Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-06TB 9 -6 -00
TOWN OF DRYDEN
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
Board Members Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Thomas. Hatfield (arrived at 7:18 p.m.),
Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Deborah Grantham
Absent: Cl Ronald Beck
Other Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck,. Town Clerk
Other Town Staff. Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney
David Putnam, (TG Miller) Town Engineer
Henry Slater, Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer
Supv Varvayanis opened.the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
Clint Cotterill - At the time of the Bicentennial Celebration in 1997 there was discussion
by the Bicentennial Committee about gathering data for a book about the 100 years following
the period of the Goodrich (1797 - 1897). He understands that there are about two or three
thousand pages of data that has been recorded by people interviewing elderly citizens. The
book has not yet been produced. He has spoken with the Town Historical group and they feel
strongly, as he does, that this be printed. He suggests that the Town Board. reactivate the
bicentennial committee with a few people who will work with Elsie Gutchess, who he assumes
has the data that has been collected, and come up with a procedure to get this organized and
printed. He has been told that at the time of the bicentennial Celebration the Town Board did
agree to front some. money for the printing. that with the understanding that when the books
were sold the Town would be reimbursed.
Cl C Hatfield has also received an inquiry. He checked with former Supv James Schug
who told him that the committee was to publish this information. Mr. Schug believes that
anytime Ms. Gutchess is ready, the committee will.move forward. Cl C Hatfield believes it is a
worthwhile cause and should be done.
Supv Varvayanis stated there is still aline item in the budget for the bicentennial. He
will check into the matter and report next week.
Cl Grantham distributed a memo to board members. Ann Everett has requested that
the Town Board review the road frontage requirements in the Town and flag lots in the Town.
Ms. Everett would like the Town to consider other criteria for building lot size and
configuration. ZO Slater has looked for discussion in board minutes regarding this and could
not find anything that resolved the question. Cl Grantham would like this matter put on the
agenda for discussion in October.
Erica Evans stated that when she was on the Planning Board they discussed flag lots.
They asked to have a meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals because they were allowing the
flag lots when the Planning Board felt it was a bad idea That did not happen.
+ef
.J
Supv Varvayanis - I think part of the role of the ZBA is to look at each individual lot and
consider what mitigating circumstances there are. If we came up with a new ordinance they
would still be able to go to the ZBA and request a variance.
Page 1 of 20
TB 9-6 -00
Atty Perkins - I think you need to keep in mind that a flag lot by definition does not
need ZBA approval because it has the necessary road frontage. What she may be concerned
about is the ZBA granting approval where there is a limited amount of road frontage that goes
back to a much larger lot, and that by definition would not be a flag lot. (Supv noted that was
what the ZBA had referred to as a flag lot.) The flag lot is a configuration where you can get
more lots behind. a particular area without having to build-more infrastructure. and. roads, etc.
I think Ann'sl concern probably is that the ZBA grants variances when there is not 125' of road
frontage, but Ias you say that's the issue for the ZBA and the applicant.
Cl C Hatfield noted it makes sense if you haven't got 100' of frontage but you've got ten
acres.
Cl T Hatfield - Especially to save on building roads and infrastructure. We may be in
the right place. It seems that this is sort of an ad hoc approach to some of the concepts
included in what the Planning Board is looking at now, cluster housing and other forms of
grouping hou rising so that you get a reasonable utilization of existing infrastructure and
maintain open space.
Cl Grantham
- As Mark says, that's
their job, to decide on variances. They can
say no if
they don't think it is
appropriate. In terms
of changing the ordinance
now, it seems to
me we
need to wait. That's
a pretty big change, and we should-wait until the
master. plan is in place.
Supv Varvayanis - I don't know how you could change it in such a way that they
couldn't come (back and ask for an area variance.
i
Atty Perkins (displaying sketches) - Our Zoning Ordinance requires 125' of frontage, but
that is superceded in most areas by the County Sanitary Code, where you have to have a 200'
wide lot or be able to subscribe a circle of the size required by code. To utilize less road
frontage what people have done is to have 125' of frontage, but then have a lot that gets wider
as it gets deeper. So while one lot may have 125' of frontage and has its area for compliance
with the sanitary code behind it. Often there will be another lot that goes back, and they have
shared driveways and things like that. That also tends to minimize the number of road cuts
and those related traffic concerns.
i
The second sketch shows the lot that would require a variance. Twenty feet of frontage
with land behind. This looks more like a flag.
Cl Grani
ZBA's job, and 1
variances anyw
road cuts. I'll ri
Cl T Hat
like they got us
or somewhere v
to sit down and
around out they
am - So we should say wait on the. master plan. The other. point is that's the
don't see how changing the ordinance would prevent people from asking for
I guess we can add in the Planning Board concern about the number of
ort back to them.
,ld - We have a letter from. DOT in. response to what we did last time. It looks
ieir criteria. Are we at a point where we want to try to got back to the parties
h that Map, Plan and Report so that the public can eventually have a chance
,view it in an open and public forum. We've got a number of issues floating
I think.
Supv Varvayanis - We can't really do the Map, Plan and Report until we know the prices
and the County 1has to tell us what they are willing to pay first.
Cl T Hatfield - So we need them to give us a final number. We've had two different
�u��ers
pave 1 131 210
TB 9 -6 -00
• Cl Grantham - I don't remember the second one, and on the first one we didn't have any
numbers from Cornell.
C1 T Hatfield - I think that's correct. We haven't gone anywhere with. it. I'm wondering
if it's time to get a number from Cornell and a number from the County or State, whichever the
appropriate entity is, and get the Map, Plan and Report buttoned up and have a public hearing.
We've got a situation where the DOT is going to respond to us with respect to that side of it, so
it makes sense to try to do the work and get the rest of that job finished.
Cl Grantham - I'd like to see the County and DOT consider some other sites than in a
residential zone. I don't know why we would do a map, plan and report type thing yet. If they
can be persuaded to choose a site that's in an MA zone and where there is water and sewer or
much closer to water and sewer then all of that might change.
