Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-10 hr TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 10 , 1987 Supv Cotterill called the meeting to order at 7 : 30PM Members and guests participated in the Pledge of Allegiance Roll call was by the Town Clerk : P resent : Supv Cotterill , Clm Evans , Clm Webb , Clm Schlecht , Clm G arlock and Atty Perkins Absent : Z . O . Slater APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES : Motion was made by Clm Schlecht and seconded by Clm Garlock that the minutes of the Board meeting held o n October 13th be approved as submitted . COUNTY BRIEFING Co Rep Watros - reported that the County has a proposed budget and there will be a public meeting on Thurs evening . - - Landfill issue - Supv Cotterill - we as a Board have made an e ffort to try and get some of the county representatives that are o n the solid waste committee to come to this meeting , but it was u nsuccessful . • Co Rep Watros - currently there are still 3 sites open for consideration - DR ?_ ; DR7 and EN3 . Decision will be made by the County Board on Dec 8th . Prior to that time the County Board will be receiving the detailed report from the engineers as to their ✓ ecommendations and all of the elements involved in the various - site locations . Also , the County will be receiving input from the public during that period of time . Once the Board has decided on t he location , that is not necessarily where it will be in the end because it has to pass all of the environmental concerns in detail . The engineers have just done the preliminary work at this time for t he suitability of sites . Once the site is selected there has to be d etailed studies which involves more borings and soil samples . The D ept of Environmental Conservation will be directly involved before t hey can even be permitted on the site . As far as the Town of D ryden is concerned and how we stand as being the potential ✓ ecipient of the landfill , it appears that we have two thirds chance at this point . Co Rep Tillapaugh and himself have tried to d evelope various means for further consideration of other sites . Most of the people involved in the issue are aware of the fact that t here were 23 sites initially along with Landstrom ' s site which is adjacent to the current landfill . There were some 9 sites tested . Those sites tested were those where the engineers could get access t o conduct soil sampling . Those individuals that would not allow t he engineers on their land were immediately eliminated from the list . This is an issue which is a concern from the start in that the ranking from 1 to 24 pretty much fell apart when the individuals ranking 1 , 2 and etc refused to allow their property to be tested . In his opinion this flawed the selection process . On two o ccasions when Co Rep Tillapaugh and himself proposed resolutions t o further consider sites that were denied access by the owners and / / 7 t he County Board as a whole voted not to pursue it . The last issue • of which we dealt with was to try and get the adjacent Landstrom site to be included in the consideration . As a result of final d ecision from DEC they did not feel that it was worthy of extending the closing of the current landfill and not to pursue it further so t his is also eliminated from the list . The Solid Waste Committee h as received the report and the board members will be reviewing the d etails at meetings coming up . There will be a public hearing on N ov 30th at NYSE & G at 7 : 30PM and there will be a meeting at the County Board of Reps on Nov 17th at 7 : 30PM . Co Rep Watros brought copies of the resolution that the county made back in 1969 and 1970 d ealing with the Caswell Road landfill site and gave to the board members . The concern was if there was any resolution passed in 1970 t o restrict further consideration in the Town of Dryden for a second landfill , he could not find anything , but there were some attempts by Gary Lee to try and get some language in the resolution that would at least limit the landfill and this failed to pass the board . • Clm Schlecht - wanted to know why the Landstrom site was not being t ested ? Co Rep Watros - it, is an issue that goes back sometime with DEC D ept or back to the analysis of the soil of the area . There were initial studies done that indicated that the inlet valley was over a principal aquifer which extends toward Spencer . This is one criteria that DEC has established that no landfill can be sited .' I over a principal aquifer . There is some concern as to whether this is true or not . Apparently there is enough documentation that DEC is convinced that it is and it would take extensive proof to ✓ everse their position on it . The county was looking at the possibility of getting that proof which would take about 6 months o f time and DEC is not willing to extend the current landfill o peration to give the county that time . They are convinced that it w ould be a negative result . Clm Schlecht - the landfill will not be designed and built in 6 months . Whatever site is picked he felt that Landstrom and the o ther site should be tested at the same time . Co Rep Watros - would like the committee to address that issue because Frank Proto is specifically involved with that . The majority of the board did not see fit to spend the time or the money . Clm Schlecht - it does make sense , what we are hearing is that they d o not want to spend the money , or consider the top two alternatives . I hope they understand that this is going to make an interesting court case . Co Rep Watros - this issue has been discussed at length on a number o f occasions , when he introduced the resolutions for the top two sites on the list to get the board to consider getting a court order to get access to those properties to make the tests . It appeared to him a significant flaw for the Board . The attorney who is retained by the county was there and heard all of the discussion and felt that he could defend the County . / 9-6 Clm Evans - when this original issue came up the Town Board was told specifically that there were a collection of court cases that if the best site was not chosen irregardless of whether or not , the o wner wanted to sell it or not that the County would probably be in ✓ iolation of the law . It is obvious that the county did not even bother to test the best sites . He was also told that Frank Proto h as specifically stated that the Town of Dryden was designed by God f or landfill . He does not believe that Dryden is getting a fair shake when Frank goes around stating things like that . Co Rep Watros - sympathizes as to what has been said and it will h ave to be tested in the courts , no matter where it goes . The council stated that as long as DEC only requires that we permit an acceptable site it does not necessarily have to be the best . -1 " " - if the Board chooses a site , they then have to submit it to D EC . If DEC says no , at that point the committee has to go back to square one and start all over again ? Co Rep Watros - they can pick another one from the 23 sites that are listed . 