Written Comments & Responses from the March 16 - April 6, 2010 Public Hearing
Introduction - While many of the written comments received were not pertinent to the public use,
benefit, or purpose to be served by the proposed public project for Reconstruction of Hanshaw
Road, all written comments received from the public hearing are summarized here along with
responses to all comments.
Comment #1 - Doug & Bruce Brittain: Widening Hanshaw Road by adding paved shoulders
seems to be unjustified. Drivers are already exceeding the speed limit and this
will encourage them to drive even faster. This will offset any benefit of paved
shoulders to bicyclists. The plan calls for increasing the design speed on
Hanshaw to well above the speed limit. A narrower road and a meandering road
centerline could do much to decrease speeds and preserve existing vegetation.
Response #1 - The preferred alternative does not include widening Hanshaw Road. The
preferred alternative does include replacing the mostly gravel shoulders with
asphalt shoulders, per Federal standards. (This project is being paid for with
80% Federal funds and must follow Federal standards.) A narrower roadway
section is not possible per Federal standards. The posted speed limits are
30mph and 40mph; the proposed design speeds are 37mph and 50mph, which
are based on the existing operating speeds. The design speeds represent a
decrease from design speeds likely used at the road's last reconstruction, when
speed limits were higher. As landscaping is present on both sides of the road,
meandering the centerline to avoid it may not be possible. Slight meanders would
not reduce drivers' operating speeds.
Comment #2 - Doug & Bruce Brittain: If the road were kept to more reasonable dimensions,
pedestrian facilities would not encroach upon trees and landscaping. It should
be possible to fit 2 cars and 2 pedestrians into a 50-foot right-of-way.
Response #2 - The proposed walkway design preserves sensitive landscaping and trees. The
typically widest proposed section is 40 feet wide.
Comment #3 - Doug & Bruce Brittain: More reduction/elimination of buffer (swale) between
shoulder and walkway and introducing more curvature/sinuosity into the roadway
could preserve more significant roadside vegetation. Trees are slated for
removal which do not interfere with roadway facilities, i.e., southeast corner of
Blackstone intersection, where easement modifications were apparently needed
for its removal.
Response #3 - See response #1. Some trees may be removed at the request of landowners,
others, as proposed at Blackstone, which is within the existing Town highway
right-of-way, due to proximity to the shoulder and associated grading, or for
intersection sight distance.
Comment #4 - Doug & Bruce Brittain: The Hanshaw/Warren intersection is being made larger
for no reason.
Response #4 - The proposed radii allow buses to make turns and remain in the appropriate
travel lanes.
Comment #5 - Doug & Bruce Brittain: Installation of a traffic signal at the Hanshaw/Warren
intersection is counter-productive for the following reasons:
1) Warrants - should have used new National MUTCD warrants; cited warrant
does not apply to all-way stop controlled intersection; and need in 20 years
does not justify a signal now and violates the National MUTCD.
Page 1 of 19
2) Delay - a signal will likely increase delay, congestion, and travel time.
Current delay was not measured, but modeled using software. Model's
predictions are not consistent with functioning of the intersection.
3) Left turns - traffic signal will make it harder to make left turns in the face of
opposing traffic, thus increasing congestion.
4) Safety - all-way stop intersections tend to have good safety records and this
one is no exception. Higher speed accidents may result.
Response #5 - Final Design Report (FDR) Chapter III, Section III.C.2.b contains a complete
discussion of the proposed signal warrants.
1) Warrants - The analysis was updated to reflect National MUTCD warrants
and the signal is still warranted.
2) Delay - According to traffic analyses in the FDR, delays will not be increased
with a signal.
3) Left turns - According to traffic analyses in the FDR, left turns with a signal
will not lead to increased congestion.
4) Safety - The highest concentration of accidents within the project limits is at
this intersection. Please see FDR § II.C.1.k for additional discussion.
Comment #6 - Doug & Bruce Brittain: Design in keeping with NESTS and Town Transportation
Plan even if this means foregoing State and Federal funding. Damaging
functionality and aesthetics of the corridor is not a good bargain.
Response #6 - Hanshaw Road has historically functioned is as arterial or collector as well as
access to fronting properties. Roadway ownership does not determine the
standards appropriate to its functional classification. The design calls for
preservation of significant landscaping aesthetics and provides accommodations
for pedestrians, contributing to a residential look and feel along the road.
Pavement width and speed limits are kept to a minimum. Roadway design will
not impede emergency access. The design does not add lanes, widen existing
lanes, or increase design speeds.
Comment #7 - Bruce Brittain: Rebuild with lower, rather than higher design speed. Increasing
pavement width will increase vehicle speed and decrease driver attentiveness,
leading to a decrease in safety.
Response #7 - Design speeds are to consider the existing operating speeds. See response #1.
Comment #8 - Bruce Brittain: Shifting the centerline here and there should help preserve
significant vegetation within the ROW.
Response #8 - See response #1 and #2.
Comment #9 - Bruce Brittain: The Hanshaw/Warren intersection is already too big. Installing a
traffic signal there is unwarranted, would increase delays, and increase accident
severity.
Response #9 - See response #5.
Comment #10 - Bruce Brittain: Entry of several items into record.
Response #10 - Noted.
Page 2 of 19
Comment #11 - Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: It appears that in order to obtain federal
and or state funds, the road must have a sidewalk and to add a sidewalk, the
County must acquire land from property owners for "public use". A survey of
pedestrian traffic has not been made to establish public use.
Response #11 - Use of federal/state funds does not require construction of a sidewalk. Since the
County is considering this road's right-of-way to be by use, the walkway, as a
new feature, cannot be built within the existing right-of -way. Therefore, the
County must acquire additional rights-of-way (easements) from adjoining
property owners for walkway construction and maintenance. The walkway is by
definition for public use, regardless of existing pedestrian traffic. A Pedestrian
Generator Checklist was completed for the project, which indicates need to
provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. (See FDR Appendix
E.) The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan identifies the project area as an
essential corridor for providing pedestrian accommodations.
Comment #12 - Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: It is unfair to widen the ROW on only one
side of the road for the sake of the sidewalk. All should share in the sacrifice of
property for this sidewalk.
