No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-08TB 11 -3 -00 TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING November 8, 2000 Board Members Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Ronald Beck, Cl Thomas Hatfield, Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Deborah Grantham Other Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk Jack Bush, Highway Superintendent Other Town Staff: Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney David Putnam (TG Miller), Town Engineer Henry Slater, Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer PUBLIC HEARINGS RE: BUDGET Supv Varvayanis asked whether Board members had any comments or questions regarding the preliminary budget and they did not. He then asked for comments from the audience. Robin Seeley stated that she appreciates having the budget on the web. She would like to know what percent of increase the elected officials are receiving. Supv Varvayanis stated it was zero for the Town Board and the Supervisor, 2.4% for the Town Clerk and 14% for the Highway Superintendent. R Seeley wondered why there was such a difference between the offices. Supv Varvayanis - I felt that the Town Board and Supervisor were more or less doing this as a public service and didn't really consider that we should get a raise like a normal job. The Town Clerk got a raise as all the other office staff did. Supv Varvayanis asked Cl T Hatfield to address the raise for the Highway Superintendent. Cl T Hatfield - Actually I argued that we should be looking at raises for every position in Town. It's a different point of view, but with respect to the Highway Superintendent, we reduced the salary a year ago when we had a new person come into the position, and we also had a policy change that took effect last year with respect to the Highway Superintendent. Those resulted in a reduction in wages greater than that which the Town Board thought they were authorizing at the time we did last year's budget. So the 14" /o represents a correction of an error that we made at that time and a two - percent increase which is in line with all the other employees for this year. R Seeley - What was the error? Cl T Hatfield - We reduced his salary further than we thought we had a year ago. R Seeley - So the 14" increase was to get it back up to where it was two years ago. Cl T Hatfield - No, actually it doesn't get it back to what it was two years ago at all, but it brings it back in line with where we thought we had put it a year ago. R Seeley - The Town Clerk and the Highway Superintendent are both full time employees? Page 1 of 31 TB 11 -3 -00 Cl T Hatfield - Well, they're both elected officials, they can come and go as they choose, but both of the current occupants of those offices have discussed their hours with us and they are both considered to be full time because that is the approach that they have taken for their office. R Seeley - So the Town Clerk did not also get 14% because that salary was not decreased the previous year? Cl T, Hatfield - That's correct. It was decreased the year that Ms. Hollenbeck took office. The salary was increased the following year after the review of the performance of the duties. The salary 1I as adjusted as Mr. Bush's was adjusted if you want to look at the history. R Seeley - I wanted to make sure it wasn't just a merit basis because I think Bambi is doing such la fantastic job as Town Clerk. She is always courteous, alumys does what she says she is going to do ... Cl T Hatfield - She does a great job on top of it. Margaret Walbridge stated that the Highway Department composes about half of the town budget and there is nowhere in the budget that indicates what the projects are going to be. It seems that in the past the Town Board wanted to have more control over the Highway Superintendent and should demand that there be set out what the projects are and how much they are going to be. Mr. Bush ran about a year ago saying he would have everything planned in advance. It's a been a year and the projects should be shown, approximately how= much they are going to cost. I think that's appropriate information for the citizens to help us understand where most of our tax dollars go. Supv Varvayanis - I agree with that and Jack has prepared the cost of a lot of the different kinds of work, repaving and sealing and doing shoulders. That I think was the biggest part and now I think the smaller part hopefully we'll have ready for next year. He knows roughly what projects he wants to do and hopefully he'll have that put together for us. M Walbridge - But will they be put in the budget and will you as a board insist that they get published to us so that the know what they are. Otherwise, they might exist in the Town Hall and no one in the public knows what they are. I think it is important to know the wish list and what kind of prices. The Highway Superintendent is making choices with our money and how much will be spent in one place or another. Supv Varvayanis - I think we'd all like to see it. Jack, do you think you'd be able to get that in time for the budget next year? J Bulsh - At this time I don't feel that I'll do anything different than I already did this year. Cl T Hatfield - The reason being, and I think it's under Town Law Peggy if you remember when you were on the board, the Superintendent has to come to the Board once we authorize a budget and create a contract between the Board and the Highway Superintendent where he lays out exactly where he is going to spend the money, on what roads, and usually that's done in the Spring after you get through the winter, so that you can see what kind of damage was done by the frost and heat cycles and other things. Obviously there will be snow plowing and ditch maintenance and other things on an ongoing basis for maintenance, but the Superintendent typically handles that with the Town Board in the Spring as I recall. J Bussh - I believe this year I submitted it in February. Page 2 of 31 TB 11 -8-00 M Walbridge - I guess I've never seen a list published that says exactly how much the different projects are going to cost. I've seen well, maybe this road or this road, and I am asking as a citizen that you as a board really demand some accountability from the highway department so that everybody knows up front what is going on. I think everybody will be happier if they know it ahead of time, rather than find out later. Supv Varvayanis - I think it's a reasonable request. Cl T Hatfield - Request noted. L Carpenter - I'd like to know where the 2.4% came from. Supv Varvayanis - That was the cost of living adjustment that Social Security made last year, so I figured that was a reasonable amount to start with. L Carpenter - So therefore the Town Clerk did not get a raise, she got a cost of living allowance. Supv Varvayanis - Correct. L Carpenter - I just wondered because it's 3.2% in the Town of Danby. John Lafian stated. that while it was honorable of the Town Board and the Supervisor to provide this public service and as a citizen he believes the value of that contribution should be recognized and felt a cost of living increase for them would be appropriate as well. He agrees that 2.4% is a tight number and perhaps the 3.2% increase should be considered. is Cl Grantham - My point of view on the elected officials salaries is that, particularly for the Town Board since we are essentially setting our own salaries, that we shouldn't be giving ourselves raises. We should be adopting a schedule of salaries that begins at a date when we have all been through an election and theoretically it's a new board and we aren't setting our own salaries. So I don't think that the Board members or the Supervisor particularly should get raises that are set tonight by this board. I brought this up last year. Which means I think that we would have to set a schedule that begins to take effect in something like 2002 or 2003. The 2.4% was a cost of living adjustment and there were two appointed employees in the Town who got merit raises in addition to that. And those recommendations I believe were forwarded to you by department heads. Supv Varvayanis - Yes. John Lafian stated he believed that is an excellent policy as other legislative boards have voted themselves significant increases. He suggested that a cost of living increase be incorporated in any policy developed. Cl Grantham - I'm not sure the rest of the board agrees. It's not exactly a policy; it's my opinion. Supv