Member Excused: Dan Winch

Member Absent:   Peter Penniman

Staff Present:  Heather Filiberto, TCPD
Kate Hackett, TCPD
Joan Jurkowich, TCPD
Tom Mank, TCPD
Ed Marx, Commissioner, TCPD
Monika Roth, Coop. Ext.
Debbie Teeter, Coop. Ext.
Kathy Wilsea, Secretary, TCPD

Other Legislators Present:  Barbara Blanchard, Frank Proto, Martha Robertson

Guests:  Noel Desch, Regional Sewer Group
Mike Hall, PFA Consulting
Paulette Manos, City of Ithaca Common Council
Steve Nicholson, EMC Chair
Pat Pryor, City of Ithaca Common Council
Michael Stamm, T C Area Development
 

I Committee Administration

A Call to Order

Chair Mike Lane called the meeting to order at 2:04 PM.

B Agenda Changes

Ed Marx asked to add an item to the agenda under Planning Department.  Kathy Wilsea brought a resolution from Ag & Farmland Protection Board to establish a public hearing.

C Approval of Minutes

Kathy Herrera made a motion to accept the minutes, seconded by Dooley Kiefer.  Dooley submitted some changes and the minutes were approved by unanimous vote.

D Announcements

There were no announcements

II Environmental Management Council

E Intermunicipal Wastewater Treatment Op-Ed Article

Mike Lane said he asked to have this on the agenda, as some municipal officials had contacted him.  He invited local officials who had an interest in the Regional Sewer Group.  He asked Steve Nicholson to begin the dialog.  Steve read this prepared statement:

The EMC’s Environmental Review Committee brought this issue to our attention. At our meeting on October 8, the attached letter was approved, and is to be sent to the local press soon. The council voted on this 7-3-1.

The review of any Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is a job that the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) undertakes with great attention and effort. The ERC reviewed and provided comments on the Intermunicipal Wastewater Treatment System DEIS to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation during the public comment period, which ended on August 11. However, members of the ERC felt that concerns about the incompleteness of the DEIS should be made public, and drafted this Op-Ed letter.

The EMC suggests that the DEIS reconsider a decentralized approach to wastewater treatment, and to explore in greater detail, alternatives to conventional septic systems.  The southern end of Cayuga Lake is an impaired water body, and preventing additional effluent concentration is one of our priorities.

I wanted you to be informed of this Op-Ed piece before it came out, so that you would understand our position. It is not our intent to derail this $11.2 million project involving six municipalities. We do want the DEIS to address the above issues, and incorporate our concerns into the proposed system.

Environmental issues often clash with Municipal interests, but they needn’t. Our common goal is to constantly work towards more sustainable, less polluting approaches to water use and wastewater treatment. Our current practice involving huge amounts of water to dilute our wastes, and then treating them expensively is a poor model, and needs to be re-considered.

The Op-Ed article reads:

The south end of Cayuga Lake has been polluted for over 70 years.  It is Ithaca's largest "environmental black eye."  Recently, the southern end of Cayuga Lake was added to the Environmental Protection Agency's list of impaired water bodies-proof that even the federal government has recognized the need to clean up our lake.

There is now a local proposal to construct an intermunicipal wastewater collection system linking unsewered Town of Lansing to its neighboring communities.  This project will result in more effluents being released into the south end of the lake.  The Tompkins County Environmental Management Council believes that such a plan requires scrutiny that exceeds that provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) written to justify the project.

We have two basic questions about the DEIS:  (1) Will the centralization of wastewater treatment be beneficial to Cayuga Lake? And (2) Are there other, perhaps more environmentally friendly procedures and technologies that could be employed to assist/replace all or some of the proposed system?

Centralization
The DEIS does not document the need for a centralized facility, one which requires the transport of wastewater across many miles and results in the concentration of an increased effluent load in the shallow southern end of the lake.  This section of the lake is already impacted by seasonal silt-laden runoff from local creeks.  The City of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights already have wastewater treatment facilities that release treated (and occasionally partially treated) effluent into the southern basin.  It is environmentally undesirable to increase the load on this impaired section of the lake. Without serious discussion of the environmental impacts of releasing additional sewage effluent, fecal coliform and algal blooms will persist in the already impaired south end of Cayuga Lake.

