report of inlet island land use committee, ithaca, new york, 1992

..... ----- .. -....._ ----.... ......... -._. __ .. _ ......

----------------------------------

c y u I n l

. I

·~-~-:~~-~·· I _______ ...,J

I i r-· ... -- ----

Property of Department of Planning

and Development

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

r---· --·· . \

\' --~

___.......-------~ .. -\.--- ------ -I l

_______ _j

$)0

Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee

Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee

I I

Introduction.

EPORT BACI( in four months, said Common Council -ut our work took somewhat longer to complete. The same complex layering of history that gives Inlet Island its fasci

nation presented us with a long series of questions, riddles and mysteries requiring answers before planning could begin.

The list of questions rolled on: How does the past explain Inlet Island's anomalies? How does

the Flood Control Channel easement restrict land use? Is this easement line a property line? Or do property parcels extend through the easement line and into the channel? When was part of Taughannock Boulevard licensed for private use? What were the provisions of this license? What regulations apply to the Barge Canal property at Inlet Island's tip? What will the Route 96 project look like? What stymied past attempts to alienate Island park land?

The long process of finding answers (and answering new questions raised by the initial answers) was sometimes frustrating - but always intriguing.

We found, by referring to land surveys, that many previous Inlet Island maps contain serious contradictions and errors. So we produced con1pletely ne'v color maps (found between Pages 40 and

41) presenting the most accurate information we could find about Inlet Island's present, and its past- before any "Island" yet existed.

The new maps are based on many sources: aerial photographs from various years (including Cervin Robinson's marvelous aerials of

· 1933), tax parcel maps, Sanborn maps of August 1940 and March 1965, meticulously surveyed composite taking maps for the Flood Control Channel project prepared by I(onski Engineers of Syracuse in 1967, Route 96 project drawings from the 1988 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as other miscellaneous verbal and visual sources. Each source was carefully compared to the others to eliminate inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

Our land use proposal (limited to the area north of Buffalo Street) emerged as the best of various alternatives. Rejected plans provided more park land, or less, or omitted access to the tip of the Island, or suggested relocating the Coast Guard Auxiliary dock.

We hope the Inlet Island Land Use Plan - and the answers we found to all those questions, riddles and mysteries - will finally allow Inlet Island to attain the exciting, beautiful potential so many Ithacans have envisioned for so many years.

-].S., February 12, 1992

l

INLET IsLAND LAND UsE CoMMITTEE

2

INLET Isi..AND LAND UsE CoMMITTEE

( l

Acknowledgements.

T HE COMMITTEE would like to thank members of the public who attended one or more of our meetings, including Joseph Ciaschi, Betsy Darlington, Peter and Steve

DeGraff, Doria Higgins and Scott Witham. Their comments and advice were helpful and appreciated.

In the fall of 1989, Tom West and other members of the Department of Public Works staked and chalked out the location of the prospective Route 96 and Route 89 corridors on Inlet Island. This greatly helped committee members visualize the impending impact of the Route 96 project.

Doug Foster of the Department of Planning and Development staffed our meetings and provided able research assistance.

Thanks are also due to the De Witt Historical Society of Tompkins County, which kindly granted us permission to use all three Page 13 photographs, and to the Lehigh VaHey House, which graciously hosted several of our early sessions.

Most especially, the committee would like to express its appreciation to U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 2-2, for a brightly lit and spacious meeting area, for warmth on cold winter afternoons and for the help offered to us by individual auxiliary members. Special thanks to John Pitts and Russell C. Mott, who served as the auxiliary's liaisons to the committee, and to auxiliary members Bruce Murray and Arnold Albrecht, who attended many of our meetings.

3

INLET IsLAND LAND UsE CoMMlTTEE

4

INLET ISLAND LAND UsE CoMl\UTTEE

Members of the Committee.

John Schroeder, Chairperson Common Council

Barbara Blanchard Common Council

Moncrief Cochran Planning and Development Board

Phil Cox Board of Public Works

Ann Diller Inlet Island Resident

John Parmalee Old Port Harbor Restaurant

Victoria Romanoff Interim Parks Commission

John Wertis Conservation Advisory Council

I<atherine Wolf Consultant to Interim Parks Commission

Mark Zaharis Pete)s Grocery Store

5


6


Table of Contents.

1 Introduction.

3 Acknowledgements.

5 Members of the Committee.

7 Table of Contents.

9 CHAPTER[:

Inlet IslandJs Historical Context.

19 CHAPTER II:

Inlet Island Today: Land Use & Ownership.

27 CHAPTER III:

The Route 96 ProjectJs Impact on Inlet Island.

3 3 CHAPTER IV:

Inlet Island Today: Problems & Opportunities.

39 CHAPTER V:

Proposed Land Use Plan for Inlet Island.

47 CHAPTER VI:

Implementation Mechanics.

51 CHAPTER VII:

Proposals for Substitute Park Land.

57 Bibliography.

59 Appendices. (A Through D)

7

INLET IsLAND LAND Us12 CoMMITTEE

8


CHAPTER!:

Inlet Island)s Historical Context.

T HE MAP OF THE INLET ISLAND VICINITY has probably changed more dramatically over time than any similarly-sized area in the City of Ithaca. This area has been

shaped and reshaped by some of the most powerful forces that have transformed American cities over the past 150 years. The establishment of canal systems, the coming and the dying of railroads, the realignment of automobile highways, the water rechannelization work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the inauguration of large new parks - all these layers of change have left indelible traces on the external form and internal configuration of Inlet Island.

Yet another cycle of change is now imminent. In 1992, Inlet Island awaits its latest transformation: the long-anticipated construction of the Route 96 project, with its new road alignments and two new bridges.

Many of Inlet Island's current land use problems and opportunities are the legacy of these successive urban transformations, and they can only be understood properly and solved effectively in the light of this complex history. So we begin with a brief summary of Inlet Island's past.

Nineteenth Century Beginnings.

Understanding the mid-nineteenth century appearance of the area corresponding to today's West End requires an active imag-

. ination, for one must erase much of one's image of today's Ithaca. One must picture the area without the Route 13 highway, and without the Flood Control Channel. And one must picture the land now known as Inlet Island, not as an island, but as a contiguous portion of all the land lying to the west of the Cayuga Inlet.

Figure 1 shows the western portion of Ithaca in 1866. To orient oneself to this map, one must first realize that today's Esty Street, Court Street and Cliff Street (Route 96) were then called New Street, Mill Street and Geneva Road, respectively. Today's State Street was called Owego Street (east of the Inlet) and Junction Street (west of the Inlet). Finally, Taughannock Boulevard was then known as West Port Street.

West Port Street was laid out parallel to the original course of the Inlet, precisely sixty feet west of the water's course. Where the Inlet's course angled or curved, so did West Port Street's right-ofway. This contrasted with the perfectly straight rectilinear grid of

9


10

I. The portion of the Cayuga Inlet seen flowing diagonally northeast to the point catted "Steam Boat Landing" on the 1866 map has since been filled in, with the Inlet's waters following a new straightened course not far to the west. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility now sits atop part of the old stream bed. The new Farmers' Market building stands well northwest of the former watercourse.

2. Carol U. Sisler, "The Inlet," in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, editors, Ithaca's Neighborhoods: The Rhine, The Hill, and The Goose Pasture (DeWitt Historical Society, Ithaca, N.Y.: 1988), p. 128.

FIGURE 1. This is a portion of a map of the then «village'' of Ithaca featured in Spence Spetlcer's 1866 Headwaters of Cayuga Lake. The depicted area corresponds to today's West End - before Route 13, before the Flood Control Chameel, and before many other changes. See the text for a list of some street names that have changed over the past 125 years.

INLET IsLAND LAND U sE CoMMITTEE

0 0 .. . . . --- -- - -- -- -- --

I : :

0 '

\• t;. /.:llm-1 : ;

\ ' '

\ •' ~ ,, __ ,,:: ... :.: - -- . - ------ -~ . ~ \ - • -- - ·· --. 0 0

' \ ..

~\ \\_ '. \

~\ M'

"'' ~ ;

I I

• - -- - ---·- - . - _ _ __ __ ,!_ _ _. _ _ _

o I

' ' ' - · · _ _ ; . -- ~ I -

0 ' '

most early streets on Ithaca's flats. Because of this legacy, Taughannock Boulevard curves irregularly to this day. A similarly curved "East Port Street" once paralleled the Inlet between the water's east edge and Fulton Street.

Oddly enough, the Cayuga Inlet segment originally sponsoring these irregularities was soon straightened (as the 1866 map already shows). The short-lived East Port Street had, by 1866, become a straightened north-south right-of-way for the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad.

The stretches of the Inlet today bounding Inlet Island on the south and east flow in much the same stream bed in 1992 as the course shown on the 1866 map. Elsewhere, the Inlet's course has been greatly altered, most notably through 1960s construction of the Flood Control Channel. I

As the place names indicate, the long segment of the Inlet extending from the vicinity of East and West Port Streets up to "Steam Boat Landing" was Ithaca's nineteenth century port. Here, goods were exchanged from railroad to boat or barge, and from water to rail.

Figure 2 is an 1882 bird's eye view delineated by L. R. Burleigh. Steamboats ply the Inlet between West Port and Fulton Streets. Paralleling the Inlet to the east are the Delaware, Lack awanna & Western Railroad tracks, balanced on the Inlet's west by those of the Geneva, Ithaca & Sayre (later the Lehigh Valley). One steam locomotive heads south on the D, L & W, while another train - apparently loaded with coal - heads north on the G, I & S. Clustered in the vicinity are grain elevators, factory buildings, railroad stations and residential areas. Up on West Hill, between Elm and Chestnut Streets, stands the First Ward School with its four corner towers.

In the stratified society of nineteenth century Ithaca, writes Carol U. Sisler, the Inlet area was home to "those who were poor and uneducated and often the victims of industrial expansion, hired or fired seasonally, perhaps injured by factory work, unable to work, or too sick to work."2 Squatters' shanties sprang up in the marshy areas to the northwest of the Cayuga Inlet, while a substantial working class neighborhood of two-story gabled wood frame houses developed in the vicinity of what is now Inlet Island. This neigh-

borhood, which would be almost cotnpletely demolished in the 1960s during the construction of the Flood Control Channel, was located at the west end of Seneca Street, on Court Street Extension, and along Taber Street and Floral Avenue.

Early Twentieth Century Changes.

By 1933, philanthropic individuals and organizations had responded to the social and recreational needs of Inlet neighbor-

hood residents by establishing a multifaceted community center on the block then bounded by Court Street Extension and Brindley, Buffalo and Cliff Streets. The center included an inter-denominational chapel, a settlement house, a small formal park and an open grassy playground (see Map # 1 and Figure 3). Note: Map # 1 through Map #9 are reproduced in color between Pages 40 and 41.

This entire community center flourished on land donated by members of the Williams family, sired by Ithaca banke~ Josiah Butler Williams. The Williams family lived in "Cliff Park," a stone Gothic Revival house up on West Hill, near a rivulet. This house, since torn

11

FIGURE 2. Shown here is one part of L. R. Burleigh's 1882 aerial perspective of the Village of Ithaca. The view loolls northeast from an imaginary point above West Hill. The forested lower portion of West Hill is seen in the foreground. Between the bottom of the hill and the Cayuga Inlet is the area corresponding to today's Inlet Islatld. Mill Street, West Port Street, Geneva Street and Spe[n]cer Street, as seen in the perspective, correspond to today's Court Street, Taughannock Boulevard, Cliff Street and Floral Avenue. ]unction Street on the drarving corresponds to the crdiagonal" westernmost stretch of State Street that leads - today - to and from the Octopus.


12

FIGURE 3. In 1933 local photographer Cervin Robinson took aerial photographs of most of Ithaca, using a grid system. The photos were annotated and assembled into a one-of-a-kind book. Reproduced here is part of photograph 36. The open area with several irregular dirt paths (upper right) is Williams Playground. Directly above is Inlet Beebe Mission (T-shaped). Left of the playground are the West Side House and Brindley Park. Just below the ~. V.R.R. ')caption is the Lehigh Valley Railroad passenger station (today)s Station Restaurant), with landscaped areas sottth and east. The latter · lawn features a trolley shelter on Buffalo Street. Otz. Taughannock Boulevard, between Seneca and Buffalo Streets, a trolley car rolls down its tracks. Many frame houses of the old Itt let neighborhood stand in the photo's upper left. More homes are located twrth a·nd northwest of Williams Playground. Compare this photo 1vith Map #1 and Map #3. The latter illustrates how the Flood Control Channel ploughed th1·ough the area in tiJe 1960s.


down, stood on a site near today's Chestnut Hill apartments. The Inlet Beebe Mission ("A" on Map # 1) provided religious

training and charitable services for Inlet residents. A new, ample brick chapel (Figure 4) had been built in 1932. It replaced a small 1882 wooden chapel that had stood across Buffalo Street on the triangular lot where State and Buffalo Streets then met.

The West Side House ("B" on Map #1)) was a community center modeled on the settlement houses then serving working class and immigrant neighborhoods in large American cities. Built in 1918, this popular Tudor-style haven (Figure 5) was operated by the Social Service League. According to former Inlet resident David Drumheller, the West Side House featured "a complete woodshop, . . . a kitchen for home economics, a weight room, a shower room and a room with four pool tables and a pingpong table. "3 Offerings included gymnastics and crafts, sewing and cooking classes, public dances and programs, and community celebrations. Vaccinations were given and free food was distributed to the poor.

East of the West Side House was Brindley Park, small but formal, with paved walks meeting at a precise angle and a central pyra-

13

3. Simeon Moss, "The Past Regained : A Neig[h]borhood's Small-Scale Revival," The Ithaca Journal, May 14, 1986.

FIGURE 4 (lower left). The Inlet Beebe Mission was named for Elizabeth W. Beebe, who dedicated the last decades of her life to serving the poor in the Inlet neighborhood. Pictured is the new 1932 chape~ built on the fiftieth anniversary of the original1882 chapel .

FIGURE 5 (upper right). The West Side House, built in half-timbered style in 1918, was an anchor of the Inlet neighborhood. Within its walls, the Social Service League and local clubs offered classes, programs, crafts, gymnastics, dances and other activities for children and adults. The West Side House was demolished in 1967, because -like many of the houses of the neighborhood it served -it stood directly in the path of the new Flood Control Channel.

FIGURE 6 (lower right). The photographer who recorded this view of the Lehigh · Valley passenger station around 1900 perched atop a building at the corner of Buffalo Street and West Port Street (Taughannock Boulevard), with the camera pointed northwest. A trolley car of the Ithaca Street Railway waits for passengers at the trolley system )s west terminus. In the left foreground is the Lehigh Valley Housej in the right middle ground is the station with its well·tended gardens; and in the left background is a long-vanished hotel that stood at the corner of Buffalo and Brindley Streets. (This section of Brindley Street was later moved west) as shown on Map # 1). The West Side House and the neJP Inlet Beebe Mission did not yet exist.


14

FIGURE 7. This illustration from the March 7, 1949 Ithaca Journal (taken from a N. Y.S. Department of Public Works Report on Arterial Routes in the Ithaca Urban Area) combines painted simulation with photographic reality. The (Ibridge" and light-colored trhighway'' in the middle distance are artist)s renderings of Route 96 improvements envisioned in this report. The improvements were, of course, never built, a'nd Ithaca still awaits construction of a successor Route 96 project. The photograph's forground shows the area corresponding to the north half of today's Inlet Island. (The painted trhighway," just before it reaches the simulated «bridge," crosses what is now the northern tip of Inlet Island.) Stretching successively jt1rther back behind the trbridge» are areas occupied in 1992 by the two college crew houses, the Ithaca Farmers' Market, the Newman Municipal Golf Course, and Stewart Park and the Fuertes Bird Sanctuary. East Hill reaches the horizon in the far distance.


midally roofed drinking fountain. Water was available on each of the fountain's four sides, so that gangs of thirsty children could quench their thrist four at a time. Baseball, football and similar group games were won and lost on Williams Playground, just north of the park.

By 1933, the area corresponding to today's Inlet Island was also a surprisingly sophisticated transportation center.

To the north, thick masonry retaining walls defined a large harbor basin. This was the Barge Canal Terminal, Ithaca's port connection with the New York State Barge Canal. (This was the quite unsentimental new name for the old Erie Canal.) The portion of the Cayuga Inlet extending south from the Barge Canal Terminal was an official segment of the "Cayuga and Seneca Canal," appropriated by New York State in 1915. The official canal designation apparently extended all the way up the Inlet to the State Street bridge. East of Taughannock Boulevard, numerous boat houses lined the Inlet.