Varvayanis stated there could be a referendum asking the citizens what they think the board should get paid. John Lafian suggested asking whether they agreed to a cost of living increase. Cl T Hatfield - I think it goes with the territory. I have a different opinion. That's why I said we have differences of opinion, and it's fine. If they don't want to add anything to it this year, that's fine. We've raised it the last couple of years. I have a tendency to believe in what she's saying. I also believe that we as a board can not obligate future boards. We've got the Page 3 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 responsibility to 'set a budget for the next year, and part of that is all elected officials compensation. It's not salary and not wages per se, because we are elected, but we are treated as employees under the Internal Revenue Code. There are differences of opinion, and everybody's happy right now I guess. That's for this year, and there are different ways to look at it. That's what makes for a good strong discussion. on. Cl Grantham - We do actually obligate future boards every time we issue bonds and so Cl T Hatfield - But we don't do that. Isn't that issued subject to referendum, Mahlon? Atty Perkins - Typically, yes. Cl Grantham - But still we obligate future boards by taking that action. We sign contracts such as sewer and water contracts with the Town and City of Ithaca. That obligates future boards. We do it all the time. Supv Varvayanis - I have to agree with Tom, but I don't think we really could by law say you must pay X and so, but I think by the same token if we voted in a suggested raise.... Cl Grantham - Then it would still be subject to a budget process every year. Supv Varvayanis - Just because we recommended a raise in four years, it doesn't mean the board would have to follow through. R Seeley ! I would like to ask that you give the Town Clerk an increase over and above the cost of livinm, that. B Hollenbeck - I would rather you not do that. Thanks anyway, but no thanks. Supv Varvayanis - It would be illegal this year anyway. B Hollenbeck - The only way to do it would be by local law, and we are not going to do Cl T Hatfield - It's already set. Supv Varvayanis - We can't raise it after it's been advertised. R Seeley L Hove did you raise the Highway Superintendent? Cl T Hatfield - That was done before. Supv Varvayanis - We hadn't advertised and published the salary yet. Cl Grantham - Once we set a salary for an elected official it has to be published and after that you can't change it again. B Hollenbeck - Except you can lower it. Supv Va ayanis - We'd have to publish and have a new hearing and we'd be past the deadline. M Walbridge - Robin had mentioned having percentage for the salaries. I wonder if the whole budget would have a percentage increase or decrease column that would show Page 4 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 percentage of increase so you could easily look through it and try to figure out where expenses have increased and decreased. It is a lot of pages. Also, if it could show the salaries for elected officials for several years, rather than just one year, so we could tell what is going on there. The rest of the budget shows this year, last year and proposed. Is that possible to have? Supv Varvayanis - Do you mean you want a percentage for each line item? M Walbridge - Yes. It shouldn't be hard on the spreadsheet. It should automatically do that for you. I assume it's on a spreadsheet. Supv Varvayanis - I assume it could be done. Do you think that would be better than just by department? M Walbridge - I'd be really curious as to whether it's bridges or maintenance or water districts or sewer districts or whatever. I think a spreadsheet can do it rather easily, it's not that difficult. Supv Varvayanis - Water and sewer districts are already broken out. M Walbridge - I think the rest of it could be done. Supv Varvayanis - We'll see how hard that would be. Any other comments or questions? There were none. Budget hearings closed at 7:25 p.m. PUBLIC BEARING (continuation) • CROWN CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL PERMIT MODIFICATION John Lafian of Crown Construction addressed the board. Resource Associates, engineer for the applicant, has faxed a copy of a drainage plan. Map of property was distributed to board showing the additional parking requested, approximately 6,000 square feet. Mr. Lafian read a letter from Resource Associates. (in file) Resource Associates have located a proposed detention pond south of the barn. The 2000 square foot pond is pretty much behind the barn, and letter from Resource Associates states that the pond is not necessary. Crown Construction believes having the parking at the rear of the barn is preferable as opposed to in back of the fence as they had discussed previously. They did not do a feasibility study in terms of cost effectiveness, they felt that this back location is already there. The activity is back there and it would not be noticeable from the road. The engineer does not feel the pond is necessary, however they would be happy to comply. He does agree with the engineer that the effect would be zero on the downstream properties. C1 Grantham asked about the area on the diagram that says extend blacktop area and Mr. Lafian stated that is existing parking. Only what was existing when they purchased the property is blacktopped. Nothing has been done with the area that says extend blacktop. It will not be paved and is not part of this application. The strip between the barn and the parking lot will be a grassed area. Mr. Lafian stated they would like the parking to be around the perimeter of the area indicated, and the area around the dumpster is to allow for ease in turning around. Mr. Lafian explained that the detention pond would be to the south. Site is located in an RD Zone. ZO Slater stated the applicant would need approximately 40 30 parking spaces. There were previously 16 spaces, including 3 in the garage. The garage Page 5 of 31 spaces will be be in approxin and determine ZO Sl. Approval (7 -1 Hearing Supv V his voice. Cl proposed Dear TB 11 -8 -00 on remodelling it into office space. With the expanded parking lot there will y 43 parking spaces. Dave Putnam will review the drainage plan submitted %ther the detention pond is necessary. suggested that any approval include an updated Standard Conditions of at 7:42 p.m. asked Cl Grantham to take over the meeting for him as he was losing read a letter received from Ellen Schmidt, 8 Genung Circle, concerning the Town of Dryden, Re: Budget Hearing, dated November 5, 2000 members: In examiriing the proposed budget for the coming year on the web site I was surprised and disturbed. If I am reading it correctly, it appears that of the approximately $4,000,000 proposed budget approximately $2,000,000, half of the budget is designated for the Dryden Highway Department. As well as finding this number astoundingly high, it is unclear what this large sum of money specifically is proposed for. It is essential for board members to know for what and how our tax money is proposed to be used before changes, recommendations or an informed decision can be made. Please get a detailed budget from the Highway Department before proceeding. Thank you. CITIZENS Cl Grantham read a second letter from Ellen Schmidt, to Jack Bush dated October 20, 2000, which she ( asked to be read during this portion of the meeting: Dear J Thank you for taking the time to meet with us last night regarding possible changes to upper Genung Road between Ellis Hollow and Snyder Hill. We look forward to meeting again after you and Dave discuss things and develop a couple of possible scenarios for addressing the drainage and snowplow problems that the Highway Department is concerned about, while keeping in mind the needs of the local and Town residents. As we mentioned, we are most concerned about not adding through traffic to the road so that we can walk our dogs and our children and safely bicycle without fear of cars racing through. Paving the parts in question and widening any part would be invitations for people to do just that. People drive more slowly and carefully over bumpy narrow roads so as not to injure their cars. One can take nearby Quarry Road if one needs a faster route. We were also very glad to hear from you that it is your policy to speak with a resident before taking any action to cut trees on their property. We