Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-09 f° / I i • { 1 June 9 , 1985 TO : RESIDENTS OF THE PROPOSED SNYDER HILL WATER DISTRICT 1 . There will be a public hearing on the formation of the Snyder Hill W ater District at 7 : 80 pm on Monday June 10 , 1985 at the Dryden Town Hall . 2 . A letter was presented to the Town Board at their regular meeting o n may 14 , 1985 requesting a smaller district to include all those houses either side of Snyder Hill up to Marsit ' s on the south , Corbin ' s on the north and parcel 69 - 2 - 3 . 3 . Nineteen of the 21 ✓ esidents along Snyder Hill Road signed the letter . 3 . At the Town Board meeting on may 14 , 1985 Atty . Buyoucos reminded the Town Board of possible future costs to the residents if future d evelopment of lands to the South of Snyder Hill Road occurred . He also stated we were not trying to hinder or prevent development of the property , but wanted to be assured that costs for expansion would not be charged back to the origional bresidental properties . Atty . B uyoucos suggested a second • district be formed in the future to accomodate the additional 103 acres and the Underwood property . The Town Board adopted a resolution by Councilman Evans to form a smaller district based on the letter from the residents , but he suggested he would contact Underwoods and others to determine if they wanted in the district . If so , he would recall the question . The board stated they could not make any meetings before 6/ 10 / 85 to move the new smaller district ahead ; therefore a public hearing was set for June 10 , 1985 . 4 . On May 21 , 1985 a Special Town Board meeting was called to reinstall the Underwood and Prince Property into the district . S everal Board members stated that any development costs for the additional property would not be charged to the district . Discussion was limited by Chairman Cotterill to 5 minutes for e ach side of the discussion . Atty Buyoucos spoke for the smaller d istrict and stated that at no time in his many years of working with a Town Board had he been limited 0 his time to speak . Pat Underwood read a prepared statement indicating they wanted to be included within the district and fully expected to pay for the additional costs associated with the development of the additional . land . 5 . Atty . Buyoucos has requested an opinion by the State Comptroller ' s o ffice on how the additional costs can be charged through a letter sent on May 28 , 1985 . He also requested an answer by June 10 , 1985 . The Dryden Town Lawyer was also notified of this action . 6 . Our options at this time are : ( 1 ) If the resident owners along Snyder Hill Road object to formation of the larger district now proposed , we can ask for a referendum and the matter will be decided by the vote of the people . ( 2 ) We . will not object to the formation of the presently proposed larger district if there are clear and u nambiguous assurances that no part of any future extension of facilities south of Snyder Hill Road will be charged to the entire district . The Town Board and the Town Atty . at each of the recent meetings we have attended , have told us the cost of extension of facilities south of Snyder Hill Road will be charged solely to the j Underwood parcel and the Underwood - Prince 103 acre parcel , and that no part of the cost of any additional facilities occasioned by an e xtension to the south of water mains and appurtenant facilities will be borne by the entire district . 7 . ' You are encouraged to attend the public hearing on June 10 , 1985 ati 7 : 00 pm at the Dryden Town Hall and listen to the discussion . J Shaw Reid Don Willemsen _�_ M ------- - - - - - - - - - I 4 I • :I 7 ' 90 . . FROM : James V . Buyoucos , Attorney for Resident Petitioners TO : Members of the Town Board and the Town Attorney RE : Proposed Snyder Hill Road Water District " Underwood/ Prince " means the 103 acre parcel owned by Mr . Prince ' s beneficiaries or heirs . " Underwood Residence Parcel " is the 2 . 95 acre parcel occupied by Mr . and Mrs . Underwood . The only facilities to be constructed as shown on the Engineer ' s Map , Plan and Report are the water main , hydrants and appurtenances This memorandum relates to the allocation of costs if Underwood and/ or Underwood- Prince wish to extend the water main and facilities in the future . - i ARNEY, ROTH rLAW I STRUT 0 :00P0000 • • • ity • t H • • • i I - •r .5'59 J1(55C. 1�1 - _• r � / • I - 2 - • l The resident owners of the lots on either side of Snyder Hill Road have submitted to the Town Board a letter for inclusion in the minutes of this Public Hearing being held on June 10 , 1985 . This letter , in essence , confirms the previously stated position o f these resident owners that they are concerned only that no portion of the cost of any extensions of water mains , hydrants and o ther facilities south of Snyder Hill into the Underwood/ Prince parcel and the Underwood Residence Parcel shall be charged to the entire District and that any other costs occasioned by any such e xtension requiring additional facilities in Snyder Hill Road similarly shall not be charged to the entire District . This has been their position consistently throughout these proceedings . At the May 14th Public Hearing it was stated by me that this objective could be attained if the larger Underwood/ Prince parcel and the Underwood Residence Parcel were not included in the proposed District . This is clearly stated to be the law . Accordingly , when the Town Board limited the boundaries to the Snyder Hill Road lots at its May 14th Meeting , the issue seemed i to be settled . It was stated by me and by some of the resident owners that there would not be anything to prevent the formation of a separate district at once , by the owners of the Underwood parcel and the Underwood- Prince parcel . However , the Town Board and the Town Attorney have stated numerous times in the course of these proceedings that costs of any future extensions south into Underwood/Prince would be borne �i , by that area . This seems tq. be the law according to the Town Law . 1 5, SARNEY. / SSMAN & Sd0'TH I oRnEV0 AT LAW 'IOQTH YIOQA STREET , aox eeao NE?! YORK I4Q5I•4666: • . T4 it • N ! "�.' ;--;'��'99^^i..�'�,�,410: j+ 1 v b s� ' 1 ''�•4 ZIW -t ;IC 3 ti k9 Ffkf iq �'. *2 t 'v ;:'. �` ,�cc11j � YYLL. �upp+�a'\ ••,��r� vG{{{.S �'tyy / '�F RryryYY y?'�w .� 1t� JCi�W:y.C�.(T;�z� ��} ._�1M3�2� �Y.eTY�k?J 3fl �Y ��"'��M C3hF��TY.., 7a - 3- There is a procedure and practice under which there would ' no question of the allocation of costs for the construction of extensions of water main and increases to facilities occasionec by future development . Underwood/ Prince must apply to the Planning Board for approval of the subdivision . Under the Town Law ( Sec . 277 ) , the Planning Board shall require , as a condition of sub - division approval that the developer , at his expense , construct the water main south from Snyder Hill Road . This is customary procedure . I understand that this procedure will be followed by the Town Board . The assurance that the Town Board will follow this procedure will provide the necessary assurance to the Snyder Hill Road resident property owners within the proposed district as reduced in the determination made by the Town Board on May 14th . I believe the following facts are pertinent : 1 . The Engineer ' s map , plan or report shows only a water mas . , and hydrants in Snyder Hill Road . • 2 . No application has been made to the Planning Board for approval of any subdivision proposal . It is my understanding ( confirmed by the Town Board and the Town Attorney ) the owners of the , Underwood/ Prince 103 acre parcel expect to construct the water main laterals and water distribution system for the subdivision at their expense . 3 . As to the Underwood Residence Parcel , the Underwoods have xpressed their understanding that any connection by them with the ate r, main in Snyder Hill Road will be at their expense . The Toy i moard and the Town Attorney Wave so indicated . :os. SARNEY. MAN & IKOTN INEYS AT LAW STN TIOOA STREET O. 00A 0550 LW YORK 14551•9550 .'421.- « Shaw-Rei•d-- the-question has been-asked--as-to-when-a-resident-would have-- — to .hook on to the water main if the district is established ? Atty Perkins - there are other water districts where there is no `;requirement , that you hook on , and was not sure if the Town Board has established policy . . f . 