Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-02-25TB 2 -25 -00 _ TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING RE: LUCENTE VARNA II SCOPING DOCUMENT FEBRUARY 25, 2000 Supv Varvayanis opened the meeting at 8:38 am. Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Thomas Hatfield, and Cl Deborah Grantham Supv Varvayanis - We're here to talk about the scoping document for the Varna II project and hopefully accept it. S Lucente asked Bob Hamer to comment. B Hamer - I guess the first thing I'd like to talk about or question is Part IV E about the approvals. I agree with those, but am curious what approvals are needed from the Tompkins County Planning Commission. Supv Varvayanis - Can you speak to that? Atty Perkins - I think that refers to the fact that since this involves a special permit decision, the Tompldns County Planning Commission has to be part of the process and if they have an objection to it, I think there is requirement for a majority if they raise objections. Or their objections have to be addressed specifically in the approval process. They don't have an absolute veto of it. B Hamer - The next item I have is under Part IV A, the topography map and grading plan. We have a topography map and I'm wondering about the use of a grading plan. We have provided multiple drainage plans and I'm wondering what the benefit of a grading plan would be at this point. Cl Grantham - Well, one of the issues is that I don't believe that you have provided us with any erosion control during construction plans yet. B Hamer - Right, and typically that will happen during the SPEDES permit. Cl Grantham - But we can ask that during this EIS, and we are. B Hamer - But a grading plan would be different than an erosion control plan. So I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of what it is you are looking for when you say grading plan. Cl Grantham - I think there's the erosion control during construction and I think that you meant (to Jim Kent of Clough, Harbour), correct me if I'm wrong, is the final contours of the site when construction is completed. Is that what you meant by that? J Kent - I wouldn't say final grading plan, but enough information on a grading plan to help someone evaluate the stormwater management plan. So there needs to be enough information about where drainage goes. It's that level of detail, not a final grading. B Hamer - Would the detail survey showing all the contours, would that give you, that's a starting point. ' J Kent - That's for the existing condition, but we need enough proposed grading to interpret the storm water management plan. Page 1 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 B Hamer - Okay. The drainage plan we have here showing the area that is going to the pond today, and then the area that's going to go to the pond post development. And what we have done is basically... J Kent - I think we'd be looking for a little more detail than that so we can get an understanding of the routes the water is going to take. I don't think we are talking about half foot contours or anything like that. We are talking about one or two foot contours, but the intent is to get a better understanding of water through the site. B Harper - Alright. Can we change that grading plan to erosion control plan? Because there is a big difference. J Kent - I think there is a level of a grading plan that needs to be done. Cl Grantham - And the grading plan has to do with flow of stormwater, not just erosion control. B Hamer - Right. Cl Grantham - So it can't say one and not the other. We can be specific and say I think erosion control during construction, erosion control post construction and sufficient grading plan to show the flow of stormwater after construction. B Harper - The next item is number 2, letter d, on page 3. I'm wondering what's the potential significant environmental impact for a shallow water table. The borings were taken in spring when the ground was wet. Obviously it fluctuates. We reported that the groundwater is two to ten feet deep. I'm just wondering how that would impact the environmental.... Cl Grantham - I think the potential impact is on groundwater, particularly because it's so shallow. B Hamer - I guess I don't... obviously it fluctuates. It could be two feet. It could be ten feet. It obviously varies. I'm wondering what impact that would have, shallow or deep. Cl Grantham - I don't think that it's the impact of the water table. I think it's the impact on the water table of activities on the site when the water table is shallow. B Harper - I guess we go through a lot of these in order to do an EIS. It appears to me that we're going to need more information in order to adequately address these because it's not a real clear understanding of what you are looking for there. We took 13 borings on the site. We know approximately during that time period what the water table was. We know that right now as the site exists a lot of the soil is bare. You get a lot of erosion that way. When we get done we're going to have a controlled stormwater management plan in place that will slow down the stormwater. We're going to mitigate by using the pond. I guess I'm just curious what more information you'll need other than stating we took 13 borings and the water table during that time period was found to be two to ten feet deep. It obviously fluctuates. I don't have a problem with it if what we've done to date with the borings is adequate and we can include that in the EIS. Cl Grantham - Well one of our concerns is that there obviously is a lot of solid waste there and what impact that has had on the ground water quality to date is one question. And I think what impact will your stormwater management have on the level of the groundwater table after your construction. I think those are the kinds of questions that people were raising during the hearings. Page 2 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 • B Harrier - Okay. Well if we jump down to that last item, e, would it be safe to say that after this project is built that the quality of the stormwater would greatly increase. Because currently as it exists today you do have some debris left by the previous owner. You do have bare land where it will easily erode. When we get done that the debris will have been removed, we'll have a grassed area where it can slowly work into the ground and stormwater pond. Cl Grantham - I think you need to show that. J Kent - Not all impacts are negative when you are doing the EIS, and everything you said is true, but then on the flip side of that you are introducing large areas of impervious surface, large numbers of automobiles with leaks and oil spilling on pavement. So those issues also have to be addressed. How you are going to protect the stormwater. And I might say that discussion isn't necessarily a difficult one either, but it needs to be discussed. B Harrier - Okay. Supv Varvayanis - Just because the current owner has been kind of lax in his controls does that mean you think we're not entitled to ask you to be more in control of what you are doing. B Harrier - No, in fact we are going to improve the situation, so I'm just trying to get an understanding of what exists today might not be a good situation, but in the future this will be a totally different situation. It's not going to be used as a dump by any means. I want to make it clear that it's going to be day and night when this is built. That's the point: I'm trying to make. As it currently exists today, there's a potential hazard up there. • Supv Varvayanis - I think we are all aware of that. B Harrier - On page 4, at the top, I guess in number (f) I had a question about the ground settling and so forth, but we can handle that with the boring reports .and so forth. Number 3(e) I question the Phase I Site Investigation at this point. Typically that's for the lender and the owner's protection. Certainly it may have to happen. I'm just: curious if it needs to be included in this scoping document. Cl Grantham - Why. wouldn't it be included? B Harrier - Again, typically the site investigation is done at a later stage. J Kent - I wouldn't agree with that. The purpose of preparing the EIS is to make a reasonable effort to investigate potential environmental impacts. The fact that there is some debris, junk for lack of a better term, on the surface is a reasonable indicator that there might be something else below the surface. A Phase I investigation is the lowest level site investigation. There is a Phase II that is significantly more involved. But a Phase I is a reasonable way to determine whether there is significant potential impact. It is perfectly appropriate. Supv Varvayanis - We heard a lot of people who are very nervous about the material that was up there and how would we handle it. I think some discussion on what you are going to do with the, using his term, junk that's up there would be very appropriate and would hopefully calm a lot of fears. S Lucente - We are in scoping to measure the impact of our project on this piece of • land, but you are talking about stuff that isn't connected to our project. Page 3 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 J Kent - It's pre - existing. Supv Varvayanis - Well if you are going to move it, it is connected to your project. Cl Grantham - And you have to move it to do your project. S Lucente - A Phase I investigation involves a review of title and previous uses of the land. Whether we do our project or not doesn't matter. Phase I isn't germane because if there is something under there, it will remain under there. And if there is not anything under there, it doesn't make any difference. So it seems like to me putting us through the expense of the Phase I, it's not that great of an expense but it's there, is premature. Because we don't in fact have a project and it has nothing to do with the impact of our project. You're looking at something that's allegedly already there. Our project is not impacting... Supv Varvayanis - Well you are going to be driving a bulldozer and moving soil. Are you saying something that might be buried a foot underground that you are going to dig up is not impacted by your project? S Lucente - I think that if we dig that thing up our project will be helping to expose a community problem so it can be dealt with. And I think that the Town's position was if you find something, or we want to have a monitoring situation where we can come on the site and look for stuff, I have no problem. You are talking about an impact that we didn't create, that our project doesn't