The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company owned the land west of Taughannock Boulevard and east of Brindley Street, plus land extending well north. Building "G" on Map # 1 was the Lehigh

Valley passenger station ( today's Station Restaurant), and building "H" was the freight depot. Arriving or departing passengers were greeted on Buffalo Street with beautiful landscaping, including a formal lawn with flagpole in front of the station ("D"), and a more inforn1ally landscaped lawn at the Taughannock Boulevard corner ("F"). To the north were extensive railyards and utility buildings. Figure 6 shows the passenger station around the turn of the century.

The Ithaca Street Railway provided yet another transportation link. This was Ithaca's trolley system, and it maintained a stop ("E") at the corner of Buffalo Street and Taughannock Boulevard. A passenger arriving on a Lehigh Valley Railroad train could walk a few steps to this sheltered stop, and ride the trolley downtown, or up to East Hill or Cornell Heights, or all the way to Stewart Parle.

Map #2 shows that, by 1940, a few significant changes had occurred in the area. To the north, the route of Taughannock Boulevard had been altered, to allow construction of a large Lehigh Valley railroad loop even further north, off the n1ap. (The former loop area is today home of the Cass Park baseball fields.)

By 1940, three oil companies operated facilities ("I", "J" and "I(") along the realigned portion of the boulevard. Five large and four smaller tanks filled with petroleum products towered above surrounding concrete "dikes," designed to capture any spills. All the tanks are visible in Figure 7, an illustration from the March 7, 1949 Ithaca Journal. On this day, The Journal announced New York State's first Route 96 improvement plan. The bridge in the photo's middle ground is a painted simulation of a proposed Route 96 span. The bridge, of course, was never built.4

By 1940, the trolley stop at the corner of Buffalo Street and Taughannock Boulevard had permanently disappeared. The last Ithaca trolley had n1ade its farewell run in 1935.

The 1960s: Inlet Island Is Created.

Another event of 1935 ultimately resulted in the creation of Inlet Island.

That was the year Ithaca experienced its great flood, which inundated most flat areas of the City. The flood resulted after a

massive downpour, \Vhen water from the City's south could not flow rapidly enough north into Cayuga Lake. Instead, the water flowed through the City's neighborhoods, flooding houses, yards and streets with water up to four feet deep; The Inlet neighborhood - which stood directly along the path the water wanted to flow -was particularly hard hit.

After decades of discussion and lobbying, the federal government finally placed an Inlet flood control project ip the Federal Flood Control Act of 1960. Funding was not approved, though, until1964, when work by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers began.

The Ithaca Flood Protection Project had three phases. First, the mouth of the Inlet, north of its juncture with Cascadilla Creek, was deepened and widened. The second phase included a number of projects at the south end of the City, including a new bridge for the Lehigh Valley railroad. Third, a realigned Flood Control Channel was dug all the way from the southwest corner of today's Southwest Park, north to Cascadilla Creek. This third phase created Inlet Island.5

But this last portion of the channel was originally planned for a very different route than the one built. The original route followed a curving path well to the west of today's channel (Figure 8). It would have resulted in a much larger, and very differently shaped

· Inlet Island. The first "nibble" of excavation for the original route, before it was abandoned, is still visible on any Ithaca map. (It is due east of the Cass Park ice rink.) A prime motivation for changing the route to its current path was Cornell University's desire to use the Flood Control Channel as a nearly straight three-lane 2000 meter rowing course for its cre\v races.

As shown in dark blue dashes on Map #3, the final course of the Flood Control Channel extended southwest from the New York State Barge Canal Terminal, through a portion of the petroleum tank area, through Lehigh Valley Railroad Company land, through a cluster of houses on Court Street Extension, through Williams Playground and the West Side House, and through the heart of the Inlet neighborhood south of State Street. The swath of land to fall under Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement restrictions was even wider. 6

The State obtained control over land between the east and west

15

4. "State Offers Ithaca $3,896,000 Highway Plan" blared the banner headline in this 1949 Ithaca Journal. The "Plan" referred to was the N.Y.S. Department of Public Works' 1949 Report on Arterial Routes in the Ithaca Urban Area. The State intended phased implementation of this master plan for Route 96 and Route 13 improvements - but also intended work to begin "at an early date." One article in the March 7 Journal emphasized Ithaca's helpful attitude toward the highway planning, noting state officials' praise for "top cooperation" from Ithaca's press and radio. "Funds for the improvement are said to be available," The Journal added confidently, "so the projects if approved, could be started immediately."

5. Ithaca's Neighborhoods, p. 136.

6. To better illustrate relationships bewteen old and new at a time of great change, Map #3 includes information form various years in the 1960s. For example, the map shows railroad tracks throughout the 1967 Cass Park purchase from the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, although by that year many tracks were already only a memmy.

INLET ISLAND LAND UsE CoMMITTEE

16

7. The original "Cass Marina Park," created at the suggestion of former City Engineer Leon Cass, was a narrow city park along the Inlet next to the old Municipal Airport, across the Inlet from the Municipal Golf Course.

FIGURE 8. The original route proposed for the Flood Control Channel is depicted in this Apri/1963 City Planning Board map. This map presents a development plan for the Inlet Valley, with suggested land uses and projected road routes, including new Route 96 and Route 13 corridors. If the Flood Control Channel had followed this path, Inlet Island would have had a very different shape. Actually, in this version, it would not have been an «Island'' at all, but an Inlet «Peninsula.» (Other maps showing the original chamul route do show the resulting land mass as an «Island," rather than a «pe'niruula. ") The 1963 planning board fm,ored «tight industry & research" as the jitture land t1se for most of the new peninm/a's interior, with «private & commercial rect·eation" along waterfront strips.


Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement lines in several ways. In most cases, private properties were purchased outright (fee

simple). But in at least two instances, private landowners were permitted to own portions of parcels that extended inside the permanent easement lines. In these two cases, the State purchased only permanent easement rights over the portion of the land inside the lines. When the City owned affected land, it retained ownership but the State acquired permanent easement rights over the land. This procedure applied, for example, to part of Williams Playground, to various street rights-of-way, and to part of the City's new Cass Park purchase.

The City, too, bought land in conjunction with the flood control project. Most notable was the City's purchase of 48.6 acres of Lehigh Valley Railroad Company land for the purpose of dramatically expanding Cass Park? According to a December 18, 1967 agreement, this $500,000 purchase included a City contribution of $250,000 and an equal amount contributed by the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The New York State Conservation Department acted as the agent between the City and the federal government.

The portion of this purchase immediately relevant to today's Inlet Island is colored dark green on Map #3. The acquired land was extremely irregular in shape, reflecting the curves and siding extensions of former railroad tracks. The State acquired Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement rights over that portion of the purchase that lay between the east and west permanent easement lines, but- as indicated above- the City retained ownership.

As the channel was dug, the Octopus was born. New York State built a new bridge to carry State Street traffic over the new channel. The bridge's location was slightly northeast of the forn1er State Street right-of-way. The State expected the City to build a second new bridge over the channel to reconnect Taughannock Boulevard on 'Inlet Island with Route 89 across the channel. But the City balked at the cost, and asked the State to include construction of the new Route 89 bridge in its long-proposed Route 96 project. (Yes, this was the same unbuilt Route 96 project whose first design had been announced in the 1949 Ithaca Journal!) . The State demurred. So the City, with State acquiescence, built Park Road, a

"temporary" park road that connected Route 89 with the new State Street bridge.

City penny-pinching had created The Octopus. By 1970, the Flood Control Channel was complete. It bene

fited the City by providing flood protection and a beautiful new waterway. But it also destroyed an entire neighborhood, along with

the community center that sustained it. The West Side House and Beebe Community Chapel (the new name of Inlet Beebe Mission) v1ere demolished. Most of Williams Playground was excavated and flooded. Of some 65 private homes in the old neighborhood, about 55 were destroyed to make way for the channel. Over thirty of these were torched in fire department training exercises.

17


18


CHAPTER II:

Inlet Island Today: Land Use & Ownership.

T HE STORY OF LAND USE AND PROPERTY ownership on Inlet Island is not simple. Special government regulations and unusual situations abound.

The complexity derives from the area's historical role as the nexus of interrelated highway, railroad, water transport, water management and park systems. Over time, dramatically different city forms were superimposed over old ones. The curvilinear tracks and property lines of railroads were superimposed over the rectilinear street grid of early nineteenth century Ithaca. A Barge Canal Terminal was carved out and defined by masonry retaining walls. A diagonal Flood Control Channel was superimposed over previous superimpositions.

Today, Ithaca anticipates yet another layer of change: the final arrival of the Route 96 project, with its own separate internal logic of curving highway connections.

Maps #4 and #5 are meant to be used together. The former illustrates 1992 Inlet Island land use, while the latter depicts 1992 property ownership.

As the maps show, the nature of land use and the nature of ownership are not necessarily the same. There are instances where

publicly-owned land is used for private purposes, and other instances where privately-owned land is used for public purposes.

Maps #4 and #5 are mostly self-explanatory. But certain elements require further explanation:

Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement.

There has been much confusion in the past about who owns, and ultimately controls, Inlet Island land subject to the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement.

The confusion is not surprising. Comparison with official land surveys proves that Inlet Island planning and tax maps prepared after 1970 present inaccurate or misleading information about property lines on the Island's west side. The erroneous maps show the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement line as a property line, serving as a boundary for various parcels.8 On most of Inlet Island, this simply is not true. For the part of the Island treated in this report, the only place where the permanent easement line follows a parcel boundary line is along Brindley Park's west side. Elsewhere,

19

8. Maps with this incorrect notation include those in the 1982 Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project and those in the 1988 N.Y.S. Route 96 project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Current and past maps at the Tompkins County Assessment Office also incorrectly depict the easement line as a property line. Correct information is supplied by property deeds and by the composite taking maps for the Ithaca Hood Protection Project (i.e ., the Flood Control Channel project) dated February 28, 1967, surveyed by Konski Engineers of Syracuse, N.Y.


20

9. Mr. Carroll states the D.E.C. position on docks upstream from the Coast Guard Auxiliary dock in an August 1988 letter to Mayor John Gutenberger. Carroll writes that the D.E.C. intends to "deny any new applications for the placement of docks in the relocated section of the Cayuga Inlet [Flood Control Channel] upstream of the Coast Guard Auxiliary." He confirmed this opinion recently in a phone conversation with Doug Foster of the City's planning department. The other information in this paragraph comes from Foster's conversion with Carroll.


the easen1ent line passes thro'ttgh individual parcels (see Map #5 ). As indicated in the previous chapter, New York State acquired

rights for the channel through three different methods:

Method One: Outright Fee Simple Purchase From Private Landowners. On Map #5, the areas so purchased are labeled "State of New York, D.E.C. Administration." ("D.E.C." stands for the "Departn1ent ofEnvironmental Conservation.")

Method Two: Purchase of Permanent Easement Rights From Private Landowners, With the Landowners Retaining Property Ownership and Any Property Rights Not Covered by the Easement. This procedure has led to an odd circumstance: In places, the water of the Flood Control Channel passes over private property. This occurs on part of one Ciaschi parcel and part of one DeGraff parcel, as shown on Map #5.

Method Three: Acquisition of Permanent Easement Rights From the City, With the City Retaining Property Ownership and Any Property Rights Not Covered by the Easement. Because of this procedure, many City-owned parcels existing prior to the Flood Control Channel legally continue to exist "under" the superimposed pern1anent easement lines and "under" the waters of the channel itself.

Suppose one wished to walk along the west edge of Inlet Island, fully within the permanent easement line, with the walk beginning just north of the State Street bridge (at the first colored parcel on Map #5 ). As one walked the water's edge towards Inlet Island's northern tip, one would pass in succession over parcels owned by the following entities:

I

• State of New York (D.E.C. administration). • City oflthaca (Williams Playground). • City of Ithaca (former Court Street Extension right-of-way). • State of New York (D.E.C. administration). • City oflthaca (Cass Park). • Joseph Ciaschi (since this is private property, walking here

without pern1ission is trespass). • City of Ithaca (Cass Park). • State of New York (D.E.C. administration, with license to

Coast Guard Auxiliary). • City of Ithaca (former Taughannock Blvd. right-of-way). • Peter DeGraff (since this is private property, walking here

without permission is trespass). • State of New York (D.o.T. administration, with license to

Coast Guard Auxiliary; "D .o.T" stands for the "Department of Transportation").

The irrationality of this situation is typical of 1992 Inlet Island property boundaries. The old boundaries reflect long-abandoned uses, and do not correspond to the "island" shape of the land -even though the Island has existed tor over two decades.

Appendix A presents the precise language of the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement, which is administered by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. The easement's practical effect is to prohibit anything that would rise vertically from the ground plane. The D.E.C's reasoning: Such objects or plantings could become obstacles or snares if high water streamed down the channel. Water obstruction would, of course, interfere with the Flood Control Channel's primary purpose.

A ground-level paved path, though, would not be an obstacle. It would almost certainly be permitted, upon application to the · D.E.C.

The Coast Guard Auxiliary maintains a removable floating dock near the north end of the Island. D.E.C. Flood Control Engineer Henry Carroll has ruled that that no permits for docks will be granted south of this auxiliary dock. The auxiliary's dock floats where the channel widens. Upstream, though, the channel is narrower, and any docks there could obstruct free-flowing water under high water conditions.

Mr. Carroll adds, however, that it might be possible to establish one or more basins or lagoons on Inlet Island's interior, with water access through what is now dry land subject to the permanent easement?

Note: The Inlet Island map used repeatedly in the N .Y.S.

Department of Transportation's 1988 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Route 96 project erroneously locates the permanent easement line on the northern half of the Island.lO The easement line is shown correctly on the Inlet Island Land Use Committee's maps.

City of Ithaca Park Land.

The park land shown on Map #4 attained that status in three different ways. The three hues of green on Map #5 distinguish these origins.

Category A: Officially Designated City of Ithaca Park Land, With No Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Involvement. (Medium green on Map #5).

Brindley Park and Williams Playground fit this category. Both were donated to the City for park use more than sixty years ago. The Brindley Park hip-roofed drinking fountain (Figure 9) still

·exists. This fountain, along with some surrounding sidewalk, is the only extant physical remnant of the former Inlet neighborhood community center described in Chapter I.

Augusta H. Williams, Charlotte E. Williams and Ella S. Williams donated Williams Playground to the City on November 27, 1916. Their intent was to provide an outdoor play area for children. Only parts of Williams Playground now remain above water.

Augusta H. Williams deeded Brindley Park to the City on July 1, 1929, in fulfillment of an offer she had made two years earlier. The minutes of the Board of Public Works record that on August 24, 1927 "a communication was received from Miss Augusta H. Williams advising that she is having the comer lot at the junction of Buffalo and Brindley Streets converted into a little Park Area to be planted with shrubbery and the installation of an attractive drinking fountain, asking the City to co-operate in the installation of water,

21

10. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement maps are erroneous in two ways in their depiction of the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement line. First, towards the north end of the Island, the easement line is consistently shown too close to the Flood Control Channel waters. Second, the two places where the easement line "juts out" in rectilinear angles should exactly correspond to the northwest corner of the existing concrete dike (once enclosing four petrolewn tanks) on the "Agway Parcel," and to the northwest corner of the building now used by the Coast Guard Auxiliary. The concrete dike with the four tanks can be seen on Map #3, in the dark-green area labeled "Leased by L.V.R.R. to Agway." Correct information on the easement line's location is provided by the comprehensive 1967 Konski Engineers land survey maps referred to in Footnote 8.

FIGURE 9. The Brindley Park drinking fountain, now out of service, still stands to the west of the Station Restaurant. Some of the original park sidewalk remains, as do trees which define some of the park's original edges. Augusta H. Williams had the fountain built and shrubbery planted at her own expense before she donated the park to the City in 1929.


22

11. At the time of the official conveyance of Brindley Park to the City, in July 1929, Augusta H. Williams' Iawyer Charles H. Newman reminded the City of its 192 7 promises. "A-5 you know." Newman reminded City Clerk W. 0. Kerr, "Miss Williams has beautified this property and placed thereon a drinking fountain for the benefit of the public, and this conveyance is in accordance with action already taken by the city agreeing to accept d1e property and maintain it as a park. Miss Williams wishes us to state that one of the fonts in the fountain has been out of order and is being repaired at her expense." Newman's letter is preserved in the city clerk's office along widl the Brindley Park deed.