Cl T Hatfield - We've invested a fair amount of dollars to get to the point we're at and I
don't think it would take an awful lot of work to get that side of the equation put together and
on the table.
Supv Varvayanis - I copied you on the three or four times that I've written to Barbara
Blanchard saying we need numbers. Shouldn't we sit down with the County first? Because if
they give us the guaranteed number for that site, then I assume that's the site they want.
Cl Grantham and Supv Varvayanis discussed asking the County to look at Jim Ray's
property on Lower Creek Road because of its location Route 13 and close proximity to water
and sewer. Supv Varvayanis noted that the map received does not indicate that the County has
looked at Jim Ray's property. Cl C Hatfield suggested requesting a meeting with Jim Hanson
and letting him know the Town's concerns.
41
Supv Varvayanis has had a lot of discussion regarding the ambulance service lately. He
noted that the water and sewer projects have not made much progress as the City of Ithaca has
a lot of issues that are not quite forthcoming. The Town of Ithaca has been moving and has
not yet looked over the numbers that the City gave them. The Town of Ithaca does not seem to
like the numbers the City gave them and wants them to justify the price. This is holding up
the regional group as other members cannot join until the City and Town of Ithaca and Town of
Dryden are in agreement. Supv Varvayanis would like all parties to negotiate simultaneously.
Supv Varvayanis stated with respect to the union matter we have received a joint
declaration of impasse and a mediator has been assigned.
Three air conditioners have been installed, one each in the Town Clerk's Office, Zoning
Office and Board /Court Room.
With respect to Deibler Drive, a request has been made to pave a.portion of the road,
which has not been formally dedicated to the Town, although the Town has :maintained it. Mr.
Diebler is willing- to deed this to the Town. as well as an area sufficient for a turnaround. Atty
Perkins stated that after it has been maintained by the Town for that period of time it is a Town
road and we should straighten out the title to it, formalize it, and get whatever property is
necessary for a turnaround (as determined by the Highway Superintendent). If the Town were
now to stop maintaining it because it wasn't owned by the Town, the Town could be compelled
to maintain it. The Town owns the first half of the road and apparently the second half was
built later and never deeded to the Town. Jack Bush is to speak.with Atty Perkins about what
he requires for a turnaround. Atty Perkins stated that there will need to be a survey of what it
is that is to be conveyed to the Town, an abstract of title, and the necessary instruments to
• accomplish the conveyance.
Page 3 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
RESOLUTION
#218 - AUTHORIZE
WORD FOR CONVEYANCE
OF DEIBLER DRIVE
Cl T Hatfield
offered the following
resolution and asked for its
adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Attorney to order a
survey of the property to be conveyed-to the Town of Dryden as a continuation-of Deibler. Drive,
including a turn around, and to prepare the necessary instruments to effect the transfer of the
property.
2nd Supv Varvayanis
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Cl_Grantham has attended a workshop on Budget and Capital -Planning and distributed
information from the workshop to the board members.
Cl. Grantham.has a.copy of the report regarding_the cost of developments to
municipalities. Cl T Hatfield has previously received a copy from the Supervisor.
Cl T Hatfield. - That report that has been cited from time. to time was very narrowly
drawn and very specifically targeted to the impact on rural land and farmland as opposed to
the way it is being-quoted by some of the public. There is some misinformation. Look at the
executive summary. It is very, very clear what their purpose was and what they were trying to
point out. You have to look_at.their assumptions. They put them together three different-ways
and they come at it from different weightings. We can do a lot of things statistically with
numbers and they've done a very nice analysis there. For people to sit here and say for every
new house you add to the tax roll, which adds a dollar tax revenue to the town, costs a $1.20
to serve is disingenuous. It's not logical. If that's true, you ought to be able to reduce the town
tax burden by $1.20 for every dollar you take off the tax roll. It doesn't work that way.
Cl Grantham - No. Once the houses are built and people live in them, the only way you
can reduce is by tearing them down and moving the people out and removing all the
infrastructure. It's not that you take it off the tax. roll and the cost adjusts.
Cl T Hatfield - I understand what the report was trying to get at as long as you take it in
the context of what the specifics of that report or what they were trying to accomplish. It has
merit and it is a very readable document. But to waive it around and use it in terms of an
argument when you have certain types of development,. it is disingenuous at best. We have
members of the public saying that and misusing the report.
Cl Grantham - I think that what people are saying is that you can't just say that if you
put a bunch of houses in town somewhere or all over the place that you are going to get more
money in.taxes and it is good for everybody. You've got to look at the cost side, too. You collect
taxes from those, but there is a cost side to the town and to the school district. Although the
town doesn't have control over the school budget,. it still impacts the school budget. And that's
what people are saying. That there is a cost to new development and we need to think about
where it goes and things like clustering. so that you. reduce infrastructure so that those costs
can be minimized.
Cl T Hatfield- I don't.think anyone here would- argue against that general statement,
least of all myself. But when people start arguing specifically about a house or a development •
within the narrow confines of a specific site, the road is already there, the sewer is already
there and the water is already there, the marginal cost of that addition is pretty negligible. If
Page 4 of 20
you are trying to control school district growth by eliminating housing stock, you are ignoring a
lot of other economic factors that are influencing growth or the lack of growth.
Cl Grantham - The point of putting something where there is already infrastructure is
exactly the point. That is the cost effective way of doing it in general. That's the point that
people are trying to make.
Cl
T Hatfield -
So I guess I don't
understand the argument against the Lucente
property.
Sewer and
to see any type of development.
water and
road
is
already
there.
Cl C Hatfield - And fire protection and police protection.
Cl T Hatfield - It's already there. It's a cluster -type approach. The infrastructure is
already there. What am I missing?
E Evans - I would say that the size of it is too great. I think if you look at it from-the
point of what makes the community present and I'm not against having a cluster there, but not
the size that he has proposed.
Cl T Hatfield - You're saying that the concept is okay, but instead of 170 maybe it
should be a number less than that.