create, so I don't understand the need for a Phase I. Cl Grantham - If there are substances buried there that would, even if they just sat there or if they were dug up during your project that would affect the public safety or health or welfare of the community, of the people living on the project later or of the community during the project, then we need to know ahead of time. is S Lucente - All I'm saying is if there is something there, its already there. Supv Varvayanis - You don't own the property yet, correct? S Lucente - Correct. Supv Varvayanis - Then why don't you just make this part of the sale, that he pay for a Phase I and prove that it's nice and safe? S Lucente - You know very well that the terms of the sale have already been dictated and signed, so I can't go back to him and ask him to conduct a Phase I. I've been involved in a lot of commercial projects and I have never seen a municipality require a Phase I. It's always done by the banks. J Kent - The City of Ithaca right now is doing a generic EIS for the Southwest Area Land Use Study, and it was part of their scoping document that a Phase I had to be prepared. S Lucente - Yeah, but the difference is that the City of Ithaca is the developer. J Kent - That's fine. Let's go back to the reason for it. This is intended as a screening for potentially hazardous materials. S Lucente - It's a screening for impacts our project will create, is it not? J Kent - That's correct. Let's put it this way then. I would say the only way you can get 0 away without doing the Phase I is to alter your site plans so that you don't go near that area at Page 4 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 all. Otherwise if you have to do the Phase I, you know it's in there and the purpose of the EIS • is to determine what are the impacts and how do you mitigate the impacts. If you don't know what's underneath the ground there, you don't know what the potential impacts are. The Phase I is the best way to find out. 0 S Lucente - We do have borings. Tests were done and they were all negative. J Kent - And that probably will reduce the cost of the Phase I and improve the effectiveness of it. S Lucente - Well it will be superior to the Phase I. J Kent - That's fine. S Lucente - So you've got something that's better than what you are asking for, so why are we going this way. I'm not going to make a big stink about it. It's just a :pain in the rear because when the banks call for Phase I's, and they all do, they have a list of approved engineers (perhaps you'll be on that list, I can direct them to you) and if the engineer who performs this Phase I isn't on this list, I've got to do it again. So what's the point? Phase I will be done either way. It can't be avoided. I'm not arguing about the cost. I just don't like the idea of having to perform the Phase I twice. Cl Grantham - Go to your bank and get the list of approved engineers. S Lucente - I have no idea which bank we are going to use. I can't approach a bank until I have a project. Cl T Hatfield - Doesn't a Phase I have to be done within so many days? S Lucente - Yeah. There's no way we could move forward without this report. No bank will put up with it. So you are going to get it. So why have it here? Cl Grantham - Because we need to see it before we approve a project. S Lucente - Why? We can go round and round. I'm just telling you, for the record, this is onerous. Cl T Hatfield - I agree. It is onerous. It seems to me it's outside the scope we are working on. Cl Grantham - I don't think so. Cl T Hatfield - I understand that. Cl Grantham - If there is a public health issue that exists at that site we need to know about it before we approve a project. Cl T Hatfield - And we will. Cl Grantham - No. Cl T Hatfield - Before he can finance his project you're going to... Cl Grantham - That's different than approving the project, Tom. He's asking not to do this Phase I until after the project is approved. Page 5 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Cl T Hatfield - Okay. Let's assume that we don't approve the project and he doesn't do anything. What do we know about the property? The same thing we know now. This analysis is the impact of his project on the community and the property. They are two different analyses. If we want to find out what's on that property, we should approach the property owner and figure out something with the current owner. Because that's the only way we have absolute control over finding out what's on the property, as a Town Board, Cl Grantham - That's a different issue. If this project isn't going to be done then we should do that anyway at this point because of what we've learned. However, we have a responsibility to the people who will live on top of that stuff if the project is approved and we need to know that ahead of time. Cl T Hatfield - I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that it's an onerous situation. S Lucente - I just want to point out that if there is a problem, and let's all hope that there's not, we are going to be the ones to solve the problem. Otherwise, the problem is going to fester. We are the solution, not the problem. At this least to this Phase I thing. You are looking at the answer right here in front of you. You want to come on the site and do monitoring? I invite you to come on the site and do monitoring. I can bet you that we will. J Kent - I guess the way I would solve this is I would turn it back to you and suggest that you put together an action plan for how you are going to investigate whether there is some nasty material below grade in that area of the site. If you are not going to do it through a Phase I, then how will you do it? Because one way or another it's got to be done and it certainly is a potential environmental impact on this site. If you plan on developing that portion of the site that means you are going to be moving dirt. That means you are going to be disturbing material below grade. Some how some level of investigation has to be done as to what's underneath. Cl T Hatfield - But particularly a Phase I. It has to be an investigation that determines,. 'you'll want to know that yourself anyway. J Kent - I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess that any alternative you might propose is going to be far more expensive to you than doing a Phase I. That's just a hunch on my part. As soon as you talk to any qualified engineer and talk about ways of determining whether there are materials under there... S Lucente - Have you read our geologic report? J Kent - Actually, no I haven't. S Lucente - Read the report. We've done the tests. And I think we did them more than adequately. We have two bore sites per building, plus. J Kent - And do you have borings in that material? S Lucente - Oh, yeah. J Kent - Then I would turn it back to you and say offer an alternative. S Lucente - Our alternative would be to offer these reports made by geologic showing results of the doc tests, and let's move on to the next problem. If there is anything on the site, we'll deal with it. Which we will have to under our financial obligations anyway. There is Page 6 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 nothing that is superior than what we've already done, except more of what we have already done. I guess we can argue about that, too. B Harrier - Phase I is really just visual. Cl T Hatfield - Surface. B Harrier - You've all been on the site. You've all seen it. I think that debris or that junk that's there, to get that disposed of would be very easy to deal with. We've gone above and beyond with the borings. Supv Varvayanis - Well, you were saying before you wanted very specific what we wanted to see. And now you are saying you don't want to see Phase I. So in this case, you are satisfied that if you present enough data in your DEIS and our engineer, whoever we have review your thing, says "well, I think this is adequate" that if we pull out a specific test that we want at this point, you would prefer that? S Lucente - Well, I'm not really quite sure what you are getting at. Supv Varvayanis - Well, when we were here last week you said you wanted to see specifically boom, boom, boom, what do you want us to present. So here we have prepare Phase I. You say well, I don't want that, I'd rather just... What you are saying now is take out Phase I. You'll present the data you already have. S Lucente - What I want to say to you is the data that we have in the geologic report, which was the 13 borings, you have the thing. Would that be satisfactory? That's what we're asking. • J Kent - That hasn't been reviewed by the engineers so that's hard to say. B Harrier - The Town engineer reviewed it, right? S Lucente - Yeah. TG Miller reviewed it and understood it. B Harrier - And they've been out to the site. Atty Perkins - At the risk of making a suggestion, maybe one way to get by this hurdle is to leave in the Phase I environmental assessment that you have there, and then add something equal which will address and indicate what your concerns are and then make it clear to the project sponsor today that what you want is the Phase I. However, at his own risk he can submit something else. But you don't feel necessarily bound by that because you don't know what it will include. That will allow him to use what he has and anything else he thinks is relevant when he discusses that issue. S Lucente - I appreciate the suggestion, but 617 clearly calls for you to and I quote "to include the extent and quality of information needed for the preparer to adequately address each impact including an identification of relevant existing information and required new information, including the required methodology or methodologies for obtaining that information ". That's 617.8(fl(3). This is why I said let's delay this thing last week for another week so that we can sit down and you can give us that type of specific information. Now me coming back and saying I don't like this Phase I thing is another issue. It's just something I don't believe should be there. But if you are going to put something there, all I want you to do, and what Bob has said, is follow 617. Let us know exactly where you stand. Let's make sure • that the record is perfectly clear as to what 617 requires. Page 7 of 31 TB 2 -25-00 Supv Varvayanis - I'm not sure I follow your point there. S Lucente - Okay, I'll read it again. 