Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupervisor Desch Re ZoningTOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMORANDUM TO: John Barney FROM: Noel Desch RE: Town Board Meeting - March 13, 1978 DATE: March 16, 1978 Several things come to mind following our Board meeting on Monday night. 1. Monkemeyer Rezoning - Art Colony You, I understand, will pursue the options with his attorney with the possibility of a proposal for Board action at our April 10th regular Board meeting. 2. Agricultural Districts The County proposal includes substantial land in the Town of Ithaca on West Hill. My question is this: Owners of land in Ag. Districts are apparently exempt from special district benefit levys such as water and sewer. Does this mean that we can no longer charge the token benefit to these properties? If this is so, what happens to the Town-Wide nature of our district? 3. Open Burning Ordinance As you recall, the Board passed a resolution with regard to the need for the open burning ordinance. This should be patterned after the County Sanitary Code and need not be complicated. I want to implement something, if possible, before the dry part of summer. We will, at about that time, be getting involved with a renegotiation of the City Fire Contract. 4. SEQR Application - Cornell Fall Creek Dam We have informed Cornell that we require an Environmental Assess ment Statement to assist us in determining whether or not signi ficant impact is probable. Your office will need to hold our hand as we walk through this first one. 5. West Hill Water When I informed Bob Dingman that the Commission did not change the water emergency bill, he informed me that they may have to MEMO to John Barney -2- March 16, 1978 rethink the basis for the contract. I reminded him that we agreed some time ago he would set up the next meeting. He said he would do so. 6. Front-End Loader Purchase There is a new purchase contract approach which seems to make sense but you need to review the legal ramifications of the purchase agreement. I have not studied it too far but we are probably looking at a purchase date of early May. 7. Sewer Connections The 10-year Grace Period for connection to South Hill sewer system is over. There are other places, i.e.. Northeast, where some people have not yet connected. Should we modify our sewer ordinance to charge a fine by a certain date if this isn't done? — or perhaps we can get the County Health Dept. to do something along these lines? cc - Ed Bergen ^ Larry Fabbroni November l5, 197'-- 5 )g3| TO : Noel Desch RL : Sign approval applications Dear Noel; I regret that njy questioning of the "Depot" sign application (11/9/78) may have been perceived as simole nit-picking, I'd like to clear up the nature of the problem as I see it. I did not object to the dign itself but to the procedures employed in the presentation of that request and others. I firmly believe that any request for action by the Town board should be accomp- aniei ty certain informational material. The problem is most severe in cases of site plan reviews, commercial development, rezoning, "Phase II" approvals, etc. concern about sign approvals, then, is an extension of a general concern about the necessity to research past recommendations, actions, restrictions before appro val of new or expanding projects. The only reasonable way the Town board (or the Planning Bo^rd) has to enforce their recommendations is to keep track of them" and require compliance before further approvals are given. I have never understood the necessity for sign approvals (especially conforming signs) to come to the Tovm Board but, since they do, they deserve the same care ful procedures as any other action. The minimum, in the case of signs, would seem to be a summaiy of the recommendations of the Planning Board, any statement of public interest, a description of an^;- other signs aprlied for, approved or disapnroved at the same location, in particular any variances granted and any res trictions imposed at the time of rezoning and/or site plan approval. Let me giv^ you an example of what happens when this history is not made available, The Toim Board recently approved a sign variance for the service station at the East Hill Plaza, upon personal anolication of Stewart Knowlton. Town board min utes (L/lO/78) indicate that, in response to specific concerns about signs for that project voiced by the then president of the SE Ithaca Civic Assoc., David Ca^'sel, " Mr, Knowlton said no exceptions to the sign ordinance would be asked for," f T do not know if the Toi-m Board would have granted the variance they did if this information had been available but that the fact that the past history was not" acknowledeed does, in my opinion, damage the credibility of the Town board. I don't know if "Beacon Hills" area residents, at a public hearing on rezoning or site rlan approval, were assured that no over-sized signs would be permitted at that site, Prooabiy not, but it would have been reassuring - and responsible - to have had a simple statement accorapanine the variance reouest that "no sign restrictions were imposed by the Town Board or Planning Board at the time of rezoning or site plan approval," Histories of signs in the Town, their variances, exceptions, restrictions, etc are accumulating and will soon be as complex as "development" histories, I think we need to develop much more careful procedures for all these requests. I'd appreciate your comments on these concerns. Shirley Haffensperger copies: Town Board members Groff Associates P.O. Box #klh Windsor, New York 13865 21 December, 1982 Town of Ithaca 126 East Senaca Street, Ithaca, New York l4850 Attentions Mr. Noel Desch, Supervisor Dear Noel: In response to the request from the Tomi Board and many others for the enactment of legislation to establish certain Fire Lanes at East Hill Plaza, we ask the Town Board to consider the appropriate legislation to be adopted for the establishment of such Fire Lanes. As discussed in your letter to have such a mechanism in place to protect the safety,and welfare of our tenants and the public would be something seemingly we are obligated to do. It goes without saying that between you, the Town Board with your Engineering Department, and ourselves, as owners of East Hill Plaza in concert with our tenants and others, that we can cer tainly can arrive with a very workable solution to this prob lem. We request the intention of the ordinance and regulations there to to protect the safety, health, comfort and general v/elfare of residents and their property by regulating parking in certain areas where congested parking may prevent passage of fire- fighting equipment. I trust this serves to act as the catalyst you require for such a worthy endeavor. Kindest personal regards, Stewart D. Knowlton, Paxtner Groff Associates SDK/ss JK_A. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 March 9, 1983 Fma DISPOSITION DATE mar I 0 >n<^ ^ Supervisor Noel Desch Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance for Revisions to Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations Dear Affected Agency: On March 15, 1983, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca resolved that the proposed revision of the Town Subdivision Regulations was an environmentally significant Type I action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared in conjunction with the proposed revisions. The Planning Board intends to act as the lead agency in this environmental review. You have been identified as an involved or affected agency and the Planning Board would appreciate your cooperation and advice in this review process. Your agency will be be informed prior to a "scoping" session which will be scheduled for later in the spring. If you have any questions regarding this environmental review, the proposed subdivision regulations, or the Planning Board's designation as lead agency, please call or write to the Town of Ithaca offices. Sincerely P^er M. Lovi Town Planner Location: (Include the name of the county and town. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended) Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County (Attach additional pages as needed) SEQR Positive Declaration Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of^Significance Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Project s (if any) Address; 126 East Seneca Street . Ithaca, NY 14850 /■ \ . , ■ Date: March 9, 1983 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 (and local law il ^ ' 1980 menting reguiations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environ mental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below mayhave a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environrncnlal Impact Statement will be preoared. ! . \ • * Title of Action: Revision of the, Town of Ithaca Subdivision . Regulations ■ - SEQR Status: .. Type I ■ - 0 . . .Cinlisted IZI Description of Action: "The first comprehensive revision of the Town Subdivision Regulations since their adoption in 1955. C SEQR Positive Declaration Page 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: • This Generic Environmental Impact Statement v;ill' enable the planning Board to consider the comprehensive impact of developments within the Town which v7ould otherwise fall" below the thresholds set by SEQRA and Local Law,: #3, 1980. For Further Information: Contact Person: ^ Address- Peter M. Lovi, Tov/p Planner Phonf» No • East Seneca St., Ithaca, NY 14850(607) 273-1747 | Copies of this Kotice Sent to: ! Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which ihe action will be princi pally located Main office and appropriate regional office (if any) of lead agency Applicant (if any) All other involved agencies (if any) Tompkins County Planning Department Tompkins County Health Department Tov/n of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals NYS Department of Transportation, Regional Office City of Ithaca Town of Lansing Village of Lansing Village of Cayuga Heights Tov;n of Dryden Town of Danby . Town of Enfield Town of Ulysses Finger Lakes State Park Commission ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD 2/15/83 Page 1 RESOLUTION MAKING A DETERMINATION OF POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE NKV YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEV7 ACT FOR THE REVISION OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHEREAS: 1. the Planning Board has begun the revision of the present Town of Ithaca subdivision regulations, and' 2. the Planning Board has reviev/ed the long Environmental Assessment Form, and 3.- such revisions are a direct. Type I action as defined by SEQRA and Town of Ithaca Local Lav; ^f3 ~ 1980, and 4. such revisions will have an effect on permitted land uses within the Tovm of Ithaca, and 5. a comprehensive environmental assessment should be made prior.-to the revision of these regulations, and 6. the Planning Board should act as the lead agency in this SEQR review, " n . THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT: ; 1. The Planning Board declare and hereby does declare that the revision of the subdivision regulations is a Type I action and that . a , positive declaration of significance shall be filed with the Town Board as an affected agency. SR res 021583 TOWM ®F ITMAOA FINAL DISPOSITION DATE 126 EAST SENECA STREET ^ ITHACA, NEW YORK -f^ 14850 November 22, 1983 Mr. William Wendt Director of Transportation Cornell University 116 Maple Avenue Ithaca, New York 14853 I Dear Bill: I note that you are hoping to possibly get a new peripheral parking lot under construction in East Ithaca, by next summer. In order to minimize the possibility of delays, I thought you might want to be aware of the Town environmental review process. As you will see from the enclosed copy of the-Toxro of Ithaca Local Law # 3, 1980, the parking lot will be Type I Action and probably require an Environmental Impact Statement. We have been able to dovetail this review with the normal site plan review but the comment periods do stretch the process. I would suggest that you discuss the process with Larry .Fabbroni at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, •Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js ancs. cc: n L. Fabbroni M. May Lake Shore West A Retirement Community of Distinction February 13, 1984 Mr. Noel Desch, Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Noel: This letter confirms our request for a delay of approximately two weeks for the Town Board's consideration and review of the Environmental Assessment Form covering the "Lake Shore West" project. This is necessitated by our most recent evaluation of the marketing and engineering analyses and the economic effect both have upon the total project but more particularly. Phase I. The time frame outline dated January 26, 1984 as drafted by Peter Lovi, Town Planner, could still be accomplished by March 14th, I am told. I am most appreciative of your help and the help of the staff in accomplishing the rezoning of this project. p owlton SK: jm xc: Chairman, Planning Board Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Town Engineer*/ Town Planner Town Attorney Trumansburg Road • P.O. Box 6521 • Ithaca, N.Y. 14851 An ITD Group, Inc., Development \ FINAL Dlf^POSITlON DATE MEMDPfiNDUM TO; Larry Fatbroni FPOM: Noel Desch PE: Placement of Fill DATE: May 23, 1986 A nmter of prcperty cwners on Slaterville Road have raised an interesting question about this operation, i.e., Tadd's house and Battistella's fill. Hew ituch change is permitted to the topogr^hy of a given parcel without an environinental inpact statement being required? Do I remenfaer that anything over 10,000 yards constitutes a Type I Action? Should we be considering some kind of notice of violation? Think about this, get seme pictures and let's discuss it at the June 3rd staff meeting. ND/js ME24DRANDUM TO: Town Board/Zoning Board/Planning Board FROM: Noel Desch'^P^^ RE: Codes & Ordinances Review Catmittee DATE: Decejuber 8, 1986 During the past year we have detected a number of ambiguities in the Zoning Ordinance and there is the perpetual need to update various local laws, such as our SEQR Law. The purpose of forming a ccmittee now is two fold: First, to address those ambiguities and straightforward changes that can be acconplished without extensive staff yfork and study. The carmittee will have to decide on vhat falls into this category but the staff already has a good idea on \hat is involved here. Second, there are longer term needs that will required considerable staff and cannittee time. Vfe may find a need to hire additional staff or consulting assistance. Quite often scoping will readily identify the tasks that can be "farmed out" to County Planning, etc., and also the relative urgency. Ihe Catmittee will consist of the following: Councilman Bartholf Councilman McPeak 2 Planning Board Members 2 Zoning Board Members Susan Beeners Andy Frost John Barney Nancy Fuller The Cannittee will choose its own chairperson, ND/js FINM OlSPOSlIlON DATE VD^Vjr jr r,j 0 e !wi CITY OF ITHACA 1oa EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK iaB50 TELEPHONE; 272-1713 COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607 January 25, 1989 Dear Supervisor Desch, As Chairwoman of the Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee, I am forwarding to you a resolution passed unanimously by that committee at our January 10, 1989 meeting. In view of the fact that the town has hired a consultant to review the draft comprehensive plan document, the Six Kile Creek Overseer Committee urges the Town of Ithaca to include in this document a formal policy regarding the con servation of lands along Six Mile Creek. Minimum standards for such a plan should include 1. On the South side, at the least, strong protection for the land between the reser voir and the railroad right of way 2. Other developed policy (including protection of land on the north side of the creek) should be at least consistent with the Six Mile Creek Gorge "Report People and Preservation. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Your plarjiing staff members Susan Beeners and Geaorge Prantz have been working with us on this issue and are a good resource as are members of our committee. CO: Montgomery May / Susan Beeners ^ Mayor Gutenbereger Council Bud Gerkin, BPW Jack Dougherty Betsy Darlington Sincerely, "An Equti Opportunity Employor with an Affirmative Action Prograiit" 'Ml! I - , APR I 81989 . V..' ■-■•(':>» > ■ ti l l..CA j FINAL DISPOSiTlON DfiTf 108 Mclntyre Place Ithaca, NY 14850 April, 16 1989 Noel Desh Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Noel: I am writing to you for two reasons to-day. I hope the officials of the Town of Ithaca will consider the designation of the areas adjoining Fall Creek as a "Recreational Zone" with care and extensive deliberation. One aspect of the problem that bothers many of us in the Forest Home area is, that the proponents of this plan with whom we have discussed it, do not seem to be informed about the various implications and legal aspects of this designation. I hope sincerely that such pertinent information will be made available to the public before any action is taken. It is not at all unlikely that once this information, including the state laws governing such a change in designation, becomes available many creek side residents would support this proposal. I for one feel that forbidding or controlling the use of pesticides, herbicides etc. near Fall Creek and controlling dumping and seepage into Fall Creek would be an environmentally sound proposal, even if it increases our crop of weeds and insects. On the other hand any limitation on or even forced removal of human habitation along the creek would not only destroy some of the only really historic areas in the Town of Ithaca, but also destroy badly needed housing and viable neighborhoods. And if these neighborhoods are to survive the options for road and bridge repairs and additions must remain, not because most of the Fall Creek side neighborhoods are likely <or able)to grow, but because extensive growth is likely to continue beyond these neighborhoods. Fall Creek divides important sections of the Town, County, and City in two.and connections between