Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupervisor Desch Re Six Mile Creek and South Hill Rec WayDEC221982 135 Pine Tree Road ' Ithaca, New York 14850 December 20, 1982 Mr. Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Ithaca, New York 14850 n Dear-Noel: - - - ------ At a recent meeting of the Environmental Management Council, the Fish and Wildlife Committee reported on two issues arising out of its study of the Commonlands Project. I thought you and the Board would like to know about them. Issue One involves land use in the City of Ithaca,- Six Mile Creek watershed. What is the City's policy with regard to the land on either side of the Creek? Is the policy being enforced? Will theiiCity restrict foot traffic, if, in its opinion, it becomes a threat to the environment? IssuerTwo comes closer to home, for it involves the Town's zoning goals for areas adjacent to the.Six Mile Creek watershed. Is Commonlands the beginning of a TREND for development along the entire Six Mile Creek watershed? It seemed to the Fish and Wildlife Committee that the whole area — both sides of the.Creek — should be considered for the protection that zoning would give to the. natural, environment .- An added concern is the possible impact of the development along the banks of the Creek oh the Six Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve, desig nated as a County unique natural area'. Noel, these two issues imply that the City and the Town work together toward common, mutually ACCEPTED gOals. The Committee did not suggest any solutions; however,' I thought you would like to know about its concerns The season's best, Richard B. Fischer RBF:bm xc: Herbert Engman Leslie Dotson TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 if f ffNAL OISPOSITlOr<J)ATE January 25, 1983 Richard B. Fischer 135 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Dick: Thanks very much for your report on the recent EMC deliber ations on the matter of the future of the Six Mile Creek watershed. The Town has already offered to assist the City in the creation of legislation pertaining to trespassing in the watershed. There may also be a need for the City to look at a land acquisition policy for any critical watershed areas. As you know, there have been a niamber of parcels for sale for sometime. With respect to the Town's zoning policy, the extensive re view of the Town Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance conducted by the Planning Board Staff, the Planning Board, the Town's Codes and Ordinance Committee and the Town Board has af firmed the soundness of the long established zoning in this area. 1 will, however, take the liberty of forwarding your letter to Planning Board Chairman Montgomery May with the suggestion that the Planning Board consider perhaps a joint study of unique natural areas, such as portions of the Six Mile Creek watershed and South Hill Swainp. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: Montgomery May \ ftlAK (iiJREC'D OFFICE OF MAYOR WILLIAM R. SHAW PwTeS FINAL CITY OF ITHACA 10a EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 1 A850 March 17, 1983 Mr. Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 DlSPOSiriQN DATE TELEPHONE; 272-1713 CODE 607 RE: Six Mile Creek Study Group Dear Noel: Af Would you be so kind^to designate a member of your Planning Board to serve on the above noted committee. I would appreciate being notified before the 30th who that person is, as I hope to convene the group at that time. Thank you. Sincerely yours. William R. Shaw Mayor "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Alfirmative Action Program" IffiMORANDUM DISPOSITION DATE FINAL TO: Montgomery May FROM: Noel Desch RE: Liaison to Six Mile Creek Study Group DATE: March 23, 1983 As I mentioned last week, we have been asked by Mayor Shaw to appoint a liaison to the new study committee whose charge is described in the enclosed letter. In my judgement, this request is consistent with the Tovm Planning Boards inter ests in the future of the City Watershed and adjourning properties. Please appoint a representative at your next meeting and inform the City directly so that we can be involved in the early going. ND/js encs. f 9 ' ^ Wy : mm:. L«. T; • .r , ; ft'V' ' ' ' - A'' .