771777 - they are going to have to go back spend a lot of time and a lot of money , and they are telling us that they can ' t continue on t esting Landstroms because of the 6 month delay . • Co Rep Watros - the issue is that you have to convince 8 members of the County Board that it is worth the time and money to pursue that issue . 7 " 7 " - one of the reasons that they do not want to deal with L andstrom is that nobody on that committee ever wants to deal with B ill Landstrom because he has made a lot of money and there is a lot of politics involved . If people couldn ' t see that coming they must have been blind . Bill Landstrom gets taken to court by DEC continuously . The committee did not even try to test his site that h e has offered . Co Rep Watros - did not agree with that , but he understood her position . 7 , , r, - it bothers her that the committee will not spend 6 months t esting when they had 6 years to be preparing for this . Why weren ' t t hey worried about this 10 years ago . She also has a hard time u nderstanding why they won ' t agree with one persons opinion that there is a principal aquifer under Landstroms site when another e ngineering firm from Binghamton says that there is not one present . What makes one set of engineers know so much more that the o ther engineer ? Co Rep Watros - unfortunately one set of engineers agreed with DEC and one didn ' t . Of course DEC prefers to select the engineering • firm that agrees with them . gal C1m Schlecht - isn ' t it true that anyone that has tested this site did not agree that it was over an aquifer . In fact , it is based on a USGS map which is crudely drawn and no one can document where it came from or how it was arrived at . Co Rep Watros - this is true and to prove it unequivocally to prove it one way or the other would require at least four - 800 feet wells to find out what is between the surface and bedrock . 77777 isn ' t this the way the other 23 sites were chosen by the selection of the same map without drill testing or whatever . That in fact , Landstrom site was thrown out really on the same criteria of all of the selections of the other 23 . Co Rep Watros - the same data was used . 77777 - if you apply that then you could conversely say all 23 sites are on aquifers and nobody could argue against or for you . We are primarily concerned with DR7 which is in your Phase I report . It is immediately adjacent to an aquifer and this is still under consideration . This is still under the same criteria which he believes is the path of least resistance least cost and very little • consideration other than perhaps your best hope on geology at this point . Co Rep Watros - the county attorney has stated that the committee d oes not have to select the best site , they only have to select a site that DEC will accept . That is the reason why their opinion has been formed for some time that you don ' t necessarily have to take the first highest ranked site . 77777 - it is her understanding that there is an employee at O ' Brien and Gere who has completed graduate studies at Cornell proving that there was not a principal aquifer under the Landstrom site . Co Rep Watros - could be , but it hasn ' t convinced the members of t he board . 77777 - if an aquifer is a good source of consumable water , what do they call Fall Creek and adjacent streams that run into Fall Creek ? Co Rep Watros - true , but those regulations are established by DEC . They figure the distance and liner and the soil conditions will stop that sort of contamination . Clm Garlock - that is a bit contradictory . If that liner will stop t he material from getting into the Fall Creek water shed , subsequently all that leads into other supplies of drinking water t hen why won ' t that same liner stop the water and poisonous residuals from going into the phantom aquifer at Landstrom ' s . Co Rep Watros - that is a good point and that question was raised . The answer has been they are not only concerned about the liner , but if the liner fails then they want suitable soils that will resist the flow of water . This is why they are selecting a high clay substance to start with . / a ? ? ? ? - Frank Proto contradicted himself directly to your statements O and obviously the position of the board in that the construction of t he site is above ground , it is not a pit type situation . In 20 years you are going to fill up any liner which means you are not g oing to contain all water . Mr Proto explained to him that they w ere planning to build what amounted to be one giant sand filter . If sand filters work so wonderful then there wouldn ' t be any problems with toxic waste sites because they could just be run through a sand filter . There would not be any problem with runoff in containment as we know it because you just run it through a • sand f ilter . If in fact , this is the technology being employed . If it isn ' t please let us know , because we have been mislead by the County Board of Reps . You cannot contain water for 20 years in an area that is prone to flooding and DR2 and DR7 are both of that • nature . The proposed sites are very . wet and there is a great deal o f water flow through the area that goes directly to water sheds t hat supply Cornell University , NYSE & G , Parkwood Village trailer park and the ground water of wells through Varna and Etna . This w ill also have an impact on Freeville which is actually closer to t he landfill site . This is also one of the largest and fastest g rowing communities in Tompkins County . If the technology is so g ood you should be able to put it in the middle of Cayuga Lake . We are trying to