E Evans - Maybe half of it would be very usable, would be very helpfial and perfect for
that area. I have absolutely no objection to half the size. And I agree with you that all the
services are there, but they are not there for 170 units.
• Cl T Hatfield - Thank you. I haven't been able to understand.....
Cl Grantham - Nobody has said to me that they want that development blocked. People
are very concerned about the size of it.
Cl T Hatfield - That's very different than what I've been hearing from this side of the
table.
E Evans - People who are living in Varna have lived on a state highway all their lives.
They bought their houses on a state highway. It isn't Cayuga Heights. It's a state highway
and that lot for a nice development of half the size proposed would be very nice. There are
buses there, there is everything there. But to have at least 340 extra people with cars in that
small space, that's not logical planning.
Supv
Varvayanis - I
agree with Deb. The
impression_Lalways had was that they
thought it was too big, not
that they didn't want
to see any type of development.
Joyce Gerbasi stated that she has heard very loudly that a shovel should not be laid to
that land when she has suggested that the infrastructure is already there and "you are anti-
sprawl, why are you against it ?"
Supv Varvayanis - There may be those out there, but they haven't talked to me.
Cl T Hatfield - That's helpful to me, and I realize the ball is not in our court right now.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW D - ESTABLISHING CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
•
Page 5 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. and the Town Clerk read the
notice of hearing published in The Ithaca Journal in August 25, 2000. 0
Joyce Gerbasi - I think it is a good idea if you can get people to serve on it. The idea is a
good one. I'm wondering if we could combine the CAC and the Dryden Lake Committee. That
is a planning structure and has to be approved by the Town Board. The County has made it
clear that they would like the EMC representation to come out of a CAC, but only two towns
have them.
Cl Grantham - I have several people who are interested and a couple more who are
considering it.
Joyce Gerbasi would be interested in being on it, and by law she has to be.
There being no further comment, the hearing was left open at 8:10 p.m.
Town Clerk noted that because the regular meeting is established in the organizational
minutes, a resolution should be made to change to two meetings per month. The media can
then be notified of the change and it.will_not.be necessary to notice one as a special-meeting
each month.
RESOLUTION #219 - ESTABLISH TWO REGULAR MONTHLY MEETINGS
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby establishes that it will hold two regular
monthly meetings to be held on the first Wednesday of each of month at 7:00 p.m, and the
second Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m.
2nd Cl T Hatfield
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Cl T Hatfield. suggested that the first. monthly meeting be used for public hearings and
to discuss the agenda for the second meeting and general discussion. He would also suggests
the meetings be adjourned by 10:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW E - FEE STRUCTURES FOR. ATTORNEYS & ENGINEERS
Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and the Town Clerk read the
notice of hearing published in The Ithaca Journal in August 25, 2000,
Atty Perkins - What this local law proposes to do is set up a method where the Town
may charge back to developers the reasonable and-necessary expenses incurred.by the Town in
connection with review of site plan, subdivision, etc applications, and the dedication of facilities
to the Town. The Town for years has been operating under kind of an ad hoc method of doing
it which is not necessarily the recommended way of doing it. This local law came about
because of a case involving the Town of Onondaga, Homebuilders Association of Central New
York, Inc et al v. The Town of Onondaga In that case, which was an Appellate Division case m
the 4th Department, the Appellate Division upheld a local law where by the developers are
Page 6 of 20
• • 11
• required to reimburse the Town for engineering and legal expenses rather than pay a fixed fee
in the form of application fees. The Court held that pursuant to the powers given to the Town
under Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, a Town is vested with implied powers to
impose a permit fee based upon impactual engineering and legal costs so long as the expenses
to be reimbursed are reasonable in amount and necessary to the accomplishment of the Town's
regulatory and proprietory functions. This basically worked the exception to a Court of Appeals
case in 1976, The Jewish Reconstruction Synagauge of the North Shore, Inc. v. The
Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor, where the Court said you just can't have things that are
open -ended as far as the fee. This local law hopefully is drawn tightly and carefully enough so
that it does not provide for any open -ended fees. There is a procedure here for determining
them. I would point out an article to you in The Planning News, Summer 2000. The summary
of the article, lessons learned about fee structures: Fees may not be open - ended, in-which, case
they are not. They are based on the actual reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the
Town. They must be reasonable, uniform and predictable, and in that regard I think you
should understand that the Town of Onondaga case allows disparity in rates. In other words
what the Town Attorney charges the Town may not be the same as the Town Attorney charges
is connection with fees that are reimbursed. That was specifically addressed in the Town of
Onondaga case. Fees should be based upon reliable, factual studies, statistics and experiences
of local government in cases of the same type. This may be something you `cant to take a look
at. See whether or not our actual fees, as well as the reimbursable fees, are realistic today.
Fees may be based on cost figures drawn in part from rough estimates of the previous year's
expenses. In other words, what did this cost the engineer before to review a 50 lot subdivision;
what does it cost for review of instruments necessary to convey a town road, or water and
sewer facilities. You can distinguish between residential and non - residential, as well as by
size. It's okay to have a different fee structure for residential as opposed to commercial. Fees
are not taxes. Fees must be charged to all applicants including charities. For example, you
• don't have the authority to waive fees because it's a church or religious or charitable
institution. Fees should not exceed the average_ cost for work-on. similar projects. Of course
this goes to the reasonableness of them. Fees are not intended to raise review; they are to
cover costs. That is the underlying theme of this local law, to pass the cost of this review on to
the developer who stands to profit rather than to the taxpayer.
J Gerbasi wondered if a developer would receive an estimate and wa.: told that there
would be an application fee, and with respect to the reimbursable fees, there is a procedure for
the developer to deposit with the Town Supervisor an estimated cost for review which has to be
based on the criteria previously mentioned.
Cl C Hatfield - That should all be explained when an application is made through the
Zoning Office.