« • •'* f/N/ April 25.19^ DISPOSlfldN DArt Dear 7Mt ^ The Six Mile Creek Preservation Comnittee (6KCPC) has under stood that the Town of Ithaca will finalize zoning revisions this year. We. are, of course, deeply committed to protecting the lands and waterways of Six Kile Creek between Giles Street and Burns Road and Slaterville and Coddington Roads, We are very pleased that Kayor Shaw has convened the Six Kile Creek Watershed Study Committee to determine compatible usages within and adjacent to "the watershed and the means to protect and preserve aspects of the area. We hope that the Town will also carefully consider this area, through zoning and/or declaring the area a "critical natural area" under 3EQRA, Issues lo be considered under zoning include lower density than currently allowed, the need to extend utility and sewer services, and a buffer zone or fencing between the city owned land boundaries and private lands ( buffering could be accom- plished through a^ conservation district, for examnle, leaving pro perty development nearer the roads and utility hook-ups.). The 6KCPC would like to be informed on any zoning hearings or meetings, if possible. Sincerely, 1 10 Ulj Si n •'#" ^^E^IORANDU^^ - disposition-date .rt./.n'.■%'Vif,-.' FINAL Monty May Henry Aron FROM: Noel Descb RE: Critical Environmental Area Designation Six Mile Creek DATE: November 7, 1983 It is inappropriate for the Tox-m to consider or study this issue unless we are specifically requested by an official board of the City. Neither the Planning Board, the Zoning Board nor the Town staff should spend time on this matter unless specifically so requested by the Town Board following the receipt of such request from the City of Ithaca. ND/js cc:Town Staff Town Board "t ";, T A tr '' .'n L'V;- -K •■•-j'x* '•" i5i©i«--^v',;-i^ « ^ ' I ^ ' . JrW & A W ^ v' -^ vi^ ■'•■"l7-". v-?7>-^;^i^A? ^ -f .iwiy-y . :■; *i -i 7 f .» ^.. v . -i V-- ■» ' ■7'l7®?^Si^ Af 7;f ■ 'V ^ Khxmim i DiSPOSiriONOArE TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREH ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ^ril 6, 1984 Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John: I have had the opportunity to review the March 1984, Report of the Six Mile Creek Study Corinittee, I would like to comend the manbers of the Comiittee for the outstanding job they have done to help us protect the invaluable resource. We are very appreciative of the cpportunitY to have Town representation on the Comiittee and hope that the City concurs that the Town representatives had a positive inpact on the findings and reccnmendations in the final report. I have a number of observations that the City should be aware of as you deliberate cn the specific reconnendations in the report. 1. Prior to iirplementation of Recomnendation 1 Public Access, Reconnendation 2 Public Entrances, the inplementation of Recarnendation 6, Circle Greenway and the iiiprovemsnts yet to be identified in a Master Plan (see Reconmendation 10), the Town of Ithaca will require a full environmental review vhenever the portion of the watershed in the Town is involved. A copy of Town of Ithaca Ixx:al Law #3, 1980, and the Environmental Assessment Long Form are enclosed. The lead agency in such mtters is litely to be the Tcwn Board. The inplonentaticn of these reccsnnerdations is litely to be a IVpe I Action. 2. The Tomi is interested in working with the City on the develcptnent of the Six Mile Creek Master Plan. Such Master Plan presumably will assist us in dealing with Reconnendations 7, 8 and 13. I knew that Town and City Planning staff members have -=^1 ready given considerable thought to the contents of the Master Plan. They will need sane direction fron us as to the timing, scope and budget for such a project. Perhaps we should formalize arrangements to acccnplish this task, at our earliest opportunity. I have no idea as to cost at this point nor who should be charged with the responsibility to develop the plan. It may be prudent to have Town of Caroline and Dryden participation in the effort. Le me know when you would like to discuss the matter further. Veiy truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js encs. rS* A. T®WM 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 April 6, 1984 Honorable John C. Gutenberger I^ayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Itiiaca, New York 14850 Dear John; I have had the opportimity. to review the March 1984, Report of the Six Mile Creek Study Conmittee. . I would like to conmend the members of the Ccsunittee for the outstanding job they have done to help us protect the. invaluable resource. We are very appreciative of the opportunity to have Town representation on the Coimittee and hope that the City concurs that the Town representatives had a positive impact on the findings and recommendations in the final report. I have a number of cbservations that the City should be aware of as you deliberate on the specific recottnendations in the report. 1. Prior to implementation of Recommendation 1 Public Access, Recannendation 2 Public Entrances, the implementation of ReccOTnsndation 6, Circle Greenway and the improvements yet to be identified in a Master Plan (see Reccatimendation 10), the Town of Ithaca- will require a full environmental review vhenever the portion of the watershed in the Town is involved. A copy of Ttown of Ithaca Local Law #3, 1980, and the Environnental Assessment Long Form are enclosed. The lead agency in such matters is likely to be the Town Board. The inplonentation of these recomrendations is likely to be a Type I Action. 