Response #12 - The mission statement of the County Legislature recognizes that County
activities will be designed within the limits of financial support. Addition of a
walkway is only proposed on one side of the road because the project budget
cannot support it on both sides. It is not the government's responsibility to
equally distribute pain, but to minimize it. ROW will be acquired legally,
respecting the rights of County residents. Additional ROW will typically be
required on both sides of the road.
Comment #13 - Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: This Eminent Domain Hearing is
premature, because there are disagreements over the extent of the existing
ROW.
Response #13 - Right-of-way needs often change as a project is designed. NYS Eminent
Domain Procedure Law provides leeway for changes of ROW acquisition needs
identified following the public hearing.
Comment #14 - Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: Other issues: 1) Pedestrian safety for a
sidewalk that has no curb; 2) traffic calming measures for a widened road that
will invite speeding; 3) cars using the sidewalk to pass on the right; 4) pedestrian
street crossings if the walkway is only on one side; 5) the relocation of mailboxes;
6) property restoration plans for all residents; and 7) re-assessments of property
values in view of the loss of property.
Response #14 - 1) There are no sidewalks now; the proposed walk is a safety improvement. In
Cayuga Heights a curb will be provided at the Village's request. Elsewhere, the
additional grading required for curb separation would create significant loss of
landscaping. Where landscaping preservation allows, a 4-foot swale separates
the shoulder from the sidewalk. In other areas, a concrete gutter provides
separation. 2) See response #1. Preservation of tree canopy, proximity of
landscaping to the road, possible inclusion of colored shoulders, and the
presence of the adjoining walkway are all perceptual cues that should calm
traffic. 3) Illegal behavior is difficult to design around. 4) Crossing the street
should be no more difficult than it currently is. If people choose to not cross to
the walkway, the paved shoulder will also accommodate pedestrians. 5) The
location of mailboxes will likely not change, but will be addressed with the USPS
during final design. 6) Property restoration plans will be developed with
landowners during final design and be open to limited modification through
Page 3 of 19
implementation. 7) There will be no loss of property with the sale of easements.
The County Assessment Department will review the effect on market value on
each parcel individually and will make an adjustment if needed - upwards or
downwards, at the appropriate time.
Comment #15 - Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: One gets the impression that the hearing is
being held because required by law. Concerns from the neighborhood are
belittled or ignored.
Response #15 - Noted.
Comment #16 - Bruce & Judy Levitt: Cayuga Heights has never had a public hearing as to the
extension of the sidewalk from the Town Line into the Village.
Response #16 - The Village is not required to hold a hearing on this question.
Comment #17 - Bruce & Judy Levitt: Cayuga Heights has never voted funding for the extension
of the sidewalk from the Town Line into the Village.
Response #17 - The Village passed a resolution on June 19, 2006 indicating it supported the
inclusion of the village sidewalk segment and would participate in the project.
Comment #18 - Bruce & Judy Levitt: Cayuga Heights has never held an Eminent Domain hearing
in accordance with NYS EDPL section 203.
Response #18 - The Village is not required to hold a hearing since the County is acquiring the
right-of-way.
Comment #19 - Bruce & Judy Levitt: Cayuga Heights has said that it is allowing the County to
acquire parcels within Cayuga Heights but the Village has held no hearings on
this matter.
Response #19 - The Village is not required to hold a hearing on this question.
Comment #20 - Bruce & Judy Levitt: There is no written provision for property in the Village to be
restored should plantings be damages or removed should the sidewalk be
extended from the Town Line into the Village.
Response #20 - See response #14 - 6.
Comment #21 - Bruce & Judy Levitt: There has been no discussion with NYSEG about their rightof-way for power lines and if power lines should need to be relocated should the
sidewalk be extended from the Town Line into the Village.
Response #21 - There has been discussion with NYSEG concerning this issue.
Comment #22 - Zetta Sprole: Why is more ROW required on my property since the sidewalk is
planned for the other side of the road?
Response #22 - ROW will allow grading from the higher-elevation paved shoulder that will be
built.
Comment #23 - Zetta Sprole: Please provide the map and description of the permanent
easement on my property in layman's terms.
Response #23 - More reader-friendly notations can be provided on the your map.
Page 4 of 19
Comment #24 - Zetta Sprole: I want to be present when measurements are made on my property
indicating both the current use ROW and the proposed permanent easement. I
am requesting that distances for both be spelled out in writing from the
centerline.
Response #24 - Such distances can be provided in writing. An appointment with you can be
scheduled to make field measurements.
Comment #25 - Zetta Sprole: Can someone clarify the situation concerning my fence, lamppost,
sign, and landscaping. Why should I have any financial burden regarding
removals or replacements?
Response #25 - The situation concerning your property improvements will be determined and
communicated during detailed design. Landowners will be reimbursed for the
value of property improvements within easement areas, including trees.
Improvement replacement plans will be developed and implemented as part of
construction.
Comment #26 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Hanna & Joseph Roisman: The Roisman's chain of
title and deed extends their property to the centerline (CL) of Hanshaw Rd. The
surveyor's interpretation of the "highway boundary" (HB) (per deed) is incorrect.
The extent of the [existing] public easement is limited to that area of the Roisman
property that has actually been used for purposes of public travel, including uses
directly or indirectly related to such right of passage.
Response #26 - The County concurs that since no grant of ROW to the County or its
predecessors has been found that it would be best to compensate the property
owners for all land to be used beyond the current use. Therefore, the HB shown
on such maps will be revised to show the ROW is limited to use. Use includes
guard posts, signs, road-supporting embankments, roadside slopes, driveway
culverts, storm sewers, roadside swales/ditches, etc, as well as paved and gravel
surfaces typically used for vehicular or pedestrian use.
Comment #27 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Hanna & Joseph Roisman: Proceedings based on
the proposed Permanent Easement Map are defective and subject to challenge.
Response #27 - A new easement map will be prepared prior to further acquisition proceedings.
Comment #28 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Hanna & Joseph Roisman: Representatives of the
County should have authority to agree in writing with property owners to a
specific planting and restoration plan at the time of easement negotiations rather
than waiting until construction is underway.