Atty Perkins - This does not apply to every subdivision, for example. If a subdivision is
exempt under our subdivision regulations, then no one is going to have to pay even if
engineering review is required or if there is a question for the Town Attorney. It's only when
there is an actual action that has to be taken by the Town.
Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing on the Conservation Advisory Council at
8:25 p.m.
RESOLUTION #220 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #4 OF 2000 ESTABLISHING THE
TOWN OF DRYDEN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
16 RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Local Law, to be known
as Local Law #4 of 2000 as follows:
Page 7 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden as follows: 40
Section 1. ESTABLISHMENT:_ Pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 12 -F, the
Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby creates a conservation advisory council, known as
the "Touin of Dryden Conservation Advisory Council" (hereafter the CAC).
Section 2. PURPOSE AND DUTIES: The purposes and duties of the CAC are to:
a. Report directly to the Town Board.
b. Assist the Town Board and Town staff in the creation, improvement and
implementation of plans and policies related to environmental protection and management,
open space, natural areas and features, and agriculture.
c. Conduct and maintain an inventory and map of the natural resources within
the Town of Dryden and maintain a current index of all open areas in public or private
ownership within the Town, including but not limited to natural landmarks; glacial and other
geomorphic or physiograpic features; streams and their flood plains; swamps, marshlands, and
other wetlands; unique biotic communities; scenic and other areas of natural or ecologic value.
Such index shall include ownership, present and proposed future uses (if known) of such open
areas, so as to provide a base of information for recommendations by the council for their
preservation and /or use.
d. Seek to coordinate, assist and unify the efforts of unofficial bodies, private
groups, institutions and individuals within the Town which are organized for similar purposes.
e. Recommend to the Planning Board features, plans and programs relating to •
environmental improvement for inclusion in the Master Plan of the Town of Dryden and,
similarly, recommend to the Town Board appropriate and desirable changes in existing local
laws and ordinances relating to environmental and land use controls or new local laws and
ordinances.
f. When referred to it, and in a timely manner, review development applications
and make recommendations to the Town Board and Planning Board on environmental
assessment forms and environmental impact statements, regarding. open_ areas, natural areas,
significant environment features and agriculture.
g. Direct itself toward accomplishing the purposes set forth in General
Municipal Law Section 239 -x(1) and comply with the provisions of this Local Law and General
Municipal Law Section 239 -x.
h. Carry out such other duties as may be assigned to the CAC from time to time
by the Town Board.
Section 3. MEMBERSHIP: The CAC shall consist of nine (9) members, appointed by the
Town Board, who shall serve for terms of three (3) years. One member shall be the Town
representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (four of the initial
members shall be appointed for two years and five of the initial members shall be appointed for
three years). Any person residing within the Town of Dryden who is interested in the
improvement and preservation of environmental quality shall be eligible for appointment. Each
member shall be entitled to one vote.
Section 4. OFFICERS:
Page 8 of 20
:'•11
a. The CAC Chairperson shall annually be appointed by the Town Board. For the
• year following the establishment of the CAC and thereafter, the members of the CAC shall
recommend a member to the Town Board to serve as Chairperson which recommendation shall
not be binding upon the Town Board.
b. Accurate summary
records
of
the
CAC
meetings and activities shall be
transcribed, approved by the CAC and
reported
to
the
Town
Board as required.
Section 5. PROCEDURES AND REPORTS: The CAC shall:
a. Adopt rules and procedures for its meeting and matters referred to it;
b. Oversee the preparation of necessary applications and reports to the State in
order that the Town receive appropriate monetary reimbursement for the CAC pursuant, to 6
NYCRR Part 636,
Section 6. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES: The members of the CAC shall receive no
compensation for their services as members thereof but. may be reimbursed for reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in performance of their duties_ within the appropriations made
available for the same.
Section 7. INTEGRATION WITH GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW SECTION 239 -X. Except to
the extent this local law shall. specifically provide to the contrary., the CAC shall be governed by
the provisions of General Municipal Law Section 239 -x.
Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This local law shall take effect on filing with the
Secretary of State as provided by the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law.
• 2nd Supv Varvayanis
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Cl T Hatfield noted that a committee had been formed to work with the Village of
Dryden on joint projects and wondered whether anything was happening. Atty Perkins is
reviewing a proposed contract for water service on North Road and will-report at the next
meeting. Other matters for discussion with the Village include recreation and police protection.
We have not been notified whether the Village has appointed a committee.
Supv Varvayanis noted that part of the discussion regarding the paramedic situation is
suitable for executive session, but not all of it. Cl C Hatfield stated his son -in -law does not feel
that it is necessary to pay drivers, but that we need to make it work one way or another.
Supv Varvayanis asked Atty Perkins if we did not budget to pay drivers and found we
needed to do that mid year, could we increase the rates charged by the ambulance district at a
later date to come up with the money. Atty Perkins stated it could be taken from contingency
or the rates can be raised, although he's not sure that will cover what is hoped it will because
there is usually a lag time recovering that money. Those are fees that are set by the district
based on calls and are not part of the overall operating budget. If you anticipate x number of
calls, you anticipate collecting. x amount of revenue and to the extent that is not. sufficient to
cover your costs, you can raise the fees. Cl T Hatfield noted that we recently started charging
• mileage and that is starting to come in.
Page 9 of 20
TB 9-"0
Cl C Hatfield stated it had been brought to his attention that we'd gone through these
things before and once the department gets to a low point they will dig their heels in and make
it work. He's been told that there is no need to pay drivers, there are plenty of drivers and if 40
they get scheduled properly there won't be a problem.
Cl Grantham
wondered what this board needs
to do
to
help the situation. We have two
full time paramedics
who are both out presently, and
there
is
one frill time position open.