4 - ; ' , 1 73 Atty Buyous wanted the following submitted for the record . • FOR : Town Board - Snyder Hill Road Water District - FROM : James V . Buyoucos , Attorney for Resident Property Owners In making the above determinations and findings , the Town Board . is aware of the concerns of the resident property owners along Snyder Hill Road ( in the District as reduced on May 14th ) that no part of the costs of any future extension of water mains ca and appurtenances south of Snyder Hill Road into the District as enlarged at the June 10th Hearing or the costs of any additions or increases to the Snyder Hill. Road water main as shown on the Engineer ' s Map and Report occasioned by such extension would be charged back to the ` entire District . The Town Board has ordered the inclusion of the 2 . 95 acre Underwood Residence Parcel ( Tax Parcel 69 - 2 -3 .' 4 ) and the 103 ± acre Underwood- Prince Parcel ( Tax Parcel 69 - 2 - 3 . 2) in the Snyder Hill dater District . The original construction will consist of the water main , fire ydrants and appurtenances in Snyder Hill Road as set forth in the 'ngineer ' s Plan , Map and Report . • The Town Board further resolves that it is the intention of e Town Board in making the aforesaid determination that if the • wners of the Underwood Residence Parcel and the Underwood- Prince !Parcel should seek to connect with the water main in Snyder Hill road , the costs of any and all extensions of the water main and ether appurtenances south of Snyder Hill Road and the costs of any ncrease or additions to the Snyder Hill Road Water Main and apppurtenances occasioned by such southerly extension shall be borne by Underwood and Underwood- Prince and no portion of such costs shall be charged back to the original. District . i Closed public hearing - 7 : 15PM .45 :ipaaltetW.: .. fa' oYN ;ner E: 'a; ;>'s t t i Mr'a1/454. r zcim• 974• ar� rawattr..K.S:rnsw '= .�ae.:w..,.�.. _... -- _ - +.�...y.+.e.+. m...•...i..r::.s. . L , ; • . t ' • 111 • PUBLIC HEARING # 2 June 10 , 1985 District Regulations Aritle XII M-A Zone - - Minutes of public hearing # 2 Supv Cotterill read the notice that was published in the newspaper concerning amendments to the Town of Dryden Zoning ' Ordinance by addiing a new Article XII District Regulations - M-A Zone . QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS Supv Cotterill - this public hearing is held because there have been some changes made in the wording and hopefully this _ will clarify any questions that might • have been raised . Mrs Catherine Brown - wanted in the record . Various members on the Town Board have said that in the M-A Zone nothing is allowed that is not already possible in a. R- C Zone . They have compared the list in Section 1201 of the 15 allowed uses under the new M-A Zone of what was allowed before in the R- C Zone , of those 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , and 15 in no way appear in the present zoning ordinance as possibly allowed uses in the R- C Zone even by a permit . Supv Cotterill - there is a difference between possible and allowed and , .understood what she was saying . Anything is possible , but lots are not allowed , but by a • variance anything is possible . That is what he met by saying anything is possible . A variance is, a lot easier to get than something thru this :Board . . Mrs Brown - what it says under ZBOA under the section variances . If those directions are followed there is no way that they would put a factory near her residence , if they were followed . • Mrs Brown wanted the following entered into the minutes . June 6 , 1985 To Supervisor Cotterill & the Dryden Town Board : We wish to protest again the actions of the Dryden Town Board in respect to the new M - A Zone in the west end of the town in the Hanshaw Road - Route 13 - Lower Creek Road area , and in respect to the proposed amendments ( new Article XII and additional Article XXIII ) to the town Zoning Ordinance . We also object to the Board ' s resolutions in regard to SEQR , and to the negative Environmental Assessment Statements filed by Supervisor Cotterill with the state and regional offices of the Department of Environmental Conservation on May 3 , 1985 ( letter and form dealing with the new M - A Zone near Hanshaw Road and Route 13 ) and on May 9 , 1985 ( two letters and forms dealing with the proposed Site Plan Review Board amendment , Article XXIII ; and with the proposed M - A Zone Regulations , Article XII ) . I We submit that we , who live in a residential neighborhood that will be severely affected by the new M - A Zone and the regulations proposed for it , as well as by the proposed Site Plan Review Board , did not have adequate notice of the Town Board ' s intentions or actions with regard to the pertinent SEQR 7S declarations or to the type of Environmental Assessment Form that was being filed in these three matters . In fact , from the very beginning of this zoning controversy , we have had great difficulty and encountered repeated delays in obtaining copies of the necessary documents ( minutes of official meetings and public hearings , including the Board ' s SEQR resolutions ; and letters and Environmental Assessment Forms already submitted ; etc . ) and other information which would have enabled us to understand and protest what the Town Board was officially saying and doing about the environmental impact of their zoning proposals . ( When we first came across a reference to SEQR in some official minutes it was spelled " seeker " ! There was no way we could guess what • that referred to ! ) We tried for many days to obtain the records of the actions taken by the Town Board at its meetings , information needed to prepare for subsequent meetings or public hearings . After each meeting or public hearing we had to make several visits and phone calls to the Town Cletk ' s office before the minutes were available just before the next . meeting or hearing . She did not have the SEQR proceedings , but referred us to the town attorney ' s office . There we were referred back to the Supervisor ' s office . In all , it took several days , and phone calls by two of us , and repeated trips to Dryden , to get this material . Now that we have finally secured access to the minutes of the various Board meetings and public hearings , and to Supervisor Cotterill ' s letters to the state and regional offices of the DEC ( with attached EAF for each of the three resolutions ) , we find the negative declaration as to the environmental impact on our focal area , and some of the information checked on the ( short ) EAF in each case , to be clearly incorrect according to the criteria in Section 617 . 11 of the SEQR regulations . ( see subsections ( 1 ) , ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) , ( 8 ) of Section 617 . 11 ) . It appears to us that the negative declaration was made in callous and arbitrary derogation of the public interest , and that it is false . We believe that the Dryden Town Board as lead agency in these proceedings has not properly carried out its obligations in :a�;(cl `.�52 `n�rv'^5';m sipo�i ykiar ir:$&A�"���i�'.'+'t�l.kl-nt44. i.4 31-4e. 4..7.4zoti ., r P, tssf zt. : . eV. t L !iyy�".'sl.w.7vr;'>.nwvrr,J®�6,e ..- ......ate—flat „nv� T ( assessing the environmental impact of the aforementioned zoning • decisions and proposals , and we intend to follow up on this preliminary protest and pursue the questions raised by the Town Board ' s actions with regard to SEQR . adevi Catherine H . Brown and M ' n Creasy 515 Lower Creek Road 524 Lower Creek Road Ithaca , NY 14850 Ithaca , NY 14850 ( Town of Dryden ) ( Town of Dryden ) . Copies to : Commissioner , Dept . of Environmental Conservation , Albany , NY Regional Office , DEC , Cortland , NY PUBLIC HEARING # 3 June 10 , 1985 Article XXIII - SITE PLAN REVIEW BOARD Minutes of public hearing #3 Supv Cotterill read the notice that was published in the newspaper concerning changes in the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance to add a new Article XXIII Site Plan Review Board . QUESTIONS- AND/OR COMMENTS Mrs Catherine Brown - Article XXIII Section 2302 . 5 ( c) public hearing . It says • that the Site Plan Review Board may conduct a public hearing on the preliminary site plan . If the public hearing is considered desirable by the SPRB , the public hearing shall be conducted within 30 days of the receipt of the application for preliminary site plan approval and shall be advertised in the official Town newspaper at least 10 days before the public hearing . Anyone who may be affected in the future by the actions of the SPRB , they would like to change the wording ' to shall conduct a public hearing . They do not want to be arbitrarily deprived of the right to be heard. on particular things that are under consideration by the SPRB . Mrs Levin - wanted to go on record as objecting to the whole zoning changes that are being made . She felt that the Town Board is taking it upon themselves the decision that some of which should be heard by the public , and at ' least by another group . Supv Cotterill - the Planning Board has proposed the Board to encourage development in the Town , and the Planning Board has worked on this for at least 3 years and this is their recommendation . • Closed public hearing # 3 RESOLUTION - #120 PROPOSED SNYDER HILL WATER Clm Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED., _;that_ .this. ..Town_Board_authorize the Town Attorney to draw up a resolution _ _ forming the Snyder Hill Water District as proposed tonight with a statement showing the Town Board ' s intention as to future extensions that the cost will be borne by , those property owners of parcel # 69- 2- 3 . 