While centralization is often proposed as a cost-saving measure, the DEIS does not address the costs or potential environmental benefits of a decentralized scheme. Fewer transport sewers, pumping stations, and storage facilities would be needed, which would reduce the impacts on neighborhoods and natural areas, and could result in potential cost savings. Decentralization also might be preferable in these days of heightened security, as the failure of a single unit would not be as catastrophic as the collapse of a whole system.
Years ago, the Town of Lansing proposed to build a small, mainly gravity-fed wastewater treatment plant that would discharge into the lake in the area of Portland Point.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requested that the Town of Lansing develop the current intermunicipal proposal.  Whatever DEC's motivation was then in pushing for this solution, it now appears environmentally unsound in light of the benefits of decentralization and the recent concerns raised by scientists about the impact of high concentrations of sewage effluent.

Two important possible biological impacts not addressed in the DEIS are (1) the creation of chlorine-derived carcinogens and the (2) the further concentration of human-excreted drugs.  This latter concern is slowly being recognized and documented in the scientific literature.  Hormones in sewage effluent are known to affect the sex and reproduction of certain aquatic organisms.  Recent studies have shown a link between a decline in human male fertility in residents living along the coasts of the English Channel and the consumption of estrogen from birth control pills that entered the aquatic environment after being excreted by women and then concentrated in the flesh of edible fishes.  Fishing is a popular activity on Cayuga Lake, too.

Alternative Procedures and Technologies
One justification offered for the plan is to replace ailing septic systems, particularly those in the Town of Lansing, although the DEIS has no quantitative analysis of the impacts.  The DEIS depicts household septic systems as primitive and centralized wastewater treatment plants as modern.  It neglects to mention that, during large storm events, treatment plants may be overwhelmed and partially treated effluent may go directly into the lake.  The resulting pollution may far exceed that of the periodic failures of dispersed septic systems.

Use of innovative technologies at the household level also should be considered in the DEIS.  Tompkins County's sanitary code already allows composting toilets, although few builders or architects offer them as options.  More effective wastewater treatment technologies are being implemented in Europe to replace traditional septic tank systems. Research there is now focused on a wastewater treatment approach that separates "black water" (from toilets) from "gray water" (showers, washing machines, etc.) early on so as to produce a safer effluent and a compost that can be safely incorporated into soil.
The Ithaca area could become a model for innovative wastewater management, particularly if Cornell University were to undertake to develop an accurate hydrologic model of the south end of the lake and were to promote research and local testing of small decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. The decentralized approach would have global relevance in that it is the only approach that many parts of the world can afford to implement.

Conclusion
The Tompkins County Environmental Management Council urges that the cleaning up of Cayuga Lake be a fundamental objective for judging the merits of further investment in wastewater collection and treatment. The current DEIS needs a good deal of additional information, if not redirection.  Missing data and analysis should be provided and the DEIS re-issued for public comment.  A decentralized wastewater treatment plant in the Town of Lansing, discharging to the lake north of Bolton Point, deserves dEIS discussion.

Stephen C. Nicholson, Chair
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council

Steve Nicholson said he is not here today to discuss changes to the letter or the right of EMC to publish it.

Barbara Blanchard asked about the vote at EMC.  How did municipal members vote on this?  She was informed that one municipal member and two at-large members voted against it.  Not all municipal seats are currently filled on EMC.  She explained the consensus principle used for the for ITCTC.  Steve said EMC operates by majority vote, and municipal members had options during the editing phase of the article.

Mike Lane said he doesn’t view this as an effort to derail the project or improper action by EMC.  He felt PDEQ members should be informed.  He noted that he heard revisions are being made to the EIS.  Steve said the final EIS is due “momentarily”.

Frank Proto asked which municipalities were represented.  Steve said that of the seven municipalities affected by the sewer project, only the City has no EMC representative.*  The Op-Ed was discussed at the September EMC meeting and a draft article was distributed, then it was on the October agenda for further discussion and vote.  Frank felt this article will bring negative public recognition for EMC, which is a respected group.  The opening sentence mentions pollution in Cayuga Lake, and members of the Board of Health have told him pollution means different things to different people – is it not drinkable, not fishable?  The general public may be unaware of terms.

