No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-16 PUBLIC HEARING^ '4/ - PEACEFUL DRIVE - Realignment and Abandoned September 16 , 1980 Minutes of the public hearing held by the Town Board on the 16th of September 7 : 30 PM Present : Supv Cotterill , Clm Webb , Clm Metzger , Clm Jordan , Atty Perkins & Z . O . Stewart Absent : Clm Tarr Supv Cotterill read the notice that was published in the newspaper stating the purpose of said hearing was to consider the proposal to abandon a portion of Peaceful Drive , a Town Road , and to accept an offer of dedication from D E Sutton Associates , Inc . , of a new. realigned Peaceful Drive in the Ellis Highlands Subdivision in said Town of Dry*den . QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS Atty Barney wanted to know if Mr Sutton was going to indicate what he would planned to do ? Mr Sutton brought a survey map and showed the Town Board what he had proposed to do . The reason for the proposal was because in the lower area of the land they intended to bring in a road to spot houses through the woods . They do have a r- o- w there that angles to Peaceful Drive.: He felt that if he curved the road it would make the traffic flow easier and the car lights coming out would hit against the cemetery instead of shining in the bedroom and livingroom of the Hall residence . Supv Cotterill wanted to know if there were any houses built on now what is a public road ? • Mr Sutton said that there were some houses built there . He said that if the road is realigned, and the property involved would be sold to the Hall ' s because that portion of property would be landlocked . . Mr William Schutz from 6 Peaceful Drive , felt that the r - o- w is just a turn around and no different than the end of Peaceful. Drive , so why monkey around with it . He felt that you have a road 17 feet 6 inches wide that you will put more traffic on going to the development . A car is 7 feet wide and you .- are going to add more to . the road . He was concerned about losing his front yard . The town r- o- w is 60 feet . . Mr . Schutz wanted to know if the : end of ' Peaceful Drive was just a turn around ? Mr Sutton said that it was a r- o- w because it was intended to go into the other II development . The . Planning Board will tell you that when you subdivide land you have to provide an access road . 1 . Supv Cotterill said that he really couldn ' t answer these questions because the Planning Board has done all the work and they go very deep into not only what the current plans are , but what- any future plans are . He - was sure that they had analyzed this . Z . O . Stewart said that they did go over the proposal with Mr Sutton and they voted on the change . Mrs Emma Schutz , 6 Peaceful Drive didn ' t question the fact that the Planning Board didn ' t look into things , but she didn ' t believe that there were :any representatives of the people from Peaceful Drive at those meetings this year . They had been to one before . Supv - Cotterill wanted to know specifically if the residents from Peaceful Drive were objecting to the town to change the alignment of the road on the basis that it will increase traffic ? Mr Schutz said that it will increase traffic . and will cost the town money to widen the road and a lot of inconvenience , and if you put a cluster of houses in there it will certainly increase traffic , :.and a roadway closer to your front door . Supv Cotterill said that the. Hray Supt could tell us whether or not he feels a second exit should be considered at some point , or whether it will ever be brought back onto a public road in a different place which will allow people 2 choices . He wasn ' t sure about changing - the wideth of the road . Mr Schutz felt that it should be in the plans right at the beginning , because 20 years from how , if that comes true they would suffer for 20 years . Atty Barney spoke on behalf of Mr & Mrs Barry Cooper from 8 Peaceful Drive who are the owners of the lot and are most affected by this proposed change , which is lot # 3 . Atty Barney said that the way it is going to line up it appears that this will start right at the corner` of my clients lot and cut across and intersect where the old r-o- w was . As he understands it there is a utility or junction box roughly at the corner of the lot which will make this 60 feet in from the corner , or otherwise it will require relocation of some utilities , so you see it will be a fairly significant encroachment onto the space next to the lot owned by my client . Atty Barney said that he believed Mr Sutton acquired these lots as a result of a foreclosure sale and acquired also lot # 5 . At the time Mr Sutton acquired the lots this map that you see here was of a duly plotted subdivision and was on file and was of record . It had on it Peaceful Drive as you see it here . Mr Sutton was not the only one who acquired this map . Atty Barney said his client acquired lot # 4 at the time this map was on file , also Mr Schutz acquired lot # 3 and Mr Nims acquired lot # 7 . When Mr & Mrs Cooper purchased this lot they were concerned of course what might happen around them and by acquiring lot # 4 you see that they acquired a lot with