2 and parcel # 69- 2- 3 . 4 and not worded by the Underwood or - Underwood/Prince . 2nd Clm schlecht 1 Roll call vote - all voting YES I Atty Buyoucos - wanted to know if there was anything wrong with . the last paragraph fag • he has submitted it ? ` After you make your determinations and findings . • Atty Perkins - he will take that into due consideration . . • j . • l r • 77 • Joel Rabinowitz , from the City of Ithaca •- I wish to speak to you tonight on the issue of. the Site Plan Review Board , in support of the position of the residents of Hanshaw and Lower Creek Roads and the Eight Square School neighborhood . Because I. do not live - in that area , it might be argued by some that it is inappropriate for me to be speaking about something that does not concern me . But in fact it does concern me , and I believe it is of concern to many folds all over Tompkins County who are worried about poorly planned development and the preservation of long- existing neighborhoods . In the past few years in Tompkins County , there have been a series of confrontations that can be loosely characterized as " neighborhood VS development battles " All to often in these battles , a neighborhood finds itself standing virtually alone before its elected officials , trying to plead its case . I know this from personal experience . My family and I live in a residential area of the City of Ithaca that has come to be known as the Valentine Place Neighborhood . For a year and a half , the residents of this area fought a difficult , discouraging and often bitter campaign to preserve the single family character of our neighborhood against innappropriate development . The bitterness , by the way , was due to the way we were treated . by certain City Officials , and it certainly did not have to be that way . Well , what does this have to do with the M-A Zone , the Site Plan Review and the issues before you tonight ? Valentine Place is a City neighborhood , the Eight Square School area is rural ; the municipalities are different , • the type of development proposed is different , and the people involved are different . And yet , as I have followed your M-A Zone issue in the press and in conversations with friends who live in the area I have noticed that the issue has followed an all - too familiar script . Both the Valentine Place and Eight Square School neighborhoods are composed of long- time older residents who have been paying property taxes for decades , along with younger couples who are just beginning to raise families . In both confrontations , a large part of the issue had to do with changes in zoning - zoning which was supposed to foster preservation and sensible planning , but in fact seems to be fostering the opposite . In both cases , the residents recognized the need for some development , as long as it was well planned , along a sensible corridor in your case , and in the case of Valentine Place , as long as it was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood . In both cases , the residents proposed resonable compromises , which were ult:igately rejected by elected officials and/or developers . In both cases , the neighbors found themselves placed in an adversarial position vis-a - vis certain of their elected representatives . In both cases , there was the strong perception that the developers had the " inside track " and undue influence with the City . of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden planners and elected officials . In both cases , environmentally valuable resourses could well be negatively impacted : Six Mile Creek in the City of Ithaca , and Sapsucker Woods , Fall Creek , and the Historic Eight Square Schoolhouse itself , in the Town of Dryden . And finally , in both cases , State-Mandated environmental review was virtually by passed . In the case of the M-A Zone the passage of which is a Type 1 action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) , the Town of. Dryden ' s failure to complete the full Environmental Assessment Form is in my opinion -• a violation of the SEQR mandate . • This failure does not inspire confidence in the proposed Site Plan Review Board , which you will be deciding on tonight . I note that nowhere in there , there is mention of SEQR regulations . It is my understanding that any specific project that may have signifcant environmental impact will have to be analyzed at least by the filling out the envi. rnomental assessment form . I' completely support the residents call for mandatory public hearings to be a part of the regulations governing the Site Plan Review Board . If you skip public hearings in connection with specific proposed • industrial projects , you will certainly be violating the intent of the State environmental laws . While SEQR does not always require such public hearings , it strongly recommends them in order to help communities achieve the greatest degree of consensus possible on environmentally sensitive projects . It is this consensus , this sense that we are all working together in reasonable fashion to solve neighborhood or development issues , that has been lacking in the recent confrontations that have occurred in Tompkins County . In 1985 Tompkins County finds itself blessed with the lowest unemployment rate in Upstate New York . It has a growing population , and great potential for future growth , especially that which involves the high - tech industries of tomorrow . I think we all recognize that . What we now need to recognize is that development must be well -planned , must preserve the environment , and must not run roughshod over long established , ; loyal , tax paying residents . The view of these neighbors must be listened to and must be respected . Their input and ideas can be creative and of great value . If you • dismiss or patronize a neighborhood ' s ideas , you do so at your peril . It is time right now , tonight , to begin to mend fences with your neighbors . Thank you . • • • i _. 77 . RESOLUTION # 121 ARTICLE XII DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1985 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING ORDINANCE Clm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : BE IT RESOLVED and BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN AS FOLLOWS : 1 . Article XII : DISTRICT REGULATIONS : M- A ZONES of the Zoning Ordinance , Town of Dryden , Tompkins County , New York is hereby repealed , 2 . Said Ordinance is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Article XII as follows : ARTICLE XII : DISTRICT REGULATIONS : M - A ZONES Section 1200 . The intent and purpose of the M - A Zone and the following regulations is to establish and identify specific areas where small and intensive retail business and industrial and manufacturing development will be encouraged , where minimum performance standards will be required and to protect the value and efficiency of such areas by excluding from them , as far as possible , non - compatible land uses . Section 1201 . Uses allowed with Site Plan Review pursuant to Article XXIII . The following are allowed uses in a M - A Zone with a Site Plan Review pursuant to Article XXXII : 1 . Retail business establishments such as , but not limited to , restaurants , food , drug and variety stores ; and personal service shops such as barber shops , laundromats . 2 . Banks , offices , laboratories and installations for research and development and educational buildings . 3 . Private and commercial garages and gas stations . 4 , Motels and hotels . 5 . • Display , sale and repair of farm and garden equipment . 6 . Building suplies , printing , heating , welding , plumbing and similar shops . 7 . Wholesale , storage and warehouse facilities . 8 . Automobile sales . 9 . Automobile car wash facilities . ir t, 1 ... . .: a:.i_t '* At . . x * . . .A . . a. . , _ S. 10 . Farming , gardening , nurseries and greenhouses . 11 . Manufacturing of machinery and machine parts . ( Must comply with provisions of Section 1207 ( 2 ) Industrial Performance Standards ) 12 . Fabrication of metal , paper , wood or synthetic products . ( Must comply with provisions of Section 1207 ( 2 ) Industrial Performance Standards ) 13 . Food and associates industries such as food processing , and similar processing or manufacturing activities . 