give you a message to take back to the County Board o f Reps and the Solid Waste committee . Co Rep Watros - the message has been going there regularly and you people have been before the Board and made your own statements . The ® members of the Board that are not directly effected by the matter are proceeding on the basis of what the professionals are telling t hem . They will make a decision , whether it is right or wrong , and t here is no inner influence between members of that body . Everyone is looking after the interests of their own constituents and consequently there is no means of influencing other than trying to lay the facts before them . ✓ icky Bland - wanted to clarify that she has spoken with two Co Reps and they both told her that they could not understand how a ✓ epresentative from your own Town ( Dryden ) could push for a test site in DR1 . Co Rep Watros - wished that Co Rep Tillapaugh was here to speak to t hat . He felt that Ken was doing everything that he could to keep it out of Dryden . ? ? ? ? - felt that there should be a very generous compensation package if the landfill is located in Dryden . If there was , the e ntire County should be responsible to pick up the tab for that particular area . Atty Perkins - wanted to know what the landfill study , litigation , and construction is going to cost ? a e Co Rep Watros - did not know , they were figuring 3 million or it might be 5 million when they are finished when you figure in all of the components including recycling and compaction . • / d 3 Atty Perkins - how long do you expect this landfill to be of service ? IMP Co Rep Watros - between 20 and 25 years . Atty Perkins - how on earth can the County not choose the best site if this is the criteria . How can you not test the 10 top sites . Co Rep Watros - these comments were made to the board time and time again . He wouldn ' t say the course of least resistance , but the course . Robert Bland - there is a public hearing on Nov 30th before the ✓ ote on Dec 8th and so far the Phase II report has not been made public , and he wanted to know when this would be available for the public . had spoken with Debbie Dietrich , who is on the County B oard , and she has stated that there is big push on the County B oard to eliminate the Enfield site , so that leaves the 2 sites in D ryden . S upv Cotterill - it was obvious to him on the scheduled bus trip to t our the different sites that the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca h ave no intentions to consider Enfield , so there are votes enough t o eliminate it . Privately it has been eliminated but not \ publicly . The Town of Dryden has made a real effort to get a ® . member of the Solid Waste Committee to be at this meeting tonight . �w Frank Proto ' s comment to him was , that he had other meetings tonight , but he said that he would meet with the Boar. d ' members in private but will not come to a public meeting . This was Mr Proto ' s ✓ eaction on coming tonight . Supv Cotterill asked him if he couldn ' t come if he would send another member of his committee and this ✓ efused . Mayor Lane - was very disappointed that the site selection is n arrowed down to 2 towns and that the Supv from one of those towns asked . a member of the solid waste committee or any member to be present at a meeting like this and they don ' t want to show up . He f elt that was disrespect for the people of the Town of Dryden , and d id not think this was right . He went on the same bus tour and also got that same impression . He went on the tour thinking that t hey would be seeing a lot of sites and they saw 4 , ( 2 of which were in Dryden , 1 in Enfield and then they saw the present dump ) . H e can not understand with the amount of money that is being paid t o O ' Brien and Gere Engineers for a study which ranked these ✓ arious sites , with the amount of money that is being paid to specialized legal council to make sure that you have complied with e ach of the steps , that they can ' t come up with enough money to . drill four holes to test another site where you have someone that w ants to drill and wants to sell the land . He cannot understand why we can ' t go onto other people ' s property . The proceedings and • condemnation law are not that complicated . They simply require n otice to the property owner , if necessary you can get a court o rder . /41 O f course , you pay for any damages that are done while you are doing the test , but it isn ' t that complicated , and you find out w hether the site is good or not . The money that is going to cost f or testing is a drop in the bucket for all of these sites compared t o what we are going to have here . He wouldn ' t be making the arguments to Bob Watros , because the Town has made these same arguments , but you are the only one here to hear them . He is highly d isappointed that other members of the County Board are not here . The promises that were made to the people on Caswell Road years ago n ow you are going to say well we closed that dump and there will be another one just around the corner . This is not right , ethically or morally right to do that to the people in that area . He also feels t hat they are rushing the judgement on this Dec 8th decision . We h ave been told that we are going to have baling , that it is going to limit the truck traffic to 10 tractor trailers a day , and wanted t o know if they have voted to have the baling ? Co Rep Watros - they have voted on a series of policies that will be implemented wherever it goes . Mayor Lane - has the County Board made a decision to spend the money to build a baling station ? Co Rep Watros - he wouldn ' t say that they have . These are issues t hat they have to deal with down the road . , , r , - they have done a lot of research checking on the initial • engineering report and Phase I report . The reasons that they did e verything just cannot be substantiated . There were 4 reasons in t he initial list of considerations for sites that should have e xcluded DR7 , and this site is tested anyway . And a quote from the P hase I report " The site DR7 has several geologic features that limit its potential for development . It is situated close to critical habitats and a principal aquifer and a public water supply is located just to the east . North and west boundaries abut e xisting roads , while the rest of the site is