the two sides of the creek are essential for the survival of the people of this area. Banning hydro-power facilities may improve the natural beauty of the area, but it would also forbid one of the few environmentally sound ways of obtaining electric power. All in all it is a very complicated questions, that will require careful study as well as informed community input. The second issue I would like to discuss is of a more personal nature. Last week some time the triangle( A)"^ at the Mclntyre Place-Forest Home Drive corner of our property was dug up and a new stand pipe of some kind put it. We were not contacted about this work. Obviously, if it was necessary, we would not have said no to it. BUT before the work had begun we would have removed the bulbs ( including daffodils already to bloom) and other perennial'', as well as some of the large stones from the triangle plot. We have tried over the years to improve the appearance of the corner <yes, it had not yet been raJced this spring). At times flowers on this plot have been cut down when the Town mowed along the road edge on the other side of the ditch. On the other hand the weeds and poison ivy on area B..the bit of land between the ditch and the road on the Town right-of-way...have been left for us to deal with. It is an area that is difficult to maintain mechanically because of the poles on it. The hand cutting that this area, as well as others near the pumping station require is frankly unpleasant during warm weather because of the strong smell of the pumping station area. But that is really not a reason not to do the work. (How would the Fall Creek Recreation Area designation deal with these pumping stations?) This is the second time the Town has not informed us when work was to be done on our property... the first was when the pumping station was put in while we were away BEFORE we signed an easement. We hope this will not happen again, The half hour it would have taken me to dig up the plants and move the stones would not have made a great deal of difference.... this could even have been done the day before. Sincerely, i Liese Bronfenbrenner "P U Vv< |) t VA ^ yu (?/cC FALL CREEK CONSERVATION COMMTrTHE 213 King Street Ithaca, New York 14850 607-273-4514 Mr. Noel Desch 132 Updyke Road Ithaca, New York 14850 April 17.1989 Dear Mr. Desch: As you know, the FALL CREEK CONSERVATION COMMITTEE is a local group of citizens seeking designation of a portion of Fall Creek as a recreational river under the New York State Wild. Scenic and Recreational River Svstem Act. Our effort began with our attempt to preserve Ithaca Falls, a proposed site for hydropower development. In our search for ways to protect the Falls, we discovered only one viable option, the NYS River System Act, and our focus necessarily broadened to encompass protection of a larger portion of Fall Creek. We had originally intended to request designation for only the Ithaca Falls site, but after submission and DEC review of a February 1989 draft proposal which only outlined the section from Ithaca Falls to Lake Street, the NYS Rivers Program staff explained that this legislation is aimed at broader river preservation rather than specific site protection. We have been told that designation for such a short stretch would be unlikely; it is simply not in keeping with the intention of the legislation. Obviously proposing designation for a longer stretch of the creek makes our task more complex, as it involves more property owners, more Cornell property, and two other municipalities. However, we strongly believe it's worth the effort and that with intermunicipal cooperation we will be successful. Protection for Ithaca Falls is vital and the preservation of upstream reaches of the creek and its banks has become equally important to us. Hydropower construction may only be the most immediate threat to the creek; we are also concerned about the future of the Cornell Monkey Run landholdings, where development is currently encroaching on three sides, the quality of the water, increased future water withdrawals from Fall Creek, and possible University development of land along the rim of the Fall Creek gorge. The City of Ithaca's permit to develop hydropower at Ithaca Falls expires in 1991; construction plans would need to be arranged at leak 18 months in advance. The realization of this time constraint compelled us to submit our proposal without delay to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner, Thomas Jorling. Our proposal identifies Fall Creek as an important community resource which we can not afford to take for granted especially at a time when we are witnessing r^pid growth and loss of open land throughout the county. We believe it short-sighted to assume that the currently undeveloped stretches of the Fall Creek corridor (especially from Flat Rock to Route 13) will remain undeveloped and recreationally accessible to the greater Ithaca communities in years to come. The University now readily admits to having a space crunch, while at the same time is projecting significant growth and land requirements. We believe this is an opportunity to think ahead toward the protection of Fall Creek -- for the preservation of its water, its fragile river banks, its fishing holes and swimming spots, its hiking trails, and its undeniable beauty and extraordinary natural features. We believe endorsement is likely, however, broad-based community support is vital to the success of our efforts. Supporters of the proposal are numerous and varied. Environmental groups such as the local Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, the Cayuga Trails Club, and Ecology Action support the designation, as well as hundreds of residents who have already signed petitions and written letters of support. The Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and the Gty Conservation Advisory Council have also given formal endorsement to the entire proposal, an approximately eight mile stretch, beginning at Cayuga Lake and extending through Monkey Run to Route 13. The Ithaca City Common Council has officially endorsed the proposal and designation for the section within the city limits. In addition to this support, the resolution from the April Common Council meeting also urges the other involved municipalities to consider the proposal and enter into productive discussions with the city and the citizens' group sponsoring the proposal as soon as possible. We hope that the city, the Town of Ithaca, and the Town of Dryden will, after careful consideration, endorse the designation which will undoubtedly help to pre^rve the beauty, wildness, and recreational accessibility of Fall Creek. After reading the enclosed documents, we know you will have questions and comments. We respect Town of Ithaca municipal concerns, and would like to meet with you and the Town Board after you familiarize yourselves with the River System Act and its regulations. We are eager to discuss our proposal, its goals, implementation, and implications, and look at maps carefully with you. A copy of the pertinent materials and a map are also available for public review through the Reference Desk at the Tompkins County Public Library. We feel an urgency to meet and discuss your concerns as well as ours. However, experience has shown us that it's virtually impossible to discuss this legislation unless people read the Act and the regulations first It is not the most fascinating reading, but it is quite readable despite frequent cross-referencing. We will contact you soon to set up a meeting; please feel free to contact us anytime while you are reviewing the materials-we'd be very happy to answer questions or put you in touch with people who can. We look forward to productive discussions with your group and to keeping thisprocess moving in a timely fashion. ^ -rt -fl> Sincerely, Margaret Fabrizio for the FALL CREEK CONSERVAHONCOMMOTEE 3^ FINAL Mr. Noel Desch Supervisor Town of Ithaca Town Board Ithaca, NY 14850 2 Hillcrest Drive Ithaca, NY 14850, April 21, 1989 APR 2 1 1989 i Re; Possible Misunderstanding Concerning Affordability of Indian Creek Retirement Community Dear Noel: Because it is my understanding that some town officials are supporting the Lucas Indian Creek Retirement Community under the apprehension that it will provide moderate income housing for the elderly, I think it important to bring to your attention remarks made by Mr, Lucas at the April 4 Planning Board Public Hearing which indicate this is not necessarily so. At the April 4 meeting I, thinking Town support was being given the plan because it provided moderate income housing, asked the Planning Board to make a condition of its approval of the Lucas Plan "that there be a commitment in writing from the developer to make his units affordable to people of moderate income." My purpose was not to advocate moderate income housing but to clarify the terms of negotiation. I also objected to the vagueness of intent in the rezoning ordinance concerning provision of water and sewage to the development (Item 4-m), and I asked that approval of the plan be contingent on the developer agreeing to pay for the