Noel Desch was present as a member of the Regional Sewer Group.  He said you always run the risk of not having all the history available when commenting.  The Environmental Protection Agency and DEC required studies about other possible plants.  Without that history, one can’t appreciate the need for this project.  The regional solution achieves DEC objectives better than a Lansing plant would.  Phosphorus will be reduced.  The DEC has stated that in order to qualify for the Bond Act funding, a regional solution is required.  If there is no regional solution, this bond act funding disappears.  The objectives of EMC will be met with the regional solution, as it will result in a net decrease of phosphorus.  EMC needs to take a harder look at the total effort, which dates back 10, 15, even 20 years.  A non-regional plant would not be cost efficient or beneficial to the lake.  With respect to the impact of chlorination, he noted the IAWWTP has dechlorination; regarding outfall siting, he noted the IAWWTP was placed to get the benefit of Fall Creek flow.

Dooley said the Town of Ithaca EMC representative felt personally supportive, but voted no because of the Town’s position.  EMC makes a point of having municipal representatives report on a rotating schedule to keep EMC updated on municipal issues.  The draft article being discussed today is not the same as the one that has reached some municipal officials.  She was troubled to learn of an earlier draft the Mayor of Cayuga Heights had received that had some comments about the Cayuga Heights waste water plant, which are not in the final version.  She would have welcomed Noel’s information as part of the dEIS.  To her the dEIS seemed inadequate.  The process is to have comments on the dEIS, the consultants and DEC staff address them and they produce the fEIS.  Susan Brock gave some information to EMC about items that will be addressed in the fEIS.  Dooley felt the article has educational value.

Mike Hall introduced himself, saying he has served as the facilitator in the discussions.  He felt it has been a very open process, and the six partners worked diligently.  There was no County representation.  A significant portion of the County was aware of the dEIS and the term of the comment period.  He asked about the purpose of the article, and is it appropriate at this time.  He said it would be better to wait for the fEIS.  He was hired to facilitate, keep the discussion open, and retain the opportunity for the bond act.  Many opportunities were there for these comments prior to this point.  He felt it is appropriate to see what the fEIS says and then comment.  The timing of the Op-Ed is of concern because the Bond Act monies could go elsewhere.

Mike Lane said EMC is an advisory board with roles of advising the Legislature and educating the public.  The article must not be mistaken as official County position.  In terms of County involvement, Ed Marx said Planning Department staff waited for a long time for information on this project.  They did not lack interest.  The County was not at the table in this process.  TCPD also submitted comments on the dEIS.  Barbara Blanchard said staff comments were focused and they are now waiting for the fEIS.  If the consultant interprets this article as County policy, so will the public.  She agreed with Mike Hall that comment should be provided after the fEIS is issued.  Kate Hackett said Planning Department staff agreed the dEIS was insufficient.  She considered the opening statement of the EMC article to be very negative.  She feels Cayuga Lake is a great asset.  The article starts by putting people on the defensive.

Kathy Herrera asked what City representatives think.  Pat Pryor said she can’t speak for the City, but she was involved with the discussions this year.  The City doesn’t need this, but it is good for the region so the City is willing.  Lots of hard work has gone into this intermunicipal collaboration.  Paulette Manos asked what is the purpose of bringing this to the public?  She agrees with Mike Hall that it would be better to wait until publication of the fEIS.  Steve Nicholson said the article provides education for the public regarding discharges and the inadequacy of the dEIS.  Until just recently he was unaware of the impending availability of the fEIS.  EMC members wanted the article to be controversial and thought-provoking.  They are aware that new technology may be incorporated as it becomes available.

Kathy Herrera said she is trying to identify the issues.  As an advisory board, EMC can publish the article.  It wouldn’t derail the project.  Publication might bring about open discussion, and debate is good.  Will the letter make any difference now in the EIS process?  Mike Hall said EMC comments were provided to DEC, and input was incorporated.  If EMC waits, they could ask why suggestions were not addressed in the final EIS.  Delaying the project could lose the funding, and we need to ask if we’re better off without this at all.  Steve Nicholson said the desired purpose of the article is public awareness.  The Op-Ed was originally intended for September; the EMC approved it October 9th, now it’s another month later.

