Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TB Minutes 2017-10-16
Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board F ' Monday,October 16, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. �f� g 215 N. Tioga Street AGENDA Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance 1. Persons to be heard and board comments 2. 5:30 p.m. Public hearings on: a. Proposed local law adding a Chapter titled "Operating Permits for Certain Residential Rental Units"to the Town of Ithaca Code b. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125,titled "Building Construction and Fire Prevention"to add requirements for operating permits and inspections for certain residential rental units and to add permit requirements upon transfer of title c. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270, titled "Zoning",regarding accessory dwelling units i. Consider adoption of SEQR for a, b, & c ii. Consider adoption of local laws a, b, & c d. Proposed local law extending the moratorium on new two-family dwellings, and on the addition of a second dwelling unit to an existing one-family dwelling, through December 31, 2017 i. Consider adoption e. Waiver application from the requirements of the Town's moratorium on certain 2- family dwellings for 508 Warren Rd i. Consider approval f. Preliminary Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget g. Proposed Water and Sewer Rents charged by the Town of Ithaca i. Consider approval 3. Discuss and consider granting a PILOT agreement with Ithaca Townhomes 4. Discuss and consider approval of: a. 2018 Employee wages —Town of Ithaca b. 2018 Non-collective bargaining unit employee wages —Bolton Point/Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission 5. Discuss and consider amendments to the Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget a. Consider adoption of the 2018 Town of Ithaca Budget 6. Discuss and consider authorization to close the Town of Ithaca Hanshaw Road Walkway Capital Project Fund 7. Discuss and consider authorization to establish the Town of Ithaca State Route 96B (Danby Road) Sidewalk Capital Project Fund and transfer $95,500 from the General Townwide Fund 8. Acknowledge receipt of inspection reports of the Ferguson (Laughing Goat) and Cummins (Indian Creek Farm)Agricultural Easements 9. Discuss and consider authorization for supervisor to sign an amendment to the agreement with Consult Econ for additional services associated with the Inlet Valley Study 10. Discuss and consider authorization for the supervisor to sign an agreement regarding the Hector Street Sidewalk Design Phase 11. Discuss and consider Ithaca Beer noise permit process and noise permit application for October 21,2017 Hopsfest with a 4-piece polka band 12. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract 13. Report of Town Officials 14. Report of Town Committees/Intermunicipal Organizations 15. Review of Correspondence 16. Consider Adjournment TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal: ❑ ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE ❑ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ❑ NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL ❑ NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER Proposed LL extending the moratorium on new two- family dwellings, and on the addition of a second CLASSIFIED dwelling unit to an existing one-family dwelling, through 12/31/17, and a waiver from said LL for 508 Legal Notice • Warren Road TOWN OF ITHACA Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Notice of Public Hearings The Town Board w the Town of Ithaca will hold public Town Clerk's Office hearings at the Town Hall, of North ,201 Street Ithaca, New p.m- on the 16th day of October, a beginning al 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering a proposed local 215 North Tio a Street law Extending the Moratorium on Now Two-family g Dwellings, and on the Addltion of a Second Dwelling. Unit to an Existing One-family Dwelling, through Decem- ber 31, 2017, and consideration of a waiver from said lo- cal law for 508 Warren Road Information on the above Is available from the Town Town website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us Clerk and on the Town website. Paulette Rosa Town Clerk 10/9/17 Date of Posting: Date of cation: October 9, 2017 Pau ette Rosa Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and bscribed before me thisl,,'-day of 2017. Notar Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public-State of New York No.01DE6148035 Oualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19,20 1 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal: ❑ ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE ❑ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ❑ NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL =« I ❑ NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST TOWN OF ITHACA ORDER NOTIrE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS The Ithaca Town Board will hold public hearings at Town Hall, 215 N.Tioga St, Ithaca, NY on the 16th day of Olio- bar, 2017 beginning at 5:30 p.m.to hear public comments Proposed LL re Residential Rental Units regarding: Proposed LL requiring operating permits and a. Proposed local law adding a Residential Rental Units Chapter to the Town of Ithaca Code inspections for Residential Rental Units P b. Proposed local law amending the Town ofst Ithaca Proposed LL re accessory dwelling units Code, Chapter 125, entitled operating Construction p y g and Fire Prevention"to require operating peMlits and Preliminary 2018 budget inspections for residential rental units - c. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Proposed water and sewer rents Code, Chapter 270, entitled -Zoning", regarding ac- cessory dwelling units d. Preliminary Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget e. Proposed Water and Sewer Rents charged by the Location Of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town of Ithaca 2017 Water Rate-$6.55 2018 Water Rate-$7.31 Town Clerk's Office 2017 Sewer Rent-$4.31 2018 Sewer Rent-$4.81 Questions on any of the above can be directed to the 215 North Tioga Street Town Clerk at townclerk@town.lthaca.ny us or (607) 273- 1721. The draft local laws are available on the Town Ithaca, NY 14850 website at town.ithaca.ny.us Paulette Rosa Town Clerk Town website at www.town.ithaca.nv.us 10/6, 10/10/17 amuniuni Date of Posting: Date of P 'cation:: October 6, 2017 d\ Paulette Rosa Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 12017. c o Public (75 Debra DeAugistine Notary Public-State of New York No.01DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19,20 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal: ❑ ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE ❑ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ❑ NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL TOWN OF ITHACA ❑ NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDER The Ithaca Town Board will hold public hearings at Town Hall, 215 N.Tioga St., Ithaca, NY on the 16th day of OctO- ber, 2017 beginning at 5:30 p.m.to hear public comments regarding: Proposed LL re Residential Rental Units a: Proposed local law adding a Residential Rental Units Chapter to the Town of Ithaca Code Proposed LL requiring operating permits and b. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca inspections for Residential Rental Units Code, Chapter 125, entitled !Building Construction P and Fire Prevention- to require operating permits and Proposed LL re accessory dwelling units Inspections for,residential rental units - - - - c. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Preliminary 2018 budget Code, Chapter 270, entitled Zoning regarding ac- Proposed water and sewer rents cessory dwelling units d. Preliminary Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget e. Proposed Water and Sewer Rents charged by the Town of Ithaca 2017 Water Rate-$6.55 2018 Water Rate-$7.31 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: 2017 Sewer Rent-$4.31 2018 Sewer Rent-$4.81 Questions on any of the above can be directed to the Town Clerks Office Town Clerk at townclerk®town.ithaca.ny us or (607) 273- 215 North Tloga Street 1721. The draft local laws ws are available on the Town website at town.ithaca.ny.us Ithaca, NY 14850 Paulette Rosa Town Clerk 10/6, 10/10/17 _ bn6al Town website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us Date of Posting: Date of lication: October 10,2017 Paulette Rosa Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this //-9—day of ' 2017. otar Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public-State of New York No.01 DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County �7 My Commission Expires June 19,20 �d $OT r Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday,October 16, 2017 Minutes Board Members Present: Bill Goodman, Supervisor; Rod Howe, Deputy Town Supervisor; Pat Leary (Video Conference), Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine, and Pamela Bleiwas Excused: Rich DePaolo Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Mike Solvig, Director of Finance, Judy Drake, Director of Human Resources; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Jim Weber, Highway Superintendent and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Goodman opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance 1. Persons to be heard and board comments Mr. Goodman noted that this time is for comments to the board about items that are not having a separate public hearing. There was no one wishing to address the board on other items. Mr. Goodman moved item 3 up on the agenda: Discuss and consider granting a PILOT agreement with Ithaca Townhomes Mr. Goodman reminded the Board that this was discussed at the September Study Session and there were a couple of questions which he has relayed to Mr. Dir; the length of the agreement and the possibility of getting renewable electricity. The other question was asking Mr. Franklin from Tompkins County Assessment to come in but he is out of town. He did give some information which he will relay after Mr. Dir. Chris Dir, NRP addressed the board. Mr. Dir thanked the board for the opportunity and spoke to the board's questions. The commitments to purchase commodities that do not use fossil fuels; all of the units are going to be separately metered to those residents so that is their choice, not something management can do. We can encourage and suggest but we cannot require. We are not piping gas to the site and all appliances will be electric but it is up to them what type of electric to purchase. The next was about the duration of the PILOT and he is looking at a minimum of 30 years, effectively and the reason is that they are financing the project for 30 years and if it is less than a 30 year term, the lenders make discounts for financing the value and they will be using that offset to provide for the electric heat pumps and that is how they have balanced the objectives of the development and the affordability while using the heat pumps. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. I Mr. Goodman added that he had drafted a resolution based on the Town's Conifer PILOT in 2006 with a 15 year initial followed by a 15 year possible extension. He also reported that he talked with Mr. Franklin to get a sense of the taxes and Mr. Franklin mentioned that under NYS Real Property Tax Law, when he assesses affordable units, there is actually a break that they get in that assessment of about $15K per bedroom. The actual savings under the scenario as presented is approximately $35K a year for Phase 1. Ms. Hunter asked whether the project will transition to owner occupied after 15 years and Mr. Dir responded that they are but they will have to remain affordable throughout a 50 year term. Once a unit is sold, the PILOT would not attach and the owner would pay their normal tax payment at the reduced affordable assessment. TB Resolution 2017 - 117: Supporting the application of Ithaca Townhomes Housing Development Fund Corp. to New York State Homes and Community Renewal ("NYS HCR") to obtain the funding assistance necessary to construct the Ithaca Townhomes proiect, and Supporting a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)Agreement Whereas, Ithaca Townhomes Housing Development Fund Corp. will be submitting an application to NYS HCR for the funding assistance necessary to construct the Ithaca Townhomes project ; and Whereas, Ithaca Townhomes Housing Development Fund Corp. will operate the facility as housing for low to moderate income residents who earn under 130% of the area median income; and Whereas, Section 577 of the NYS Private Housing Finance Law authorizes the Town to enter into a PILOT Agreement providing for a reduction of the real property taxes to be paid by an affordable housing project; and Whereas, the Ithaca Townhomes project complements the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan's housing goals, including to "promote the availability of diverse, high- quality, affordable and attractive residential neighborhoods" and to "encourage a balanced blend of high-quality housing opportunities, including moderately priced housing to provide a range of prices to accommodate the local workforce."Now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby finds that it is in the best interest of the Town to support the development of affordable housing; and it is further Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby support the funding application of Ithaca Townhomes Housing Development Fund Corp. to NYS HCR for the development of the Ithaca Townhomes project, and encourages NYS HCR to approve the funding assistance necessary to implement the proposed project; and it is further Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby agree to enter into a PILOT agreement if the request for funding assistance from NYS HCR is approved, and subject to the specific terms and conditions of said agreement being approved by this Board and the TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 2 Attorney for the Town, which terms will include a 15 year initial agreement length (with possibility of a 15 year extension) and payments for town, county and school taxes based upon 10% of the net rents (gross rents, less vacancies and utilities)plus special district charges. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter 2. 5:30 p.m. Public hearings on: a. Proposed local law adding a Chapter titled "Operating Permits for Certain Residential Rental Units"to the Town of Ithaca Code b. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, titled "Building Construction and Fire Prevention" to add requirements for operating permits and inspections for certain residential rental units and to add permit requirements upon transfer of title c. Proposed local law amending the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270, titled "Zoning",regarding accessory dwelling units Mr. Goodman moved the public hearing for the waiver application from the requirements of the Town's moratorium on certain 2-family dwellings for 508 Warren Rd in front of the proposed legislation and opened the public hearing at 5:46; there was no one wishing to address the Board on the topic and the hearing was closed. (See Attachment #1) TB Resolution 2017-118: Waiver from Local Law 5 of 2016 which enacted a Moratorium on adding an additional unit to an existing residence Whereas the Town Board received a request for a waiver from the restrictions of the moratorium for a residence at 508 Warren Rd, and Whereas the Board reviewed the applicants submission and held a properly advertised public hearing on the request, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board does grant a waiver from the restrictions imposed by the Moratorium on adding an additional unit to an existing residence as listed in Local Law 5 of 2016. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter Draft Legislation Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 5:47 p.m. (Essentially a-c together) and reminded folks that they have about 3 minutes to speak and the Board did receive all of the emailed letters from the Realtors so there is no need to repeat those. (See written comments in Attachment #2) U3 2017-10-16 Pg. 3 Travis Cleveland: I Travis Cleveland do not give permission to anyone employed or associated with the Town of Ithaca to be on or enter any property that I own or manage without a warrant or direct permission. I say this not because of any wrongdoing, but I take my privacy very seriously. With four lawyers and one being a judge I believe, you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to forward this legislation. With that being said, here is an excerpt from federal court rulings that have ruled the legislation you are suggesting unconstitutional and a constitutional attorney in the case: the court fully understands that the city has a valid and important governmental interest in protecting the public, however, the court sees no reason why this should be done at the expense of infringing on rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. For the constitutional attorney, local government agents do not have unlimited authority to force entry into homes or businesses. To the contrary, houses are one of the types of properties specifically mentioned by the fourth amendment; people have a moral and constitutional right to exclude others, even government agents, from their property. Entry requires either a warrant or an emergency and neither is present with respect to these suspicionless rental inspections. This board should focus on changing the occupancy laws, fixing the existing lack of housing, which is a public issue; this is your job, not checking for over occupancy. Occupancy for a four bedroom house equals four people or a family legally. Allowing a two family home actually big enough for two families, not a single family with a small apartment. (applause) Rob Rosen stated that he was the Chair of the town Zoning Board of Appeals I wrote to you guys and I am here to speak in person; I am completely opposed to this operating permit proposed law. It would create a complete unfair burden on property owners. As the last speaker said, suspicionless property owners with no benefit to the public. There is a massive inconvenience to the vast majority of law-abiding property owners and any property that now has a complaint against it can be investigated and prosecuted under the existing law. You don't need to invade everybody's privacy and inspect, try to inspect, everybody's house because only the people who are obeying the law are going to be burdened by this. People who don't bother getting inspected are going to have complaints anyway and its going to be the same as it is now. This is just a massive expense and inconvenience on the law abiding tax payers and neighbors. Apparently it is driven by the fact that some houses are nuisances; there are to many people having loud parties and the existing laws already prohibit that and perhaps they are not being enforced sufficiently. Delays are happening; people end the terms of their lease before inspectors get around to doing anything, I don't really know what the problem is, but we already have laws on the books to address these nuisances without inspecting every single persons house in the town of Ithaca. Presumably you are going to go after Air B & B hosts, people with transient tenants... are you going to inspect all the rooms that are rented through Air B & B? are you going to inspect U3 2017-10-16 Pg. 4 people's rental apartments in their houses? This is just so ripe for inconsistent enforcement and being a complete burden on the law abiding people. And finally, the idea of sending a property owner to jail if they do not get a certificate in 30 days which is what the law seems to say, is completely ridiculous for so many reasons. I understand the anger at property owners that create a nuisance and make the neighborhood messy, but, actually, it can take a really long time to get permits from the town. Anybody who has ever dealt with code enforcement can tell you that it is a complicated process, the staff is over worked, and to require something within a set timeframe creates this huge burden on the law abiding applicant who is trying to do the right thing and I think its completely impractical. Thank you(applause) Richard Ballantyne(read from a prepared statement copied here) Good evening. I am a lifelong resident of Ithaca and Cornell Engineering Graduate. I have years of experience both as a tenant and a landlord in both the City and Town of Ithaca. I am very opposed to all the proposed legislation, especially the Residential Rental Operating Permit Program. This very intrusive and disruptive law has far reaching negative unintended consequences for both tenants and landlords. Once passed it will create a shortage of compliant housing in the area. That shortage will further increase rents. Rents are already high due to high property taxes. In fact, one of the main reasons why homeowners want to live multi-family dwellings, or to add an Accessory Dwelling Units, is to supplement their income to pay the very high property taxes that this law will force to go even higher! Hiring new Code Enforcement Officers is not cheap. The competitive free market in Ithaca is more than sufficient to ensure that tenants are able to find housing that meets their requirements. Additional government intervention is unnecessary. If tenants are unhappy with their living situation then they are free to let their lease expire and move out. Then they complain about their experience at ratemylandlord.com for the world to see. That will ensure that no future tenant in his right mind will ever do business with that landlord again, and the landlord will be forced by the free market to get his/her act together. Tenants can also choose to live within City of Ithaca limits if they want a government stamp of approval on their apartment. Landlords in the Town of Ithaca already have sufficient incentives to "meet basic health and safety standards" for their properties. These incentives include: competition from other landlords maintaining a good reputation in an online world where bad deeds get published for the world to see and never get deleted. the hassle of finding new tenants lawsuits from tenants TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 5 One of the stated reasons for this proposed legislation was overcrowding. If overcrowding really is a pervasive problem in the Town of Ithaca, then it is happening due to an acute shortage of affordable housing. This legislation will only exasperate that shortage since the number of tenants who will suddenly be forced to find new 'compliant" housing will skyrocket. This too will cause the rent prices to get bid up even more. Thus if the purpose of this law is to increase the availability of housing and make rent more affordable, it will have achieved exactly the opposite. This law also criminalizes landlording. I live in an owner occupied duplex. If I understand the new proposed law correctly, if I were to allow my Residential Rental Operating Permit to lapse for 1 year — even if my basement apartment is unoccupied during that time —then I will face 52 violations due to this new law — one for each week -- with each violation carrying a penalty of $1000 plus one to six months of imprisonment. So I would have to pay $52000 and spend 26 years in prison. How stupid is that?! This proposed law is anti-freedom and anti-American. Stop trying to penalize people who provide affordable housing in Ithaca, and who are doing whatever they can to pay ridiculously high property taxes. I urge you to quickly toss this proposed legislation into the waste bin and instead focus your energies on ways to reduce the cost of housing in Ithaca. (applause) Tom Smith, on behalf of Ron Ronsvale, I am an attorney from Harris Beach here in Ithaca. I would like to make three points in regard to all three of the zoning ordinances; First is that the proposed law regarding operating permits for residential rental units appears to require property inspections as a condition of obtaining an operating permit. Coerced inspections like this are clearly violative of NY law. As the court of appeals has said "a municipal ordinance which provides effectively that a landlord is required to consent to a warrantless inspection in order to obtain a rental permit, violates the property owner's fourth amendment rights." That is from a 1981 case Sokolof vs the Village of Freeport and that principal was recently reaffirmed in a 2013 second department appellate division case, ATM vs the village of Hempstead. So with respect to the operating permits, it appears that the coerced inspection would be violative of the law. With respect to accessory dwelling units, the proposed local law discriminates between owner- occupied properties and non-owner-occupied properties. It's our position that this violates section 262 of the Town Law which provides that all regulations, including use regulations, "shall be uniform, free of class and kind of building." Syracuse recently introduced an ordinance that discriminated between owner-occupied residences and non-owner-occupied residences with respect to parking and citing the analogous provision of the general City Law, the Fourth Department struck that law down as being violative of the fact that you can't base a regulation on the status of the property owner, you can merely base it on the property itself, the features of the property itself. