HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown Board Member Desch MiscPoints of Agreement o/v
Interim Water Source Development ^
1. Both parties recognize potential water crisis in intermunicipal area.
2. Both parties recognize need to develop an interim source.
3. Town agrees to pay all costs for design, construction, maintenance and operation
of its share of an interim source with a capacity (for Town of Ithaca) of 4 MGD.
4. City agrees to sell bulk water in a quantity not to exceed 1.1 MGD to the Town at
1.5 times the present rate schedule except as follows:
a. During a prolonged draught* the City is permitted to limit the sale of water
to the Town to 0.6 MGD providing that sufficient notice is forwarded in writing
to the Town no less than one week prior to the change.
b. If increases in cost of operating and maintaining city system indicate a need
to change the rate schedule, the municipalities shall jointly determine the
new schedule at which time either party may choose to modify the extent of its
commitment to sell or buy water. No consideration shall be given to a proposed
change in rate sooner than one year after the date of initiation of this agree
ment nor more frequently than annually thereafter.
5. The City will continue to own all facilities providing water to the City of Ithaca.
6. The City reserves the right to enter into a further agreement with the Town to
purchase water from the Town on the basis of mutually acceptable terms.
7. Both parties recognize that this agreement will serve as a base for intermunicipal
cooperation in other areas, such as fire protection, highways, youth programs, law
enforcement, etc,
8. The engineering details of the required system modifications will be worked out
jointly by the municipalities engineers.
Noel Desch
June 8, 1970
:3 -
27 March 1970
Mr. Noel Desch ;
Member of the Town Board
Town of Ithaca
Dear Sir:
I wish to express my opposition to the rezoning requested by radio
station WTKO of a tract of land located on King Road East from
Residence District R ?>0 to Business District B for the following
seperate and distinct reasons:
3 . The proposal appesirs to be in direct violation of Section 78
of the Town*s Zoning Ordinance on the following points —
•: a. Station WTKO has not shown any documentary evidence from
the Federal Communications Commission to suggest that the proposed
location is the only possible location. Two similar stations,
WSYR, Syracuse, New York, and WPLM, Plymouth, Mass., are not located
on the sides of hills in order to protect other stations.
b. Station WTKO has not shown the need for a 24-hour AM
station except in emergency. In the case of a recent emergency
it has demonstrated that it is capable of serving the needs of
the community from its present location,
c. The proposed usage will probably adversely affect the
"probable future character" as well as the existing character of
the neighborhood as is indicated by ;the relatively vacant buffer
surrounding Station WSYR in Syracuse and the depressed land values
surrounding WPLM in Plymouth, Mass.
d. The proposed change is not in "accordance with a compre
hensive plan of the development of the Town".
2. The proposed usage is not listed as permissible in a Business
District B.
3. The proposed usage Is not In accordance with the following
limitation on height from Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance:
"...no structure shall exceed 2 stories in height,"
A. The proposed structures are of such a height that were they
to fall down they would fall on adjacent private property, across
gas pipelines, and/or across King Road East.
5- I feel the proposed usage by WTKO would be an eyesore for the
following reasons —
a. The four towers, each taller than 300', especially when
supported by guy-wires rather than self-supporting are an eyesore.
b. The present WTKO transmitter site is not properly maintained.
c. The present WTKO transmitter building is not properly
maintained,
d. Approximately 805^ of the billboards on the Mecklenburg
Road are located on or adjacent to the WTKO transmitter site,
6. Since the studio is not located on the site the signal will
have to be transported to the site, most probably resulting in
additional above ground wires at a time when such are being
discouraged by local governmental bodies,
7. It has not been shown that the benefits to the community are
outweighed by the liabilities of the proposed usage. For example,
$400,000of housing may be displaced by the $120,000 of transmitter.
I request the members of the board consider these points and if
you feel any or all are pertinent that you either reject the
rezoning or that you refer the matter back to the Planning
Board for further consideration.
Sincerely,
. Robert H. Poresky