Response #28 - Representatives of the County do have such authority.
Comment #29 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Peter & Janet Carruthers: The Carruthers' chain of
title and deed extends their property to the CL of Hanshaw Rd. The extent of the
[existing] public easement is limited to that area of the Carruthers property that
has actually been used for purposes of public travel, including uses directly or
indirectly related to such right of passage. The Temporary Easement Map does
not reflect the correct limit of such public easement.
Response #29 - The County concurs that the ROW is limited to use. Use includes guard posts,
signs, road-supporting embankments, roadside slopes, driveway culverts, storm
sewers, roadside swales/ditches, etc, as well as paved and gravel surfaces
typically used for vehicular or pedestrian use.
Page 5 of 19
Comment #30 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Peter & Janet Carruthers: Proceedings based on
the proposed Temporary Easement Map are defective and subject to challenge.
Response #30 - See response #27.
Comment #31 - Repeat of comment #28. See response #28.
Comment #32 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: The
Beyenbach's chain of title and deed extends their property to the CL of Hanshaw
Rd. The extent of the [existing] public easement is limited to that area of the
Beyenbach property that has actually been used for purposes of public travel,
including uses directly or indirectly related to such right of passage. The
Temporary Easement Map does not reflect the correct limit of such public
easement.
Response #32 - See response #26.
Comment #33 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: Proceedings
based on the proposed Easement Map are defective and subject to challenge.
Response #33 - See response #27.
Comment #34 - Mahlon Perkins, representing Klaus W. & Chrita-Maria Beyenbach: Repeat of
comment #28. See response #28.
Comment #35 - Deborah Cowan: Distressed that homeowners are commanded to bring "issues,
facts, and objections" to this hearing while the County can keep its options open
and offer an informational meeting a scant hour before the hearing input is
required.
Response #35 - Notice wording is verbatim per NYS Eminent Domain Procedure Law. The prehearing meeting will not be the only opportunity to exchange information about
the project or ROW acquisition, and was offered as a courtesy.
Comment #36 - Deborah Cowan: The government is failing in this instance as representative of
the citizens, to protect and nurture their rights and those of the community.
Response #36 - Opinion is noted.
Comment #37 - Deborah Cowan: Is the representative of RK Hite a legal voice of the County?
She that visited her was unclear and uncertain of impacts on my property.
Requests for more information have gone substantially unanswered.
Response #37 - RK Hite representatives do speak for the County. Noted.
Comment #38 - Deborah Cowan: The Temporary Easement Map does not reflect the correct limit
of public use. I request written documentation of the County's ROW on my
property.
Response #38 - See response #26.
Comment #39 - Deborah Cowan: I would like a map of sufficient size and clarity to be readable
and comprehensible to a lay person.
Response #39 - See response #23.
Comment #40 - Deborah Cowan: I would like a clear parcel description, in layman's terms, using
easily observed reference points.
Page 6 of 19
Response #40 - A companion description to that which will be filed in the County Clerk's office
can be developed using such terminology.
Comment #41 - Deborah Cowan: I would like documentation of contractual arrangements
covering walkway maintenance, repair, snow removal, and liability issues.
Response #41 - Noted. An agreement has been executed by the Town and County whereby the
Town assumes responsibility of snow control on, maintenance of, and liability for
the walkway.
Comment #42 - Bernie Hutchins: To justify the use of Eminent Domain, the County needs to
show a public use or public purpose. The Ithaca Journal Notice did not mention
the public use or purpose. It did contain the warning to bring "issues, facts, and
objections" to this hearing.
Response #42 - See response #11. The newspaper notice was in compliance with NYS EDPL
section 202, including the cited statement.
Comment #43 - Bernie Hutchins: Landowners have no construction drawings, except as shown at
the pre-hearing informational meeting. No negotiations have been initiated with
landowners east of Salem Drive. Appraisers give no dollar estimates nor
describe their methodology.
Response #43 - See response #35. State ROW acquisition policy forbids appraisers from sharing
value information with landowners.
Comment #44 - Bernie Hutchins: Holding this hearing in such a premature manner constitutes the
suspension of public input, sets an impossible timetable, withholds material
information and results in the abuse of the rights of the property owners.
Response #44 - See response #13. The hearing was held at an acceptable point in the project
progress. Opinions noted.
Comment #45 - Bernie Hutchins: An October 23,2009 County e-mail misled me. It did not
mention the need for a permanent easement.
Response #45 - The referenced e-mail states that the consultant "is in the process of creating a
permanent easement map for your property."
Comment #46 - Minh Tho Schulenberg: (1) Currently our visitors (longer parties) park on the
gravel shoulder. There are no wide quiet roads near us for visitors to park. Will
the shoulder and drainage area accommodate parking? (2) With the improved
road, how will speeds be kept down? Traffic calming measures? Can the speed
limit be reduced to 35 mph to encourage lower speeds?
Response #46 - (1) The paved shoulder and swale areas will accommodate parking. (2) Several
traffic calming measures are included. See response #14-2. Speed limits are
set by New York State, but the Town can apply for a speed reduction evaluation.
Comment #47 - Donna Heilweil: (1) I own several very large trees near the road. I do not wish
any of them harmed in any way. Ever. (2) I also am not able to maintain sidewalk
in the winter, as I am physically disabled. (3) I am not willing to lose any of my
property, land or trees, without full market compensation.
Response #47 - (1) Preliminary plans do not show removal of trees on this property. A landscape
architect will evaluate tree impacts as design develops. See response #25. (2)
The Town of Ithaca will perform walkway maintenance, including snow and ice
Page 7 of 19
control. (3) The law requires the County to pay each property owner the fair
market value for land and improvements.
Comment #48 - Carolyn Arnold: (1) I have concerns about drainage: my lawn slopes toward
Hanshaw Road to a ditch several feet below the road. I am concerned about the
drain being low enough to prevent standing water on my lawn. (2) I also have
concerns about the width of the ROW the county claims, and its future effect on
the property.