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 6 Finally, the proposed changes in both the registry and the accessory dwelling unit appear to be at odds with the town's current Comprehensive Plan which was adopted recently in September of 2014. The Comprehensive Plan cites repeatedly and at length the need in this town for more affordable housing and for denser housing in the existing neighborhoods. The proposed changes in these laws however, would leave to substantial additional constraints both on property rehabilitation of existing housing stock and new development. So these proposals, in contravention of the Comp Plan would lead to less housing in the town and less affordable housing in the town. So for these reasons, on behalf of Mr. Ronsvale, I would request that the Town Board vote against these proposals. (applause) Brandon Fortunberry I have lived in the town of Ithaca since I have been in Ithaca and I have worked really hard in order to save up enough money to buy my house but it was clear that owning a home without a rental property in it was going to be very difficult for me at that time. So I was able to purchase a home in the Town of Ithaca because I looked around, I knew the City of Ithaca had certain regulations and fust of all, I couldn't afford a house in the City of Ithaca so I was able to purchase a home in the Town of Ithaca that had a rental unit. I lived in that home and rented it out for seven years, and during that time I have learned a few things on how to fix this and that, I am not a contractor by any means, and I was able then to save up enough money to purchase a second home, again with a rental property, knowing that that was a necessity for me to purchase a home in a nicer neighborhood for myself and my family, closer to a small school and not living on a major highway. So we moved into there and this income from both of these properties sustains our ability to live in both of these properties. What I am concerned about is that, I bought these houses under the assumption that there wasn't all of these regulations and that I could fix and address problems as they come up and I have been a very good landlord, I think that all of my tenants would say that. I am very responsive, however, I am not a contractor. So in the event that you put this law into effect and you go into my homes and I realize that I purchased homes that were not up to code without those inspections prior to me purchasing those homes, and now say those costs are anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 in repairs that I need to make to a home; first of all, I don't have that money laying around, second of all, have you tried to hire a contractor in this town? Do you know how long it takes to get somebody to come in and fix something when you don't have the ability to do that. Now I am not saying I can't fix some things; if you say change this outlet to a GFCI or something of that nature, I can do that, but if it's a major project and you've given me 90 days to get that done in, I'm telling you right now, if you ask all of the landlords in town to do that and give them 90 days, there are some that can and some that can't, there is no way in which the contractors that are available as a resource to the landlords in this town can meet that demand. It is absolutely impossible that the people will be able to fix this, let alone the amount of money that you are now asking all of these people who got into an agreement, into a decision to purchase a home, under the assumption that what they had was viable as a rental property, now may or may not be viable as a rental property and is an extreme burden. It has caused an extreme amount of stress for myself and I am sure many of the folks here applauding on all these comments here are very concerned about the financial viability to be able to continue to own these homes and maintain these. To begin this process without offering any sort of ability for TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 7 people to delay or slowly make improvements... to say you get it done in 90 days or you are done, that's just a very scary thought for me and I would really urge that the town board here think very hard and clearly about the rules and the regulations and think about the fact that the people who have small amounts of properties don't have large amounts of money and may not be versed in being contractors to make the repairs that you may ask them to make. So I would urge that you reconsider the legislation as it is currently written. I don't feel that it meets the needs of the owners of the homes in this area. (applause) David Barkin I am a landlord in town and I am a leasing agent and my family owns property in the town of Ithaca. Should you be proposing blanket legislation with the fear of continued student housing and encroachment on South Hill and other areas... As a leasing agent I can say that the market itself is stabilizing, so there is no need to rush to legislation. Furthermore, I chose to settle here, stay here, and grow a business here... it's hard to acquire land at an affordable rate; like the last speaker, you have to work really hard just to get a place and then you have to put in sweat equity, you have to fix it up and you have to rent it out as well and should you move forward with this I don't' see development on this piece of land my family owns ever happening. So don't rush to conclusions, and I hope it doesn't move forward. Thanks you. (applause) Larry Fabbroni summarized the letter he sent today. I don't think you are going to achieve the objective that you set out to accomplish is basically my introduction. One of the things you seem to be wanting to do is what we used to call and elder cottage whether it's for a relative or a needy person, you build this house in the back year and they somehow magically live there through all four seasons. I don't know of any compelling demand for that and I think you are just opening the door to a bunch of nuisance complaints of people basically almost being in someone else's private space when it comes to their neighbors. The problem of Cornell and Ithaca College over charging for their room and board is not going to be solved by what you are doing. I mean, that creates a demand for housing off of campus that's well met by local residents or multi-generational families who actually live in those neighborhoods if you go out there and see. I would encourage all of you to get out there and see what's in your Town. Bill has done some of that through this whole process; I'm not aware that anybody else has really gone out and engaged the landlords or the people who are doing this that are in the audience tonight. The elimination of the 50% rule is great, the elimination of having to put in a basement is great. But limiting the second unit to 800 sqft is just making another problem. The only way you can get a 2-bedroom apartment is on a ground floor without any stairs or hallways to the second floor to achieve that less than 800 sqft and it's just going to lead to a convoluted design for the primary unit. We have been waiting for side-by-side duplexes in the town of Ithaca, like everybody else that does it in the County, for I have to say 30 years, for myself, since I left the Town and you ought to look at your neighborhood between Honness lane, Slaterville Road, and Pine Tree Road; that whole neighborhood is zero lot line houses. It's a very popular design, you could have built a TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 8 thousand of them but they ran out of area. The particular developer went up to Lansing and kept doing it. So I don't know what's so difficult to see that it's a success if you allow side-by-side duplexes. One of my main points if you want to preserve the single-family neighborhoods, which seems to be what started all of this, then just zone them single-family. And whatever has an apartment there already will become a non-conforming use and that will be the end of it. You will have saved those neighborhoods that you want to save, whether it's Juniper Drive, Northview, which I believe were the two primary neighborhoods that started all of this, but you can look at Simsbury, Blackstone, Sienna Drive, Winthrop, that whole area up there... Lexington, Burleigh... just zone them single-family and whoever has an apartment already because they are a long established neighborhood, you will lock them in. I'm not saying those are the only neighborhoods, but..... Rental registry... I think you have pointed out cities where it is, I don't think it's needed because those cities have big buildings where people tried to put ten apartments or ten bedrooms in a big house, so even cities like the City of Ithaca have had to chase after the life-safety of all those buildings and that's why they created the rental registry, not to impose themselves on everybody who has a house in the Town of Ithaca. And I say that when all is said and done, you are on the border of Fair Housing violation here and I will say in closing, I have no stake in this; I moved out of the Town of Ithaca some time ago. I was a Town Engineer from 1974-1986, I was also the Planner and the Building Inspector at the same time, so it is from a perspective that cares for the town that I am telling you this, not for any particular vested interest. (applause) Brent Quick question... how much time do I have to speak? I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Board of Realtors, but I also have comments I want to make as a resident of the Town separately. Bill—three minutes; we got the letter from all the realtors so we have seen all of those comments and all of those arguments, and so we don't need to have those repeated to us, but I'll let you go ... I am a resident of the town of Ithaca, I am a property owner, I do happen to have a two-family unit, although that is not necessarily reflective of the comments I am going to make. I am also a realtor and a member of the Board of Realtors, so I do support the Board's position as well on these issues. I want to fust I guess say that I do appreciate and acknowledge what I think some of the intent of the Town's proposal legislation is; particularly meeting the housing needs of low and moderate- income people. I want to acknowledge that there is some good intent here, dealing with persons of low and moderate income and relatives of families living in the town. I also think that there is good intent in the efficient use of housing stock and economic support of existing residences. But I fmd it interesting that those objectives, given the genesis of the moratorium, which had nothing to do with, I think, those objectives but rather some concerns about particular areas of the town... On the surface it does appear that there are some provisions that provided extra TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 9 flexibility over current zoning when it comes to the creations of new accessory dwelling units, namely, permitting them to be detached from the primary residence and coincident with other primary uses and for homeowners seeking to generate income to help cover the growing expense of home ownership in the Town of Ithaca, I think this may indeed be a step in the right direction. However, I believe this legislation as proposed does not actually do... actually does more to create uncertainty, unnecessary burdens, and over reach and thereby may very well discourage such development taking place. I will touch on just a few examples: The housing needs — size restrictions. Many in this room have been participants or at least interested followers of the ongoing County Housing Needs Assessment and studies, particularly the one released last Fall, clearly demonstrated the need to begin creating housing stock, both for owner-occupancy as well as rental housing, particularly in the areas of moderately-priced for sale housing of $250K or less and rental units that capitalize on existing infrastructure including transportation. While this particular legislation isn't designed to be addressing these concerns, perhaps even worse, it misses an opportunity to do much more than house home health care providers, inlaws, or quite possibly singles or students given size restrictions of up to 800 sqft. I am a big proponent of small, right-sized residential design, I work with designers and builders who are indeed trying to bring smaller homes to market at reasonable prices; smaller homes require less resources to build, take less energy to operate and cost less. One builder that I am working with in particular is offering homes with 1-3 bedrooms in 600' — 1,400' square feet but we have yet to come up with solutions under 800'sgft that can more than provide one bedroom. We are not addressing the housing needs with this legislation. Home ownership —Ownership restrictions that requires any developer, or property owner for that matter, to go through a complete rezoning process to create either a multiple residence or planned development units for any proposal that might include equally sized side-by-side duplexes or townhomes or let alone any 3 or 4-family proposals. It does not exist, the opportunity does not exist by right, and it seems to me that creating opportunities for a greater variety of housing and serving more economically diverse residential base is worth pursuing. Other than in high residential zones, this proposal, only owner-occupants with enough capital to afford new construction of an accessory dwelling unit, will be in a position to contribute to our town's need for expanded housing. Property owner rights- Fundamentally, if an owner has to occupy the property in order to rent it, and then finds himself in the position to have to leave town for a job relocation but wants to retain ownership of the property, they lose the right to rent both units and therefore they lose some value in that property. It seems inappropriate and an over reach. Brokers responsibility —Real estate brokers, of which I am one, have a responsibility to disclose know material defects in a property. They do not have the obligation to discover defects. Operating permits that are not valid should not be the broker's responsibility to discover, but TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 10 rather the property owners or the new buyer at the time of transfer of ownership. I don't understand why the brokers necessarily should be given that responsibility. I do believe that operating permits, we see them work in the City of Ithaca, they have an important purpose for protecting health and safety, but I do think there is a great deal of work that needs to be done before that can become legislation as proposed. Finally, architectural standards — I find it really interesting that in this version of the proposed legislation, there are now minimum required roof pitches and minimum glazing requirements on certain sides of the building. You know, if you take an accessory building and have a minimum 412 pitch and on one hand, section 5 suggests it has to be one story, and section 6 suggests it can be accessory to a garage....how do you wind up creating things that are capped at 20 feet with a 412 pitch? You can only do buildings 24 feet wide. If you have an 8/12 pitch your building can only be 6 feet wide. I am not sure that this is the avenue for creating architectural standards in the town. You should have a different conversation about zoning and form based zoning through a different mechanism than this. Same on the question about 20% glazing; If the best side for solar gain is not facing the street and that's where you want excessive glazing, you should be able to offset that elsewhere or else you're (guiding??) energy code in the creation of these spaces. So there are just some nuances here that I think are making this a flawed proposal. I encourage the town to continue to explore and address these important needs and issues, but believe that as proposed, there is much opportunity for clarity, open mindedness and the creation of a zoning ordinance that supports many of our town's needs and as a broader community to foster access to housing options while directly addressing the original concern. (applause) Not named—I'm not big on public speaking, but I will say that I second what this gentleman said earlier... very similar story. I didn't grow up with a lot of money, ended up going to college and getting a decent job as a teacher in the Ithaca City school district and decided to buy a duplex... yada yada yada. It was one of the smartest financial decisions I ever made, but at this point, I work full time, I have a family and I have four—3-two-families in the town of Ithaca and one 2- family in the City of Ithaca and at some point I chose to buy the second two-family houses as an option to get out of teaching yada yada yada and doing the math that if I broke even on those two houses I would still be okay in my retirement. I work super hard. I do my homework and I put a second week of work on top of my regular work week in addition to spending time with my family just to survive, just to make enough income that I can have a retirement for my family and that I can do better, you know. I have been a successful landlord for 15 years, all of my tenants have always been happy. I do lots of my own work. My houses are in great shape. But its over... when you get a burden like this, at some point you say enough is enough and this summer was one of the fust times I said I am not sure I can keep up on this, just by my calculations... owning three 2-families in the Town of Ithaca it would be an additional 40 or 50 hours a year to be able to take care of the permitting processes, phone calls, inspections, the back and forth. I have the City of Ithaca, my TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 11 one 2-family there, in dealing with the permit process, and I get how it works in older housing stock. In the City of Ithaca that makes a little bit of sense to me, but it's lots and lots of back and forth. I have to find two hours to meet with the person and then they come back and give me a list and they say, oh, your tenant has refrigerator or whatever, or the wifi cord is sticking out of a room incorrectly, so now I have to set up another two hour meeting out of my schedule to come and deal with that and just doing that over and over and over.... I get that I took on the burden of that when I became a landlord, but at some point, breaking even on that... when is it that I just have to sell out and give up because it's not... it's too expensive... these here and here and here and here, obviously our taxes are already through the roof... I am surviving, I am not making a huge amount of money on my real estate... I am just working toward my retirement. My houses are in great shape. I do my own work. What is the problem? Where are people calling up the Town of Ithaca and saying that landlords are out of line? That these properties are in terrible shape? Where is the need? I don't really see that in my situation with my houses. I have never had my tenants complain and here in a roomful of landlords and I don't see lots of discussions about properties that are out of compliance. The City of Ithaca it gets a little over burdensome at some point; the bush in front of my house is sticking to far into the sidewalk... at what point is it my own property to take care of and I have to own the responsibility of whether my tenants want to live there or not and I get to adjust my rents and own my own business. When does somebody get to decide that they are just going to walk into my house and regulate me this much more and the situation, for me speaking, doesn't need regulation. My houses are not in bad shape. I keep them nice to keep my tenants there. It's just simple free market economics and it's just a big overreach. It feels like, personally to me, enough that I have to come here and set aside time from my family, and speak passionately that this is really overstepping your bounds just for me individually in my own specific story. So that's it, thank you. (applause) James Orcutt I am a resident of Ithaca for 73 years. I think this is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You know, as I read this, one of the primary reasons for having a duplex or having rental income is for the people that can't afford what I consider the excessive taxes in Ithaca and in the Town of Ithaca and what this does is this really, this legislation really hurts the people you are trying to help. I think you are going about it the wrong way. I think that when you have the idea of having permits,much like the City of Ithaca, which I think are bad, to be honest with you, and as the gentleman before said, if somebody comes through and they find a wire someplace or you have a tenant that has an old cable box or something that was there, they can complain about it and then you may or may not get your certificate of occupancy, which is expensive and it is very, very difficult to schedule times when people can come and inspect apartments as well, which is another thing. So I think you ought to get rid of this whole idea of having the permits for it. As far as the penalties are concerned, those are absolutely draconian. I mean, to take a broker and threaten to put him in jail for listing a housing where the broker actually tells the person how many people are allowed to be in there and he has no control, even thought the person signs a lease and says TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 12 that they are going to put X amount of people where X amount of people are required to be in that apartment, they may put X+ in there and he has no control over that. So to put this person in jail is ridiculous. So I would suggest to you, get rid of those draconian penalties and take any violators that you have and make them publicly go out and sing the I Love NY jingle, it will work much better than anything else. (laughter and applause) Ward Davis I live in the town of Ithaca and thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I would just say that I agree really with everyone that has shared up to this point; I feel like they have made some very good points. My wife and I just worked on an apartment in our house, in part because we need the additional income in order to pay the taxes. I mean, Ithaca is a great place to live, so for us, we are doing Air B & B and we know that if we don't provide someone with a good experience, it's going to be on the internet immediately and so I can tell you that,just to put in a plug for the market and capitalism.... It's about balancing. We all want to provide... I think most people are well intentioned and most landlords really want to take care of their tenants and my fear is that this is going to have unintended consequences in a lot of areas. I do believe it is going to force prices of housing up because you are going to make it more onerous for small landlords like us. We just finished the addition to our house, and I appreciate, we worked with Martin Kelley, a Code Inspector, and we appreciated him and I felt like we justifiably had to build to code and obviously there is a need for that; you want housing and you want good construction, but I feel like what is in existence already is sufficient. My concern again is that you are going to get unintended consequences and you are going to make it even more difficult for people like my wife and myself to live in Ithaca. And I do have some concerns about the invasion of privacy, I really do. So thank you so much, and I really support what everybody else has said. (applause) No name given — My husband and I have lived in Ithaca for 25 years and we have raised two children here, college aged. We purchased the property that we own as a rental property to help us pay for college and to have that additional income. We purchased a house in a lovely residential neighborhood that was a complete dump. We renovated the house and it is beautiful and we actually had neighbors bring us a pie and thank us for cleaning the neighborhood up. We are very conscientious landlords. I think our tenants appreciate living with us and as other people have said, if they had had a bad experience we would not be able to consistently get good tenants. My concern is also by restricting... the regulation I do not agree with at all. It is very restrictive to the landlords that are trying to do a good job here. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 13 I am also concerned that you would need to add code enforcement people to do this work plan here and that would just increase taxes which is putting expense on people that are buying rental property to begin with to help pay bills already. I will try and put this in a more coherent manner and email you. (applause) Bruce Kornright—My wife and I have lived in the area for nearly thirty years and just listening tonight, it is interesting. You guys give so much of your time, because clearly you care about the wellbeing of the people who live here in the community, and I think that is awesome. In thinking about this, I question whether this proposed legislation as it is written will achieve that because of the issues regarding how onerous it might be on landlords and what that would do to housing prices. How equitable is this in terms of people who are going to be upfront and say hey come inspect my place versus people who are not going to do that. I have a problem with that personally because that is likely to happen and that's not fair I think and presumably we are trying to do things in a fair fashion. I just question whether this is going to do what it is meant to do and the issue of course of code enforcement. How will you address the issue of getting this done in a timely fashion that might not negatively impact the landlords because Codes is a big job, as I have learned and it takes a lot of manpower hours. There are a lot of houses affected. What do landlords do in the interim when they are having to pay mortgages and waiting for an inspections, for example. Not casting aspersions anywhere, but it is just a reality and I think it is an important things to consider as you thing about this. So thanks for the opportunity to speak and we appreciate the work you do for the community. (applause) Brandon again What people have said about the pricing... I mean, if this is to address occupancy concerns and people having fair housing, this is going to snowball that effect. The more money that is coming in the cost to maintain these units and to deal with these things and the code enforcement to be available and the taxes go up, the price and the rent goes up which leads to more of a situation where people have to split a house four ways when it should be split three ways because the landlord is then forced into a situation where they have to charge enough rent, as the gentleman there said, breaking even is just a goal and that is doing alright. For myself, as a small owner, that's my goal, is to just break even with this but if I can't break even, what do I do? I raise the rent and charge the tenants more money and make it more expensive for people to live in this town and I think that the way in which this proposed legislation is written is designing a snowball effect of increasing the problems that it is trying to address. I think there are much, much better ways. I am not a legislator, I don't know that, I am not a town person and I don't know how that is, but I think as this proposed legislation is written, it is not addressing but is further enflaming the issue that you are seeking to effectively mitigate. (applause) Tavis again —I am just curious on the moratorium. Over the last 2 years or so its been almost... 18 months... what have we learned and why would we have to extend it on these multiple family TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 14 single-family dwellings with accessory apartment buildings? I mean, what is there to prevent the downsizing of the accessory apartment? I don't see any purpose in it. Rob again -- I will also say that I appreciate that everyone on the board is casting around for a solution to, it appears to me, nuisance properties. Again, I have big concerns about the huge burden that this is going to place on our friends and neighbors, most of whom are law abiding people and most properties have no problem at all. This is like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly and it's very concerning about fairness and privacy and expense. Thank you(applause) Mr. Goodman asked if there was anyone else and closed the public hearing. Mr. Goodman turned it back to the Town Board to see where the Board wanted to go. He asked if anyone wanted to consider this legislation tonight; no board members wanted to . Mr. Howe stated that he appreciated all of the comments saying that you have given us a lot to think about. Ms. Bleiwas stated that she most definitely does not want to consider this tonight adding that she felt that a lot of points have been raised and she has a lot of questions and this would be a good topic for a study session or a time where we can really take some time and hash out a lot of things. She said that right here and now, I will never support anything that involves jailing anybody. (applause) Ms. Hunter thanked everybody for coming out saying that she has a rental unit and she shares some of the concerns that have been expressed here but she wasn't sure if she was alone in those concerns and so it is nice to see that her feelings that perhaps there were people who own one or two units, it was part of a greater financial, plan... I think that we do have some problems in the Town, I think that we have a burden impose on us by Ithaca College and Cornell University that don't provide sufficient housing for all of their students, so it is a balancing act and she appreciates everybody taking the time to come out and she hoped that they would help us draft some legislation to help us deal with our problem which we shouldn't pretend doesn't exist. There are some things that need some legislation. Thank you very much. Mr. Levine stated that he too would like to thank everybody for coming out and all the comments are definitely noted. The legal arguments will definitely be checked out by the Attorney for the Town. The suggestions made by Larry Fabbroni for the Code will definitely be considered, and all of your personal comments as well. He stated that he too owns a rental unit and the issues are important to him. He loves the Town and the character of the Town and we will be very careful with this legislation. Ms. Leary said that as a renter, the last thing she wants to see is rents going up as a result of anything we do, so, like the others, I appreciate the comments and will take this all in and look at the whole situation and see what we can do to improve it. Mr. Goodman stated that at this point the Board would not be taking any action on the legislation. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 15 d. Proposed local law extending the moratorium on new two-family dwellings, and on the addition of a second dwelling unit to an existing one-family dwelling,through December 31, 2017 Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 6:47p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Mr. Levine asked what would happen if the Board did more than tweak the proposed legislation and Mr. Goodman responded that if we do more than tweaks we need to reevaluate our strategy and see if it makes sense keeping the moratorium or not but this gives us time to take in the comments we heard tonight and through emails. Ms. Bleiwas commented that when we first started the moratorium we tried to avoid construction season and it has been extended through a construction season. She thought it would be very hard to convince her to vote to extend this past December when it would impact construction season. TB Resolution 2017 - 119: Adopt Local Law 17 of 2017 Extending the Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit to an Existing One- Family Dwelling, Through December 31, 2017 Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca adopted Local Law 5 of 2016 entitled Providing for a Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit to an Existing One-Family Dwelling, for a Period of Two Hundred Seventy (270) Days; and Whereas, on February 2, 2017, the Town Board adopted Local Law 2 of 2017 entitled "A Local Law Extending the Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit to an Existing One-Family Dwelling, Through July 31, 2017," which local law was set to expire on July 31,2017; and Whereas, on July 24, 2017, the Town Board adopted Local Law I I of 2017 entitled "A Local Law Extending the Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit to an Existing One-Family Dwelling, Through October 31, 2017," which local law is set to expire on October 31,2017; and Whereas, the Town Board and its Planning Committee, along with the Town's Planning Department staff, have been researching and discussing issues related to potential new Town regulations for two-family dwellings; and Whereas, the Town Board and Planning Committee discussed preliminary draft legislation at various meetings in June, July and August, 2017, and the Town Board and Planning Committee discussed and revised proposed local laws at various meetings in September and October, 2017; and TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 16 Whereas, the Town Board has been receiving written public comments on the proposed local laws, and it held a public hearing on the proposed local laws on October 16, 2017 at which it heard additional public comments, and Whereas, the Town Board anticipates that its review, study and consideration of the public comments and proposed local laws can be completed, and final legislation, if needed, can be drafted and properly adopted by December 31, 2017; and Whereas, the Town Board is concerned that any new legislation would be significantly subverted if development proposals for new two-family dwellings or for the addition of second dwelling units that are covered by the current moratorium were to be entertained and possibly approved before the Town Board finalizes such legislation; and Whereas, extension of the moratorium until December 31, 2017, will protect the public health, safety and welfare and further the goals of the moratorium by preventing the consideration and approval of these types of development during the limited time the Town needs to complete such review and study and adopt such legislation; and Whereas, at its meeting on October 6, 2017, the Town Board discussed a local law to extend the moratorium until December 31, 2017, and set a public hearing for October 16, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. to receive public comments on it; and Whereas, a notice of public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal and said public hearing was duly held on October 16, 2017 at the Town Hall of the Town of Ithaca and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law is a Type II action because it constitutes "adoption of a moratorium on land development or construction" pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(30), and thus adoption of the proposed local law is not subject to review under SEQRA; now therefore be it Resolved, that Local Law 17 of 2017 entitled Extending the Moratorium on New Two- Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit to an Existing One-Family Dwelling,through December 31, 2017 is hereby adopted, and be it further Resolved, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter e. Waiver application from the requirements of the Town's moratorium on certain 2- family dwellings for 508 Warren Rd (moved up) U3 2017-10-16 Pg. 17 f. Preliminary Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget Mr. Goodman opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. g. Proposed Water and Sewer Rents charged by the Town of Ithaca Mr. Levine wanted to clarify that there is nothing we can do about the restructuring and this is simply what we charge because he was against reducing the minimum but now that it is in place, he will vote for this. Mr. Goodman stated that he was correct; the structure is already passed. TB Resolution 2017-120: Increasing Sewer Rents in the Town of Ithaca Sewer Improvement Area and Increasing Water Rates Chargeable to Consumers of Water in the Town of Ithaca Effective January 12018 Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca wishes to revise the sewer rent and water rate schedules for the Town of Ithaca Sewer Improvement Area and the Town of Ithaca Water Improvement Area;and Whereas, a public hearing, duly advertised and posted as required by law, was held at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on the 16th day of October 2017, and the public was permitted an opportunity to be heard on the proposed increases; and Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the Town Board that adoption of the proposed resolution is a Type II action because it constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus this action is not subject to review under SEQRA; Now,therefore,be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby establishes and imposes the following: (1) Effective January 1, 2018 there is hereby imposed a sewer rent payable by all users connected to the Town-wide sewer system at a rate of $4.81 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed. (2) In addition, and notwithstanding the foregoing rate structure, there shall be a minimum base charge for regular quarterly bills sent on or after January 1, 2018 in the amount of $24.05, which minimum charge is based on 5,000 gallons of usage, regardless of whether that amount is actually used. (3) Multiple housing and mobile home parks of over two dwelling units, using a master water meter, will be computed as follows: The quarterly master water meter reading will be divided by the number of dwelling units and the sewer rent charge will be figured on this number as if the unit was individually metered. The TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 18 sewer rent will then be multiplied by the number of units on the master water meter and this will be the billing rendered and the amount payable. If the calculation of the water consumed per dwelling unit is less than the amount that would be permitted before exceeding the minimum sewer rent set forth above, then the billing will be calculated by multiplying the number of units served by the master water meter times the minimum sewer rent set forth above. (4) The charges set forth above shall be effective with respect to bills rendered on or after the effective dates set forth above, even if the measurement is for consumption prior to the above effective dates (i.e., any bill rendered on or after January 1, 2018, shall be calculated at the 2018 rate even if the sewer use occurred prior to January,2018). (5) In the event a property is connected to public sewer, but is not connected to a water meter, the sewer rent shall be based upon estimated water consumption as reasonably determined by the Director of Public Works based upon recognized methods of estimating typical consumption for the type of facility involved (e.g., gallons per day per bedroom). And be it further Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby establishes a water rate of$7.31 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed with the following water rate schedule: WATER RATE SCHEDULE Effective January 1,2018 The rate charged for water consumption shall be $7.31 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed. The foregoing rate will be the rate charged for all regular quarterly bills sent on or after January 1,2018. Actual or base consumption may occur prior to January 1,2018. Notwithstanding the foregoing rates, the following minimum base charges shall be applicable to the meter size indicated below for regular quarterly bills issued on or after January 1,2018. The table below also shows the amount of water consumption that is permitted before the minimum base charge would be exceeded: METER SIZE (INCHES) BASE CONSUMPTION (in Gallons) MINIMUM CHARGE 3/4 5,000 $36.55 1 15,000 $109.65 1-1/2 22,500 $164.48 2 45,000 $328.95 3 70,000 $511.70 4 100,000 $731.00 6 175,000 $ 1,279.25 TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 19 Multiple Housing and mobile home parks of over 2 dwelling units, using a master meter, will be computed as follows: The quarterly master meter reading will be divided by the number of dwelling units and the water charge will be figured on this number as if the unit was individually metered. The water charge will then be multiplied by the number of units on the master meter and this will be the billing rendered. If the calculation of the water consumed per dwelling unit is less than the allowable consumption for a three-quarter inch meter, then the billing will be calculated by multiplying the number of units on the master meter times the minimum charge for a three-quarter inch meter. The water application fee for each new application for water service shall be the charges for new water connections charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission including application fees, meter charges, service tap fees, inspection fees, accessory materials, installation costs, and any other fee or cost charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for connecting new water services. An annual charge for each fire protection main serving a fire suppression system will be billed along with the fust quarterly water bill of the calendar year. The annual charge for this service shall be $22.00 per diameter inch of the pipe supplying the fire suppression system or such other amount as is charged by the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission for such systems. The pipe supplying the fire suppression system is the pipe needed to supply the fire suppression system, installed downstream of the system control valve. In addition to any other charges due to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission or the Town, there shall also be due to the Town a charge of $68.50 for disconnecting and a charge of $68.50 for reconnecting water service where water service has been disconnected pursuant to Town Code § 261-4 for failure to pay water rates or other charges. Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Aye —Hunter, Bleiwas, Goodman, Leary, Levine and Howe 3. Discuss and consider granting a PILOT agreement with Ithaca Townhomes (moved) Moved up — Item 11: Discuss and consider Ithaca Beer noise permit process and noise permit application for October 21, 2017 Hopsfest with a 4-piece polka band Mr. Goodman noted that there was a change in staff and the application was not received in time to publicize a public hearing but the board has the discretion to waive that requirement. The Board waived the requirement. Mr. Goodman reminded the Board that Ithaca Beer came in last year for a permit for Thursday night small bands and a number of us went to listen to the effects and this year they have had them on Wednesday nights and we did not have them come in for a permit, but some neighbors have commented that they did hear the bands going on there. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 20 Mr. Goodman said that he would like to have a discussion tonight about how we want to treat Ithaca Beer because this will continue to be an issue and is our Noise Ordinance and permit process set up to handle situations such as theirs or do we want to consider some other way to handle these. He noted that there are no residential neighbors within the 500 feet of the event so even the way we have this set up now does not reach the residential neighbors. Ms. Hunter recollected that last year there was some sound reducing infrastructure that they might want to consider and she wondered if it is Ithaca Beers' intention to host live music on a regular basis, if that is something we should consider requiring. She said that she cannot approximate how much noise this type of event is going to generate but we can't monitor these types of events. Should we consider asking them to explore some kind of construction that might mitigate the traveling of sound? Mr. Goodman noted that in the PDZ there was a thought or an expectation that they might have some kind of band structure. Ms. Ritter said it was certainly discussed but she could not recall the exact wording. Mr. Bates quoted the PDZ: "Primary structure and accessory uses -- Stage, band shell or related structure with a building area not to exceed 2,500sgft." and Ms. Brock: "Permitted principal uses —The operation of special events such as festivals or music series subject to or upon the issuance of any permits required." Mr. Goodman stated that we thought this might happen and expected it but we didn't realize what the acoustics would be like so now we have to deal with that. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Sallinger if he wanted to make a statement to the Board and he did. Mr. Sallinger stated that he is an abutting landowner and this summer, every Wednesday they had music into October and he had mentioned to Mr. Goodman that it was unpermitted and he was curious about that. He said that these two hour sessions were hardly offensive, they were ok, but they did get progressively louder starting with dinner type music and then louder, but it was okay. Mr. Sallinger stated that Ithaca Beer moved the bands from their patio to mid-way down the length of the building to a tent area so it is inching its way closer and closer to the development. He said his concern, as well as some of his neighbors who commented on their neighborhood listsery which he didn't think resulted in a complaint or a call to the Town, but it is inching its way closer to the neighborhood and if the Town is going to have a permitting process for this sort of event, they should get a permit. Ms. Rosa stated that this application came in late due to a staffing change and Mr. Sallinger questioned that as appropriate for a waiver since the event has been on their website for a while. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 21 Mr. Goodman responded that there is an avenue for the Board to waive the need for a public hearing and given the distance the neighbors would not have technically been required to be notified being more than 500 feet away. Mr. Goodman said that in terms of the overall process, the question is whether we want them to come in for some kind of blanket permit at the beginning of the year or the season? Last year we authorized four Thursdays at one time and revised the law to allow that. Mr. Howe thought an annual basis would be good. Ms. Hunter asked if the law could be changed to have neighbor notification outside the 500 feet when applicable and Ms. Brock responded that that could happen. Mr. Goodman suggested that Personnel and Organization should discuss this in more detail and come back to the Board. He added that we are currently having an economic study for that area and encouraging similar businesses so we need to look at this. Ms. Bleiwas asked Mr. Sallinger what his main concern is; when it is happening, less music, what would they like to see? Mr. Sallinger responded that the neighborhood is on the noisy side given Route 13 it just seems that the noise bounces off the building, even their outdoor speakers can be heard sometimes at the same level as being right there so he would like to see a discussion on abatements. He added that they are not opposed to Ithaca Beer and he can't speak to the science of noise but he just wanted the Board to look at that. Mr. Sallinger also thought that regularly scheduled events could have a different notification distance for the notification requirements. Mr. Howe moved to approve the noise permit, seconded by Ms. Bleiwas. Unanimous. 4. Discuss and consider approval of: a. 2018 Employee wages—Town of Ithaca (See Attachment #3) TB Resolution 2017- 121: Approval of 2018 Employee Wages Whereas, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the proposed wages for the Town of Ithaca non-collective bargaining employees for the year 2018, utilizing the 2% wage scales approved by the Town Board October 5, 2017; and Whereas, the Board has reviewed the wages established by the collective bargaining agreement with the Public Works unit represented by Teamsters Local 317; now,therefore, be it TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 22 Resolved, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the said wages for the non-collective bargaining employees and collective bargaining employees for 2018, as filed in the Human Resources Office. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter b. 2018 Non-collective bargaining unit employee wages—Bolton Point/Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (See Attachment #4) TB Resolution 2017- 122: Approval of Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission Non-Collective Bargaining Employee Wages for 2018 Whereas, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the proposed wage scale and wages for Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission's (Commission)non- bargaining employees for the year 2018; and Whereas, the Commission is in the process of negotiating with the UAW for a new contract, so there will be no change in wages until the contract is approved of; and Whereas, the Commission approved of the non-collective bargaining employee wage scale and wages for 2018 at their September 7, 2017 meeting; now, therefore, be it Resolved, the governing Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby approve the SCLIWC 2018 wage scale and non-collective bargaining employee wages as detailed on the attached sheet. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter 5. Discuss and consider amendments to the Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget Mr. Goodman noted that the Mayor did not propose money for the Gorge Ranges but that may change as they go through their process so he left our portion in there but put it in the Support for the City Parks line. Mr. Goodman also noted that as Public Works grows we have had in our Capital Improvement Plan to make some facility improvements including the expansion of the office area and it would be useful to move that up a bit and start the evaluation of the project at least. We had thought it would happen in 2020-2021 but we are looking at adding an engineer this year and a new working supervisor so he suggested looking at the planning of the improvements this coming year. U3 2017-10-16 Pg. 23 Mr. Goodman moved an amendment to the budget adding $50,000 to A5132.520 for Administrative Office Addition at Public Works, seconded by Mr. Levine. Unanimous. TB Resolution 2017 - 123: Adoption of the 2018 Ithaca Town Budget Whereas the Town Board has discussed the Preliminary 2018 Ithaca Town Budget at its October 5th and October 16th meetings, and Whereas an amendment of adding $50,000 to A5132.520 for Administrative Office Addition at Public Works was discussed and moved by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Levine and unanimously passed, now therefore be it Resolved that the Town Board hereby adopts the Preliminary 2018 Ithaca Town Budget, with the approved amendment, as the 2018 Ithaca Town Budget. Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter 6. Discuss and consider authorization to close the Town of Ithaca Hanshaw Road Walkway Capital Project Fund TB Resolution 2017-125: Authorization to Close the Town of Ithaca Hanshaw Road Walkway Capital Proiect Fund Whereas, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorized the Town of Ithaca Hanshaw Road Walkway Capital Project Fund under Resolution No. 2011-208 on December 12, 2011; and Whereas, the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works and Town Engineer have certified the Hanshaw Road Walkway project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and Whereas, after satisfying all obligations and liabilities of the fund there remains a positive equity in the approximate amount of$68,575.00; now, therefore,be it Resolved, after discussion with the Town Highway Superintendent/Director of Public Works this Town Board declares said project complete; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Finance Officer to close the accounting and financial records for the Town of Ithaca Hanshaw Road Walkway Capital Project Fund; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs that the remaining equity in said fund be transferred to the General Townwide Fund. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 24 Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter 7. Discuss and consider authorization to establish the Town of Ithaca State Route 96B (Danby Road) Sidewalk Capital Project Fund and transfer $95,500 from the General Townwide Fund TB Resolution 2017- 124: Authorization to Establish the Town of Ithaca State Route 96B (Danby Road) Sidewalk Capital Proiect Fund and Transfer $95,500 from the General Townwide Fund Whereas, the State Route 96B (Danby Road) Sidewalk Project, having NYS DOT Project Identification Number 395062 ("the Project'), is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-Federal funds (i.e. local/Town funds) with total project costs estimated at $1,477,500; and Whereas, on August 7, 2017 the Ithaca Town Board adopted Resolution No. 2017-094 to approve the above-referenced Project and make a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of the initial Project phase ("pre-construction phase") involving engineering design and right-of-way incidentals ($35,460); and Whereas, in the above-referenced Resolution, the Ithaca Town Board authorized the Town of Ithaca to pay in the fust instance (i.e. pay up front) 100% of the Federal and non- Federal share of the cost of the engineering design and right-of-way incidentals for the Project or portions thereof, and appropriated the sum of$177,300 thereby made available to cover the cost of participation in the preconstruction phase of the Project; now,therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca authorizes the establishment of the Town of Ithaca State Route 96B (Danby Road) Sidewalk Capital Project Fund to record all necessary and appropriate budgetary and cash transactions for this Project; and be it further Resolved, that the Town Finance Officer is authorized and directed to record all necessary and appropriate transactions transferring $95,500 from the General Townwide Fund to the Town of Ithaca State Route 96B (Danby Road) Sidewalk Capital Project Fund. Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Pat Leary Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter 8. Acknowledge receipt of inspection reports of the Ferguson (Laughing Goat) and Cummins (Indian Creek Farm)Agricultural Easements (See Attachment #5) The Board acknowledged receiving the reports. TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 25 9. Discuss and consider authorization for supervisor to sign an amendment to the agreement with Consult Econ for additional services associated with the Inlet Valley Study (See Attachment #6) TB Resolution 2017-126: Supplemental agreement with ConsultEcon, Inc. for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road Corridor study involving an economic development feasibility study and development of a strategic plan Whereas, on April 10, 2017 the Town Board authorized the Town Supervisor to execute a contract with ConsultEcon in an amount not to exceed $60,000 (Resolution No. 2017-052) for the Inlet Valley/Elmira Road corridor study, a grant funded project that included a recommended award from the Empire State Development of$30,000 and a Town match of$30,000, and Whereas, following a recent focus group meeting with corridor business owner's, it was determined that additional detailed field work and one on one interviews with key property owners would be beneficial to the development of the project's strategic plan, and Whereas, the original project scope and costs did not anticipate consultant services for an additional trip to Ithaca for the purposes of conducting more intensive data gathering and field work over a two-day period, and Whereas, the original term of the agreement was from May 1, 2017 to November 1, 2017, and Whereas, $5,400.00 is the amount required for the supplemental consultant services described above, and an extension in the end date of the term of the agreement to December 31, 2017 is necessary to provide time for completing the additional project elements, now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board approves, authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute a supplemental agreement with ConsultEcon, to include an additional amount not to exceed $5,400 (allocated from B8020.403), and a change to the end date of the term of agreement from November 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, said supplemental contract agreement subject to the approval for the Attorney for the Town. Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter 10. Ithaca Beer Noise Permit and process (moved up) 11. Discuss and consider authorization for the supervisor to sign an agreement regarding the Hector Street Sidewalk Design Phase—PULLED 12. Consider Consent Agenda Items TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 26 TB Resolution 2017- 127: Adopt Consent Agenda Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda items: a. Approval of Town Board Minutes b. Town of Ithaca Abstract c. Bolton Point Abstract Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Eric Levine Vote: Ayes —Bleiwas, Leary, Goodman, Howe, Levine and Hunter TB Resolution 2017- 127a: Approval of Town Board Minutes of September 30, 2017 & October 5, 2017 Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the submitted minutes, with any corrections, as the final minutes of the meeting on September 30, 2017 and October 5, 2017 of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca. TB Resolution 2017 - 127b: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 1259 - 1359 General Fund Townwide 69,195.40 General Fund Part-Town 6,954.33 Highway Fund Part-Town 17,951.51 Water Fund 30,905.95 Sewer Fund 13,560.33 Risk Retention Fund 89.00 Forest Home Lighting District 1,936.78 Glenside Lighting District 76.49 Renwick Heights Lighting District 93.56 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 192.53 Clover Lane Lighting District 22.78 Winner's Circle ighting District 70.18 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 77.66 West Haven Road Lighting District 245.44 Coddington Road Lighting District 145.67 U3 2017-10-16 Pg. 27 Trust and Agency 1,648.18 TOTAL 143,165.79 TB Resolution 2017- 127: Bolton Point Abstract Whereas, the following numbered vouchers for the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission have been presented to the governing Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas, the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers. Voucher Numbers: 389-448 Check Numbers: 17319-17378 Capital Impr/Repl Project $225,340.21 Operating Fund $ 69 050.14 TOTAL $294,390.35 Less Prepaid $ 1,704.29 TOTAL $292,686.06 13. Report of Town Officials Mr. Goodman discussed the Study Session agenda which will now include continued discussion on the proposed ADU legislation, Hector Street Bridge proposed by the City and discuss whether to join the resolution asking the State DEC to require Cargill to do a full EIS on the expansion. The Board agreed with those items and Ms. Hunter hoped someone came from the City to explain the project and how they arrived at that and in general to begin working with the Town more when projects impact the Town. Mr. Goodman added that he would like to talk with the City about our plans to think ahead about development on West Hill and how to best manage that. Ms. Hunter added that our own traffic studies have shown that Route 79 will be the most impacted and we don't know if they have considered those. 14. Report of Town Committees/Intermunicipal Organizations—None 15. Review of Correspondence—None Closed Session followed by an Executive Session Motion to enter executive session to discuss the employment history of a particular person and to seek the advice of counsel made by Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Howe, unanimous. (7:43 p.m.) TB 2017-10-16 Pg. 28 Motion to return to open meeting made by Mr. Howe, seconded by Ms. Hunter, unanimous. (8:00 p.m.) 16. Consider Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. upon motion by Ms. Bleiwas, seconded by Mr. Howe, unanimous. Submitte Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk TB 2017-10-16 Pg.29 Attachment#1 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Board, 10/3/17 This letter in reference to the property located at 508 Warren Road in the Town of Ithaca, for which we are requesting a waiver to Local Law No. 5 of the Year 2016, in accordance with section 4 of this law. We are requesting this waiver with a full understanding of the basis of this moratorium, and with sincere intentions to honor the character and integrity of the neighborhood, the rights and well-being of the neighbors, and the laws regarding housing, as established by the Board. The primary reason for our request is financial hardship; and in this letter, we will explain the evolution of our current situation, in hopes that Board members will understand and sympathize with the rationale for this request. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort of the Board on our behalf, as we understand how busy you are and how vital your work is to the health, safety, and well-being of our community. We acquired this property in September, 2016, with the intention of using it as a rental property to help pay for our childrens' educational loans, which total approximately$300,000 of indebtedness and for which we are making monthly payments of approximately$2000. As we are sure members of the Board have likely experienced in their own lives, the situation with educational indebtedness in our country is a very serious issue, and our children simply cannot afford the predatory interest rates and monthly payments associated with their obtaining their respective undergraduate and graduate degrees. When we first looked at this property, we were encouraged by the fact that it is in a family- oriented, good neighborhood, and that it was in very good condition. We also observed that the lower level of the property had two separate entrances, a full bathroom, a kitchen sink with cabinets and spaces for a stove and refrigerator, a finished living room with paneling and linoleum flooring, a built-in entertainment center/shelving unit, and a telephone, and that the house had two separate HVAC units (with separate outdoor compressors) and two separate hot water heaters. In looking at the property, it was clear to us that the lower level had been used as a separate living space. Given our assumption that the lower level would be a good living space with appropriate renovation/updating, we felt that renting this property as a two-unit rental would be a good way for us to help our children (and ourselves) out financially. Prior to purchasing the property, we called the Department of Code Enforcement to verify that this property was appropriately zoned for two units and that it would be legal to rent as a two unit, and we were told that this would be acceptable. We were not notified about Local Law No. 5 of 2016, so we assumed that our intentions to renovate the lower level and rent out the property as a two-unit property were legal and consistent with local housing laws. We then proceeded to purchase the property and to renovate the lower level, after making it clear to our contractors that we wanted any renovations to be consistent with all housing codes. We were advised that for the type of renovation we had planned, we did not need permits, so we proceeded with the renovation, ultimately spending in excess of$75,000 to make it a modern, safe, attractive property. This renovation was a long and drawn-out process, but we were ultimately very happy with the results. We would like the Board to know that when looking for prospective tenants, we were very selective and careful to make sure that the living situation in the house was consistent with that of the neighborhood, as we are very sensitive and sympathetic to the issues that prompted the Board to decide upon a moratorium for two-unit properties in the first place. We have lived in the Ithaca area for 30 years and have gotten to know and love its neighborhoods very well, and it was never our intention to disrespect the character of the Northeast neighborhood in which this property lies by renting to inconsiderate, immature, loud, disruptive, and/or irresponsible tenants. Quite the contrary. We were lucky enough to identify a family of four from Denmark with two young children (elementary school age) in which the mother is pursuing a Master's degree at Cornell University for the upstairs and a young professional couple to occupy the lower level. Parking for these families was ample, the back yard and deck were wonderful for the children, and we completely renovated the outdoor access to the lower level, making it much more visually appealing and safer by installing a very attractive and effective bannister for the stairs, high quality pavers for the walkway, and motion-activated lighting on the stairs and entrance to the lower level. These outdoor improvements cost us an additional $1500. We also contracted with a landscaping company to take care of mowing and trimming the yard, so the appearance of this property has actually been improved since we acquired it. After a smooth transition by the occupants of the two levels of this house, we were shocked to receive a phone call from the upstairs tenants in early May of 2017 informing us that a town inspector had come by and asked about who was living in the lower level of the property. They told us that the inspector had informed them that the lower level was an illegal apartment, and we immediately called Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement in the Town of Ithaca,to speak with him and to explain our understanding of why we proceeded as we had. Mr. Bates was very helpful and thorough, but he was insistent that the lower level was illegal and he told us that we had 30 days to vacate the lower level of the property and that it could not be occupied by tenants. As you can imagine,this was a very difficult situation, as we had to inform the tenants in the lower level of this determination after having recently signed a lease with them. We then had to pay to house them in a hotel until they were able to find an appropriate alternative rental, and then had to pay their moving costs. In total, addressing the relocation of these tenants cost us an additional $2000. Please understand that it was never our intention to do anything illegal or immoral in acquiring this property and renting it as a two unit. We honestly thought that, given the fact that the lower level appeared to have been occupied, that we had contacted the Department of Code Enforcement and had not been told that anything was amiss, and that our contractors did not think that the renovations undertaken warranted a permit, we were undertaking this project in a legal and moral manner. We realize now that this was not the case, but we have already lost a significant amount of money and will continue to do so if the lower level cannot be certified as a legal rental unit. If it is not, we have been informed by Mr. Bates that even if we open the whole house up to rent it as a one unit, we will have to remove either the bathroom or kitchen in the lower level, both of which we have spent a significant amount of money on for recent renovations.This would compound our financial losses significantly. It is important to us that the Board understands that we are in agreement regarding the rationale for reconsideration of housing practices with respect to potential negative effects of neighborhoods that may be caused by irresponsible landlords renting unsafe apartments to inappropriately large numbers of transient tenants that do not respect their neighbors. It is not our intention to negatively impact the wonderful neighborhood in which this property sits. We believe, in fact, that we have not only improved the physical appearance of the property by the renovations and continued maintenance that we have undertaken, but also that we have strived to be consistent with the demographics of those that live in the neighborhood by actively seeking out tenants that are responsible, considerate, and that make positive contributions to the neighborhood and it residents. We are not absentee landlords, and have, in fact, had the opportunity to interact positively with one of the neighbors, who raised concerns regarding the line along which the landscaping maintenance company that we have hired was mowing the front and back lawns. We resolved this issue quite amicably, gave this neighbor our contact information, and asked that he contact us if he had any concerns about the property or its tenants. We even offered to work with him on the removal of a tree in the backyard of our property that he has wanted to remove for quite a long time, but could not convince the previous owners to remove. We have every desire to maintain the character of this great neighborhood, and have actively worked toward doing so. In closing, we respectfully request that we allowed to rent the upper and lower levels of this property as two separate units, as an inability to do this would impose undue financial hardship on our family. We pledge that if we are allowed to do so, we will manage this rental in a manner that not only maintains the character of the great neighborhood in which it is located, but enhances it. We would be happy to provide any documentation that the Board deems necessary to review, and we sincerely thank its members in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michelle and Bruce Kornreich Attachment #2 From: Martha Armstrona To: Paulette Rosa Cc: &II Goodman Subject: oppose duplex law Date: Saturday,October 21,2017 12:05:23 PM As the owner of a two family home that I live in, in the Town of Ithaca, I write in opposition to the proposed law issued by the Town Board of Ithaca that would require all new two-family buildings and accessory dwelling units (ADU) to be owner-occupied (either in the ADU or the primary unit), and to mandate that all properties in the town with an ADU have a rental Operating Permit. This appears to be targeted at an issue that could be dealt with in other ways i.e. that property owners on South Hill are putting up duplexes to house Ithaca College students. That seems like there needs to be conversations with IC about providing more housing for their growing student population. And perhaps IC can take more responsibility for monitoring the behaviors of their students who do live off campus and developing student life activities that foster a culture of neighborliness. There is a shortage of housing in the Ithaca area, so adding more duplexes seems like a good idea to me. I see building up the density in the urbanized area as a good thing. I think there could be a few more duplexes built as infill in my neighborhood. As an owner of a home with an ADU, I agree with several concerns raised by the Ithaca realtors Association (with my comments added): Requiring all properties with an ADU to obtain a rental Operating Permit when it is not being used as a rental is over-burdensome and seems to conflict with the original intent of the Town's current zoning laws. The Town of Ithaca Planning committee concluded that Local Law No.5 of 2016 was to "accommodate owner-occupants who wished to provide a private living space for family members." REALTORS have concerns that owners with an ADU will be fined by Town code enforcement officers when the unit is NOT being used as a rental. For example, under the town's current proposal a property owner that had an elderly parent reside in an ADU on their property would be required to apply for an Operating Permit from the town. In our case it could be our young-adult child living in the apartment. —The proposal infringes upon the property rights of all owners of property with an ADU and future property owners by limiting their ability to use their private property. In our neighborhood there is a duplex that is strictly rental and having the families,and occasional students,that live there enriches the diversity of our neighborly community. —We believe that the proposed owner occupancy requirement for the property owner to reside in the primary unit or ADU will curb future investments in affordable housing in the town.Also related: What if we wish to travel extesively,or spend an extended period living near grand-children,or who knows what(that's our business, not the Town's) and wish to rent out our main house as well as the apartment? ADUs are a great way to increase housing density, housing diversity, housing opportunities, walkable neighborhoods, and affordability in the Town. Inspecting duplexes for fire safety is fine, but the proposed regulations are onerous and over-reaching. I do not support this law. I encourage the Town to work with IC on the student-driven neighborhood issues as the City and Town have worked with Cornell. Don't develop a new regulation that will have many negative consequences. Martha Armstrong ------------------------------- Martha Armstrong 120 Homestead Circle Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)592-0695 "Now,more than at any time in our history,our species needs to work together."