a building lot next to them with a house already on it . They , 1 recognized that next door of course , another house might be built . They did not anticipate that they were going to have next door to them a highway that cuts across the corner of what is normally a building lot immediately adjacent . As the highway presently lines up , /g6 s in a straight lines:,-=Ifs :.there is going to be any additional construction they would be at least 2 lots over from ± t . They feel that this is going to be quite a significant change and would very definitely affect the value of their lot , and raise the question of whether the detrimental affect that it has on their lot is offset by the benefits of not having car lights shining in the bedroom and livingroom that supposedly would benefit the Hall ' s from this change . Also , he didn ' t see the map before , but is a little troubled with the legality of the situation because as he sees what is intended here , that if this board here tonight would proceed it would be abandoning a stretch of road and accepting a new stretch Of curved road and would create by that ' action today a landlocked parcel of land . across the road . There would be no access to any road at all by Mr Hall . What they intend to do in the future to alleviate that cannot possible occur . Tonight , I do not think that there is any legal basis to proceed because as I understand the Highway Law you cannot abandon a road if you do not preserve access for other properties , and at this point Mr Hall would have no '-access at all . I think this is a legal reason why this board should not proceed on this tonight . I think that even if that legal reason were overcome , that the detriment that Mr & Mrs Cooper would suffer by reason of change out weighs any benefits that Mr & Mrs Hall would obtain . Atty Barney added that Mr & Mrs Cooper did attend a Planning Board meeting about a year ago in May of 1979 and at that time there was some discussion and the Planning Board did indicate in general an approval , but it was an approval on a conditional agreement being reached between the Coopers and Mr Sutton and Mr & Mrs Hall . Since that time there has been no effort by Mr Sutton to communicate with the Coopers . The Coopers , I might add are not saying don ' t change the road at all they are ` perfectly milling to tee . . _if - somethimg could . . be worked _ out _ where it :•would move the road , down a lot . This would make the curve in the road a little earlier . The manner in which it is proposed right now of course creates a situation where the Coopers end up with a corner lot . Atty Barney stated on behalf of the Coopers that a sharp left hand turn has a benefit form of speed control basis as opposed to a tapered turn as proposed here tonight . You would have traffic going into someday what might be a major subdivision . Thei .itrapdoesn ' t properly show what Mr Sutton intends to do , it shows it more of a curve , which allows fairly extensive speed , where if you had a left hand turn it would force cars to slow down to make that turn . Atty Barney felt that should have some significance for all the neighbors . Again keeping in mind that they bought with a proposed subdivision in mind , the same subdivision map that Mr Sutton bought that was inexistence' when he bought . This is also a consideration from their standpoint that should make considerable difference , from the traffic flow standpoint to be able to require cars to slow down to make a turn than to go at a fairly . high rate of speed . Mr Cooper also wanted to make a point that at the meeting on May 1979 when this proposal was first put before the Planning Board as Mr Barney had indicated the board agreed that they would have no objection if all parties on the street were able to agree on the proposal , at that same time it . was deferred for future discussion . At that time Mr Cooper said he had voiced concern that he needed to be kept in contact with any future minutes to be made on this . At that time Mrs Caldwell requested Mr Sutton that he advise me of any future revision made on this and Mr Cooper said that he was afraid that Mr Sutton has not kept in contact . At that time Mr Sutton did agree to do that but he did not notify me that he intended to discuss this again with the Town Planning Board nor did he advise me himself that this was to be discussd tonight . Mr Cooper said that his feeling was that the Town Planning Board at that time was very concerned that all residents on the street were happy with whatever realignment that could be agreed upon . As far as he was concerned he is happy with where the road is now . Mr Barney has already said that I am a reasonable person and willing to discuss a compromise , but I have never been able to get any reasonable discussion on that . He strongly objects to the realigment to the road , because when they bought the house they bought=whatl. they thought was an exisiting situation , and seems unfair to other residents to change the development just to benefit 1 resident and in his opinion to his disadvantage . r Mrs Schutz wanted to know , which she had heard from Mr Sutton , and this is different from what she heard