Response #48 - (1) Noted. The need for drainage improvements at spot locations has been
identified as a construction objective through public input sessions. (2) County
ROW is limited to areas within highway-related use. This use includes signs,
embankments, driveway culverts, and roadside ditches. Areas needed outside
current use with be acquired at the fair market value.
Comment #49 - Roxanne Kingsley-Engstrom: If a traffic light is installed at the intersection of
Hanshaw and Warren, in order to avoid an increase in the speed of traffic, a
flashing red light should be all the light installed. A 3-color signal would vastly
increase traffic flow, which would undermine the purpose of a new sidewalk.
Response #49 - This option may be workable for the short-term and will be evaluated. See
response #5.
Comment #50 - Christopher, April & Aurora Ptak:
1) Temporary Easement (TE) is not needed at 1018 Hanshaw Road.
2) A TE will give license for excessive & unnecessary damage to our property.
3) We want full compensation for repair or replacement of our fence during
construction.
4) A temporary fence will need to be erected to protect safety of resident
children if existing fence is removed.
5) Owner needs to be fully compensated for damaged plantings and trees.
6) The removal of snow and maintenance by the Town needs to be in writing.
7) Any decrease in assessed value due to the sidewalk should be disregarded.
8) The existing highway use on this property is 17 feet. Easements are needed
for any proposed use beyond that.
9) The information meeting before the hearing did not give adequate time to
prepare up-to-date statements, so future concerns should be allowed.
10) Try to do needed grading without moving the fence.
Response #50 - 1) Easement boundaries will be determined so as to perform the work in the
most cost-effective manner.
2) The County's contractor will restore any damage to your property.
Unnecessary damage will be restored at the contractor's expense.
3) Landowners will be reimbursed for the value of property improvements within
easement areas.
4) Noted.
5) See response #50-2. Improvement replacement plans will be developed
prior to and implemented as part of construction.
6) See response #41.
7) The County Assessment Department will review the effect on market value
on each parcel individually and will make an adjustment, if needed, upwards or downwards - at the appropriate time.
8) An easement will be obtained for any proposed use beyond existing.
9) Written statements were accepted up until 3 weeks following the oral
comment period.
10) The County's goal is to do the work in the most cost-effective manner.
Page 8 of 19
Comment #51 - Edward Harwood:
1) The road needs repair, the sidewalk is needed, and the proposed sidewalk
routing is beneficial to this property.
2) Although original information meetings were good, subsequent information
has been insufficient for landowners to make good decisions.
3) Acquisition maps do not clearly show before and after conditions.
4) Who will own properties after acquisitions?
5) Who will maintain the easement? Will owner be consulted regarding use, tree
removal, and changes? What if the owner wishes to make improvements?
6) I would like to be provided with the law regarding the County's ROW.
7) Will a reassessment be done at the time of the land change to reduce
property & school taxes? When will County ownership be official?
8) Who accepts liability for accidents on the new project? Will the County repair
damages in a prompt manner?
9) Who will move the lamps on my property and to where? I prefer they be near
the road and am willing to retain their maintenance.
10) How will significant pollution risks to Renwick Brook be addressed in the
plan?
11) A good working relationship is far simpler, less expensive, and more flexible
than an eminent domain process.
12) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't accurately depict the
property that has to be acquired. There is no written proof of County
ownership of the ROW.
Response #51 - 1) & 2) Noted.
3) See response #23.
4) Permanent and/or temporary easements will be acquired. The property
owner will still own the land; Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca will
have rights of use as described in the easements.
5) Maintenance of the easement area would not change. The County or Town
would maintain the public improvements. The owner would be consulted
prior to tree removals or out-of-the-ordinary maintenance work. Owners may
make improvements that do not infringe upon public use.
6) See response #26.
7) See response #50-7. County ownership will be official when closing
proceedings are completed or, if necessary, as determined by the court.
8) The Town of Ithaca has accepted liability for the walkway outside Cayuga
Heights. Repairs should be performed promptly.
9) The value of the lamps will be included in the easement purchase offer.
Replacement or maintenance, if necessary, will be your responsibility.
10) Work will be covered by a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit and inspected in accordance therewith.
11) Noted.
12) See response #26 and #27.
Comment #52 - Dooley Kiefer: (1) Supports the proposed reconstruction project, except the
addition of a traffic signal at the Warren Road intersection. The existing 4-way
stop functions well and is more in keeping with the residential nature of the area.
A signal is also not warranted. Funds saved by eliminating the signal could be
better used to provide contrasting colored shoulders. (2) Concerned that Cayuga
Heights residents and trustees seem unaware that the Village passed a
resolution supporting the sidewalk segment in the village.
Response #52 - (1) See response #5. (2) County staff discussed the project with the new Village
trustees in an open meeting on May 10, 2010.
Page 9 of 19
Comment #53 - Deborah Cowan: Suggests: (1) documentation packets given to each landowner,
with drawings and proof of County ROW, (2) another public information meeting
to present updated maps showing ROW relative to placement of design features,
(3) availability of personnel that can answer residents' questions.
Response #53 - Noted. Another public information meeting is tentatively scheduled for fall 2010.
Personnel that can answer residents' questions will be available at that meeeting.
Comment #54 - H. J. Peter Patrick: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't
accurately depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) There is no written
proof of County ownership of the ROW. (3) Design provides insufficient turnaround area to get out of his parking lot, which could be a problem for elderly
patients. (4) The height of the road may cause a drainage problem on his
property.
Response #54 - (1) If found to be in error, a new easement map will be prepared prior to further
acquisition proceedings. (2) If no grant of ROW to the County or its
predecessors is found the County will compensate property owners for all land to
be used beyond the current use. Use includes roadside slopes, road-supporting
embankments, paved and gravel surfaces typically used by vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, storm sewers, guard posts, signs, driveway culverts, roadcrossing culverts, and roadside swales and ditches. (3) Design does not impinge
upon parking area. (4) Drainage should not be effected by project, but the
County is willing to review concerns.