Supv Varvayanis stated that currently part time workers do not require a drug test,
while full time workers do and-wondered if that was a.policy that should be continued., The
board believes that should be changed for all part time employees. Cl T Hatfield noted that
perhaps candidates could be hired conditioned on the results of the drug test. Supv
Varvayanis stated that Dianne McFall insists that currently policy provides that test results be
back before hiring and. that takes. about three weeks. That is giving us problems. Atty Perkins
stated a resolution by the Town Board could change that. Cl Grantham suggested the board
look carefully at the policy, draw up a resolution and bring it back to the board next week. Cl
T Hatfield feels the current policy is hindering progress at this point and noted that part time
people are driving the same equipment and have risk /liability aspects. Supv Varvayanis will
look into a policy change.
Supv Varvayanis noted that in the past if someone at the Highway Department (an
MEO) wanted to answer a call at the Fire Department they were allowed to do that and were
still paid. Either that policy has faded-away or people are not aware of it he. wondered if we
should now make it a formal policy, subject to approval by the Highway Superintendent. Atty
Perkins suggested that he check with our counsel on the union matter prior to doing so.
Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing on fee structures for engineers and attorneys
at 8:46 p.m. 0
RESOLUTION #221 ADOPT LOCAL LAW #5 OF 2000 - FEE STRUCTURES
FOR ENGINEERS AND ATTORNEYS
Cl T Hatfield offered the. following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Local Law, to be known
as Local Law #5 of 2000, as follows:
SECTION 1. Legislative Findings, Intent and Purpose
The Town-Board hereby finds and. determines that in. order to protect and safeguard the
Town of Dryden, its residents and their property with respect to certain land developments
within the Town, all buildings, highways, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, other
utilities and parks within developments should be designed and constructed in a competent
and workmanlike manner and in conformity with. all applicable governmental codes, rules and
regulations and dedicated and conveyed to the Town in a legally sufficient manner, that in
order to assure the foregoing, it is essential. for the Town to have competent engineers retained
by the Town to review and approve plans and designs, make recommendations to the Town
Board and Planning Board, inspect the construction of highways, drainage, water and sewer,
other facilities and parks to be dedicated to the Town and to recommend their acceptance by
the Town, and to have competent attorneys retained by the Town to negotiate and draft
appropriate agreements with developers, obtain, review and approve necessary securities,
insurance and other legal documents, review proposed. deeds and easements to assure the
Town is obtaining good and proper title and to generally represent the Town with respect to
legal disputes and issues with respect to developments, and that the cost of retaining such
competent engineers and attorneys should ultimately be paid by those who seek to profit from
Page 10 of 20
TB 9-"0
such developments rather than from general Town funds which are raised from taxes paid by
• taxpayers of the Town.
This local law is enacted under the authority of Municipal Home Rule Law Section
10(1)(ii)(a)(12) and (d)(3) and Municipal Home Rule Law Section 22. To the extent Town Law
Sections 274 -a, 274 -b, 276, 277 and 278 do not authorize the Town Board, Site Plan Review
Board or Town Planning Board to require the reimbursement to the Town of legal and
engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration of
applications for site plan review, special permits, subdivision approval, and for the approval,
amendment or extension of planned unit developments, it is the expressed intent of the Town
Board to change and supersede such statutes. More particularly, such statutes do not
authorize the deferral or withholding of such.approvals in.the event such.expenses are not, paid
to the Town. It is the expressed intent of the Town Board to change and supersede Town Law
Sections 274 -a, 274 -b, 276, 277 and 278 to empower the Town to require such payment as a
condition to such approvals.
SECTION 2. Definitions
As used in this local law, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated:
A. APPLICANT - Any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or
organization of any kind who or which requests the Town through its Planning Board, Site Plan
Review Board or Town Board to approve a development or application.
B. DEVELOPER - Any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or
organization of any kind who or which constructs or proposes to construct one or more
• highways, drainage facilities, water,_ sewer or other facilities,. utilities or parks within or in
conjunction with a development and to convey or dedicate same to the Town.
C. DEVELOPMENT - Shall mean and include, an application for site plan approval, special
permit approval, subdivision approval, or planned unit development approval.
D. DRAINAGE FACILITY - All surface water drainage facilities, including, but not limited
to, detention and retention basins, storm sewers and their appurtenances, drainage swales and
ditches, and any easements through or over land on which said facilities may be constructed or
installed in or in connection with a development.
E. HIGHWAY - The term. highway" includes a street, avenue, road, square, place, alley,
lane, boulevard, concourse, parkway, driveway, overpass and underpass and also includes all
items appurtenant thereto, including but not limited to bridges, culverts, ditches, shoulders
and sidewalks in or in connection with a development.
F. PARK - An area of land located within a development which is open. to the public and
devoted to active or passive recreation.
G. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - A planned unit development established under
Article XXII of the zoning ordinance of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to
the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act).
H. SITE PLAN REVIEW - Uses allowed with site plan review pursuant to the zoning
ordinance of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act).
Page 11 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
I. SPECIAL PERMITS - Uses allowed by special permit pursuant to the zoning ordinance •
of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act).
J. SUBDIVISION - A subdivision. of land pursuant. to the Land. Subdivision. Rules, and
Regulations of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act).
K. TOWN - The Town of Dryden.
L. UTILITIES - All water, sewer, drainage, gas, electric, telephone, cable television facilities
and any easements through or over which said facilities may be constructed or installed in or
in connection with a development.
SECTION 3. Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses
A. Site Plan Review.
1. The applicant,_ in. connection_ with. an, application_ for a site plan approval in the
Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses
incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration. of such site plan review
application.
2. A developer who constructs, or proposes to construct, one or more highways,
drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with an approved site plan by the
Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable. and_ necessary legal and. engineering
expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town
of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks and the dedication. of same to the
Town.
B. Special Permits.
1. The applicant, in connection with an application for approval of a special permit
in the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses
incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration of such special permit
application.
2. A developer who constructs, or proposes to construct, one or more highways,
drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with an approved special permit
by the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary legal and engineering
expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town
of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks and the dedication of same to the
Town.
C. Subdivisions.
1. The applicant, in connection with an application for approval. of a subdivision in
the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses
incurred by the Town in connection with the review and_ consideration. of such subdivision
application.
2.