14 . Light assembly of parts . 15 . Any other industrial manufacturing establishments which comply with the performance standards of Section 1207 ( 2 ) . Section 1202 . ( Reserved for future use ) Section 1203 . Uses Allowed by Special Permit . Any use not specifically enumerated herein shall be allowed only upon a Special Permit issued by the Town Board pursuant to Article XIII of the Ordinance . I Section 1204 . Prohibited Uses . Mobile homes parks , I mobile homes on individual lots , residences and junk yards I, are prohibited . Section 1205 . Density and Area Requirements . For all allowed uses : all buildings ,- improvements , parking areas and' access areas shall occupy not more than 60 % of the total gross area of the site or lot . ;- 1 - i • t =5 . 1 • q 7/ Section 1206 . Yards and Landscaping . 1 . Front yards : All buildings shall be at least 90 feet 9 ,1 from the center line of any public road or street . 2 . Side and rear yards : All buildings shall be at least J 15 feet from all side and rear property lines . 3 . Where any allowed use in a M- A Zone is located adjacent to an R- B Zone or a R- Bl Zone , or any residential use in a R- C Zone , then that allowed use shall be separated from such zone or residential use in a R- C Zone by a landscaped and maintained buffer strip that is densely planted and maintained with Evergreens . Such buffer strip to be at least 30 feet wide , and at least 6 feet high at planting and 12 feet high at maturity . No improvement including parking areas shall be allowed within 15 feet of the inside edge of any buffer strip . 4 . All yards shall be kept free of abandoned or inoperable vehicles , trash , rubbish , or junk . Section 1207 . Other Provisions and Requirements . 1 . Signs ( see Article XV ) . 2 . Industrial Performance Standards : No building permit for industrial or4manufacturing uses in a M- A Zone will be issued until the Zoni •rig Enforcement Officer has been provided with a - description of the proposed industrial or manufacturing process . If • it appears - that the proposed use will not . produce conditions which are noxious , offensive or hazardous ' to the health , safety or general welfare of the • • • { x ?fir p H V Z" - • community , a Building Permit may be issued . Special attention will be given to the disposal or storage of any wastes or materials that could cause or contribute to . pollution of any kind . If the performance characteristics are doubtful , the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall require a determination that : ( a ) Liquid wastes and effluent shall be treated and discharged in a manner approved in writing by the County Board of Health . ( b ) Disseminated smoke shall not exceed 3 on the Ringlemann Chart . ( c ) Protection against fire hazards , explosion and proper handling and storage of combustible material shall be approved by the appropriate town fire official . ( d ) No odors , noises , vibration or glare will be evident at a point more than 150 . feet from the source of said odor , noise , vibration or light . 3 . Off - street parking ( see Article XIV ) . These amendments and repealers shall take effect after publication and as provided by law . 4 2nd Clm Garlock Roll call vote - all voting YES Clm Evans felt that the point about the public hearing was not an unreasonable request . If not a public hearing and the issue is the time frame that a public hearing requires by legal ramification a notice , there should be some requirement that the meeting be advertised in such a way that those people who wanted to attend and make their statement would be able to do so . Also there was mention the SEQR process was not mentioned in the SPRB . The SEQR process is required by an altoghether different act . Clm Schlecht - it states in the SPRB that at such time as the Zoning Officer "I. ' and Code Enforcement Officer make their recommendations , they shall 1 notify by mail all the owners of real property within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed facility and/or activity . Such notice shall include a statement that the SPRB has received application and the site plan for review and the recommendation of the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement with respect to that application and site plan , and that the SPRB will make a decision on such application and site plan within 45 days . i , Mcl not ee; ,sWq inc1luude aoithrAPfo.,rmat on atS mayzhelpcappr se,,:,.the—_ownexs.,,n .,,,....._ o. _ , , the proposed facility and/or activity . • • • ' . I a + t;• i [ 7 I� ,� i ' .fxt2" ++ 1 •ro. � .' ..��':4h �^l sW 6. .`` x' ifs' . 'v.:.> . - _ _ __ I r3 RESOLUTION # 122 - 1985 ARTICLE XXIII SITE PLAN REVIEW BOARD TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING ORDIANCE Clm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : BE IT RESOLVED and BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN AS FOLLOWS : 1 . The Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Article XXIII as follows : ARTICLE XXIII Section 2301 . Site Plan Review Board . § 2301 . 1 . Establishment . ( A ) There is hereby established for the purpose of carrying out the functions provided for in Section 274 - a of the Town Law , a Site Plan Review Board ; ( B ) The Site Plan Review Board function is hereby delegated to the Town Board . § 2301 . 2 . Decisions . ( A ) The Site Plan Review Board has the authority under this A Ordinance to review and approve , approve with modifications , or disapprove site plans submitted to it under the provisions of this Ordinance : specifically applications for Zoning Permits for facilities and / or activities which are indicated in the Zoning Ordinance as allowed uses with Site ; -- - Plan Review . The site plan review process applies for allowed uses in a M- A Zone . at La* la..iatIMTWaneS00•11$PC•tt911,74•Mam0=s•C•CC,,‘ • • • O • • ( B ) Its decisions are to be filed with the Town Clerk and a copy mailed . to . the applicant . Such filing and mailing to be accomplished within 5 days of the rendering of a decision . § 2301 . 3 . Rules and Regulations . . The Site Plan Review Board may adopt rules and regulations it deems necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Ordinance . All it procedures and orders must be in accordance therewith . § 2301 . 4 . Actions Directed by the Site Plan Review Board . ( A ) Within 5 days after a decision by the Site Plan Review Board the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer must take the action directed by the Board . ( B ) Those actions are to issue or to issue with modifications a Zoning Permit and/ or Building Permit . ( C ) A letter from the Site Plan Review Board notifying the applicant that issuance of a permit has been directed serves as an interim permit . § 2301 . 5 . Appeals of Decisions by the Site Plan Review I.aoard . ( A ) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Site Plan Review Board may apply to the Supreme Court for review by a • proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules . ( B ) Such proceedings shall be instituted within 30 days after the filing of a decision in the office of the Town Clerk . Section 2302 . Site Plan Review and Approval . § 2302 . 1 Applicability . The procedures set forth in this Article apply to certain facilities and activities which are identified in the Zoning Ordinance as an allowed use with a Site Plan Review because their nature , location , and effect on the surrounding environment warrants detailed evaluation of a site plan before development is allowed . § 2302 . 2 . Sketch Plan Conference . A sketch plan conference shall be held between the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer and applicant to review the basic site design concept and generally determine the information to be required on the preliminary site plan . At the sketch plan conference , the applicant should provide the data discussed below in addition to a statement or rough sketch describing what is proposed : 1 . An area map showing the parcel under consideration for site plan review , and all properties , subdivisions , streets , and easements within 200 feet of the boundaries thereof . 2 . A map of site topography at no more than , 5 foot contour intervals . If general site grades exceed 5 percent or portions of the site have susceptibility to erosion , III flooding , or ponding , a soils overlay and a topographic map i showing contour intervals of not more than 2 feet of elevation should also be provided . u - • § 2302 . 