Comment #55 - Bruce & Judy Levitt, Deborah & Kevin Cowan, Klaus Beyenbach, Carol Turton,
Zetta Sprole, Fern Lan Siew, Brian Gollands, Catherine Devine, Samantha
Castillo-Davis, Benigno & Elvira Barrero, Jorge Huayhuaca, Daniel Northrup,
Diane Feldman, Ileen DeVault, Paul & Vanessa Wagner, Sylvia Wahl, Catalin
Moraru, Robert Dyer, Samuel Sabin, Koji Yasuda, Peter Romani, Gerald &
Barbara Gladstein, Hanna & Joseph Roisman: (1) The easement maps are
incorrect because they don't accurately depict the property that has to be
acquired. (2) There is no written proof of County ownership of the ROW.
Response #55 - (1) If found to be in error, new easement maps will be prepared prior to further
acquisition proceedings. (2) The County concurs that the ROW is limited to use.
Use includes roadside slopes, road-supporting embankments, paved and gravel
surfaces typically used by vehicular and pedestrian traffic, storm sewers, guard
posts, signs, driveway culverts, road-crossing culverts, and roadside swales and
ditches.
Comment #56 - Bernard Hutchins and Christopher & April Ptak: (1) The easement maps are
incorrect because they don't accurately depict the property that has to be
acquired. (2) There is no written proof of County ownership of the ROW. (3) No
valid "Public Use" is or can be demonstrated because the maps that show the
properties to be acquired (standard "survey maps") do not show any construction
features. The construction plans are nowhere near detailed enough to relate to
the survey maps, do not indicate standards for lines and symbols, have different
scales, and have different reference points.
Response #56 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) See response #55-2. (3) Construction features
included in the proposed public project are shown on preliminary construction
drawings. These are available in exhibits 4 and 5 included as part of the public
hearing record and on the Tompkins County web site. Survey maps and
construction drawings will be professionally sealed and approved by New York
State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration
professionals as adequate to represent properties needed for and details for
Page 10 of 19
construction of a public highway, walkway, and appurtenances. County Highway
Division representatives are available to answer questions about drawings. The
walkway is by definition for public use.
Comment #57 - Richard & Megan Andserson: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because
they don't accurately depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) There is no
written proof of County ownership of the ROW. (3) Just repave the existing road.
It is long overdue and is a safety hazard.
Response #57 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) See response #55-2. (3) Re-paving the existing road
alone would not deal with the several other needs, including safety, that were
identified and addressed by the proposed design.
Comment #58 - Marian Parker: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't
accurately depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) There is no written
proof of County ownership of the ROW. (3) County should be responsible for
costs of replacing survey stakes and repairing fences at end of project, leaf and
snow removal, and any sidewalk repairs.
Response #58 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) See response #55-2. (3) County will be responsible
for replacing survey stakes and repairing fences at end of project. Town of
Ithaca leaf collections will not be changed by this project. Per executed
agreement between the Town of Ithaca and the County, the Town will be
responsible for walkway maintenance including snow removal.
Comment #59 - Robert Rich: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't accurately
depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) There is no written proof of
County ownership of the ROW. (3) I would like to discuss a driveway cut on the
Hanshaw side of my property. The Warren side is difficult with heavy traffic so
close.
Response #59 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) See response #55-2. (3) Noted. Traffic signal may
mitigate existing problem.
Comment #60 - Darlene & Leona Noric Gold: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because they
don't accurately depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) Information
provided by the County has been confusing, incomplete, contradictory, and
inaccurate. (3) There is no written proof of County ownership of the ROW.
(4)This project will make our property worthless and uninhabitable because: it will
bring public thoroughfare closer to the house destroying privacy; it will force
closing the blinds on the only southern exposure windows; it will widen the travel
lanes and create faster traffic; it will destroy the neighborhood feeling; it will
increase the house's exposure to accidents and noise; and it will increase the
likelihood that the road will become a major truck route. (5) The project will bring
the public thoroughfare dangerously and oppressively closer to the house.
Response #60 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) Noted. (3) See response #55-2. (4) The traveled
way will likely be 1 foot farther from the house due to changed placement of the
painted edge line. See responses #1, #6, and #14-6. Presence of drainage
swale, walkway, and replacement hedge mitigates exposure to accidents. FDR
projects no increased truck traffic due to the project. (5) See response #60-4.
Comment #61 - Lou McIsaac: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't
accurately depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) There is no written
proof of County ownership of the ROW. (3) Want in writing that the Town of
Ithaca will maintain the sidewalk all year, especially for snow and leaves. (4) In
writing that the drive and lawn be left in "perfect" condition. (5) Concern of
Page 11 of 19
flooding and drainage. (6) Mailbox was destroyed 3 times one winter. The
mailbox should be replaced. (6a) Note address change.
Response #61 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) See response #55-2. (3) See response #58-3. (4)
Construction specifications will require that all restoration will meet federal, state,
and County standards. (5) Professional engineers specializing in such maters will
size storm sewer. Drainage pipes from house will be incorporated into improved
storm sewer. (6) Mailboxes will be replaced if damaged by construction. (6a)
Hearing mailings required to go to assessment address of record.
Comment #62 - Esref Dogan: (1) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't
accurately depict the property that has to be acquired. (2) There is no written
proof of County ownership of the ROW. (3) I am not against the project as long
as the County provides a written statement indicating it will be responsible for
walkway maintenance. (4) I'd rather not be a part of the group who is hiring or will
hire a lawyer to present this case against the County.
Response #62 - (1) See response #55-1. (2) See response #55-2. (3) & (4) See response #47-2
and #51-8. Noted.
Comment #63 - Randy Wayne: I would enjoy being able to walk to Community Corners on a
sidewalk, but if such a walk is built by taking property by eminent domain, I'd
rather not have a sidewalk.
Response #63 - Noted. The law requires the County to pay each property owner the fair market
value for land and improvements, whether 'taken by eminent domain' or not.
Comment #64 - Donna Heilweil:
1) The easement maps are incorrect because they don't accurately depict the
property that has to be acquired.
2) There is no written proof of County ownership of the ROW.
3) I have never been contacted by Hite or any other representatives about the
impact that the Hanshaw Road construction project will have on my house or
property, although I have been told that my property is on the "Acquisitions
List" created by the County.