cost of those services. In response Mr. Lucas said,* "We've had ongoing discussions with the Town about our paying a substantial portion of costs of the infrastructure including the water system and including the sewage system. Those are substantial costs and we are willing to look at those costs. But there is a trade-off. You can't add substantial costs and then have the housing be available to people of moderate or modest means (underlining added). It's a zero sum game. You can either cut expenses to the bone which means the town bears the cost of the infrastructure or you can have the project support the cost of the infrastructure or you can have us go away." Mr. Lucas is quite clearly saying that unless the Town subsidizes his development by providing water and sewage, his development will not be affordable to people of moderate income. *Lucas quotes on tape #2 of proceedings at Town Planning Dept. Mr. Noel Desch -2- April 21, 1989 At another point, Mr. Lucas said that he was currently negotiating with the hospital for a contract to provide security services, grounds maintenance, garbage removal, etc. as well as meals. In response to a direct question about how much this would cost he said, "I think you will need to ask the hospital because they are the persons who will put the prices on those services." In other words Mr. Lucas is saying that at this time he does not know what the monthly maintenance charges will be. As most of you I am sure know, monthly maintenance charges at such communities can be horrendously high. The Town and Mr. Lucas are not justified in using the term "moderate income housing" unless the maintenance charges as well as the initial cost of the unit are within that financial range. It is misrepresentation to call Indian Creek Retirement Community moderate income housing unless the maintenance costs of that housing also fall within a moderate income range. The specifics of the Lucas proposal and the Town's role in underwriting it need careful scrutiny. I think it unfortunate for the Town to have rezoned agricultural acreage at a time when a comprehensive plan is being compiled. But I would think it outrageous for the Town to rezone under the guise of providing moderate income housing for the elderly when in fact it is underwriting profit for the developer at taxpayer expense. All best wishes, Doria Higgins cc: Town Board Town Planning Board Planning Staff Town Attorney FINAL DISPOSITION DATE May 9, 1989 Honorable James Seward State Senator State of New York 41 South Main Street Oneonta, New York 13820 Honorable Martin Luster State Assemblyman State of New York 106 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Designation of portions of Fall Creek as a Recreational River Dear James and Martin: This is in response to Martys inquiry of Pipril 28 as to the status of our consideration of the proposal received by the Town of Ithaca on i^ril 17 frati Ms. Fabrizio. At the regular meeting of the Town Board last evening, Ms. Fabrizio outlined the proposal and indicated that a number of amendments were being considered by the sponsor. She also indicated that a DEC representative would tentatively be in Ithaca at City Hall on May 24 to explain the scenic rivers legislation and regulations. The Ithaca Town Board will not have had the opportunity to ask questions about the proposal until our June 12 meeting. That meeting will also give affected property cwners the opportunity for further catinent on the proposal. It the meantime, the Town Planning Board has recormended that local planning policies be evaluated before a position is taken by the Town on the scenic river proposal. Thanks for ycur interest in this matter. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: Town Board Planning Board MAY I U lyb':! Deborah Perotti 308 Forest Home Drive FINAL Ithaca, New York 14850 DISPOSITION DATE Noel Desch 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Desch, I'm writing you to tell you of the enclosed letter to Assemblyman Luster and to ask you for support for exclusion of Forest Home from the recreational designation of Fall Creek or your help to defeat the designation altogether. I hope you will take the time to read the enclosed letter and please send me any ideas you may have about this situation. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Deborah Perotti Deborah Perotti 308 Forest Home Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 May 6, 1989 Assemblyman Marty Luster 106 E. Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Assemblyman Luster, As a Forest Home resident I attended a recent Forest Home Improvement Association meeting at which Margret Fabrisio (representative of "Citizens Against Hydropower") presented a program about a proposed recreational designation of Fall Creek. Perhaps you are already familiar with the act and the regulations. Some of these regulations seem restrictive to land owners along the creek, for instance not being able to build new structures without special permits from Albany and disallowing reinforcement of the creek banks to prevent them from washing away. Some of the regulations seem to duplicate existing zoning laws while they offer no hindrance to Cornell University or any other businesses or corporations. Apparently "Citizens Against Hydropower" want to stop a possible hydropower plant from operating at Ithaca Falls by declaring Fall Creek a recreational district from it's mouth at Cayuga Lake to Monkey Run Road (approximately five miles), excluding both Cornell's Beebe Lake and a trailer park along Forest Home Drive near Varna. According to the regulations, providing I am not misunderstanding them, the Department of Environmental Conservation may approve permits for operation of hydroelectric facilities at existing dams on recreational rivers if outflow equals inflow and the project doesn't alter the free flow of the -2- Assemblyman Marty Luster 106 E. Court Street Ithaca/ New York 14850 Deborah Perotti 308 Forest Home Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 May 6, 1989 river. So it would seem that recreaational designation of Fall Creek would still allow anyone to apply for the above mentioned permits and conceivably obtain them and operate hydropower at Ithaca Falls. The "Citizens Against Hydropower" say there is already a hydropower plant at Ithaca Falls which may need only reinforcement of the dam to operate again. Apparently the City of Ithaca had been given preference to build the hydropower plant over other commercial entities who have also applied to make hydropower at Ithaca Falls and the City has the appropriate permits to operate the plant. I feel we need to keep the option of the City owning and operating the plant in case of emergerncy power failure of other-than- water sources of power. Regardless of this feeling I feel strongly that the recreational designation of Fall Creek should not be at the expense of residents in Sorest Home Who would seemingly have property use restrictions placed on them by the regulations. At the same time Cornell's Beebe Lake is exempted as well as a trailer park along the creek. Several people at the Forest Home Improvement Association meeting suggested that Forest Home also be exempted from the recreational designation area along Fall Creek and I agree with them. I hopw you will -3- Deborah Perotti 308 Forest Home Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 May 6, 1989 Assemblyman Marty Luster 106 E. Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 oppose the recreational designation of Fall Creek and do all that you can to convince others in the Assembly to oppose this designation. I would be glad to circulate a petition against designation, if you feel it would be usefull. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely, Deborah Perotti FINAL DISPOSITION DATE -pi .aci y\/v/^--6VYvA^^ 108 Mclntyre Place Forest Home Ithaca, NY 14850 June 8, 1989 Noel Desh Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Noels I understand that the Town Board will consider the New York State Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System designation proposal for portions of Fall Creek that are located within the boundaries of the Town of Ithaca; in other words, the section of Fall Creek that flows through the hamlet of Forest Home. I hope that in it's deliberations the Town Board will consider the following points: 1) The proposal, as it has been presented both to the Forest Home Community, as well as an area wide public^ leaves many important questions and legal implications unanswered or overlooked: ...the effect of the proposed designation on: ,.the Cornell Filtration Plant. ..water withdrawal by Cornell for watering the golf course. ..control of water flow, to prevent downstream flooding and damage to Beebe Lake and the falls below it. ..the flood control measures to protect existing properties and land uses (including areas such as the Wildflower Preserve). ..road, bridge, and dam repairs or replacements and upgrading. ..irrigation of farm land. ...compensation for loss (without due process), or loss of value, of existing properties e.g. properties in low lying areas that might be flooded because water regulation or needed flood control measures are not allowed.... OR owners with houses on one part of a double lot not being able to sub-divide and sell the second lot as anticipated. ...the HUMAN FACTOR..The destruction of much of Forest Home would destroy not only one of the few historic areas in Town, but also one of the truly functioning neighborhoods (despite the traffic). The very people, who so strongly support this proposal, would probably be the ones who would object to new sub-divisions and the sprawl and traffic congestions these cause, if many creek side residents are forced to relocate. 