shaped along the bounds of several areas excluded by initial criteria . " Immediately after the Phase I report was released , DR7 was listed as one of the t op 3 sites . Using the Phase I report , if only the suitability factors ranked 3 most important in significance are considered site D R7 ranks 23rd out of the 23 sites . How did DR7 ever get on the list in the first place ? It seems quite convenient that the County B oard decided to test 8 of the top 16 sites , making it possible to include DR7 . In a quick check of the sites , it appears that the o nly sites tested had only one or two owners , that were willing to be tested and that was the most important criteria for the testing t he site . The County Board made a decision only to test sites where permission was granted , but they did not necessarily ask permission o f the top 8 sites . Instead , they tested sites that were offered to t hem by the owners . For example DR1 was decided to go back and test site DR ]. , owners granted permission to test on that site . That site h ad a higher designation rating than DR7 in the initial list of • candidate sites . Why wasn ' t that tested before DR7 to begin with ? It is also very convenient that DR7 is carved out of a black and . gray area on the site designation map . These black and gray areas w ere to be excluded initially from further testing . The white shaped carved out as DR7 is Rocco Lucente ' s property boundary line . W hy is that acceptable when the entire area to the south and east is not ? Co Rep Watros - this is good preparation for the public hearing on N ov 30th 7 " 4" - gave a copy of this report to the Town Clerk to be entered in the minutes . -rn -i - wanted to what the discussion at the Board level has been as to the selection of DR2 or DR7 ? It creates as what he sees as an immeasurable liability in the Town . Being in the insurance business h aving some background with self insured plans as the County is self insured . If there is pollution as there has been some evidence o f seepage from the old landfill site on Caswell Road and problems w ith polluting the ground water . If in fact that Mill Creek is d estroyed or has contaminants that do get into water supplies for Cornell University and ground water in wells of Town of Dryden ✓ esidents . You set up a suit against the Town and everyone in site . If you contaminate Cornell ' s water , the Town of Dryden will be sued and the County will be sued . The County is self insured and could bankrupt this county 5 times over . The same thing that is happening in Jacksonville could happen in Dryden . If it is proven that the County has not policed what has gone into the landfill properly the County is going to pay , and this will come out of the taxpayers . That potential is so great , particularly with this proposed site ✓ ight on top of the old landfill site where it could be hard to prove where it is coming from . The Town of Dryden as well as the County has a tremendous liability exposure that cannot be ignored . The Solid Waste better think about the best site since that e xposure is there . S upv Cotterill - you cannot buy insurance that will cover pollution . B etty Clapp - the amount of money spent now for testing to find the best site would only be a drop in the bucket . It is also a drop in the bucket compared to if families start moving out of West Dryden area . She can name 12 that are going to move if the dump is located there . We will loose as a town many supporters and many tax dollars , our school is having problems now with taxes , it will have a lot more problems later on . We are in an area that has harbored itself knowing that the Caswell Road landfill was going to close . What is 2 years if you even consider buying state land on top of t he hill in Caroline where no one is near there . We have had 8 or 10 years to be thinking about this , so she cannot buy this time schedule . Also with the liner and the engineering on the closer of the old dump site , monitoring should be an issue that is going to have to be looked at by everyone . DR7 would be like dumping on a dump . We are so concerned about DEC and monitoring and the environment . No one knows what will happen in 60 years when this g arbage breaks down and when the toxic comes through has to be considered . She is not going to live not knowing what the future is g oing to be in her back yard . / O3 �P ? ? ? ? - who is responsible for deciding what the compensation package will be if someone ' s water were contaminated , if they had n o other water supply ? Who determines that policy , is it up to the t own or the county ? Co Rep Watros - the County has put a basic policy in place where t here will be a commission established . 777 " - the Town of Groton has come up with a good benefit sharing package and would like to see the Dryden Town Board working on one f or Dryden . Co Rep Watros - he would vote for a good package with which they are doing . It takes influence on the rest of the Board to get something done . He believes that there is conscious effort from all members of the County Board to provide for those that have negative impacts near the landfill . S upv Cotterill - how do you compensate when you destroy one quarter o f the town development over the next 25 years . You are talking about the most economical growth in our tax base over the next 25 years is in that section of the town . There is no way that you can put a figure on killing the growth , say nothing about the people t hat will leave that are there . It is the prime growth area in Tompkins County , and will be a big detriment to the Town of Dryden . H e felt that the benefit sharing should only be used as a last resort . ? ? ? ? - we are not talking about a new landfill , we are talking about an old landfill that is leaking . Why not work on a benefit package for the people that are now living near the old landfill and let them know that the Town of Dryden is very serious and concerned about whatever damage that is done by the old one as well as the new one . This should give them further incentive to pick the best one . Co Rep Watros - we need someone to come forth with documented proof o f damages . S upv Cotterill wanted to know if they have finalized the closing of t he dump on Caswell Road and followed all of the procedures ? Co Rep Watros - as far as he knew everything is on schedule . The big issue was getting the cover . ? ? ? ? - there are people on Caswell Rd that have their wells polluted from the old landfill site . Co Rep Watros - the Health Dept has done studies in that area and t hey are of the opinion that it is not from the landfill . S upv Cotterill - the Town of Dryden has sent to the County Board of • Reps . 