A developer
who constructs,
or proposes to construct,
one or more highways, •
drainage
facilities, utilities
or parks within
or in conjunction with an
approved subdivision by
Page 12 of 20
TB 9-6 -00
the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary legal and engineering
expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town
of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks and the dedication of same to the
Town.
D. Planned Unit Development.
1. An applicant, in connection with an application for the approval,_ amendment or
extension of a planned unit development in the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all
reasonable and necessary engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the
review and consideration of such planned unit development application.
2. A developer who constructs or proposes to construct one or more highways,
drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with a planned unit development
in the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary legal and engineering
expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town
of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and. parks and. the dedication of same to the
Town.
SECTION 4. Exceptions
A. The following developments are hereby excepted from. the application of, this local law.
Any division of land that does not meet the definition of subdivision in the Land Subdivision
Rules and Regulations of the Town.
B. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this local law, an applicant or
developer shall not be required to reimburse the Town for any part of a legal or engineering fee
• incurred by the Town for services performed in. connection. with. matters„ including but not
limited to those resulting from complaints by third parties, as to which the Town Board
determines the applicant or developer had no responsibility or was beyond the reasonable
control of the applicant or developer.
SECTION 5. Deposit and Payment of Fees
A. Simultaneously with the filing of an application for approval of a development and prior
to the commencement of any construction of buildings, highways, drainage facilities, utilities or
parks therein, the applicant or developer, as the case may be, shall deposit with the Town
Supervisor a sum of money, as determined in Section 6 of this local law, which sum shall be
used to pay the costs incurred by the Town for engineering and legal services as described in
Section 3 of this local law.
B. Upon receipt of such sums, the Town Supervisor shall. cause such monies to be placed
in a separate non - interest bearing account in the name of the Town and shall keep a separate
record of all such monies so deposited. and the name of the applicant or developer and project
for which such sums were deposited.
C. Upon receipt and approval by the Town Board of itemized vouchers from an engineer
and /or attorney for services rendered on behalf of the Town pertaining to the development, the
Town Supervisor shall cause such vouchers to be paid out of the monies so deposited, and
shall furnish copies of such vouchers to the applicant or developer at the same time such
vouchers are submitted to the Town.
D. The Town Board shall and audit all such vouchers and shall_ approve payment of
only such engineering and legal fees as are reasonable in amount and necessarily incurred by
• the Town in connection with the review, consideration and approval of developments and the
inspection and acceptance of highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks within or in
Page 13 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
conjunction with such developments. For purpose of the foregoing, a fee or part thereof is
reasonable in amount if it bears a reasonable relationship to the average charge by engineers
or attorneys to the Town for services performed in connection with the approval or construction
of a similar development and in this regard the Town Board may take into consideration the
size, type and number of buildings to be constructed, the amount of time to complete the
development, the topography of the land on which such. development is located,_ soil. conditions,
surface water, drainage conditions, the nature and extent of highways, drainage facilities,
utilities and parks to be constructed and any special conditions or considerations as the Town
Board may deem relevant; and a fee or part thereof is necessarily incurred it was charged by
the engineer or attorney for a service which_ was. rendered- in order to protect or promote the
health, safety or other vital interests of the residents of the Town, protect public or private
property from damage from uncontrolled, surface water run -off and other factors, assure the
proper and timely construction of highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks, protect the
legal interests of the Town including. receipt. by the Town. of good and proper title to dedicated
highways and other facilities and the avoidance of claims and liability, and such other interests
as the Town Board may deem relevant.
E. If at any time during or after the processing. of such application or in the construction,
inspection or acceptance of buildings, highways, drainage facilities, utilities or parks there
shall be insufficient monies on hand to the credit of such applicant or developer to pay the
approved vouchers in full, or if it shall reasonably appear to the Town Supervisor that such
monies will be insufficient to meet vouchers yet to be submitted, the Town_ Supervisor shall
cause the applicant or developer to deposit additional sums as the Supervisor deems necessary
or advisable in order to meet such expenses or anticipated expenses.
F. In the event that the applicant or developer fails to deposit such funds or such
additional funds,. the Town Supervisor shall notify as applicable, the Chairperson of the
Planning Board, Town Board and /or Town's Code Enforcement Officer of such failure, and any
review, approval, building permit or certificates of occupancy may be withheld by the
appropriate Board, officer or employee of the Town until such monies are deposited.
G. After final approval, acceptance and /or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
relating to any specific development, and after payment of all approved vouchers submitted
regarding such development, any sums remaining-on account to the credit-of such applicant or
developer shall be returned to such applicant or developer, along with a statement of the
vouchers so paid.
SECTION 6. Deposit Amounts
The amount of the initial deposit for the various developments covered by this local law
shall be as set forth in a schedule of deposits established from time to time, by resolution of the
Town. Board. Said schedule shall remain in effect and_ shall. apply to all. applicants and
developers until amended or revised by subsequent resolution.
SECTION 7. Application Fees
The deposits required by this local law shall be in addition to any application fees as
may be required by other laws, rules, regulations or ordinances of the Town, and shall not be
used to offset the Town's general expenses of legal and engineering services for the several
Boards of the Town, nor its general administration expenses.
SECTION 8. Severability
If any clause, sentence,_ paragraph, subdivision,. section_or part of this local law shall be
adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment, shall not affect,
Page 14 of 20
TB 9-6 -00
is impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause,
sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in
which such judgment is rendered.
SECTION 9. Effective Date
This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of
State.
2nd C1 Grantham
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
NILES WALTER & JOYCE KIRK SPECIAL PERMIT
3 Kirk Road
Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. and Town Clerk read the
notice published in The Ithaca Journal. This is an application for a special permit to operate
an upholstery business at a home residence.
Mr. Kirk was present, would like to change the location of his business and all
necessary documents have been submitted.