3 . Application for Site Plan Approval . An application for site plan approval shall be made in writing on a form supplied by the Town and made to the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer and shall be accompanied by information drawn from the following : ( A ) Site Plan Checklist 1 . Title of drawing , including name and address of applicant and person responsible for preparation of the drawing ; 2 . North arrow , scale , and date ; 3 . Boundaries of the property plotted to scale ; 4 . Existing watercourses ; 5 . Grading and drainage plan , showing existing and proposed contours ; 6 . Location , proposed use , and height of all buildings ; 7 . Location , design , and construction materials of all parking and truck loading areas , showing access and egress ; 8 . Provision for pedestrian access ; . 9 . Location of outdoor storage , if any ; 10 . Location , design , and construction materials of all existing or proposed site improvements , including drains , culverts , retaining wall , and fences ; 11 . Description of the methods of waste disposal and location , design , and construction materials of such facilities ; . 12 . Description of the method of securin g water and location , design , and construction materials of such facilities ; • 13 . Location of fire and other emergency zones , including the location of fire hydrants ; 14 . Location , design , and construction materials of all energy distribution facilities , including electrical , gas , and solar energy ; 15 . Location , size , and design and construction materials of all proposed signs ; 16 . Location and proposed development of all buffer areas , including existing vegetative cover ; 17 . Location and design of outdoor lighting facilities ; 18 . Designation of the amount and location of building area proposed for each activity type ; 19 . General landscaping plan and planting schedule ; and 20 . Other elements integral to the proposed development as considered necessary by the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer , including identification of any federal , state , or county permits required for the project ' s execution . 21 . Detailed sizing and material specifications for all required improvements . 22 . Estimated project construction schedule . i ' I ' 23 . The names and addresses of all owners of real property within 200 ' of the boundaries of the proposed facility and/ or activity . � I I ill - ( 13 ) Required Fee An application for site plan review and approval shall be accompanied by a fee of $ 50 . 00 for any project less than two j ' i i ,i 1 _11 r 4i ij t y .„it; r3; ? . as ?$ C?i4 ,-* .-yr . _4144; Ma4e St;t.r. w 1: 4 I S., x . .t' ,•: i . < / A ....:.t... ,.t • acres in size and $ 100 . 00 for any project two acres or larger and payable to the Town ' of Dryden . 52302 . 4 . Review of Site Plan . The Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer ' s shall review the preliminary site plan and their review shall include , as appropriate , the following : . ( A ) General Considerations 1 . Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation , including intersections , road widths , pavement surfaces , dividers , and traffic controls . 2 . Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation , walkway structures , control of intersections with vehicular traffic , and overall pedestrian convenience ; 3 . Location , arrangement , appearance , and sufficiency of off - street parking and loading ; - 4 . Location , arrangment , size , design , and general site compatability of buildings , lighting , and signs ; 5 . Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities ; 6 . , Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal d facilities ; • fi . Adequacy , type , and arrangement of trees , shrubs , and other landscaping constituting a visual and/ or noise buffer between the applicant ' s and adjoining lands , including the maximum retention of existing vegetation ; gyp . The impact of the facility and/ or activity on structures designated as landmarks by either the Federal , j ! I ; I • 1 • ' F ; ' - • b m r Ia = < .+ s r •r e ' i ke w .w r . • • S . 1 . (F7 . . • \ State or County Governments or structures of locally recognized historical significance . 9 . Protection of adjacent or neighboring properties against noise , glare , unsightliness , or other objectionable features ; 10 . Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants ; and 11 . Special attention to the adequacy of structures , roadways , and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding , flooding , and / or erosion . ( I3 ) Consultant Review The Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer may consult w ith the local fire departments and other local and county o fficials , and private consultants , in addition to ✓ epresentatives of federal and state agencies , including the Soil Conservation Service , the State Department of Transportation , and the State Department of Environmental Conservation . ( C ) Referral to County Planning Agency When required by General Municipal Law Section 239 - m and prior to making their recommendation to the SPRB , the Zoning O ffier and Code Enforcement Officer shall refer the Site P lan to the the County Planning Agency for advisory review and report in accordance with Section 239 - m of the General H Municipal Law . When referral is required under this section , the time in which the Zoning Officer and Code E nforcement Officer must make their recommendation to the I —.a. ...q.«w., ._,..a.♦ . �_ — -- - - - -- -- - — - - - - ■ 1 . r 4fry . 9 1 [ . S i n s,� S to 1 a «k:ttvG °.�. 'a7, F` i l a 1r 1�, 1 F� . { 6 i f~ r.4. % y j E } r4 i n F` °+, cM Ir ittg tt }'! . \. • 't n • s. . , . ,. . t`i, .}. ti.\n % AL`.'..�a_. cz, � Yt ♦ F.�S4�, , IJ.I?- .'[. �, i ,. • tr SPRB shall be 35 days of receipt of the application and site plan . ( D ) Action after review 1 . After review of the application and site plan and after consultation with the appropriate representatives pursuant to Section 2302 . 4 ( B ) , and after referral to the County Planning Agency when required , the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer shall make a recommendation to the SPRB with respect to the issuance of a zoning permit and a building permit . 2 . Such recommendation shall be made in writing and within 20 days of the receipt of the . application and required fee and the required site plan and such recommendation shall include a copy of the application and site plan together with any conditions for approval or modifications deemed appropriate by the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer . At such time as the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer make their recommendations , they shall notify by mail all the owners of real property within 200 feet of the boundaries of the proposed facility and/ or activity . Such itotification shall include a statement . that the SPRB has I received an application and site plan for review and the recommendation of the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer with respect to that application and site plan , and that the SPRB will make a decision on such application and site plan within " 45 days . Such notice shall also include I 'YVmKRVSrAflT". ww+..rt 6 ..�ne�. d 1 , . { �1 • ' it - . , 4*,i t -34 t g r ; 7 g _ k e ax,„ ; { ' ' VA, s £ t i t _23 #C Yw "4 e tlr y w{t tyr 4 ... s , S `. ift t o f 9j • • such other information as may help apprise the owners of the proposed facility and/ or activity . § 2302 . 5 . SPRB Action on Site Plan Recommendations . ( A ) Within 45 days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer for site plan approval , the SPRB shall act on it . The SPRB ' s action shall be in the form of a written statement to the applicant stating whether or not the preliminary site plan is approved , disapproved , or approved with modifications , and/ or conditions . If no decision is made within the 45 day period , the site plan shall be considered as not approved . ( B ) The SPRB ' s statement may include conditions or modifications , if any , to be incorporated as a condition of approval . If the site plan is disapproved , the SPRB ' s statement shall contain the reason for such findings . In such a case , the SPRB may recommend further study of the site . plan and resubmission to the SPRB after it . has been revised or redesigned . ( C ) Public Hearing The SPRB may conduct a public hearing on the preliminary site plan . If a public hearing is considered desirable by the SPRB , the public hearing shall be conducted within 30 days of the receipt of the application for preliminary site ° plan approval and shall be advertised in the official Town I newspaper at least 10 days before the public hearing . } - . _ . H. . . r :t: - i i . • i . }: J P : . '. • - L • • § 2302 . 6 . Submission of Final Detailed Site Plan . 