3 different resolutions objecting the landfill located in the Town of Dryden . / 07 S upv Cotterill - when the site is named , if it is located in Dryden than the Town of Dryden will take court action . Tom Bonn - it has been in the newspaper and announced that a private developer is also coming into the county for a refuse site . O ther communities have gone on record in opposition to fill being brought in ( garbage , etc ) from outside of the county . Are we relying on zoning that the Dryden Town Board has passed or is there some other reason why ? S upv Cotterill - this has been discussed in detail and Atty Perkins h as investigated it and the Town is prepared to do anything and h ave everything on the books . Atty Perkins - the County Planning Dept made available a sample local law for towns without zoning to establish a special permit procedure to establish privately owned landfill . The Town of Dryden h as a zoning ordinance and this is not an allowed use . Clm Webb - went on the bus tour of the sites , so far all we hear about is the aquifer and there is no discussion with regard to the people that are involved . On the tour they very carefully took you d own Glen Coy near all the new houses , which is 3 or 4 miles from t he site and nothing to do with the Town of Enfield , and the d rainage is not even toward those houses . From the stand point of people and the road situation he could not understand why DR7 is even considered , and is the worst site of. all . • Clm Schlecht - the Town Board has already made 3 resolutions that h ave been passed on to the County in the last year or two . He felt t hat most of the Board members including himself have had private conversations with the Co Board of Reps and told them that they should consider other sites . There was considerable discussion and was decided that there should be a committee to make plans for the next meetings that are being h eld with regard to the landfill . Co Rep Watros - he was available for any ideas and anything that he can do to help support the people in Dryden , and will press for the landfill to be located outside of the Town of Dryden . CITIZEN PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR John Grim , Business Administrator from Dryden School system presented various slides on the proposed capital improvement projects that they would like to take and how it will . be funded . • COUNCILMAN PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clm Schlecht - reported that he has contacted Tom Niederkorn with Qregard to Dryden Lake park recreation area . / 8J ATTORNEY Atty Perkins - reported that he has one item for executive session involving litigation , and there will be no action taken by the B oard after the session . - - the Town Board should consider requesting the Hwy Supt to survey t he town roads and make recommendations to you on any of those w hich might be appropriate for posting for weight limits and types o f vehicles allowed on them . RESOLUTION # 165 SURVEY TOWN ROADS FOR WEIGHT LIMITS Clm Schlecht offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board authorize the Highway Superintendent t o survey the town roads and make recommendations to the Town Board o n such roads that should be posted with weight limits . 2nd Clm Garlock Roll call vote - all voting Yes - - acceptance of a new road , Hungerford Rd . This has preliminary subdivision approval from the Planning Board . The road has been constructed according to town highway specifications with the e xception that it has not had the final dressing of stone and oil applied . The reason being that there are several cuts that have to be made in the road by NYSE & G for service to the individual lots . ® He has met with Hwy Supt Gilbert and Mr Dolph and reviewed the road and felt that a $ 10 , 000 . 00 security is adequate to cover the cost o f the final dressing for the road if the town had to do it t hemselves . The Town Hwy Supt has recommended that the Town Board • accept the road on the conditions that are set forth in the ✓ esolution . There was considerable discussion regarding the $ 10 , 000 . 00 security and was decided to raise the amount to $ 15 , 000 . 00 RESOLUTION # 166 ACCEPT DEDICATION OF TOWN ROAD HUNGERFORD ROAD Motion was made by Clm Evans and seconded by Clm Schlecht ( original inserted in minute book ) Roll call vote all voting Yes CORRESPONDENCE Ambulance report D og report L etter of resignation , ZBOA , Planning Board and Site Plan Review secretary - Linda Woodin RESOLUTION # 167 APPOINT ZBOA AND PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY Clm Garlock offered the following resolution and asked for its A adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board appoint Cheryl L ' Amoreaux as ZBOA and Planning Board secretary at a rate of $ 4 . 75 per hour for the year 1987 . 2nd Clm Evans Roll call vote - all voting Yes . i;71/9 see- • RESOLUTION NO . 166 - 1987 ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION OF BUNGERFORD ROAD WHEREAS , the Town of Dryden Planning Board has approved the subdivision plat for " Hungerford Knotch Subdivision " , and WHEREAS , the road to be designated as " Hungerford Road " on said map has been partially constructed according to Town specifications and such construction has been approved by the Town of Dryden Highway Superintendent , and WHEREAS , the said road has not yet been stoned and o iled at the developer ' s expense since several cuts in the ✓ oad will have to be made by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation for service installations to respective lots , and WHEREAS , the Highway Superintendent has issued his opinion in writing dated November 2 , 1987 as to the cost of t he stone and oil and completion of said road , and WHEREAS , the developer has offered to dedicate said ✓ oad to the Town of Dryden as and for a town road , and has ,® agreed to furnish adequate security for the completion of said road , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by this Town Board that