—Stephen Hawking From: Richard Ballantyne To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Re: FW: Residential Rental Operating Permit Program Date: Wednesday,October 18,2017 9:17:29 AM Good Morning Paulette, Thank you for explaining that the Town extensively reviewed the Ithaca Townhomes project and also held public hearings before approving it. This comes as a big relief to me. I supposed I should have not rushed to judgment so quickly. Perhaps if I regularly attended Town meetings, then I would have known what had gone on previously. I agree with you -- it is great that the Town held public hearings and that the community voiced their opinion on the proposed Residential Rental Permit Program. I recognize that the Town is trying to address some specific problem, but we still don't know which people in the community are supporting this, how many people actually support this, and why they support it. Is it just a few (always) angry folks who don't like that their neighbors have 3 cars parked in their driveway instead of 1 or 2? Or maybe its that they have 3 cans of trash on the street on Tuesday morning instead of 2? People like that will always find something to be angry about. It is pointless to appease them, especially if it means passing new laws that violate everyone else's property and privacy rights. The people who stand to gain if this law passes are: Code Enforcement Officers and their friends Builders/Plumbers/Electricians Neighboring Towns that do not have Residential Rental Permitting. I really don't think that in the long run that the Town government will actually benefit. Although they may collect some revenue from the fines, they will collect much less from property taxes. This law incentivizes people to sell their homes. Also, home buyers who value privacy, property rights, and principle will refuse to buy in the Town of Ithaca. That will increase the supply of houses on the market and depress home prices and therefore property tax revenues. Also, the Town will have to pay to keep landlords imprisoned in the 60 or so cells that are available in the County Jail. I hope the Board Realizes that there are some landlords who may publicly refuse to obey this law out of contempt and also to raise national awareness. Also, the Town may have to divert more resources to defend itself from lawsuits that seek to challenge this laws constitutionality. If the Town loses in court, then the City's existing permitting laws would be put into jeopardy. Remember, the people who really stand to lose the most are tenants who just want an affordable place to live. The Town should honor the spirit/intent of the U.S. Constitution -- 4th Amendment Right to Privacy, 3rd Amendment(keeping government officials out of people homes unless they have a warrant). Sometimes the right thing to do is to just toss really onerous legislation into the waste bin, and to just respond to the few people who complain "its legal". How often does the Town do that? Thanks, Richard On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Paulette Rosa<PRosaUtown.ithaca.ny.us>wrote: Good Afternoon Mr. Ballantyne, I have forwarded your comments to the full board and management team. As Town Clerk, I do have to respond to the "rubber stamping" statement and clear that up. The Ithaca Townhomes project has gone through multiple meetings and public hearings through the Planning Board process as well as discussions by the town board regarding the PILOT agreement at the committee level and then by the full board on at least three occasions. This was not a rubber stamp, but a very discussed and vetted action item by the board. For most action items, the Town Board has discussed the action or topic at the management level, followed by at least one committee level consisting of 3 board members, followed by a study session which focusses on committee reports and items going through approval processes and finally, what you saw last night, the actual vote on an action. So in no way was that a "rubber stamp' approval. The other I think you were referring to was the waiver which also was discussed at committee level and study session before going to the regular meeting for action. If you have any questions, I would be happy to talk to you. You can also look on our website at the Town Board meeting minutes as well as the Planning Board minutes for the reviews and discussions of this project. It was great to see community involvement last night and I know the board appreciated hearing all of the comments. We did receive some emails in support of the legislation, which will be posted as an attachment to the meeting at the end of September. Sincerely, Paulette Rosa Town Clerk From: Richard Ballantyne [mailto:richardballantvneCaibamail.com] Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:14 AM To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Residential Rental Operating Permit Program Hi Paulette, Here is the text of the speech I gave last night at the public hearing,plus some new suggestions for improvement. Please forward this to the rest of the Town board. I think it was interesting that not a single disgruntled tenant came to the public hearing to voice their support the Residential Rental Operating Permit Program! Not a single tenant came to complain about the lack of"basic health and safety standards" in Town of Ithaca residential rentals. I really would like to know who exactly is supporting this intrusive onerous law and why! I also would like some substantive justification backed up by specific evidence (documented cases that could be reviewed by the public) for this proposed law. It would helpful to see quantitative metrics that accurately characterize the severity (or lack thereof) of the problem that this legislation is attempting to fix. It was very troubling to see how willing the Town Board was to reduce people's private property rights and violate their right to privacy. It was if they had no respect or understanding for the principles upon which this country was founded. It is for this reason that I am seriously considering running for a position on the town board. If elected, I would refuse any compensation from the Town and return it to their coffers. My only motivation for running would be to increase freedom, repeal government imposed red tape, and to reduce taxes. I was also shocked last night to see how just quickly the Town Board rubber stamped the fust two proposals (one was a development project for—60+units of affordable housing) that were considered before the main event last night. Is that the Town's standard operating procedure? If no one complains,then just rubber stamp it?! Personally I thought that approach was just outrageous. Finally, if this Residential Rental Operating Permit Program actually passes, then I want you to send me a list of each person who voted in favor of it. That way we can organize better to have them each voted out of office. Suggestions for improvement: • Add exemptions for AirBnB and other rentals with short lease durations (such as month-to-month leases). • Make the Residential Rental Operating Permit Program voluntary, not compulsory. If you make it voluntary,then the landlords who do get their Permits can brag about it when they advertise their properties for rent. If tenants in the area really do want a government stamp of approval,then they can simply choose to rent government approved housing. If they don't care,then they're free to rent whatever space meets their requirements. My suspicion is that the#1 thing tenants care about is price,and the one thing that this law is guaranteed to do is make rental prices go up! Thanks, Richard SPEECH: Good evening. I am a lifelong resident of Ithaca and Cornell Engineering Graduate. I have years of experience both as a tenant and a landlord in both the City and Town of Ithaca. I am very opposed to all the proposed legislation, especially the Residential Rental Operating Permit Program. This very intrusive and disruptive law has far reaching negative unintended consequences for both tenants and landlords. Once passed it will create a shortage of compliant housing in the area. That shortage will further increase rents. Rents are already high due to high property taxes. In fact, one of the main reasons why homeowners want to live multi-family dwellings, or to add an Accessory Dwelling Units, is to supplement their income to pay the very high property taxes that this law will force to go even higher! Hiring new Code Enforcement Officers is not cheap. The competitive free market in Ithaca is more than sufficient to ensure that tenants are able to find housing that meets their requirements. Additional government intervention is unnecessary. If tenants are unhappy with their living situation then they are free to let their lease expire and move out. Then they complain about their experience at ratemvlandlord.com for the world to see. That will ensure that no future tenant in his right mind will ever do business with that landlord again, and the landlord will be forced by the free market to get his/her act together. Tenants can also choose to live within City of Ithaca limits if they want a government stamp of approval on their apartment. Landlords in the Town of Ithaca already have sufficient incentives to "meet basic health and safety standards" for their properties. These incentives include: competition from other landlords maintaining a good reputation in an online world where bad deeds get published for the world to see and never get deleted. the hassle of finding new tenants lawsuits from tenants One of the stated reasons for this proposed legislation was overcrowding. If overcrowding really is a pervasive problem in the Town of Ithaca, then it is happening due to an acute shortage of affordable housing. This legislation will only exasperate that shortage since the number of tenants who will suddenly be forced to find new 'compliant' housing will skyrocket. This too will cause the rent prices to get bid up even more. Thus if the purpose of this law is to increase the availability of housing and make rent more affordable, it will have achieved exactly the opposite. This law also criminalizes landlording. I live in an owner occupied duplex. If I understand the new proposed law correctly, if I were to allow my Residential Rental Operating Permit to lapse for 1 year—even if my basement apartment is unoccupied during that time —then I will face 52 violations due to this new law—one for each week-- with each violation carrying a penalty of$1000 plus one to six months of imprisonment. So I would have to pay $52000 and spend 26 years in prison. How stupid is that?! This proposed law is anti-freedom and anti-American. Stop trying to penalize people who provide affordable housing in Ithaca, and who are doing whatever they can to pay ridiculously high property taxes. I urge you to quickly toss this proposed legislation into the wastebin and instead focus your energies on ways to reduce the cost of housing in Ithaca. From: Bruce Brittain To: &II Goodman; PLearvGDntact;THunterODntact; PBleiwas; R Howe; RDeoaoloODntact; Eric Levine Cc: Susan Ritter; Bruce Bates; Paulette Rosa Subject: Operating Permits Date: Tuesday,October 17,2017 3:04:34 PM Hi All-- I'm sorry I had to leave early last night. As you know,I had expected to comment on ADUs. But after hearing the comments made at the meeting,and after lying awake last night thinking,I would now like to also comment on Operating Permits. I can understand why some law-abiding private citizens might object to having the Town come into their homes. But the speakers last night were not private citizens. They were landlords,running a business --renting out houses and apartments. I don't think I'd like to have the TC Health Department come snooping around in my kitchen. But if I were preparing food for sale,I would expect it. And if I were consuming that food,I would demand it. When I was a graduate student,looking for housing in the Town of Ithaca,I visited*many* substandard apartments. Some even seemed to be dangerously unsafe. Having periodic inspections and Operating Permits for rental properties is not only a great idea,I think it is long overdue. Thank you for your continued(and sometimes under-appreciated)efforts. --Bruce DATE: October 15,2017 TO: Town of Ithaca Board CC: Susan Ritter,Bruce Bates FROM:Bruce Brittain RE:Proposed Legislation Concerning Accessory Dwelling Units I have now had a chance to study the proposed legislation(dated 10/05/17)concerning accessory dwelling units. Overall,the draft appears to be very well thought through. However,I do think that the legislation could be improved by adding a sunset clause to the waiver for owner- occupancy requirements (270-219.6 Accessory dwelling units./B.Requirements applicable to all accessory dwelling units./(3)Owner occupancy./(a)There is no owner occupancy requirement for properties in the High Density Residential Zone,or for properties that contain accessory dwelling units that exist as of the effective date of this Section 219.6.) As it is currently worded,properties that contain existing ADUs(outside of High Density Residential Zones)are permanently exempt from the owner-occupancy requirement. Why not include a clause stating that this exemption expires in 50 years,or if the property becomes owner-occupied,whichever comes first? This change would ensure that existing rental units in traditional single-family residential neighborhoods would eventually revert to being owner-occupied,thus helping to achieve the stated purpose and intent"to protect and preserve property values while preserving the character and quality of life in the Town of Ithaca's residential neighborhoods." I also noted some minor formatting issues,and in two instances the word"in" appears to be missing from the phrase "located any yard." Thank you very much. From: fabbroni(cbaol.com To: Paulette Rosa; &II Goodman Subject: Moratorium and Zoning changes Date: Monday,October 16,2017 8:30:36 AM Attachments: Comments on Pr000sed Zonina Chances 10-15-17.odf Bill, These are my written comments for the Board's consideration and I expect to make some summary and additional comments tonight on the proposed zoning changes. In general I think you are the only person who really reached out to some of the major players in the rental world.Accordingly the results of 18 months of hard internal discussion are somewhat disappointing and I think if the Town Board moves forward "as is"there will just be more confusion and work and turmoil for the enforcement agencies and departments and legal counsel to attend to. I have spoken many times to the unique opportunity you have in time to work with many of the multigenerational landlord families BEFORE the businesses they have built are scattered over their succeeding generation. Most of the operational heads are 69 years of age and older.Again you have been the only one to try to develop a dialogue. Down the line they are skeptical of any improvements forthcoming without that dialogue as they have been down the path of the Town acting in a vacuum too many times in their lifetime. I think this will ironically put a great disincentive on building affordable housing in the Town of Ithaca for families that cannot afford to buy a home,families who do not want to own a home because of their MASTER'S OR PHD stay in Ithaca,families who just want to rent after downsizing,families trying to build up the down payment to finally own a home themselves and developers who have to deal with the ups and downs of the economy by often renting before being able to sell a home. Best, Larry Fabbroni t� To: Town Board,Town of Ithaca ( //;; -yIy`��\(Jq From: Lawrence P. Fabbroni,P.E.,LS. rvat--OMAn'�� I - N ' � Re: Proposed Local Law Adding a Residential Rental Units Chapter Date: October 15,2017 1 have read your objectives in proposing new regulations as referenced above and feel you are not going to achieve your stated objectives but rather will institute a labyrinth of regulations that will actually create additional problems and demands for enforcement and legal staff. 1. The notable objective of allowing ADUs as a separate structure even with one dwelling occupied by an owner for various demographics the elderly,a relative, or the needy opens a Pandora box of nuisance problems(noise,fire access,invasion of neighbors private space,etc.)that do not exist now and addresses a concept for which there has been no compelling demand. 2. The principal problem of Cornell and Ithaca College overcharging for their room and board is not addressed by further regulating the alternative housing opportunities being offered in the town of Ithaca principally by local residents or multigenerational Ithaca families living in the neighborhoods they have created and fully invested in the local economy. 3. The elimination of the 50%rule and the full basement options for an ADU is a positive step.The substitution df a 800sf maximum is unnecessary and counterproductive for the ADUs within one structure.The two rental units in highest demand in the current market for a single person or couple are a small one bedroom or a two bedroom. Many prefer a two bedroom to use the added space for a home office,visitors,storage,etc. I have recently designed eight two family homes in the High Density Zones and the ADU limited to 800sf is not possible unless it is totally on the first floor without stairways and hallways.This will only lead to a larger primary unit footprint or a convoluted layout of the primary unit over the ADU. 4. Forever,we have been waiting for the Town of Ithaca to allow side by side duplexes. Limiting the ADU within one two unit structure to 1150sf would be much more reasonable.Why the Town does not allow side by side units when essentially you have a whole neighborhood bordered by Honness Lane, Pine Tree Road, and Slaterville Road with popular side by side zero lot line units is a mystery.Your 800sf will make such past successes require unnecessary gaming of the system with clustering or special approvals.The best example of what you are outlawing is a repeat of the Briarwood I two family model that has served rental families for the past 25 years I am guessing with little to no regulatory demands.These units have reasonable rents for families many of whom cannot or do not want to own a home because of their financial state or temporary educational stay in Ithaca. If you want to see a real interactive neighborhood go up on a sunny day and watch the kids playing outside after school. 5. If you want to reduce the pressure of rental housing in traditional single family neighborhoods like Juniper Drive or Northview or Salem-Simsbury-Winthrop-Blackstone-Burleigh-Lexington then rezone those areas to single family PERIOD!H So then the existing ADUs would be non-conforming and additions would be subject to a Use Variance requiring proof of hardship. 6. Allowing side by side duplexes in the High Density zones with a family plus border allowed in each unit will match the City of Ithaca regulations and concentrate the off campus rentals out of the medium density more traditional family neighborhoods. 7. The Rental registry need in a town with fairly new housing that was built under more modern building code safety and energy standards is questionable.The cities you mention using this mechanism have many examples of huge old homes cut up into multiple bedrooms necessitating the constant monitoring by those municipalities of life safety issues. Beyond that I see an unending enforcement action and staff load brought about by gaming of the system that is inevitable and with little need or improved outcome. 8. When all is said and done you seem on the critical edge of violating Fair Housing requirements. In closing it is well known that I have many resident developer clients who have built and successfully kept up and policed their Town properties some over 68 years without the surveillance need for the added regulations you are proposing. But to be clear the above thoughts are my own care and involvement with the Town since serving as Town Engineer/Planner/Building Inspector 1974-1986. Town of Ithaca Public Hearing Draft Legislation Chapter 270 Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units Draft Legislation Chapter 125 Regarding Operating Permits for Residential Units October 16, 2017; 5:30pm Brent Katzmann 1335 Mecklenburg Road Ithaca NY bkatzmal@twcny.rr.com I'd like to acknowledge what I believe to be at least some of the intent of the Town in preparing this proposed legislation,and that is: 1.to meet the housing needs of persons of low and moderate income,and of relatives of families residing in the Town,and 2.to allow for efficient use of housing stock in economic support of families residing in the Town. I find these to be interesting objectives given the genesis of the moratorium that led to this legislation, namely concerns about the creation of student housing near the Ithaca College and Cornell campuses. On the surface, it does appear that there are some proposed provisions that provide added flexibility over current zoning when it comes to the creation of new accessory dwelling units, namely, permitting them to be detached from the primary residence and coincident with other accessory uses. For home owners seeking to generate income to help cover the growing expense of home ownership in the Town of Ithaca,this indeed may be a step in the right direction. However, I believe the legislation as proposed actually does more to create uncertainty, unnecessary burdens and overreach and thereby may well discourage any such development from actually taking place. I've organized my comments under broad areas of concern. Housing Needs-Size Restrictions Many of us in this room have been participants,or at the least interested followers, of the on-going county housing needs studies and proposals, most recently reinforced by the findings of the Tompkins County Housing Needs Assessment published last fall.There is a clearly demonstrated need to begin creating housing stock, both for owner occupancy as well as rental housing, particularly in the areas of moderately priced for sale housing($250K and below)and rental units that capitalize on existing infrastructure, including transportation,for the current workforce who are in-commuting on our limited highway system. Perhaps this particular legislation isn't designed to begin addressing these concerns, but perhaps even worse, it misses an opportunity to do much more than simply house home health care providers, in-laws or, ironically, singles and students, given the size restrictions of"up to 800 square feet" and owner-occupancy requirements proposed. I am a big proponent of small, right-sized residential design and work with designers and builders who are, indeed working to bring smaller homes to market at a reasonable price. Smaller homes require fewer resources,are quicker to build,take less energy to operate and can cost less. One builder in particular is offering homes from 1-3 bedrooms and 600 to 1400 square feet. But we have yet to come up with workable solutions for young families or others that provide 2 or more bedrooms and remain under 800 sqft. Housing Needs-Ownership Restrictions There is little here that I am able to support. Again, I understand the near-term goal, but there are real concerns here. 1. It requires any developer, or property ownerfor that matter,to go through a complete re-zoning process to create either Multiple Residence or Planned Development Units for any proposal that might include equally sized side-by-side duplexes or Townhomes, let alone anythree-family orfour-family proposals.This opportunity does not exist by right and it seems to me that creating opportunities for a greater variety of housing solutions and serving a more economically diverse residential base is worth pursuing. Between multiple variance/zoning applications, design processes, permitting requirements, engineering requirements and infrastructure requirements and soon the "reasonably priced" residential construction is now cost prohibitive unless the scale of the development grows to distribute start-up costs across many more units. As proposed,other than in high density residential zones,only owner occupants with enough additional capital to afford new construction of an accessory dwelling unit will be in a position to contribute to our Town's need for expanded housing. 2. Property owner rights—if a Town property owner lives in their home and has a separate accessory dwelling unit, and rents it out as allowed in the proposed regulations,and then finds that they have a need to re-locate for a job,or other need,will they be required to sell the house to another owner occupied buyer in order to preserve the two-family status? If so,what if they want to keep the house in case they decide to return,or want to transfer it to their children at some future date,they can now only rent one or the other unit,correct? Is this the message we want to send to our property owners? Imagine the impact this may have on both property values and ability to market once the time does come to sell. Homeowners will have a reduced buyer pool, and perhaps worse,will lose the two family status placing new burdens on the homeowner. 3.Operating Permits—On the surface, I appreciate the goal here. And yes,we have come to accept Certificates of Compliance as part of doing business in the City of Ithaca. And yes, it is important that tenants can expect to find safe, healthy housing available in the Town of Ithaca. But what if the accessory or primary dwelling is not rented or occupied, or is occupied by family or care givers but not leased?What purpose does an Operation Certificate provide? Brokers Responsibility-- Real Estate Brokers have a duty to disclose known material defects in a property at time of listing.They do not have the duty to discover latent defects. It's unclear why it would be prohibited for Brokers to list a property with an accessory dwelling unit that does not have a current Operating Permit if, in fact,the permit has expired,or the house has not been fully occupied and rented. It would seem that more appropriate action might be to disclose the presence,or absence, of a valid Operating Permit and allow the property owner and interested buyer(s)to negotiate the impact this might have on value or to agree to steps to rectify this issue. Requiring an active Operating Permit at time of listing or transfer, especially for vacant units, seems unnecessary. Requiring it for subsequent use as a leased accessory dwelling unit may be more appropriate. Zoning proposal—architectural standards Section 3. Chapter 270, Article V (Conservation Zone),Subsection K proposes the introduction of a detached accessory dwelling, however, Section 5 of the same article restricts the building to one story and 20' in height and yet goes on in Section 6 to suggest that accessory buildings can include both garages and accessory dwelling units in the same structure (presumably in a Carriage house style arrangement).Taken with Section 30, Chapter 270, Article XXVI (Special regulations)wherein a minimum 4:12 roof pitch is required,there now exists a maximum building width of 24' and maximum wall height of 8' each for garage and ADU in order to not exceed building height. To what purpose do these design restrictions serve?What specifically are the concerns with low slope or flat roof systems? If a property owner wanted to employ an 8:12 pitch,their garage/carriage house would have to be 6' wide. These same concerns apply to all Zones since the language is used consistently throughout the proposal. Section 30 further states under Subsection C.2 that the street facing fayade of a detached accessory building must have 20%glazing. Hmmm. Building energy models, including ResNet, seem to discourage any one side of a structure having glazing of this magnitude to prevent excessive energy use,although if this glazing is oriented to permit passive solar gain,then it can,and in most cases should, be offset on other sides with reduced areas of glazing. 