Dooley said perhaps ERC should have written the article at the same time they made comments to DEC on the dEIS.  But ERC discussion continued, and they were unsure what the timeframe was for the EIS process.  She feels this article would not jeopardize funding.  She questioned whether the Regional Sewer Group has had an open process.  Over several years, she went to Cayuga Heights to ask questions, and was told the meetings were closed and draft documents were not available for the public.  Mike Hall said he became involved last year and has provided information to the public and sent speakers for various groups.  There are attendees from the public at meetings.  His previous comment about loss of revenue was directed at opening up the lengthy agreement process again and missing deadlines if the dEIS were reissued.  He feels the EIS is operating on a normal timeline for this type of project, and DEC received many comments during the comment period, both pros and cons.

Kate Hackett said if the purpose was public education, she urges EMC to add more information on the options and consideration of their impacts on the environment.  She noted that enforcement is an issue, as Tompkins County doesn’t have an enforcement system in place.  Effluent permits specify amounts and the additional discharges are allowed under current permits.  Frank Proto said 90% of the people who will read this letter won’t understand it, and the other 10% will be involved in shepherding the project.  He hoped the project wasn’t really so fragile it couldn’t withstand such comment.  The project should stand on its own.  He feels it’s a worthwhile project and strong enough to defend.

Noel Desch responded to Dooley’s concerns by saying the unified engineering report was completed in 1999 and is public record.  That examined options.  Addressing Frank’s concerns, he said the regional solution could not be built without the bond funding.  Neither could the local proposal. Mike Lane said he chaired a previous intermunicipal sewer effort, and they lost funding due to the lengthy process, so he understands potential loss of funding.  The areas that lost out on wastewater treatment twenty years ago remain problem areas today.

Mike Hall said the proposal should be fully aired.  As a Tompkins County citizen, he wants a strong EMC, but their credibility is at risk due to the timing.  Barbara Blanchard asked for draft EMC minutes.  Pat Pryor agreed with Frank that the project must be strong enough to withstand criticism.  It will receive scrutiny at the municipal level, and all municipalities must still agree on this.

Mike Lane asked that today’s comments be discussed with EMC.  Kathy Herrera said she would like feedback.

III Planning Department

F Commercial / Civic Center Revitalization Program – Recommendations for Grant Funding

Tom Mank distributed copies of photos that were received with grant applications.  He reviewed the application information and advisory board recommendations.  All of the applications have letters of support from their municipalities and are in agreement with the goals of their CCRP plans.

G Resolution:  Making a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance in Relation to Resolution No. ___ of 2003

Moved by Kathy, seconded by Dooley and adopted unanimously.

H Resolution:  Approval of CCRP Grants

Tom submitted an amended draft resolution that included all four projects, with the Village of Groton item added as SEQR type II-2.  Moved by Dooley, seconded by Kathy.  Further amended to add “historic” in two places before Jones Schoolhouse.  Adopted unanimously.

Commissioner’s Report

Ed Marx said an agreement is being drafted and will be mailed to municipalities to eliminate some minor items from staff review under Section 239 of the General Municipal Law.  Items covered include variances for lot frontage, variances for additions to residential uses, special permits for accessory uses and home occupations, residential subdivision for less than five lots with no new road, yard setback variances, activity re change of use in buildings, and sign variances for signs that are less than 20% over the standard.  This may eliminate 50% of the reviews that come to TCPD for staff comment, and will also save municipalities time, effort, copies and postage.  TCPD staff is always available to provide advice.  Joan Jurkowich noted TCPD occasionally receives requests for review in an advisory capacity.  Mike Lane asked if agreements are necessary, and Ed said this is a provision in NYS law that can be drawn up between the agency (local planning board or zoning board of appeals) and TCPD as County agent per the Charter.  In some cases it will be with the municipal boards.  Joan said there is only one agreement being offered, it will not differ by municipality.  Their option is to maintain the current status or enter into the new agreement.  Ed said this agreement was reviewed with a cross section of munipalities, then taken to the Municipal Officials Association Planning Coalition.  All comments have been positive.

IV Aquifer Study

I Update on Interaction with Municipalities

Kate Hackett provided a spreadsheet for the Aquifer Study capital project, noting that this page only goes through 2007, but the project goes 20 years.  The projections on the sheet represent participating with the Town of Caroline and Town of Dryden studies.  Caroline has an eight-year contract with USGS, and could accelerate their study if these County funds are available.  In order to accelerate the Caroline study, USGS needs a two-year commitment from Tompkins County so they can hire another staff person.  Dryden has a five-year contract with USGS.  The numbers in the chart are based on the capital budget request.  The next priority would be the Owasco Inlet Valley, but this could change if different municipalities express interest.  Owasco Inlet Valley would be the first project that requires outreach to develop.

V Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board

Monika Roth and Debbie Teeter were present to discuss the AFPB items.

Addition to agenda:  Resolution:  Scheduling a Public Hearing for the continuation and Revisions to Agricultural District No. 1

Resolution moved by Kathy, seconded by Dooley.  Dooley provided some language amendment and the resolution was adopted by unanimous vote.

J Update – Agriculture District Review

Debbie Teeter said Cooperative Extension staff is now four months into the process of reviewing Ag District 1.  They have visited all concerned town planning boards except for Caroline, which they will visit next week.  She shared a handout on NYS Agricultural District Program.  She said staff has asked the towns for input on removal of some lands from the ag district, especially subdivisions.  The towns of Ithaca and Lansing have suggested some removals.  Staff will contact the property owners.

The process proceeds with the public hearing, AFPB review of proposed changes, PDEQ input, discussion with town boards in February, and action by the Legislature for changes.  Debbie noted they are reviewing inactive ag land, as they need to have 50% ag use in order to maintain an ag district.  Dooley suggested having another public hearing if more changes are proposed after the 12/16 public hearing date.  Joan Jurkowich pointed out that the 12/16 hearing serves as  an opportunity for citizens to ask for addition to or removal from the ag district.

Mike said he would like to see a line on Assessment notices if the property is in an ag district.  Dooley suggested that should go through Government Operations Committee.  Ed noted that County Planning agency review is also required, and Monika Roth said the ag district review will go to the Planning Advisory Board on 12/10.

K Update – Purchase of Development Rights

Monika said the state has a PDR program, and an RFP was out with a deadline of 10/6/2003.  Staff contacted some interested parties, and one property owner decided to pursue it.  Monika helped him with his proposal.  The Howser property is 438 acres in the Town of Lansing which is contiguous with other active farms.  It has some of the best soil in the County, but it is difficult to establish the threat of development.  The property is across from the Rose Inn and has three miles of road frontage.  PDR is consistent with the Town’s intentions for development.  Mike asked who will hold the development rights.  Dooley said the rights would be extinguished.  Monika said the Finger Lakes Land Trust will hold and maintain the easement.  Mike Lane questioned whether the Town should hold the easement and inquired as to the permanence of the easement.  Frank Proto said he is only aware of one way to recapture development rights, which is by buying them back from the state, so that is a pretty slim possibility.  Monika noted the Town could hold the easement, but FLLT expressed an interest.  Mike pointed out that the FLLT mission concerns unique properties.  Monika said this farm contains some UNAs.  Frank reiterated that the toughest item to defend with the state is the threat of development.

Monika said next the State will evaluate the property.  She noted this is a very competitive process.  State staff will help fine tune the estimated value of the development rights, which she thought to be around $2,800 / acre, or $946,000 total.  NYS funds 75%.  Obtaining appraisals is part of the process.  Frank said it is one of the best applications he has seen due to the soil quality.  Mike asked when it is necessary to identify the entity to hold the easement, and Monika said it can be after the application process.  Dooley commented that FLLT operates throughout the state, and Andy Zepp is familiar with the PDR program.  Monika said the farmer is doing this for conservation purposes.  He previously sold some parcels and now has regrets.  She noted the farmhouses are also worth preserving.

Mike expressed concern about the lack of a mechanism for the easement rights.  Frank agreed that this is a concern of farmers.  Some farmers negotiated pipeline easements in the past, and feel they got “taken”.  Mike noted that parkland needs state legislation to effect change and PDR also needs a mechanism / process.

L Bylaws Discussion

A current draft of the bylaws was provided.  AFPB will discuss them further at their 11/18 meeting and they will be on the PDEQ agenda for 12/3.  Input is welcome before 11/18.

Announcement:  Dooley shared information on Senate Bill 139, Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by McCain and Lieberman. This sets global warming caps and will be voted on this term.  She will ask Heather Filiberto to draft a resolution for the Legislature to support this.

VI Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Kathy Wilsea, Secretary, Tompkins County Planning Department