t he road shown on the subdivision plat entitled " PLAT OF HUNGERFORD KNOTCH SUBDIVISON " made by R . L . MacDowell , Jr . and dated November 24 , 1986 and also shown on the " Plan H ungerford Road ' As Built ' " and on the " Profile Hungerford Road ' As Built ' " both such Plan and Profile being dated O ctober 27 , 1987 , and which are incorporated herein by reference be , and hereby is , accepted as a Town road and the same is to be added to the official Town map , and the Town H ighway Superintendent is authorized to place the appropriate road signs thereon and to take any and all steps • necessary to maintain said road as a Town road from this day forward to be known as Hungerford Road . This resolution and acceptance is specifically conditioned and contingent upon the following : 1 . The developers pay all costs necessary in connection with the filing of the subdivision plat and any o ther plans or profiles and - recording of the deed and other necessary instruments including all abstract and related costs . • 2 . That until such time as the taxable status with respect to said road is changed to reflect its use as a road , the developers pay all real estate taxes assessed on said road . r' IF 3 . That as a condition of such acceptance the developer file with the Town Clerk a Letter of Credit , Bond o r Cash Deposit in the amount of $ , 000 . 00 and in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney and which security shall not expire before November 15 , 1988 to insure the completion o f the road including the stoning and oiling of the road . 4 . That before stoning and oiling , the Highway Superintendent reinspect the condition of the road and that the developer bear any expense or cost in bringing the road back to its present condition prior to the stoning and oiling . 5 . That such stoning and oiling be completed by the developer , at his expense , and according to Town specifications prior to September 1 , 1988 . 6 . That the Town Attorney approve the sufficiency of the instruments transferring the title of said road to the Town of Dryden . 7 . That the developers warrant materials and workmanship in the construction of said road for a period of o ne ( 1 ) year following the approval of , the stoning and o iling by the Highway Superintendent . • • . ; / 9 RESOLUTION # 168 APPOINT DEPUTY TOWN CLERK Clm Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Town Board appoint Jane Koelsch as Deputy Town Clerk at a rate of $ 4 . 50 per hour for the year 1987 . 2nd Clm Webb Roll call vote - all voting Yes There are reappointments to be made for the Economic Advisory Board , Vernon Gambrell ; and Tompkins County Planning Board , Barbara Caldwell are our present representatives and their term expires D ecember 1987 . Supv Cotterill will contact them to see if they would like to continue . There is a vacancy on the Environmental Management Council that should be filled . L etter from Noel Desch - Southern Cayuga Lake Water Commission has a position creating a plumbing review advisory board and would like t he Town Board to nominate a Board member to be considered by the commission to serve on this board . It should not be an appointee now serving on the water commission . Supv Cotterill appointed Clm G arlock . RESOLUTION # 169 ADD DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER BILLS TO 1988 TAX ROLL Clm Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the Supervisor be authorized to add the following d elinquent water and sewer bills to the 1988 tax roll if not paid by November 20 , 1987 . W illiam J Petrillose , 138 - 152 North St Parcel # 37 - 1 - 2 S ewer # 3 arrears $ 10 , 196 . 71 penalty $ 1 , 019 . 67 TOTAL $ 11 , 216 . 38 S ally Ann Duggan , 957 Dryden Rd Parcel # 56 - 5 - 11 W ater # 1 arrears $ 147 . 21 penalty $ 14 . 71 TOTAL $ 161 . 92 S ewer # 2 arrears $ 117 . 82 penalty $ 11 . 78 TOTAL $ 129 . 20 J ohn T Marchell , 959 Dryden Rd Parcel # 56 - 5 - 12 W ater # 1 arrears $ 74 . 51 penalty $ 7 . 45 TOTAL $ 81 . 96 S ewer # 2 arrears $ 58 . 69 penalty $ 5 . 87 TOTAL $ 64 . 56 Arthur Koehler , 18 Meadowlark Rd Parcel # 43 - 1 - 19 . 6 W ater # 1 arrears $ 64 . 31 penalty $ 6 . 42 TOTAL $ 70 . 73 S ewer # 1 arrears $ 40 . 00 penalty $ 4 . 00 TOTAL $ 44 . 00 . 2nd Clm Webb Roll call vote - all voting Yes • • / 0 RESOLUTION # 170 OPPOSE LANDFILL IN DRYDEN Clm Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : W HEREAS , the Tompkins County Board of Representatives Solid Waste Committee has apparently narrowed the site for the new Tompkins County landfill to two sites being DR2 and DR7 both located in the Town of Dryden , and W HEREAS , the Tompkins County Board of Representatives has previously represented to the Town of Dryden that it was obligated t o choose the best site for the new Tompkins County landfill , and W HEREAS , the County by its own criteria and procedures and at the advice of its own engineers established a formula to rank the potential sites within Tompkins County for their suitability as a landfill site , and W HEREAS , the County has not even tested all the top 10 sites according to its own ranking system , but instead has followed the path of least resistance in gaining access onto lands for testing purposes due to political considerations and not rational procedure ( including following its own ranking system ) and W HEREAS , the procedures followed by the County have not considered all the impacts on a large and important part of the Town of Dryden w hich is undergoing a renaissance of single family and residential d evelopment following the closing of the Caswell Road dump and no consideration has been given to the economic impact on the Town of Dryden including the fact that the same area housed the Caswell Road dump , and W HEREAS , the County has not considered sites outside of the County o f Tompkins or the State of New York as an alternative place of d isposal , and W HEREAS , and both sites DR2 and DR7 are over principal aquifers and t here is a great deal of surface water present on such sites both o f which drain into Fall Creek , which is a principal water source f or many residents in the Town and Cornell University , N OW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by this Town Board as follows : That the Town Board resolves to take appropriate legal action to e njoin , restrain and have reviewed the action of the Tompkins County Board of Representatives should such Board select either DR2 o r DR7 as the site for the new Tompkins County landfill . 