2) Residents of Forest Home do not object to preserving or "saving" Fall Creek. The Town of Ithaca zoning already protects the Forest Home section of the creek from destructive construction and land use. The designation would add little, if any, additional protection because most of the Cornell land and the trailer park are not included in the proposal. There are better ways to save this creek..e.g. require elimination of all septic systems by a certain date, forbid use of pesticides, herbicides etc. in the creek area, eliminate heavy traffic from the roads running along the creek, and in the proposed Town of Ithaca master plan include a "Natural Area" designation for areas such as parts of Fall and Cascadilla Creek, Coy Glen, the "Buttermilk Basin" etc., a designation that would forbid commercial, industrial, and large multiple housing uses. 3) Not mentioned in any of the discussions has been the cost of obtaining and of administering the Recreational River designation. The added bureaucracy would add costs, as would the loss of tax revenues from some of the affected properties. We hope the members of the Town Board will give the proposal careful attention. Many of us feel, that at least the part of Fall Creek, which flows through the Town of Ithaca would not in any way be helped by the proposed designation and that it will have a negative impact on the existing community. Liese Bronfenbrenner L [§DWi-i! r n FINAL JUN I 61989 TOWN OF iTHACApiifosniONOATE 135 Warren Road Ithaca, NY 14850 June 14, 1989 Mr. Noel Desch, Supervisor To\m of Ithaca 126 E* Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Noel, I had the opportunity to talk to Bev Livesay after Monday night's Town Board meeting. She had an excellent suggestion concerning gathering information relative to the designation of Fall Creek, Instead of listening to ©notional arguments for and against designation, what we need is an analysis of all laws which currently r^ulate the creek (Federal Clean Water Act, NYS Sivironmental Conservation Laws, Town Zoning, etc.). This analysis should examine the aspects of these regulations that truly protect the creek, the aspects which actually inhibit preservation and conservation of the creek corridor, and the excess baggage which does nothing but create paperwork. We also need a similar analysis of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational River S^tem Act, and how that would affect the creek and its environs. By comparing what we currently have with what this proposal would give us, we could see what would actually be gained or lost by going ahead with designating the creek as a Recreational River. This is what we need to know in order to make an informed decision as to whether creek designation is appropriate. If there se©n to be shortcomings in the current regxilations, then the Town could supplement them, addressing the legitimate conservation concerns, ^ile avoiding the unwanted side effects of DEC regulations. This seemed like such an obvious means of resolving the present dileoBia that I felt I had to pass it along. Sincerely, Bruce Brittain MARTIN A. LUSTER Assemblyman 12Sth District THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY July 25, 1989 "Tj::fiNAL Agriculture Consumer Affairs and Protection Higher Education Local Governments Joint Legislative Commission on Rural Resources JUL 2 7 Hon. Noel Desch Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Ithaca Town Hall 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Hon. James Schug Supervisor, Town of Dryden 65 E. Main Street Dryden, N.Y. 13053 Dear Noel and Jim: I believe that both the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca are working on the proposal to designate portions of Fall Creek as a scenic and recreational river under Title 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law. I also realize that this is an extremely complex question that raises many issues common to all municipalities through which a designated river runs. In the hope of facilitating this matter, might I suggest a joint Informal meeting of both Town Boards, the citizens group promoting the designation and myself in an effort to answer as many questions as possible and to establish some broad guidelines that would be applicable in both towns. Please let me know if this suggestion is acceptable, and we will be happy to arrange a meeting. Many thanks. disposition date Sincerely Martin A. Luster Member of Assembly 125th District HALrlka cc: Margaret Fabrizlo ALBANY OFFICE: Room 628, Legislative Office Building, Albany. New York 12248, (518) 455-5444 DISTRICT OFFICES: 106 East Court Street. Ithaca. New York 14850, (607) 277-8030 366 Broad Street, Waverly, New York 14892. (607) 565-8058 --1989 town op 203 Hook Place Ithaca, New York 14850 June 26, 1989 F!f:AL DISPOSITION DATE Mr. Noel Desch Town Ha 1 1 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mr. Desch: Please support the recreational river designation for the lower eight miles of Fall Creek. Fal l Creek is an important public resource. Insensitive development could destroy its wooded gorges, its fragile banks and the flood plain of the lower river system. Uith this designation the Falls and the areas upstream would be preserved. Sincere Iy, Carol Cedarholm 'W . •• nn July 17, 1989 page 3 remote (from roads and development) section. It offers excellent fishing and has unusually rich populations of plants and animals. It is perhaps the most threatened and vulnerable area under considerat ion. Initial interest in designation was related to the issue of hydropower development at Ithaca Falls. Opposition to this plan was primarily based on three concerns; aesthetics, fishing and economics. The extent of river under consideration at the present time came about because of appropriate concerns that specific sites and resource values in lower Fall Creek could not be protected without inclusion of as much of the upper stream and system as practically possible. Of course these upper sections are equally deserving of protection in their own right. The end point at Route 13 is somewhat arbitrary. Future inclusion of additional upstream areas should be considered, however because of political expediency, it appears that the current boundaries are a good choice. The Ithaca Town Board is considering endorsement of the proposal for designation. This action is critical to demonstrate local support for introduction into the state assembly. I know there are concerns and perhaps some still unanswered questions with regards to the rights of property owners. These are valid questions which should be addressed and/or dealt with in the legislative process and with consultation with the DEC. My reading of the law and regulation indicates that it is most liberal and responsive to local input. The towns and municipal governments have to work together to preserve Fall Creek for all constituents. Obtaining designation will not allow a single entity - public or private - to spoil the resource. With designation, the community of users will have the legal support of the state to fight against unwise or self-serving land and stream uses. The bottom line is that local control, e.g. Town of Ithaca, is not good enough to protect the river as it is used by the people of the Town of Ithaca. Fall Creek flows through several political and institution jurisdictions. One of these can damage it for the rest. Conversely, one cannot insure its continued integrity and preservation of the values we cherish. We therefore need a cooperative agreement - embodied by the designation - which will incorporate the legal authority of a higher power (the state) if necessary. Unfortunately, past actions have demonstrated that we cannot depend on the goodwill, enlightenment, and good sense of either upstream or downstream users. The Town of Ithaca is situated in the middle of the considered section, but as I have pointed out, it can't effectively regulate its own segment. July 17, 1989 page 4 Why should the Town of Ithaca get involved in resources outside of its discussion of political boundaries? Many Ithaca residents enjoy the recreational and scenic opportunities in both lower and upper Fall Creek and want to have a say in their protection as well. Second, recognition of the value of the Fall Creek resource is enhanced by inclusion of a larger area and protection is reinforced by inclusion of more of the watershed. Finally, from a ecological and regulatory standpoint, river resources are best managed