have been unhappy in recent years when trees were marked and subsequently cut and the wood taken away without our knowledge. At the time we called the Highway office twice and left messages that we would like a call back for some explanation, but the calls were not returned. There are nine tree stumps from cuts in recent years along the western border of our property along Genung Road. All but one dead cherry tree were mature, healthy trees, some of considerable girth. They provided screening from Genung Road for us. The section of the road next to our property is wide and many cars already drive too fast there. Page 6 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 We appreciate the time you took and your willingness to listen to our concerns. isLooking forward to hearing from you, Ellen Schmidt and Oskar Schmidt, John Stevens - My question is directed to you, Ms Grantham, because I've written several times and I don't get a definitive answer. And that is, how do you reconcile your position as an elected official here with your work with the Cornell Cooperative Extension, editing the water sources newsletter, organizing video conferencing for Cornell Cooperative Extension, producing videos for Cornell Cooperative Extension, and training personnel for Coy nell Cooperative Extension, when the US Department of Agriculture and the Cornell Cooperative Extension personnel manual says "Federal legislation prohibits Cornell Cooperative Extension agents from participating in partisan politics as it can give the perception that Cornell Cooperative Extension is associated with or endorses political platforms. This is a material conflict of interest with Cornell Cooperative Extension." Then it goes on to talk about non - partisan politics and that even with non - partisan politics you shouldn't use the name of Cornell Cooperative Extension or Cornell University. I noted in your campaign literature that you talk and recite that you are an extension associate with Cornell University since 1992. So could you explain that to me? Cl Grantham - Sure. I'm an extension appointment employed at Cornell University, not employed with Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County. There is a difference and that does make a difference in the position. What I did was speak with administrators at Cornell and Cooperative Extension Administration and clarify that I am indeed within my rights to serve on Town Board, J Stevens - So your work with Cornell Cooperative Extension you don't think is in violation of any USDA mandates? 41 Cl Grantham - To the best of my knowledge, no, and the word that I've gotten from administrators who supervise extension appointments at Cornell, no. J Stevens - Even though you work with Cornell Cooperative Extension? Are you paid in part by them? Cl Grantham - I'm paid by Cornell University, J Stevens - And any compensation for your work on the newsletter with Cooperative Extension? Cl Grantham - That newsletter, for one thing, is defunct. That newsletter was paid for by state funding, federal and state funding. J Stevens - I see. And that wasn't a conflict for you? Cl Grantham - According to administrators at Cornell University, no. Larry Carpenter inquired what happened at the negotiating meeting with the Union. Supv Varvayanis stated that final proposals were exchanged and the mediator was brought up to speed. Cl T Hatfield stated that it was the first of three mediation sessions and was mostly intended to give the mediator full knowledge of matters. L Carpenter asked who was on the union negotiation committee. Supv Varvayanis stated there was Jim Augst, who represents the teamsters, John Tottey and Butch McDaniels. L Carpenter asked if Butch McDaniels had been in attendance at the last few meetings and was told that he had. • Dick Cutia, of Ithaca Produce Company was present and asked to address the board regarding the complaint received about his company. ZO Henry Slater stated that he had Page 7 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 written to Ithaca Produce Company and attached a copy of the complaint received by the Board last week from Robert Cox. (letter read to board and in file) The letter pointed out that Mr. Cutia's business was operating 20 hours per day, in excess of the hours of operation listed on his special permit, and explained that it was necessary to come to the board to amend that special permit to extend the hours of operation. Cl Grantham pointed out the other part of the complaint was that the buffer strip listed as one of the conditions of the special permit had not been constructed. ZO Slater stated they had planted a buffer strip that met approval of the Town Board at that time. The Town Board had originally said in conformance with the MA Zoning District a buffer strip, however a 30' dense planting of evergreens on site that they have, was not practical and the Board agreed to evergreen trees planted according to a plan presented by the applicants at the time. The applicant did plant the trees. Robert Cox pointed out that the trees were to be on the south and west side. Applicant planted trees on the south and east. Brent Maynard, a 5 year employee of Ithaca Produce, distributed an information sheet to the Board. When he first began work at Ithaca Produce they had two trucks and five employees. The business was started in 1962 by Mr. Cutia and incorporated in 1992. They entered the current facility in 1988 or 1989 when the special permit was issued to do business there. Today they have 22 full time employees, 9 refrigerated trucks, 1 unrefrigerated. They operate six days 'a week, Monday through Saturday. Their delivery area which was only local four years ago, now extends west to Buffalo, north to Oswego, east to Oneonta and south to Scranton, Pennsylvania. Because of the increase in business they have had to make changes, including loading the trucks at night, beginning at 9:00 p.m., Sunday through Friday night. Their earliest trucks leave at 4:00 a.m., sometimes a little earlier. Their plans to expand have changed a number of times, much of that to accommodate the situation with the neighbors who they know have had troubles sleeping and with noise. They are aware of the situation and take it very seriously. They are trying to work through the situation. Mr. Cox has shared the plan he has drawn up based on his observations of their business. That plan was beneficial to them and they have incorporated his ideas into a neNAT plan for the facility. The problem is that the business has grown so quickly, and they have been unable to respond quick enough to meet the needs of the business but also the needs of the neighbors. They do care about the neighbors and want them to be happy where they are. It is not an easy situation to resolve quickly. They are not looking to start construction for another eight or ten weeks or maybe more. They are looking at the plans in place and trying to decide what is the best plan. They are working hard to try to remedy the situation with the neighbors and are asking tonight for permission to continue business as they are in their current location. Their taxes to the area are increasing on a monthly or yearly basis, they are supporting families of their employees, and they need to continue to do business and to grow. They want to continue to work closely with the neighbors so everyone is happy. Sun Ho Porter - Understands their concerns, but she has been waiting for twelve years and feels the neighbors should be taken care of before they go any further with their expansion. She would like a fence put up or trees planted between their properties. Mr. Cutia - We will comply with what she needs and we'll do it within a couple of weeks. Cl Grantham asked ZO Slater if he would follow up on that, the hours, the buffer and the conditions for the previous permit. ZO Slater'- When they asked for futher approval last November, it was contingent upon approval of a drainage and landscape plan by our engineer. To date those plans have not been Page 8 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 submitted, and that needs to be done. Also, the plans are changing from what they are telling • me, so the Board needs to see those plans and agree that that's the plan that you are going to approve because it sounds like the plan you approved is no longer the one they are going to use. And they have to formally ask you to consider amending the original approval so they are allowed