4) I was told that several trees on my property will be removed for this project. I
do not agree to have any of my trees removed or hurt in any way.
5) I was told that my property has a TE on it. I reserve the right to dispute the
exact portion of the property involved, the precise impact, and the definition
of temporary easement.
6) I do not agree to have ANY of my property used without strict accordance to
legal procedures and without full compensation at fair market value.
7) I do not want Hanshaw Road to be widened because it will make traffic move
much more quickly. I suspect the average speed is already above the limit.
8) New tax assessments should be made on each property after construction.
9) I am physically disabled and not able to maintain a sidewalk or additional
snow accumulation that may result from the sidewalk being plowed.
Response #64 - 1) See response #55-1.
2) See response #55-2.
3) A certified notice was sent concerning the March 16 hearing and information
meeting. Additional contact will be made when easement maps are finalized.
4) See Response #47-1. Drawings available at the pre-hearing informational
meeting erroneously marked several trees for removal. There are 2 4-6-inch
diameter trees, as measured in 2005, which are quite close to the proposed
walkway. These and all trees will be re-evaluated by a certified landscape
architect during detailed design over the next several months.
Page 12 of 19
5) Additional information will be supplied to property owners when easement
maps are finalized. Temporary easements expire upon the conclusion of any
warranty period on landscaping, typically a year, after project completion.
6) All ROW will be acquired legally, respecting the rights of County residents.
See response #63.
7) See response #1.
8) See response #50-7.
9) See response #47-2.
Comment #65 - Bernard Hutchins: (1) About the "1-Offer System" of Negotiating - Tina
Mollencamp's hearing statement contained a ludicrous contradiction: They wish
to negotiate, but the offer is not negotiable. "[The County is] required by law to
offer the full amount of the highest appraisal." "So, unless there are compelling
reasons to raise the offer, we will stand by the one-offer amount." This is, very
likely, intentionally misleading. (2) Whistling Past the Graveyard - "[County] staff
believes that while a handful of residents still oppose the project's proposed
walkway, the majority is not opposed to the work." (3/16/09 statement to County
F&I Committee) There is no basis for this view. (3) No valid "Public Use" is or can
be demonstrated because the maps that show the properties to be acquired
(standard "survey maps") do not show any construction features. The
construction plans are nowhere near detailed enough to relate to the survey
maps, do not indicate standards for lines and symbols, have different scales, and
have different reference points.
Response #65 - (1) NYS EDPL Section 301 must guide project acquisitions. The law requires the
County pay each property owner the fair market value for each needed parcel.
Determination of the fair market value is a lengthy process, which ends in the
establishment of 'Just Compensation' for a parcel. Attempts are made to include
the owner's insights in this valuation process. Of course, a compelling reason to
raise the offer could still be missed in the process. But, unless such information
is brought forward, the County will stand by the professionally determined just
compensation (one-offer) amount. This process is called negotiating, though it
does not include the haggling that sometimes accompanies buying and selling.
Law and professional judgement guide this negotiation with input from the owner.
There were no attempts to mislead. (2) County staff has participated in several
public meetings for the Hanshaw Road project, as well as one-on-one meetings
at the properties of numerous residents. The opinion that the majority of
residents does not oppose the idea of a walkway is based on these several
meetings not just the outcome of a poll of people attending a public hearing. (3)
See response #56-3.
Comment #66 - Bernard Hutchins: (Petition-10/17/2005 cover letter signed by Deborah Cowan) 1) Individuals from 66% of adjoining properties signed petition requesting (a)
maximum travel lane width of 10 feet and maximum shoulder width of 4 feet;
(b) shoulders be paved and designated as multi-use (walkway/bikeway) as
on Warren Road; (c) drainage swales be minimally sized to maintain rural
road character and preserve trees and bushes; (d) traffic calming be included
in the plans; (e) that a multi-use recreation way separate from the project be
considered on the south side of the road; and (f) elimination of proposed
sidewalk.
2) Increased visual perception of width due to roadway, shoulders, swale and
sidewalk, and the destruction of landscape features which provide a sense of
enclosure, will result in more speeding traffic. Request section similar to
Warren Road from Hanshaw to Uptown Road.
3) "Sidewalk to nowhere" will dump people at the most dangerous portion of the
roadway, at the top of the hill [at the Cayuga Heights village line].
Page 13 of 19
4) Resident concerns include changed neighborhood character, privacy and
quality of life issues.
Response #66 - 1) Per cover letter, at the time of the petition the Town would require residents
maintain and repair all sidewalks and would support construction only if
supported by a majority of 'adjoining residents'. When this position on
maintenance (and liability) were changed so that the Town would bear these
responsibilities, public sentiment changed dramatically, as expressed at a
project public meeting.
a) See response #1.
b) Shoulders will be paved. This project is being funded with 80% Federal
money and must follow Federal standards. A sidewalk is currently
being added on Warren Road.
c)
Drainage swales have been reduced from 6-feet wide to 4-feet wide
following public input. Hanshaw Road is classified as an Urban Minor
Arterial and Urban Collector.
d) See response #14-2.
e) The project does not propose a separate multi-use trail.
f)
A Pedestrian Generator Checklist was completed for the project, which
indicates need to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle
accommodation. (See FDR Appendix E.) The Town of Ithaca
Transportation Plan identifies the project area as an essential corridor
for providing pedestrian accommodations.
2) See responses #2 and #14-2.
3) The walkway will connect to sidewalks at Community Corners. See
response #17.
4) The design mitigates changes to neighborhood character by preserving trees
and replacing landscaping, not widening Hanshaw Road, improving quality of
life by addressing traffic calming, and providing pedestrian accommodations.
Comment #67 - Klaus Beyenbach: (1) What concerns us most is issue of snow removal. (2)
Truck traffic has increased along Hanshaw Road. It has become a very noisy
road.
Response #67 - (1) See response #47-2. (2) The FDR projects no increased truck traffic due to
the project.