2. The Town is interested in working ivith the City on the develcpiient of the Six Mile Creek Master Plan. Such Master Plan presumably will assist us in dealing with Recotmendations 7, 8 and 13, I know that Town- and City Planning staff meiribers have alreac^ given considerable thought to the contents of the Master Plan. They will need some direction frcsm us as to the timiing, scope and budget for such a project. Perhaps we should formalize arrangements to acconplish this task, at our earliest opportunity. I have no idea-as to cost at this point nor vho should be charged rr' A with the responsibility to develop the plan. It may be prud^t to have Town of Caroline and Dryden participation in the effort.- Le me 3cticw when you would like to discuss the matter further. Very truly yours. • Noel Desch ' ^ Supervisor ND/js encs. c_^ — ^ DISPOSITION DATE Commonland Community HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS. INC. 1459 SLATERVILLE RD. ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 (607) 277-4747 FINAL Hay 10, igSlt 0 ITHACA Mr. Noel Desch Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 127 East Seneca Street Ithaca New York IA85O Dear Mr. Desch: We are writing for the Board of Directors and the residents of Commonland Community concerning current proposals for the Six Mile Creek watershed land. At two meetings of the thirty families now resident at Commonland, we discussed the subject and some concerns and questions were raised. Subsequently, the Board of Directors decided that It was Important that we express these concerns to the Town. Further, we feel strongly that It Is Important that Town residents be made fully av/are of the proposals and have ample opportunity to assess, discuss, and analyze the various Impacts of the plans. Our concerns centered on the question of public access, specifically: where would Town entrances be located, how would use of presently used (and possible new) Illegal access points be controlled, what might be the effect on liability of adjacent landowners, and what would the overall Impact be of opening this property to the public? Instinctively, It would seem that opening access to the public would increase public use. How much might the useage Increase? What provisions will be made for parking, already a problem In some areas? How will this Increase affect trespassing on private property, with attendent problems of liability, litter, damage, and disturbance? Because the major portion of the watershed property lies within Town boundaries and adjacent to Town residents, we are very anxious that consider ation be given to the Impact on Town residents, and that a forum exist for public exchange on these questions. Thank you. cc: Hon. J. Gutenberger Clausen, R. Marlon, D. Marlon, J. Marlon, Howser, Tauber, Lowe, Battlstella, Plerro Sincerely, Claudia Welsburd President, Commonland Community Residents' Association, with Paula Dougan, William PetrlHose, members of the Board D'SPOSUion Dflff TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET FINAL ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 May 1, 1984 Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor " . . City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John: I note the agenda for the May 2, 1984 Ccrnnon Council meeting includes a resolution establishing as policy, the first five reccratendations of the Six ItLle Creek Study Comiittee. Ihe Town of Ithaca respectfully requests that City of Ithaca action to adept recorinendations 1, 2, and 3 be deferred until the SEQR process, as indicated in iiy letter to you dated i^ril 6, 1984, is ccnpleted. As you can ajpreciate, the people of the Town of Ithaca have a legal right to an opportunity to participate in the environmental review process on these matters. The environmental review process can be expedited by the corpletion of Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Forms. We are also interested in knowing vhether or not the City endorses the concept of a joint effort in the develcpirent of a Six Mile Creek Master Plan. The Ithaca Town Board is in favor of ccaisictering such a concept. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Sr^^ervisor ND/js cc: Town Planning Board Town Staff Tcwn Board XIV PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE-AGENDA ITBM- A. SIX MILE CREEK GORGE POLICY RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Six Mile,Creek Gorge is a natural area of beauty and WHEREAS,, a Study Committee was appointed to Iinvestigate and. make recommendations concerning the Six Mile Creek • . . Gorge, and ' . " WHEREAS, the Committee produced a number of recommendations n • 1 i n contained in a report entitled Six Mile Gorge - People" and Preservation, and- • WHEREAS,■ Common Council has received the report, and . WHEREAS, Planning and Development Committee has considered and recommended adoption with certain reservations listed below of recommendation No. 1 through 5 in the report which deal with public access, public entrances, pro hibited activities, a gorge Ranger, and an Overseer ' Committee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the above listed recommendations with the exceptions below noted be and hereby'are adopted as City policy for Six Mile Creek-Gorge by ■' Common Council, and ■ ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the exceptions are as follows: T' • • 'Public.Entrances - .the exact location and the policy for maintenance of gorge entrances are to be determined in consultation with the Overseer Committee and the.BPW; 'Prohibited Activities - the prohibition against carrying ,:,arms be referred to the City Attorney' for his legal opinion. disposition date TOWN OF ITHACA ^ 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 May 31, 1984 Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John: The iirportance and urgency of the issues relating to the determination of lead agency status led me to schedule a Special TCwn Board meeting today. The Town Board reviewed the prcposal developed by you, Jerry Schickel and I, but was unwilling to accept our reccinmendatian. We did discuss in detail each of the reccrarendations in the Six Mile Creek Study Report and believe that now is the proper time to clarify lead agency status on each of the recommendations. We believe that the follcwig determination not only responds to the \irgent matters before you, but also should avoid a repetiticai of the rancor that apparently has occurred in the past few weeks. CITY TCWN 1.X X Public Access 2.X X Public Entrances 3.X Prohibited Activities 4.X Gorge Rangers 5.X Overseer Committee 6.X X Circle Greenway 7.X CEA Designation 8.X Conservation Zoning 9.X X . Maintenance (that subiect to SEQR) 10.X X Master Plan 11.__Education 12.X X Alternative Swimming Areas 13.,,Act of Acquiring Property 14.X Signage X = Lead agency designation is determined by geographical location of the action and agency with principal concerns. In our opinion, there is no reason to defer posting of the signage above the 60 foot dam nor to delay publishing the prohibited activities. In the case of recontiendation one and two, public access and public entrances, the Town believes that it is the best interest of the property owners in the Town, as reflected in recent correspondence, to have the Town Board as the lead agency for that portion of the recommendation pertaining to property in the Town. This position is consistent with the desire of the Six Mile Creek Ccnmittee to have the areas designated as a Critical Environmental Area by the Town in vhich event, the opening of any trail to the public would be a Type I Action. We also continue to be concremed with the adequacy of parking facilities being proposed. Even with the gorge rangers there is likely to be increasing pressure can private property along Slaterville Road in the Town. Perhaps it would be appropriate to hold a joint Town Bcard/Conmon Council meeting to discuss this matter before either party prcx»eds to refer it to the Ccrrmissioaier of DEC. Very truly yours. Nc^el Desch Sipervisor ND/js TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET FINAL ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650 June 12, 1984 Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John: The Town of Ithaca will not object to the City's designation as lead agency on recommendation one and two of the Six Mile Creek report providing the"six points described in the en closed memorandum from Peter Lovi to me dated June 8, is encorporated into the planning and implementation of the recommendations. I believe we have established an under standing and working relationship now on this matter, that will help us with the difficult decisions ahead. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: Peter Lovi encs. MEMORANDUM TO: Noel Desch FROM: Peter Lovi DATE: June 8, 1984 RE: Circle Greenway Access in the Town of Ithaca This morning X met with Councilwoman Peterson and Mrs. Mulholland of Circle Greenway. We agreed on the following: 1. The City Attorney should be directed to negotiate with both Mr. Guidy and Mrs. Baker in order to acquire or use an public access easement for one year. Such a trial would allow the continuation of the existing Circle Greenway system with the smallest possible disruption at this time. 2. At such time as an easement has been negotiated, an Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Long Form will be completed by the City and reviewed by the Town Planning Board as lead agency. 