. Edwin A. Hallberg, Owner/Applicant.
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: July 15, 1997.
Project No.: 9706243. Cornell University. Proposed Soccer Field Lighting at Alumni Field
Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for Special Approval for the proposed installation of four (4) light poles ranging in height
between 120 and 140 ft., each mounting up to 36 floodlights with 1,500 to 2,000 watt metal halide lamps, said
poles and lights to be erected on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1-8.2, or on that portion of Alumni Field
in the Town of Ithaca bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road, Residence District R-30.
Cornell University, Owner, Scott Witham, Agent
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: July 15, 1997.
Project No.: 9706244. Cornell University. Proposed Food Compost Project.
Description: Consideration of Special Approval for the proposed establishment of a food compost processing
operation to consist of the mixing of +/- 13 tons per day of bedding/sawdust, manure and food waste at the
existing Farm Service Complex, located at 751 Dryden Road, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
64-1-1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9. Cornell University, Owner;
Daniel Winch, Agent
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: July 15, 1997.
Project No.: 9704232. 1059 Danby Road. Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Russo's Garden Center.
Description: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a retail garden
center proposed to consist of a +/- 4,320 sq. ft. store, +/- 4,550 sq. ft. greenhouses, outside nursery storage and
display areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 43-1-3.2, Business "C" District. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrence Roswick, Agent.
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: August 5, 1997.
Project No.: 9707245. Pine Tree Road. Cornell University Proposed Women's Softball Field
Description: Consideration of Site Plan Approval and recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with
regard to a Special Approval for the proposed construction of a softball field, proposed to be located on the
north side of the Reis Tennis Center, located off Pine Tree Road approximately 1,000 ft. south of the Pine
Tree Road/Ellis Hollow Road intersection, on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 60-1-6 and
60-1-8.2, Residence District R-30. Cornell University, Owner, Scott Whitham, Agent.
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: August 5, 1997.
Project No.: 9701221. Ithaca College. Addition to Ford hall
Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for a proposed +/- 65,000 sq. ft. addition to Ford Hall to house
additional classrooms, practice studios, rehearsal rooms, a +/- 250 seat recital hall, and other facilities for the
Ithaca College School of Music, located on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 41-1-
30.5, Residence District R-15. Ithaca College, Owner, Robert O'Brien, Hoffman, O'Brien, Look, Taube &
Chiang, P.C., Agent.
Status: Received Preliminary Approval 5/6/97; and Special Approval from the ZBA on 5/21/97.
Tentative Planning Board Date: August 19, 1997.
Project No.: 9702227. 141 Northview Road. Holcomb 2 -Lot Subdivision.
Description: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of
+/- 0.15 acre from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 52-1-17, located at 141 Northview Road, for consolidation
with Tax Parcel No. 52-1-16, Residence District R-15. Donald F. and Barbara P. Holcomb,
Owners/Applicants.
Status: Pending. Tentative Planning Board Date: To Be Announced.
Project No.: 9407137. Bostwick Road (100 Block). First Assembly of God Church,
Description: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed First Assembly of God Church, to
consist of a 21,226 +/- sq. ft. structure containing a sanctuary, offices, classrooms and multipurpose room,
with parking for 200 vehicles, to be located on the south side of Bostwick Road approximately 1,000 feet west
of Five Mile Drive on Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-4-6.2, Residence District R-30. First Assembly of God
Church Owner, Rev. Robert N. Lovelace, Agent.
Status: Granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval on 9/6/94.
Tentative Public Hearing Date: To Be Announced.
Project No.: 9511179. Vista Lane. Modification of Original Cluster Subdivision.
Description: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcels No. 39-1-25.2 and 39-10-1, 13.55 +/- acres in size, into 7 new building lots, with proposed sewer
infrastructure, located at Cayuga Vista subdivision, Vista Lane, Residence District R-9. Said subdivision is a
modification of the original Cayuga Vista cluster subdivision plat, for which Final Approval was granted on
April 16, 1985. Dell L. Grover and Edward Mazza, Owners; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., Agent.