1 . After receiving approval , with or without conditions and,/ or modifications , from the SPRB on a site plan , the applicant shall submit within 10 days of the decision by the SPRB a final , detailed site plan to the Zoning. Officer. and Code Enforcement Officer for approval and issuance of the Zoning Permit and Building Permit pursuant to the direction of the SPRB . 2 . The site plan submitted to the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer shall conform to the site plan approved , by the SPRB . It shall incorporate any modifications or . conditions that may have been included by the SPRB in its approval . § 2302 . 9 . Reimbursable Costs . Costs incurred by the Zoning Officer , Code Enforcement Officer and SPRB for consultation fees or other extraordinary expense in connection with the review of a proposed site plan shall be charged to the applicant , not to t . exceed $ 50 per acre , and shall be payable , to the Town of Dryden . § 2302 . 10 . Performance Guarantee . No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until all improvements shown on the site plan are installed or a sufficient performance guarantee has been posted for H improvements not yet completed . The sufficiency of such 1 liovo 1 r 1 U . I • ' . e1 • 'I y 4 a t r , a . 1 t r' f r r trt 1 I N �2 St S; I -. `v E 4Nu tfir.5ttd $ Y Itt yyJ rt c S � ( 4, 1 v� eF 1 a . �_ ' `it}} ^.kt�». ,4-.14147-,41!•?J - 1 E r Y a 7 44 7e r i v . :yt• '� 1 LY >2 .t "F {`.•-144144 .l111r."�(hi JI 1:2'3111: i.14; I +... ,' . . ' . . . a' ter' > . „ rr IFY.. . h t ? . .,.i..A . e . - 93 performance guarantee shall be determined by the SPRB after consultation with the Zoning Officer , Code Enforcement Officer , Town Highway Superintendent , or other competent person . Such performance . guarantee shall be. in a form sufficient to the Town Attorney . § 2302 . 11 . Inspection of Improvements . The Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer shall be responsible for the overall inspection of . siteeimprovements , including coordination with Public Works Officials and other officials and agencies , as appropriate . § 2302 . 12 . Integration of Procedures . Whenever the particular circumstances of a proposed - development require compliance with either the special use procedure in this ordinance or the requirements of the subdivision regulations , the SPRB shall attempt to integrate , as appropriate , site plan review as required by this section with the procedural and submission requirements • for such other compliance . . This amendment shall take effect after publication and as provided by law . 2nd Cim Garlock Roll - call vote - all voting YES 4 ; There was some discussion regarding the installation of a sidewalk to the Dryden School . Supt' Cotterill asked Atty Perkins to check ' with John Wheeler , Dist Supt of Schools regarding the sidewalk . . Adjourned : . 8 : 30Pfr • -- Susanne---Lloyd- - -- -- --- -- w Town Clerk ' {t - ,4 • t Jr.;. { ' ,. f '; 4 1 ' • t : , • • • • • „ • • . c'. 11. c • /gyp "• 1 'c � ' l t t f' f! •. ' ' S ji }T 1 a • 9t PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11 , 1985 - Roy McCartney - 4 unit apartment Minutes of the public hearing held June 11th at 7 : 30PM . Supv Cotterill read the notice that was published in the newspaper to consider the application of Roy McCartney , of 1729 Slaterville Rd for a special permit to build a four unit apartment building at his residence , QUESTIONS' AND/OR COMMENTS Received letter from Atty Theisen representing Bruce and Charlotte John regarding an outstanding contract signed by the McCartneys and the Johns in March 1985 for the Johns to purchase the property . A copy of the contract is attached and all contingencies have been removed . The Johns are in fact objecting to the construction or the granting of such a special permit or variance . Letter from Frank Liguori , County Planning Dept stating that there is no significant deleterious impact on the intercommunity`, county or state interest . Therefore no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Dept and the Town is free to act without prejudice Roy McCartney - the Johns negotiated to purchase their property some three or four months ago , but they never did meet the contingency requirements . This addition will adjoin his own personal home . There was some discussion regarding the road frontage and Z . O . Stewart said that all the requirements have been met . Clm Schlecht - wanted to know about the driveway . Roy McCartney - the driveway is 300 plus feet from Rt 79 and is of stone and oil . The parking area has been increased to 60 by 120 feet which is rolled crushed limestone and is back the 300 feetTfrom the highway . Clm Schlecht - wanted to know about fire trucks being able to get there . Roy McCartney - there would be no problem . Clm Garlock - with regard to the contract that was signed by yourself and . the Johns , the contingency of 60 days has passed . Roy McCartney - they had made an offer which they never did accept and the other contingencies that were involved were them selling their home and • obtaining financing were never met . Also , another contingency was an appeal to the Dryden Town Board to prevent a bed and breakfast operation . He had received a note from their lawyer some 2 weeks after the deadline of the contingency that they hereby removed all contingencies . Closed public hearing 7 : 45PM TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 1111985 Minutes of the Board meeting held June _ llth . . . . Supv Cotterill ' called the meeting to order at 7 : 45PM Members and guests participated in the Pledge of Allegiance Roll call was by the Town Clerk : Present : Supv Cotterill , Clm Webb , Clm Schlecht Clm Garlock , Atty Perkins and Z . O . Stewart Supv Cotterill appointed Clm GarlocK itm highway fund bills APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES : Motion was made by Clm Garlock and seconded by Clm Webb that the minutes of the special meeting May 1st , Town Board meeting held May 14th and two public hearings held May 14th , special meeting May 21st and special meeting held May 24th be approved as submitted . CITIZEN PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Irene Sherwood - wanted to know if they could :get some financial help from the Town of Dryden to help them restore the West Dryden Community Center . Historic Ithaca came out and gave them an estimate on how much it would cost to put the building back in shape . It would cost about $ 35 , 000 . Tfiey felt that they ,could get the work done by local contractors for about $ 25 , 000 . 00 . It is in very bad need of a paint job and the back wall is falling out and has to be jacked up . They are in the process of getting the steeple fixed . . . / iS • Supv Cotterill - was open for any suggestion for any legal way to help them . Co Rep Tillapaugh - wanted td know the membership and the annual dues . _ ` • Irene Sherwood - right now they have 20 members and the dues are $ 5 : 00 a year . H. ;F Clm Schlecht - was in favor of them looking into getting it declared as a t ' f • historic landmark . He thought that Historic Ithaca . would be a . great resource and they could report back to the Town • of their findings . . COUNTY BRIEFING . Co Rep Watros - they are currently working on the 1986 budget and environmental . concerns regarding the jail . - • . - .- - i . The County : is pursuing the Lewis St bridge and there will- be funds available to construct the bridge this year . • - • • They are working on the solid waste problem since the Caswell landfill will be closing in Dec . • • Also would like to see the County- participate in the flood control program in Virgil Creek . 3He would like to see the Town of Dryden and Village of - Dryden request an appropriate share ffom the County , inasmuch the structure • ' • will protect three or four county bridges. If . the request was put -forth H to . the Chairman of the Board he would see that • they will attempt to appropriate some money . He felt that it should be done early because each year it becomes . •r more difficult to incumber funds for such a project . • • • '`' '``. Supv Cotterill - • said that ' he would Check -with Mayor Lane . - Robert Bland - reported on the Environmental Management Council - He , has • : '? attended one meeting and the one item that came up for the Town was ' a permit ' : : ::,, application from Cornell Univ for veg crops for irrigation . Be will attend ' -; ; the meetings and report back once a month and . was open for any suggestions . P 'Letter from Hunt Engineers regarding Cortland Road Sewer Dist . • • • Mx . Clinton Cotterill , . Supervi. scr • Ta.in of Dryden _ _ . . • 65 East Main Street Dryd .7 . NY 13053 . . . • Re : Cortland Road , Se ' er District . Dear Mr . Cotterill : . . Reference - is made to the sewer lateral stub installed . in manhole no . W- 1A for the use of the - Continental Telephone Co . On May 9th 1 checked the elevation difference between the manhole and the existing sewer exiting their building adjacent the front entrance (Route 38 side ) . 