• Dan Senecal - I can't think of a better place to put it. All Mode Communications is right
across the street and Diversified Foods on the other side. How that ever got switched from
commercial when they are right on Route 13, I don't know. I bought some property right next
door to him and I was under the impression that it was zoned commercial, the tax bill said it
was. Then later I was told that it wasn't, that they had changed the zoning there. I don't have
a problem with his business.
ZO Slater - The zoning change was in 1985. People in residential homes on the south
side of Route 13 felt that area should maintain a residential appearance and the Town honored
that wish.
Supv Varvayanis asked if there were any other comments from the audience and there
were none.
ZO Slater - I would point out that Mr. Kirk's business, Fall Creek Upholstery has been
located just outside of Freeville for twelve years. That was a straight forward allowed use in
that district. He was well received by the community during that time and I. haven't had any
complaints about his business. You know that property has been a problem property for a
long time and we now have an opportunity to see something that serves both the residential
and commercial communities.
Engineer has recommended removing standard condition number 7 because it is such a
small impact on a large parcel. The septic design calls for some setbacks because of the
proximity of a tributary and a permit has been issued by the Health Department. The Health
Department will make an inspection before the system is covered. Engineer has recommended
an erosion and sediment plan for during construction.
• Board reviewed the short form environmental assessment form.
Page 15 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
Public hearing closed at 8:58 p.m.
RESOLUTION #222 - SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION -
KIRK SPECIAL PERMIT
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR
review for the special permit application of Niles Walter Kirk. and Joyce Kirk-for a home
occupation business at 3 Kirk Road. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the
lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary
documents.
2nd C1 T Hatfield
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
RESOLUTION #223 GRANT KIRK SPECIAL PERMIT
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town. Board hereby approves the application for a special permit
by Niles Walter Kirk and Joyce Kirk for a home occupation business at 3 Kirk Road, subject to •
the following conditions:
1. Approval by Town Engineer of a during construction erosion and sediment plan;
2. Standard Conditions of Approval (7 -12- 2000), excepting #7.
2nd Supv Varvayanis
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
ZO Slater noted that the Town does not currently have in. his opinion an. adequate. home
occupation sign regulation and would like to see that addressed. ZO Slater will work with Mr.
Kirk. with respect to his sign.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
GUTHRIE MEDICAL CLINIC EXPANSION
1780 Hanshaw Road
Supv Varvayanis opened the hearing at. 9:04 p.m.. and Town Clerk read the notice
published in The Ithaca Journal.
Page 16 of 20
rr:01oim
Supv Varvayanis read the following letters into the record: from Harvey Rogoff, Owner
is of Ithaca Self Storage faxed 9/ 1 /00; from James W. Hanson, Jr. dated September 6, 2000; and
from Harvey Rogoff faxed 9/6/00.
Present on behalf of the applicant: Herman Seiverding of Integrated Acquisition &
Development, retained by Guthrie as contractor to build the facility, Thomas Walker, Regional
Administrator for Guthrie, Tim Buhl of Resource Engineers, and Phil Wajenski and Tom
Colbert, partners in Integrated Acquisition & Development.
Mr. Seiverding followed the outline of the site plan checklist pointing out some of the
considerations in planning the site.
H Seiverding - Guthrie is proposing
square foot facility with 44 parking spaces.
along with 137 new parking spaces as well
number of handicapped stalls. The reason
consolidate its Ithaca operations on this sit
Cliff Street and Hanshaw Road.
to expand its facility. It currently has a 7,200
The proposed addition would be 17,750 square feet
as an area for ambulance and delivery and a
for the expansion is driven by Guthrie's desire to
e. They are currently operating on two locations, on
Relative to adjacent land uses and how this project fits within the neighborhood: It is
an MA Zoning District, which allows industrial manufacturing, building supply and other
rather intense uses. This is an office use and within the zone is the most benign use possible.
Some of neighboring uses are a building supply facility, a mini self - storage facility, Hi -Speed
Checkweigher, the Armory, and Cayuga Press (more industrial type uses). There is an adjacent
residential zone on the opposite side of Royal Road.
• In terms of the location, design and height of the proposed building, the proposed
addition is all to the rear of the existing building. The architecture of the addition is similar to
the existing building, a brown brick clad building with a number of window openings. The
main entrance into the facility will be relocated away from Royal Road over to the side, where it
will be accessed from the parking lot. There is also included a drop off area where people can
be dropped off and walk into the facility. The overall height of the building won't be any
different than the existing building, approximately 13 feet high. They have tried to incorporate
some decorative detailing which doesn't exist of the existing building. The new entry is
highlighted by creating a porch canopy with a cupola over it. The entrance will come out to the
edge of the canopy. The entrance will be much more visible and accessible.
The location, construction and design of the parking. There will be two parking areas.
The current parking area will be extended somewhat to the north, and the intent is that this
will be used for employee and staff parking. Patient parking will be the new 137 space parking
lot, which will be asphalt and include a number of islands for landscaping as well as being
surrounded by low berms with vegetation for screening and to enhance the aesthetics of the
site. The sidewalk will run along the east edge of the parking lot that will lead to a large plaza -
like area from which you would then enter the building.
Site lighting. There will be a total of 7 or 8 lights added in the parking area. These will
be approximately 20' high and will be the "shoe box" fixture, a fixture that casts all of its light
down rather than up and out, in an effort to avoid any kind of spilling of light onto adjacent
properties.
The landscaping along the berm and around the perimeter of the building and the
existing parking lot will consist of a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, flowering
plants, with. an, emphasis on deer resistant varieties.. Relevant to the comment made by the
• Court we are looking for species that are native and not invasive. This will also be conducive to
Page 17 of 20
TB 9 -6 -00
the use of the front area of the site as a retention area to filter any stormwater run off from the
site to these retention areas before they exit. •
I think there's a question on that application relative to waste disposal. There is a
dumpster. Presently that dumpster just sits in the parking. lot. As proposed the dumpster will
be enclosed and screened at one end of the parking lot.
The area is currently served by public water and sewer. There is fire hydrant located
within a distance of less than 500 feet from all four corners of the site. The area is served by
NYSEG with electricity and natural gas.