12. Guide to the Alienation or Conl'trsion of Municipal Parklands (Albany, N.Y.: Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, 1990), p. 8.

13. Ibid, p. 5, with additional information fi·om Tide 49, §303, paragraph (c) of the 1988 edition of the United States Code.

14. Ibid, p. 3.

INLET ISLAND LAND UsE COMMITTEE

sewer and lighting, and eventually to accept title to this plot and n1aintain the same. The improvement adding to the attractiveness and convenience of the adjoining Williams Playground." On the same day, the Board adopted a resolution declaring "that the communication of Miss Williams be acknowledge[ d] and the offer of this plot accepted with assurances of co-operation for the necessary service, installation and maintenance, and that the Clerk be directed to express the thanks and appreciation of the City authorities."

In 1992, the fountain is dry, its four fonts capped, and the park is neglected, despite the City's 1927 assurances.11

If the City wanted to "unpark" any Category A park land, the alienation from park status would require authorization by the New York State legislature. The legislation could (but would not have to) include provision of substitute park land. If substitute land were not provided, the legislation would require the City to use the proceeds of the land sale for capital improvements to other City parks. 12

Use of park land in Category A by the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation for highway purposes is not considered an alienation, and so does not require State legislative approval. However, when a federally-funded highway "requires the use of any land in a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge or historic property" of national, state or local significance (as determined by supervising federal, state or local officials), the U.S. Secretary of Transportation must "ensure that the project is undertaken only if there is no prudent or feasible alternate and if it is designed to minimize any harm done to such land." This process is called "4( f) conversion" approval, because the process derives from Section 4(f) of the federal Department ofTransportation Act of 1966.13

Category B: De Facto City of Ithaca Park Land, With No Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Involve~ent. (Yellow-green on Map #5 ).

Although never officially designated as park land, the a bando ned Court Street Extension and Brindley Street (north of Buffalo) have acquired de facto park status. For over twenty years,

· the dry-land portion of these rights-of-way has been an open grassy park area, functionally indistinguishable from adjacent official park land. According to the State's Guide to the Alienation or Con17ersion of Municipal Parklands) dedication of land to park status does not necessarily require a formal legislative act. Rather, "dedication can also occur when the common, accepted use of the land is as a park."14

Alienation procedure for this category of park land would be the same as for Category A. The regulations governing N.Y.S. Department of Transportation use of this category of park land for highway purposes would also be the same.

Category C: City of Ithaca Park Land, Purchased With Assistance of Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Monies. (Dark-green on Map #5).

The 1967 Cass Park purchase fits into this category, since it was funded by a $250,000 grant (matched by the City) from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Following is a description of how approval would be gained for alienating and converting park land purchased with money from this fund:

First Situation: When a New York State municipality wishes to remove park status from land in this category, it must follow a complicated two-stage process. First comes alienation approval, and then comes conversion approval.

The first stage, alienation approval, occurs at the state level. The New York State legislature must authorize alienating the land from park use. The alienation legislation must identifY specific substitute park land, because subsequent federal conversion approval will require such substitute land.

The second stage, conversion approval, occurs at the federal level. When land has been purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund money, and a municipality wishes to convert the land from public outdoor recreation use, this conversion must be approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may

only approve the conversion under certain circumstances. First, he or she must determine that the conversion accords with New York State's comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan. Second, the Secretary must assure that substitute park land "of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location" will replace the old park land. This is required by Section 6(f) of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. The process, therefore, is called "6( f) conversion" approval.15

Second Situation: When the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation wishes to use park land in this category, it must follow a different procedure. If the land is to be "unparked" for highway purposes, it is not considered an alienation, and no State legislative approval is required. But now two, instead of one, federal conversion approvals are needed.

One is "4(£) conversion" approval by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. This approval process was described earlier.

The other is "6(f) conversion" approval by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. This approval process, too, was described above.

If one stands at the edge of the Flood Control Channel not far

from the State Street bridge and looks due east toward the Station Restaurant's engine, passenger cars and caboose, one surveys an uninterrupted expanse of grassy park land (Figure 10). Though there are no differentiating visual cues, the park land one sees belongs in succession to Category A, Category B and Category C.

Note: Maps from the N.Y.S. D.o.T.'s Draft Environmental Impact Staten1ent for the Route 96 project have, in the past, been regarded as authoritative on Inlet Island park land qoundaries. In fact, however, these maps incorrectly depict the north property line of the portion of the 196 7 Cass Park purchase directly south of the Coast Guard Auxiliary building.l6 The boundary is shown correctly on the Inlet Island Land Use Committee maps.

License to Portion of Taughannock Boulevard.

On April 27, 1977, the Board of Public vVorks discontinued "that portion of Taughannock Boulevard, being approximately the most northerly 150 feet before its intersection with the Flood Control Channel." On the same day, the Board unanimously agreed to license a portion of this discontinued right-of-way to Inlet Park

Marina (a predecessor of Peter DeGrafPs Ithaca Boating Center). The agreement had several conditions, including the provision that the license was "revocable upon 30 days' notice by either party to the other."

The license was granted "in exchange for the conveyance to the city by Inlet Park Marina of a portion of the bed of Cascadilla Street." The latter parcel is seen on Map #3. It is the small rectangular lot just below the "I" of the map's "Cayuga Inlet" label. The lot is part of the original Cascadilla Street

23

15. Section 6(f) of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 states in part that "No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the [U.S.] Secretary [of the Interior], be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and then only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location."

16. The fact that a boundary error exists here in these N.Y.S. Department ofTransportation maps is confirmed by referring to the comprehensive 1967 Konski Engineers land survey maps mentioned in Footnotes 8 and 10.

FIGURE 10. This photo)s ground plane ~ which extends from near the Flood Control Channel to the Station Restaurant - includes three different categories of park land.

INLET ISLAND LAND USE CoMMITTEE

24


right-of-way (compare Map #3 with Map #1). The Taughannock Boulevard license has been in effect

continuously since 1977. The licensed land is labded "City of Ithaca License to DeGrafP' on Map #5. The land is colored orange on Map #4, since - though owned by the City- its use is private.

The minutes of the Board of Public Works describing the granting of this license appear as Appendix B.

New York State 'Blue Line.)

The State of New York "Blue Line" indicated on Map #5 is the western limit of the Cayuga Inlet segment appropriated by the State in 1915 as part of the "Cayuga and Seneca Canal." As the map shows, the Ithaca Boating Center building and nearby piers partially encroach on this state-owned land.

However, it appears that many earlier buildings formerly on this site extended over the "Blue Line" to a similar extent (see Maps #1 and #2). So the State has apparently tolerated encroachment here for over fifty years.

Land Used by the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 2-2, located at the end of Taughannock Boulevard, is an important community institution, providing many services to the public. The services offered range from boating safety classes to public education, and from safety patrols to helping boaters in distress. The auxiliary is a private volunteer organization, and its assets are owned by its own corporation. Physical structures used by the auxiliary include its headquarters ~uilding ("J" on Map #4) and a floating dock ("L") that is removed and stored elsewhere during the winter months.

A comparison of Map #4 with Map #5 shows that the Coast Guard Auxiliary uses portions of four parcels, owned by four different parties.

The parcel furthest south is owned by the State of New York, under D.E.C. administration. This is one of the parcels purchased

· outright by the State during construction of the Flood Control Channel. The D.E.C. has Hcensed the land portion of this parcel to the auxiliary, which enjoys its exclusive use. The auxiliary headquarters building stands here.

Just to the north, the auxiliary uses a portion of the abandoned Taughannock Boulevard right-of-way, owned by the City. There is apparently no formal agreement between the City and the Coast Guard governing the use of this land.

To the north one more step, the auxiliary uses part of a parcel owned by Peter DeGraff. Mr. DeGraff says he enthusiastically approves of this use.

The three areas mentioned so far are used exclusively by the auxiliary. The auxiliaiy also has a license to use Inlet Island's tip, but here its use is shared with the N .Y.S. Department of Transportation, the land owner. See below.

The Tip of Inlet Island.

As shown on Map #5, the tip of Inlet Island is part of a large area ( Jnostly covered by the waters of the Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Channel) owned by the State of New York and administered by the Department of Transportation. The State acquired this land long ago for its Barge Canal system. The perfectly square northeast corner of Inlet Island, with its stone retaining walls, is a remnant of the full-scale Barge Canal Terminal that existed before the Flood Control Channel's construction (see Maps #1 and #3).

The Waterways Maintenance Division of the D.o.T. has immediate jurisdiction over this whole area.

Inland Island's tip still functions as an official N.Y.S. D.o.T. Barge Canal Terminal. Instead of serving commercial trade, as is did earlier in the century, it now serves mainly as a temporary mooring place for visiting boaters. The D.o.T. also uses the tip to monitor Cayuga Lake's water level. This occurs in a very small "sentry-size" station.

According to John Baldwin and Jamie Marino of the Waterways Maintenance Division, the D.o.T. offers permits for use

of Barge Canal lands, with the goal of maximizing access to, and use of, these lands. Municipalities, private landowners and even commercial enterprises are all eligible to receive permits. First preference is given to municipalities or institutions whose use of the land will provide a "public benefit." Municipal park use or Coast Guard Auxiliary use are examples of publically beB~ficial uses; permits for such uses are free. Otherwise, preference \~ ~e given to the nearest upland property owner, who pays a fee based on a percentage of the fair market value of the land.

Dual permits may also be issued, if this benefits the public and if the two parties applying for the simultaneous permits agree to use the land in harmony .17

Currently the Coast Guard Auxiliary holds "Revocable Permit" 71-2-23, granting it permission to use Inlet Island's tip "to beautify the area for use by the general public." The permit appears as Appendix C. According to Paul A. Yonge of the N.Y.S. D.o.T., the language describing "use by tl1e general public" does ~ot imply that the general public now has access to the Island's tip.l8

25

17. This information comes from a phone conversation between Mr. Baldwin and Doug Foster of the City planning department, and from discussion at the January 23, 1991 Inlet Island Land Use Committee meeting, which was attended by Mr. Matino and other N.Y.S. D.o.T. representatives.

18. In a March 18, 1991 letter from Paul A. Yonge, Property Management, Region 3, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation to Doria Higgins, Mr. Yonge writes, "As we have discussed, the reference in the permit to 'Use by the General Public' does not confer any right to anyone other than the Auxiliary to determine how the area will be used."


26

lNLETlsLANo LAND UsE CoMMITTEE

CHAPTER III: The Route 96 Project)s Impact on Inlet Island.

B YTHE LATE 1980s, the N.Y.S. Department ofTransportation was actively considering three basic alternatives (some with optional variants) for its decades-old Route 96 im

provement project. In a May, 1989 advisory vote, Ithaca's Common Council told the State it preferred "Plan A With Route 89 Alignment." That July, the D.o.T. -citing environmental factorschose the related "Plan A." At the City's urging, the State soon modified its selection to Plan A With Route 89 Alignment.

The Route 96 project has recently received necessary federal approvals. A Final Environmental Impact Statement is now being prepared, and the D.o.T. will seek final City okay of the project. Then final project design and land acquisition will begin. The bulldozers might arrive in 1994 or 1995.

Like Map #4, Map #6 shows 1992 Inlet Island land uses- but it depicts the impending Route 96 project as well. At project completion, the following changes will be in place. Buffalo Street, rather than merging with State Street, will connect to Cliff Street (Route 96) via a new bridge paralleling the existing State Street bridge. Part of what is now Park Road will become a cul-de-sac service road. A ne\v highway right-of-way and a new bridge will connect Inlet

Island's Taughannock Boulevard with Route 89 on the west side of the Flood Control Channel. A portion of Old Taughannock Boulevard will remain on the Island as a dead -end street.

Map #7 depicts property, on and near Inlet Island, that the State plans to acquire for the Route 96 project.

The State plans to use about one-third of Brindley Park as highway right-of-way. (The drinking fountain will remain.) Since the D.o.T. will use this land for highway purposes, it is not considered an alienation, and no State legislative approval is required. Moreover, since Brindley Park was not funded with federal parks money, the D.o.T. need not seek federal "6(f) conversion" approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and no substitute park land is required. Federal "4(£) conversion" approval from the U.S. Secretary of Transportation could have been required, had the City insisted. The State will pay the City for the Brindley Park taking.

The D.o.T. also plans to acquire about 1.1 acres of the 1967 Cass Park purchase. This land will be taken in three different places: ( 1) a small sliver near Buffalo Street; (2) an irregularly shaped area in the middle of Inlet Island; and ( 3) another sliver near the Route 89 corridor on the west side of the channel. The State must receive

27


28

JHGURE 11. The City and the State have selected this Route 96 project alternative, called Plan A With Route 89 Alignment. The map, from the 1988 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, correctly portrays the neJv highway connections, but is erroneous in other particulars. It incorrectly labels the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement line as a property tine, mislocates this line on the north half of the Island, and also mislocates a property line south of the Coast Guard Auxiliary building. See Footnotes 8 wnd 10 a1td Map #5.


~ (/)

.2 _j 5'-

·-... _

------·-- ...... ___ ____ _

I I

federal "4(f) conversion" approval for these takings. Furthermore, because of Land and Water Conservation Fund involvement, the State must receive federal "6(f) conversion" approval, and substitute park land must be provided. Land bordering the Flood Control Channel in the vicinity of Southwest Park has been identified as potential substitute land. The identified land would be a link in the Cayuga Inlet Trail slated to connect major regional paries.

The federal government recently approved the proposed park takings, along with the suggested substitute park land.

The State will also purchase some privately owned parcels on and near Inlet Island. Of these, only one is located on Inlet Island itself: a parcel owned by Joseph Ciaschi. Ciaschi's parcel will be split awkwardly into two irregular fragments, one quite small.

In its Route 96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the State provided some preliminary, schematic design information about the two proposed bridges (see Figures 11 and 12). Both new bridges will be approached by mounded inclines. These ramps will rise on both sides of the Flood Control Channel.

Considered only as a physical structure, the new segment of Buffalo Street and its new bridge will have little effect on Inlet Island. This is because the new span will so closely parallel the existing State Street bridge.

But the new Route 89 alignment through the heart of Inlet Island will have a profound impact on Island land use. In plan alone, this new alignment will split the Island into halves, one south and one north of the highway. The noise and smells of traffic will intensity this barrier, physically and psychologically. Vistas up and down the Island will also be obtrusively blocked. The inclined earthen ramp leading to the new bridge will begin not far west of today's Taughannock Boulevard. By the time it reaches the bridge, the ramp will have risen some ten feet above ground level.

After highway construction, Inlet Island will no longer seem like a whole, but rather like two disconnected and distant pieces -unless significant mitigating measures are undertaken.

The new Route 89 alignment may have one additional negative impact on the Island. Taughannock Boulevard north of its intersection with Buffalo Street will be widened to three traffic lanes (including one turning lane). No on-street parking will be per-

400

380

l60

'). 00 10. 0 0 20.00

RF:LOCIITEO RT 89

400

380

360

,.0

.J...__ _____ _.___ _____ _.___ _____ ..._ __ _____._,.o 1 .. 1 0 V[Rf IOOf- 00 10~-tOO ,,~ .. 00

RELOCATED RT. 96

lfORIZ.

200 100 0 , ...

29

FIGURE 12. The two new bridges to span the Flood Control Channel are shoJPn in elevation) in preliminary design drawings excerpted from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Both new bridges will provide a ten-foot clearance for the Cayuga Inlet Trail (bike and pedestrian path) on the west side of the channel. No pedestrian underpass) however) is provided on the Inkt Island side under the new Route 89 bridge. Only a four- or five foot clearance . is shown here in the drawing. However, such an underpass could apparently be provided in the final bridge design, by moderately dipping the ground level beneath the bridge and perhaps slightly raising the bridge structure. Such a minor dip in ground level was recently used to extend the Cayuga Inlet Trail under the State Street bridge.

FIGURE 13. The new Route 96 bridge (foreground) and the new Route 89 bridge (background) above passing car) are depicted in this combination drawing and photograph. Many bridge details come entirely from the artist's imagination, since the spans still await final design.


30

FIGURE 14. The ne1v road connections and bridges of the pending Route 96 project are roughly sketched on an aerial photograph of Inlet Island. Highway construction is expected to begin in 1994 or 1995. This illustration comes from An Analysis and Evaluation of the Octopus/Route 96 Alternative Plans, a 1987 report by Planning/Environmental Research Conmlta1tts.