0 Atty Perkins - Well, I think the point is that you told him what you want, and that's pretty specific. Supv Varvayanis - And he says he doesn't like it. Atty Perkins - He doesn't want to do it and there's been a suggestion made... Supv Varvayanis - That's what I was saying before. You say you want specifics. We give you Phase I specific. Now you say you don't like it. S Lucente - There is no rule that says that I can't come here and argue against something that I think is onerous. And that's what I'm doing. That's not the same thing as requiring you to gave me the exact what, where, when, how and why, which you are required to do. Now if you want to go ahead and run me over and require Phase I, well go ahead and do Phase I. But it certainly is not going to stop our DEIS. I'm just saying isn't this a little ridiculous? Do we really need to go this far when you are going to get the information anyhow? Supv Varvayanis - That's why we gave you the option. S Lucente - Yes, but the problem is you are going to select an engineer and it may not be on the bank's list that I finally end up going to and so... Atty Perkins - We are not going to select the engineer. is S Lucente - Or select the company that does the Phase I test. Atty Perkins - I don't think they suggested that. Cl Grantham - You select it. S Lucente - I have no idea what my bank's going to require. I can go downtown and get one of the guys to do it, but if they are not on the approved list of whatever institution we approach in the end, we've got to start over. All I'm saying is you are going to get it. You want a copy? Put it in here that you will receive a copy before building permits are issued. Cl T Hatfield - That sounds good. S Lucente - How's that. J Kent - That doesn't satisfy what an EIS is supposed to do. An EIS is supposed to identify potential impacts and then identify mitigation measures. S Lucente - From our project. J Kent - From your project. Are you moving dirt? S Lucente - We're moving dirt. J Kent - That's an impact of your project. Atty Perkins - Your project involves this site. There is no way to win that argument. Page 8 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 is J Kent - There is no way around that. So let's go to the issue of who prepares it. First off, if you are preparing this EIS, which is my understanding at this point, you will hire the firm that will do the Phase I. If you require the firm to do the Phase I in accordance with the ASTM standards, I'm sure that any bank is going to accept the findings of that. S Lucente - Well you're no developer because I'll tell you right now, every major financial institution I've ever dealt with maintains a list. And they only deal with companies that do Phase I on that list. Anybody in the business knows that. That's all I have to say. Atty Perkins - The other alternative I think here is if you choose not to do it, then your draft EIS should include an action plan that addresses and discusses how you are going to deal with this at the time you do have your Phase I and in the event that there are hazardous materials discovered or whatever. That's part of the alternative I think. S Lucente - I don't have a problem with that. Atty Perkins - That's up to the board to decide whether that will meet their requirements. And certainly what they are saying is if you do a Phase I, that's going to be the target you shoot at. You come up with something else, then we have to evaluate it for its sufficiency. And you may very well have more money into it than if you just did the Phase I. It's up to the Board to decide. Cl T Hatfield - What does a Phase I get us that the geological borings haven't already provided? I don't have any experience in that area. Cl Grantham - Jim, tell us what's in a Phase I. J Kent - I don't do them myself, so if somebody knows better correct :me. There is a research into the past ownership of the site and use of the site. There is a walk over, a visual inspection of materials on the surface. There is an examination of available historical data And quite frankly I think they'd probably ask to look at this geological report since it is available and is known to be there. They generally take about a week to prepare. They cost $1500 to $2000 depending on who does them. Cl T Hatfield - And they use the topos and look at them over time, do time lapsed progression of physical site changes. I've been through them and they are not an uncommon thing when you are dealing with banks and commercial properties. I'm trying; to evaluate Steve's comment. What are we going to get out of a Phase I which typically as you say is a very low level investigation, a lot of it goes to title and the time lapse topography. We already have the geological information from the borings. Maybe what we would prefer to have is the work done. To me the pertinent work in the Phase I is the topo that shows changes in the site over time and indicates what may have been put in there and what may not have been put in there. Maybe that's already been investigated, I don't know. D Weinstein - There are no additional borings that are involved? S Lucente - Not in Phase I. Cl T Hatfield - It's a physical walk over. D Weinstein - The company that did the boring, I asked them if they had been hired to look for hazardous material instead of siting the buildings, which is what they were hired for. • If they were hired to look for hazardous materials they would take borings in different places and a different amount of borings... Page 9 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Cl T Hatfield - That's not a Phase I. 0 S Lucente - Also, that's not correct. Geologic did not say that. They were hired for the specific purpose of investigating the soil so we could design a proper footer system and to look for toxic waste. Atty Perkins - The other thing the Phase I involves is an investigation of any hazardous waste indices maintained by the County or State or government. Cl T Hatfield - It's basically a paper audit. It doesn't get you any more information about what's in the ground. Atty Perkins -They are typically done in situations where or something like this that someone is looking to buy. They are except in this particular case, and Jim's right, you had the land for an unknown period of time. So it is appropriate to do some normally on raw land you just wouldn't do it. you've got an existing facility not typically done on land disturbed by unknown people evel of investigation. But Cl T Hatfield - Well why don't we ask them instead of producing a Phase I which is a kind of specific type of operation, to produce a search of indices that you just referred to and some sort of report on the topographical changes from a point in time before it became disturbed. 1965 or whatever period time is reasonable and rational. That stuff is readily available. You could grab it, put it together and compile it and then we've got all the information that you would get out of a Phase I, plus you've got the borings. Because Phase I is not going to get us much. I don't particularly care about title in this instance. The bank does, but we don't. It's not an issue for us. It's an alternative. S Lucente - If we are going to spend money on this proposal to get this right is environmentally, I recommend that we spend the money where it is going to do some good. Requiring a Phase I isn't going to do any good. That money could be put into better erosion control study. It could be put into any range of other things, than this which is not required. Supv Varvayanis - Well then can we just go back to where we were before and say or equivalent study? Would you be satisfied? S Lucente - A Phase I or equivalent study? Well you've already got a study that's superior to a Phase I. Supv Varvayanis -Well then you're all set. S Lucente - Require the use the engineering report from Geologic and that will satisfy the requirement and we can move on to the next thing. Cl Grantham - I'd like to say Phase I or equivalent study that would identify any hazardous materials or other hazards that are subsurface. S Lucente - May I ask, Deb, have either of you two read the geologic study? Cl Grantham - I read it a long time ago when you gave it to us. S Lucente - I think you are going to find that that is an invasive study. We went way down. They had this huge rig and were up there drilling away. We anticipated this request sooner or later. We did this before we even got out of staff review. I think we've gone the distance on this one already. 0 Page 10 of 31 0 TB 2 -25-00 D Weinstein - There are only 13 holes and only something on the order of three or four of them are in the area that is really of concern here, if that many. S Lucente - I disagree. Those holes were drilled based on where the project was going to be built and this project is going to be built on approximately half of the entire site. So you've got better than two holes per acre, or one for every 20,000 feet, roughly. We didn't bother drilling on the half of the project where we have a steep slope or where we are not going to build. We just drilled where we're building. B Harner - We went through all of the fill and we kept on drilling until we got down to virgin material. Atty Perkins - But that's not the point. That's beyond what Phase I would be anyway. Supv Varvayanis - If you are that confident that you've gone way beyond the Phase I requirements, why can't we just say or equivalent? Atty Perkins - You can. S Lucente - On the equivalent if they could make it topo changes, toxic waste indices plus the borings, either or. Atty Perkins - Why don't you say which discussion shall include at a minimum a search of the hazardous waste indices, topographical changes over whatever period of time you select, a discussion of the geological report and test borings that have been done on the site. You don't just attach things to it. There's a discussion of all those things in the EIS. Cl Grantham - I would accept that. Cl T Hatfield - I would too. I think that's a reasonable outcome of the discussion. Supv Varvayanis - Okay. Cl Grantham - Phase I or alternative study that will include at a minimum discussion of the existing geologic data, topographic changes over time since the site was disturbed, and the hazardous waste indices. S Lucente - Okay. B Harner - The next item, about a third of the way down on that same page, talks about ground water, item 1. I guess I don't understand what's asked for when you say the location and description of aquifers and identify the aquifers below. What would be the point of knowing that information? Under Environmental Setting. I mean we are not impacting the aquifer which is different from groundwater. Is everybody attached to city water out there? S Lucente - Yes, and city sewer. B Harner - Okay. Supv Varvayanis - Well, I know city water and sewer goes through there. Do we know every single person is hooked up to it? Page 11 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 S Lucente - There is only one that's not, and that's one we control. And we don't care. Martha was tallying about the unit that is right next door to her owned by Ted Marchell, and she's right. Ted doesn't care. 40 B Hamer - If everyone was served by a well, then the aquifer may come in to play. Right now, the way the site is set up, when it rains out there the flow is heading toward 366 at an uncontrolled rate. If anything we are going to improve the situation by slowing down the flow, allowing it to go into the grass or slowly dissipate through the ground. We are not talking a shopping mall size impervious area. The impervious area is not that great. If anything we are going to increase the aquifer recharge. I'm just wondering if there is any need to do anything further with this aquifer. Cl Grantham - Well I think you could just change it to groundwater. B Hamer - What would be needed in the EIS to satisfy groundwater. Cl Grantham - Again, it's contamination of groundwater and interaction of that groundwater with Fall Creek. B Harper - Certainly we plan on discussing that so we can basically scratch items a and b because we are not talking about aquifers. Groundwater and aquifers are two different things. We don't have a problem talking about how we are going to mitigate the stormwater, how we are going to handle treatment of the stormwater, what happens when it leaves the site all the way to Fall Creek. Certainly we are prepared to do that. When we talk about aquifers, that's a little bit different. Cl Grantham - Just change it to groundwater then. That groundwater is bound to have some interaction with Fall Creek. B Hamer - Location and description of groundwater. Supv Varvayanis - Having put aquifer in there, how do you feel about changing it to groundwater? J Kent - Again, I'm not a scientist, but when you are talking about aquifers, you are not just talking about the quality of the water. You are also talking about amounts of water with the recharge areas being significant where they are. It is easy to quantify the above grade movement of water. It's obviously less and more difficult to deal with the below grade, but it's equally important. Atty Perkins - But don't we have now a mapping of the aquifers in the County. Cl Grantham - I don't think it's finished. B Hollenbeck - They have a draft that's available. Cl Grantham - Yeah. Atty Perkins - Maybe what's appropriate here is a discussion of what information is available and identification of whether or not in your opinion this project is going to affect the existing aquifers to the extent of existing knowledge of where they are and so forth. Cl Grantham - And Fall Creek, because there will be interaction. B Harper - So we definitely will have to scratch item b, identify direction of aquifer flow. Page 12 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 0 Cl Grantham - Why? Change it to groundwater flow. B Hamer - Okay. The next thing I have is two thirds down the page, item 3, wastewater treatment. Description of proposed wastewater treatment system. That would be the public system. We are not going to put in our own septic tanks and so forth. And then the capacity of the existing sewer system. Certainly we can address that. It's been addressed by the Town engineer and stated that there is capacity. There are two sewer mains that run up and down 366. I just wanted to clarify that. The last item at the bottom of the page, increased potential for flooding. I guess the stormwater pond will be used to mitigate that and slow that flow down so we don't have a problem with that. Page 5, wastewater treatment. I wonder where this information came from about exceeding the capacity of existing sewer. Cl Grantham - That's a potential impact. All you need to do is... Supv Varvayanis - Yeah, I think in a lot of these places you seem to be thinking we are going to be looking for comments. As you say, it's already been addressed. We all know that the sewage plant has tons of capacity. Just put that right in. We are not trying to be difficult. It's just that the document is supposed to look at every potential impact. We are not trying to be difficult, trust us. B Hamer - The next concern I have is on page 6, the traffic study. A line was added to study Mt Pleasant Road and Turkey Hill Road intersection. I guess I'm wondering the need to actually do that. I think everyone understands that when we looked at the traffic flow patterns, we looked at the worst possible case, saying that this intersection doesn't exist. We are going to say that all traffic leaves this intersection. To make it even worse, we are going to say that 90% is going to go this way and 10% is going to go this way. Then we switched it. We did a study. DOT concluded there was no problem. We also did the same thing over here and looked at all the traffic that would use this intersection and we looked at 90% going this way, 101/6 going this way. Then we had to take traffic counts and analyze. Again, no problem. With this being the main corridor through Varna, it would be impractical to say that 90% of the cars are going to go up to Turkey Hill Road. I did look at some preliminary numbers and based on the trip generation you may have 20 cars during the peak hour going up there. That's during the peak hour. I guess I just disagree with analyzing this intersection when you are going to have very little volume of traffic. So what's the need to analyze Turkey Hill Road? Supv Varvayanis - It's an almost blind intersection and... B Hamer - That's the County's issue. We didn't create the blind intersection. Supv Varvayanis - You are putting more cars on it. What I'm saying is looking at 20 cars during the peak hour going up there is not going to make a major impact. If you sat there for an hour and watched 20 cars going up that hill, it's not like they are going to be stacked up there. I just don't see the value, what that's really going to accomplish, to do a traffic study of that intersection when it's not really going to have an impact. D Weinstein - It's very easy to demonstrate that cars are likely to back up trying to get on to 366. People will search for alternative ways to get out of there, an alternative way being to go up to the Turkey Hill Road intersection. It will increase the number of cars going up there well beyond what the traffic counts indicate. B Hamer - Well we have traffic counts for that intersection from what the County gave _ us and it's so far below the minimum to have any action take place. 0 Page 13 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Cl Grantham - Well we're looking at impacts on community, not just minimum traffic requirements that the DOT has for their roads. We are looking at impact on community as well. Those are issues that were raised during the public hearings. 40 B Harper - So I guess with that said I need to know exactly what's needed, what type of study, what type of information, how you want it performed. Certainly the DOT level study is not warranted for that intersection because it is such a low volume of traffic. 366 going to Ithaca, going to Dryden, has got to be your main thorough route. I just can't see the volume of cars going up that hill. So I would request that that be taken out of the scope. S Lucente - I understand Dave Weinstein's comment, but I think it's speculative. There is just no way of knowing how many people are going to make that decision. When we are doing municipal planning we have to go on more than just which way we think the wind might be blowing. We have to derive information from facts and speculation certainly should not be part of this. Cl Grantham - Can you help us out with this, Jim? J Kent - When it comes to traffic studies, it's one of those areas where there are well- defined processes. I always go back to what the real purpose is here, and that's to identify potential impacts. What I would lean toward is we could help you better define how to conduct this traffic study with some more very definitive processes. I will get that to you when I get back to the office. I'll fax it to you. What I would suggest is that you look at that intersection as part of a pre - screening process in a traffic study, and if it warrants more investigation, then do it and if not, don't, and use the DOT processes and standards. If you can wait until I get back to the office, I could probably fax you something very definitive in terms of this type of study. B Harper - And the study would be reviewed by the town engineer, is that correct? Who Is would review that study? Supv Varvayanis - We haven't decided who would be reviewing this EIS. Cl Grantham - Somebody higher than the town I guess. B Hamer - It's the lead agency's prerogative to hire someone to provide technical review of the EIS. Erica Evans - Did you discard the idea of a one way in and out? S Lucente - TG Miller rejected it. B Hamer - And the reason that that was rejected is that you could put up a sign no left turn, and the cars will still turn left. S Lucente - We don't have control that way. B Hamer - We can make better improvements by clearing site distances; changing the grade and so forth if we don't restrict it. Because if they want no left turns out of the site there on Mt. Pleasant Road, basically you don't have to do anything, just put a driveway out to the end of it. Very little clearing would have to take place. That was a decision based on the town engineer. I guess just looking at the volume of traffic and knowing that the majority of the people are going to use 366 and looking at the preliminary numbers, about 20 cars per peak hour that may go up Mt Pleasant Road, and again its conservative, I just don't feel that it's going to have an impact. We analyzed 366, Mt Pleasant, Freese Road, and we went above and Page 14 of 31 TB 2 -25-00 beyond on those. For anybody who disputes it, all the cars and the way we did this study is so • conservative, saying all the cars are going to use one entrance and look at it where they use the other entrance, and the DOT reviewed it and didn't have any problems, and again, they're not looking at just capacity. They are looking at safety, turning movements, trip generations, signals, accident data and again, no problems. They felt their concerns were addressed. We've got a letter to that effect. I just don't see how analyzing another intersection is going to make a difference. D