There is an existing sign at the corner of Royal. Road. and the driveway. That sign will
be relocated to the new entrance for patient parking. A directional sign will direct staff and
delivery and. ambulance vehicles to the other parking lot.
There is a buffer area proposed between the parking lot and Royal Road. This area will
be a couple of feet above the grade of the parking.lot on-both-sides. It is not high enough to
block anyone's view pulling in or out of the site. The landscaping material will consist of a mix
of deciduous and evergreen-trees and. flowering_ shrubs. There is not yet a detailed list of which
plants will be used. The detention area in the front will also be heavily landscaped and there
will be a new area created just west of the entrance to Royal Road. and that retention area will
feed into the existing retention area. Both areas will be landscaped with plants that are
sensitive to the use of this portion of the site.
The proposed number of parking spaces is somewhat less than the ordinance calls for.
The Zoning Board of Appeals last night granted a parking variance for that deficiency.
Comments made by the neighbor relative to truck access was discussed and whether •
traffic from this Royal Road site will impede traffic headed to the mini storage facility.
Applicant does not believe it will. All turning movements from Royal Road into the site are
right hand. turning movements, an unrestricted. movement, so traffic will not be held up. Site
access will also be provided via a second curb cut further up Royal Road to make sure there is
emergency access.
Tim Buhl - What is proposed for drainage is similar to what is done throughout central
New York and in particular in Cortland County where there is a sole source aquifer at the Tops
site. It is sheet drainage off of the parking lot to a grass lined ditch which helps filter any
solids or impurities which could potentially be in the storm water before it gets off the site. The
general concept is to drain everything pretty much to the west and. southwest. In front. of the
berms is a grass lined swale. There are actually three small retention basins, on just above
(north) of the driveway, a new one in front of the parking lot just before the turn into Royal
Road, and they tie into the existing retention basin. Calculations are being done now and the
intent is to have no increase. in peak. discharge off . the site. If for some reason that can not be
accomplished, there is a back up area that can be used for additional retention further to the
north of the building if necessary, but initial calculations indicate it will be sufficient.
A landscape architect on staff is very familiar with local species of plants and tolerance
to climate and wildlife. A detailed schedule will be submitted for the Town Engineer's review.
The erosion and sediment control plan will be a separate and distinct plan showing the
location of control devices as well as a narrative will be submitted.
In general they are trying to make the site one that blends in and will be an asset to the •
area
Page 18 of 20
UN-061 ' 111,
If necessary low height trees will be substituted for some existing trees. Visibility of the
mini- storage facility's sign will not be blocked. Snow removal will not be a problem and will not
in any way impede visibility. Applicant does not feel their driveway will impact the ability of
trucks to turn in or out of the mini storage facility's driveway. The second driveway will be
used mainly by emergency vehicles.
Erica Evans inquired how medical waste would be handled and Mr. Walker explained
that they currently maintain a regulated medical waste disposal contract which is separate and
distinct from the firm that disposes of their normal waste. The regulated medical waste is
maintained in red bags in a separate storage area inside the building, behind locked doors.
There are Federal and State sanctions against improper disposal of that waste that are
sufficient to cause them to abide by the regulations.
Construction is anticipated to being during the first two weeks of October and should
be complete in June.
ZO Slater noted that the County Health Department had referred. to a Federal wetland
to the immediate south of the project. That is incorrect; it is a NYS DEC recognized wetland.
There is a Federal wetland due south of the current Ithaca Self Storage. Probably the wetland
will keep the wooded area across from the Guthrie site a wooded area for a long time.
Cl Grantham asked if current hours would change. They are currently open a couple
of evenings for a few hours each. They expect they will gain some efficiencies as consolidation
of the sites occurs and may look at the possibility of weekend hours in the future to increase
access for the community. No specific schedule has been worked out yet, but their goal is to
expand services. ZO Slater suggested that hours not be limited as emergencies happen 24
hours per day.
ZO Slater - He is interested, as is the County, in the species of the landscaping
materials and believes they can submit that at a later date. They need to have landscaping in
place by the time they apply for a certificate of occupancy. Review of the landscape materials
could be subject to our engineering, zoning, and county planning approval. He has looked at
the concerns of Mr. Rogoff of not being able to see the Ithaca Self Storage facility sign from
Route 13. He does not believe that is an issue. Route 13's elevation is considerably higher
than Mr. Rogoffs elevation and you must proceed quite a distance currently past the Hanshaw
Road intersection with Route 13 before you're aware of the facility sign. He does not believe
there is any possibility of the northernmost trees ever growing large enough to interfere with
his view of 13 and facility signage.
The Board reviewed the long form environmental assessment form (copy in project file).
RESOLUTION #224 - SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION -
GUTHRIE MEDICAL CLINIC
Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR
review for the site plan application of Guthrie Medical Clinic for expansion of their facility at
1780 Hanshaw Road. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in
uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents.
2nd Cl C Hatfield
• Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Page 19 of 20
TB 9-6 -00
Cl C Hatfield Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
RESOLUTION #225 - APPROVE GUTHRIE MEDICAL CLINIC SITE PLAN
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the site plan application of Guthrie
Medical Clinic to expand their facilities at 1760 Hanshaw Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval by Town Engineer_ of_a drainage control -plan, erosion. control plan, and
landscape plan;
2. Standard Conditions of Approval. (7 -12- 2000).
2nd Cl C Hatfield
Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl C Hatfield. Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
At 10:04 p.m. on motion of Supv Varvayanis,. seconded -by Cl T Hatfield, and
unanimously carried, the board moved to executive session to discuss the employment history •
of a particular individual.
At 11:08 p.m. the Board - returned from-executive session, no action-was taken,_ and on
motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Hollenbeck
Town Clerk
Page 20 of 20
Town cf Dryden
Special Town Board Meeting
September 6, 2000
Name - {Please Print}
J
c
I
S
v- V.0) eo�
Address
KI ! F,titiq� tj IAA
NJ