INT.ET IsLAND LAND UsE CoMMITTEE

mitted. These changes could have serious adverse impacts on adjacent Inlet Island businesses, and on the attractiveness of the Taughannock Boulevard "entry" onto the Island.

The above information is based upon preliminary designs, so some details may change during final design. But the preliminary designs' fundamental premises - such as the location of the new highway corridors or the basic premise of having earthen ramps -will not change. They cannot change, because this would require preparation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Statement, putting the project back at "square one."

An artist's rendering of the two new bridges appeared in a Visual Resources Assessment attached to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This illustration - the details of which are quite

hypothetical- appears as Figure 13. A report prepared in 1987 by Planning/Environmental Research Consultants of Ithaca includes an aerial photo with an overlay sketch of the new highways and bridges. This is reproduced as Figure 14. ·

Although the Route 96 project will have a serious impact on Inlet Island, we can at least be thankful that State engineers are no longer designing highways like they did twenty-five years ago. Figure 15 depicts a Route 96/Route 13 project alt~rnative under serious consideration in the late 1960s. The plan would have completely obliterated Inlet Island beneath an incredibly huge tangle of concrete highway ramps and multiple overpasses. The main highway corridor in this astonishing plan would have plowed right through the Station Restaurant.

31

FIGURE 15. A December 1967 drawing shows one version of a proposed Route 96 and Route 13 interchange. The soon-tobe-dug Flood Control CJJannel appears as a superimposed light grey strip, while the proposed highway lanes and ramps appear in dark grey. This multi-level interchange -if built- would ha11e equaled eight or nine city blocks in size, and would have buried today)s Inlet Island under a tangle of concrete spaghetti. Today this abandoned scheme seems unbelie11able and nightmarish, but it was regarded as a serious alternative only twenty-Jive years ago. Note: The large railyard and track loop north of the proposed interchange was owned by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company until 196 7, when it was acquired by the City as part of that year's Cass Park purchase. In 1992, the arrangement of several baseball fields echoes the former t·ailloop)s shape.


32


CHAPTER IV:

Inlet Island Today: Problems & Opportunities.

M ANY INLET ISLAND LAND USE problems have been identified, both in discussions leading to the creation of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee, and during the

committee's own deliberations.

Problems.

These are some of the leading issues needing resolution:

( 1) The N. Y.S. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("State Parks") is the agency responsible for monitoring compliance with the requirements of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Officials of the Finger Lakes Region of State Parks believe certain existing conditions on Inlet Island constitute unauthorized conversions from park use.

On November 15, 1990, Andre'\v Mazzella and Robert Gonet of State Parks wrote a letter to the City listing these alleged conversions. They include encroachment on park land by a portion of the Station R.estaurant, possible encroachn1ents by businesses

along Taughannock Boulevard, and the "general poor condition of the site."

State Parks has directed the City to "remediate existing conversions and bring the project into compliance with Land and

·· Water Conservation Fund guidelines." Required actions include establishing park limits by survey, ceasing existing conversions, restoring park uses, and removing facilities prohibited by federal guidelines.

The letter frorn Mr. Mazzella and Mr. Gonet appears as Appendix D.

(2) The current boundaries of the portion of Cass Park on Inlet Island were rational for a railroad company operating prior to construction of the Flood Control Channel. But these boundaries are not the optimal demarcation between public and private land today.

As noted previously, the current Cass Park limits are highly irregular, reflecting the past location of railroad sidings, railroad service buildings, and curving tracks. One conspicuous oddity is the thin "tongue" of park land, southeast of the Station Restaurant, that

33


34


presently separates two privately-owned plots. The Flood Control Channel has functionally separated a small

piece of Cass Park toward the north of the Island from a larger piece to the south, though legally they remain part of the same parcel. The smaller northerly park land piece - corresponding to the area labeled "Leased by L.V.R.R. to Agway" on Map #3 - is often called the "Agway Parcel," though Agway never owned it. It consists of a service building; a concrete dike enclosing a weedy wasteland where four petroleum tanks once stood; and a paved area surrounded by a forbidding chain-link fence topped with barbed wtre.

The "Agway Parcel" must rank as one of the unlikeliest pieces of park land in America.

( 3) The park land on Inlet Island appears under utilized. This may result from several factors. First, much of the park land has never really been developed as such. Second, with the large Cass Park on the west side of the Flood Control Channel, there may not be a need for a large park (as opposed to a linear park) on the east side of the channel. Third, there may not be sufficient private development on Inlet Island to support its large stretches of park land. Smaller, well-planned park areas, in conjunction with attractive private development, could actually increase Island park use.

(4) Following the State's Route 96 project land acquisition, the federally-funded park land on Inlet Island- already functionally divided into two separate pieces (Map #4) - will be functionally divided into four oddly-shaped separate pieces (Map #6 ). This will make some remaining park land even less usable and less coherent.

( 5) The irregular shape of Inlet Island park parcels, the functional separation between them, and the lack of park definition

I

by plantings, fences or other means confuses the general public. Few people really know for certain what areas are park and what areas are not. The so-called "Agway Parcel" looks like private land, but isn't. Some private parcels look like park land, but aren't.

The City Forester, who is well acquainted with most City land holdings, recently asked the planning department for a map to help

· him figure out what Inlet Island land was City-owned. No wonder the average citizen is perplexed.

This ambiguity leads well-intentioned people to trespass unknowingly onto private land. The lack of clear, logical definition between what is public and what is private, combined with the neglected appearance of much existing park land, probably also encourages intentional trespass and vagrancy on the Island. Various landholders on the Island complain vigorously about the latter problem.

( 6) When the Route 96 project is complete, the presence of a widened and more intensely used highway could harm businesses lining the east side of Taughannock Boulevard. The widened road will come very close to Pete's Grocery, for instance. After project completion, no parking will be permitted on Taughannock Boulevard near its intersection with Buffalo Street, and this, too, could hurt Island businesses.

Taughannock Boulevard north of Buffalo Street serves as the traditional "entry" from the City onto the Island. The presence of a wider and busier highway here could diminish the attractiveness of this "gateway," for both drivers and pedestrians. The Island's health depends on an appealing and inviting entry point.

(7) The earthen ramp that will connect the Route 89 alignment to its new bridge will be an intrusive horizontal and vertical barrier in the heart of Inlet Island (see Chapter III). The ramp will split the Island visually and functionally unless effective mitigating measures are adopted.

(8) Many City planning reports have made suggestions for Inlet Island. Most have recommended retaining some park land along the Flood Control Channel and encouraging waterfrontrelated private development on the Island's interior.

In the City's 1971 Ithaca, N. Y: A General Plan, for example, a "Projected Land Use, 1990" map foresees a combination of "commercial" and "recreational and green space" uses for Inlet Island. The plan's text makes two relevant proposals- one for the Island specifically, the other with broader application. First, the

"island created by the flood control channel and the Cayuga Inlet north of Buffalo Street should be developed to exploit its unique water-oriented character and view. The area should be developed in marine-oriented commercial land uses." Second, the "city, state, and private all-season cultural-recreational facilities on the lake front should be further encouraged. These facilities should be developed in such a way as to attract both vacationers and local residents to the multiple-purpose area. "19

The 197 4 Cayuga Inlet Study foresees three possible outcomes for Inlet Island, resulting respectively from minimal, moderate and significant City involvement. The study prefers the latter scenario, which would make Inlet Island a "center of the waterfront" and of marine-oriented activities. The ideal result, according to the study,

would be the development illustrated in Figures 16, 17 and 18. The designers propose a Route 96 project arrangement that has

both similarities to and differences from the design actually selected in 1989. North of the highway, a "gateway" opens onto a "public square" surrounded by a horseshoe arrangen1ent of shops with apartments above. Many shops cater to marine needs, and some nearby docks "can be reserved" for visiting boats.

Family housing is clustered in "U-shapes around lagoons." The lagoons are "not dominated by automobiles, but ~ather people, their houses, boats and water." A pedestrian way "thread[ s] its way through the housing village" and leads to the Island's north tip. Here, "a public terrace, cafe and restaurant take advantage of the panoramic view from the point." The report emphasizes the tip's

35

19. Ithaca, N.Y.: A General Plan (Ithaca: City Planning Board, 1971 ), pp. 36-38.

FIGURE 16. This «site Plan)) is from the 1974 Cayuga Inlet Study, 1vhich exam-· ines Inlet Island and its environs. 1 1Je planners assume a Route 96 corridor whose bridge somewhat resembles (but whose other aspects differ from) the plan adopted in 1989.


36

20. Henk DeBakker, Charles Henkels, and other Cornell architecture college graduate students, Cayt~g.a Inlet Study (Ithaca: Cornell University College of Architecture, Art and Planning, 1974), section 3.30.

21. Ithaca Waterways Study (Ithaca: Department of Planning and Development, 1976), p. 39.

22. Trowbridge-Trowbridge and Roger Trancik, Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project (Ithaca: Department of Planning and Development, 1982), pp. 38-42.

FIGURE 17 (left). An explanatory diagram from the Cayuga Inlet Study points ou.t the «public sqtur.re,'' surrounded by a horseshoe of shops and t1Vo upper floors of apartments. The grey area confusingly labeled ccurban edge'' is in fact a park, defined by perimeter buildings. These buildings, including the Station Restaurant, provide the referred-to edge.

FIGURE 18 (right). This detail from the Cayuga Inlet Study shows attached housing configured in U-shapes around lagoom on the west side of Inlet Island. The housing u.nits, intended for families, are shown in dark grey. The units are entered through private gardens, shorvn as lightly-speckled rectangles. The water's edge is reserved for «people, their houses, boats and water."


value to the community: "This area should be elevated to serve as a landmark, and provide a place to watch activity on the water and in the [ Cass] park across the Inlet."

The green area west of the Station Restaurant would be preserved as park land. This park - to be enhanced with "more color in the form of flowering and ornamental trees" - would welcome Route 96 and Route 89 traffic into the City.

Overall, the plan would seek to "promote continued improvement of Ithaca's leisure time facilities." Activities would include "play areas, boat parades, races, regattas, outdoor music and theatre, sitting, people and boat watching, boat rides and renting. "20

The 1976 Ithaca Waterways Study makes three recommenda-

tions for Inlet Island. Pirst, it asks that no highway bridges be built north of Buffalo Street "so as to preserve the island's integrity and allow for new residential, commercial, recreational and tnarine development." Second, the public land on the Island's west side "should continue to be landscaped with an interesting variety of plantings and should be used as a waterfront park and promenade." Third, the old Inlet on the Island's east side should be canal-like with residential, recreational and marine-related uses encouraged. Finally, landscaping to the Inlet's east should screen the Island fron1 the "industrial-commercial uses north of Court Street and west of Meadow. "21

The 1982 Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project presents a detailed Island development progran1 (Figure 19). New

condominiums, shops and parking areas are envisioned, along with a new hotel. A linear park along the Flood Control Channel connects a natural park south of State Street to a small park at the Island's tip. This linear park includes floating docks, meandering waterside walkways, lighting, seating and landscaping - all meant to bring "water closer to people." At the Island's tip are picnic tables and benches. 22

Despite so many recommendations over so many years, no substantial Inlet Island redevelopment has yet occurred. One major roadblock - now removed - has been uncertainty over the Route 96 project's final form. Disagreement about the scope of desirable development, and crucial mistakes in the park alienation and conversion process, have also stymied progress.

(9) Past attempts to alienate and convert all the federally-funded park land east of the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement line are in permanent limbo.

In 1985, at the request of the City, the State legislature passed and the governor signed Chapter 7 57 authorizing alienation of this park land- and authorizing alienation of Southwest Park, as well. The legislation listed an undifferentiated pool of three substitute park land parcels. One was the "Festival Lands" (northwest of the

Allan H. Treman Marina). The second was a parcel inside the City, southwest of Southwest Park. The third was an adjacent parcel in the Town of Ithaca, also southwest of Southwest Park.23

The choice of the "Festival Lands" as subtitute park land was a big error, for both practical and political reasons. As a practical matter, the City already owned the "Festival Lands," and City-owned land was not eligible for substitution. As a political matter, some Ithacans felt the "Festival Lands" had already attained park status, because of their use as park for some fifteen years. The City was accused of identifYing "new" park land that already was park land.

To rectify this, the City asked the State legislature to amend Chapter 75 7, so five Six Mile Creek parcels would replace the "Festival Lands" as substitute park land. In the summer of 1988, Assemblyman McNeil and Senator Seward introduced a bill intended to accomplish this. The Senate passed the bill, but the Assembly's Cities Committee "lost" it. The bill was reintroduced by Assemblyman Luster and Senator Seward in 1989, but- since Common Council never sent a "home rule message" asking its adoption -the bill died again. No subsequent amendment atten1pts were made.

Which is just as well. Chapter 757 had a bigger flaw- one the a1nendn1ent would not have touched.

As it turns out, the entire structure of Chapter 757 was faulty.

The law amalgamated two different legal procedures which must remain distinct. Removing park status from Southwest Park requires only alienation, a State procedure. The Inlet Island land, though, involved federal Land and Water Conservation Fund money. Removing park status from such land requires both alienation, a State procedure, and conversion, a federal procedure. The federal

·conversion process requires a precise one-to-one linkage between the federally-funded land to lose park status and its specific substitute. The indiscriminate "pool" of substitute parcels listed in Chapter 757, therefore, rendered the law useless from the outset.

So this is a good time for fresh beginnings.

Opportunities.

The State's 1989 selection of a specific Route 96 plan, ending forty years of uncertainty about the project's scope, has permitted the beginning of constructive planning to solve Inlet Island's problems. Finally, it is possible for the Island to reach its full potential, for it to become one of the City's most beautiful and visited places.

On August l, 1990, Conunon Council voted to establish the Inlet Island Land Use Committee, charging it with recommending

37

23. Each of the latter two parcels was actually composed of four constituent land-holdings.

FIGURE 19. This is the «Design Development'' drawing from the 1982 Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project. Proposed development north of Buffalo Street and the Station Restaurant includes a hotel, condo- · minium units and new stores. Some marina activities and the Coast Guard Auxiliary remain in place. A public promenade with picturesquely curving paths extends along the Flood Control Channel north from Buffalo Street all the way to a small park at the Island's tip. The trails also continue south of Buffalo and State Streets across a rebuilt railroad bridge (next to the existing Brindley Street bridge) to a «natural park" with more looping paths. At the far left, next to Six Mile Creek and separated by 1vater from the «natural park,'' is a proposed «passive recreation'' park. This is one of the substitute park land parcels suggested in Chapter VII.


38


" ... a conceptual Inlet Island land use plan which combines public land (including some park land) and private land (including some commercial land) in a compatible and mutually-beneficial manner. The committee should consider, where it seems reasonable and appropriate, whether certain areas now designated as park land should be alienated/ converted to other appropriate uses, and whether other areas now privately owned should become park land.

· The committee's goal should be to foster an attractive and unifYing waterfront atmosphere that will simultaneously benefit the city park system and Inlet Island commercial areas. If the committee recommends the alienation/ conversion of any current Inlet Island park land, the committee should recommend a specific location for substitute park land, whether this be on Inlet Island or elsewhere in the city."

CHAPTER V:

Proposed Land Use Plan for Inlet Island.

SOME GENERAL PlUNCIPLES GUIDED development of the Inlet Island Land Use Plan, described in this chapter. The committee sought:

• To make the complicated, simple; and the confusing, clear.

• To distribute land uses and arrange property boundaries so both reflect the true shape and "feel" of the Island.

• To encourage visitors to perceive and experience the Island as a whole, and to give the Island a unifying sense of place.

• To recognize the waterfront's special character.

• To increase the internal coherency of both green spaces and commercial areas.

• To remove existing conflicts between public green spaces and private cotnmercial areas, so each complements and supports the other.

Map #8 illustrates the proposed Inlet Island Land Use Plan. It is conceived as a long-range plan, with some aspects to be _ implemented soon, and other elements to be implemented over a longer period.

A description of the plan's principal elements follows. Chapter VI will then present in detail the procedural actions required for implementation.

Expanded Brindley Park.

The plan proposes that a simple system of linked green spaces organize the west side of Inlet Island. This system would contain two small waterfront parks, one to the south and one to the north, with a greenway corridor linking them.24

The small park on the south would be called ''Brindley Park," but the name would cover an area much larger than . the original Brindley Pari<. The renamed park would contain: ( 1) the portion of original Brindley Park not taken for the Route 96 project; (2) part of Williams Playgrotmd; ( 3) some former street rights-of-way; and

39

24. The Park-to-Corridor-to-Park concept in the Inlet Island Land Use Plan is a modification of a similar concept presented in the 1982 Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project.