at the meeting a year ago something about cluster houses and wanted to know what that meant ? Mr Cooper said that it was in the minutes of the meeting and would be official that Mr Sutton spoke of cluster houses and there was an approval . Mr Sutton said that he had talked about an idea for cluster houses with Mrs Caldwell but he had not planned on doing it right now . Mr Cooper said that it should be brought to the attention of this Town Board that in those minutes that it was indicated that there was a discussion with the intention to put in cluster housing on Peaceful Drive and Mr Cooper wasn ' t sure himself what cluster housing is , but sounds to him like a high density housing situation , obviously against zoning regulations . )1 ° , Supv Cotterill said . that what the board needs is some clarification as to what the current status is from Z . O . Stewart and Mr Sutton . At this point have there been any proposals for any extensions beyond the current subdivision ? Z . O . Stewart said that it has been discussed •but there haven ' t been any public hearings . Supv Cotterill said that Mr Sutton and the Planning Board have discussed what might be possible in the proposed area ; but nothing has been designed on a map or any hearings held . Currently the only proposal is to realign the road . Supv Cotterill wanted to know what the real advantage would be because it is almost where the road is now . Mr Sutton said that it would be a better road from a design point of view . t Clm Metzger said than really it wouldn ' t be a hardship if the road was left the way it is now , that it is just a design situation ? 4 Mr Sutton said that Mr Hall would like to buy the property that is on the other side of the road so there is a possible sale there . Mr Cooper said that he has offered to buy lot # 5 , the same parcel , and at one stage Mr Sutton promised him that he would sell him that at an agreed price . That was before this altered road proposal was ever voiced . Infact , Mr Sutton had told neighbors in our area that he agreed to sell him that lot , so he has a sale on my side also . Mr Sutton said that Mr Cooper was certainly welcome to the '' lot so that this can be resolved . Mr Sutton said that another thing Mr Cooper didn ' t mention was the cost of moving the electrical box during the number of times that they did talk , which would amount to over $ 750 . 00 Mr Cooper said that he intended on getting an agreement on a compromise situation and he has talked at least . l0 times . Mr , Cooper ' said he had always indicated he would resist encroaching or changing the local environment by changing the road and finds this proposal an undesirable situation . They did not buy a house to have the road changed . They bought a house on a straight road and they do not happen to like corner lots . You will admit that I have always said to uou that I am willing to agree to a compromise situation and I have tried to be very reasonable . • Mr Sutton said that he has been caught with trying to make peace with the neighbors . Mr Michael Hall from 7 Peaceful Drive , said that he has been referred to several times during this hearing and he would first like to sort out the issues . First of all the issue as he sees it is it doesn ' t have anything to do with Cooper vs Hall . We are both interested in acquiring more property in addition to the property that we now own . The issue seems to be in my case can Mr Sutton reroute a road across his property or not since he owns all the property in question ? It has been an unfortunate issue in the neighborhood because it has been very divided . He felt that everyone in the neighborhood wouldn ' t mind a dead end street and stay that way for perpetuity . The fact remains that Peaceful Drive goes 2 places right now . At a point in the future it could be a feeder to either end of the property , which Mr Sutton has acquired , formerly owned -by Keist , or it could go straight to another piece of property fronted on Ellis Hollow Road . Mr Hall ' s opinion , which differs from other people on the road , is that . the nature of the road is better served . by something other than a formal subdivision layout in the sense that ' it shows on the existing map , coming down a winding country road and stopping to make a left hand turn . . There was mentioned that there would be a benefit to me and my house from car lights and what -not , this is true if the road slanted in such a way no matter where it is located the lights would point into the cemetery . The issue here , as he sees it , has been very unfortunate because it has caused a lot of strain in the neighborhood , because bothhhimt and Mr Cooper have an unsolvable problem where they both would like to add more land to their existing property . It is his . opinion that a somewhat curved road there better fits the Ellis Hollow approach to the design . Like it or not if you live on Peaceful Drive you can be hooked up to another piece of property with as many houses as any board in the future . wants to approve in that adjacent property for building . All the traffic will Come down Peaceful ' Drive or any other exit or entrance that is put into that property . Mr Hall said that he Is happy with where the road is now , but when he bought his house he had hoped to pick up some property across the road from Peaceful Drive and maybe someday be here at the Town Board meeting trying to relocate the road on .his property , which in all probability would not pass at this point . The land locked issue is a legal issue which can be solved with an easement in the event that I could not reach a satisfactory agreement . Mr Hall wanted it clearly .understood that there has been a wedge driven between Mr Cooper and himself over -something that has nothing to . do with our personalities . We are both competing over the same intersts and Mr. Sutton is caught - in the middle . • • di D Supv Cotterill said that the only issue here is to hear comments as to the problems of leaving the road where it is or moving it . I think you will have to understand that if the board doesn ' t do anything with the road . or . we do , either way , it has no bearing on what happens in the future for any subdivision which this board has no control over . It is the Planning Board ' s decision . The Town Boards 'only decision would be whether or not there would be any advantage to move the road or not . Mr Charles Nims from 1 Peaceful Drive , who is not interested in acquiring any property , would like to know what has been approved and what is before the board ; Maybe Mr Sutton could inform us as to what his plans are right now? Supv Cotterill said there have been some tentative plans disdussed with the Planning Board , but . there have been no maps or formal presentation of . anything definite . The Planning Board therefore , can ' t say that they favor or disfavor anything because they haven ' t been presented a map . which would show a certain kind of T proposal . Supv Cotterill said he is certain Mr Sutton has done some informal discussion with the Planning Board , but he has no idea what it would be . If Mr Sutton would like to comment , he is welcome to . Mr Sutton said that at this moment it is basically up in the air . We are looking at different types of houses to put in there and we do want to keep it low density and keep the houses in the woods . Mrs Schutz said that since Mr Sutton owns quite a bit of property why doesn ' t he leave Peaceful Drive alone and come in from some other road to his new development . Supv Cotterill said that he couldn ' t answer that , the Planning Board and Hwy Supt . would have to analyze any future proposals as to the advantage and disadvantage for a subdivision . Atty Barney wanted to know if the change was permitted and the road was abandoned and there was no future development by Mr Sutton where would the trucks turnaround ? Supv Cotterill said that Hwy Supt . Humphrey would have to answer that question if there was required a new turnaround . Hwy Supt Humphrey said that he would need a turnaround at the' end of the development . Supv Cotterill said that it would be required of any road that does not have a complete cycle to have a turnaround at the end of what is a public road . Atty Barney said that this plan does not show any turnaround . Mr Schutz said that you are really arguing over changing a turnaround . You aren ' t changing the road but changing the turnaround because that is where the trucks turnaround_: 'now . . Mr Cooper said that the reason he wanted to buy the property was because they have problems with severe winds coming out of the west and he wanted to plant trees there for a wind break . If this new proposal were to pass and he was to acquire the land it would be completely useless because he wouldn 't be able to plant enough trees to make it helpful . . Supv Cotterill wanted to know if Hwy Supt Humphrey had any comments ? Hwy Supt Humphrey said he had talked with Mr Sutton several months ago when he was proposing this change and told him , that as long as everyone agreed on the new proposal it was alright with him and felt that it should be up to the people who live on the road . They have a big concern and he can see their points of view . As long as the road is built to the town specifications is what he is concerned about . Atty Barney said that it seems to him that the Town Board is being asked to alter , whether you want to be put in a position or not , the statusquo . The situation right now is as it has been for a number of years , and people have acted on reliance of this and people have bought , knowing this Mr Sutton has bought and he knew what he was buying . You are being asked to change that situation . Atty Barney asked the Town Board for their consideration in the matter to think whether altering the statusquo is really appropriate for the board to do , given the really strong feelings from the people living there seemed to have expressed tonight . Mr Dennis Lowes representing Mr Sutton said the reason for the proposed relocation of the road is because a proposed extension into the former Keist property would hook up with the new proposed zelocation _ much more conveniently . We do anticipate in the future any road that is going to be built across the former Keist property , that it would bear westerly and deflect somewhat from the property