Weinstein - But you didn't calculate what the backups are going to be of people trying to turn left. That's what's going to produce the impetus for people going up Mt Pleasant Road to Turkey Hill. B Harner - But understanding how traffic, trip generations, movements work and so forth, is different. That's just someone's perception. It's hard for someone to perceive that when you say that there's 100 cars during the peak hour, people seem to think that in one hour they're going to see 100 cars. That's not how trip generation works. We don't feel that there's going to be a backup. You've got to understand that the DOT doesn't just look at 366. If you are going to have cars back up at our site, people are going to rush to get out there, and the DOT does look at that. You say there that they are going to be backed up, we don't feel that's going to be the case and DOT does look at safety, too. You've got to remember that the DOT looks at driveways too and we have one driveway in and one driveway out. If they felt that that was a concern they would have us put a right turn only lane in and they didn't come back with that request. Erica Evans - The DOT doesn't seem to really think about these things because we don't have a turn off lane into the other Varna project either and it's a pain. And so they're not worried about this either. Also the intersection with Turkey Hill Road, people come along on • Turkey Hill and turn down Mt Pleasant from Ellis Hollow in great numbers at the time that either classes or work hours. That's a very dangerous intersection and there have been some very bad accidents right there. And this is something that you're not considering. You're not considering people turning into Mt Pleasant from Turkey Hill Road, the people who come from Ellis Hollow. You're just thinking about your own complex. B Harner - Well, we do look at the cars coming down Mt Pleasant Road. That is a concern. You have an intersection on Mt Pleasant Road. Again the argument could be made that you need to analyze every intersection until people get to their destination. How far do we have to take this thing until you're satisfied? Erica Evans - Not very far. Cl Grantham - It's right there. J Kent - You are only being asked to do two intersections. That's hardly... B Harner - Three intersections, actually four. S Lucente - We've already done three. B Harner - We've done three. J Kent - So you're three- fourths done. 0 S Lucente - Did you read our transportation study? Page 15 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 J Kent - I didn't, no, but our transportation section did. We are certainly not putting a _ huge burden on you to ask you to do four intersections. It's minimal for a project this size. S Lucente - Are there any existing materials regarding the danger of this intersection? Cl Grantham - I don't know. B Hamer - The only thing we have is the traffic count. B Hollenbeck - We have a request for a 4 -way stop sign. Cl Grantham - Yeah, we have requests for things like that. B Hollenbeck - So the county might have something. Cl Grantham - We might have a speed limit request, too, for Turkey Hill. S Lucente - We'd back that speed limit request. In fact our project will make it easier to get it through. Cl Grantham - Do you have other things on the scope? B Hamer - Under item g, the traffic movement of local farm equipment. Of all the trip generations and traffic studies, transportation manuals, I don't know if that exists on farm equipment. Turning movements for farm equipment? I just wonder how that impacts our... Cl Grantham - Cornell has submitted letters about concerns that it will impact their work down across 366 there. 0 B Hamer - So what are you looking for when you say traffic movements of farm equipment? Do we add a couple of tractors into the ... Cl Grantham - I guess talk with Cornell about what kind of... S Lucente - Cornell only has a ten acre parcel of land, and a fraction of that is planted. They are not going to come up; they'll go up through the back way Game Farm Road, Ellis Hollow and down. They're not going to come down our little strip of Mt Pleasant Road. Cl Grantham - I don't know. Erica Evans - They do. I walk that road and I've seen farm equipment on it. S Lucente - We've been watching and we haven't seen any. Supv Varvayanis - Well a lot of us have seen the equipment there and they wrote a letter expressing their concerns. S Lucente - Can we have a copy of the letter? Cl Grantham - Yeah, it's part of the public record. I think part of their concern was increased public, I don't know how they put, more people walking on their lands, too. Supv Varvayanis - You can't address that unless you don't put people in your apartments. • Page 16 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 B Harner - I guess looking at farm equipment safety and I guess I'm at a loss as to what • would be included. Certainly we are not going to do another traffic study for farm equipment. J Kent - I wouldn't think of it in terms of a traffic study. First I'd read Cornell's letter and see what their concerns are and then use a common sense approach to address their concerns. B Harner - It is listed under traffic study, that's why I'm a little confused. Supv Varvayanis - Well it is part of the traffic. J Kent - Why don't we just say address movements of local farm equipment and leave it at that rather than... B Harner - My next comment is on page 6, item 2g, inadequate parking for complex of this size. I guess we went around and around on this about 4 times. We are above the minimum required. We came back with a number we thought was adequate and the town came back with another and we went back and forth and we derived 254 parking spaces which is different than what this document has at 235 on the first page. I thought that was all agreed upon and was wondering if we could just cross that one out and make the change on page 1 from 235 to 254. D Weinstein - One thing the public would like to know is how that number was arrived at. What was your thinking, what was the assumption about how many cars per unit? When they read this document they feel like okay I understand where this number comes from and therefore I either agree or disagree with the assumption about how many cars per unit. • J Kent - There are published standards for parking. Public Land Institute has them. There are a lot of different places you can go that will either validate or not validate the number. Atty Perkins - Isn't that a function of what the local code requires more than anything else. He's not being asked to evaluate whether the code is appropriate. I think the discussion ought to revolve around whether or not he is complying with the code. B Harner - The local code requires 204 and we are 50 above that. The Town engineer agreed with that. Supv Varvayanis - You're telling me now the scoping document is to make sure he follows building code. I thought it was to look at environmental impacts. Cl Grantham - Yeah, I did. Atty Perkins - I'm just saying why should he have to discuss something he has already complied with and has not been an issue which has been identified. Parking wasn't an environmental issue that was identified and he's already complying... Supv Varvayanis - You obviously have not read too many of the comments that were submitted or listened to a lot of the oral comments, because parking was an issue that a lot of people complained about. Atty Perkins - I understand that, but I don't believe that in the positive declaration... Supv Varvayanis - But that was in August. We've had a lot of public input since • August. This board never met and never voted on what was and was not a significant issue. Page 17 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Atty Perkins - Yes it did. Absolutely it did. Supv Varvayanis - When? Atty Perkins - When it passed a positive declaration... Supv Varvayanis - That's in August. This is information since August. Cl Grantham - Which we have to take account of. Atty Perkins - You're going backwards. You're making the process more complicated than it really has to be. First of all, the purpose of scoping is to give the sponsor a guideline of what you want to see in the DEIS based upon what you have identified are the potentially. significant environmental impacts. I fail to see how the number of parking places is an issue at this point. He's either complied with code, which is what he's held to or he hasn't. And all evidence is that he's complied with it. Why does this belong in the DEIS? Supv Varvayanis - Let's say that the legal code was for one parking spot and we knew for a fact 500 cars will be piled up all around on the lawn. Are you saying that's not an environmental issue? Atty Perkins - But that isn't the issue. Supv Varvayanis - What is the issue? Atty Perkins - You are asking him to justify whether the code is right or wrong. Supv Varvayanis - No. We are asking if the parking space is sufficient. 0 J Kent - He's being asked to validate whether that number is correct. Whether that's the number of parking spaces that is appropriate for a complex this size. Atty Perkins - And I think that issue has been addressed a number of times already. J Kent - You're m, fairly simple. Investigate you are within the range, issues could be added or That is why you have the identify all of the issues, eking a mountain out of a molehill. I suspect that this is probably a couple of easy sources like the Urban Land Institute, find out that and make a two- sentence position in the EIS. Going back to whether not. Absolutely they could be added after the positive declaration. public scoping. That's why you have the agency scoping. It's to Supv Varvayanis - 1 mean this goes back to what I said before. We're really, I mean even our own attorney seems to think we're out here trying to be very difficult. We're not. If 254 parking spaces is adequate and as he said, there are many places, just go to a book, look up 770 units, how many bedrooms, this is what they expect. One sentence, right in there. S Lucente - Why don't we just have the Town Board require in the DEIS that the project sponsor follow the code, follow the ordinance. And that will be what you require in your report. Cl Grantham - If you think that 254 parking spaces is adequate, then you just need to show your reasoning, show some... S Lucente - My reasoning is that what the code requires, town zoning laws. In fact we've exceeded it by 25 %. 