as watersheds and ecosystems. Fish, wildlife and other critical organisms move downstream and upstream. Hydrogeologic factors also do not respect political boundaries. We need a broader perspective and designation of Fall Creek as a New York State Scenic and Recreational River takes this point of view and will in the long run serve to protect and enhance those special qualities that make Ithaca a place we want to live in. Thank you for you attention on this matter. I would be happy to respond to any particular questions you might have. Sine Edward B. Brothers, Ph.D. THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY MARTIN A. LUSTER Assemblyman l2Sth District FINAL COMMITTEES Aging Agriculture Consumer Affairs and Protection Higher Education Local Governments Joint Legislative Commission on Rural Resources July 25, 1989 ;'jj g @ [j W/ JUL 2 71-^9 n . --jf i i'r.ACA DISPOSITION DATE Hon. Noel Desch Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Ithaca Town Hall 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Hon. James Schug Supervisor, Town of Dryden 65 E. Main Street Dryden, N.Y. 13053 Dear Noel and Jim: I believe that both the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca are working on the proposal to designate portions of Fall Creek as a scenic and recreational river under Title 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law. I also realize that this is an extremely complex question that raises many issues common to all municipalities through which a designated river runs. In the hope of facilitating this matter, might I suggest a joint informal meeting of both Town Boards, the citizens group promoting the designation and myself in an effort to answer as many questions as possible and to establish some broad guidelines that would be applicable in both towns. Please let me know if this suggestion is acceptable, and we will be happy to arrange a meeting. Many thanks. Sincerely Martin A. Luster Member of Assembly 125th District MAL:lka cc: Margaret Fabrizio ALBANY OFFICE; Room 628, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5444 DISTRICT OFFICES: 106 East Court Street, Ithaca, New York 14850, (607) 277-8030 366 Broad Street, Waverly, New York 14892, (607) 565-8058 MARTIN A, LUSTER Assemblyman 125th District ALBANY OFFICE Room 628 Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12248 (518)455-5444 DISTRICT OFFICE 106 East Court Street Ithaca. New York 14850 (607) 277-8030 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY j£iXn ' disposition DftTE FINAL '^K.lTiEES ' Aging Agriculture Consumer Affairs and Protection Higher Education Local Governments Joint Legislative Commission on Rural Resources To: Noel Desch, Ithaca Town Supervisor From: Martin A. Luster Assemblyman 125th District Re: Fall Creek Scenic Designation I would be happy to have you or any of the Town Board members join me on this "expedition". MARTIN A. LUSTER Assemblyman 12Sth District THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY COMMITTEES Aging Agriculture Consumer Affoirs and Protection Higher Education Local Governments Joint Legislative Commission on Rural Resources ADVISORY August II, 1989 Contact: Margaret Johnson (607) 277-8030 Assemblyman Marty Luster, having received a deluge of mail on the Fall Creek Scenic Designation,has decided to do a first-hand inspection tour of the Creek. He has asked representatives of the Towns of Dryden and Ithaca to accompany him. The hike, beginning at the Stewart Avenue bridge at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, August 23, will serve as groundwork for a meeting with the Town Boards on the 29th to further explore the designation issue. Luster, an avid outdoorsman and hiker, is looking forward to an adventurous and educational morning. *A portion of the trail must be circumvented via car. An RSVP (277-8030) would be appreciated if you'd like to be included in transportation plans. ALBANY OFFICE: Room 628, Leglsiallve Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5444 DISTRICT OFFICES: lOS East Court Street. Ithaca, New York 14850. (607) 277-8030 366 Broad Street, Waverty, New York i4892. (607) 565-8058 jccLn FINAL SEP " " " J ' A . - J - . 1 t i i 145 Forest Hone Drive Ithaca, NY. 14850 Septeinber 7, 1989 DISPOSITION DATE Mr. Noel Desch Town of Ithaca St^jervisor 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY. 14850 Mr. James Schug Tcwn of Dryden Siipervisor 65 E. Main Street Dryden, NY. 13850 Gentlemen: At the joint town meeting hosted by Marty Luster two weeks ago, a cotment was made that the issue with respect to the recreactional river designation for Fall Creek had grown to be larger than siiiply a method to prevent hydropcwer at Ithaca Falls. Frankly, I doubt there is all that much concern for Fall Creek itself. Hydropower was the catalyst for forming the Fall Creek Conservation Coimittee (FC3) and it remains the primary goal of the PC3, regeirdless of what rhetoric is said. reasons for believing this are two fold: 1) When the PC3 visited with the Forest Hcme Inprovement Association in May, they were asked why the boundaries for the recreational river designation did not end at Beebe lake. Hie response frcm Ms. Frabrizio was that the coimittee did not think that such a short length of the creek would stand much of a chance of achieving the recreational river designation, therefore, by including a longer area they felt their odds were better and they would be able to ultimately defeat the hydropcwer plant plan for Ithaca Falls. You see, at that point, their sole reason for forming PC3 was to prevent hydropower. In fact, Ms. Frabrizio told roe that in a phone conversation after the article first appeared in the paper. Naturally, their "concem for the environment" of Fall Creek has grown in the past three months since opposition to their plan, at least frcm prcperty owners around the creek, has grcwn, also. Esqsanding their (PC3) concem to the entire environment of Fall Creek draws in syirpathetic residents vho don't live along the creek because "saving" Fall Creek appears to be a good thing to do. 2) If Fall Creek is worth saving (and, agaiin, no one has e:q>ressed any substantive reasons vdiy Fall Creek needs saving now or in the forseeable future, or in the unforseeable future) why don't Cascadilla Creek, Six Mile Creek, Virgil Creek, Saliroi Creek, Danby Creek, Butternut Creek, Taughannock Creek and all the other creeks in Tcirpkins County need saving, also? I suspect the answer is that none of those creeks have the prospect of building hydropower plants on than. However, each of those creeks is in as much danger of overdevelopment as Fall Creek, which is no danger at all. .../2 -2- The city of Ithaca has a problon. That prdDlem is how to preserve Ithaca Falls and not build a hydropower plant. Ihis is a City of Ithaca problem. Naturally, the city is backing the Fall Creek Conservation Carmittee because, if th^ are successful, the City will achieve its aim of stopping hydropower at Ithaca Falls. The City then walks away free and clear and the residents of the Town of Ithaca and the Tcwn of Dryden are saddled with the restrictions, regulations, costs and inconveniences that will be coincident with the recreational river designation. Ihe City cannot continually pawn off its problems on the towns. I would ask that both of you ask the Fall Creek Conservation Camdttee if it would be willing to acc^t sane form of local regulation and control over Fall Creek. I will bet you they will not accept that at all because local control and regulation will not prevent hydropower. So much for their concern about the evironment. If anything is to be dene with respect to Fall Creek, perhaps what should be determined first of all is what needs saving and protecticai. Therefore, I would propose to you to create a joint Fall Creek Conservation Connission to study Fall Creek and the prcblems that are facing it new and what are anticipated to be problems in the future. This connission would be made of a monber of the Town of Dryden board and the Tcwn of Ithaca board as well as representatives fron each of the neighborhoods that Fall Creek passes through in Tcftpki^ County. In this manner, you will hear the ii^ut of those vdx) have ^vested interest in Fall Creek (i.e. the property owners along the Creek) rather than people who don't have anything at risk at all with respect to recreational river designation. At the time the cannission issues its report, and if the findings of the connission are such that sane form of environmental protection for the creek is warranted, then the alternatives of how to protect Fall Creek should be examined. At this point, now, vre^ve got the cart before the horse. We don't knew vtot we are protecting or vdiy. Thank you for your concern in this matter. Sincerely yours. Brent K./^e(bans BKS/tt O ' ^CC- "•FINAL « TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK 65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053 DISPOSITION D^TF 607-844-8619 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR SeptembeT fi, 1989 Town of Ithaca Noel Desch, Supervisor 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14840 Re: Fall Creek Dean Noel: At our meeting on September 7, 1989, the Town Board passed a resolution to work together to set up a base committee to set local zoning laws to protect the Fall Creek area- Please review with your board this suggestion and let me know by the end of the month if your board would be willing to appoint a representative to serve on a committee to study overlay zoning for protection of Fall Creek. I am requesting by a similar letter to John Gutenberger of the City of Ithaca and John Burness of Cornell University to be the core and the start of this cooperative zoning overlay for the protection of Fall Creek. Thank you. JFS/dm Sincerely, -'•3 r i-v. :^l SEP I 2 "^^9 ames F. Schug Supervisor 1^. It FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA .„„T DISPOSITION DATE126 EAST SIH4ECA STROT ITHACA, NEW YORK 14160 ' 2l September 13, 1989 Honorable James F. Schug Supervisor Tcwn of Dryden 65 East Main Street Dryden, New York 13053 Dear Jim: Thank you for your letter of Septanber 8, on the Fall Creek Recreational River matter. Unfortunately we received it a day after our Board meeting. However, we were aware that scne kind of intermunicipal resolution was passed by your Board. A Town of Ithaca Conriittee consisting of Councilwonan Leary and Councilman Whitcomb will be preparing a resolution for our Board to consider at our next meeting on October 2. It would be helpful to have a certified copy of the Dryden resolution for our Board to consider at the same time. Thanks for your assistance on this matter. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js cc: Tcwn Board TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SB^ECA STRHT ITHACA, NEW YORK 14M0 FINAL DISPOSITION DATE October 10, 1989 Honorable Martin A. Luster Asseanblyman State of New York Assesnbly District No. 125 Legislative Office Building Roan 628 Albany, New York 12248 Dear Assemblyman Luster: Please find enclosed, a copy of a resolution adopted by the Ithaca Tcwn Board on October 2, 1989 with regard to Fall Creek stream protection measures. I expect that the Tcwn Board may, at.its next meeting, appoint representatives to work with your office and others to begin the process of drafting regulations. Thanks for your interest in this matter. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js enc. .... TOWN OF ITHACA ^ 126 EAST SENECA STRBTr ITHACA, NEW YORK DISPOSITION DATE 14«S0 October 10, 1989 Honorable James L. Seward Senator State of New York Senate District No. 50 805 Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12247 Dear Senator Seward: Please find enclosed, a copy of a resolution adopted by the Ithaca Tcwn Board on Octcter 2, 1989 with regard to Fall Creek stream protection measures. I expect that the Tcwn Board may, at its next meeting, appoint representatives to work with your office and others to begin the process of drafting regulations. Thanks for your interest in this mtter. Very truly yours. Noel Desch Supervisor ND/js enc. iMLaf- - TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK 65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN. NEW YORK 13053 FINAL In the Heart of the Finder Lakes Region WSPOSmON DATE October 12 Noel Deschp Supervisor Tovn of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14650 Re: Fall Creek Dear Noel: Attached is a certified copy of the Tovn of Dryden resolution regarding Fall Creek made at the September board meeting. Sincerel y. James F, Schug tupervisor JFS/dm OCT 1 3 -■•"•A ]■ TOWN OF DRYDEN . DRYDEN, NEW YORK P. O. BOX 516 65 EAST MAIN STREET. DRYDEN. NEW YORK 13053 607-844-8622 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) TOWN OF DRYDEN ) 88.: I, Susanne Lloyd, duly elected Town Clerk of the Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY: j ^ compared the following resolution with the original resdlutlon8 op ed by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden at d regular meeting of said Town held on October 10, 1989 and that thefollowing is a true and exact copy of said original and of the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the Town of Dryden this 12th day of October 1989 Susanne Lloyd Town Clerk REgm-yilQN tt£15 NEGQTIQTE WITH TOWN R CITY OF ITHRCH HND CORNELL UNIVERSITY - RE: FftLL CRFFK offered the following resolution and asked for itsClm Evans adopt i on: RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize Supv Schug to negotiate for the Town of Dryden, with the Town of Ithaca, City of .Ithaca and if appropriate Cornell University to develop a reasonable criteria for the protection of Fall Creek on a local level, end Clm Garlock Roll call Clm Evans Clm Garlock Supv Schug Clw Walbridge vote Yes Yes Yes No Llx:- OCT I 3 IS'3 ^ .v. [ <;n ' Mi l ■^- '.: .: . OCT 2 6TO: John Gutenberger, Mayor, City of Ithaca ' FINAL Helen Jones, Planning Dept. City of Ithaca . i . r ■ Carolyn Peterson, Fifth Ward Alderperson, City of Ithaca DISPOSITION DATE Noel Desch, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca James Schug, Supervisor, Town of Dryden Marty Luster, State Assembly FROM: Jim Novack i/o / L/hh£ 5 7- 1^, y TO: Officials of affected municipalities (attached list) FROM: Jim Novack SUBJECT: Recreational River Designation: Fall Creek DATE: October 24, 1989 Recently, I was told of a conference call set up by our Chamber of Commerce with 'Richard Hanley of the Planning Department of the Town of Riverhead on "Long Island. I spoke with Mr. Brewer at the Chamber of Commerce, and after hearing his views, I felt that there was a possibility that our local government did not have complete understanding of what Recreabional River Designation would bring. I felt that it would be imprudent and unfair to speak out on this issue unless I was satisfied in my own mind that there was substance to the things that I had heard. To that end, I made several telephone calls to people who could give me a variety of views. I represented myself to each person I called as a private citizen in the affected area who wanted to know how designation fit into a municipality so that I could give that information to our local government. I spoke to the Editor of the local newspaper of record: The News Review, the Legislative Assistant of State Assemblyman Joe Sawicki, and the Legislative Assistant for Environmental Affairs of State Senator Ken Lavalle. I have included their names and telephone numbers below. Each of these people was extremely generous ? each gave me a lot of time on the telephone. They each were eager to offer their experience to help prevent mistakes that happen-^d in Riverhead from happening here. Riverhead is in some ways different from Ithaca. The two most important differences are that it is economically depressed, and that there was a history of abuse of the Peconic River. "My primary interest was land use controls in a populated area and how individuals and the local government interacted with the DEC. My secondary interest was in the political ramifications for the local government. I was given anecdotal information which was instructive in that gave insight into how the DEC intepreted their regulations. Several incidents were centered on regulation 666.9 (c) and (d). In one instance, the elderly owner of a Travel Agency wanted to sell his property and retire to Florida. Under 6'66.9 (c): "Any alteration or expansion of an existing use, structure or improvement is new land use or development and must comply with the restrictions contained in this part." "New land uses" are defined (for commercial uses in Recreational River Areas) in 666.24 (d) "Commercial uses limited to retail or rental facilities directly associated with river area recreational uses..." Apparently he was told his property would have to remain a travel agency or become something like a boat rental facility. A similar situation apparently occurred with an owner of a gas station who wanted to convert it into a neighborhood grocery- store. This too was apparently construed as a new use and not allowed. I was told that the study river phase was in excess of two years, and that permits from the DEC took in excess of two years to obtain. This has apparently created a severe hardship for property owners. The slow study process was apparently the fault of the Rivers Program; the slow permit process may be due to staff deficiencies in the Region 1 DEC office. Homeowners evidently have a severe problem selling their homes in the designated area. The two year permitting process and the fact that obtaining a permit or variance is in no way guaranteed makes a home that needs any type of renovation or expansion, such as increasing the footprint or converting to duplex-now or in the future-of dubious value. The same is true of vacant, substandard lots (und-^r two acres). This assesment must be tempered by the economic situation of the area: there is a surplus of housing, economic decline, and a ruinous tax rate. It seems clear, however, that the regulations discourage improvement. I was told that designation of the Peconic started with a canoe ride by the Town Supervisor He and others saw it as a way of protecting the river from excessive development. They