to have night hours with whatever conditions and mitigation measures there might be. Cl Grantham - That takes a new formal application to us. In the meantime, there are conditions on this 1988 permit and that is still in effect. Cl Beck - The hours are now out of compliance, so how do we deal with that? Joan Cox - They are operating on Sunday also. Atty Perkins - They can apply for an amendment. Cl Beck - Does that have to be a whole formal application process as Deb said? Or just an hours of operation amendment? Atty Perkins - They have to apply for that so that there is a record, with notice and public hearing, an opportunity for the public to be heard, and the board makes the determinations that it is required to under our special permit proceeding. Cl Beck - I guess in order to allow the business to continue while they're continuing with the plans for expansion, they have to comply with the hours they've been granted or make application to change the hours. Dick, in order to get your hours of operation in compliance, you've got to make an application for your new hours immediately otherwise we'll have to shut you down. We could approve that, then you'll have to come back with a new application for your expanded building and a new site plan and drainage once you get your ;plans firmed up. But you'd best address the buffer and the hours of operation immediately and get that on the road, then come back with a new application when your building plans are firmed up. C1 Grantham - Those hours have to be in compliance now until an application to change the hours is approved. And that application that should contain some mitigation of whatever neighbor's concerned are raised. Atty Perkins - That's what I was going to say. The alternative is just comply now with what the conditions of the permit are. Mr. Cutia - Is there anything that the board can do.... Atty Perkins - Not without an application. Mr. Cutia - Is there a time frame that goes with that? Atty Perkins - See Henry. ZO Slater - We need five days for public notice, but the board would have to consider a special hearing. They next meet in regular session on December 61 Mr. Cutia - Could we be granted an extension until that time? Atty Perkins - The board doesn't have any authority to grant you an extension because there is no application before it. There is no application before the board for relief right now. isYou could make that application any time. Page 9 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 Robert Cox - Stated he has notes regarding the hours of operation. The trucks run all night and he can hear the noise even with his windows shut. There has to be some provisions made for the neighbors. Mr. Cutia says he will try to work it out, and he hopes it does. Mr. Cutia - So basically, we're shut down then? Cl Grantham - Or you comply with the hours in your current 1988 special permit. You don't have to stop business totally. Mr. Cutia - We can't load our trucks that sway. Our people will be there in 20 minutes. Our first delivery, is in Rochester at 6:00 a.m. R Cox stated they had extended the hours on their own, and Mr. Cutia replied that they had. Peter Schug - Speaking as a business owner in the Town who has had neighbors of their business with similar concerns over the years. Something like this occurs over time. It's not like Dick and his son decided yesterday to start working 20 hours a day. This probably grew over time aiid at first they were in compliance and maybe once in a while an hour here or there. As his business grew it just sort of developed into something. They are willing to make efforts to try to make the neighbors happy. They ought to be able to at least be made so that they can operate in the interim so that they can get things squared away to everyone's satisfaction. I don't think it's fair for the Town to ask them to shut down if they can take the neighbors thoughts into consideration right away and do what they can. I know they had a special permit that they had to apply to for, but over time these things change, and I think it's a little unfair to ask them to cut their hours in half. They deal in produce and there is time involved with stuff like that as well. Cl T Hatfield - I was going to suggest, but Dick and his neighbor beat me to it when they shook hands. There is no way to undo the business practices without harming 22 families. What you can do is continue to work with the neighbors and do the things you need to do immediately andl make the application tomorrow or Friday with Henry. We've worked with other business members of this community that have been out of compliance because they've grown over time. Let's get this thing put back in position as quickly as possible, and if it means this board has to meet in special session to do it, so be it. But Henry has to be in a position to be able to review the paperwork and make sure it's in order before he can advise the Supervisor that ewe have such a need. I cannot see us shutting you down unless the neighbors insist. You've at, eady said they've made some effort and it's gotten better. R Cox - In the winter our windows are shut, and the trucks won't have to be refrigerated so much. All I'm saying is I think Sunny should be taken care of immediately. Mr. Cutia - We'll start tomorrow. J Cox - You could plant trees in the front. We have a business in back of us (Mix's) and we don't hear their trucks because we have pine trees which cuts down the noise. Cl T Hatfield - As a practical matter we need to be neighbors, but I think it is very important that the Town be part of that, and let Henry work with you, and let's get this thing back in compliance by getting the appropriate paperwork done, and more importantly getting in a situation where your neighbors can sleep. I think you're on the road to getting it taken care of. J Cox - We're not here to run anybody out of business. j Page 10 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 Cl T Hatfield - I'm not in favor of running anybody out of business either. Jobs are too • hard to find. The tax base is important and we want to see growth in this community. I think that's part of working together. That would be my suggestion to the Board. Cl Grantham - Okay, so you'll work with Henry and sort that out? Mr. Cutia - I'll be in tomorrow morning. Dennis Scott - I built a house in Woodland Park. I'm a contractor and want to continue with the development. The drainage issue is of course a prime issue for a long time I understand, and Henry apparently can't issue any more permits until the drainage is taken care of. I talked with Mr. Sutton and we've come to an agreement that I'll just take over and take care of the drainage issue on the whole subdivision. It will all be done before a certificate of occupancy will be approved for the house that I'm proposing to build. I'll work with Mr. Putnam and do whatever needs to be done, but I have to have a building permit at the same time I'm doing the drainage. The Town can hold this certificate of occupancy until it meets everybody's approval. M Perkins - I think what Mr. Scott is doing is offering to solve the problem that exists in the Woodland Park subdivision that relates to the drainage structures never being completed by the developer and right now there is a moratorium on the issuance of any more building permits. I think it's the Town's position that we don't really care who does it as long as it's done and done properly according to plans that are approved by the engineer and that the work is inspected and its done according to what Dave thinks is necessary to do it. Issues have arisen with respect to whether or not there is any action to be taken by the Planning Board and whether or not the plat needs to be revised. I have previously suggested to this Board that rather than follow the recommendation of the Planning Board that the developer cede to Town drainage easements, that we impose the obligation on the property owners and do so with a mechanism that in default of maintaining those that the Town would have the right to go on to the property, do any work that was necessary and then bill the cost of that back to the owners of the burdened lots. Mr. Scott owns one lot that is subject to a drainage easement and he has agreed to join in the declaration of easements so that his lot where his house is would be subject to this as well as all of the other lots that are in the subdivision. There are two other issues that