20%facing the street seems arbitrary and clearly is simply an architectural aesthetic bias imposed in zoning legislation. Is it the intent of the Town to begin introducing such standards,and if so, is this the best way to begin? I argue it is not. I encourage the Town to continue to explore and address these important needs and issues, but believe that, as proposed,there is much opportunity for clarity,open-mindedness, and the creation of a zoning ordinance that supports many more of our needs as a Town and broader community to foster improved access to housing options while directly addressing the original concerns that instigated this effort. Respectfully, Brent Katzmann From: Bryn E. Kehrli To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Proposed legislation#1 Date: Wednesday,October 18,2017 12:00:45 PM Attachments: imaae002.ona imaae004.ona To: Paulette Rosa, Ithaca Town Clerk Re: proposed legislation #1 Accessory dwelling units-owner occupancy requirements I was unable to attend your September 16 public hearing on the above legislative action. My wife Susan and I have owned our home since 1991. We purchased the home with the understanding that it had a legal apartment. However, we subsequently learned that the certificate of occupancy had lapsed. So, we worked with the zoning officer and a general contractor to upgrade the apartment consistent with current zoning codes. This cost us thousands of dollars. Since then we have regularly I've dated the apartment. Our assessment and real estate taxes may also take into consideration this apartment. We understand the concern regarding safety of some apartments in our town and area. However, we have fulfilled our obligation under the code and we have maintained our apartment in good condition. Our real estate taxes have more than doubled in the 25 years that we have lived in our home. We are concerned by yet another fee and regulatory requirement. We are retired senior citizens and count on the apartment to provide income so that we may remain in our home. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can offer any additional input. Bryn Kehrli 130 Simsbury Dr. Ithaca, NY 14850 Sent to all Board Members by 11 people Town of Ithaca Board As a Property Owner in the Town of Ithaca, I write in opposition to the proposed law issued by the Town Board of Ithaca that would require all new two-family buildings and accessory dwelling units (ADU)to be owner-occupied (either in the ADU or the primary unit), and to mandate that all properties in the town with an ADU have a rental Operating Permit. I have several concerns with the proposals: Requiring all properties with an ADU to obtain a rental Operating Permit when it is not being used as a rental is over-burdensome and seems to conflict with the original intent of the Town's current zoning laws. The Town of Ithaca Planning committee concluded that Local Law No.S of 2016 was to "accommodate owner-occupants who wished to provide a private living space for family members." I have concerns that owners with an ADU will be fined by Town code enforcement officers when the unit is NOT being used as a rental. For example,under the town's current proposal a property owner that had an elderly parent reside in an ADU on their property would be required to apply for an Operating Permit from the town. —The proposal infringes upon the property rights of all owners of property with an ADU and future property owners by limiting their ability to use their private property. While the abuse of ADU's are an issue in certain parts of our town, proposing a town- wide ordinance is over reaching in its scope. —I believe that the proposed owner occupancy requirement for the property owner to reside in the primary unit or ADU will curb future investments in affordable housing in the town. I recognize and understand the Town Board's concerns surrounding rental properties and their upkeep. However, we believe the board's proposals are over-burdensome and will be detrimental to the local housing market while curbing affordable housing opportunities for many residents in the town. We believe that the employment of more code officers and the enforcement of current code requirements is a more prudent way to effectuate the Town Board's goals regarding absentee landlords. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you deliberate the merits of these local laws. Thank you for your consideration, From: Paulette Rosa To: Bill Goodman-TB;brock(ibclaritvconnect.com; Eric Levine Eso. -TB; Pamela Bleiwas; "Pat Leary"; Ride DePaolO; 'Rod Howe(dh13(a oomell.edu)";Tee-Ann Hunter Cc: Susan Ritter; Bruce Bates Subject: Comments on draft legislation Date: Tuesday,September 26,2017 11:21:00 AM Good Morning, I am commenting as a resident and homeowner who recently turned my basement into a legal apartment for my son and future rental so it is all pretty fresh in my mind. After last night' discussion, I have three comments or questions: 1. 1 don't think a kitchen can or should be defined as a microwave and mini-fridge. Many people have rec rooms or their kids bedrooms/space downstairs where they have a microwave and mini-fridge for incidental use and even a wetbar if you have a nice rec room. That is not a kitchen. Yes, some students may exist on Ramen and Mac and Cheese, but 98% of people do not. To me, a kitchen is a 4-burner stove and a sink over 18" big. I absolutely agree that it shouldn't matter whether the apartment is rented or simply being used by family, the residence is now a 2-family valued as a 2-family and it is the owner's choice whether to utilize that space for income or not. Simply by not generating income does not negate the fact that it is there and has increased the value of the home. An affidavit is not worth the paper it is written on. 2. My basement was beautiful; high ceilings nicely painted etc. When I applied for my permit, we found the ceiling was 1/8" of an inch thinner than required now for fire separation. I understand they didn't have to do it when building it because it wasn't an apartment with a cooking stove and therefore fire hazard, but I do think 6 months might not be long enough to secure funding and a contractor to do the work. As written, does that mean if I had renters there and something like that was discovered, that is not a clear and present danger to the tenants, they would have to move? I think a person needs time to get funds and contractors. Where is that line drawn? Dangerous or not? I am not saying that someone using a closet as a bedroom with no egress should be allowed to continue, but somethings that may have to be "brought" up to code but is not an imminent threat. Is there a mechanism for that? I think it is going to be a lot of that found. 3. 1 hear board members routinely say"they can get a variance' and since I attend all ZBA meetings, let me tell you that this ZBA takes the Code extremely literally and strict to the letter. So "getting a variance' is not easy even when I bet all of you would have said, yes, that is reasonable and should have a variance. I will again use my place as an example. I have said in the past that in 20 years or so, I would like to put a small house at the end of my 300 foot driveway when I can no longer handle the stairs etc. That will not be allowed now due to the tethering requirement in CZ even though it would not change the character of my lot or neighborhood, and if I went for a variance, I am almost positive I would be denied because the ZBA would say, "the Board obviously didn't want this to happen or they wouldn't have written the law prohibiting it, and she can move if she wants, there is an alternative to building her elder cottage or ADU." I honestly don't know how to get around that, and maybe in my particular case it shouldn't be gotten around, but saying "they can get a variance" is not a given by a long shot. Thank you for your time, and I really am in favor of the legislation because I see the "bad" rentals that need this oversight, and people not paying their fair share in property taxes when they are increasing the value by having an ADU, but these are things that popped in my head as I listen at these meetings. Paulette Rosa 300 Culver Rd Sent to all board members by 14 people Dear Town Clerk Rosa, As a REALTOR working or living in the Town of Ithaca, I write in opposition to the proposed law issued by the Town Board of Ithaca that would require all newtwo-family buildings and accessory dwelling units (ADU)to be owner-occupied (either in the ADU or the primary unit), and to mandate that all properties in the town with an ADU have a rental Operating Permit. We have several concerns with the proposals: Requiring all properties with an ADU to obtain a rental Operating Permit when it is not being used as a rental is over-burdensome and seems to conflict with the original intent of the Town's current zoning laws. The Town of Ithaca Planning committee concluded that Local Law No.S of 2016 was to "accommodate owner-occupants who wished to provide a private living space for family members." REALTORS have concerns that owners with an ADU will be fined by Town code enforcement officers when the unit is NOT being used as a rental. For example, under the town's current proposal a property owner that had an elderly parent reside in an ADU on their property would be required to apply for an Operating Permit from the town. "The proposal infringes upon the property rights of all owners of property with an ADU and future property owners by limiting their ability to use their private property. While the abuse of ADU's are an issue in certain parts of our town, proposing a town-wide ordinance is over reaching in its scope. —We believe that the proposed owner occupancy requirement for the property owner to reside in the primary unit or ADU will curb future investments in affordable housing in the town. Another proposal would create new requirements for real estate licensees to verify the existence of a valid operating permit for rental dwellings. REALTORS and all other real estate licensees per their state license are required to adhere to state and local real estate laws and regulations. To that end, it is critical that any rental registry the Town Board creates per this regulation is readily accessible and transparent to allow real estate professionals to carry out their work in a lawful manner. REALTORS recognize and understand the Town Board's concerns surrounding rental properties and their upkeep. However, we believe the board's proposals are over-burdensome and will be detrimental to the local housing market while curbing affordable housing opportunities for many residents in the town. We believe that the employment of more code officers and the enforcement of current code requirements is a more prudent way to effectuate the Town Board's goals regarding absentee landlords. I hope that you will consider these concerns as you deliberate the merits of these local laws. Thank you for your consideration, From: Rob Rosen To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Re:Town of Ithaca draft legislation implementing an Operating Permit Program for rentals Date: Monday,October 16,2017 10:31:30 AM To the Ithaca Town Board, PRosaUtown.ithaca.ny.us I am writing about the drafts of the proposed laws for Operating Permits. The proposed laws would create an unfair and onerous burden for property owners, with no benefit to the public. Categorically attacking citizens who own property, almost all of whom are law-abiding neighbors and taxpayers, is not the right way to go about it. There is no need for this massive inconvenience to the vast majority of property owners. There are a few problem properties that can be cited for violations under existing laws. Any complaint against a property for violating occupancy and maintenance laws can be investigated and prosecuted under the existing laws. The way it is currently written,the proposed law puts tremendous pressure on owners to obtain a certificate from the Town in a rigid timeframe, when the process is for all intents and purposes beyond the control of the applicant. The Town code enforcement personnel control the schedule of inspections, re-inspections, and issuing certificates, so it is expected that the Town should be responsible for responding in a timely manner. But,the codes are complicated, Town personnel are busy and over-scheduled, and interpretations of what is a violation vary from one property to another. As a long-time resident of the Town of Ithaca, I have known many friends and neighbors who have had long and complex dealings with code enforcement,which could not be concluded in any specified timeframe, because there were arguments over interpretation, schedules were busy, etc. The idea of requiring inspections of all rentals, including single family homes, duplexes, and accessory apartments, has a high likelihood of uneven enforcement. Will the Town require inspections for all Airbnb hosts?All people who rent a room?All lake house rentals? The burden will fall on citizens who are already law abiding and who will comply with the bureaucracy and inconvenience. People who don't bother to register their rental activity will rely on complaints for enforcement, which is exactly how the system works now,without the proposed new law. There is no evidence that the public is being harmed by housing that is somehow unsafe under the current law. The only justification offered for this new law is to crack down on nuisance properties. This would not be done any more effectively under the proposed registration system than under the existing complaint-driven system, at a massive increase in cost, inconvenience, and regulatory burden on our community. The proposed penalties of jail sentences for property owners who do not obtain an Operating Permit within the required timeframe are harmful and irrational for a number of reasons. First, if the purpose of the law is for owners to bring properties up to code, then imprisoning the owner makes it impossible for him or her do the work necessary to repair the property. The law would have already ordered the property to be vacated, so any chance of harm from unsafe conditions would have already been mitigated, and the owner would have already been deprived of the rental income. If the purpose is to ensure that the property is maintained, and more severe penalties are desired, then higher fines for repeat offenses, or seizing the property and selling it, or prohibiting the owner from owning in the future, are more logical than imprisoning the property owner. Jails, including the Tompkins County jail, are already overcrowded, and there is a consensus that they do not serve a rehabilitative purpose and should be reserved for violent criminals as a way to protect public safety. Incarceration is extremely expensive, and would cost the taxpayers money, as opposed to financial penalties or even seizing the property,which would be more logical,more humane, and financially better for the public. Respectfully, Rob Rosen Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals robrosen78 44gmail.com On Fri, Sep 8,2017 at 5:35 PM, Paulette Rosa<PRosaUtown.ithaca.ny.us>wrote: Good Afternoon, The Town is interested in feedback from its residents regarding draft legislation developed during its moratorium on new 2-family dwelling and the addition of a second dwelling unit to existing dwellings in certain areas of the town. In an attempt to reach the most residents/property owners in the Town of Ithaca. this notice has gone out to any and all distribution lists the Town holds. Thank you in advance and feel free to forward to any groups or people ,you feel might be interested. Paulette Rosa Town Clerk From: Gail M. Sullivan To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Concern With Proposed Law Changes Affecting Rental Property Date: Thursday,October 19,2017 3:49:43 PM I am writing to voice my objection to proposed changes to the Town of Ithaca laws for rental properties. We live in a community that already has a shortage of affordable housing. Adding the necessary code enforcement officers would only increase taxes. The extra expense landlords would incur due to the inspections would only serve to increase rents and further limit the number of people willing to be landlords and the number of apartments available. We took on rental property projects to help us add income to our family and offset the expense of living in this area. We have purchased homes that are the most rundown in the neighborhood and transform them into lovely homes. This is a lot of work on our part- not easy money. The neighbors always appreciate what we have done to improve their neighborhood. All our current tenants are local professionals or graduate students. They are responsible tenants and we have never had anyone in the neighborhood complain about their behavior. We also know that in order to get good tenants, we have to be responsible landlords and maintain a good reputation as such. I am certain there are problems with some apartments but those are few and far between when you look at all the properties being rented in this area. If you are looking to address this problem, this proposed regulation is similar to using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. I have concerns about privacy issues (for both owners and tenants) with this new proposed regulation as well. If there are concerns with the safety of rental apartments,we already have laws that should be used to force compliance with safety codes. What has been the benefit of the moratorium? This has gone on long enough. Please rethink this ill-advised proposed regulation. There is no benefit to enacting more bureaucracy. We need to find creative ways to encourage more rental unit development to help with the lack of affordable housing in our community. Gail M Sullivan From: Daniel Sullivan To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Concern With Proposed Law Changes Affecting Rental Properties Date: Thursday,October 19,2017 2:36:49 PM Dear Town of Ithaca Board & Planning Council Members 10/19/j2017 I am writing to voice my concern with the proposed changes to the Town of Ithaca laws for rental properties. We live in a community with a known shortage of affordable housing, especially for low and moderate-income people. As a property owner, I feel these proposed changes would only make that problem worse as it would discourage owners from adding rental, would discourage future development, and would result in rental rate increases. Some other thoughts follow: 1) These changes appear to be an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. If there are concerns with the safety of rental apartments, we already have laws that should be used to force compliance with safety codes. 2) lam not an attorney, but I do have major concerns with the liability that the Town will be responsible for after they "approve the safety and codes" of rental units. If a tenant is injured and the Town has granted an Operating Permit, I would expect that the town would be named in any lawsuits. 3) These proposed changes challenge owners right to privacy. 4) It is clear that the Town code compliance office would need to hire additional employees to operate in this new environment. The last thing we need is more taxes. Please rethink these ill-advised changes. We do not need to enact more bureaucracy, and add to Town Payrolls . We need to find creative ways to encourage more rental unit development to help with the lack of affordable housing in our community. Sincerely , Daniel Sullivan From: Travis Cleveland To: Bruce Bates; Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman Subject: One more reason..... Date: Friday,October 20,2017 8:32:39 AM Hello, I'm sure you consider me as a nuisance when speaking at these meetings. A good example was Rich Dipaolo mocking me last night. I assure you I can get loud,however I'm trying to be respectful when trying to get my points heard. I'm not a public speaker, nor a loud talker! I've done nothing but study this housing market, infrastructure, and land use for the last 10 yrs. I have been through every aspect of it personally. Without going over the facts of invasion of privacy,bringing a house built in 1800 up to the ever changing "current codes",the occupancy laws,(Which is what is causing the real housing issues in Ithaca) and the full use of land, ie. "real duplexes" in High Density Zones. I'd like to add one more problem with this proposed legislation. These programs have also been pushed through elsewhere in NY so there have been audits done coming out of Albany. This program only recovers 15-20 percent through fees and fines of the additional cost to the municipalities. The Town of Ithaca does not have the manpower to maintain this program as it is now. The remaining deficit will need to come from the general housing fund.This program will only be a financial burden in the end, costing tax payers. Not to mention the cost of lawsuits which are eminent. Housing is a free market. If conditions of a property are unsatisfactory,tenants don't need to rent, or stay in a property. They have more rights than property owners these days! I will gladly go down the line one on one and respond to every reason you think you have for moving forward. I have a valid reason that this program will not improve the quality of life in Ithaca. As I've said, I know this housing market inside out. Intruding on 4th Amendment rights and being a further burden on property owners will be the only outcome! I think everything has been covered on why this program should not be put in place. Feel free to contact me with questions, I see the big picture! Sincerely, Travis Cleveland Birds-Eye View Properties, LLC. M C N L U w w w N w w N w w w w w w N w w w w w » p N N p » W N » » p N N W N N N w w w w w p w w w w w w N N w w TTS M OC = Y F 0 N NN N w N N M N N Y O O j a m i } Qr 2 W `2_p �J W m R n ° w 88 88888n88 88 883d88V 82989m8 <8288822< 8 8$ 9m9 888 8 48 8 o fw 8 $ gam � voR^ 83 S�: 8 �8 Ate.$ 888 5;fl �8$R8�ryNN � 8� 83a 8 � m $8 0 o a t� 1p b ry' C ryry f1 m VV yy��e 1� q _ G W m 0 0 OfN 9i ° �Nfrv9 fl lnl YIh J ^ N� Nb �� 0 4Y 00'�. 1�bb' ry rrN„� � � N IOm m � ~ ww NNN pppNp pw NN NNN Nww NN MwN NN MNN p»N»pNN »N NpN NpN M NN N 8 888n ,, 8 8 8x 88 = S8sx 8 Z; „pR cfm s � �rv� � Iry on orvRF � F f r t- �- �= F r f Q LL N ° z ° m $ 4 o�+ paw $ z 0 ; p wwn zS o y z �c' ° : Z3 X8 4 W m Q u fl QI K .TR �Tp >LL' kSk W h0— @ y Y 4 Z $X YJ t ONE J ppE Z.. W p u rmm w J2 m ° Jh F wq m. wq rc o m z� m ry n ° z h0 0 N Q e C W C C �n0 LL [ u5 z � w h u rc W ? ¢� z.- n g8 h n u . 8 F @ � 9 n8 95 0m u u w uo z� Saa wu � m _ o pow u q m` € ee rr p m wo ^ n � oho ow a2 , . SO u iw _mi �4� mu$i3 t7cm c5 iy o a Wrg ^_ a £ a2 a_ t-hr m `$ h € s w88 Z w < CI a =30 h B 8 L8 0@ 'F rc �uo� W a 2 C 4 8m 8s� a 8N o o� 8$ 8 p0 8 ! 8 " oL 8 ° 8ww`w` 8 �a 8cc n 7C d C8 8 d i s s> 99 gg� ase g n sN gg s IG- i ar a-'�uui^7p QQ a� 8rcu r1¢ ah ¢c `x SNfiu 3 da 8�E id 3� 3 « R � Y w E Y YnQ w ° a su1 5 . 0 = Sm on° w o o"o n c g c'o' > 8n e w N w w w w N w N N N w w w w wwww www m N 0 N OI „ 3 0 � � N O rNNIN[V I•I �Nn Rn N p p p N N N p N N p p N N N NNN »NN s s a a 8 s m s es R w N N N N N w N M N w N N N N ry OGO000 �•Y T dna » m » a� no a m j > »pNw ww » f <r ge wm a »N»w Np » � w �! 88 888S8 88m 888 8 78.8 $ : 8Q88888 8 88 tib 8S8 a 88 8888889 � a -9 2 ao $ m�Pi98 R' n'n „ a^n {n`3 "I" NNNN�» NN .Neap "' n 88 r�n3 � a. � pp wpp SMO gwwN NwN NNN N W.B www wwMNMN N NN NNNNNM p Np M wwpN ., ,a,�1 a S2 1 m N N m � g N � a q ygyg o IN•1 �•1 fV CV A N N�p p� N B yp F M ¢ c gym' m m o m m o 0 o m m g u 8 w m to wp � g y� yI m w a Q aan{ya as f2CI N > > ONr -6-64 _`3 J H h 800 1.2 O'R 2 " n a i n m �: 2E w �.� i f f W a S � 888o v w ww W G 4 p� g� i a a S 0000000 n n $ t 8 •° WQ •. 2 w3 . E n E' z - O Z 3� Z m a ^ m•2 w° $ � o t�..0 W - w � � ww `� rc � i w q2 wW aaaa as ® �� mgm p u&wlg„gin o s z ma m g)mp zoazzmzm 2au 2 mn ° 6LLuuLL ° au }D tO m WWW W W W > $ 8 a $ "E rc o 38 z aaao as v a � aaa u8 3g' 3 oma a98 a m z 0 of S Q a = i 8 _ 8 5q 2 0 . . � n i t c = ^ a n” 0000800 Ra 8E oE o 8 o9a g Baa` g 8 R� � •� o g w'gaaa as mg R oiQo = � � 5Y 8 � � ? o er pN . c d d wwww ww a F an ag i a $ a as $ m 3 uuu� uu _ 3 V m N Q z 9 � m r O N N Oi xq ry 0 F 2e u 9 9 N w w w w w wwwww 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N q N N q N N N N N N N r m N O N YOI $ O N $ O If01 $Q w $ m m m P w m m O O N N w w w w r w wwwww O •- N O O O O r O O O O N 10p b 6 fl fl m N N � W W n f r � � (Oy Q m m F N M N N Y Z w m 0 W m wwww e wyy0$ $ m o$ o $ Q Oru ry O Q O m N 0 Yn] m $Nm $ $ m b N 10 Yml 1% O N n O m F m n N Cl m O m n m n P ISI m N m m m b 10 m b N P m b m m P IN 0 W m Q N m m r wwwwNgwgwq NN w wwwwwwww www ww Nwww .� o b b o o b m $ o b n Nm m $ 0 0 g m wri m Q� � m N o o b n n . 0 b o o N .. m mm m m � m n vP Pm m Q m 00 o m z r 9 � e c c c c Q 'wwww w w w w w .