were possibly unaware of the regulations and how they would be applied, and now they are in the process of bringing suit against the DEC for relief from the boundaries imposed by the DEC which are apparently much wider than the town proposed. The DEC expanded to the full half mile statuatory limit. I was more interested in the relationship of the act to the regulations than in the details of the suit. I wanted to know what each of the people I talked to considered to be the primary difficulty with the program in Riverhead, and how a municipality such as Ithaca should proceed in seeking designation. I indicated that I felt the primary goal here, was to prevent the construction of a hydropower plant on Fall Creek, and the secondary goal was to prevent inappropriate development. Sue Miller, the Editor of the News Reyi^ew said "Everyone supported it initially; the town board voted to support it. Now they discover that they can't do anything." She felt that when it started, the mood of the public was that "anything environmental was good, now it's just the opposite." She has promised to send me articles from her paper that will provide me with a better idea of their situation. Pat Acampora is State Assemblyman Joe Sawicki's assistant. When I told her I wanted to talk to her about river designation, her first response was "Oh boy!" I sensed that their office was bearing a lot of heat, and that they were very up on the situation. She said that "Property owners are up"in arms." It has been a "hardship for business" because any transfer of a business property "must be the same business, for example, once a gas station, always a gas station." She said that "the building permit process was in excess of two years." "People can't sell their houses because of taxes and designation" She said' that the "Town had drawn up their own plan," and after the two year study the DEC expanded it. "If you pass this, you lose control. At the public hearing, hundreds came out. Only two groups were in favor of the DEC lines. A pubic hearing after a law is enacted is a big joke, the determination will be made in Albany. It is Un- American-Condemnation without compensation." "The worst thing they ever did was designate the river." "How could anyone want the State•government to impose upon a local people?" I next spoke with State Senator Ken Lavalle's assistant for environmental affairs, John Kreutz. Mr. Kreutz wanted me to be sure that I understood that Sen. Lavalle and he both supported the Wild, Scunic and Recreational River System Act. I assured him that I understood and would reiterate that statement. Mr. Kreutz said "The evil is the regulations of the program [part 666] . The regulations are shortsighted,, contradictory and restrictive. They lock an area into current use, even if misuse. In downtown Riverhead they can't revitalize the area. The regulations lock the community into poverty." Mr. Kreutz went on to say: "The senator suggested a rewrite of the regulations based on the Adirodack Park Agency-modify 666 to A.P.A. regulations which provide for land use classifications such as hamlets, etc." [Under part 666]"...in effect, the state comes in and zones. Revitalizing a populated area is impossible." "People who have vacant lots can't sell-No Can Do." " The program [New York State V7ild, Scenic and Recreational River Act] is good. Part 666 is totally unacceptable. You will lose property rights, it will be a defacto taking." "The regulations are atrocious and a disgrace." "When it [the Act] was handed to the DEC, . they botched it." I then discussed our situation with hydro. Mr Kreutz said: "This is not the correct tool to stop hydro; rely on the wetlands act." "Don't let the State do zoning." "Once you get this you will have to have an act of the legislature to remove it-don't do it, it is a very difficult marriage." Without knowing the specifics of what is intended here in Ithaca, I asked Mr. Kreutz about the possibility of special legislation that circumvented some of these dificulties. He said "I'd like to see that get enacted." I feel that he meant that he didn't think ;that would work, not that it was something he was hoping for. 'Lastly, I asked him what might happen if someone introduced a bill for straight designation under part 666. He said "they could be committing political suicide." T must reiterate that Mr Kreutz and Senator Lavalle are strong supporters of the New York State Wild Scenic and Recreational River System Act. Mr Kreutz spoke to me at-great length and with great candor about severe problems with the DEC's regulations for the act (Part 666), and how those regulations are interpreted and administered. i With all the forgoing in mind, I tried to synthesize what I heard with what I have read in part 666 into a personal concept of the ultimate goal of the regulations as pertaining.to a recreational river designation. I know this is not my area of expertise and I apologize for any incorrect terminology. It appears to me that what the DEC would like to see in the long run after all the Grandfathers die is an R-2 zone with two acre lot size and only river related recreational businesses with under 10000 square feet of floor space. The maximum density is one living unit per acre. The river area would extend for one half mile from either side of the river. It would seem that this program would offer excellent protection to a community that has or wants to attain this level of land use. The extent to which a community's land use goals are in harmony with the DEC s goals should govern the extent a community subscribes to the rivers program as it is currently constituted. The regulations seem to mandate that High Schools, Movie Theaters, Restaurants, or abandoned gun factories remain forever, just as they are, on the same scale. These are just non-conforming uses that actually abut the creek in Ithaca. I offer this as a layman's interpretation? possibly I am wrong, but I think that is what has happened in Riverhead. In closing, I would like to say that I undertook this entirely on my own. I represented myself to the people I talked to as an affected property owner. My motivation was to protect my own property rights and those of my neighbors and the neighborhood values of the Fall Creek community. I was particularly moved by the plight of the residents of Forest Home. I feel that the people of our community have only gotten one side of the story, and I have tried to get another side as straight as possible by extensively quoting the people I talked to. The only thing I have left out were references to a state official at the DEC that were not complimentary. I am well aware of the sincere and considerable efforts of the local group seeking designation. I have not gone public with the information I have gathered in the hope that it will be rigorously examined by the affected municipalities. I honestly believe that the information I have gathered is true. If it is not, I will publicly apologize for it. I would urge the affected municipalities to "test drive" designation by studying the situation in Riverhead. To that end I have included the names of the people I talked to and others. Please bear in mind that there is litigation in progress there and this is a sensitive political issue. Sue Miller, Editor The News Review 516 29-8-3200 Pat Acampora, Legislative Assistant to Assemblyman Joe Sawicki 516 727-1363 John Kreutz, Legislative Assistant for Environmental Affairs to State Senator Ken Lavalle 516 696-6900 Others I did not talk to: Joe Janowski, Town Supervisor, Town of Riverhead 516 727-3200 Richard Hanley, Town of Riverhead Planning Dept. 516 727-3200 ' BARNEY. GROSSMAN. ROTH 8c DUBOW Attorneys at Law 31S NORTH TIOGA STREET P.O. BOX 6556 John C. Barney tTHACA. NEW YORK 14851-6556 Peter G. Grossman Teuecopier Nelson E. Roth (607) 273-6841 (607) 272-8806 David A. Dudow Richard P. Ruswick ROSANNE Mayer November 15, 1989 Mr. Noel Desch Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street - - Ithaca, New York 14850 Mrs. Shirley Raffensperger Supervisor-Elect Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Ms. Susan Beeners Town Planner Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Noel, Shirley and Susan; Enclosed for each of you are three briefs of cases decided recently by the Court of Appeals. The first one is the long awaited decision of the Town of Guilderland case which affirmed the Appellate Division decision holding that a transportation impact fee could not be adopted as the State had pre-empted the field. However, there is hope "for some sort of impact fees as you will see from the second case involving the Town of Yorktown. That case did strike down a local law requiring a site fee but suggested that a local law properly drafted and adopted would not have been so stricken. The third case involving the Town of Huntington is enclosed as a point of interest in view of the Town's current efforts on comprehensive planning. fi.)i We are arranging to obtain copies of the opinions in each of these three cases and if any of you are interested in seeing them I would be happy to supply them to you when we receive them.