need to be addressed, or maybe three. One is Dave Putnam has suggested that there be a slight realignment of one easement so that it goes across the corner of a lot and diagonally across another one down near the corner of Hunt Hill Road and Ellis Hollow Road. This is a lot which Mr. Scott is going to end up owning and I think he is in agreement with that. That is something which is a benefit to the Town because it provides for improved drainage. It is not something Mr. Scott is requesting to do or the developer is requesting to do; it's something the engineer feels is appropriate. The other issue has to do with the realignment of a culvert on Hurd Road and the construction of a ditch or drainage easement along some common lot lines. Apparently at some time the Planning Board agreed that that should be done by the Town. I've discussed this with Jack. Jack sees no reason to do that. There is nothing wrong with the crossover pipe that is there. In the future if the developer or someone else in that subdivision wants to make one of these lots more usable, he can do the work on the lots. The crossover pipe can be moved by the Town at that time, but there is no reason to do it right now. The third issue has to do with another property owner who has built a house and owns two lots there. There is another twenty foot drainage easement that runs south from Brooktree Page 11 of 31 Lane to a tributa easement to con: So that can be di done entirely on There is when it's filed in there which are areas. So the ov So that owner re easement there. on the other side So I thin] does not have to having a new de granted by Mr. the two roads, a for the other twe Cl Gran, Planning Board Atty Perl proposed since t have been a nut hasn't been unti with Mr. Sutton Technically, we suggest to the P waiver that is gc improve the dra Cl Atty Perl designated on tl agree to do this building permit. bond or cash, h+ to start the wort T B 11 -8 -00 of Cascadilla Creek. Mr. Scott says that it is possible within that 20 foot act the ditch according to the plans which Dave has reviewed and approved. wnetner or not the maiviauai wno owns tnis oLner iot consents. It can De lot to the west within the easement. lso of course the issue, and I haven't looked at this carefully, but the plat the Clerk's Office constitutes an offer to the Town to accept those things on .esignated to be public improvements, including the road and /or the easement ner of that lot took title to it subject to that offer, which now can be accepted. illy can't be heard to complain that I didn't know that there's a drainage It's a matter of public record. Be that as it may, it can be constructed entirely of the lot line if necessary, within the ten feet that's on that side. that's what Mr. Scott is offering, if I can summarize. Theoretically, the plat re revised in order to accomplish this. This can be accomplished by simply aration of these easements and neiv individual lot maps or easements ott with respect to the realignment of the easement near the intersection of i the Mr. Scott joining in the declaration of the easement with the developer tv foot easements. - This has been before the Planning Board. Did any of this go to the is - No. We've been trying to figure out what it is that's actually being is was turned over to me. I think that's a fair statement of this because there ber of proposals floated about who is going to do what work and so on. It at least tonight that Mr. Scott advised me that he had reached an agreement nd he will do all the work. He can do the work within the easement area. )uld say okay, we could send it back to the Planning Board, and what I would nning Board is that they should treat this as a request for a variance or ig to correct an existing oversight, work that never got done, and is going to .age. The other work doesn't need any approval. - Which work do you mean? ns - The construction of the drainage ways within the areas that are map. He can start that tomorrow. I think what he's asking for is, look, if I nd these declarations of easements are done and everything else, can I get a I think what he is suggesting that rather than me give you a line of credit or a A me hostage. Don't give me a CO until I do the work. I think he's prepared this Fall. D Scott - JI'd like to get it done this fall, and the foundation for the house. Atty Perl be revised, you i they don't grant which you don't Board too. David a understand hoi en todo rather i this developme: argument as to - And certainly with respect to that part of the drainage plan that needs to A refer that to the Planning Board if you wanted to, keeping in mind that if : waiver or whatever, he's free to construct it as it was originally designed ieve is in the Town's best interest. That could be explained to the Planning instein, speaking as a member of Planning Board - It's hard for me to it wouldn't be in the Town's best interest to try and deal with this development n try to piecemeal it. There is a whole interconnected drainage issue with It's a ten year old plan. There are some changes and it's a matter of 7hether these are large changes or small changes. I fail to see the harm, Page 12 of 31 TB 11 -5 -00 except that it might slow you down a little bit, and that's a concern, but I fail to see the harm • in letting the Planning Board look at the changes en todo and let the public comment. The public had a chance ten years ago to comment on what the plan was then. We have changes and the public should have the opportunity to give input to see if there are better solutions than are already on the table, to get at a new revised plan that would be best for this development. Atty Perkins - I don't think they've got authority to do that because at any time the developer could follow the plan. D Weinstein - That's correct, though I thought there were changes that had to be made. (no) Okay, so the developer could follow the plan. That's true. Atty Perkins - I think that what we're talking about is lots 5 and 6 and realigning to go across the corner of one of those lots and crossways the other one. That goes all the way to Hunt Hill Road and you have to take out a hedgerow in order to construct the drainage structure. Dave's comment to me was "I'd much rather see this hedgerow maintained in its present condition along Hunt Hill Road ". Don't disturb the hedgerow if you can. It's there; it's mature; it's providing protection already. That one issue certainly could be referred to the Planning Board, but I think Mr. Scott's looking for some direction. Cl T Hatfield - So the question before us is are we willing to authorize Henry to issue a building permit because we by resolution stopped him from being able to do that on this subdivision for the moment, and with the stipulation that no CO can be issued until these issues are resolved. If he chooses he can take that change, and I think he should, and the Board can move on that probably next month. is Atty Perkins - I would add something to that, and that is I would like to make sure that we get what we want before we give him the permit. In other words, we get these declarations and these easements in a form that's acceptable and ready to be recorded and so forth, and we have an agreement with Mr. Scott that no CO will be issued until this work is done. And you've got to detail how you want to handle this one lot down there. But certainly, I guess you wouldn't mind waiting on that one lot would you if you got your relief and you could do the rest of the work. D Scott - That's the easiest part of it. Cl T Hatfield - So what you're really looking for is a resolution from this body authorizing the Supervisor to enter into an agreement with Mr. Scott subject to drafting and approval of counsel that outlines the objectives that you just gave us. Atty Perkins - I think that's what Mr. Scott is looking for, yes. What would happen, the way I see it is, the Town would agree to issue him a building permit for lot 17 upon obviously compliance with all the code requirements and Henry's review of the application. And that we would get in a form satisfactory to the Town a declaration of the easements in the form that we've talked about and you've previously indicated your approval of. And that before any certificate of occupancy is issued for this house on lot 17 that the drainage improvements according to the approval of the plans be constructed, inspected and approved by the Town. And that the issue with respect to