�. �w � 7 N www ww w Jw w mJw S e w B Ed EE L C tl z3 '2 c >'N ® aaaa S m O y N m EI m M YQj Y E U yl' a a aaaa j 0 d 000 F q @ 09 m Z n 0000 _ z m ap `w ccs c cg ua 0 E K GO Z � Ems°- E E E w a aN `i �� ¢�t Z mmmm S oLLDgO� � 8 > m°e 0 0 d> m ? � zzz � N U 2 c d O c c `c � _ m� U' 2 m U 2 m Z � u M n = m Uzw E- w w '" - Z 3 Z c c zL zy wwww m Z W ON EEBBB m 2 0� o g `_ 'S zU m z a DODO S0cO � V 0 W U c CUUU m i NE N M 6 c c u~ 5 0 E 5 - SSSS 3 ~ W �_ y mm 'SZ mm 2ZZZ w 5 � 15mc � , : � ° aa Fri O u 3333 Ca o °g d 'T rr E E oc o ° °.4 c o0 ?'-c$ � 2 0000 O B & d'r d' 1-1- 1~- 1- �' a oOinU w W w ¢ oN o o mN a NIL oa m o c KKK K 0 a m m m m m m m ¢¢ ¢ ¢ F a m m m m m a m8 aaaa � e E z ao e y C m C C F T O m O m m m w 0 J > m 0� 5 m g m N m Q 0000XX sass s s X � mXXXXXXXX�XX NXXXm `a € assess mm "� ��m `sa g _ no�o�a��'ss �r�WR Fwwww ww» v � =' � rvm vmi � �.^v 8aN8nna� e�wv _ o R .- m _ rim cry Bio mm_C S. so 65i S N wwww yew www nN w w w w w www w» mm ` � nvr'�nr»iv� �Yn'm.- iu n•Sm mrn a '8r`9i r'8'�' mn^Rn$ N O w w w» m.......... . ... 8„ 888 - 8888888888 a8888 BBc- :n�� = s 'e'e "e'eee»' ���^ a_ ryo: smm�����ag� • � �mg$' +�m • V � .� d O nV N��N m N R Rwp wp » 'a( $yy 2$$y� `uoyoyo oyy �ym 02598 "' « »»»»»»«w w ww Ow mryryn m 8oSaR8o8e88a .^�M OOON'OpCCGey OOOOOppO00p0 s i e N N J p p t O F 8 6 p p XW 88888888 '` NRR $q$S �R�aaa”RRReeelryeVaeaeaC$Qa 'cBS . paa$8aE8aaa 88888 O >F qs O8Q pg O2;mON^•mfl �mq� � � O rr��^mO�ry VO1NN �sc, FSgmgggg44gggqOSp ocYYw ME » 5OM - mn� my m7 nnBX Nm G,� » mm AS7 5757$ a 3L K N �0 _ _Iu- . I mmmm8unimn dim nuZ Ji ugnhnnwveea�.- Y ncR 'vamm��mN �mm� C �m � r- wwww »»»»»w w w w w w p w p p p w w w»»»»w» »»»www wwwww ww nw + w rvNNaNnm wammmnvwimnrvrwirvrv°' wm $evv vry Nv n� N mmmm mm 'o R �$ =S�Yw py >-0 X X $ BRRRnrrNNrF« RNrnNA`RRm Q m 7lpp F n a e ~vC VSV o o 8 8 8 Q p N N»N N N N»»»» w w w w p p p p p p p p p p p p p p » w M t t m e m io t o t C o w0 0 oga a £ w mo �� O eyem 7 802 a � � � eB.e i mm nnna ({ t O 7 J 3 m ~ 0 5 xW a .aiw ww m o �O bm nn O$ ^ � � w� > oo Fs � $ $ mHJ m >� a p B as ~ ` m 333 N3333 00 1 rrcrcrc Paa m 0000 m of > t>ao 28BY 2 2_0 10w § ?f9@ §p@§p@ mNNRRRR�� ana�� oo�u�oua> m z wx of zz O ru 8888 2888 888 nxxxxxx �^ wwwn�p�W3 S5 � w mw JLL 2 CCCCCC � mnmww ww o Jo mzzn mLL 0200000002 zaaazzww mrc yE z0000 §rr LLGCC k N mY xx3 =y3oo w.yE � ` F� x'c 'Fc -c'FcF'EE-c EEc ze e_:_v:_au zwww w,x 4 mm xi.3302 U ¢ aaaz m23 Qami ? ? n??cun S zzzwKUUJJJo 0000 2 `mp WWWWWa mfC 6'ZZ mm. zo 22mLLm3 > 8 �. F£. &. - _ � bke m m t ot�c�ans mmmmm 0000 f 0 0 Q m m m m }}} }W R W o S a S o 0 0 "S bm bm S bm m S S 6 LL J J J R `p p � 8s8 $ayj 2't8 E'g" " 3�o 'o -o'm'm' > 8So8218o8FS8o aiii § LL S• a s Z•t''tC$ m m m m W '1 `L`Z Z L`m E J b a •-•- •- N•- a a a a c � RR7 ?o33 m xxxx � ocopr Ov 0202 4 c n aaa<axx n3333 � ' x888888888888xxxx H a mmmmmxx n 4mmmmmammmmmm xxxx $ $X $ a g88m 'a mo3a 'xe-mu 0 9�$o gmY emoa � 8$x@ 9 w mrc-. imof � mw` m ssmr-m,mrco' ieR mS Ji eR eR ! ^$ � mm "r' M1. m � 8 0 0 0 mo mo 88 8 88888 I ^$ 8 w N ' w w vi w wwwN w w w wwww www w ww x w m 0 N m S OmQ Nnm(-O8iOo Sn Sm 8888 0 .9GC SN n n m ^ n l7 m n 10 N m m IA N N O N w q r 1'1 N N N t'1 N N pj �rj N N w w N N w N N N w p p p p p x a q N m N O N S OI O O O O O O O O S S S S O O S p 8 S 88 9096 - n O O N n V m S C m ' IQV m m m CI x Q O 0 N N w w w N N N N N N N w N www GN N w w p p M n O O O O O O p O O °N FO O p o n n c o o 0 . d a cc 3 N N N d n n 0 Nw L11 � w n O O C o � am w w w N w www p www wwww w w zru �O J'J' LL N w w N p N w N p N w w w N w N p d p N o O m m O O O O 0Q S Cl O N O Q O OO O O No O h p mOO mmm OO ISI mm , OQ OOw nOm OQw Om�-mOr OOy0 <0S OW p 8 m 8 N (y nSS pO O Wi V m 0 O N n w O NS m Q OwnO (,J Q m w m m 0 w m ww wwpw w w w w w wwww ww w ww w w www wwww w www N NN w w w 0 0 N b 88 p CmC m N m g p a & W r N r r o o m o 0 0 o n o o O o Wm J N J N w N w w J p J C LL $ E J w N w w w w J p J $ e J N Q p r _N R �- O J m ' r ~ w O Z 0 Zv w t Z W N m m m qqmQmq 5 Lw- r Zjj c .N Y c qc pc H W n t Y u CGC 22 2 2 22 E 6 z9 O o e 0 q� w aC' �C'� O � n md' o 0 m w d m m Ninm wow y y t �m o o a E E_ aaa Z y 22 v n m a E 2 a a a mmm m m m S m — ul r O N m d 9 E r O N CR C QC Q C C C m Q LL _ c n, o y K o 0 o LL 2 H e ° W ¢ o o O W �' C Y: C L°" �' x W20 m .. 0 O c w LL. mw Z m O O cy m m m d ZWQU �'cgpa, 3a � OJJJ W y Qac �p n 33g OJJJ r11a LL0.6 z F C U�,, p m m a a s C (n t N a d d aaa wO N . 00 ° Q '� "- m rrr �^ u � ' m rrr 00000 N 0 3 C `m w e 2 m w m :E w 000 N w2 wf c d w ° ' 000 O77 m v w� � 5 rrr _ 3 � m . 3rrr Mwww wmw wo a am a�r � 3 a o a LLLLLL w grw3 wB m w ^._.., 0000000 l0 2 � �...... � m O m w C wO(9(� <LLLL LL LL WLL c ggm JJJ JJJ 3 ! a zzz € � _ a '= zzzz 0 w O` OW6 .d• N »> O(`l Ow 2 C N �JJ OOOO OOO c LL �m mmm a � rcrcw �.^`! =mm o a � rc¢w rrrr rrr 3: mO m Oyw � O O W W W O m coiw W N nwww 0 0 0 0 zzz ° =Z Z Z Z Z Z O LL 3 5 4aaa 3 333 s a m m m m m m m (- wwww r a LL yLL LL LL 333 C7 0 f7 U' www C7 C70 U' U' co 0 = w O L SEw m' mgw a €'a m mn4 Q mm N CmC p E d n mN n Q wy - C a m n N n n n N nQ Oi r LL N N Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget 2%budget 26 pays I DRAFT 417!2017 102.0% FOR ALL with PW&Codes 75 hours x 26 '80 hours x department 01101118 pays a> 1960 26 pays => 2080 changes-current Town of Ithaca 2018 Budget 917/2017 TB 2017-777 NON-CLASSED EMPLOYEES DRAFT Approved% 102 0%W/certain position changes EMPLOYEE 2017Bud el 2018 Budget %Increase Torn Justices (Paid bi weekly} Salk James S 23,380.00. .$ 23.850.00. 201% Wein,David ;S 23;380.00: I$ 23.850.00 2.0129 1combined 2017 combined 2018 Town Super S 54.890 00 $ 55 995 00 Deputy TS $ 140a100 S 14 365 00 Total $ 68.971 00 $ 70 360 00 Town Board Permemborforysji $ 14,081.00 S 14,76500 202% Elected Officials (6 members Paid 4x year) $ 84,486.00 $ 86,180.00 Town Supervisor/Fiscal Officer tbgt=40%of full amount) $ 22,090.00 $ 22,535.00 201% Administrator function for Town(bgt=60%of full amount) $ 32,800.00 $ 33,460.00 201% Deputy Town Supervisor $ - $ - TotalTownSuper&Deputy $ 54,890.00 S 55,995.00 201% Receiver of Taxes to get cola each yr $ 5,462.00 $ 5,Sf1.0'0 200% per meeting rates change an even yrs Planning Board Members Per MeaBngi S 88 00 S 88.00 233% Per meeting x 24 meetingsx 5 members+1 all $ 14,448 00 S 14,784 00 Per Meeting: $ 92.00 $ 94.00 217% Planning Chairman (24meetings) $ 2,20800 $ 225600 Zan ng Board Members Per Mooting: $ 86.00 $ 88.00 2.33% Per meeting x 12 meebngs x 5 members&2 Alt, S 7,22400 $ 7,39200 Tota Non-Classified 1$ 215,47800 $ 219,88800 2.05% Actual u ge per udgeV by person not account person Difference %CHANGE $ 215,47800 $ 219,888.00 $ 4,410.00 205% Personnel w/long $ 3,380,994.80 $ 3,738,207.08 $ 357.212.28 1D.57% includes Ion evjty TOTAL $ 3,596.472 80 5 3.958.09508 $ 361,62228 10.05% $ 23,149.92 people vs.budget Adopted Budget Salary Budgets for for 100& 101&.103&.110 %bd t increase $Increase 201& $ 3,981,245.00 9.57% $ 347,825.00 +Weng�supenlaban,inters-Zntinmenimpoic 2017 $ 3,633,420.00 9.05% $ 301,414.50 +main)suprr+dapury lc,+2 ECEO+dfamn8sb 2015 $ 3.332.005.50 0.46% $ 15.350.50 PwFixtaccoinaunthm 2015 $ 3,316,655.00 4.22% $ 134,26500 27 payrASGs dor hM+him to lob 2014 $ 3,182,390.00 1.70% $ 53,06000 him ro lob hero Nnros-Suruin plm 2017 $ 3,129,330.00 3.02% $ 91,785 00 mrLn al pa,,Wn$Is him to job to jumps 2012 $ 3,037,545.00 0.36% $ 1093500 .30hm pm ad den+Was TC+Pit Asn codes&court 2011 $ 3,026,610.00 0.13% $ 3,79000 .1 putmor+]Dhr Coda raw Dir Pronpay naw Town C&pr srwlanq -Reemord- 2010 $ 3,022,820.00 -1.27% $ (38,90000)morg Eng.Tc derail ,5 PWD aborted 2009 $ 3,061,720.00 6.45% $ 185,55600 0.00.Mgmt clary at 40 hraMk 2008 $ 2,876,162.00 6.97% $ 187,372 00 +pinr+code enf+2 seas labor+2 zba all+l pb all 2007 $ 2,688,790.00 3.16% $ 82,32000 -Dir e2+pinrfpammi.tamp par 3 mors 2006 $ 2,606,470.00 3.16% $ 79,92500 .Plrupempm)-Db WZ 11 mons 2005 $ 2,526,545.00 6.42% $ 152,34500 1-code Erfo L r+2 see al debh+mginto 2004 $ 2 374,200.00 8.23% S 150,580 00 Z7 payca s+Rec Can+Sr Erg lad!&Maml Wrk&Cb Gk FA 2003 $ 2,193,620.00 7.12% $ 145,77000 •Adorn arst401milpmitioc 5 2002 S 2,047,850.00 16.37% S 28&,04063 +pd Rh Tau+4smsonadrobors+Planmrom .m-dr 20162%ei-ORAFT30t8aaary pep!-2%DRAFTwmunn Negn 85 du ......w�� n n nm Qe wm o n mQ EqTqQ TIO Tm E �V `�ry --5 JIO 1: Imd. T �N 6Q 6ttNOO 6m Os �1 dw. p p m S S S S O O O O S S z N N N N N N H w N N N H F y y n T SO 00 N mom CI OO O N ISI loO O ZJSa � � � N O F� Q OI OI 0 10 O O O n n0 O 000000 OI N w O N N fV N N N (7 — .- N' N N N N N N O N N N N N N O Q O N m Q$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0008 O O 41 w d C Q Q Q Q Q Q Q w w w w m m ID 0 m m N w w w w O O N �y �y m 10 IG 10 ID OI m O] O dt N N N N N N N N 1O 8 C m N N N N N N Y I 000 N O J I O I O Q f Q m n n r r r w O O I N m(O m IO IO IO w CI N CI ml - N N n N N N O O O O O N N Ci N www Www w www w HHN H HH H HHwwwN w H H w L21p 000 000 O 000 O O p O O Om Om m S S S S S m OOIOO m100 Yl 0 T www w m m O w w w m S S O] 0 S Q O y NNN mwww om n O p N Q Iw(1 N IO � � IfI A N m www N OI OI OI wn rm0 at r O N N r 1%rn n f7 mO)w mOI mmm m r N N N w w w w w w H H w w w w w w w w w w w H N w w N N w w w w N w w w w u x ^ z N N N ,O N N N m p� 10 10 10 0 p In In to 1p fp In to w m m m 1 m Op I Op I Op I r n r y G� (p7 pN Q N Q{wmm mO' m Ol 17 pQ Q O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 w N w N O O I m01 OOO lw'110�1N a {n.J t7 t7 t7 wC) CI C) C) C) Nm N t0 N N NNCd cdmNNN N [NWN N p m 3 O L � r o � N www www dW_9 wwH ww wwwww ww ww wwwNNw wwN wHw 0OS0 S S Sm 000000 00 � N mwp O SNNNQ Q Q 000m ffSO 0 OOO r NV1010 YO N w Oq I 0 OON 10 10 10 _-qw w ONNWp NNNNNr wOQ mw wwO w wwwwww Q N N O C g mw N ywywyH wHw H wwww wwwwwww w wwwwww HHw ww s OOO ONI OI ONI A IwO lwO lwO V Q NNNnm N S wwwwww ONNQN N N 1.1 N O O O N pl O� OI Ih n n ^ n Q 17� N Ol F Q Q P N N N I 1.1 N N I N N M N N N N IaL x Z D 0 u c° � n q n n 555N??fffJ����1 wwpwQwwH Nww wd H wwwwww w w wwwwwH www. Nui tw.l NOw m �� 1001 m T S Qm NNmlmp nN w 8 m N!2 0 m N _ O N O w N m N N w m O m � N Ip r Oml O O 4) O r w ^T n OS V w ^ w 0 NmmR NIO w O epnl'3 mla oa n a 3�` ; 3t i? 0� Q` O O�1 N O O O N 9 om ANS m`131a nQ pl � cl mall) vul d o 0 0 0 0 0000 o o00 0 0 0 000230 o0 g CC3 n LL o a 'a 'a m U p ttp_ ti a y _ Qpn 8 E rn� in ® ® ® a .^ > �" nn > m w L m Q `mO O O ^ 4I'1N C c 3 O r t iC rnp <$W< $ w mnO mmmm m~ + m m cc > cF"" >a o U ¢ cm m U m m j V O w 0 'o m O m O C U U a p. m C m W tom{ U C C N m QI U U N F h m N 3 m e o p �p DSolOe SmIcLFo N ` w 'oo ' mUU6c com 5m m ; E ' mm 010oa Zmw ] R U � w Q0 w0 w nm az Evz R ¢ ¢ a N U o v E m t 8 ,2 W " c m c L m c m w z s e� OA cdm Swamcm �o i' > $ aic� � Lo o R O W w d �-mim �f m O 1- m Y 4 Uw m o o �a t m m- of c >� In Ip M w m w O w =m m y.Q1.2 d OE 6 E m T iE U3Y� N O 4d" O 4V m yL m > $ §�:o $�EE EE � N NOE EE � n nn�E ° " mE >. @ a " N@ @o ao 33@z wtn q n n, m mrn o a �y n `a. 5 �� Sin o. ¢ tm1 •L4'A Nw n m m m`m n m g S 8 , 8888 S 0808 S 88 88 0 Z N w H H H H H N H H H w H w w N M mm w �° 2° N a N a 0' d°' m d°• d°• mm d"$ O d° o d° w ow oww° d° S' O N N N N 5 m m m l m? m m m g3 m m m m m m m m N O O O O O O O O m m ml ml m? m N O m 0 0 0 ml m m m m O? m N fV ^ N - N O N N N N � S N N N - .- .- .- - OO W N N N .- - - - - 00 - m m QQE@0000 S NV0NQQO , < YOOOON O 0 S d d d 0 Q N C@ m n N Ill 010 0 m m 10 00000_ OQi O O O T Omi T m 1n0 Pl N U a J 3 c p N Q y N N N N m ON Q 000 TT m N m m m Z0 0 - d N .- - - - O � M, 3 n w w e m n m m r 3 " � wHwHw HHwww www w wHHwHwwww wwHl. Hwwwwww ww 00000 0000 (0 0 . 00000 p p 0 0 0 00000 0 0 T O N N O N N N N N N 0 N N S m N m m m m 10 10 m m m N N N N N d Q pl $ d n n h Oi Oi Oi m m l m 01 p f V m m m pl pl p l 01 n n n www .. N N El-0 wmm � m0100000 ' O w@ ON N d pm p m m m m m n N 10 N d d d d d Q OOyO N N N m NO N �{ N 10D 0S0NNVQmmmmNmIll p0 m m N NN wHHwH wwwww w«;H wH ww Hwww wwww wNH� Hwwwwww ww p X n Z m d m d Q O ryO m(.� O IR NQ NQ NQ Nd Nd Nd n n nN nN mmN mmN mm mOl m01 wm mOl m j111m NNNNN N N dN NwN NCN NN NN N CwI T m mN w.1/I wall uw HwHww www w401 wH4A HH wwww wHwl wHHwwww w w w N yX q> Nw Nw m O O OS00� 00000 O OOO 00000 Od O O O S mmmmm dNN N N mmmOON OO OOO NNN mVd0 www SS O Q Om mm mm m m S m 1 N N N N N Im m m 0 In O h m C T q Ol Ol Ol 01 Oi w N N N N O O O V M n n n m w w w w w N CI Q w w w w w w w w w w w w d d d Q O O n mN w w w wwwww w H H':H w H w w w w N w w w w w w w H w m m mw w N p N yy. mmmm Q y y d m O p b m m m m m m m] m m w w w w w w O O d d NNNNN V NI d d m mmm m m y w d I(f m m m m 1C w w w w O d d d d O O T N CI 'CI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N X tpo 6 @ II L O 0 n rg N w w wwwww w HwwwHHHww w www wwwww w HH 0 S S r m O IN(1 Ids, n S S n P n (n•1 IOI I S N TSS N 0 O0. tN•1 tw•1 N N N N 00� O r mNNm X00 N N Nmm N - 00 m m N q mOmO �m_I m 8 1,, QN1 E Sa 00 5! 00 OmN Q QN " m Nd m pA2 000 S V N m n `n 13�� � m w 7 '0 0 0 0 000g 000 o � a � 000009 o of oom ��oa Oho w Illh _ N J a d c c E m E @ m c c @ @ @ @ E E .� L° @ @'' @ @ @ @ @ E E 3 n m c 12i m m a a 9g m m mmmmm c 0 � nnn 0- q n n �a. �innnnv um @ ^m > u/ �ppuN > �E ,IR_ � Ea >tiOmOmOmOmnn� = 000 OOOOO nn = N m d O m � c �'� m mmw fF 3 E E E Emm m E E E' EEEEE m m O p Of t '� m o c o' $� n nnm mann nE E E n n o: nn n n_n > j U Ux 'O (p m m c �W o 0 0 0 u u9'9'3 m m n - . . O F m m C Iq N w Ol(/1 C .0 .0 C m G a Q m m > > 5 5I > > m ii >i Qm a w W mmm mmm m m C W w W W m m m a a P V QQO"O' m m www W W fq rnil � .cSv`� YL' c as mmmmm n00 m 0 0 0 o `o `o `0000 $ a m m mmlp m mm 0 v v'I� c c mmmm mww m o o o 00 ' oww N m 00 n.a.3 w�n33333 � ww � xxxmmmx � � s1 0 m o X oE o C '¢ o Edm2c m m W r7e m mE wi1 m1mny�3cm Y uiw oE OEzaE 5 m m o 2 c m 3 cmu mm_mf•.» mcwm nnt " U2 7 m 2 3: m m LL 2 3 n n e w m 0 0 Y d d n F vi eJ � a a q a s n a° aP a° m 1 m o m o m o m R m Z rt ae 11 N m A 8 N N aPo $ °. o oe # e n m 8 0 0elno,m N9 Q O S O m d H N w N & O 000000 O ^O ONO mm w6 .dN m C S Q S S O O O 0 0 0 N O N N W d N N N 000000 O O m O N IO N N N E N N Y JJQQOLLasaqCuN VmmOumQmmr HL'f$mqUNTT NNd wOWCmI Oa Q O (B qW I c wwwwwwwww wwwwwnNI hNlnOmnN'1 O O L7aOmg73O2{-Qpppg3wSeLWx� Z FOOOOO 00 Omo ONOOmmoa N OOOOOO0 0mONwN O O O m m p N O. C. QN ONN0 NNNNNN NNmmN N N O -NNci CiN Om N SN � q',iC'Sgs 1q w HHww w m r N N N ly N N N N N N g O N N N N N m J m.-; ui ON $ 'a Imo oto m3 _g T q n wH HHRH NNN HHH wwww 0 -0 N11 N O SSSSSSS00N S 15 SSSSpp II SSOSS8 v0mmNTN -0000O 0OCmoQ gggg - N N T ql N N ^ ^^ ^ Ol m^ d Q m - Dl O W W R n 3 N d N N mN m m n m N w 'w w w Hw wwHwH wHH HHwww N N N F mS Q 2 F[ m S S SSS S S $ N S SSS W W n m n n 1V m .m-.m- .m- .m-.�- Wim- m $ N uj j m ui'r' E x c° n T n N IH �: w Nw HHww wH w HHw H HHH'. H F 8 ^ V P II M 6 S S S N 01 N m 0 MM 0 0 0 a L C y C C d Q n® N t U V O Q O L Z 0 O O q N C c 12 {0�1 6NY N d O ^ W W LY N x O q q W n^ p Lll 3 L q q0 N N m a N �1 V L NN J aW 4i L m m '� O , o ® n o q ME SOa N N SC Y L L LLL q u q u 000000 O O ®Q_ 6 O 6 O N N m m N 0 m J W O gg Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 m C O O tQ� E E vii v;i u;i u;i v;i vii vii vii m c_w U U Q¢ N N NNN N N N a E m m ^w q iR m N 4 N• O �O p0 EE EEE E E E e2'mul in N X u1 a; X"[ B W q W q q q q m m y m y y C N N N co m d d ro p m qm m m m m g q q 8 8 a ; 0 88882888 m'eeeee 0 9 9 90 -9099 -999999 Ma12 r N m U m G c G c c [ G Y C [i [ C [a W m` `o `o oo DDDR oo 9oo 000pt7 Do GO am 190 m R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o w aaannc as anaaaWL� 3 Q 3 u E W m mm ° mom wa O m m m mm mmm `v a m 'omm m am :a 'o A F > > > aaaaa as uaaaaauo � - k ® , ! - 910 , § § }/ ,} Li k \ \\ 4 \\ \\ \\ m \ \ \ \ \ \ q § § / § ! § \ | - [ w ) / ( § . k § ] § - ) a 2 - Cl) k) ` ° ` a> Y . . . . . . . . . oi.o e T m W N Y 3 z a > T w L_ L w N r w > m e R e � L 4 y s a ¢ ¢ 0 0 z z z A A � A LL W � � w � m L O N E N s o 0 L e 0 c > F > c R O O O � A O R .7 A A1 Aw Y r e b b e e e m e e � � e O h 1� 1 m W � e a a a a a3mm m a a h � z .moi _ b0 vv vv wti w � o e .r. � N LL z � a a w a w m e e e e R e � tb L r Q h h h N m > > > > > Td Yn O Yn Td Yn Td m a a / ! ( f / / _ ! } j ) ( \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ { ) - / / ) { \ ( \ \ \ \ \ \ ( ! (\\ (: - § Attachment #5 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN BOARD MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL SMITH, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 RE: ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT INSPECTIONS - LAUGHING GOAT FIBER FARM - INDIAN CREEK FARM Attached are copies of the completed Annual Monitoring & Inspection Reports for the Laughing Goat Fiber Farm (Lisa& Gary Ferguson, Sheffield Road) and the Indian Creek Farm (Stephen Cummins, Trumansburg Road). The Town's Policies and Procedures Manual for the Town of Ithaca Agricultural Land Preservation Program and both easements require an annual inspection to be completed by the Town,with the results reported to the Town Board. I conducted the site inspection for Laughing Goat Fiber Farm on September 15th and the site visit for Indian Creek Farm on September 21st, and found both properties to be in compliance with the terms of the easements. Along with the attached Annual Monitoring & Inspection Forms,there are several photos of each property, and survey maps with notes added. I have also included the farm brochure from Indian Creek Farm, since it easily shows where all of the crops are this year. Copies of the reports were sent to both landowners. The Indian Creek Farm report was also provided to NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets, as required by the easement. Please contact me at 273-1747 or email me at msmith(atown.ithaca.ny.us if you have any questions. Enc. Annual Monitoring & Inspection Report Agricultural Conservation Easement Town of Ithaca Date of Visit: September 15, 2017 Easement Name: Current Landowner: Ferguson Agricultural Conservation Easement Lisa &Gary Ferguson Address/Location of Property: Address: East Side of Sheffield Road 1485 Mecklenburg Road 285' South of Mecklenburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Tax Parcel No.(s): Phone #: 28-1-1.3 607-273-9212 Acres under CE: Other Contact Person: 42.35 acres n/a Was the landowner contacted prior to visit? X Yes No Has ownership changed since last inspection? Yes X No Was landowner consulted during visit? Yes X No Did landowner tour property also? Yes X No Description of Current Land Uses: Agricultural- goat/alpaca/sheep farm Easement property contains open fields, pastures, woods, hedgerows, misc brush areas. Describe current Agricultural activities (and any changes since the last inspection): No changes since last inspection. All open fields have been cut or are in pasture this year, except for very southern portion of the field closest to Sheffield Road. Portable electric animal fences/netting and small animal shelters are located in several locations around the property. List all man-made alterations made since the last inspection visit: New barn appears to be finished. Do all changes comply with the terms of the easement? X Yes No Comments: This property is in compliance with the conservation easement. List any observed natural alterations, or alterations beyond landowner's control: None Other observations, comments, and recommendations: None Describe any contact and discussions with landowner during visit: None Reminders for next monitoring visit: None Attach as needed maps, photos, and illustrations. Name of Inspector(s): Michael Smith, Senior Planner Signature(s): ty OF I?' Town of Ithaca yn 215 North Tioga Street F 9 Ithaca, NY 14850 L8 21 (607) 273-1747 + www•town.ithaca.ny.us April 16,2013 Ferguson Agricultural Conservation Easement-09/15/17 Annual Inspection 1—looking southeast from northwest 2—looking south from northwest comer corner of property,including bam of property along Sheffield Rd 1 ;ry, ��'hflt IA�d 3—looking north from the southwest 4—looking west within woods on south corner of the property along Sheffield Rd edge of property t pr t jl • Y 9 1 t K xd y t� fx S 5—looking north in eastern field at 6—looking west at open field back to temporary animal pasture new barn .aw. lot Ferguson Agricultural Conservation Easement-09/15/17 Annual Inspection 7—looking south at hedgerow in center 8—looking at an example of the shelters and fields on both sides and fencing around the easement mill, p i Photos taken by: Michael Smith, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca !ftp F' M4 \ ld0.0 LOCATI( S 78'1341" E 293.17 - - _ _ N 7T4'54" W 970.14' T07A1. N V B 1 S,77'24" E 970.14' TOTAL FROM �Dff gel r� ' lp f� +'t+1 g0 °wnrr6; E (RDJ„to - a B IRI k \ BRUSH jR xosm§.ro M�aiw `O) ( PARCEL B _ Iw j F e� 1} TITLE INFORdGTIOA PARCEL A t\ q CAW AND LISA FERGUSO; �r PART OF DEED BOOT( 890 PACE `r TMEA = 500 ACRES iNET1 C... O 2 �j CULTIVATED FIELD �*rJ� �d ~+ �' C U PARCEL B qGARY AND US4 FERGUSO PART OF DEED DOAK 890 PACE [, P/0 iAREAAX MAP PARCEL 18-1-1 LL ' L. M OPEN FIELD = 40.74 ACRES NET c of PARCEL C O fix, g GARY AND LISA FERGUSQ w PART OF DEED ROOK 890 PACE ' P/0 I" MAP PARCEL t AREA 2.01 ACRES 'I SIT S 7G13'58"E 250.00' V; j d8 b an anr. S 78' 8'06" E 561.34' Q YRA°OSCD 50RO. . W.RESERMO FOR _ If �P'S5 J V MGRE54 A Ecross Far wRen c W pC+ SEE`XrtE 2. 9 PARCEL C 13 3 i P4° tom NOTES M ' 1,) PARCEL B REPRESENTS A PROPOSED (� TO BE GRANTED FOR AN ACRFCULTUR EA9EMENT. 0 1.) 30' X RREPRESENTS A PF (� TO BENEFIT Li PAARCC EL C. LOCATION CAF 9I j N 76'13'58" t PER MUTUAL AGREEMENT BY ALL AAF W 250.00' SET S ' 3.) PARCEL C REPRESENTS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR FUTURE HOI o ' Not Acve'-P W o I REFERENCE MAPS 1)REFERENCE K MAR TO A MM TIRED`ROB RENCRSEEF DATED FEBRUARY 1988 Br CUP FASO ON 6j,N1J1901 N MM auMER U WEI 2)REFERENCE t5 AMCE t0 A AMP 8Y M&5 1 19 ANDFAEO w MM 8K F-1 C.D.pn 89 / J)BURYEY MAP BELE➢voNrr MAP PERT" j V.W MOENMEN'EMTO MWCx 26. 19"a AND FRED IN OBER 505 PAGE 181. e)SUINEY ANP ma, 'SDBt!✓NSKKi I NO f Rros• y y F05 TOMPNMK CLEE WNIYCCLCRX; RODS �5 k'Nae S+mrw'e eenincme; Te me Tam a loam(1)LM awc n9reae Mm.(z)Ue mEI 4 o mnect reg —,amm 0" 6MIS ..r ontl iM a t.. a 8.(5j moawnem.mala () t 1 pa Mm am meteca are It W Mw p,am(A)LM rmw ena Na+�I" g,...wua9 w wuw.Ie�no ma ewr.ro,9 M. a . LEE DRESSER.48..US,/050096 C[0 ft MO!dN upq! StY It \ S.t.W.w 7T4 AT" 070..N TOTA I TQ`¢ ' Si1 vrorA � 1 �\ °vim w'a0.t1rwxt P' Annual Monitoring & Inspection Report Agricultural Conservation Easement Town of Ithaca Date of Visit: 09/21/17 Easement Name: Current Landowner: Indian Creek Farm Conservation Easement Stephen T. Cummins Address/Location of Property: Address: 1408 Trumansburg Road 1408 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Tax Parcel No.(s): Phone #: 24.-1-25.21 607-227-6147 Acres under CE: Other Contact Person: 41.658 acres n/a Was the landowner contacted prior to visit? X Yes No Has ownership changed since last inspection? Yes X No Was landowner consulted during visit? Yes X No Did landowner tour property also? Yes X No Description of Current Land Uses: U-pick fruits and vegetables, farm stand, fruit tree nursery, woods, two residences, several supporting barns and sheds, parking areas and access drives, material and equipment storage Describe current Agricultural activities (and any changes since the last inspection): Orchards, fruit and vegetable fields, fruit tree nursery fields, farm stand. Crops have been moved around property, with most of the vegetables and nursery stock now on adjacent leased land, outside of easement. One acre of Evercrisp Apples was planted. List all man-made alterations made since the last inspection visit: A 70 KW solar array has been installed on the roof of the large tree storage barn. New play elements have been added to the playground area. Concrete was being poured at time of visit, in the greenhouse that is attached to the main house and for a small pad on the south side of the farm stand building. Do all changes comply with the terms of the easement? X Yes No Comments: List any observed natural alterations, or alterations beyond landowner's control: None Other observations, comments, and recommendations: See the attached 2017 farm brochure, which includes a farm map showing where current crops and other parts of the farm are located. While walking in northwest corner of woods, spoke with a Cornell grad student doing a bee study. She is looking at the relationship/benefits that the woods have on bees. Describe any contact and discussions with landowner during visit: None Reminders for next monitoring visit: None Attach as needed maps, photos, and illustrations. Name of Inspector(s): Michael Smith, Senior Planner Signature(s): ty OF I?' Town of Ithaca yn 215 North Tioga Street F 9 Ithaca, NY 14850 L8 21 (607) 273-1747 + www•town.ithaca.ny.us April 16,2013 Indian Creek Farm Agricultural Conservation Easement—09/21/17 Annual Inspection 1—looking south at main farm stand 2—looking at new concrete pad on south from the entrance drive side of farm stand A ,ILII 3—looking east at new playground 4—looking west at Indian Creek and element woods 5—looking west in woods 6—looking north at pond x ,hw V0 �s .1 Indian Creek Farm Agricultural Conservation Easement—09/21/17 Annual Inspection 7—looking northeast at new solar array 8—looking south at entry signage on roof of large tree storage barn 71 9—sign decoration at farm stand 10—farm stand �e Photos taken by: Michael Smith, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 0 / y / ) I y � x / I a I � I I I N � I sS 9Y"23°®9" E 277 >r \ '276.43" p[ I U= I I? w � 4 UP1 80 Q �, m *N ®2.3°®s" w 277.x° T 3 Y ar 04 ay+ a�+ 0 9 \� - o ` ago V E a � 1 � VyN cli m p w O PO O NEn 04 C wO x o "W Cd O N 1w Q) i' O C O w ¢+ m p (j X00 -0 r. � • lQp. F � 'O z O O o o E °+j' x', c, o 0 0 d. � ov >4 >4 0 10 Cd Cd o ^o ami p. >+ . ' w „ a+ 0 pW pcu y � o o w Ocd 0W) 14 N �■ . : +� H o W n > o a �1 14W 3 ° 'a : •bl) Cd Cd 1wcov a, � a, v oui 1 vi >4 cam. y a+ y 0 p � A � �cn aO � spa � OO '0 O vi .