Status: Pending. Granted Preliminary Approval, with conditions, on 6/4/96.
Tentative Planning Board Date: To be announced.
RIAL
TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD MINUTES
FINAL
17 JULY 1997
Approved 10/2/97
PRESENT: Chair Phil Zarriello, Frank Baldwin, Elizabeth deProsse, Lois Levitan, Barney
Unsworth, John Yntema.
ABSENT: Vice -Chair Kara Hagedorn, Richard Fischer, Eva Hoffmann, Jon Meigs.
STAFF: Geri Tierney, CB Coordinator.
Chair Phil Zarriello called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBER CONCERNS:
John Yntema asked if there was a ten percent set aside for subdivisions, particularly the Ithacare Project.
Mr. Yntema stated that as far as he knows the only Ithacare Project set aside was for a little path. The
whole Ithacare Subdivision Project involved more than 60 acres. Mr. Yntema asked what percentage
was set aside, if anything, on the Ithacare Project.
Chair Zarriello stated that there is a path that circled the perimeter of the property. There is a wetland
near the Ithacare Project. Mr. Yntema should contact the Director of Planning for further details.
Planner Geri Tierney stated that she could look into the issue for Mr. Yntema for the next meeting.
Lois Levitan asked if the Cornell University's Proposed Soccer Field Lighting had come before the
Conservation Board before.
Chair Zarriello stated that he responded to that issue, and he did not see a big problem with that. It is not
a residential area.
Ms. Levitan stated that she had some comments on the lighting issue. She does not know what the
magnitude of this lighting would be, but the lighting of the football field has a major effect on the entire
Town environment. If this is anything similar to that, she thinks that there are definite conservation
issues.
Planner Tierney stated that the Planning Board discussed this issue at length at the July 15 meeting, and
felt that they needed more information for the Environmental Assessment Form. Cornell University will
be rescheduled in August. They are not planning to do the same lights as Schoellkopf Field, they are
planning to use shielded lights. This should reduce excess light into the sky and towards West Hill. The
Planning Board is trying to get Cornell University to quantify how much light would affect the area.
Cornell University also mentioned that they would like to shield the existing lights at Schoellkopf Field.
There will be an opportunity for the Conservation Board to comment on this issue.
Mr. Yntema stated that the Planning Board would be considering Cornell University's Women's Softball
Fields before the Conservation Board meets again. He visited that site when it was raining, but it seems
like a nice place to put the softball fields.
The Conservation Board discussed the location of the Cornell University's Women Softball Fields that
would be coming before the Planning Board in August.
The Conservation Board discussed having a member from this Board attend or join the Planning
Committee.
COORDINATOR AND CHAIR REPORT:
Chair Zarriello stated that there was a presentation on an innovative technology for dealing with medical
waste in regards to the Cornell University Incinerator Project. The presentation involved the use of
alkaline solution. It would not destroy syringes, but it would make them noninfectious. This may be an
alternative to incineration. Chair Zarriello explained to the Conservation Board what the presentation
involved, and where the representatives were from. The representatives are currently working on a
project in Florida.
There is a conference in Oswego (New York) called "Community Development and Transportation" on
Friday, September 15, 1997.
Planner Tierney stated that the revision process has started for the Draft Park, Recreation, and Open
Space Plan. If there are any further comments they should be submitted to the Planning Department.
The Conservation Board briefly discussed the Public Information Meetings for the Draft Park,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan. If the Conservation Board feels comfortable with the Draft Plan, then
a letter for support should be passed on to the Town Board to consider.