0 Page 18 of 31 TB 2 -25-00 • Supv Varvayanis - But you don't want, I know you don't want to build inadequate parking. I know you don't. S Lucente - Thank you. Supv Varvayanis - So I know you are going to look at all this stuff and you have a reason to say 254 is enough. So put it in. I don't see what the problem is. S Lucente - So you agree that submission of the Town's own ordinances on that subject would be satisfactory. Supv Varvayanis - No, not the ordinances. Cl Grantham - Your reasoning for, and... S Lucente - Our reasoning for using the code.. Cl Grantham - And back it up with some stuff. Look at these published standards and say yeah, they back us up in these. Supv Varvayanis - You do have access to these standards, correct? B Harner - Yes. Supv Varvayanis - There you go, that's all we're looking for. B Harner - We're just asking to go against the ordinance, though, and that's the point we are trying to make. Audience member - The ordinance sets the minimums correct? Supv Varvayanis - Correct. Audience member - So you say we've met the minimum and in fact we've exceeded it, and give a rational for why. Supv Varvayanis - We're not asking you to break an ordinance. I don't understand what that comment was. here's why you are going You're not past the minimum, meeting the mimum, you' ni re going and here's why we think its past the minimum, adequate. S Lucente - Well, because it was stated in here that it was a potentially significant environmental impact. This thing is being driven by the code itself, it's not anything that either one of us can control, so why are we here having the conversation? Cl Grantham - This is environmental impacts. Supv Varvayanis - What's driven by the code? S Lucente - The number of parking spaces. Supv Varvayanis - That's the minimum. We are talking about more than the minimum. • Cl Grantham - We're talking about environmental impacts now. Page 19 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 S Lucente - Oh, you're going to require more than the minimum? Supv Varvayanis - You've already said that the 254 that you've already agreed on is more than the minimum. S Lucente - You want more than 254? B Harner - We went around this four times. Supv Varvayanis - I said if you had the documentation, which I'm sure you do because I'm positive you don't want to build substandard parking, submit that. Put it in. What's the problem? I don't get it. You've got the information, just put a sentence in here why you think it's adequate. S Lucente - Okay, but you'll have said that in our DEIS. I mean you will personally vote in favor of that aspect so long as we site the code... Cl Grantham - You can't ask us that. S Lucente - ...and show that we've exceeded the code to address any possible problems that may or may not crop up. I just want you to tell us what will be fair game here. D Weinstein - The reason that this is on the table is that people have looked at other complexes around, calculated the number of cars per unit, and applied that to this and see that there doesn't seem to be enough parking places. If you look at the other units, a typical unit in Ithaca. You want to convince the public that this is an adequate balance. S Lucente - I saw your letter, your study, and you reviewed one of my projects, one I own, as an example of one that has sufficient parking. And you got the number way off. It was just way off. I don't know how you derived those figures. That's not acceptable to me. This board has to decide what existing reference material is, exactly what material they want referenced and the methodologies for... Supv Varvayanis - Okay, so what reference exactly would you consider the most accurate. J Kent - I've used the Urban Land Institute in the past. They're generally well researched.. S Lucente -Right. Okay. Cl Grantham - The whole point of this, Steve, is that we have to show that we are addressing potential environmental impacts. If you want to say in your draft EIS that this is not a potential environmental impact, or that our plan mitigates any impact because of this, then you can do that. S Lucente - Okay. I just wanted to make sure that before we go off and do it, it's something that's going to be acceptable to you. And you're going to accept ULI, we're happy with that. We can do that. Supv Varvayanis - Fine. S Lucente - As long as its for the scope. • Page 20 of 31 J B 2 -25 V0 B Harrier - The next item is on page 8 at the top, b, community services. Provide security systems, alarms, sprinklers. I believe that's just the building code. Is that correct? Is that part of the EIS at this point, environmental impact is part of the building code? Cl Grantham - No. If you look under a under Environmental Setting, community services, these are potential impacts. Go to page 7. Supv Varvayanis - Or if you look at the top of the fax, its page 11 C1 Grantham - It goes through some impacts on growth and character of community or neighborhood, and under community service there were identified impacts on fire and police protection and this is a way to address fire and police protection impacts. those kind of things S Lucente - Well the business about security systems and alarms, it isn't even in the state building code. The sprinkler system is not part of the state code. The alarm system is. We have to have that. Water savings and energy savings technologies are part of our plan. It's about sprinklers and security systems. D Sutton - We would just show that it is not required. Cl Grantham - You need to convince us in this EIS that police and fire protection, that your project will not have a significant impact on those kind of things and the community. S Lucente - I want to get back to that. Can we address this 3b under community services, provide security systems and alarms and sprinkler system in the building design? These are big numbers for us so we need to know what's the basis for including it in the DEIS and how it would be addressed. There is no law requiring it. It is certainly not an • environmental issue. Fire safety is part of the New York State Code, so what I would like to see is the bit about the burglar systems or security systems being cut, the part about sprinkler systems being cut, and the reason being that they are not part of the code. Certainly the alarm system is part of the code and is fair game to be discussed. We have to put it, in whether we discuss it or not. Supv Varvayanis - Do you have anything you'd like to say about that? J Kent - The wording of this is probably not great. The whole effort here is to avoid putting a burden on the community that they would have to add a police officer, add additional firemen because of the development of this project. Highly unlikely. Speculating here, highly unlikely. The wording here is probably unfortunate. It probably should have said consider the use of security systems, obviously your alarms are in there. S Lucente - Lighting too would be a security issue. J Kent - Absolutely, and I think that's the way you want to approach it in the EIS, is a reasonable look at what you can do to lessen the burden on community services, lessen the impact on community services. S Lucente - Now a sticking spot I'd like to bring up in advance again would be to incorporate sprinklers in the design. This is about a half milli on dollar item, somewhere between $350,000 or a half milli on, and if this is not going to be an issue, I would ask that it be struck out. Cl Grantham - I am happy with, first off, on page 7 under community services, convince . us in your DEIS that the impact is minimal or not there and then on page 8, take those first two bullets, provide security system and incorporate sprinkler and alarm system, say Page 21 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 something like community fire and police requirements. And then you can talk about lighting because we have talked about that in discussions. You could talk about what you propose to do and convince us that that's adequate. 41 S Lucente - In addition to the lights that point down, how they would also serve for security for the site. B Hamer - Page 8, F, Noise and Odor Impacts. I thought this was identified that it wasn't a significant impact and no further action would be needed for this since there is no local ambient noise ordinance. It's no different than traffic along 366. Cl Grantham - No, I think part of this discussion had to do with during construction. B Hamer - So we can make statements about requiring mufflers and obviously can't work at 2:00 am. and things of that nature. Cl Grantham - Yes. B Hamer - Okay. S Lucente - It was our understanding that this was limited to during construction? Cl Grantham - Well, again, if you don't think that there's going to be impact other than during construction, you just justify that in the DEIS. In all of these, you have the right to say of any of these impacts, they are not impacts because of this, this, this and this. And you need to justify it. You need to convince the public. S Lucente - We are trying to figure out exactly what it is that will convince you. What will be acceptable. Is Supv Varvayanis - Certainly a lot of the natural vegetation and buffers that you have in there, I mean if it is enough to muffle the sound of a bulldozer, it will be enough to muffle the sound of a child playing the next year. I assume you are not going to rip the vegetation and the berms out after you are done. S Lucente - No. We did have a problem with our East Gate Apartments with the garbage people coming early in the morning. I ended up moving the dumpster and recycling center to the far end of the site to keep it away from any of the citizens. B Hamer - The next concern is on page 9, number D, and I really can't speak to that. I'm just wondering if that's valid to include in the scope. I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand how we can be asked to delay the project. I'm wondering how that got included I guess. Cl Grantham - It got included because it was in public comments that were submitted. S Lucente - I guess the question is how does that apply to SEQR? It's an inflammatory session and if there's been a little bit of heated conversation, item D has kind of helped set the tone. That's not what these meetings are supposed to be about. We've already delayed long enough. We want an answer, yes or no. Personally, I think it's inappropriate to the purpose of creating a DEIS that is a perfected document that doesn't have any time bombs ticking away in it. I don't even know to address it. What do you say? Stop your project until you guys can get in restrictive zoning, so I can't do it? I mean, come on. Page 22 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Supv