� ,r, 'O w v .0 CL O �." v � CL H O u H >4 ch ani r�yi i 1 . h4 � C14 t)p M lw° o : - o dPCspi > 0 { 4 v as .0 En s0" +' O 'y `'R P' " •01w Qj A Iwov 0 to cd w 4J 04 W PW 'go r •PEIu b>U > 41 0. 0 .> O V �r 0 0) w G. b0 07 b0 .� N � L. � � cd 3 C14 C. w C a a+ 0) y Cd m m W tf .yr cd 0 O d) p O �aNi G u 0 .0 0 . . Cdj 'O O 4: O Oice+ > N p O cam. O d 0. 0" ate+ A0. � 'r0! N � 'O O � .^ y � 4: 3 O ,x u N En>, N W 41 '0 n CL O U) .c O A G of 2r O C11 CL o ° w cd : = m G 3 v W) ^ x d ,o r d U) la 0 x �' > 0 rw ° " ao � r. A EA v � d u Tw � a o x � � 3 •� � a0+ w. y x N y .: .r w y oo r O N d d Tw .0 •U c�. v Qj 4J �r C14 "0 a+ In w 07 m m N 'w '54 M � a � rn 0) C1+ C. O 00 u C L 0 0) C1+ 9"04 0 O 0 IC O ate+ Ub cn W per., > 4 w 0 v •a � u G Cw7 I�jy Z A >. � M dOi moo C o d N N QY N .0 nai Z> N A A am � A b0 j ° x ° ' .C C14, — •o PCo 4Lo d o (d VoQC ApFQ ° ° Ao40O r mPQ n r a. Mwx ui M4 o � cd vQj v F aF o-. O a A0 � En w 0 O cdc ° ° oa 0 cd Qj • a vt7 Uwa :. '°. ZwWxF v ° W ° i w '�C CI. O o v O o - joo? w �iF.•+x a ^ 'c 0 d o �+ w A v o Cd � O o cd .0 0) m m 0o � " n Qj Eno v rd � .0 >. W O .. v NnF 0 O ° oW iI Qj Qj PW �VzCd >v In W ° > ' w � x o .:i vex Cd aWv va v � 2 w Wrd njVEn"O W QQj A , ~ >4 04 x d) •o cd ar >.° a, ° :•1E1 tw > w .0 00 C o d >+ En x V F F CVO. �: u a o x 4a ar o PC 41 0 C cd O � 0 0 w O N o vx ° pa3 ..■ lw oM �o a o c7C14 o o r 0 w Co v o �� f � z � o | ® kk \ a - . 4 & f % � + - , \\ � { | � _ � ■ cd ) / ` ® § / § k { Cda / g Cd -14 j ƒ \ ba 19w ` ` \ ( � 2 E w 2 En \ § 2 \ | k wj § 0 § < rA cn� 2 I \ a Cd o En E � � \ ; ! 9 u - ` o f % o ® B Cd o* 2 ` / w a § ; v § / § ` ! \ 5 r « a -14 t a f \ § § ) R ! k f o ` k ) 2 § ) c o 0 § § ) ` ° Q / 0 - \ / k 04 7 3 � I 2 w 7 § p 0 - ; ; ` 2/ z + 2gnk \ e o o A 0 ] m§ 2 � E \� UuiM0 k \ 2 & / � \ 222 §} \ 2 o ! ! 3 = 3 § 8 - - +jE� ESyEa 0 k ' � \ FA P414 a n CIS CIS 0 44 jh�yu o CIS • ..w � R � � • a 41 C . n Q r • Cn qD �+ d d .di � • <0 =1 it W • 40 C Q Rd • ti p d � • W Xy d � • a a w c d • p (A CIS I x a s+ a • d CIS H C En 9 • p, y a x w o • y • � u '� ..moi � is 0 u '+ • ° o b v .. o a ii r x x o d 3 a ami to ator. H ° III L.. a • .. .. P4 w • ': L9 POv • w 3 v m v ' x � Mui d �.n is CA '� • • • • Q� N ° F4 Z d d • '� d vi CIS 4 >4 � r d a a p+ s. o a po 04 k r p°p H W H r. �n a r. CIS 41 o o r. 0 x x x ' ... _ W 41 W a N 3 U vPM" —06680111111W a v v v a To EXIT - . . . a ConsultEcon, Inc. Attachment#6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Notice to Proceed, effective as of October 6, 2017, is between: CLIENT: Town of Ithaca, NY 215 N.Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 and CONSULTANT: ConsultEcon, Inc. 545 Concord Avenue, Suite 210 Cambridge, MA 02138 for the following Project: Town of Ithaca Economic Development Feasibility and Strategic Plan Article 1.Terms of Additional Services A.This notice is an extension of the Agreement for Services between ConsultEcon, Inc.and the Town of Ithaca signed on May 8, 2017.The purpose of this document is to outline additional services and payment terms.All other contract terms have been previously defined and agreed upon in the May 8, 2017 professional services agreement. Article 2.Additional Services and Payment Terms A. Supplemental professional services beyond what was outlined in the original contract of May 8, 2017 will be provided. B.The additional scope of services is outlined in Exhibit A. C.The budget for completing these additional services is$5,400 Dollars and 00 Cents ($) on a lump sum basis, including all travel,time and expenses associated with providing these services to the Town. The fee includes three consultant trips (at one time) to Ithaca for meetings, one from ConsultEcon, Inc.and two from Behan Planning and Design. D.The schedule for completing these services is December 31, 2017. E.The end of the term of agreement for the original Agreement of Services is changed from November 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. CONSULTANT CLIENT ConsultEcon, Inc. Town of Ithaca, NY Robert E. Brais,Vice President William D. Goodwin,Town Supervisor Dated Dated Phone: +1 (617)547-0100•Fax:+1 (617)547-0102•24Thomdike Sheet,Cambndge,MA 02141 USA w .consultecon.com•info@consultecon.com ConsultEcon, Inc. EXHIBIT A ConsultEcon and Behan Planning and Design (the consultant team) will meet with up to 4 private landowners on their properties (to be identified and scheduled by the Director of Planning) to discuss the owners'ideas,vision and plans for their properties'future land use and how they align with the preliminary economic development strategies and recommendations that have emerged during the planning process for Inlet Valley. The results of the meetings with landowners will be summarized and input into the development of the final draft strategic plan to be completed as a part of the original scope of services. 2 a 0 w V O O L O O V O N U 0 -0 O O O O O 0O O O O O U) 0 O cO O O O0O co O 0 CL 0 LO O O O ON LO M LO C coW CO LO (•� N N co co LC) Q r� Cl) (0 o � 00 0 00 0 0 0 a � L o 0 0 w o w w w U a Q a a z z z a - z a a a r a .- o Q o Q Q a a a Q a Q Q Q C p r -O CO - CO Y U r V Q 0- Q WQ Q J �' J U J O J Z J J > J w J N W N W -OO J O J W W C W Q J W t CO v CO orS m Cf) O) N x o C_ L N N no (0 E 0O7 CO < O J m QU O LL -O O a(0)t` Z Q o _ m 0 O 0 J_d' g w ++ N N i O O � _j j O (n O LL o -p o Z_ a) �p o pp 0) Z_ O O m 3 Q V d M 'aco W p O p J -O U p ry (n -O fco O D (h O U N - O N mN N O L -CY CO (C d C,40 O r O N (O .Fa V C7 a) C7 N C7 — C LC) D1� J , � oo E O Q � E CN o O m m � � m L w Z V , CO (O N O V N O N N Of O O N C C O) O N > �2 � •Q^� r O 'ITO N oi � coO d C -O LCN 0 N N O O N C? - E L N o b Cb r m � m 0 . m O Y O U Cl) O O rIT O O Cl) N O Q O N N Cl) C V N (0 C7 U In LO Lo In L Cl) N O O CCP CZp O O N J -OQQ Q Z i N UUN O �p Z L C L U O O Ll W m O N H E U H z 00 > m OLE 0 E D N 0 O N N O Q Z N O Z O > o N W 0 W Cf) N N O` W N -O C, W N O N d' O (Cp N O L C J C Y N j CA J_ LL J N JN N '0O Q O_ N L N C dS C U N ` C N Q A C Q C C� 0 OD d N ) (D (D N (D _0 W I-- LL O O W L d Q m Q Z m W .L. C Z Z -O Z O W C m W Y Q ll C Y N ll C 0 Y .N LL w [L 0 LL > LLN J 0 - J Y TON U - C OU00 0 � 00 Z (7m - (7 w o O 0 Q E 0 z C co OD ti ` >> m > > m o a) N E E E E o o > r` r` r` r` N r` � r` r`CL Ww ' Z 0 ' O 0 0 0 0 Oc M C,4 N_ N_ N_ N_ N_ N_ N_ C'4 LO O LO O O O O O O O O O M O 0 O # Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q i C V V V V V V V V V V V � N H H N H H H H H H H .0 (OO 0Lc) O CF) 00 O NO Cl) 'IT� O LO LOm Lc) O � O v c c v v c c c c c c - O O O O O O O O O O O O. I� CL Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 04 N 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 a 0 0 0 O O O O 0 00 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 U "Tooo CIA m o `o � 0 ku a O c � 0 N O7 O 7 7 O7 V LO — V N r- _ _ = 0 = _ = m , C Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o N W W W W W U W W W W W U m 0 O O O O z Q E Y �- y a a a a a w a a a a aE CD Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q < 0 N N � c `0 O O U N +-' W_ W_ W_ D W_ M W_ D C d Z J Z J Z Z J Z Z Z Z O 0- O J O J O c7 J O N H W H W H Q W H Q H Q O C fn Y UJ Y U) Y U) fn o Q Q Q m C N Q X Q N C O 00) C Z (0 a N C r N O m Q� N L J Q C p U O Z_ 0 �_ > t '� d' N LO 0) S fA co co 0o R ° 0 O ° � iL � co Y Q 0 = T }I 0) d' J U `p 'IT c4 0 O LO LO Cl) -o N O O� O O r Cl) LO J r� O O O LO V V CO O LO N O Q Z V In N O 0 V CO o7 O -o O Q c m N / O` 0 C C 0) V Cl) r 04 Cl)C7 O co O L(') E N , 0 O V O V O N d T T -O 00 Cl) , O_ Cl) Cl) 3 V f7 C N ' N J ° C� C co EL ) r� N N 0 N N O a V .�0 Cl) v v o QO C O a Fa Z N Z � Zm 0 0 O oE E w Q N °_ 3 w LL c N Q d' otS W W x L c a. O m > m = U 0 U _ o E 0 0 'N Z (0 Z O 0 H a N N W W > N >` N W N D U -O C C N N L_ W D W O J CO N COp N -0 W C 0 0 CO Cf Co LLL ° O ° U U) g o O g O m O O ° Z x Z m � d C >. CO N N Q LL N LL J (D CO LL >O w w N co w 0 w N W O T O Y O �° O o U u o 0 0 O O C O ° O a U o 0 ~ m Q W E0 Q v O o O 0 N N O O N O O L L E r y Q Q L 3 E E �° o +% 0ofo00 � 0 � Om 0 � OZ 0 � 0 � 00 N G N G G G G G N M M LO 0 00 11 O 0 0 0O0O0 GO w # Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q i C V V V V V V V V V V V � N H H H H H H H H H H .0 000 00 00O NO COO 'IT LO LO COO rO 000 m 0 O r r r V V V V V V V V V V V O O O O O O O O O O O CL Q Q O O O O O O O O O O O 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 a 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O O 0 o O O O a o U o rn 0 > 0 0 0 r LO 0 LO (� o m LO o .� N 0 00 0 O Q 0 0 0 w w Co w w w 0 w w w w z O OCL E z O z O O O O O m 00 Y 0 °0 " z a a ° z a z a 0- a a a y w a a m w a w a a (9 a a 0- < Q Q n- a Q a Q Q Q Q Q N E O w W_ co W_ W_ -0 W_ CO N Q Z J N J Z Q W Z Z Q z Q J p J U J O J O O J C� N W -o w Q Q co CL�edJ _0 cA m o cA 0 0 -0 E 00 y -0o N N 0 N N ^0 w .) o L r CN J N 0) O N 2 Z _0 N O N p N w � x Y o am .3 Lim Ofo 0 V dLO M N � °o 3 m O � a a � > � co a . J N Q N C w 07 O O R N Co C co co O O — C C co L O x 5 W _ CO m d U m W O O N fa (4 d v Cl) 0 m 00 rn 00 c (o rn 3 LO J O O V in O N - N a) O 00 a� O 0 Z V N V C 6 V LO L N C C O O -o •C O N _0) N Z CC y O O N CO m CY) L N O LO LO -o N 'o E -0 E co V L'7 L' O NCO I XO1 LO f7 N (o N oNo No -0 ch 1. O 1. cE 1 L N CO LO N O N f7 04 LL0 Y (o � � cY) m v D Q OQ Q 0 J O Q E o z z 3 Q N o z Q m 0 00 - Om ONO zN o 00 LL QC Q Qy Q0Q ° E � CO Q � 0a) 0 off ° � � < 'oE N IL W 0 E W W E C a m W N .� — o C W y C W E of -O o- al J �_ E o0 Ci) Lu J 0 J `O C J C a) J_ C o m a� m g O7 Q L LL c g ° N Q E Q Q o C U 3 O Q (� o LL N ul (7 — LL .4 LL O d' Y E Q LL -o (� (� 0 (� °' -o C Ln N 0 W O Of a7 m N J N z N J m J — w o (7 0 O W E z z Q z N CL MD (9N LL LL N LL .x - z O Uw U` - - � Y Q � � � Cho 0 Oo O ° H z � po z .X zr - Om x wo zm 0o OC Oy H fA (0 - Of r m o w o O o 0 o E m o 0 Q 0 > O_` 0 o7 V (0 ` O > > 0 0)d o o 0400 � �oof N N 0of N 0LLW 0of 00 0LL Of 0 N N_ N_ N_ N N N N N 0 G 0 G 0 G O G O G O G 0 0 0 0 0 00G0 GO N N N 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GO w # Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q G G G G G G G G G G G C V V V V V V V V V V V � N H H H H N N H H H N .0 0O 0O O NO � O O LO (0 1O 0O 0O m r 00 0 00 00 00 w w w 00 w v c c c c c v c c c v - O O O O O O O O O O O CL 0. Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 § ) - c ate \ v0 a » r ] k \ \ \z k k k \ § ( < < \ § § < § CV 2 o m { o § % \ CO \ % CO ( CO CL ( ) 0 0 \ j § j / \ j CO \ C � , J J - Q § § 0 / 7 ■ a a k c % f \ < ) ) n : A & s n : a { i 2 ) m � ) � (o 4)® 7 / § E > E 2 % 0Z a a LO o ) LO e ca ` 2Q ! r ' o ® 4 � _ \ c § § 3 / - ( / � CF) LO< � E \ � \ \ � \ E 2 a ( k « 2 r < , m a- < < c 0- � \ - § 0 2 © ) 00 27 0 ) 0 . ) ) w w ® % ` 5t % 7 ƒ � s % ) \ § ( _Lr) w0 2 ® & k � 2 ® i kf0 k � ± ` E < ° ~ ± ® gm ` ° ` E \ / a0 0 ) ) � 0 k } 4 ( , ( \ � § ® 0 j \ 0E ) 4 \ / 77k ) f 7f CO � e \ oz 72 a ® 2p5 of w } w = kk k ) /( \/\ � § 22 � § z 0 § J § z 4 g /§ _ 0\ k k k k §\ § § § § § k _ e \ a \ a \ a \ a \ a \ a \ a \ \ Gk \ Gk k kk k §gagmk \ a a a a a a 04 � k v / 2 o § 2400 @ \ o / a » a a } e a Cl) % zz 0 v � 2A 2 ® � C'4 — & k z0 < 0 [ } ) / 2 LL ± \ D \ < ) § z 2 e G ) \ 0 z LLI / \ Q § U) of z� CO m § \ % a w ¥ < Of � % o k < { j § ui z ( � U- § a ƒ } IL o z < 0 2 0 o \ 2 o 0 0 = o w -j o z o w 4 < = o 0 0 w Of m m e e O O O O o o O o O O O U OO C c0 O O O O L_ In O N In O O O ON Or` O O O N O O O O O O 6 O V LO O In O — 04 LO (0 O 1 O U (O L� 0 N U N a N N N C O a) 0 Z Z Z w Z Z Z Z Z (0 Z Z Z Z W W WW W W O W W W W m a a a 3 a a a a a 0 0 O 0 a a a a in o O o O O O 0 0 0 0 O O Q LO v o CO o O U U N 0 W Cf) W W W O J O ZC Z N W J J a O m O ° J J J O J N O O O Oy U m m y Y y � y X 0 U) U) CO C J O) mCO3E Q L C U a N -0 O- Q W a) C a 0 lY =0 -0Q 3 0 J x lY L .> co r 2 m m X O W N W o O O _ E C (0 (V ul -0 N Q c p m N > (o 0 g J o ++ CO m N 3 to Y x a° co -0 a° V QI +L+ t O J O Lo N U - 0 U EO co Ln NQ + r V U LO m r y O 3 C CV ~ V O O LO >' LO O V N O O -0 N O Z N (6 o v o ri Ci Lo r o r) ri O J V 1. Q L r V Q 3 N p ('7 (0 UO N r N r r r m V 0 t` O _� (7 r (7 O N L CO L� co C7 N N 0) ` Z U (n N m (0 Lo N O m �0 co N I� Ln Co Ln I� I� I� a !0L 0 _0 E -o O � (o E � Cq � E a N O _0 o) m Q >. U O) Z Q Z o-o in > W °' O N 0 0 0 (° o u r OC D N -0 W a) N 0) a) H a C a E H W O Y O` O O` oiS O 0J N a Z E (9 a) v W N a LOn W — 3 Z W a) - U 0) lY W a. '� O U o Q o U 0 z a o D w w o z L w m a W 0 E Z U W `O U C — 0 N lY m Wco :0 W O N O U � 'w ~ Q a) m p E Co ZLLJ } o U > Lu E N S O F � 0) W c U W O lY 3 W L E lY Z J E U d � a) N O O J > y W J U O °o Z C7 o o a o � of C o � � `o �_ m N a a aa) z E o G) OW N Of m (7 Lai o 2 c (7 0 LL `o U o O U Z a C O W C U J ( 0 O y 0- N Z ° p O o S L� Do a m _j 0 Lai Y - 0) J E Z a 0 w U — a n o g O 0 O 2 (7 0 O O .N (7 -o W to > z a W n x x w o 0 = -0 z -0 m O x Z m J a F C-W7k( uOC QYO) fn H C of `a) C) NC W CO o-o aWa) -o Cl) a 03 N 0 00pZ 0 00 O 0 0 O N NO O O OU OaO N a> N NN NN NNNN C 04 O -O po E N o m o m O aN L� x Na) E cc " E " E " E Q O m W r V CO Q C7 U 0) L, (+) O lY , J LC) 0 10 00 of O y N of LO V ('7 V LO V ('7 LO O L� L� # V V V V V V C7 V V V V V V V V V V V V V V O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y d d d d d d d d d d d d 0) D D D D D D D D D D D D IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 Y O N O O O O O O O O 00 LO O m o O LO LO o yI MO (j (O O 7 (O O) O O O O LO 7 N O V U co N LO N U) Z Z Z Z Z N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z .�, W W W W W p W W W W W W W in O O O O O m 0 O O O O O O CO O I CO Q W W Z J O Z J Z J w Z Z d J Q Q w Q W O� w Q O� O� O O CO m m 0 m L Q o O N -a y 0 W O f0 N O J _0 O > y 2' W N W > Of�/� JrnU Q O v m m W OCf) JO OE O O 5 YO v v YE co co co °� Q - NQ co Om m 'IT = a> CO Y U i MN N N O N U O m r co (7 O 0 V 0 (OV O N O O 00 QdS LO V s cn �v//� (O O7 N O) O) 04 LO 0)} V 7 7 V 0 O > CF) N V N Lo N LO f7 O O O_ Z N O (7 ('7 N C N o� V (O In (7 O' N r r _ r N r r N r ~ m N N o7 (7 ('7 O " V N cV Lo Lo O O 0) (q N 0 CO Cl) r� Cl) V LO r� V �p (O r� r� a 5 L m H H 4-- 0 > O Z N J O7 J W N C C ++ H C14 ° z -0 z m � a a O Of r o Of O > O F- o c C Q jr W D N F- Q > Q -O N (0 F- W ' n ZW —n ZW Z ON -oC W' Q WLLI O -O CO Z O ° -o W _a W W C a) -O O W N z z O Q ZZ Q Na7 N N O < n W O C m :O Q N C N CO O E of O m w (n co L N - N LLL (0 Wo) N C C LLL m J_ (0 00 2 0 d' O d' �` L N N N J N - } >• } -O >_ C W L N C N >- Q O U_ J O J N Y 'O w WiC\l N o 0Oo WLo J LL L_ LLL L ` C O z O O ` OLL U d O TZo o g LL C m O O O > O w O O o ~ fA 0 CO rN N O N C wN N N CN N Q Nr r H N r -O O C Ur U w O O0O0O O O N OO O 0Q ( 4) 04 = 24 N N N (O 0 00)N f7 f7 f7 V LO O O O 4 N r N Nrn Nrn Qa) Q r Q rrn Q Nrn0) O o N m m 0) N o N O J W LO CO O (h LO Z O 0 O (n V (n r� Of C7 (n O N O F C7 (O (O V r LO r r r LO O O O # V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y d d d d d d d d d d d d IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 0 0 0 6 o o O O O o m 0) o V o m o m o 0 o O U co 0 O Lo O o o o o O o co 0 rn O o o O O Q O Lo o- rn o V N N O LL) LL) 00 U` co 04 C a) U N Q O O a y Z Z Z Z Y Z Z Z N Z Z N Z Z N r W W W W 0 W W O WW W Q W W L o a a c 0- a a U) a a m O O O O 0 O O E O Q O O m O O o U U U C 0 N W W J > >. w ca Q (n O Q W N O Z Z Z c J J C J U W J J Z -0 r U O O C� 0 J JC J (0 J 0) J O a U) � U Y y Y c CO Y a-a)i u, Cf) c dJN m 0 (� Q > _0 LOn o O O N F 0 W w (o a O Z C -O N (0 -inw U u J w O o m y -0 y > (0 Q cc .3 o LL Z > Z _ Z N a m W (0 p O UO N O N -0 (� E N > C N �' CO O C O a) W O Q N "E O _0 ++ A�, pl N V A J 0 L() 00 LLo W LO (o N Lo CL CY) O Lo C ++ co O C7 O .X N N N .6 N t` a) O s cn to m o m U E Lo (Q r CO N O — > C7 -0 N2 m a O Z to a) C9 .6 rn N Y a m eo a.+ N N N 3 ~ U Wcq m � Co v co Co 0 Ln m m � (o � m L -Oo SY LOn a7 z r d o 04 UO) 0- a) L 1-- E O C u r W _� Q 0 N L O N E c E O_ (0 0 a) D C W -o m m mw 0) o Q -o 0 Z Z mm U o OU E ~ m -0 U0 O m W ZLLJ 4 � ( Z WO c- _0 Ln o m -a) of c O o a) U o D m a`) 'o Co w 2 z E w 2 U W N 0 C (0 Q C W Q a) dS L CDE N J_ ul (0 J O `p _0 Of EO 0) w 0 2 -0 (0 ul O N co N O_ Q W — LL < (0 Z_ Z_ CO Co ZZ_ N Z_ w O Z_ N W d V w O N ll ll Y C w LL N E: aT OW J J O (9 co 0 o Og U (_0 O O 0 0 O o N W a r 0 Ln O N 0) - co)` � )` r O Xa) 0 � rn )` a(0) a) O 0 L0 0 ) O 0 = 0 O O O O C O O D O N N N -0 j aO N N O E o 04 cL O ( (00 N - Lo LO LO LO ` U 00 L0) a) 0) mN 0) 0) 0) 0) NN 0) a) 0) p O (7 0 N O LLU` ULC7 U U V CO 0 U 00 Of C7 O U) N N O C7 U` N O O Un V N N # V V V V m V V V V V V V V V V V V V O V V V O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y O y d d d d d d d d d d d ND D D D D D D D D D D IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 k \ § 2 @ 2 ] 5 5 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 CD i c -_ 0 % % CO z ^ k ( ( k £ R § j § § 0 } w _ z k kCL - z J \ J { } \ 0 co { » ■ a & e o . E J 3 [ u 2 2 @ ] § CF) « ■ _ c o o - e snqtm % o/ \ \ \ 7 \ \ } 2 \ k MD § ( » m - » / E L ° : \ \ ) \ 0 } / 0 § \ z < E t I = : ± 2 ~ 0 / = z J z \ \ - 0 \ \ o = ) ( f § E / - j / Co c < ( \ ) \ \ 0- } \ E o a) § 7 2 3 0 ( � $ { \ j / \ 2 2 » ( » o § / § / ) \ / \ / } \ 7 § k k k k 23 § 0 § 0 § 0 IL R R R R04 a � � o o � x / 00 § (o2 / a a a m » a » » a) Cl) 2 / z § v � 2A o ® M � N — § a §_ z / < g ƒ [ § § \ / e <LLI \ Fn< z } \ I 4 g w w G ) \ < § \ § § z § c c < z b ( z E z § § I M / 5 % M ) a a a § CO U) § \ § ® E ) y <) Cui f) \ o g UJ o f 4 ( < k ui uiui o } � ) \ = \ j § \ § o z z z j 2 < = o o c o a 7 7 7 e e 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Certificates Issued From: 9/1/2017 To: 913012017 Cert. # Date Type Temp SBL Legal Address Inspector Status 2016-0324 9/1/2017 CC 58.-2-40 1410 SLATERVILLE RD DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0391 9/1/2017 CC 56.-2-1.1 1551 Slaterville Rd MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0198 9/1/2017 CC 41.-1-30.2 127 Conservatory Dr DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2016-0284 9/1/2017 CC 66.-3-18 115 Halcyon Hill Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0389 9/5/2017 CC 41.-1-30.2 953 Danby Rd MMOSELEY ISSUED 2016-0400 9/8/2017 CC 36.-1-4.5 1150-1154 Danby Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0437 9/11/2017 CC 68.-1-1.2 189 Pleasant Grove Rd MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0439 9/11/2017 CC 68.-1-1.2 189 Pleasant Grove Rd BBATES ISSUED 2017-0438 9/11/2017 CC 68.-1-1.2 189 Pleasant Grove Rd BBATES ISSUED 2017-0306 9/12/2017 CC 73.-1-9.7 12 Sanctuary Dr MKELLY ISSUED 2017-0411 9/12/2017 CC 39.-1-29 341 Stone Quarry Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0419 9/13/2017 CC 39.-1-1.1 950 Danby Rd BBATES ISSUED 2017-0253 9/13/2017 CC 53.-1-15.1 337 Coddington Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0228 9/13/2017 CC 26.-3-14 118 Bundy Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2016-0189 9/14/2017 CC 41.-1-30.2 953 Danby Rd MKELLY ISSUED 2016-0461 9/14/2017 CC 66.-2-6 110 Warren Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0396 9/15/2017 CC 71.-1-10.2 309 Siena Dr MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0397 9/15/2017 CC 71.-1-10.2 309 Siena Dr MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0395 9/15/2017 CC 71.-1-10.2 309 Siena Dr MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0399 9/20/2017 CC 49.-1-21.12 688 Coddington Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0394 9/20/2017 CO 45.-2-18 155 Ridgecrest Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0342 9/22/2017 CO 67.-1-10.2 240 Farrier Rd MKELLY ISSUED 2017-0376 9/22/2017 CC 60.-1-8.2 230 Pine Tree Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2016-0460 9/22/2017 CC 60.-1-3 921 MITCHELL STREET MKELLY ISSUED 2017-0372 9/22/2017 CC 67.-1-2.1 121 Pleasant Grove Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0375 9/22/2017 CC 60.-1-9.1 220 Pine Tree Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0374 9/22/2017 CC 68.-1-9 215 Warren Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0373 9/22/2017 CC 19.-2-29 1000 East Shore Dr MSTONIER ISSUED Page 1 of 3 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Certificates Issued From: 9/1/2017 To: 913012017 Cert. # Date Type Temp SBL Legal Address Inspector Status 2017-0371 9/22/2017 CC 63.-1-3.4 490 Pine Tree Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0370 9/22/2017 CC 62.-2-1.121 315-377 Pine Tree Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0343 9/22/2017 CO 67.-1-10.2 240 FARRIER ROAD MKELLY ISSUED 2017-0160 9/25/2017 CC 60.1-1-20.2 311-3 Strawberry Hill Cir MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0161 9/25/2017 CC 60.1-1-20.3 311-4 Strawberry Hill Cir MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0165 9/25/2017 CC 60.1-1-22.3 341-4 Strawberry Hill Cir MMOSELEY ISSUED 2017-0141 9/25/2017 CC 72.-1-37 114 Concord PI DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0405 9/25/2017 CC 61.-1-10 150 Snyder Hill Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0384 9/25/2017 CC 67.-1-2.1 121 Pleasant Grove Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0260 9/26/2017 CO 70.-11-52 127 Muriel St MSTONIER ISSUED 2016-0439 9/26/2017 CO 44.2-2-14 23 SAUNDERS RD DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2017-0394 9/26/2017 CO 45.-2-18 155 Ridgecrest Rd MSTONIER ISSUED 2017-0402 9/27/2017 CC 52.-1-19 407 Coddington Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2016-0443 9/27/2017 CC 39.-1-8 1034 Danby Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED 2016-0445 9/28/2017 CC 70.-1-34 1306 Hanshaw Rd DMAGNUSO ISSUED Page 2 of 3 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Certificate Report Totals by Type and Status From: 9/1/2017 To: 9/30/2017 Certificate Type Certificate Status Count CC 37 CO 6 Total: 43 ISSUED 43 Page 3 of 3 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Complaints Received Report From: 9/1/2017 To: 9/30/2017 Date Type Tax Parcel # Legal Address Disposition 9/5/2017 FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS 1028 Ellis Hollow Rd ABATED Desc: Dry chemical extinguisher used to put out small trash can fire. Fire extinguisher needs to be refilled/replaced. 9/5/2017 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 44.-1-4.52 158 Troy Rd OPEN Desc: Mold 9/6/2017 BUILDING WITHOUT A PER 29.-6-5 124 Haller Blvd OPEN Desc: Illegal apartment. 9/8/2017 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 70.-10-3.24 226 Sapsucker Woods Rd CLOSED Desc: Complaint on no heat and electrical issues. 9/11/2017 FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS 1259 Trumansburg Rd OPEN Desc: Alarm system acts as if there is a fault in the system; All alarms showing zone 19, smoke detector, 3rd fl front. Alarm company took zone off line. See report. 9/21/2017 ZONING VIOLATION 61.-1-3 1027 Ellis Hollow Rd OPEN Desc: TC Assessment reports this house is on the market as a two family home. Town records indicate single family home. 9/21/2017 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 60.-1-35 318 Eastwood Ave OPEN Desc: Discharge of sewage to the surface of the ground. Must be abated by Oct. 17, 2017. 9/22/2017 NYS BUILDING CODE 208 Cypress Ct OPEN Desc: Apt 7 possibly has water leaks in the HVAC closet and possibly another leak in the bathroom area. Complex maintenance team has dealt with it on two other occasions but there is still concern that the leak is there and it is causing mold to grow. 9/26/2017 ZONING VIOLATION 24.-1-20 1452 Trumansburg Rd OPEN Desc: No record of this property being a two family home. Call from tenant with safety concerns including mold. See notes 9/27/2017 BUILDING WITHOUT A PER 28.-1-6.11 1429 Mecklenburg Rd OPEN Desc: Call from contractor asking about drilling post holes. Advised that there is no permit for any work on this property. 9/27/2017 BUILDING WITHOUT A PER 56.-3-13.3 118 Park Ln OPEN Desc: Section 125-4 Town of Ithaca Code, Failure to renew permit Page 1 of 3 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Complaints Received Report From: 9/1/2017 To: 913012017 Date Type Tax Parcel # Legal Address Disposition 9/28/2017 FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS 33.-3-6 654 Elmira Rd OPEN Desc: Choice Hotels Reservation site indicates that hotel rooms are available for rental. Building still under construction and doesn't have safety features in place. 9/29/2017 BUILDING WITHOUT A PER 72.-1-3.2 402 Winthrop Dr OPEN Desc: removing deck and digging without a permit Page 2 of 3 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Complaints Report From: 9/1/2017 To: 9/30/2017 Totals by Complaint Type & Status ComplaintType Complaint Status Count BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT 4 FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS 3 NYS BUILDING CODE 1 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 3 ZONING VIOLATION 2 Total: 13 ABATED 1 CLOSED 1 OPEN 11 Page 3 of 3 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Complaints Closed Report From: 9/1/2017 To: 913012017 Date Type Tax Parcel # Legal Address Disposition 9/8/2017 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 70.-10-3.24 226 Sapsucker Woods Rd CLOSED Desc: Complaint on no heat and electrical issues. Page 1 of 2 10/2/2017 Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Complaints Report From: 9/1/2017 To: 9/30/2017 Totals by Complaint Type & Status ComplaintType Complaint Status Count PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 1 Total: 1 CLOSED 1 Page 2 of 2