3. The Town and City would study the effects which opening the gorge actually has on parking and traffic in the Slaterville Road corridor and consider any long-term mitigative measures in the context of the Six Mile Creek Master Plan. 4. The Department of Public Works will consider the acquisition of additional lands in the Town, specifically the parcel adjacent to Potter's Falls, which might be suitable for a trail access. 5. The Department of Public Works maintenance easements over the Commonland property are understood to be also available for use by emergency vehicles, though general pedestrian access is to be actively discouraged. 6. Due to the difficulties in getting emergency vehicles into the gorge area, the City will consider the placement of emergency first aid supplies in several secure structures accessable by the gorge ranger. cc: Montgomery May Shirley Raffensperger Carolyn Peterson Elizabeth Mulholland Gerald Schickel Richard Stumbar, Esq. V/FEREAS, tlF City of Ithaca is the funder of the Six i»1ile Creek Gorge Preserve project and will fund such items as the gorge ranger, radio communications, and educational materials, and '.YHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is primarily responsible for actions in the gorge area, including stream and slope main tenance, dam repairs, and regulation of activities; now therefore be it RZSCLVZI) that the City of Ithaca be designated lead agency in environmental review for items 1 and 2 of the Six Kile Creek Study reoort (public access and public entrances), Exclusive of the designation of an entrance through town of Ithaca properties. JTHEREAS, the Six Mile Creek Study Committee has completed the City of Ithaca's Environmental Assessment Form for items 1 and 2 (public access and public entrances) of the Six Uile Creek Study report, and VfKEREAS, all identified small to moderate impacts in the area have been adepuately mitigated, and :'E:REAS, the potential large impact of public controversy with the tovm of Ithaca and its residents will be mitigated by joint meetings of City and Town officials to select a mutually agreed upon site for a town entrance, and V.'HEREAS, the City of Ithaca has been designated lead agency* now therefor be it Resolved that Common Council make a negative declaration on The Environmental Assessment Form for items 1 and 2. Pi. rl 4 SIX MILE CREEK—BNV'lROHllEWAT,,ftTiaEa3MBWa-^I>BCL&KAXiai'l resolution: WHEREAS, Six Mile Creek Gorge is a natural area of beauty, and WHEREAS, a Study Committee was appointed to investigate andWHEREAS, concerning the Six Mile Creek Gorge, and WHFREAS the committee produced a number of recommendations containedWHEREAS, the^co^^^^ entitled Six Mile Gorge - People and Preservation, and WHEREAS, Common Council has received the has'^delayed recommendations No. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 14, an action on No. 1 and 2 at the request of the Town of Ithaca in order to determine responsibility for completion of SEQR process, and WHEREAS, a joint City/Town Committee is being established to carry out the environmental review process in the area of Town entrance to the watershed, with the Town acting as lead agency in this concern, and WHEREAS, the City has been determined to be the lead items 1 and 2 excluding the Town entrance and, on the basis of the EAF, a negative declaration has been made; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that recommendations No. 1 and 2 be adopted by the Common Council. 6/6/84 DISPOSITION DATi-». FINAL MEMORANDUM TO: Peter Lovi FROM: Ncel Desch, RE: Six Mile Creek Overseer Ccmnittee DATE: August 1, 1984 ... .\' As you know, I discussed the matter of ccmnittee merrber voting rights with Mayor John Gutenberger. He told me that his intention was for all persons he appointed to have voting power irresjjective of their affiliation. He also was receptive to the idea of having a menber of the Town Planning Board added to the ccmnittee. You should bring this up at the August 7 Planning Board meeting so that the reccmnendaticn can be forwarded to the Mayor. ND/js •0? ^ n ..i- n 'i. - DISPOSITION DATE TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA mOT UHACA, NEW YORK I4W0 FINAL 1, 1988 m'i. Honorable John C. Gutenberger Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear John: I am told that the Six Mile Creek Ccarmittee is once again actively pursuing a plan for the preservation of the natural areas in and adjacent to the Six Mile Creek Watershed. Since the Town and the