the relocation of the drainage easement that affects lot 6 be referred to the Planning Board for prompt review and discussion. Cl T Hatfield - My thinking is that set of requirements should be rendered into a contact or memo of understanding. That way we've got these things in a contractual form, so I'd move that we ask council to draw such contract and authorize Mark to -execute it upon... Page 13 of 31 Cl Gx hear Dave w person, with D Weing drainage, so I w Planning Board. TB 11 -8 -00 am - There is at least one more comment Tom, from Robin, and I'd also like to your sense of the Planning Board's comfort, realizing that you're only one ng the review of lot 6 and the rest of it as Mahlon suggested. - The Planning Board didn't even get to the stage to start talking about just be giving you my personal opinion. I can't give you a sense of the Robin Seeley - It seems funny to start treating a subdivision as individual lots. One of the changes being talked about now is the culvert that travels across Hurd Road that dumps water on one of the lots where it shoots across every Spring. That's the whole reason I thought that the Town had talked about shifting the culvert and then making a drainage way that would enter the creek. It seems that's a big change to take that out of the drainage. Mr. Bush seems to think that that's not needed. I don't understand what's then going to happen to the water that just shoots across that lot. Are we not going to worry about it until somebody comes along and wants to buy that lot and then have to worry about it. The other thing is that this was submitted as a whole to the County Health Department, the drainage was submitted to the County Health Department and the Health Department designed the septic system for that lot knowing that the water cascades across the lot and keeps it soaking wet is just getting diverted as originally proposed. It as also submitted to DEC, and I think that they'll need DEC permits to route these drainage structures to the creek. So it seems funny that when the whole subdivision was designed as a whole to start taking out individual lots and saying you'111 do this for that lot and that for that lot. And the plat that's filed with the County Clerk doesn't even have the drainage on it. Cl Grantham - Some of those questions were questions that I think people from the Planning Board directed to you and you were going to respond to Barbara about it. Did you get to respond to her? Atty Perkins - I have not talked to Barbara since I got her first letter. I did talk to her about it then. I got her sense of where she was on this. I think the only thing we are really talking about not doing is work that was proposed to be done by the Town. And if you want to hold off and continue that moratorium with respect to the lot that is apparently affected by that crossover pipe, that's an option. Cl Grantham - I think the point is that it's not just that lot. It's the subdivision that's affected. 1 Atty Perkins - Not really because that only goes across one lot and it dumps into the creek right there. The water is going to go to that creek whether it's channelled between the lot lines or it flows over the whole thing. It's only one section of the whole thing. Everything else flows the other vtTay. Cl T Hatfield - If I understand what is being presented to us, most of this work is within the existing approval and can be done. Atty Perkins - The only thing that isn't being done is what was suggested the Town do. Cl Beck -1 Why do we not want to do it? J Bush - lAs far as I know, there is no problem there. Cl Beck -1 You don't agree that the water goes across this lot unrestricted when it should be into a creek somewhere? Page 14 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 J Bush - As far as I know it does exactly that, but as far as affecting the highway itself • it's not an issue. As far as the pipe, I don't know whether there's a problem with that. Cl T Hatfield - So you're not saying it shouldn't be done, but the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it. J Bush - Right. It goes back to similar circumstances that we've run into in the past where people wanted us to do that same kind of work, and we told them no. Cl Beck - So it's a precedent deal and it might be a benefit to the lot, but there is no benefit to the town. Cl T Hatfield - More importantly it's not threatening a town asset. It's not threatening our road so the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for it. Cl C Hatfield - As I understand it, what he's proposing to do is going to eliminate the problem in that subdivision. Sutton. Cl Grantham - He's proposing to take over responsibility for the drainage from Mr. Cl C Hatfield - That's what we've been asking for for ten years, isn't that right? ZO Slater - Twelve or thirteen. Atty Perkins - With the exception of this one section... 0 Cl Grantham - That has to do with the culvert... Atty Perkins - That involves who responsibility it is. Apparently at the time of this approval somebody tried to commit the Town to it. I don't recall ever the Town Board saying yeah, we're going to do this. That would be totally out of character and out of precedent, the position being we don't want to take on more responsibility unless we have to, especially when it means going off Town highways to take care of drainage problems. I guess that issue would remain open. But one way to do that is to continue the moratorium with respect to lots 12 and 13 until the developer constructs the drainage. Cl Beck - So it would become the developer's problem with changing that pipe if the Town refuses to do it. Atty Perkins - I think we don't want the developer working in the Town road. And Jack has said when they are ready to build on those lots and wants to correct the drainage problem to make the lot buildable, I'll move the crossover pipe. But right now it doesn't affect his operation. Cl Beck - It seems like it's an overly complicated issue for something that can be solved relatively simply and to move a cross over pipe is going to cost a $1,000 at the outside, Jack? J Bush - At least that. Cl Beck - It's not a huge deal, and I certainly don't want to make a judgment about who should do it, but it seems like we'd get it done rather than redo a whole plat and if it's going to be a benefit to the subdivision, I think vve should do it sooner rather than later. Somebody's going to pay for it one way or another and get it done. Page 15 of 31 TB 11 -& -00 Cl Gran - Is that a second? Cl Beck -I No, because it's different than what everybody was saying. Cl T Hatfield - I was going to suggest amending my motion to continue the moratorium on lots 12 and 13 until the developer and Mr. Bush have had an opportunity to resolve who is going to pay for the relocation of that pipe and encourage them to get it done as soon as possible. That way it addresses all the issues on the property and if it's only $1,000 then it's Jack's call, but.. Atty Perkins - He said it's at least $1,000. Cl T Hatfield - But you put that in the hands of the developer. Meanwhile, we've got a moratorium on 112 and 13. At some point in time that expenditure of funds is going to make sense to the developer because they'll want to build on it. Cl Gran Cl T Hat authorize counc. Mr. Scott's reau Superintendent crossover pipe. respect to the d Further we autl satisfaction. Atty Perkin easements and . j.. - What's your resolution in the entirety? A - My motion in general is, and I would ask Mahlon for some help, that we to draft a contract incorporating the conditions set forth here with respect to continuing a moratorium on lots 12 and 13 until the Highway A the developer or their representative resolve the issues relative to the irther that we refer any proposed change in the existing approval with page to the Planning Board for their review and consideration and feedback. ize the Supervisor to execute that contract with the developer upon counsel's - One of the conditions as part of the contract they give the Town the Cl T Hatfield - Right, you've put the conditions out for us. And part of that is that he gets a building permit on which we hold the CO hostage until these are done. I think we've got an opportunity to fix this drainage before snow. So that's my motion. ZO ! are several. Atty Per no temporary C Cl T Ha developer's req site and do the Atty Pe: permits on the Cl Gran - Can you specify the crossover as being the one on Hurd Road because there