Varvayanis - I think the point of a scoping document is to bring up all potential is things you can use to mitigate and you can simply say that this is unacceptable, you are not willing to wait. S Lucente - So what is this? Why is it here? Supv Varvayanis - It's a concern that was expressed by several people. Cl Grantham - And it's an alternative that was raised, it's a mitigating measure that was raised during public hearing. S Lucente - If you want to leave it in, we'll leave it in. B Harner - Was that ever brought up at a public meeting. Cl Grantham - I think that it was brought up in written materials. It was brought up as a point. I remember either reading about it in minutes or reading about it in a letter. Supv Varvayanis - I know I've heard it, too, verbally. S Lucente - Well, I guess it doesn't really matter. It's just sort of sours the well here. It makes us think like all these other things that we've raised issues on, that section has proved that this is an attempt just to slow us down until the land use plan is updated or until the zoning in the hamlet is changed. It just doesn't seem like... C1 Grantham - Steve, when these issues are raised in public comment periods we can't just throw them out because they are inflammatory. • S Lucente - You can sit down and assess whether they're appropriate. Cl Grantham - I think that's your job in your DEIS. S Lucente - What we want to know is do you think it's appropriate? Supv Varvayanis - We haven't sat down and voted on these things yet. S Lucente - I just would like to know. Do you think that this is appropriate? Cl Grantham - I think its fine to be in a scope. S Lucente - Well because it's in the scope it will be in the DEIS and ultimately in an EIS. Is this appropriate for an EIS? Cl Grantham - I think it is. That's one of the... Supv Varvayanis - Would our engineer like to talk about this? S Lucente - I don't see how he can answer for you. I'm trying to find out what you're thinking. Supv Varvayanis - We want to make it a legal document. Let me step back. Last week you were reminding us all about the DR -7 scoping process and how nice and simple and clean that was. But do you recall... • S Lucente - I didn't say nice and simple and clean, I said... Page 23 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Supv Varvayanis - But do you recall... S Lucente - I said it followed 617 to the letter. Supv Varvayanis - And do you recall it went to court because the people thought it was not a complete environmental review and it stayed bogged down in Court for a long time until the whole project went away. I mean if you want to repeat a failure trying to duplicate it is the way to go. S Lucente - I don't want any lawsuits either. I'm just saying hey, let's not put this stuff in there and there's less likely to be a problem. Supv Varvayanis - But if we all of a sudden say well even though we never voted on whether this was ... , S Lucente - Do you favor delaying this project until the zoning is changed? Cl Grantham - That's not a question we can answer. That's not our job. Supv Varvayanis - Can you speak to the legality of having something like this in here? J Kent - I'm not a lawyer, but I can speak to you in terms based on my experience. I've never seen an alternative timing section based on my own personal experience. On the other hand, as I think it through it is a legitimate offer and again, it is one of the alternatives. S Lucente - I agree that it's an alternative. I just want to know where you're coming from, if you back it. 0 J Kent - This could be more appropriately discussed and maybe less inflammatory in land use discussion by discussing the fact that there is a comprehensive land update underway, that there is consideration of zoning change, and including in there discussion of the timing of the project and the fact that there are some things underway. I mean consider some of the alternatives to this. That the Town Board certainly is within its rights to issue a moratorium until the comprehensive plan is in place. They are perfectly within their rights to do that. So the idea of discussing the timing of it I don't think is that big an issue and maybe more appropriately belongs in the land use section rather than breaking it out as an alternative. May be that would be on one hand less inflammatory, on the other hand get this done. Supv Varvayanis - Would that make you any more or less happy? S Lucente - This requires us to respond to it. What do you guys think? D Sutton - It's your call. J Kent - The bottom line is that it is only just discussion, land use policy discussion. B Harner - I guess this is a question for the town attorney. Let's assume it was left in and we felt that we could delay until this was done, and then a vote went out based on that issue let's say to accept the EIS. Can the project get cancelled based on that comment? Atty Perkins - First, I don't have a copy of what you are talking about, so I can't comment on that, but secondly I wouldn't give you an advisory opinion as Town Attorney. Page 24 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 Supv Varvayanis - I think he was asking about the legality. If something appears in the DEIS or the EIS and it's mentioned as a problem, and they say well we don't consider this a problem, and would we be within our rights to say, well if you don't consider it a problem and we do, we reject the project. That was his question. Atty Perkins - Well you are going to have to make a determination about whether or not the draft EIS is sufficient and ready for public comment. In doing that you can determine whether or not he's met the objectives of the scope. J Kent - That's the first step. Then after the DEIS is complete, and the agencies and the public have had an opportunity to comment on it. The lead agency writes the final environmental impact statement. Atty Perkins - Which will be used as a means for the agencies, projectt sponsor and public to systematically consider significant adverse environmental impacts, alternatives, and mitigation in your decision making process. S Lucente - I suppose that's subject to a draft environmental impact, the whole SEQR process so it should go on at least as long as this has. B Hamer - Are you trying to figure out with the comp plan how long that will take? S Lucente - Yeah, well, we'd be here. Cl T Hatfield - I'll almost guarantee you it will take a lot longer. Cl Grantham - It's going to take a long time. Cl T Hatfield - That's a massive undertaking and there are significant things to review and understand. I'm trying to balance it out. I think you've addressed it verbally. I think you just need to address it in the context of what you are going to submit. You've got an unknown time frame on the one hand and you've got a project time frame on the other. You've got economics and all. It seems to me you need to address the issue and move on. Cl Grantham - Anything else? B Hamer - I have nothing further, do you Steve. Is there any item you want to go over on your list? S Lucente - Deb, getting back to page 8, community services, or page 7. Supv Varvayanis - Page 7, E 1(c) . S Lucente - Thank you. Now what do you want from us here? Do you want us to provide you with copies of the fire and police contracts? What is it that you're exactly after? Utilities, public water, solid waste, I suppose a letter from Superior or something like that would be satisfactory. Cl Grantham - Yeah, I think so. I think you could do the same with fire and police protection. S Lucente - How would we evaluate that to make it acceptable for the DEIS? As I understand it the Town today, for example, has a fire and police protection by contract for the • whole Town. And the addition of this project won't change that contract. In other words costs will not rise as a result until the contract is renegotiated and I'm not sure when that is, but at Page 25 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 some point it will be. Like I said, we could get the contracts from Mark and give them to this Board, or ... Cl Grantham - Well it's not just give them to this Board. You need a discussion. You need to check with the fire chief and just show us that you don't think that its going to have an impact, or maybe it will have an impact, and then we'll rephrase on page 8 to say just consider possible ways to reduce impact or minimize impact on community, fire and police. B Hamer - And some of those would be turning movements of the fire trucks, fire hydrants on site, lighting and that sort of thing. Cl Grantham - You've had to talk to the fire chief anyway about turning movements and roadways and all that. S Lucente - Oh, so that's the kind of stuff you're looking for. Cl Grantham - And what kind of difference is this going to make on their services, having another 170 units to serve. S Lucente - For police and fire protection. I guess I'm happy. Anything else? Supv Varvayanis - What about the DOT language or methodologies for Turkey Hill. What are we doing about that? Cl Grantham - I think Turkey Hill needs to stay in there. Jim you said you could fax us some guidance this afternoon? J Kent - I can fax some language on the exact methodology that I think would be 0 appropriate. It will reference standards, processes, it will be fairly detailed. done. B Harner - Similar to what we did with the other three intersections. J Kent - As long as your investigation into those other three are consistent, and be Supv Varvayanis - Satisfactory to everybody? S Lucente - Yes. D Weinstein - I think he was getting the impression that if they just submit the same information and you're gonna prove that there is no impact, but many members of the public took issue with and felt that there was insufficient information in the other traffic study. So I think they need to be aware, and they need to go beyond the discussion that's already been presented. J Kent - It will be up to the sponsor to assess whether they think their study is adequate for inclusion in the draft EIS, but that DEIS will then be reviewed for completeness and the reviewer may not necessarily agree, so its advisable for the sponsor to review very carefully the methodology that we are going to send out to make sure that you've done it that way. There may be some slight differences. You may need to just fill a hole there or a gap there. I just wanted to throw that out as a potential hurdle down the road. B Harner - Is the DOT going to review and comment on the draft EIS. And if they submit a letter saying that they're happy is that going to be adequate? Page 26 