40


(4) a portion of the 1967 Cass Park purchase. Compare the area labeled "(Expanded) Brindley Park" on Map #8 with Map #9.

The reuse of the name "Brindley Park" would be in memory of the community center demolished to make way for the Flood Control Channel. The original Brindley Park's roofed drinking fountain would be restored and featured in the renamed park.

Several considerations suggest the presence of a small park here. As part of the proposed Park-to-Corridor-to-Park system, the "expanded' Brindley Park would help lend logic and coherence to the west side of Inlet Island. Unlike much Island park land, furthermore, the original Brindley Park and Williams Playground have been parks for over half a century. It seems fitting to preserve these gifts to the City from the Williams family - especially since so much land this family donated to the old Inlet neighborhood is now under water or under highway pavement. Finally, the new park boundaries would be defined on three sides by attractive existing landmarks. To the west would be the Flood Control Channel, to the south the old drinking fountain, and to the east the Station , Restaurant's train, complete with engine, cars and caboose.

Look-Out Point.

The north terminus of the Park-to-Corridor-to-Park sequence would be the north tip of Inlet Island, which would be opened to public access ("Look-Out Point" on Map #8). The Coast Guard Auxiliary's long-standing access to this area would also continue.

The tip of the Island offers splendid views in several directions. To the west is Cass Park, with joggers on its lakeside trail. To the east stand the boathouses of Cornell and Ithaca College, from which shells emerge to race the Flood Control Channel. To the north, water and trees stretch far into the distance. So the relatively enclosed Brindley Park on the south would have as its pendant this visually expan~ive park to the north.

Dual permits from the N.Y.S. D.o.T. would allow this symbiotic use of the Island's tip by both the City (for use as a public look-out) and the Coast Guard Auxiliary (for its traditional functions). At a January 23, 1991 n1eeting between D.o.T. staff mem-

· bers and the Inlet Island Land Use Committee, Jamie Marino of the D.o.T. Waterways Maintenance Division affirmed that dual permits are possible, provided the two applicants agree to the joint use. From the D.o.T.'s perspective, Marino added, using the tip for park purposes would be "ideal." This use would be a "public benefit," like the "public benefit" the Coast Guard Auxiliary provides.

To date, the Coast Guard Auxiliary has opposed the idea of dual permits. A chief concern of the auxiliary is that such dual permits could subject the auxiliary's corporation to increased liability. This is a valid concern. In fairness, though, it should be noted that the auxiliary now uses City-owned land (a portion of the Old Taughannock Boulevard right-of-way, over which the auxiliary floating dock passes). This could subject the City to liability. It is hoped that future negotiations with the Coast Guard Auxiliary will result in a mutually-beneficial agreement that provides for dual permits and that fairly addresses both parties' liability concerns.

Other waterfront cities have successfully combined Coast Guard activities and waterside parks. For example, the September 1989 issue of Planning magazine features a photograph and article about a newly-developed waterfront area in Wilmington, North Carolina. Here, "a U.S. Coast Guard dock forms the backdrop to a new riverfront park."

'Williams Walk' Greenway Corridor.

A greenway corridor with a paved path would link these companion parks. The corridor would begin in the renamed Brindley Park, and lead all the way to Look-Out Point. The waterside path would be called the "Williams Walk," in acknowledgement of the Williams family's generosity. This generosity has been undeservedly forgotten, as physical evidence of it has disappeared.

A vital element of the greenway corridor would be a pedestrian underpass beneath the new Route 89 bridge, where it leaves the west side of the Island.

This pedestrian underpass would decisively link what the

(Continued on Page 41) Following the Nine Maps)

i

[Z]

l~~r] . ,~-------- ~D Do cO e::.QO D o ~~

: ffi -~ ~ q f- w 1 :