line , but essentially bear westerly toward the lower end of the cornfields . With this realignment proposal the connection to any future development would eliminate one more corner or curve to what exists at the present time . Mr Schutz couldn ' t see changing a statusquo for something nebulous . Plans are not facts and things to change . Supv Cotterill thahked everyone for coming and expressing their views . Closed Public Hearing : 8 : 20 P . M . • TOWN BOARD MEETING 1 SEPTEMBER 16 , 1980 Minutes of the Town Board meeting held on the 16th of September . Supv Cotterill called the meeting to order at 8 : 25PM Members and guests participated in the Pledge of Allegiance . Roll call was by the Town Clerk : Present : Supv Cotterill , Clm Webb , Clm Metzger • Clm Jordan , Atty Perkins and Z . O . Stewart Absent : Clm Tarr Approval of the minutes : Motion was made by Clm Metzger and 2nd by Clm Jordan that the minutes of August 12th Public Hearing # 1 and Public Hearing # 2 and Town Board meeting held on . Auguste: 12th .. be approved as submitted . Supv Cotterill appointed Clm Jordan to audit General Fund Bills COUNTY BRIEFING - absent Atty Perkins reported on the intersection of Irish Settlement Road that the county has agreed to tee up the intersection and move Mr Cook ' s shed to provide more visibility and put rumble strips on Ferguson Rd . approach to the intersection and make ditches to provide limited access to Mr Cook ' s barns . This would provide more visibility , more of an intersection requiring a stop rather than a thru intersection including rumble strips , and the relocation of a shed and barn yard fence . Supv Cotterill said he could see no reason to have rumble strips on a town road . From the town ' s point of view he felt the county should install a stop sign , not a yield sign and rumble strips . i RESOLUTION # 120 REQUEST THE COUNTY TO INSTALL STOP SIGNS WHEREVER ___ FERGUSON RD AND FERGUSON RD EXT . INTERSECTS WITH IRISH SETTLEMENT ROAD AND NO RUMBLE STRIPS Clm Jordan offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Dryden Town Board request the county to install stop signs any where Ferguson Rd and Ferguson Rd Ext intersects with Irish Settlement Rd and that the Town Board also requests that there are no rumble strips installed on the town road . 2nd din Webb Roll call vote - Supervisor Cotterill YES Councilman Webb YES Councilman Metzger YES Councilman Jordan YES Councilman Tarr Absent Supv Cotterill reported that the Town of Drdyen has received a flag from Congressman Gary Lee . . Supv Cotterill said that he has asked Eric Stevens to build another flag case similar to the one in the court room , to be hung in the board room . ATTORNEY Atty Perkins reported on a proposed agreement with Robert Wells , 64 E Main St . , Dryden , who is a private developer in the Village of Dryden . Mr Wells would like a joint , ventUr.re with the Town of Dryden for an extension of some 370 feet of 8 " sewer lateral from the existing Dryden mains across Dryden Central School property to . a manhole and the town taking the lateral from the manhole to the town property . . .. RESOLUTION #121 . AGREEMENT BETWEEN. ROBERT J . WELLS AND THE TOWN OF DRYDEN REGARDING WATER & SEWER Clm Jordan offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption . RESOLVED , that this agreement is made this 16th day of September 1980 , by and between Robert J Wells , East Main Street , Dryden , New York 13053 , hereinafter . referred to as the Developer ; and the Town of Dryden , a municipal corporation , 65 " East Main Street , Dryden , New York 13053 , hereinafter referred to as the Town . WHEREAS , the Developer has plans to develop as a subdivision certain property which is located on • East Main Street in the Village and Town of Dryden , County of Tompkins and • State of New York , and which property is directly across the street (New York State Route 392 ) from property rahiOh: is owned by the Town of Dryden , and on which is situate the Town Highway Garage and the Town Hall and WHEREAS , the septic system serving the Town Hall and the . Town Highway Garage is inadequate for its intended use and in need of replacement , and WHEREAS ; the Town deems it to be in the best interests of - the " Town • to . have the • Town facilities served by a municipal sewer system since the Town " facilities are currently served by municipal water , and - WHEREAS , it would be in the best interests of the Town from the standpoint of the public health , safety and welfare , and from an economic standpoint to participate in the construction of an eight inch sewer lateral with the Developer on *the terms hereinafter contained to serve property owned by the Developer and the Town ; • ° / / R NOW THEREFORE , the Town and the Developer hereby agree as follows : 1 . The Town and the Developer agree to construct an( -- sight inch sewer lateral from the existing Village of Dryden sanitary sewer on Montgomery Street in the Village of Dryden eastwardly across property owned by -Dryden Central School to lands of the Developer which are across the street from lands of the . Town . 2 . The Developer agrees to furnish all the material for the construction of said sewer lateral . 