City both have a considerable interest in future land uses in the area, I propose that a Town Board member, a Planning Board member and I be added to the membership of the cotmittee. In doing this, we may be in a better position to move the process forward including grant applications, funding ccrmitments, etc. Assuming that you will concur with this proposal I will, also by this letter, ask the Planning Board to appoint a person fron their Board. Very truly yours, Noel Desch Supervisor ft"? K-."''' ND/js cc: Town Board Montganery May Susan Beeners State of New York Parks. Recreation and Historic PRESERVATroN Albany mom levnim I I Grin Lehman Commissioner n n - - LiJ' DiSFOSillON'OATE November 15, 1988 RE: EQ-88-MP-2037 Dear Supervisor Desch: I am pleased to inform you that a matching grant of $48,763.00 has been reserved for the acquisition and development of South Hill Recreation. The grant will be formally awarded by contract upon acceptance of the conditions of award noted on the enclosed sheet, as well as the submission of documentation required to convert your preliminary into a complete, final application. Please contact your Regional Grant Representative immediately for additional information on these and other program requirements. Also, please return a signed copy of the condition sheet to the Region no later than December 31, 1988. The competition for the second year of Municipal Park Grants was very keen. Two-hundred fifty-six applications were received, requesting $98.1 million and representing total project costs in excess of $215.5 million. I congratulate you on being one of the successful applicants and express my hope that working together we can make your project and the EQBA program successful. Sincerely, Mr. Noel Desch Town Supervisor 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 CONDITIONS OF AWARD South Hill Recreationway PROJECT 2037 I. Affirmative Action Office A. Grant recipient must submit for approval an Affirmative Action Policy Statement. B. For Et^al Opportunity in Employment, a goal of 04% minorities and 03% women is established. C. For Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises, a goal of at least i2% of the total dollar value to minority-owned and at least 05% of the total dollar value" to ..women-owned businesses-,—is -establ-ished, II. Environmental Management Bureau A. State Environmental Quality Bond Act (SEQR)/Permits Since OPRHP is providing funding for EQBA projects, it is an involved agency under SEQR. As such, OPRHP must- receive copies of all legal notices or documentation required to comply with SEQR. Note that if the municipality has adopted its own environmental review procedures in accordance with SEQR, those procedures will take precedence over the statewide regulations where the municipality is lead, but OPRHP must still receive copies of applicable documentation. 1. Lead Agency a. If there are no other involved agencies, municipalities may assume SEQR lead, without written notification to OPRHP. An exception to this would exist if the project is located on OPRHP property, in which case OPRHP will assume lead agency status. b. -If-there'are "Other iiivolved'agehcies, (e.g.. Department of Environmental Conservation via a required permit), the applicant will be responsible for initiating lead agency designation procedures, or OPRHP will be responsible for these procedures if the.project is located on OPRHP property. 2. Project Classification and Required Documentation Lead agencies are required to classify projects under SEQR. If your project is Type II or Exempt in accordance with applicable regulations, it is not subject to SEQR. If this is the case, provide a statement describing the reasons you feel your project is not siobject to SEQR. If any permits are required for implementation of your project, list them in your statement. -y. If your project is subject to SEQR, submit either a Short or Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). Consult SEQR Regulations to determine whether a short or full EAF is required. Generally, for development projects affecting a public park or designated open space, if your project will disturb more than 2.5 acres, either a Short of Full EAF may be submitted. For acquisition projects, if the project involves more than 25 acres contiguous to existing parkland or designated open space, a Full EAF is required. For other acquisitions, 100 acres would be the threshold. Copies of both Short and Full EAFs are available from the appropriate regional OPRHP office. For projects located in a coastal area, a draft Coastal Assessment Form (CAF, also available from OPRHP regional offices) is required. If the project is; within the area-;Of- an-approved-Local-Waterfront-- Revitalization Program (LWRP), a