Planner Tierney stated that the Monkemeyer/Town Park proposal appeared before the Planning Board
again, and preliminary subdivision approval was given to subdivide the park parcels. The Planning
Board made a negative determination of environmental significance for this action. However, the Town
Board is concerned about the presence of wetlands in the area. The Town Board hired a consultant to do
a wetland evaluation to see if there are any significant wetlands on those parcels before the Town accepts
the park location. The evaluation will be the next step, and then the Town Board will consider accepting
the location of the park. The Planning Board accepted the location and the subdivision for preliminary
approval only. The Planning Board did review the Conservation Board's comments on the Monkemeyer
proposal.
Chair Zarriello stated that he received comments for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project. If the Board has any further comments or questions the
representatives for the project could be asked to come back for clarification.
The Conservation Board had a brief discussion on Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling Project.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MARCH 6,1997:
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by Elizabeth deProsse:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of March 6, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema.
NAYS- None.
ABSTAIN - Levitan.
The motion was declared to be carried.
APRIL 3, 1997:
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by John Yntema:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of April 3, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema, Levitan.
NAYS- None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
MAY 15, 1997:
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by John Yntema:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of May 15, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema, Levitan.
NAYS- None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
JUNE 5,1997:
MOTION by Elizabeth deProsse, seconded by Phil Zarriello:
RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board hereby approves the Minutes of June 5, 1997 as written with
amendments.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Yntema, Levitan.
NAYS- None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
UPDATE ON STATUS OF GRANT APPLICATION:
Chair Zarriello stated that Ms. Tierney and Ms. Levitan prepared an application to the 1997 Rural New
York Grant Program, to fund a public information campaign about suburban threats to nearby natural
areas.
SOUTH HILL SWAMP - CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT LETTER TO DEC:
Chair Zarriello stated that Mr. Baldwin drafted a letter to Ray Knowland of the DEC, stating the
Conservation Board had considered protection of the South Hill UNA, and was requesting that the State
consider designating this a DEC regulated wetland.
Mr. Yntema asked what is the significance if the State decides to proclaim it a regulated wetland under
Article 24. Planner Tierney stated that many activities are regulated by the State in designated wetlands,
and within 100 feet of such a wetland. Chair Zarriello stated that this designation would force a more
complete environmental review for any development in this area.
MOTION by Phil Zarriello, seconded by John Yntema:
RESOLVED that the Conservation Board approves of the draft letter and intends to send it as soon as
possible.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Zarriello, Baldwin, deProsse, Levitan, Yntema.
NAYS - None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
BUTTERMILK FALLS STATE PARK FIELD TRIP FOLLOW-UP:
Chair Zarriello stated that there were two draft letters regarding Buttermilk Falls State Park for the
Board's consideration. One letter is addressed to Supervisor Valentino and Fred Wilcox (Chairperson of
the Town's Planning Board). The second is addressed to the person who manages State Park land to try
to get this land included on a list for acquisition by State Parks. Such an acquisition would mitigate any
action the Town has taken to subdivide this land. Chair Zarriello asked the CB if this was their intention
while taking the tour at Buttermilk State Park.
Ms. deProsse stated that it was one of them.
Chair Zarriello stated that was the first draft, and that these letters had to be careful not to offend the
groups they are trying to persuade.
Ms. Levitan stated that the Conservation Board should draft a letter to the Town stating they are aware
that this area has fallen through the cracks. Chair Zarriello stated that those concerns could be addressed
through the Parks and Open Space Plan.
Chair Zarriello stated that the Board could submit their comments to him, and the letter could be revised
before mailing to Supervisor Valentino and Fred Wilcox.
COY GLEN PROJECT - BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION:
Mr. Yntema stated that Cornell Plantations is exploring Coy Glen's natural area on July 20th from 1:00
p.m. to 4 p.m..
Chair Zarriello stated that a good portion of Coy Glen is owned by Cornell University. Mr. Yntema
asked if this a part that the Conservation Board should be looking at or not. Chair Zarriello stated that
J
we are looking beyond that because that area is being protected by Cornell University Plantations as a
natural area.
Chair Zarriello adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Drafted 8/11/97 by DK; edited 08/28/97 by JAY