3 . The Town agrees to furnish all labor and equipment for the construction of said sewer lateral . 4 . The sewer lateral shall be constructed according to the plans prepared by Rowell & Associates , and the specifications contained therein and referred to as follows : A . Water , Sewer , Drainage dated May 13 , 1977 , and last revised May 23 , 1977 ; B . Sewer and Drainage Profiles dated May 17 , 1977 , and last revised May 23 , 1977 ; C . Sanitary System Details dated and revised May 17 , 1977 ; D . Drainage System Details dated and revised May 17 , 1977 . All of the above proposals and specifications are referred to under " Wells Development , Village of Dryden , Tompkins Co . , New York " and were prepared by William H Rowell , a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor . 5 . The obligation of the Town and the Developer shall include the construction of a manhole at the terminus of the sewer lateral on Montgomery Street , and the construction of the lateral to and including a manhole on the northwest corner of Lot Number 1 as shown on the plans above referred to . (identified as M . H . 2 ) 6 . The Town shall bear all the expense of extending the lateral from M . H . 2 across East Main Street to the Town Propety and any hookups to Town facilities . 7 . All work shall be completed according to the specifications herein referred to and according to the specifications Of the Village of Dryden and the Tompkins County Health Department . ' 8 . The Developer agrees to procure any and all necessary permits and approvals for the construction of the sewer lateral . 9 . Should the sewer lateral ever become eligible for dedication as a public sewer main to become part of the Village of Dryden sanitary sewer system , then the Developer agrees to immediately take whatever steps are necessary to turn over the said sewer lateral to the Village of Dryden , its successors or assigns as a part of said sanitary sewer system . 10 . Should the Developer ever receive any reimbursement , credits or monies from the Village of Dryden , or any duly constituted sewer district or other entity for the construction of the lateral as herein provided , then the Developer agrees to pay over to the Town , one- half of such amount . 11 . After the initial construction as herein provided , the Developer agrees to provide all maintenance at his own expense for the said sewer lateral from its terminus on Montgomery Street to M . H . 2 . 12 . This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs , successors , personal representatives , distributees , and assigns of the parties hereto , as the case may be . IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this agreement this 16th day of September , 1980 . Robert J . Wells , Developer: TOWN OF DRYDEN by Clinton E Cotterill , Supervisor 2nd Clm Metzger Roll call vote - all voting YES Atty Perkins reported that Clm Metzger had received a letter from the owner of Spring Water Motel requesting an extension of water and sewer lines . There are 2 ways that the town can proceed for the extension or enlargement of an ' existing - water district . 1 - would be by a petition duly signed and executed by 25 owners of . taxable property in the proposed extended water district , or by 5 % of the owners of taxable property which ever is less _ pursuant - to Article 12 of Town Law . 2- Pursuant to Arti .ele, 12A of Town Law would. require the Town Board to adopt a ; resolution subject to . acpermissiye referendum that the town will spend a certain amount of money to investigate the feasibility of a proposed extension for a water or sewer district , Atty Perkins felt the best way would be to follow Article 12 of Town Law . He said he will let the owner know that the town is going to use Article 12 of Town Law so he will need to get a duly executed petition . ZONING OFFICER Issued 9 permits for the month of August . 1 one family ; 3 mobile homes (1 double II ':wide 2 regular ) ; 4 additions ; and 1 garage . ZBOA' granted a variance to Lee Robins for a double wide trailer . There was some question as to whether he had area enough for it on his property on Johnson Rd . Also reported that we have received the new town directories . Supv Cotterill thanked Z . O . Stewart , Town Clerk Lloyd and Sec McFall for all the work they did . HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT Hwy Supt Humphrey said that he talked with the county in regard to installing a stop sign at the intersection of Upper Creek Rd and Etna Rd , there was a yield sign there before . They have now installed the new sign . X13 George Rd is ready to be paved , he is just waiting for the road paver . Also the wall has been put up in back of the Town Hall and after the drainage problem has been solved the parking lot will be paved . CORRESPONDENCE Supv Cotterill read the ambulance report . The month of August there were 20 emergency calls , 3 . non emergency • calls , 6 dry runs for a total of 29 runs and 111 man hours . 15 runs to Tompkins Co Hosp . and 8 runs to Cortland Hosp . 24 runs made with 2 EMT ' s and 5 runs made with 1 EMT . 854 miles traveled . Fire calls - 12 calls , 2 MVA , 4 false alarms and 6 fire calls . 