: @' ~Do D

~~~ ' - -BRINDLEY STREET 0

(FORMER BRINDLEY STREET R.O.W.)

0 a

0

TRACKS

r@t::~- TlikP f]~~--~·-1--4--+----=--._·· ~---:~:=;::c:;~==~~

{--®·--·~·-----··· · · ·-·-·· · ·· pe ® i

L__·-··········- ·- ·····--_j LJ-IE\rU-B 0 U L E V A A_ 0

u B I n l

CJ,....---1 ~· 0 F 0 E L A W A A E • L A C K A, W A ~ N A &

SELECTED D CITY OF ITI-iACA PARK LAND.

Historical Context: ---- PROPERTY LINES.

D LAND OWNED BY NON-PROFIT .......................... OTHER FEATURES . COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

1933 D LAND USES NOT SPECIFICALLY CATEGORIZED ON THIS MAP.

- • 'I ii

e

® INLET BEEBE MISSION.

® WEST SIDE HOUSE..

© LEHIGH VALLEY HOUSE..

@ LAWN WITH FLAGPOLE (LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD).

® ® @ ®

D

TROLLEY STOP

N.Y.S. BARGE CANAL

TERMINAl .

{ITHACA STREET RAILWAY).

LANDSCAPED LAWN AND GAIADEN (LEHIGH VA·LLEY RAILROAD).

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD PASSENGER STATION.

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD FREIGHT DEPOT.

c::===============:::::::=::===========================================================================:;;;;;;::=:::::::J Inlet Island Land Use Committee ' -'

0

STREET 0

0 ...J

< u.. u..

DC] ::l IIl L.

0 Historical Context: ----·

··················---

194 0

SELECTED PROPERTY LINES.

OTHER FEATIJRES.

0 0

0

0 0

B 0 U L E V A A D

0

CITY OF ITI-IACA PARK LAND.

D LAND OWNED BY NON-PROF~T COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

D LAND USES NOT SPECIFICALLY CATEGORIZED ON THIS MAP.

® ® © @

~p. \ \...

P. o f\0

INLET BEEBE MISSION.

WEST SIDE HOUSE.

LEHIGH VALLEY HOUSE.

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD PASSENGER STATION.

100'

® LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD FREIGHT DEPOT.

CD LEASED BY LV.R.R. TO SHELL OIL CO., INC.

Q) COLONIAL BEACON OIL CO. BULK STATION.

® HAMBLETON TERMINAL CORP. RETAIL AND BULK OIL STATION.

r::=============================================================================================================='::::J/ Inlet Island Land Use Committee c=::.==:J

0 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--J.~~~--~~~~~~~<(

u.. u.. ~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~ a1

Historical Context: 1960s

----

••••• oooooooo

c y u g

PROPERTY LINES.

LOCATION OF FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL.

LOCATION OF PERMANENT FLOOD CONTROLCHANNELEASEMEN~

LOCATION OF NEW STATE ST REET BRIDGE.-

I n

CITY OF ITHACA PARK LAN,D (NO FEDERAL FUNDING HISTORY).

FEDERALLY FUNDED 1967 CASS PARK PURCHASE.

D LAND OWNED BY NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.

D LAND USES NOT SPECIFICALLY CATEGORIZED ON THIS MAP.

L -------- ----- ~;.(

l e t

0 100' 200 ' 300' m

® BEEBE COMMUNITY CHAPEL ® LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD FREIGHT DiEPOT.

@ WEST SIDE HOUSE. CD UEASED BY LV.R.R. TO AGWAY .

© LEHIGH VALLEY HOUSE. 0 PARCEL OWNED BY HUMBLE OIL AND REFINING CO.

@ LEHIGH VALL'EY RAILROAD ® PARCEL OWNED BY CORNELL PASSENGER STATION. UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

c::=====================================================================================================-:::::; Inlet Island Land Use Committee r:=::=.=:::J

u. :::J I:D

0 d

Inlet Island 1992: Current Land Use

c 0 n

PROPERTY LINES.

0

PERMANENT FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL EASEMENT LI~E.

NOTE: MAP COLORS HERE INDICATE CURRENT LAND USES, BUT NOT IN ALL CASES LAND OWNERSHIP.

I

I I

---L_J __ r----

CITY OF ITHACA PARK LAND (OF THREE DISTINCT ORIGINS).

OWNED BY N.Y.S. FOR USES RELATED TO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

LICENSED TO, OR DE FACTO USE BY, COAST GUARD AUXILIARY.

N.Y.S. D.o.T. USE WITH LICENSE TO COAST GUARD AUXILIARY.

e t

PRIVATI!: USE (THROUGH OWNERSHIP OR LICENS.E).

~:{:'(}~;::! ~~E~ ~~~5-0F-WAY. r-l . LAND WHOSE STATUS IS NOT L__j BEING CATEGORIZED ON THIS MAP.

© @ 0 ©

100' 200'

LEHIGH VALLEY HOUSE..

STATION A'ESTAURANT.

HEADQUARTERS OF COAST GUARD AUXJUARY.

.. .

COAST GUARD AUXILIARY DOCK.

c=============================================================================~InktidandLandU~Commiffeec·==~

PROPERTY LINES OF CITY OF ITHACA PARK LAND OWNED BY STATE OF NEW YORK. [ill] CITYOF~ACA

[I] Inlet Island 1992: - --- EMPHASIZED PARCELS. (DESIGNATED OVER 50 YEARS AGO). D.E.C. ADMINISTRATION. STREET RIGHTS..OF-WAY.

D DE FACTO CITY OF ITHACA PARK 6 PORTION OF ABOVE LAND LICENSED PORTION OF ABOVE LAND

------·- OTHER PROPERTY LINES. LAND (OLD STREET RIGHT5-0F-WAY). TO COAST GUARD AUXILIARY. LICENSED TO DEGRAFF.

Property Ownership PERMANENT FLOOD CONTROL CITY OF ITHACA PARK LAND (PART OWNED BY STATE OF NEW YORK,

....... - . "' .. .. CHANNEL EASEMENT LINE.. OF 1967 CASS PARK PURCHASE). D.o.T. ADMINISTRATION PRIVATELY OWNED PARCElS.

~ PORTION OF ABOVE LAND LICENSED D LAND WHOSE STATIJS IS NOT --------·--- -------- ~

OTHER FEATURES. TO COAST GUARD AUXILIARY. BEING CHARACTERIZED ON THIS MAP.

c::======================================================================================'::::J Inlet Island Land Use Committee ___ ___,

' --'..._.----0

0 ...J :o <

~--I _-J

c:J

fr211992 Land Use, ~ Plus Rt. 96 Project

c 0

c

PROPERTY LINES.

y u

PERMANENT FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL EASEMENT LINE..

[

_N_O_T_E_:_M_A_P_C_O_L_O_R_S_H_E_R_E-IN-D-IC_A_T_E

CURRENT LAND USES, BUT NOT IN ALL CASES LAND OWNERSHIP.

g a I n l

CITY OF ITHACA PARK LAND (OF THREE DISTINCT ORIGINS).

OWNED BY N.Y.S. FOR USES RELATED TO FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL

LICENSED TO, OR DE FACTO USE BY, COAST GUARD AUXILIARY.

N.Y.S. D.o.T. USE WITH LICENSE TO COAST GUARD AUXILIARY.

- - -I \----

~}(

C A S S

PRIVATE USE (THROUGH OWNERSHIP OR LICENSE).

CITY OF ITHACA STREET RIGHT5-0F-WAY.

STATE OF NEW YORK HIGHWAY RIGHT5-0F-WAY.

LAND WHOSE STATUS IS NOT BEING CATEGORIZED ON THIS MAP.

© @ 0 ©

_ .... --r -------------1

...... 1 - I

100' 200'

LEHIGH VAU.EY HOUSE..

STATION RESTAURANT.

HEADQUARTERS OF COAST GUARD AUXJUARY.

COAST GUARD AUXlLIARY DOCK

c::::::=======================================================~========================================:J Inlet Island Land Use Committee c:::.' ===::::~

I ______ _j

-- ----1

... ...

0 d

------··----

~ ,~=l)EJ c------ _J I ------==-, I I ._____ I

0 _J :o < u.

~- - -u. :> m

L:J

. Property Takings For Rt. 96 Project

... ...

c 0

c a y

PROPERTY LINES OF EMPHASIZED PARCELS.

u

OTHER PROPERTY LINES.

PERMANENT FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL EASEMENT LINE.

g a I n l

T R A C K ------

CJI G }--

~ l------- -------\ ~}(

----- ---------

e

C A S S p

A R I(

- -- ·- -·- - -- - ·- -- "1 - - I

t

PORTION OF BRINDLEY PARK TO BE TAKEN FOR RT. 96 PROJECT.

PART OF 1967 CASS PARK PURCHASE TO BE TAKEN FOR RT. 96 PROJECT.

PRIVATELY OWNED LAND TO BE TAKEN FOR RT. 96 PROJECT.

NON-PARK CITY OWNED LAND TO BE USED FOR RT. 96 PROJECT.

L----.,...----- ----r---- ------··-- - -

1

LAND WHOSE STATUS IS NOT· BEING CHARACTERIZED ON THIS MAP.

r====================================================================================================:::J Inlet Island Land Use Committee c:.' ==:::1

1-w w a: 1-C/)

0 .J

c(

u. lL

::l m

[]

Proposed Land Use: Schematic Diagram

c

OIH 2 !lOO

• •• •• 1!111

oo

0

D

y u B

PROPOSED LAND USE DIVISIONS (NOT ALWAYS PROPERTY LINES).

"WILLIAMS WALK" (PEDESTRIAN GREENWAY PROMENADE).

LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN PATH '~ .. .. ''' ,.,. (WITHIN LAWN & TREE CORRIDOR). {._ , ;. ... .. :'

UREJAN SIDEWALK. NEAR STREET EDGE {WITH IMPROVED LIGHTING).

0

I n I t e

100' 200'

PORTION OF PERMANENT FLOOD CITY OF ITHACA PRIVATE SECTOR USE (THROUGH CONTROL CHANNEL EASEMENT UNE. DESIGNATED PARK LAND. OWNERSHIP •. LEASE OR UCENSE).

PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS 'BENEATH D PEDESTRIAN GREENWAY CORRIDOR 00 CITY AND STATE ACTIVE NEW ROUTE 89 ALIGNMENT BRIDGE. (NOT DESIGNATED AS PARK LAND). . STREET RIGHT8-0F-WAY.

POTENTIAL FOR WATER BASIN D EXCLUSIVE USE BY COAST GUARD D LAND WHOSE STATUS IS NOT

ALLOWING BOATS TO DOCK; THE AUXILIARY. BEING CATEGORIZED ON THIS MAP.

"WILLIAMS WALK" WOULD CONTINUE ~ JOINT D.o.T. LICENSE: TO CITY AS AROUND ANY BASIN'S PERIPHERY. PARK & TO COAST GUARD AUXILIARY .

t:=::::==========================:=::=======:::::::====================::=:=================================:::J Inlet Island Land Use Committee

---l Ciaschi

:r-~oF ~0W jL-J _r--~ LJ r--!------ ·l_ D I L::J ------------1

Implementation Mechanics

PARCELS WHOSE OWNERSHIP OR PARK STATUS WOULD CHANGE.

OTHER PROPERTY LINES.

PERMANENT FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL EASEMENT LINE.

SPECIAL CORRIDOR BOUNDARY: SEE REPORT TEXT FOR DESCRIPTION.

·--------- ----------,

THE COLORS:

The Colors Shown Here Correspond to the

Proposed Land Uses Illustrated on Map #B.

·-------------

I \ L~ :J \ G ~---L----J-. - - \ ------

PARCELS 1 THROUGH 9:

A Change of Ownership or Park Status Is Proposed for

These Parcels; See Report Text for Specific Descriptions.

-· - --------

r-----------~)>( I

_j

100' 200'

'NOTE A' THROUGH 'NOTE D':

These Notes (See Text) Describe the Final Leg of the "Williams Walk,"

Leading to a Public Look-Qut on Inlet Island's Tip.

c=::================================================================================================:::::::::=::==='::::J Inlet Island Land Use Committee

I " I

(Continued From Page 40, Preceding the Nine Maps)

obstrusive Itoute 89 ran1p threatens to divide. Because of its linking function, the greenway corridor would be much more than a pleasant amenity - it would be an essential connection encouraging visitors to experience, and to think of, Inlet Island as a whole. As it entices visitors to explore the Island from end to end, the greenway corridor would provide delightful recreation, and simultaneously benefit Inlet Island businesses.

The preliminary design for the Route 89 bridge does not provide such a pedestrian underpass on the Inlet Island side. It does, however, provide an underpass for the bike and pedestrian trail on the west side of the channel. In response to questions from the Inlet Island Land Use Committee, D.o.T. Regional Design Engineer Richard A. Lucas wrote that "Based on a cursory review of the Route 89 bridge alignment drawings, it appears a vertical clearance of 8 '± may be available on the west shore of Inlet Island beneath the bridge. "25 In other words, though he can offer no guarantee, it appears to Mr. Lucas that an Inlet Island pedestrian underpass is feasible. A final determination would not be known until final bridge design begins.

The Inlet Island greenway corridor would consist of three segments:

The first and widest segment would proceed north from renamed Brindley Park along the Flood Control Channel to a point just south of the Coast Guard Auxiliary building. This segment, colored yellow-green on Map #8, would be about sixty feet wide. This would include the forty foot (or so) band of land subject to the Flood Control Channel easement, and an additional twenty feet east of the easement line.

The D.E.C. will not allow vertical structures or plantings on land subject to the easement. On Inlet Island, the easement applies \vest of the easement line. So the twenty feet of greenway corridor east of the line would allow the planting of trees and the placement of benches and lighting near the Williams Walk path. It is hoped the City will provide such amenities in future years, when budgets allo,v.26

This first corridor segment would be preserved as green space under City ownership, but would not be designated as park land. This would make it possible - in the future - for one or more privately-developed lagoons or tnooring basins, with water access to the Flood Control Channel, to be established on the interior of the Island. Since access to any such basin(s) would be through City owned land, the City v;ould be in a position to ensure that the Williams Walk would continue around the periphery of any such basin, so as to maintain the integrity of the overall greenway corridor.

To co1nplete this corridor segment, the City would have to purchase part of a privately-owned parcel that now extends into the easement area (and into the channel itself).

The second, and shortest segment of the greenway corridor would be south of the Coast Guard Auxiliary building. Here, the corridor would head east, extending from the channel to Old Taughannock Boulevard. The purpose of this eastward turn, away fron1 the water, is to bypass the area used most intensively by the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

This second segment is colored green on Map #8. Its present status as a portion of the 1967 Cass Park purchase would continue.

· The corridor here would be about fifty-five feet wide, providing room for both the paved Williams Walk and for a possible small parking area for park users.

Note: Before the City could use this segment for the greenway corridor, it would have to remove a concrete dike within which four petroleum tanks once stood. Also, the ground here would have to be tested for contamination by petroleum products. The City, as property owner, has an obligation to deal with this issue anyway, sooner or later, no matter what it does with the land.

The third segment of the greenway corridor is a narrow twelvefoot wide path that would bring the Williams Walk all the way to the Island's tip (Look-Out Point). It would pass over both Cityowned and privately-owned land, and would not be considered park land. Where appropriate, fencing would be used to keep people using the corridor from straying onto land used by either the Coast

41

25. From a Febmary 28, 1991 letter to John Schroeder by Richard A. Lucas, Regional Design Engineer, Syracuse office of the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation (written on behalf of Richard Simberg, Regional Director of Transportation at the Syracuse office).

26. A design vocabulary for such improvements could be derived from old Lehigh Valley Railroad Company hardware stored behind the Station Restaurant. Relevant stored items include decorative metal bench supports.


42


Guard Auxiliary or the Ithaca Boating Center. The precise character of this third segment is described in Chapter VI, under the heading ' 'Note A' Through 'Note D.''

The entire proposed Inlet Island greenway corridor would -in its very linearity- recall the linear land and water transportation routes that have characterized one hundred and fifty years of Inlet Island history.

Inlet Island)s 'Entry.)

An inviting "entry" to Inlet Island off Buffalo Street is essential for successful public and private use of the Island. The Inlet Island Land Use Plan proposes two measures here to mitigate negative impacts to drivers and pedestrians when Taughannock Boulevard is widened and Route 89 traffic begins whizzing by.

First, a long-term project is proposed to improve Inlet Island's street-side sidewalks and lighting (see below). This project would include improvements to the east side of Taughannock Boulevard, as it heads north from Buffalo Street.

Second, a twelve-foot wide City-owned "curb lawn" would be provided all along the west side of the reconstructed Route 89, fron1 Buffalo Street to the channel. This green strip - shown in yellowgreen with a green dashed line on Map #8 - would feature a paved path, lawn and plantings. It would provide physical, visual and psychological "breathing space" next to the busy highway, and would augment any unpaved City and State highway land. A5 with a curb lawn, full driveway access would be provided as needed to private parcels on the west.

This linear buffer zone of grass and plantings would greatly improve the appearance of Taughannock Boulevard where it joins Buffalo Street. It would also provide direct pedestrian access to both the Williams Walk and the Route 89 bridge.

The recent controvery about proposed sidewalks on Elmira Road has demonstrated the wisdom of reserving an adequately broad pedestrian corridor along major highways before development close to the highway occurs. Safety requires that sidewalks along

· highways be set well back from on-rushing traffic. This time, the City should plan ahead.

Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Improvements.

In addition to planning for green space improvements, the City should adopt a long-range plan to improve sidewalks and lighting on Inlet Island. Suggested locations for improved urban street-side sidewalks with lighting are indicated by the brown dashed lines on Map #8. (Of the suggested new sidewalks, some will be provided by the State as part of the Route 96 project.)

Furthermore, the City should plan to install curbing and fresh pavement on the dead-end portion of Old Taughannock Boulevard that will remain after the new Route 89 alignment is built. The State project will not touch most of this street.

The new greenway paths and urban street-side sidewalks are intended to work together as a system, so visitors will experience Inlet Island as a pleasing and coherent whole. Pedestrians will stroll easily between the Island's "green" and "urban" areas, each a natural complement to the other. The whole Inlet Island pedestrian system is characterized by interconnecting loops, providing visitors with a wide variety of walking experiences - even during a single visit to the Island.

New Areas for Private Development.

The Inlet Island Land Use Plan proposes alienation and conversion from park status of substantial portions of the 1967 Cass Park purchase.

Some of the discontinued park land (along the Island's west edge and along the west edge of the realigned Route 89) would be reserved as City green space. But most of the former park land would be sold, leased or licensed to the private sector. Several reasons exist for allowing more private development on Inlet Island:

( l) Increased marine-oriented commercial and residential de-

I J

velopment on the Island has been recommended repeatedly over a twenty-year span by various planning reports, including 1971's Ithaca) N.Y.: A General Plan) the 1974 Cayuga Inlet Study, the 1976 Ithaca Waterways Study, and 1982's Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project.

(2) Large stretches of Ithaca's waterfront are already publicly or institutionally owned. Little land, therefore, remains for private waterfront development. Successful urban waterfronts maintain a healthy balance between public parks, on the one hand, and privately-owned waterside restaurants, shops and housing, on the other. Ithaca has much of the former, but little of the latter.

(3) Smaller, well-coordinated Inlet Island green spaces will probably be used by more people than park land that - though larger in aggregate- has been chopped into separate, irrationallyshaped pieces by a new highway.

( 4) Additional private development is needed to support Inlet Island's park land by giving it a special marine context and purpose. Cass Park already provides a large stretch of open natural park just across the Flood Control Channel, and so Inlet Island's green spaces will benefit from playing a different role - that of waterfront promenade in a more urbanized setting. The neglected, functionless appearance of some current Inlet Island park land serves no one's interests.

A comparison of Map #8 with Map #6 clarifies exactly which areas would be opened to private use.

The Inlet Island Land Use Committee envisions mixed use private development (commercial, retail, housing) that is waterenhanced or water-dependent, and that takes fullest possible advantage of Inlet Island's special waterfront location. The possibility of establishing one or more lagoons or mooring basins on the Island's interior should encourage imaginative and creative development proposals.

The City could promote private development that makes full and attractive use of the Island's potential by becoming an active

pro-development ally of the private sector. Such partnerships have resulted in some of the most beautifully developed urban waterfronts in America (Baltimore's Inner Harbor being one example among many). As a major Inlet Island land owner, the City would be in an ideal position to play such a role.

To further encourage appropriate development, Common Council may wish to n1odif)r slightly the current description of tl1e M -1 zoning district, which applies to Inlet Island. The committee suggests that "warehouse storage facilities" be removed as a permitted use in M-1, as such warehouses would waste waterfront potential. We also discussed, but reached no consensus, on whether the maximum building height in M -1 should be lowered from 70 to 50 feet for residential, hotel, motel and boatel uses (the maximum for all other uses is 3 5 feet). We leave this issue to Common Council. For reference, the Lehigh Valley House, which appears rather tall in Inlet Island's context, rises about 35 feet.

Note: In the early 1970s, the Ithaca Garden Club beautified the banks of the new Flood Control Channel with donated flowering crabapple trees. One grove of these trees stands on Inlet Island. A boulder with plaque dedicates these trees to "the presidents and members of the Ithaca Garden Club during its first fifty years." Under the Inlet Island Land Use Plan, most of this grove (and the commemorative boulder) would remain in protected green areas. A smaller portion of the grove, though, would be on land slated for private use. Any commemorative trees to be displaced by private developtnent should be carefully replanted elsewhere on tl1e Island.

Recommendations to State Agencies.

In addition to taking the necessary steps to implement the Inlet Island Land Use Plan described above, Common Council should formally recommend the following actions to the N .Y.S. Department of Transportation and the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation:

• Recommendation 1:

The City should ask the N.Y.S. D.o.T. to coordinate its final

43


44

27. The source is the same letter cited in Footnote 20.


Route 96 project design with relevant aspects of the Inlet Island Land Use Plan.

Particularly relevant here will be sidewalk connections and planting plans on project rights-of-way.


The City should strongly express its wish that the D.o.T. provide a pedestrian underpass on the east side of the Flood Control Channel beneath the new Route 89 bridge.

The more forceful the City is about this, the more likely it is to happen.