Comment #68 - Vladimir Pucik & Lang-Hoan Pham: We would like to confirm that we are in
opposition to the proposal regarding the sidewalks. (From 2005, commenters
since have left area)
Response #68 - Noted.
Comment #69 - Stanley J. O'Connor:
1) I am disputing the highway boundary shown in my easement map. The
ROW is by use in my case. The County's assumed ROW is larger,
particularly at the West end of the lot where it suddenly diverges from the
road without explanation. Therefore, the easement maps do not accurately
represent the property that needs to be acquired, plus the County has never
presented evidence that they own the assumed ROW.
2) I have repeatedly requested assurance that the large yew trees on my
property will be accorded with as much protection as is consonant with the
building of the sidewalk. I have not yet received any formal response.
3) In the winter, cars skid on the curve descending into Cayuga Heights Village,
frequently skidding off the North side.
Response #69 - 1) See response #55-1 and #55-2.
Page 14 of 19
2) See response #14-6. Verbal assurances were given at a meeting with Mr.
O'Connor in the fall of 2009.
3) Existing non-standard features associated with this curve are addressed by
the proposed design. The proposed barrier curb will prevent vehicles from
skidding onto the sidewalk.
Comment #70 - Peter & Janet Carruthers:
1) We dispute the excessive highway boundary claimed by the County at our
property. The ROW in our case is by use. The easement maps do not
accurately represent the property that needs to be acquired, plus the County
has never presented evidence that they own the assumed ROW.
2) The Eminent Domain hearing is premature. We reserve the right to dispute
any further changes to the project plans.
3) We have applied for a curb cut through the Village of Cayuga Heights.
4) The plans contain no traffic calming measures. The new road width will
increase traffic speeds.
5) Despite several requests, the County has not provided written indication of
the fate of several large, 75-year old yew trees along the roadside. The
current plan does not take these trees into account.
6) The County has failed to produce written documentation of its sidewalk
maintenance policy or trip and fall liability policy. It is assumed that the
County and the Village of Cayuga Heights assumes all liability for lawsuits
related to injuries sustained on the sidewalk.
7) In the winter, cars slide off the road on the North side at the 1006-1010
addresses. Placement of the sidewalk on the North side of the road in this
area does not seem prudent, and may expose the Village and County to
liability.
8) Maps examined at [the information meeting proceeding] the hearing show
significant errors in scale and dimensions. It is not clear how accurate
execution of the plan is possible in the light of these errors and must be
corrected prior to acquisition of easements and commencement of the
project.
9) Significant damage to root structure of large trees adjacent to the project may
occur as a result of construction. The County must identify a fair and
equitable policy related to the expense of subsequent removal and
replacement.
Response #70 - 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
See response #55-1 and #55-2.
See response #13.
Noted. Permission for curb cut has been verified.
See response #14-2.
See response #14-6. Possibilities were discussed at a meeting with Mrs.
Carruthers in the fall of 2009.
See response #57-2 and #51-8 concerning walk liability outside the Village.
A draft separate, similar agreement with Village is currently being reviewed.
See response #69-3.
Noted. The detailed design phase of the project is not complete and
construction drawings are yet to be finalized. See response #55-1.
See response #25. Future removal and replacement of trees proven to be
damaged by the project that were not within the original scope of
construction will be the responsibility of the County.
Page 15 of 19
Written Comments & Responses from the June 10 - 24, 2010 Additional Comment Period
Comment #71 - Louise Richards: This is to insist on an Eminent Domain public hearing under
section 201 and Proper Notice under section 202(c) of the New York State
Eminent Domain Procedures Law.
Response #71 - These requirements have been met.
Comment #72 - Marlene Kobre & Ron Denson: Regarding the county's violation of due process
as required by the NY Eminent Domain Procedure Law 1) The Notice of Public Hearing included in the documents you hand delivered
in the afternoon of June 11 indicates that the county has violated my due
process rights as defined in Section 202 of the Eminent Domain Law by not
giving me personal notice of the public hearing on the project scheduled for
March 16, 2010.
2) The Notice and the Law both state clearly that any legal challenge I might
want to pose to the "condemnation" of my property is contingent upon my
expressing my concerns or objections at this meeting. Hence, by neglecting
to inform me of this meeting, you have obstructed my right to challenge the
Legislature's findings.
3) The County "regrets" not notifying me of my right to comment. Allowing me
the opportunity to comment now in writing is no remedy for the denial of my
right to be heard at a public hearing.
4) The process has disregarded Section 203 of the Eminent Domain Law, which
requires the county to provide property owners with both a map and a
description of the proposed project’s impact on my property that the country
intends to acquire. I have received neither from the County.
Response #72 - 1) As of the March 16, 2010 public hearing, no ROW takings were planned on
your property. Therefore, since your property was not considered one which
may be acquired for the project, no notice was required. Section 202
paragraph D allows for changes in the properties considered for acquisition
when it says, "Inadvertent failure to notify a person or persons entitled to
notice under this section shall not be jurisdictional nor construed to affect the
validity of any title acquired by a condemnor under this law."
2) The law states the minimum requirements that a condemnor must follow.
Since your property would now be subject to an easement and you did not
receive earlier notification, the County has extended you the courtesy of
receiving your comments and incorporating them into the hearing record at
this time. Also, if you had received notification earlier, you would not have
had to attend on March 16. Written comments were originally received
through the close of the hearing on April 6.
3) The County regrets that the date when your property was identified as
subject to a taking prevented earlier personal notification of the hearing.
However, personal notification was not a requirement for making oral
comments and other notifications were provided.
4) Maps and descriptions have been provided to landowners if such were
available. No such information is yet available for your property. Section
203 includes such information with "any other information [the County]
considers pertinent" which implies they are not required.
Comment #73 - Marlene Kobre & Ron Denson: Regarding concerns about the proposed project
design 1) You characterize the project impact on my property as "minor." I cannot
agree. Of course the road needs to be repaved, but a) widening as well as
Page 16 of 19
repaving the lanes, b) adding shoulders and a sidewalk, and installing a
signal at the /Warren Road intersection will c) increase traffic, d) increase the
speed of that traffic, e) degrade the character of the neighborhood and the
property values, and pose a greater danger to the safety of all who live on
and use the road than currently exists.