6 village calls and 6 town calls . Approximately $ 6 , 000 . 00 in property loss . Total man hours 194 and training man hours 72 . Highway annual inventory NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation - negative declaration . Joint sewer meeting Sept 23rd . - RESOLUTION # 122 DRYDEN KIDDS INC - REIMBURSABLE FUNDS Clm Webb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the Dryden KIDDS Inc contribute to the Town of Dryden the maximum sum of $ 4 , 000 . 00 and the Town will reimburse Drdyen KIDDS Inc to whatever extent the Town receives from NYS Division for Youth . 2nd Clm Jordan Roll call vote - all voting YES RESOLUTION # 123 TRANSFER FUNDS FROM APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE TO SIGNS CONTRACTUAL 3620 . 2 Clm Metzger offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption . RESOLVED , that this Town Board authorize the Supv to transfer $ 300 . 00 from Appropriated Fund Balance to Signs , contractual 3620 . 2 2nd Clm Jordan Roll call vote - all voting YES RESOLUTION # 124 TRANSFER FUNDS FROM GENERAL B APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE TO HIGHWAY ITEM #1 Clm Metzger offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption . RESOLVED , that this Town Board authorize the Supv to transfer $ 20 , 000 . 00 from General B appropriated fund balance to Highway Iten # 1 for repairs and improvements . 2nd Clm Jordan Ro11 call vote - all voting YES DISCUSSION Tabled mass meetings until October meeting Ed Bell reported to the Town Board with regard to Dryden Ambulance Budget . Storage is $12 , 000 . 00 per year per vehicle and they are now supporting 2 ambulances . Insurance has increased and replacement is up . They were allowing $ 8 , 000 . 00 and have raised it to $10 , 000 . 00 over a 5 year period . Gas has increased . EMT training has increased and the training hours have increased for advanced EMT ' S . They did raise the budget in Harford and Virgil by • 20 % but will have to be increased more next year . Supv Cotterill said that he had received several requests from citizens to request the state to take some action at the intersection of Route # 38 , Route #13 and Lee Rd . The Village of Dryden requested something to be done in May 1974 and tbeyic'Ceived a letter back from the state , stating that they agreed that it had substantial traffic volume that a traffic signal might be needed . Due to the volumes , additional studies were accomplished that it showed that the installation of a traffic signal would in all probability increase user delays at the intersection . Their study also indicated that the accidents which have occurred at the intersection did not show any tendencies towards having been able to be eliminated or alleviated by the installation of a traffic signal . For the reasons above the request for a traffic signal is denied . Supv Cotterill said that he usually doesn ' t travel that part of the road in the morning but people have told him that it is very congested with the school traffic , school buses , and traffic going to TC 3 and there have been many minor accidents there . Supv Cotterill felt that this Town Board should take some action and request the , state to do something . If a traffic signal isn ' t the answer tha maybe widening the road and making a passing lane there because something should be done . Clm Webb said that he had spoken with John Coghlan who had reported this intersection to the County Transportation Committee and was told by the state man that comes down) that they do not feel that this intersection is a problem . Hwy Supt Humphrey said from 7 : 30AM to 8 : 00AM it is very congested and is often backed up to Lewis Street . / RESOLUTION # 125 REQUEST NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A SOLUTION AND IMPROVEMENT AT THE CORNER OF STATE ROUTE # 13 and STATE ROUTE # 38 Clm Webb : offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption . RESOLVED , that this Dryden Town Board request New York State Department of Transportation for some improvements to the serious congestion and problems at the intersection of State Route # 13 and State Route # 38 . 2nd Clm Jordan Roll call vote - Supervisor Cotterill YES Councilman Webb YES Councilman Metzger YES Councilman Jordan YES Councilman Tarr Absent RESOLUTION # 126 GENERAL FUND BILLS Clm Webb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the general fund bills be paid as audited . 2nd Clm Jordan Roll call vote - all voting YES RESOLUTION # 127 HIGHWAY BILLS Clm Metzger offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the ' highway bills be paid as audited . 2nd Clm Jordan Roll call vote - all voting YES Judge Newhart - $1467 . 00 Judge Sweetland - $ 1826 . 00 FINANCIAL REPORTS REVENUES EXPENSES General Fund A • $ 8084 . 54 $ 25014 . 69 General Fund B 376 . 84 . 960 . 08 Fire Protection District 221 . 68 - 0 - Federal Revenue Sharing - 0 - 9956 . 07 Highway 2017 . 41 31202 . 07 NEW BUSINESS . Schedule work meeting for budget Oct 2nd at 7 : 00PM The Town Board postphone, decision on the public hearing regarding the realignment of Peaceful Drive until the Oct 14th meeting . f Adjourned : 9 : 50 PM O C*001-eb Susanne Lloyd Town Clerk _