'the elevation change is 2 . 52 ' . Depending on the pipe route , the maximum pipe slope would vary from 0 . 6% to 0 . 8% . Since the. minimum desirable slope for 4" dieter pipe is 2 .. 08% and 1 . 0% for 6" , the elevation change is not acceptable for a gravity flow sewer . Both designed and constructed at minimum grades from the existing .Village manhole to this point , the lateral is • as low as acceptably possible .. Therefore , there are two : options : 1 . A ' packaged grinder pump station may - be installed at the .building , or 2 . The lateral may be routed westerly along the northerly. side of Route 38 . to MHI# 4A (reference is trade to the Freeville Road Sewer Extension plans ) . There . is a 13 . 4 ' ± -, levation. change between the two points . - • From a conversation with Bob Watrous , it is my understanding that 'they would prefer to go along Route 38 and connect to MH/,' 4A . • This will require . either a permit from the NYSDOT for any planned work within. the Route - 38 right -of-way or . an easenent from the property owner . . I would recommend staying outisle the right -of-way . Mr . Watrous has stated that they will install -the lateral but feels -that the Town should obtain the easezent . Since this is , a private service lateral the easeuent , if granted , by the property. owner to .the service • lateral owner , will not involve the Town . Please contact me , if you have further questions concerning this . - Very v truly ��q;'yaws , y�,,r�•v L 1L'S.V1 0 GIN,I`,�S:st'+S , '4 • C .. ia, _ - Ij f ? T Mr Watros . - felt that the engineers errored when they designed this system and . didenot realize the outflow of the main office building when they -designed the lateral . They did not take into consideration at that time the. elevation . This manhole will not be able to service anyone . It could service the garage , but at • this point they have decided not to have any lavatory or washroom at the garage , so they will have that expense with no . benefit . . It will . be . feasible to -tie into the manhole to the west , _but is about . twice as far . . He would like- the Town . to get the easement from the adjacent property so that . the lateral could be installed . The telephone company is willing to pay for the lateral . Supv Cotterill - said that he would contact Paul Barbagallo and see what - could be worked out . . . . CITIZEN PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR . . Ed Rosenberg presented -a petition and requested a lower speed limit • on Thomas Road , The residents along the road feel that increasing traffic • and higher vechicle speeds coupled with an increasing population density has created an extremely hazardous condition . Arthur Garbett - hoped that the Town could cut through some of the red tape _ • before someone - sets killed , because of the high rate of speed the cars are traveling and asked for suggestions. _ ° ° • • • Supv Cotterill - wanted to know if - -the State Police or the . .Sheriff ' s Dept had ' been contacted ? • • Arthur Garbett - no , because they did not know what _ way to approach the problem . There was some discussion and the ' Board decided to forward the petition to the County Supt of Highways along with •a letter of support wi'• th • a copy -to the Sheriff ' s . Dept . _•Patricia Oursler -• was wondering about the progress that is being made - concerning the Stetson property on 'Bone Plain - Rd with regard to the -zoning ordinance . ' - Atty °Perkins -they have made a survey along a large portion of the Bone Plain Rd area and noted several current violations ' and • have followed up on a lot - of them . As far as the Stetson property they have been served with papers . He has met with them and they are in default . Other Town business has kept him away from working on it and is on his agenda to finish within , he hoped the next thirty days . Also reported on the property on Rt 366 , that is in violation of the zoning ordinance . He has contacted Mrs Zeiller ' s local representative . Gary Wood has met with him on a couple of occasions and there has been some progress made . There have been renovations that have been started and never completed so Gary is working with him . ATTORNEY A•tty& Perkins - reported on the Snyder Hill Water Dist . After consulting with the bonding attorney in New- York they have suggested that they prepare the determinations and the resolution formerly establishing the water district , based upon the proceedings that the Town has had to date . The time period would be about 10 days . The Town may want to consider a special meeting to adopt that resolution and make those determinations and findings . , Also the Town may want to comply with SEQR with respect to the Snyder Hill Water Dist , both on the formation of the district and the construction of approximately 2000 linel feet of water main and hydrants . RESOLUTION #123 COMPLIANCE FOR SEQR REGARDING SNYDER HILL WATER DISTRICT CIm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that 1 - this proposed action of the Town Board is subject to SEQR and its rules and regulations and that the Town has complied with Town Law Article 12-A ; 2- that it is a Type I action ; 3- that the Town Board will be the lead agency and is the only agency involved ; 4 - that the Environmental Assessment Forem which has been circulated and labeled Snyder Hill Water District is approved as answered and the Supervisor - is instructed to sign the form ; 5- that in light of the Environmental Assessment For , and the criteria listed in Section 617 . 11 of SEQR Rules and Regulations this Town Board makes ' a determination that this action will not have any significant environmental impact ;: 6- this is therefore , a negative declaration ; 7 - No environmental impact statement will be required ; 8- that this determination as approved , the reasons for to be filed according to Section 617 .10 with DEC , 50 Wolf Road , Albany , NY; DEC , Region # 7 , Fisher Avenue , Cortland , NY; and Office of the Town Supervisor , 65 East Main Street , Dryden , NY . 2nd CIm Garlock Roll call vote - all voting YES • RESOLUTION # 124 PRINT NEW • ZONI.. DIG • ORDINANCE BOOKS C1m Garlock • offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : - RESOLVED ; that this. Town Board authorize Zoning Officer Stewart and Town Attorney Perkins to compile the new zoning ordinance book with • the new amendments and have some printed along with new -maps . - 2nd Clm Webb • • - . . • - Roll call vote - all voting YES - - - RESOLUTION # 125 INCREASE SALARY OF DEPUTY TOWN CLERK AND SECRETARY TO ZBOA AND PLANNING BOARD Clm Webb offered the following - resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board increase the salary of the Deputy Town Clerk and Secretary to ' the ZBOA and Planning Board from $ 3 . 50 per hour to $ 3 . 75 per hour for the year 1985 . ° D ° 2nd Clm Garlock . - `Roll call vote - all voting YES °Atty Perkins - reported that he tried to describe the area and boundaries to be studied for water and sewer and there were to many- questions that he could • not answer and needed the boards approval : There was some discussion and Atty Perkins said he would get in touch with the engineers and then meet with Clm Schlecht and Clm Webb , - - - • ZONING OFFICER 18 building permits for the month of May - 9 one-family - dwellings ; 2 mobile homes ; 1 addition ; 1 replace a roof; 2 storage buildings and 1 mini storage . ZBOA held 2 hearings 1 - Padula wanted to build a house on about 26 acres , but only 50 feet road frontage ; 2- Robert Geiger wanted to build an addition on his woodshop , not enough setback requirement from the road , Both were granted . Reported on the violation letters he had sent out . They were • not working on them very fast so some will have to be turned over to the court . One has been turned over to the court [ Hanshaw Rd English property ) . Also ; he doesn ' t have the application yet , but there has been another request to put a mobile home °on ' Short Road which will have to go before the ZBOA . SUpv Cotterill - this . is a road that is not a town road and there is no access . There has been approval fortrailers and buildings on the road without public access . . He - felt that it - should be brought up to town specifications or they don ' t use it . He had indicated years ago that they should not issue permits on a non-public road : But ; it is the -ZBOA decision to make and not the Town Board because they do not have any authority . It could cause problems later on , and somebody " will have to spend a lot of money to upgrade the road . ' CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Gary Evans , . County. Planning Dept regarding a study of - Tompkins County Airport and would like a representative ' from Dryden ' to serve on the committee . Letter from County Planning Board regarding a meeting June 18th at 7 : 00PM at the Courthouse to talk about NYSDOT concerning alternative plans for Route 96 . Letter `from Hunt Engineers regarding Altec Construction and restoration work . Ambulance report Report from Gary Wood - RESOLUTION #126 DESIGNATE POLLING :PLACES Clm Garlock offered the following resolution and asked for• its adoption• : • RESOLVED , that this Town Board designate the following polling places in the Town of Dryden : District #1 Etna Fire Station District #2 • Freeville Fire Station • • District #3 Dryden Fire Station District # 4 • Varna Community Center District # 5 Etna Fire Station - District #6 Dryden Village Hall District # 7 Dryden Town Hall District # 8 Bethel Grove Community Center District # 9 Ellis Hollow Community Center District #10 Dryden Town Hall • 2nd Clm . Webb - • Carried • RESOLUTION #127 PAY POLLING PLACES FOR THE YEAR 1985 Clm Webb -offered the -following resolution and asked for its adoption : . RESOLVED , that -the following places receive $100 . 