The City should request the D.o.T. to provide sidewalks on both sides of both the new Buffalo Street Route 96 bridge and the new Route 89 alignment bridge. If possible, bridge lighting · should also be provided to increase pedestrian and driver safety.

In a written response to questions from the Inlet Island Land Use Committee, Richard Lucas stated that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the Route 89 bridge.27 However, since the preliminary bridge design shows only one sidewalk on the bridge's north side, the City should not take this for granted.


The City should ask the D.o.T. to accommodate bicyclists on both new bridges. If separate bike lanes are not possible, then widened traffic lanes should be provided for bicycle safety.

Bicyclist~ will use both new bridges. But safety for bicyclists will be especially important on the new

Route 89 bridge, because the new alignment will become an attractive "shortcut" for bicyclists traveling between downtown and Cass Park.

The width of the new bridges is restricted by the State's need to avoid taking more park land. However, within this constraint,

· Mr. Lucas has said the State will do its best to provide extra lane width, especially on the new bridges, for bicycle safety.


The City should request formal input into the design process for the new bridges, to ensure that they are outwardly attractive and that they offer pleasing and unobstructed views to motorists and pedestrians passing over them.

The State appears willing to cooperate here.


In preliminary designs, the rebuilt Buffalo Street and Taughannock Boulevard are very close to several Inlet Island stores. The City should ask the D.o.T. to provide as much sidewalk .width as possible here, to buffer stores and pedestrians from traffic.

Inlet Island's "entry" should feature thriving stores and sidewalks wide and safe enough to attract people onto the Island.


The City should ask the D.o.T. to ensure preservation of the Brindley Park water fountain during Route 96 construction.

The last physical remnant of the old Inlet con1munity center complex should be preserved. Eventually, the fountain should be restored as a working drinking fountain, in accordance with the City's 1927 agreement with Augusta H. Williams.


The City should urge the N .Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation to take effective measures to stabilize the Flood Control Channel's east and west banks, which have been suffering severe erosion over the past twenty years.

In places, up to eight feet of the west edge of Inlet Island has been lost to erosion since the original digging of the Flood Control Channel. This is a serious rate of loss. Heavily undercut sod hangs

aH along this shore, and the earth bank reveals buried objects, proving that the process continues (Figure 20). Measures to prevent further erosion should be taken as soon as possible.

Potential Funding Sources.

Two New York State programs offer matching I grants which could fund future design studies or green space improvements on Inlet Island:

( 1) The Architecture, Planning and Design Program of the New York State Council on the Arts offers n1atching grants for "Urban Design and Planning" projects. Eligible projects "focus on creative design and planning for hamlets, villages and cities," and "may be part of broader analysis addressing the economic benefits of downtown revitalization or waterfront development."

(2) The N.Y.S. Department of Economic Development (in consultation with the N.Y.S. D.o.T.) offers matching grants to fund community improvement projects related to the Barge Canal system. The proposed Inlet Island greenway corridor improvements (path, lighting, benches) may be eligible for this funding.

45

FIGURE 20. Erosion continues to nibble away at the west shore of Inlet Island.

INLET IsLAND LAND UsE CoMMITI'EE

46


CHAPTER VI:

Implementation Mechanics.

U NDER. THE INLET ISLAND LAND USE PLAN, nine parcels would undergo a change of ownership or park status. These parcels -· "Parcel 1" through "Parcel 9" -

are labeled on Map #9.

Parcels Whose Status Would Change.

• PARCELl.

Current Status: Part of parcel owned by Mark Zaharis.

Proposed Status: To be acquired by City of Ithaca to provide a narro\v twelve-foot wide green zone (much like a broad landscaped curb lawn with path) along Taughannock Boulevard/Route 89. This green strip would help provide an attractive vehicular and pedestrian entry point onto the Island. It would also provide a sidewalk that is buffered frorn on-rushing traffic. Curb cuts (as allo,vcd by the State) would cross this area as necessary to provide access to adjacent privately-owned land.

• PARCEL 2, PARCEL 4 and PARCEL 7.

Current Status: City of Ithaca park land (a portion of the 1967 Cass Park purchase, involving federal funding).

Proposed Status: Rcrnove park status through alienation and conversion process, and sell, lease or license to private sector. Replacement park land to be provided elsewhere in the City.

• PARCEL 3 and PARCEL 5.

Current Status: City of Ithaca park land (a portion of the 1967 Cass Park purchase, involving federal funding).

Proposed Status: Maintain City ownership to provide essential links in the proposed Inlet Island greenway corridor and pedestrian path system. (Included would be both the Williams Walk and the path along the new R.oute 89 alignment's west edge.) The parcels would be preserved as green space, but their park status would be removed through the alienation and conversion process. The latter

47

INLET IsLAND LAND UsE CoMMJTTEE

--·-------------

48


step would allow curb cuts into "Parcel 2" from Taughannock Boulevard (as allowed by the State). It would also allow the potential for boat access into a possible privately-developed lagoon or mooring basin within "Parcel 2." The Williatns Walk would follow the periphery of any such basin. Replacement park land to be provided elsewhere 'vithin the City.

• PARCEL6.

Current Status: Part of parcel owned by J oscph Ciaschi. Most of the area shown is subject to the Permanent Flood Control Channel Easen1ent. However, a twenty-foot strip is located east of the permanent easen1ent line and is not subject to the easement restrictions.

Proposed Status: To be acquired by City of Ithaca as an essential link in the Inlet Island greenway corridor, with its Williams Walk path. This parcel would be preserved as green space, but it would not be given park status, so as to allow the potential for boat access into a possible privately-developed lagoon or mooring basin to the east. The Williams Walk would follow the periphery of any such basin.

• PARCEL 8 and PARCEL 9.

Current Status: "Parcel 8" is City of Ithaca park land (a portion of the 1967 Cass Park purchase, involving federal funding). "Parcel 9" is part of the current Taughannock Boulevard right-of-way, owned by the City of Ithaca.

Proposed Status: "Parcel 8" should be alienated and converted fron1 park status, because it is a tiny "ren1ainder" parcel. The ultin1ate disp~sition of these two parcels should include provision for a straight section of north-south sidewalk along the east edge of the old Taughannock Boulevard right-of-way. These two parcels could be sold, leased or licensed to the private sector. Alternately, it might be possible for the City to provide some parking in this area to replace parking possibilities lost along Taughanock Boulevard

· when it is realigned and widened.

(Note A) Through (Note D.)

R.cfcrenccs to "Note A" through "NoteD" appear on Map #9.

• NOTEA.

Current Status: Part of City of Ithaca Taughannock Boulevard right-of-way.

Proposed Status: A twelve-foot wide strip would be dedicated to the Inlet Island greenway corridor, allowing the paved Williams Walk to pass through. For pedestrian safety, curbing would separate this corridor from the paved portion of Old Taughannock Boulevard. A curb cut would be provided to allow vehicular access to the Coast Guard Auxiliary parking area to the west.

• NOTE B.

Current Status: Part of an abandoned section of Taughannock Boulevard that the City of Ithac i as licensed to the Ithaca Boating Center, owned by Peter DeGraff (The original license was given to Inlet Park Marina, a predecessor of the Ithaca Boating Center.) This license is revocable by either party on thirty days' notice.

Proposed Status: A twelve-foot wide section of this parcel would be dedicated to the Inlet Island greenway corridor, allowing the paved Williams Walk to pass through . T'he rest of the parcel would continue to be licensed to the Ithaca Boating Center. Fencing would be provided on either side of this corridor segment. This would clearly define the corridor and prevent trespass onto areas used by the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the Ithaca Boating Center.

• NOTE C.

Current Status: Part of parcel owned by Peter DeGraff.

Proposed Status: The land wou)d continue to be owned by Mr. DeGraff, but he would graciously allow the Inlet Island greenway corridor (with the Williatns Walk) to pass through a twelve-foot wide strip. Fencing would define this corridor and prevent any one fro1n straying into areas used by the Coast Guard Auxiliary or the Ithaca Boating Center.

• NOTE D.

Current Status: Owned by the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation as part of the New York State Barge Canal system. The area is licensed to U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 2-2.

Proposed Status: Dual pennits would be granted for the use of this land. One pern1it would go to the Coast Guard Auxiliary for its traditional activities, and the other would go to the City for a public park-like look-out. See details in Chapter V.

49


50


CHAPTER VII:

Proposals for Substitute Park Land.

W HEN A MUNICIPALITY SEEI<S federal approval for "unparking" federally-funded park land, it must substitute new park land "of at least equal fair market value

and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location." Chapter II presents details about the alienation and conversion process.

Under the Inlet Island Land Use Plan, approximately 180,000 square feet (about 4.13 acres) of federally-funded park land would be alienated and converted from park use. Most of this land (Parcels 2, 4, 7 and 8 on Map #9) would be used by the private sector, but some of it (Parcels 3 and 5) would be reserved by the City for green corridors.

It is difficult to predict the "fair market value" of the land proposed for alienation and conversion, for several reasons. First, while most of this land is east of the Permanent Flood Control Easen1ent line, and hence developable, some is west of the line, and not developable. Second, current assessed values of Inlet Island land vary dramatically, from as low as $1.72 to as high as $10.02 per square foot, with 1nore typical figures ranging between $3 and $4 per square foot. Finally, no available figures reflect the impending in1pact of the R.oute 96 project, which may increase the monetary

value of certain areas and decrease that of others. Uncertainty about the monetary value of land to be alienated

and converted is matched by uncertainty about the current value of any land proposed for substitution. The committee felt it fruitless, because of these unknowns, to attempt precise delineation of substitute park land parcels. Instead, the committee ranked its top three general preferences for locating substitute land. The precise package of substitute park land must await appraisal of relevant parcels.

The committee considered seven possible substitute park land sites, all on a waterfront or along a stream. In addition to the three locations ultimately preferred (discussed in detail below), these possible sites included: a corridor providing access into the Six Mile Creek Gorge from the central business district28, land near Ithaca Falls, land outside the City in the Six Mile Creek watershed, and land now occupied by the Cornell Field Station, north of the Newman Municipal Golf Course.

Two clear themes developed as these possible locations were discussed. First, some committee members strongly preferred finding substitute park land within the City. This preference

51

28. See Recommendation 2 on Page 56 of the 1991 Report of the Downt01vn Vision Task Force: "A clearly marked pedestrian promenade should lead from the east end of the Commons into Six Mile Creek Gorge, and connect to the trail system that extends all the way to

the Reservoir in the Town of Ithaca."


52

29. The bridge was designed by the Cornell Student Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers, working in cooperation with the City of Ithaca. This organization would be a likely candidate to design the proposed pedestrian bridge at point "F" on Figure 21.

30. The Conservation Advisory Council recommended such a path and bridge in a resolution it forwarded to Common Council. At its February 6, 1991 meeting, council referred the proposed resolution to its Planning and Development Committee. The committee discussed the resolution once, but the idea

has p regressed no further.


eliminated the Six Mile Creek valley outside city limits. Second, many committee members felt the substitute park land should be located along or near the Cayuga Inlet, like the land being "unparked." Locations meeting these criteria, therefore, were favored over the others.

Ultimately the committee chose the following as its three preferred substitute park land locations. All three would help create green spaces or green corridors with clear relationships to, and close connections with, Inlet Island.

First Preference.

First preference consists of the blue areas shown on Figure 21 (including the blue dashes, representing thin linear paths). The blue areas are part of a path system that would link the Farmers' Market, as well as the golf course and Stewart Park, to Buffalo Street and Inlet Island. This system itself is part of an even broader network of pedestrian paths that are planned - or, in places, already existalong Ithaca's waterfront.

Figure 21 illustrates the full network of existing or proposed pedestrian paths. The paths are indicated by black dashes, blue dashes and the two narrow blue wooded areas. In places, the paths are intended for bicyclists as well as pedestrians. A description of some non -park paths shown on Figure 21 will precede a description of the blue areas suggested for park acquisition.

Path segment "B," as labeled on Figure 21, already exists. It connects the Farmers' Market to a new pedestrian bridge (off the map, below the arrow at "A"). The bridge links the Farmers' Market with downtown neighborhoods, with the golf course and - ultimately -· with Stewart Park.29 Path segment "C" is an existing walk through ,the Farmers' Market parking area.

Path segment "D," though, does not yet exist. This waterside walk would connect the Farmers' Market to a proposed pedestrian bridge at point "F. "30 The path would run along a thin strip of N.Y.S. D.o.T. Barge Canal land. Path construction, therefore, would require approval by the D.o.T's Waterways Maintenance Division. (The cluster of buildings east of path "D" are also owned

· by the D.o.T., but are separately administered by its highway division.)

This brings us to the blue-colored areas which - in sum -constitute the top substitute park land preference.

The long, narrow marshy /shrubby /woody strip labeled "E" (and including point "F") is part of the original course of the Cayuga Inlet. This old waterway - now owned by the D.o.T's highway division - has been largely filled in. The parcel's development potential is limited by its history as a stream bed. The new Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility was built just northeast on another part of the old Inlet stream bed, and its construction required pilings to be driven into the mucky earth for an entire summer.

Acquisition of this strip as park land would allow the City to build a new path connecting path "C" to point "F." It would also allow the City to build a pedestrian bridge over the marshy ditch separating proposed path "D" from the point where the letter "F" appears on the map.

Also suggested for park acquisition is the thin path segment labeled "G," which would connect point "F" to the waterfront woods labeled "H." This path segment is indicated by blue dashes on the map. It would be thin, maybe only twelve feet wide, and would run first on the west side and then on the east side of Third Street Extension. No portion of the street itself, of course, would have park status. Full access must be maintained to the Cornell boathouse, the Ithaca College boathouse and a nearby privately-owned building. ·

The woods labeled "H" are also suggested for park acquisition. The railroad tracks come quite close to the Cayuga Inlet at this point. The remaining land is narrow, and a sloping bank runs through it. Both factors limit its development potential. Furthermore, the 1976 Ithaca Waterways Study suggested placing a green buffer zone here, to shield Inlet Island from the "industrialcommercial uses" east of the tracks.

The final element suggested for park status is the thin path segment labeled "I," also indicated by blue dashes. Like segment "G," it would be quite thin, perhaps twelve feet wide. Non-park access points would be provided to the prime development land

located between path "I" and the Inlet. Path segment "J" would provide the final link to Buffalo Street

(and, via Buffalo Street, to Inlet Island). Path segment "J" could potentially follow three different routes, pending further study. It would not have park designation, due to its proximity to private functions.

Second Preference.

Second choice for substitute land is the area colored green and labeled "0" on Figure 21. This tree-covered land is part of the lagoon-like area ofwater and woods south of the State Street bridge over the Cayuga Inlet. Five beautiful "fingers" of water converge

53

FIGURE 21. The map shows existing and proposed pedestrian paths in the Inlet Island vicinity. Some of these routes are intended for bicycles1 as well. The paths «proposed)) greatly outnumber those «existing.'' The blue areas constitute the

first preference, and the green area the second choice1 for new park land to substitute for park to be alienated and converted under the Inlet Island Land Use Plan.


54

31 . This City-owned land was part of a four-parcel March 6, 1967 City purchase from the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. One of these four parcds was the 1967 Cass Park purchase, funded in part by federa'l Land and Water Conservation Fund monies, according to a December 18, 1967 agreement. The question arises: Did the December 18 agreement apply this federal funding to the other three parcels bought on March 6, as well? If so, they, too, are rigidly restricted to park usc by federal regulations. In a December 26, 1991 conversation with John Schroeder, Robert Gonet (Regional Program Specialist for the N .Y .S. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation) stated that, to the best of his knowledge, Land and Water Conservation Fund monies were not applied to the other three parcels, all of which are south of State Street. He could not state this, however, with absolute certainty.

32. See Item 18.2 in the minutes of the February 6, 1991 Common Council meeting.

FIGURE 22. The yellow vertically-striped area is the third preference for park land to substitute for park to be alienated and conJ1erted under the Inlet Island Land Usc Plan. The diagonally-striped areas have already been chosen as substitute pa:rk land for the N. Y.S. D.o. T's Route 96 project park takings. In the midst of both striped areas is one parcel (in white) already owned by the City, and a second parcel (also white) over which the City will obtain an easement. The easement will accommodate the Cayuga Inlet Trail, and preserve a corridor for a possible future a west Hill collector road.'' The letter (CM" here corresponds to the mme letter on Fi._11urc 21.


here: Six Mile Creek, the old "Relief Channel," a short unnamed fork of water pointing southwest, the upstream half of the Cayuga Inlet, and the downstream half of the Inlet.

The land proposed for acquisition is now owned by Conrail, and it lies directly east of land already owned by the City. 31 This City-owned land is labeled "N" on the map. The 1982 Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project proposed that area "N" become a "natural park" with looping trails for active recreation, and that area "0" be acquired by the City for passive recreation. The report further suggested that an old railroad bridge (at "M") be used to connect the "natural park" with Inlet Island. (The bed of this bridge is gone, but its principal heavy girders remain.) Path segment "L" shows one possible link through City-owned land to the major Inlet Island pedestrian routes ("I(") proposed in the Inlet Island Land Use Plan.

Acquiring the Conrail parcel as park land would bring this whole intriguing concept one step closer to reality. The purchase would also help preserve the beauty of the entire lagoon area.

Of the total land owned by Conrail here, only the portion to the northwest of the still-active railroad corridor would be considered for potential park use. Conrail has no apparent use for this northwest portion, as the railroad spur that once passed through it was abandoned years ago. ·

Third Preference.

Ranked third is part of a parcel owned by Reuben Weiner close to the Cayuga Inlet. The general area suggested is striped vertically and colored yellow on Figure 22.

This area adjoins land, striped diagonally on Figure 22, already slated to replace Inlet Island park land that will be used for the new Route 96 project highway corridors. 32 The two diagonally-striped areas (and an intervening parcel over which the City will hold an easement) will together provide a crucial link in the Cayuga Inlet Trail - a proposed bicycle and pedestrian path which some day will link Taughannock Falls State Park, Cass Park, Allan H. Treman State Marine Park, Buttermilk Falls State Park and Robert H.

D 0

¥A7E's ~ }__Q R__ Ab ~ GS:T~cS 2

0

t} I

Tren1an State Parle The additional substitute park land in the yellow vertically

striped area would con1plement and buffer the future recreation way.