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 J Kent - They are the involved agency dealing with roads. Well, they are one of the involved agencies dealing with roads, so... B Harper - But there has been a lot of dispute about what we've provided so far. Let me just get your perception on how thorough they are. I know you are not a traffic engineer, but obviously you've addressed similar things and I want it clear that the study that we've done is pretty conclusive and the DOT also feels that way. I just want to see if that's going to weigh heavily during this draft EIS. J Kent - Chances are that if you've got it on record that DOT considers the information complete, I can't imagine an independent engineer taking issue. It would be highly unlikely. D Weinstein - The issue is their concerns and not dealing with the concerns of the community. You might want to send them a letter saying can you specifically review all these issues, so that we get your approval on these issues and we know you've looked at all these issues. Because right now there is nothing from the DOT that says yeah, we examined whether there is going to be back ups or something. Is that something they actually look at. Supv Varvayams - Presumably the methodology that we are getting faxed will cover everything that's looked at so we can make that available. I assume no one objects to making it available to the public. Cl T Hatfield - Do we need to adopt this as modified? Cl Grantham - I'd like to go through the changes that I think we agreed on and then I think we need to adopt it, don't we? 0 Supv Varvayanis - Might as well. 235. Cl Grantham - Under topography and grading, 3... B Hamer - The first change will come on page 2, am I correct? We've agreed to 254, not J Kent - Right, I've got that one. Cl Grantham - So the topography and grading should include during construction erosion control plans, after construction erosion control plans, and sufficient grading plans to show final runoff flow. Does that sound like it covers it, Jim? B Hamer - After construction? Cl Grantham - Vegetation... once you finish constructing it is still not going to erode. B Hamer - And then as far as the contour interval, 2 foot, 5 foot, is that going to be sufficient? Cl Grantham - I don't know. Just sufficient to show us what the final runoff flow is going to be. Supv Varvayanis - I would guess that 2' would be adequate. Cl Grantham -. IV, A2, we wanted to clarify the impact. Shallow water table should say impact on amount of recharge to groundwater, solid waste impact on ground water quality and • stormwater infiltration impact on groundwater quality. IV, 3 e, a Phase I site investigation or Page 27 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 equivalent study which discussion shall include at a minimum a discussion of existing geologic data, topographic changes over time since the site was disturbed, and hazardous waste indices is research. IV, B, 1, Change aquifer in a and b to groundwater. Supv Varvayanis - We were going to have them submit something about the County aquifer study. Cl Grantham - That's right, I forgot that. And include existing data on groundwater and aquifers. The USGS is doing that study under contract with the County so it would be County Planning I think that you would get the data from. I think we are up to the Turkey Hill Road business on page 6. We'll keep Turkey Hill Road in there and Jim Kent will provide some detailed guidance this afternoon. D,1, g where we talk about farm equipment, just address movements of local farm equipment and public transportation should stay in there. 2, g, parking... Supv Varvayanis - Just the standard from the Urban Land Institute, Cl Grantham - Justify the existing plan for the parking, including the Urban Land Institute standards. Supv Varvayanis - Right. Cl Grantham - The next page, fire and police protection. Show impact on fire and police protection in the community and then on page 8 under mitigation measures for community services, combine the first two bullets about security systems and sprinklers into consider possible ways to reduce or minimize impact on community fire and police requirements. Supv Varvayanis - You wanted a section on the lighting there, too. 0 Cl Grantham - Yeah, I was just going to leave it vague and let them talk about it. I think that was it. RESOLUTION #100 - ACCEPT LUCENTE VARNA II PROJECT SCOPING DOCUMENT AS AMENDED Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby accepts the scoping document, as amended, prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP for the Varna II project proposed by Stephen Lucente in the hamlet of Varna, Town of Dryden, New York. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl Grantham Yes Note: The draft scoping document, Cl Grantham's notes on the changes, and a copy of the final document are attached to these minutes and copies included in the file. Other Business: Town Clerk distributed a memo and proposed resolution regarding the Town's microfilm project and explained that she did not believe that this portion of the project is subject to the 0 Page 28 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 procurement policy because we are purchasing services from an agency for the severely handicapped. The cost of filming this first series, the minute books, is approximately $4,000. Quotes were obtained from four microfilm vendors and Challenge was the low bidder, meeting the specifications. RESOLUTION #101 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN MICROFILM CONTRACT Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has previously obtained grant funds for a microfilm project, $22,550 of which is to be used for microfilming services, and WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden's Procurement policy provides that bids should be sought for services of this sort and the Town Clerk has fulfilled that requirement; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute agreements with Challenge Industries, Inc. for microfilming the Town of Dryden's minutes and warrant copies of assessment rolls, fees for services provided pursuant to those agreements shall be paid from grant funds received from New York State's Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Supv Varvayanis Cl Grantham Yes Yes Yes Board members have been previously provided with a draft of a proposed law providing for a partial tax exemption for real property owned by persons with disabilities whose incomes are limited by reason of such disabilities. Cl Grantham and Supv Varvayanis had questions regarding the language and Atty Perkins explained that this was the way it enacted by the legislation. It doesn't read very well and is probably going to be subject to amendment at the State level, but the Town must adopt it as it is written. RESOLUTION # 101 - INTRODUCE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR A PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the following proposed local law having been introduced, a public hearing will be held to consider adoption of said local law on the 8th day of March, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall, 65 East Main Street, Dryden, New York, PROPOSED LOCAL LAW C (2000) PROVIDING FOR A PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WHOSE INCOMES ARE LIMITED BY REASON OF SUCH DISABILITIES 1. This law is enacted pursuant to Section 459 -c of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 459 -c of the Real Property Tax Law, real property located in the Town of Dryden, owned by one or more persons each of whom is • disabled and whose income is limited by reason of such disability or real property owned by husband and wife, or siblings one of whom is disabled and whose income is limited by reason Page 29 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 of such disability shall be partially exempt from taxation by said Town for the applicable taxes specified in Section 459 -c based upon the income of the owner or combined income of the owners. Such partial exemption shall be to the extent set forth in the schedule following. PERCENTAGE INCOME RANGE OF EXEMPTION Up to $19,500 50 percent $191501420,499.99 45 percent $20,500- $21,499099 40 percent $21,500- $229499.99 35 percent $221500- $23,399.99 30 percent $23,400- $24,299.99 25 percent $24,300- $251199.99 20 percent $25,200- $26,099.99 15 percent $262100- $269999.99 10 percent $272000427,899.99 5 percent $27,900 and over 0 percent 3. The partial exemption provided by this law shall, however, be limited to such property and persons as meet the conditions, qualifications, exclusions, and limitations set forth in Section 459 -c of the Real Property Tax Law. This local law shall be administered in accordance with said sections of the Real Property Tax Law, as now adopted, and as they may be amended from time to time, and the provisions of said section as provided in Section 459 -c, shall be applicable to the effectuation of the exemption provided for in this local law. 4. Application for such exemption must be made by the owner or all of the owners of the property on forms prescribed by the State Board to be furnished by the Tompkins County Assessment Department and shall include the information and be executed in the Is manner required or prescribed in such forms, and shall be filed in the said Assessment Department office on or before the appropriate taxable status date. 5. Any conviction of having made any willful false statement of the application for such exemption shall be punishable by a fine or not more than $100 and shall disqualify the applicant or applicants from further exemption under this local law for a period of five (5) years. 6. This local law shall be applicable to the Town tax for taxable status date of the year next following its adoption and thereafter and the provisions of said local law shall govern the granting of an exemption under Section 459 -c, notwithstanding any contrary provisions of that section. 7. This local law shall take effect immediately. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl Grantham Yes Jim Kent confirmed that he will send the Town language on the DOT traffic study this afternoon. He will also revise the scoping document to reflect the changes made. Cl Grantham Page 30 of 31 TB 2 -25 -00 provided him with a copy of her notes to assist him in making those changes. He will fax the . revised document this afternoon. On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 am. Respectfully submitted, / / l Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 31 of 31