00 each for the use of their facilities for -1985 : Varna . Community Center ; Etna Fire . Station ; Bethel Grove Community Center ; Ellis -Hollow Community Center ; Freeville ' Fire Station and Dryden Fire Station . 2nd Clm Schlecht • • Roll call vote - all voting YES l b RESOLUTION # 128 PROCESS SUMMER PAYROLL FOR DRYDEN SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM Clm Webb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board authorize the Supv to process a payroll every two weeks for the Dryden Summer Recreation program . Vouchers will be audited at the Town Board .meeting following the end of the program . 2nd Clm Schlecht Roll call vote - all voting YES RESOLUTION #129 TRANSFER FUNDS FROM CONTINGENCY (B1990 . 4 ) TO Z . B . 8010 . 40 ( ZONING BOARD CONTRATUAL) Clm Garlock offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board . authorize the Supv to transfer $100 . 00 from Contingency (B1990 . 4 ) to Z . B . 8010 . 40 ( Zoning Board Contractual ) • • 2nd Clm Schlecht . .. - - Roll call vote - all voting YES - RESOLUTION #130 TRANSFER FUNDS : FROM CONTINGENCY (A1.009 . 4 ) TO TOWN CLERK LEGAL (1410 . 44 ) Clm Garlock offered the following resolution and _asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board authorize the Supv to transfer $ 500 . 00 from Contingency (A1990 . 4 ) to Town Clerk legal (1410 . 44 ) 2nc Clm Schlecht Roll call vote - all voting YES RESOLUTION #131 . AUTHORIZE HIGHWAY- SUPERINTENDENT ' TO - • ADVERTISE . FOR . BIDS.. ON A . NEW . RUBBER TIRE EXCAVATOR . . • Clm Webb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board authorize the Highway Superintendent to advertise for bids_ for a new rubber tire excavator . 2nd Clm Schlecht Roll call vote s' all voting YES • • RESOLUTION #132 AUDIT ' GENERAL FUND BILLS Clm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the general fund bills be paid as audited . 2nd Clm Garlock Roll call vote - all voting YES . a RESOLUTION - # 133 AUDIT -HIGHWAY FUND BILLS CIm Webb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : ' RESOLVED , that the highway fund bills be paid as . audited . 2nd Clm Garlock Roll call vote - all voting YES . RESOLUTION #134 -AUDIT SPECIAL DISTRICT BILLS • Clm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the special district bills be _paid as audited . 2nd Clm Garlock _ Roll call vote - - all voting YES RESOLUTION #135 AUDIT CAPTIAL FUND BILLS , Clm Webb offered - the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the captial fund bills be paid as audited . ' 2nd Clm Schlecht Roll call vote - all voting YES . Justice reports - Judge Sweetland - $ 3 , 288 . 00 Judge Newhart . - $ 2 , 712 . 00 Financial reports given to members . • RESOLUTION #136 REDUCE SPEED LIMIT ON THOMAS ROAD Clm Webb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Dryden Town Board encourage the County to consider a speed limit reduction on Thomas Road , because it appears that people are traveling at a high rate of speed and it is . a dangerous situation . 2nd Clm Schlecht Roll call vote - . Supv Cotterill • YES • Clm Webb YES • Clm Schlecht • • YES • Clm Garlock • YES - - • - - - Clm Evans • Absent • Atty Perkins - reported on the sidewalk to Dryden School - the proposal . as he understands it is someone to construct a sidewalk in the state r-o-w between Lee Rd and Dryden School property on the southside of Route 38 . The sidewalk will ' be within the Town of Dryden . The Village of Dryden has said that they will take the position that because the sidewalk abuts Village of property owners , • the Village property owner would be responsible for -maintaining it . There is . a real problem as td who will maintain the sidewalk . He wondered who would be liable if someone was hurt on the sidewalk . He has contacted our insurance agent . Apparently the Underwriters for the company felt that this four tenths of a mile sidewalk would not mean any increase in our premium rate . But , when the first claim is made was sure that the premium would go up . • .1 . Atty Perkins felt that there were several -legal questions that have to be answered about who is going to be responsible for maintaining the sidewalk , for keeping if clear Of ice and snow , for poliding . .it . ` and there should be some agreement that the Town will not be liable -for any injuries . PROPOSED . RESOLUTION . #137 1985 SUPPORT VILLAGE OF DRYDEN FOR SIDEWALKS . 4 Clm Schlecht offered the following_ resolution and asked for its adoption : BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden as follows : 1 - that the Town Board supports in principle the construction of concrete sidewalks within the State right -of- way on the south side of Route 38 from Lee Road to Dryden High School and within the Village of Dryden from Lewis Street to Marsh Street ; 2 - that the Town of Dryden :,s willing to contribute to the cost of construction of said sidewalks , within - tide State right - of- way , up to a maximum of $5 , 000 . 00 in matching funds ; 3 - that the participation of the Town be on the condition - -that an . application be made - to the State of New York for reimbursement , or for first instance construction funds to" help with the - cost of construction of said sidewalk within the . State right -of- way ; 4 - that the participation of the Town of Dryden be on the condition that the Town not be responsible fors the maintenance , replacement , repair or liability forany injuries to person or property occasioned by the construction or use of said sidewalks ; 5 - that t_he ! Town of Dryden authorizes this monetary contribution - to the construction of said sidewalks on the condition that the Town be able to enter into an agreement , subject to the approval o.f .. the Town Attorney , as to °form , content and legality whereby the Village oft Dryden assumes maintenance , replacement , repair and liability of persons and property with respect to the construction and use of ° said sidewalks and whereby the Village of Dryden agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town -of Dryden for any injuries to any person or property because of the construction and use of. said sidewalks ; h - that the parti.cipation. .of the Town be limited . to the monetary contribution to the project ; 7 - that the Village of Dryden obtain all necessary work permits including building or work permits if required and that they supervise the construction , and that the sidewalks be constructed according to • the - Village of Dryden standards . vote . - . aii ,. voting _ YES - - - -- - _ -Y '}l_ i - RESOLUTION #138 ' STREETLIGHT AT THE CORNER OF ROUTE 38 AND' SPRINGHOUSE- ROAD _ • Clm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Dryden Town Board will pay for the streetlight at the corner of Route 38 and Springhouse Road with the condition that the Dryden Town Board approves the location of the streetlight . BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Village of Dryden will get the approval from New York State Department of .Transportation and New York State Electric and Gas Corporation , 2nd C1m - Garlock Roll call vote - all voting YES _. _ - RESOLUTION #139 GRANT SPECIAL PERMIT TO. ROY MCCARTNEY ., . • 4 . E ' CliifSehlecht . offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that : this Town Board grant a 'special permit to Roy McCartney , 1729 S1'a'teryille- Rdrto ' build a - four unit apartment building at his residence . 2nd4 Clip `Garlo'ck , Roll call vote - all voting YES•ti .4 9' 41 1' ' A , Adjourned .e -• M ° • •` Susanne Lloyd . • Town Clerk 4 .' . ! _ . I I F AValaz.+.�s�n13}+'vn�^{P�l�,'�2-�, ...�' ` -1t- `1 X,S S: „ 'yy . , .