2) The current 30mph speed limit is obeyed by very few vehicles and is rarely
enforced. It is a well-established fact this sort of "improvements" will result in
increasing speed 5-8 mph. That means traffic will very likely be moving at
close to 45 mph. How can increasing the speed of traffic on a neighborhood
road by as much as 15 mph possible serve the interest of safety?
3) Some members of the Legislature have stated to residents of Hanshaw Road
that one purpose of the project is to increase traffic speed. How can the
insignificant time saved by increasing traffic speed over such a short distance
-- a distance that includes the entrance to St. Catherine's church on
Blackstone and a TCAT and school bus stops -- possibly trump the concerns
of residents about the increased traffic, congestion, noise, and threat to
safety and livability that the project poses?
4) The proposed traffic light will only make matters worse. It will increase,
rather than decrease, congestion and delays at the intersection. More
troubling, people traveling on Hanshaw will welcome the green light as an
invitation to fly through the intersection going in either direction. Why
eliminate the 4-way stop signs at the Hanshaw/Warren intersection that now
already function to "calm" traffic? I am not aware of there ever having been
an accident there, so the light cannot be justified as a needed "safety"
measure.
Response #73 - 1) The construction impact on your property is minor. a) Lane widths will not be
increased. b) Gravel or paved shoulders currently exist. c) Hanshaw Road
functions as an arterial/collector road. Improvements are not expected to
cause increased traffic volumes. d) Speed mitigation via traffic calming is
proposed. See response #14-2. e) Neighborhood character will be
maintained via preservation of tree canopy and proximity of landscaping to
the roadway. Property values may also increase following reconstruction.
The proposed walkway is a safety improvement. Paved shoulders will
accommodate bicycles out of mainline vehicle traffic. Improved pavement
condition will contribute to better vehicle control and improved safety.
2) It is extremely unlikely that speeds west of Warren Road will increase to 45
mph. See response #73-1d.
3) Increasing traffic speed is not an objective of this project.
4) See response #5.
Comment #74 - Marlene Kobre & Ron Denson: Requests, Questions, & Alternative Vision of the
Project 1) I request that the county respect my right to participate in a public eminent
domain hearing for which I receive timely and personal notice as required by
Sections 201 and 202 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law.
2) What is the legal precedent for attempting to substitute an “opportunity to
submit written comments” to you as a remedy for denying my right to
participate in a public eminent domain hearing?
3) I’m befuddled by the county’s attempt to make it a mere “oversight” not to
have notified a significant number of those most closely impacted by this
proposed project of the public hearing. The pattern would suggest some
dereliction of responsibility that is more than “inadvertent.” I request a public
investigation into how these “inadvertent” lapses/oversights occurred in a
project that has been five years in the planning.
Page 17 of 19
4) I request that the county begin aggressively enforcing the 30pmh posted
speed limit Hanshaw Road.
5) I request that you provide an explanation of the use boundaries for my
property and a map and detailed description of the project’s impact on it.
6) I request that the County rethink this project in the search for an alternative
design—no wider lanes or shoulders, no traffic light--that will more effectively
calm traffic to observe the 30 mph posted speed limit, better serve the
principles of livability embraced by the Legislature, and better respect the
interests of the property owners, especially those who live on their Hanshaw
Road properties.
Response #74 - 1) See response #72-1,2, and 3.
2) The opportunity to submit written comments as extended by the County was
not required by EDPL, but was a courtesy extended once an easement was
identified on your property.
3) Your reference to a pattern in hearing notification is beyond County
comprehension. See response #72-1. Noted.
4) Your request will be forwarded to the County Sheriff.
5) Use boundaries on your property are based on the location of obstructions
such as utility poles and mailboxes and measurements of evidence of vehicle
usage.
6) See response #14-2. The proposed public project and the process for its
implementation well fit the County's mission statement. In it the Legislature
states it will create and implement policies that: enhance the economic
opportunity and well-being of all County residents; safeguard the health,
safety, and rights of our residents; protect the natural environment and
maintain the built environment; and prevent the need for more costly future
services.
Comment #75 - Hilary Acton:
1) Even with your hand delivery of the notice, the TCHD did not inform me in
the legal timeframe required for the Eminent Domain Procedure Law.
2) You are holding to an old model of transportation, not giving credence to a
future vision of the mode of transportation whether 10, 25 or 50 years from
now.
3) I would have liked to had the time to talk with the appropriate representatives
of Cornell University; to look at other solutions that would not have the overall
destruction of property and landscape, to answer their desire or need to have
faculty, staff and students barrel through Hanshaw Road on their way to
Cornell.
4) I also want to provide the site for inspiration to open the thinking of all parties
- Project for Public Spaces: http://www.pps.org/. Please take time to meander
through this site.
5) I have great understanding of what it means to "share the road" .... whether
by vehicle, bike or pedestrian. So when I hear of the expanded road lanes
and the overall blueprint that TCHD has designed, I will say that I am in
DISAGREEMENT with the project.
6) Looking at the reality of what will become increased speeds on Hanshaw, I
will tell you, as a parent; I would not be thrilled with my child crossing
Hanshaw to meet the school bus or to bike to school. This is especially with
the proposal of a traffic light at Warren & Hanshaw. A 4-way stop sign IS the
best means to ensure a flow of traffic in all directions, not creating a
bottleneck at that intersection with a traffic light. We, who live here, know the
best means of negotiating the intersection.
7) Communications and assumptions by many, have lead us all through a
quagmire, with years passing and expenses growing. With a renewal of focus
Page 18 of 19
and honest communications I believe we can resolve this with an outcome
that will be more then sufficient under the current road width.
Response #75 - 1) See response #72-1,2, and 3.
2) The project addresses identified existing needs and conditions, projecting
growth at a conservative rate for 20 years.
3) Cornell has had no input on the project, except indirectly by the concurrent
development of their transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (T-GEIS). See response #73-1e and #73-3.
4) Noted.
5) See response #73-1.
6) See response #73-1d. See response #5.
7) See response #1.
Page 19 of 19