statement regarding the project's consistency with the LWRP is also required. This consistency statement should be prepared by the designated LWRP administrator in the municipality. If an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) is prepared for a coastal area project, a discussion of the applicable state or local coastal policies must be included in the EIS. You may indicate a tentative determination of significance with the EAF. We encourage you not to issue a final determination until you have received responses from OPRHP and any other involved agencies. Note that the determination of significance must be made on a signed EAF. In addition. Full EAFs require a separate Negative - Declaration to be filed in accordance with SEQR regulations. If the project's impacts have been previously reviewed under SEQR, supporting documentation must be submitted (e.g.. Final EIS and SEQR Findings Statement). -Wi-thin-'four-weeks-of -receipt-of-your-complete- - application in the Albany Office, you will be contacted by your Regional OPRHP Representative regarding the adequacy of the environmental information. All submissions of environmental information must include clear drawings, maps or plans of existing and proposed natural and man-made conditions on the site and areas immed'iateily adjacent to the site. There will be no exceptions to this recruirement, In addition, existing environmental resources and potential impacts to those resources must be clearly described within the EAF. Page 2 of 3 Ill. Grants Management Unit A. The following documentation must be submitted within sixty (60) days; if included with the preliminary application, confirmation of previous submission must be supplied: 1. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds, leases and easements (development projects only); 2. Appraisal(s) of property to be acquired or used towards the: municipal- share .of the project cost; 3. General sitemap; 4. Detailed park location map, showing park boundaries . -and. adjacent, land-uses; ~ . 5. Detailed park boundary map, clearly establishing the subject area's boundaries and showing features such as road names and numbers, bodies of water, etc. IV. ' Historic Preservation Field Services.Bureau Should the project be determined to impact on historic resources, listed on or eligible for listing on the National or State Register of Historic Places, plans and specifications will be reviewed to determine the extent of impact. Additional information, if any, will be requested upon completion of plans and specifications review. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS NOTED ABOVE, GRANTEES SHOULD CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THIS AGENCY. GRANTEE DATE Page 3 of 3 [72 Pearsall P. Iihaca. NY 14850 March 9.1989 disposition date Noel Desch, Supervisor and Susan Beeners, Town Planner * Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Desch and Ms. Beeners: The public infoimational meeting about South Hill recreation way on March 1 was very encouraging. It was gratifying that you seemed favorably interested when I suggested that the plans for development be framed in terms of a 4 - 6 foot Nvide town-maintained trail rather than the proposed 8 foot roadway. The smaller plan would be a solution to South Hill residents' and property owners' concems, voiced on March 1, about expense, parking, and traffic. As well, this solution would have lower impact on the woodland surrounding the old railroad bed that runs from Hudson and Renzetti out to Bums Road. Since the proposed 8' roadway seemed formulated more in terms of convenient access for town trucks than for encouragement of the trail's current use by pedestrians, joggers, and an occasional bicycle, I hope you will incorporate the suggested narrowing of the plan into your proposal to the Town Board on March 13. Little maintenance will be needed. Since there are so many road access points along the trail itself, there should be no difficulty for town crews getting to the trail for maintenance or for emergency access should that be necessary. And since its most recent incarnation has been as "Six Mile Creek Wildflower Preserve," a nature walk, such a decision would be in keeping with the woodland character of the area. Since March 1, one other matter has been brought to my attention by someone in the recreation field. More mountain bikes are being sold than ever before, and the trends predict that within the next decade, 70% of U.S. sales will be of this type of bicycle, not the formerly popular racing bike. Mountain bikes are the unmotorized bicycles with wide tires and many gearshifts. Bicyclists on these vehicles travel at generally half the speed of the formerly popular racing bikes. They also ride upright rather than with