2nd Clm Garlock Roll call vote Supervisor Cotterill Yes Councilman Evans Yes Councilman Webb Yes Councilman Garlock Yes Councilman Schlecht Yes 411 r November 10 , 1987 • D ryden Town Board D ryden , New York A lot of research has been done by residents of Dryden since the September 1st announcement of the final three potential sites for the county landfill , trying to find out how these sites were chosen . Many of us have presented information to the County Board at several meetings following that announcement . I live near site DR -7 . I and many other neighbors of the site have presented reasons for excluding DR -7 from further consideration . The Village of Freeville and the Etna Community Association have passed resolutions against locating the landfill at DR-7 . So far , these points seem to have had little impact on the Board . After studying the Solid Waste Committee 's progress reports and the Phase I report , we have come up with some more information . These four reasons were some of those listed for sites to be excluded initially from consideration ( in Solid Waste Management Program Progress Report # 1 ) and why DR - 7 should have been excluded : • Heavily developed areas • Freeville and Etna are within a mile of the site as well as more • than 100 homes (25 of these have been built within the past 3 yrs) • Areas in close proximity • Mill Creek and two tributaries on DR-7 drain into Fall Creek, and to public water supplies Fall Creek supplies drinking water to Cornell, NYSEG, and hundreds of private residences • Areas within 5, 000 feet • There is an airport runway within 5 ,000 feet of the site of airport runways • Areas immediately adjacent • This exclusion applies if Mill Creek is reclassified as a protected to classified surface waters stream because of naturally-spawning brook trout DR -7 was tested anyway, and this is a quote from the Phase I report : "The site [DR-7] has several geologic features that limit its potential for development. It is situated close to critical habitats and a principal aquifer and a public water supply is located just to the east. North and west boundaries abut existing roads , while the rest of the site is shaped along the bounds of several areas excluded by initial criteria. " Immediately after the Phase I report was released , DR- 7 was listed as one of the top three sites . How and why can it be a site in the final three ? The following are some questions that we 'd like answered about why DR -7 was ever tested and why it continues to be considered as a site : 1 . Using the Phase I report , if only the suitability factors ranked 3 ( most important) in significance are considered , site DR - 7 ranks 23rd out of the 23 sites . How did DR -7 ever get on the list in the first place ? And it seems quite convenient that the County Board decided to test 8 of the top 16 sites , making it possible to include DR -7 . 2 . In a quick check of the sites , it appears that the sites tested had only one or two o wners , and that was the most important criteria for testing the site . The County Board made a decision only to test sites where permission was granted , but they did not n ecessarily ask permission of the top 8 sites . Instead , they tested sites that were o ffered to them by the owners . For example , when it was decided to go back and test site DR - 1 , owners granted permission to test on that site . That site had a higher designation rating than DR - 7 in the initial list of candidate sites . Why wasn 't that tested before DR - 7 to begin with ? 3 . It is also very convenient that DR - 7 is carved out of a black and gray area on the site designation map . These black and gray areas were to be excluded initially from further testing . The white shape carved out as DR - 7 is Mr. Lucente 's property boundary . Why is that acceptable when the entire area to the south and east is not ? 4 . It seems that a high priority for considering sites was low cost for the county , and a low priority was impact on the environment and residents of the county . I think these priorities should be reversed . While cost is important , it should be a secondary consideration to the environment and residents nearby . How did this happen ? 5 . Why do those of us who are involved in trying to have DR -7 excluded keep hearing that this site was chosen well before the siting process ever began ? I realize that all of the things we 've heard must be considered hearsay evidence , but we 've heard • allegations from several sources and all the facts we 've been able to dig up seem to back up what we 've heard . The site should not have been in the top 23 sites ; in fact, it should have been excluded because of several factors . Why was it oh the list and why was it tested ? • There are a few other things I think it is important for the Town of Dryden to know if and when a landfill site is chosen in Dryden : The County Board passed a resolution ( No . 156 , June 16 , 1987) stating that if they chose to have garbage baled , it would be at an off-site location . I understand that it is a very real possibility that baling will be done at the landfill site . Also in that resolution is a clause stating that the properties in the vicinity of the landfill will be reevaluated for tax assessment purposes . Since that time , I have heard from our representatives and two lawyers that this is against the law . There is also a clause in this resolution stating that landowners within the impacted vicinity will be given an opportunity to " negotiate fair compensation with the County to offset any determined adverse impacts . " I understand that is another thing that probably will not be done . The County would have to compensate all of the Village of Freeville , all of Etna , and most of West Dryden . If we were all given tax reductions and compensation , the County would be bankrupt . • With all of this evidence , plus facts already presented , can 't a better site be chosen in this county ? A site that is far away from water supplies ? A site that is truly isolated and impacts a very minimum number of people ? Sincerely , / 4/(t%/( ' /Pr Nancy Ten Kate 235 Wood Road , RD # 1 Freeville , NY 13068 cc : Mr . Tillapaugh Mr, Watros I 0 • ::._ TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK P. O. BOX 516 65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053 y� 607-844-9120 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region ZONING OFFICE Date November 10th , 1987 To : The Dryden Town Board From : Henry M . Slater , Zoning & Building Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 65 E . Main Street Dryden , New York 13053 Sub . : Report for the Month of October , 1987 Gentlemen : During the month of October , 1987 there were 20 Building . Permits Issued and are described as follows . New Housing starts : there were ( 7 ) new A- 1 starts . Additions to existing A- 1 Homes : there were ( 2 ) . Private Garages : There were ( 5 ) permits issued . Additions to existing Private Garages : There was ( 1 ) of these . Additions to existing commerical warehouses : There was ( 1 ) of these . . Erect a chimney and install a wood stove or fireplace : There were ( 3 ) . Relocate an existing private storage building : There was ( 1 ) of these . Zoning Board of Appeals for November 87 . There was ( 3 ) hearing hels on Wednesday November 4th . See the attached report for details . Pleasealso find attached copies of other communications from this office that you may want to be aware of . CC : Mahlon R . Perkins , Dryden Town Attorney Susanne Lloyd , Dryden Town Clerk 0 TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK P. O. BOX 516 . 65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053 . 607-844-9120 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region ZONING OFFICE Date : October 28th , 1987 To : Members of The Dryden Town Zoning Board of Appeals From : Henry M . Slater , Zoning F, Building Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 65 E . Main Street Dryden , New York 13053 Sub . : Agenda for November Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Night . Members : Please be advised that due to Tuesday November 3rd being Election Day , I ' ve scheduled the hearing night to be on WEDNESDAY the 4th rather than TUESDAY . 7 : 30 P . M . ) . Angie Stetson is requesting a variance to section 801 . 13 as amended by resolution 178 1986 to place a second mobile home on property owned by her at 404 Wood Road Freeville . Ms . Stetson did in 1972 obtain permission to place 2 Mobile homes on said property , however she never has and this would make the permit to be obnsllder:dd to be abandoned . 7 : 45 P . M . ) . The Versatile Food Management Corp . is requesting a variance to erect a Business Office and food storage warehouse at the corner of Route 13 and Etna .. Lane & is in the R . B . 1 Zoning District ; and is not an allowed use . Plans and details of the business are attached for your review . 8 : 00 P . M . ) . Mr . Ted Marchell is requesting a variance for a Free - standing Sign at his business at 4 hall Road . As you may or may not recall , Ted has been before us earlier this year relative to the conversion of this building • • • which was the old Hep Materials Building . His point is that the if kept it at 15 or less feet in height , the message board section ' of the sign at ground level from route 13 . 1 ' CC : Linda Woodin , Rec . Sec . , ,, P . O . Box 84 , . - Dryden , New York • r 4 010 Date : November 5th , 1987 To : The Dryden Town Board Members From : Henry M . Slater , Zoning & Building Code Enforcement Sub . : Zoning Board of Appeals Action Taken for November 87 . 7 : 30 Angie Stetson , A motion was made to denied the variance request . Being that that there were only 3 board members present , the vote was 2f: to 1 . The board was not sure if the oration was carried . The was of the opinion that it always ✓ equire a min . of three votes to carry a motion . Thus the board desided to have attorney Perkins review thesvoteTand determine if the request was denied o r just where it is . 7 : 45 Versatile Food Services , A motion was made to approve the variance request . The vote was ( 3 to 0 ) to approve the request . 8 : 00 . Ted Marchell , a motion was made to approve the variance request . The board voted ( 3 to 0 ) to approve the request . If you have any questions , please feel free to call me for details . You w ill also find the notices of decision on file in this office upon the completion of. writings . TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK P. O. BOX 516 65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053 607-844-9120 In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region ZONING OFFICE Date : November 5th , 1987 To : Darrell & Diane Rademacher P . O . Box 819 • Dryden , New York 13053 From : Henry M . Slater , Zoning & Building Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 65 E . Main Street Dryden , New York 13053 Suh . : Compliance of the Provisions of Special Permit Issued to You For / Project Site at 3 Yellow Barn Road . . Mr . & Mrs . Rademacher : Please find inclosed a copy of Resolution 159 by the Dryden Town Board which authorized the issue of the special permit to establish a retail • storage facility at 3 Yellow Barn Road . • Since the time for compliance has expired , this office needs to make an evaluation of the compliance to items 1 - 11 . Would you please ' review the attached copy and indicate which conditions have been completed and if any have not ; what your plans are to complete those items . Once you have completed review , please return a copy of it to this office . Please understand that this is a standard review of the terms of your special permit and is required of all special permits that are issued by this office . . . If you have any questions or concerns relative to this or any other issue , please feel free to call us at 844 - 9120 . Our hours are 8 : OO . . A . M • till 1 : 00 P . M . Monday - Friday . , Thank You , Xo $1. Henry''M . Slater . Agent for the Town of Dryden CC : The Dryden Town Board • / 3 / RESOLUTION # 171 AUDIT GENERAL FUND BILLS Cim Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the general fund bills be paid as audited . 2nd Clm Webb Roll call vote - all voting Yes RESOLUTION # 172 AUDIT HIGHWAY FUND BILLS Cim Garlock offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that the highway fund bills be paid as audited . 2nd Clm Schlecht Roll call vote - all voting Yes JUSTICE REPORT - $ 5 , 964 . 00 FINANCIAL REPORT - given to Board members . Adjourned : 10 : 00PM 140 i _ / if Susanne Lloyd Town Clerk