Portions of the Cayuga Inlet Trail route are illustrated on Figure 21. One trail segment already exists: the bike and foot path (labeled "P") which proceeds along the Flood Control Channel's west bank north of State Street. Segment "Q" will be a future leg, extending (as arrow "R" indicates) all the way to Taughannock Falls State Parl<. Another future leg ("S") will head south (as arrow "T" indicates) all the way to Buttermilk Falls and Robert H. Treman State Paries.

One can follow this last trail leg south along the Flood Control Channel from Figure 21 onto Figure 22, where the illustrated trail portion extends from the arrow at "U" to the arrow at "W." A proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridge will span the channel at l9cation "V." The trail will pass through the two diagonally-striped areas, and pass by the yellow vertically-striped area.

After Route 96 project completion, Inlet Island will have three direct bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Cayuga Inlet Trail via the old State Street bridge and the new Route 96 and Route 89 bridges. Thus, Inlet Island will eventually have direct bike and hiking connections to all major regional state parks.

The Cherry Street Industrial Park is just north of the Weiner parcel, and both areas are zoned industrial. The Weiner parcel's northernmost portion should not become park land, since ultimately

the City may wish to expand the industrial park southward.

If all the paths and connections shown on Figures 21 and 22 come into being, the City will possess one of the most comprehensive and beautiful waterfront greenway systems in the United States. Each preferred substitute park land location would help build or enhance this furore greenway network. Inlet Island can become a focal point for appreciating the civic and natural beauty of the whole southern Cayuga Lake region.

Available Funding for Substitute Park Land.

According to Director of Planning and Development H. Matthys Van Cort, Common Council has set aside three "pots" of money which could fund substitute park land purchases:

( 1) A capital project for West End Development contains $78,850.00.

(2) A capital project for Southwest Park Development contains $66,126.62.

( 3) Capital R.eserve Fund No. 26 for Six Mile Creek land acquisition contains $166,000. This money could only be used, though, for substitute park land located in the Six Mile Creek valley.

55

INLET IsLAND LAND UsE COMMITTEE

56


Bibliography.

Previous Studies and Other Resources Relevant to Inlet Island.

Book of Aerial Photos of Ithaca

1933 A hand-made volume of annotated aerial photo graphs of Ithaca taken by local photographer Cervin Robinson; the book is preserved in City Hall.

Ithaca Flood Protection Project) Composite Taking Maps

1967 Maps dated February 28, 1967 prepared by Konski Engineers of Syracuse, New York.

Ithaca) N.Y.: A General Plan

1971 Ithaca, N.Y.: A master pian for Ithaca prepared by the City Planning Board.

Cayuga Inlet Study

1974 Ithaca, N.Y.: Inlet Island area planning strategies prepared for the City by Henk DeBakker, Charles Henkels, and other Cornell University College of Architecture, Art and Planning graduate students.

Ithaca Waterways Study

1976 Ithaca, N.Y.: A study of all City waterways and adjacent land areas - including the Cayuga Inlet and Inlet Island - prepared by the Department of Planning and Development.

Final Report: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project

1982 Ithaca, N.Y.: Analysis of existing conditions and development potential on Inlet Island and its near vicinity prepared for the City by TrowbridgeTrowbridge and Roger Trancik.

57


58


The Ithaca Journal, ((The Past R.egained: A Neig[h]borhood)s Small-Scale RevivaF)

1986 Ithaca, N.Y.: A May 14 article discussing reaction to the West End model built by David Fogel; the model shows how the West End appeared prior to construction of the Flood Control Channel.

An Analysis and Evaluation of Octopus I Route 96 Alternative Plans

1987 Ithaca, N.Y.: Planning / Environmental Research Consultants.

Ithaca)s Neighborhoods: The Rhine, the Hill and the Goose Pasture

1988 Ithaca, N.Y.: Edited by Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie and Jane Marsh Dieckmann; published by DeWitt Historical Society ofTompkins County.

Transportation Project l{eport: Design Report I Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation) R.oute 96 Improvement

1988 Albany, N.Y.: Prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation.

Visual Resources Assessment, Route 96, Ithaca, N.Y.

1988 Albany, N.Y.: Prepared for the N.Y.S. Departinent of Transportation by Young Associates of Greene, N.Y.

Guide to the Alienation or Conversion of Municipal Parklands

1990 Albany, N.Y.: Prepared by N.Y.S. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

Appendix A.

Permanent Flood Control Channel Easement: The Language of the Restrictions.

The Existing Perpetual Basement for Flood Control Purposes On Various Inlet Island Properties Reads as Follows:

A permanent easement for the rights to construct, reconstruct, maintain and operate thereon, (I) Levees or dikes, (2) Work Area, ( 3) Landscaping, and ( 4) Appurtenances to all structures; and including the rights to ( 1) Remove therefrom any or all materials excavated, cut, razed or torn down form the area described herein,

or deposit any material thereon, (2) Protect the bank of improved creek and/or walls adjacent thereto, by any method deemed necessary by the owner of this easement, ( 3) Grade, ( 4) Clear and grub of trees, shrubs, brush, debris and structures, ( 5) Place, keep and operate machines, tools, and equipment; with the rights at all times of ingress, egress or regress by the State of New York, its assigns and/or their agents in the improvement for purposes connected with the Flood Protection Project, in and to and within the bounds of all that piece or parcel of property hereinafter designated as Parcel No. , situated in the City /Town of Ithaca, county of Tompkins and State of New York, as shown on the accompanying map and described as follows: __ _

59


60

lNLETlSLAND LAND UsE COMMITTEE

Appendix B.

License for Discontinued Portion Of Old Taughannock Boulevard.

Excerpt Nwnber One, From Board of Public Works Proceedings, May 12, 197 6:

PUBLIC HEARING -DISCONTINUANCE OF TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD

Resolution to o_gen hearing By Comm. Schickel: seconded by Comm. Shaw Vice Chm. Ewanicki reported as follows:

It is proposed to license Inlet Park Marina to use the discontinued portion. This license would be in exchange for the conveyance to the city by Inlet Park Marina of a portion of the bed of Cascadilla Street. The portion of Taughannock Boulevard to be discontinued is not presently used by vehicles other than those proceeding to and from Inlet Park Marina. If discontinued, the city would erect at its

expense a movable barricade. No action on the discontinuance is recommended until the City Attorney indicates that he has prepared the proposed license and is ready to proceed.

No one appeared to speak at the public hearing.

Motion to close hearing By Comm. Shaw: seconded by Comm. Schickel

RESOLVED, That the public hearing be closed.

Carried

Excerpt Number Two, From Board of Public Works Proceedings, April 2 7, 1977:

Discontinuance of a Portion ofTaughannock Boulevard

Comm. Schickel reported that on May 12, 197 6, the Board of Public Works held a hearing on the discontinuance of a portion of

61


62

INLET ISLAND LAND USE COMMITTEE

Taughannock Boulevard, more particularly, the most northerly 150 feet of the Boulevard at its intersection with the Flood Control Channel. No one appeared to speak at the public hearing.

Resolution By Comm. Schickel: Seconded by Comm. Baldini

RESOLVED, That that portion ofTaughannock Boulevard, being approximately the most northerly 150 feet before its intersection with the Flood Control Channel, as more particularly shown on a map entitled 'Portion of Taughannock Boulevard to be Discontinued,['] prepared by the Office of City Engineer, May 10, 1976, be discontinued.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a revocable license to Inlet Park Marina containing the following provisions:

I. That the City hereby grants a revocable license to the licensee to use the premises described as follows: That portion of Taughannock Boulevard northerly to the easterly permanent

2.

3.

4.

5.

easen1ent line of the flood control channel fron1 a line which is normal to the street center line from a point of the easterly right-of-way line being a pipe set flush with the ground; said pipe being 77.1' S 16° 55' E. of a pipe set at the corner of the riorth property line of Inlet Park Marina and the easterly right-of-way line ofTaughannock Boulevard.

That the city of Ithaca will erect a moveable gate at the location indicated on the attached map which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

That the licensee shall maintain the said premises.

That this license be revocable upon 30 days' notice by either party to the other.

That the licensee agrees to defend and hold the City harmless from any claims arising out of the licensee's use, occupation, or maintenance of the said premises.

Carried Unanimously

Appendix C.

Permit to Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 2-2 For Use of D.o. T. Land at Tip of Inlet Island.

Permit No. 71•1-Zl

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WATERWAYS MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISION

REVOCABLE PERMIT

Issued Pursuant to Article X of the Canal Law

AI bany,. felmaary 9 19 _.!.!.

u .•. CDaat a..~ Auxillar, rtotllla 2·2· lDe. eo.tt Guard Jolat, WHEREAS, tauJheiPIOCk loul ... rd, ltllaoa, ICe¥ 1odt 14850

hereinafter referred to as the "licensee," has made application (or permission to t!!porarl ly .. ke

u•• of porUou of kra• Caul lareelt 43.58•1, 43S9 aad T·21 at Ca7up l11let

rotat, lth.ca, lev tork to t.aautlfy the aru for an by tha poft'al put.Uc

THEREFORE, permission is hereby granted to said licensee to t~rar11y make u1e of

port1ont of Barae Caaal ~arcell 4358·1, 4359 and T·21 at C.yuaa Inlet Polat,

luaca, llev ton to beautifJ the aru for v.. by tbe pneral public •• ahova

as asked for in said application and described above, at _l_t_• ___ own cost and expense, upon the

following conditions and restrictions:

1st. This permit shall not be assigned or transferred without the written permission of the

Commissioner of Transportation.

2nd. All work authorized by this permit shall..be done in accordance with any maps, plans and

profiles which may be on file in this office, and I or in accordance with the special and general condi·

lions hereinafter set forth, or directions which may be given by the Commissioner of Transportation . An}'

63


64


structures erected upon canal lands by right of this permit shall not be changed in any way without first

receiving written permission of the Commissioner of Transportation to do so.

3rd. All work authorized by this J)ermit shall be done under the supervision of the Commission-

er of Transponation or an Inspector to be appointed by him. The work shall not be commenced until such

time as the officially signed copy of the permit is received by the licensee. The work shall be done at

such times as the Commissioner of Transportation shall direct, so as not to interfere with the free and

perfect use of the canals, or endanger the lives or property of any persons, and particularly of those en

gaged in repairing, operating or navigating the canal.

4th. !n the event that any vessel or float is subjected to delay by reason of the work author-

ized by this permit, the licensee shall pay to the owner of such vessel or float so delayed, such amount

as will fairly compensate such owner for the delay or loss of time occasioned to him by the operations

herein authorized; and in the event that the licensee and the owner are unable to agree as to the amount

of compensation to ~ paid for such delay the amount of such payment shall 'Pe d!!termined by the Commis

sioner of Transportation. The sum fixed by him shall be binding upon and paid by the licensee to such

owner. The Inspector appointed by the CommissionerofTransportation pursuant to the third paragraph of

of this permit, shall ascertain whether or not any boats have been delayed by the work. herein Ruthorized,

and shall determine the extent of th~ damages suffered, and shall report suc.h facts to the Commissioner

of Trans?ortation, for his final determination.

5th. Any and all canal banks or other structures which may be disturbed or interfered with

during the progress of the work shall be restored to a perfect condition by the licensee at _..;;l;..;t;..;•~-

----- own cost and expense.

6th. Except insofar as they are specifically modified herein, the rules and regulations govern-

ing navigation and use o{ the New York State Barge Canal System, are hereby made a part of thls permit.

SPECIAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS

(a) 'I'M WR of Mallttfleatloa allall DOt be doDe uatU tbe a..tadner of 'fraaaportat1on 01' lala npnentatift Me ben aoUfled, aDd ful'tber, ncb wd Hell be do• In accordaDCI wltla dlnc:Uona Jl'IU by tlae a...s.ato..r af traqport.tlaa or lata ...,.. .. at.atbe, (b) Tba ua• of aalcl lead ata.U be at tbe aole riak of tbe ueeu .. , tbe ltate accepUQS ao na-,o•llt1Uty wbatnft h 0. .. n ... , and tile State of lew ton, lta qeaca aDd -.107"' .... u llaft t .. l'talat to utu apoa aiMI .. ka uae af tbe lellll nfened to,~ U.. later .. t• of tM ltate ..U .._. .. r,. (c) W4 lead ta to 1te .......... Uf bJ tbe u..U .. Pd durilll t~ pei'locl' in Vb.lcb tbe penlt IIQ .....0 la terce, eM ,....._ ... •'-11 M -.tatalaed la a ~t, olua ..S .. Dltai'J eondltlon, 1D wutea of • .,. .kind an allewd oa U. laa4 or !b ' tiM ... tua. · ·. <•) a.tu .. .._ •f null ... acl"'llt tnu •llall •t M •• ...,.,t u dlreatecl bJ tile eo.. .au~ of 'l ..... penauon or lll1 nprae11tatlft, aDd U • .,. ,~aauna la to be done, lt aball M ._ .. tllracted .,. tM ea-.J.••loaer of trauportaUoa or b1e npnMatathe. Cut bruah aDd tne lt.be .at 'M dllpoMCI of oft lt.ata land and ao lh• trMI ab&U be r..,..S. (e) m ftUCIVUI WILL I& AU0V1D OJ ftA1'1 UMD. . (f) 111 paDtl .. tble peralt, act ritllt 01' title 11 COIWeJM to tbe llcen ... nor ell!.y OVMnhlp ft taten.U of aDJ Und ID tt.e lead enered bJ tbe .,.ratt. (a) All lt.ate 1.- ... lor ~~ npletlo• nprdl .. .oas. .. , bulldlq, pollution, Uttertna, ~lela ... ..-... or prt.aa• dS.1,oaal .uat be obaernd. Ua) 1M paatlq of till• penlt 11 for tbe occu,.nc:y of aald laod t.y the Uoen .. • aDd no l ... U.. natlaa ft ~rclal ••• of ,... vlll be elloved. (I) Tille ll~ ....... tllat d.. State propert7 alaall IN uaM Ml1l7 for tbe purpoM 11 lta&ed lD tbe ,.Nit, (j) • lDtmanace •hall be W vttb otbera .., bold ,.natu for tbe occupaQCJ of State ...... edjac-t to tM ..... cownd ~7 t.laia ,.ratt. (k) n. uc ..... 1.1 rlqldhd to f\li'Diab tbia depart.ut witb • c ... uflcata of i'ubl1c J.J..ablllty lMunDce Ia •ccordaaee vltb ton ~ 26.

7th. The u:;e of snid lund shall be subject at nil lime!; to the interest of the Stole in the ma .king

of improvements nnd repairs to the canal. system or work in connection thert•with . The Commissioucro(

Transport~tion,his o~ents, employees ond contractors, shull ol all times have the right of entry thereon,

H in the judgment of the C..ommi~;!'lioner.ufTrnnsport:uion the Stole's int<."rcst shn11 require .

Sth. The licensee undcrtRkes and agrees to indemnify 01nd snve hormless the Stute, its o.fficcrs.

or employees, fro;n any and oil claims, demunds nnd recoveries nrising out of the use or mnnner of usc

mude by the licensee of the property which is t'he subject mutter of this permit und shall furnish upun rc-

quest to the Commissioner of Transportntion, evidence of required protective liability insurnncc.

9th. The work authorized by this permit shall be commenced prompt 1~·. ond progressed to com-

pletion without delay; ond in the event that such work is not so commenced ond prugres!:ed to the sulili·

faction of the CommissiunerofTrnnspon:uion, this permit shall be deemed to be revoked, ond snid work

shall not be resumed without a renewal or this permit in writing by the Commissioner of Trnnspon:Hion.

lOth. The .CommissionerofTransponation reserves the right at lilny time to revohe and annul

this permit, whereupon it shall become the duty of the licensee, at ,. __ i_t_s __ own cost and expense,

forthwith to remove from the property which is the subject matter or this permit, any and all works ond

structures erected by __ i.....,t ___ ·thereon, and vucate and surrender to the Stntc possession thereof.

Upon failure o( the licensee to remove such works ond structures, the Comroi ssioner <'f Tran:;ponmion

may summarily enter upon and remove from· said premises any and all encroachments and pro~erty or the

licensee, at the licensee's own cost and expense.

Notice of revocation may be given to the licensee personal!y or by mailing to _........_..__ ___ _

a notice to that effect enclosed in a postpaid wrapper addressed to _ _ i_t--------~-- nt

No. Tauahannock Blyd. street, __ ..:I..:t~h::::a:..:c:..::a:.._ _________ N.Y. 14850

11th. This permit shall not .become effective, nor shall any work be commenced under the snme,

until the original thereof has been executed by the applicant, signed by the Commissionero(Trnns

portation, the offic:ol seal of the Stutc o.>f New York atlochcd hereto, and an executed copy of th<: pc.rmil

received by the lic~nsee.

f2th. In accepting this.pcrmit the soid licensee has in mind the possibility of the sole or olhc:-

wise disp~sal by the State . of the land referred to, without notice, and in such event the permission hereby

granted will automatically terminate.

13th. No refund will be made to the licensee or other party, of any portion of the fcc po id fo~

tho use of tho! State property should this permit be cancelle<i within the specified time Cor which the fee

ho~ b1..-cn pold.

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the oHicial scnl

of said office, the day and year first above written. T. W. PARKER lt~GtH~Hlt:Jt1X

r:()I/111/ISSIOnCT u/1'rlln .ff10T/Q,Ivli

JOSEPH R. STELLATO Director of Waterways Mointenance

ACCEPTANCE OF PERMIT

The ·lmciersigned hereby accepis the foregoing revocable permit ond ogre~s fllilhfully to comply

wlth oil the terms and conditions thereof.

65 Doted .. _____ It_h_a_c_a ______ . ~ . Y.. February 11, . 19 ~1 ofthe_~U~·~s~·~C~O~AS~T~G~U~AR~D~A~UX~IL~lA~R~YL,~FL~OT~IL~LA~_2_-_2_I_n~c_. ________________ ___

U. S. COAST GUARD ~UXILIARY-Flotilla 2-2 Inc. the corporation described in and which executed lbe foregoing instrument; that he knows the seal of

By Paul R. Sandefur Flotilla Coannander said corporation; that the seal a££ixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed

by authority of the Board of Directors of said corporation, and that he signed his name thereto by like

rAcknowledgment, if an indiyidual) authority . Joseph E. Burun 3/30/71

STATE OF NEW YORK }

County of----- . && . :

Notary Public

On this ------- ----- day of----------- , 19 ---.before (Acknowledgment , if a firm or co-partnership.)

me, the subscriber, personally appeared------------------------

to me known to be the person described in, and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he duly

acknowledged to me that he executed the same.

STATE OF' NEW YORK }

County of----- ss.:

On thts _____________ day of ___________ , 19 -- , before

Notary Public me, the subscriber, perso '~ally ~ppeared ---------- -------,to me known and

.known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument as a member of the co-partner·

(Acknowledgment, if a corporation . )

STATE OF NEW YORK }

Tompkins ss . : County of ----=-------

ship of-------------------------- , who, being by me .duly sworn,

did depose and say that he resides in---,....----~~~.......,-----: that he is a member of

the above-named co-partnership which is composed of himself and --------------

11 February 71 On this------- ------ day of-------=------, 19 __ ,before - -------------- ; who are all t~· persons interested therein; that he executed the

Paul R. · Sandefur me, the subscriber personally came-------------------------- (oregoing instrument on behalf olthe said co-partnership and as a member thcreof;thol he was authorized

to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides in --------- to execute the same; ond he 9Cknowledgcd tu mo thut he executed the sornc nn hcholf of the suid co-

Ithaca, · New York ; th&t he is the .Flotilla Commander ""'' ner:;hi 11 fnr the purpost•s I hur•·i 11 shtlo•d .


66


Appendix D.

Letter From 'State Parks, J Finger Lakes Region, Concerning Status of Inlet Island Park Land.

Mr. Benjamin Nichols, Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850

Dear Mayor Nichols:

November IS, 1990

RE: 36-00053

Some time has passed since conversion issues have been raised concerning the Inlet Island portion of this project. lhe City's wish to formally convert Inlet Island have been under discussion since 1982, existing conversions have been known since 1985.

Since the initial discussions about existing conversions began some progress has been made towards returning the site to park use:

• The Farmer's Market relocated to Steamboat Landing.

• The Ithaca Boating Center has vacated the former Agway property.

There remain additional conversions on the Inlet Island site:

• Encroachment by the Station Restaurant along the southern boundary.

• Possible encroachment by businesses located along Old Taughannock Boulevard.

• The general poor condition of the site is also a conversion.

This project has been discussed at several levels. In order to .remediate existing conversions and bring the project into compliance with Land and Water

·Conservation Fund guidelines, the City is directed, by May 15, 1991, to:

• Establish the 6(f)(3) boundaries of Inlet Island on the ground by survey.

• Cease all existing conversions of the site and return the site to park use.

• Remove facilities that do not comply with Land and Water Conservation Fund guidelines.

RFG:ked

Very truly yours,

OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Andrew R. Mazzella Regional Director

.f2U•--J!/Lf~}. +1 cTT1}_)(£c;i'

IRobert F. Gonet Regional Program Specialist

67


report of inlet island land use committee, ithaca, new york, 1992

Documents

inlet island land useplan

inlet isi

alienateisland park

john schroeder

andlanduse committee

list of questions

past attempts

explaininlet islands