heads bent over, so they are more aware of their surroundings and of pedestrians. And cinders are a very good surface for these bicycles to ride on. So a completely cindered trail, rather than part cinder and part gravel/oil, would be suitable for the majority of riders who would want to travel on the recreation way. A completely cindered surface would be less expensive and require less maintenance. In addition, it would be safer because the bicycles which travel at slower speed would be encouraged. Thank you both for looking into this planning process so thoroughly and so carefully. I am very glad about the Town of Ithaca's interest in South Hill Recreation Way because it means that the litter, erosion, and dangerous motorized bikes that have wreaked such havoc with the path in recent years will be attended to. If there is further input you need about these matters, either my husband, Peter Fortunate, or I, or both (273-6637), will be happy to provide it for you, about both the recreation way in general and the area directly north of our land. Sincerely, Mary Gilliland c: Robert Bartholf, David Klein, Patricia Leary, Henry McPeak, Shirley Raffensperger ^FINAL Mi: =S^6fR!!4ag|^^t® (80x287, ithaca, w.yIv ^2 81989 'i' i^Mr. J. Desch, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca disposition DATE jij i ; From: Residents of the Northview Road area ^ .>i-'iVriACA: Sub.ject; Proposed Town of Ithaca recreational path~nn the old D.L. & W. railroad bed. Cn i-iarch 19, ten residents of the immediate Northview Road area met to discuss the proposed development of a recreational path using the old D.L. cc W. railroad bed (now owned by NYSEG) between Hudson Street and Burns Road. We think that people using this path would be attracted to the area primarily because of its natural beauty. Extensive development is undesirable for this area, especially the region south of Juniper Drive. We therefore support a more modest plan than the one recently presented by the Town. We support a plan for an unpaved recreational path no more than six feet wide. We urge the adoption of a plan that would make the least possible change in the wilderness character of the ITYSEG right- of-way, especially in the region south of Juniper Drive. We were somewhat apprehensive about the intrusion of snow-mobiles and motor-bikes and the noise associated with them. For this reason, we urge Installation of more substantial deterrents to motor-bikes and other motorized vehicles than tne poaos proposeu in one present plan. Since a simply developed path would not require heavy maintenance by truck or car, we suggest that vehicle barricades be immovable. We remind all parties concerned that irySEG originally decided to build the present heavy steel rail and steel post fence (southeast of North- view Road) only after zealous snow-mobilers or trail-bikers destroyed the first two or three barricades built across the old road bed. Note; TVhile this meeting was not called as a meeting of the North- Road Association, those present think that, based on conversations with others in the area, the above position represents a consensus of its residents. RobeVt GottsPeggf Da^sle' Douglas Lat^well ^T^ace Miller Mrs. A.L. Johnson Linda Duttwjler o 'H-g U !Xo^r\ Zee - Moec^. KELLEHER 8 WiTHIAM ATTORNEYS AT LAW NORSTAR BANK BUILDING 202 THE COMMONS, SUITE 202 JOHN J.KELLEHER ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 \ (6071 277-2121 DIANE B. WITHIAM » ' ~ (607) 272-1623 FAX(607 ) 273-1 118 FINAL DISPOSITION DATE „ T ^ , September 6, 1989Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 26 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re; South Hill Recreation Way Dear Mr. Desch: This firm represents Willis Hilker and a group of Town of Ithaca residents who are opposed to the proposed South Hill Recreation Way as currently configured by the Town. 7 6 After reviewing the materials provided to Mr. Hilker by the Town Clerk, I have been unable to identify the unequivocal resolution by which the Town Board authorizes the South Hill Recreation Way. Furthermore, it appears to me that any action authorizing such a project is subject to §220 of the Town Law, and thus, subject to a permissive referendum. Section 90 of the Town Law, then, calls for publication of notice specifying that the resolution was adopted subject to a permissive referendum. My clients intend to petition for such a referendum at the appropriate time. I hope that this can be resolved without resort to any court proceeding. I appreciate your prompt response outlining to me your interpretation of the Town's action to date. Yours truly, Kelleher & Withiam John J. telleh JsJK, sd.ni I""*-? I 31'o '"-!nGc: John Barney, Town Attorney I ! Pj jIJT' iJ 'Jl/ p' ' ' T ■' i ! SEP"71^^ ■' ■