is - It's between lots 12 and 13. Can we make it clear too, that there will be either. - No. We've been down that road. The CO is held hostage per the until this work is completed. If he wants to go forward and build and get a - And the agreement will also put the burden of obtaining any necessary - So is that motion clear? Cl Beck -1 The intent is. I'll second it. swales and eve that aren't the swales. albridge - Is this going to get all the drainage that's outstanding. There's ing. Is this one building occupancy going to get the ones on the lower part that we're talking about, 12 and 13. There are a whole lot of different Page 16 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 • Cl T Hatfield - That's my understanding, Peggy. Cl Grantham - For the whole subdivision. Atty Perkins - All the drainage that was approved by the planning board except between lots 12 and 13, and the proposed change of the drainage on lots 5 and 6 will go to the planning board for their review and comment. Mr Scott - If there is a proposed change. Atty Perkins - Well I think we want that to happen. Cl T Hatfield - The Town Engineer is requesting that. I think the Planning Board will respond timely so that you can get the work done. If you can work your schedule around that, because you're going to have other work you can start with. I'd like to see that because that makes sense. M Walbridge - I appreciate that everything is hostage to this. I live about a mile from here. I've heard comments of this for twelve years. I realize you're someone else, but forgive me for being cynical. I've heard promises and the Board and the Planning Board have rolled over on this. If there is now going to be quite a bit of building, the Highway Department is going to deal with a lot of the flooding and the problems and the houses across the street. I really hope that you stand firm in making sure that everything is done properly. And not well, this is a business, we've got to be nice to them, and things like that, which is what I've heard you doing tonight. So I really hope this is real. Cl T Hatfield - So you'd rather we were mean to businesses and drove them out of town. M Walbridge - I think it's a problem if you make the citizens hostage to long term problems. Cl T Hatfield - I don't disagree with you and I just want to make sure where you're at. M Walbridge - I don't think it has to be one or the other, but I think we have to hold to our standards. I don't see it as an either/ or. Hopefully the Board will hold this business to the standard that it is saying it will hold it to. Cl T Hatfield - I think we made that pretty clear. D Scott - And I don't want to be judged by the prior developer either. Atty Perkins - I think this is the Town's best chance to get this corrected. (Board agrees) RESOLUTI ®N #255 - WOODLAND PART{ SUBDIVISI ®N DRAINAGE AGREEMENT Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden has previously issued a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the Woodland Park Subdivision, WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden is desirous of working with the present developer of Woodland Park Subdivision, Dennis Scott, regarding completion of the drainage in said subdivision, now, therefore, be it Page 17 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to prepare an agreement with Dennis Scott incorporating the following: 14 Dennis Scott will complete the drainage as specified in the plat originally filed in the County Clerk's Office, except with respect to the drainage between lots 12 and 13. 2. The developer will impose covenants on the property owners in the subdivision to maintain said drainage and in the event the property owner does not maintain it, the Town is authorized to do the work and charge the property owner. 3. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued to the developer until all of the terms of this agreement have been met. 4. The moratorium shall continue on lots 12 and 13 until such time as the crossover pipe issue has been resolved. 5. Such other terms and conditions as the Town Attorney shall deem necessary. And it is further RESOLVED, that the moratorium prohibiting building permits in the subdivision shall continue with respect to lots 12 and 13 until such time as the Highway Superintendent and the developer hallie resolved the issues relative to the crossover pipe, and further RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute said contract with the developer on counsel's advice, and further RESOLVED, that any proposed change in the existing approval with respect to drainage is be referred to the Planning Board for their review and consideration and feedback. 2134 Cl Beck Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes i Cl Grantham Yes Board discussed the proposed resolutions to be adopted in connection with the budget hearings. There its a parcel in one of the water and sewer districts that can not be built on and is exempted from water and sewer assessments each year. Special district and assessment rolls need to be adopted. Delinquent water and sewer bills will be added to the 2001 tax roll if not paid by Novelmber 17, 2000. The preliminary budget will be increased by $40,000 for work on the master plan and zoning work. Fire and ambulance budgets need to adopted, as well as the 2001 budget. The board voted on these proposed resolutions as a whole, but for clarity they are set out separately as follows: RESOLUTION #258 - RELIEVE PARCEL #52 -1 -25 Cl C Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVE D, that this Town board relieve parcel #52 -1 -28 from 2001 water and sewer assessments. 0 Page 18 of 31 • TB 11 -8 -0G 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Cali Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes RESOLUTION #259 - ADOPT ROLLS Cl C Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board adopts the special district and assessments rolls for 2001. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes RESOLUTION #260 - RELEVY DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER BILLS C1 C Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorizes the addition of the following delinquent water and sewer bills to the 2001 tax roll, if not paid by November 17, 2000, Reed, Acct #K4353, parcel #55 -1 -15 785.19 Nemcek, Acct #K5245, parcel #54 -2 -9 448.80 Carroll, Acct #L3446, parcel #53 -1 -7 602.24 Giordano, Acct #L3452, parcel #43 -1 -19.14 367.61 Castrenze, Acct #L3461, parcel #43 -1 -19.20 421.12 Chen, Acct #L3461, parcel #43 -1 -19.7 31.25 Lucente, Acct #L3462, parcel #43 -1 -19.16 89.66 Lucente, Acct #L3464, parcel #43 -1 -19.19 396.39 Giorodano, Acct #L3466, parcel #43 -1 -19.10 289.64 Lucente; Acct #L3469, parcel #43 -1 -9.3 250.10 Lucente, Acct #L3470, parcel #43 -1 -9.4 119.58 Lucente; Acct #L3476, parcel #43 -1 -9.7 109.20 Lucente, Acct #L3479, parcel #43 -1 -9.9 133.05 Lucente, Acct #L3483, parcel #43 -1 -9.11 128.00 Tyler, Acct #L3485, parcel #43 -1 -8 481.56 Luce, Acct #L3495, parcel #56 -3 -11.2 362.57 Lucente, Acct #3829, parcel #43 -1 -9.10 113.41 Gambrel, Acct #L4027, parcel #69 -2 -11 353.16 Weaver, Acct #L5390, parcel #56 -4 -5.31 271.62 Conklin, Acct #100606, parcel #37 -1 -10.2 245.68 Jacobson, Acct #100617, parcel #37 -1 -4.2 53.65 Total to add $5,657.09 2nd Cl T Hatfield Page 19 of 31 Roll Call Cl C RESOLV] Preliminary Bud 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Cl C RESOLV. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Cl C RESOL 2nd Cl T Hatfie] Roll Call rate for 2001 is TB 11 -8 -00 Tote Cl Beck Cl T Hatfield Supv Varvayanis Cl C Hatfield Cl Grantham Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RESOLUTION #261 - INCREASE PRELIMINARY BUDGET offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: that this Town Board make the following budget adjustments to the 2001 Add $40,000 to Account #B8020.452 for a total of $55,000.00. Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes #262 - ADOPT FIRE & AMBULANCE BUDGETS offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: , that this Town Board adopt the fire and ambulance budgets. Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes RESOLUTION #263 - ADOPT 2001 BUDGET offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: , that this Town Board adopt the 2001 budget. ote Cl Beck Cl T Hatfield Supv Varvayanis Cl C Hatfield Cl Grantham Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes of this budget represents of decrease from last year of 9.81°/x. The town tax 1.680, Page 20 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 Re: Crown Construction, ZO Slater noted the SEQR Environmental Assessment Form is should be amended to reflect a 6,000 square foot parking lot instead of a 2,600 square foot lot. Board reviewed the entire SEQR form in light of the change (form contained in file). The water supply has been approved by the Health Department. ZO Slated presented a letter from the County Planning Department with general comments: (1) an erosion control plan should be in place during construction of the additional office space and off - street parking areas, (2) the recommend landscaping along the perimeter of off -street parking areas to maintain the view shed and compatibility with the surrounding area. ZO Slater stated there is no view shed. Cl Grantham reviewed the conditions of the June 14, ,2000 approval. Cl Grantham read into the record a letter from the Tompkins County Health Department to Crown Construction regarding the septic system (contained in file). John Lafian stated they have notified the Health Department that the number of employees will increase to over ten, and the appropriate steps have been taken with regard to that. Applicant will supply Zoning Office with that documentation. RESOLUTION #264 - SEQR NEGATIVE DECLP_RATION - CROWN CONSTRUCTION Cl C 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 special permit modification application of Crown Construction to add footage to the conversion approved on June 14, 2000, and to expand the parking area at 176 Cortland 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 Beck Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes C1 T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes RESOLUTION #265 - MODIFY CROWN CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL PERMIT Cl Beck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the application for modification of the special permit (granted 4/26/94, modified 7/12/00) by Crown Construction to expand the conversion of an existing garage into office space and to expand their parking area at 176 Cortland Road, subject to the following: 1. Ceiling insulation shall be R30. 2, Standard Conditions of 7 -12 -2000 shall apply. 3. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturday by appointment. 4. No outside storage of materials; 5. Covered dumpster is to be out back of barn out of sight. 6. Upstairs may be rented out to another business. 7. No overnight parking. 8. No additional lighting except for lighted doorways. 9. Receipt of comments from the Tompkins County Planning Department and Tompkins County Health Department indicating no adverse findings or concerns. Page 21 of 31 10. 11, 2nd Cl T F Roll Call ATTORNEY Atty Perk memorandum of the '99 draft of tl State Comptrolle less than town u we now are both that if the agreer carefully we can the Village, but t defined and I thi agreement will b, want to coordina take some work, want reciprocity. don't know wher and the Village d CI Supv V TB 11 -8 -00 by Tompkins County Health Department regarding the water supply. .xr control plan approved by town engineer. Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes ns - I met with Phil Winn, the Village Attorney, and went over my October 4 with him. We discussed a whole range of things having to do with ie proposed agreement. We both agreed that we would jointly write to the r asking for his opinion on the formation of a regional planning council that is ide. Since that time Phil and I have talked a couple of other times and I think of the opinion that we don't need to seek of the opinion of the Comptroller, lent and the resolution establishing the regional planning council is drafted address the concerns that I have. I'll leave it to you to set up a meeting with zat concern that I have I think we can address. It will have to be carefully 1k there is latitude in the statute and in the form of the agreement. The . critical as to what powers this regional planning council will have. You'll to that with planning decisions and zoning decisions and so forth. That will but we both think it is doable for less than a town -wide area. We also will We'll want to have it work both ways with adjacent areas in the Village. I you want to go now with this thing, but that concern has been addressed c)es have a copy of the memo. - We should set up a meeting I guess. - It should be full board to full board for the first meeting. Cl T Hatfield - The two boards should get together. We'd have to adopt it independently, but we'd have to adopt the same agreement. Atty Perkins - But that's only one part of the whole thing. Obviously there are other issues about the water service agreement. I have spoken with Dave about it and he has reviewed those items that I suggested be reviewed to see if there were any technical problems with respect to the district or engineering problems. D Putnam - The one thing I haven't gotten to is the interconnections with the Village. I'll talk with Jon land see how he wants to handle that. Supv Varvayanis will check into setting up a joint meeting with the Village, hopefully November 28 or November 29. Atty Perkins - Mark sent me a copy of the memorandum from the Division of Assessment. In the past when State law has authorized us to increase income eligibility levels for senior citizens we have typically raised those levels. I don't know if that is something you are interested in doing or have considered, but it is something that if you are going to do we should start working on. Chapter 198 of the Laws of 2000 raised it for senior citizens and Chapter 22 raised it for people with disabilities. We have a sliding scale. What they do is they raise the bottom level. The eligibility levels for the disabilities exemption we just adopted have Page 22 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 already been raised. The maximum ceiling for the basic exemption has been increased from is 19,500 to 20,500. Cl Grantham - I don't have any problem with that. We would need to introduce something at the next meeting. (Atty Perkins will provide that.) TOWN CLERK On motion of Cl C Hatfield, seconded by Cl Beck, and unanimously carried, the minutes of August 9, 2000 as amended and September 13, 2000 were approved. Clerk advised the Board that the Town had received a thank you note from the Historical Society for the tax assessment rolls which were donated (after having been microfilmed). The last record series has been microfilmed (under the last grant fund) and we need to be looking at what to do next year. The grant application will be written in January. The building committee will meet on Thursday, November- 16 at 1:30 p.m. Cl Grantham - Perhaps we could look at the Varna II DEIS now. We have a letter from Clough, Harbour. We have a draft EIS and we need to make a determination on it. Atty Perkins - You need to determine whether or not it is adequate for the purpose of commencing public review. isCl Grantham - And Clough, Harbour recommends it is not. Atty Perkins - I have a proposed resolution when you are ready. Cl Grantham - They went through the final scoping and through this most recent version of the DEIS and had a lot of concerns about it, things that were not still done in the DEIS that were requested both in the final scoping and in the previous review. Their recommendation is that we should not accept it. I agree with that myself. What does your resolution say? Atty Perkins - This is a resolution with respect to the resubmitted draft EIS by Lucente for the Varna II Project: Whereas, the project sponsor has on October 12, 2000, resubmitted a DEIS following a determination by the lead agency (Town of Dryden) that the initial DEIS was not adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review, and Whereas, Clough Harbour Associates, consultants retained by the lead agency, have reviewed the resubmitted DEIS using the final written scope, standards contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617, written comments received from the public, and their May 19, 2000 letter determining that the initial DEIS was not adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review, and Whereas, the opinion of Clough Harbour Associates is detailed in their letter of November 6, 2000, and Page 23 of 31 TB 11 -"0 Whereas, the Town Board has thoroughly reviewed the resubmitted draft EIS, the written opinion of Clough Harbour Associates dated November 6, 2000, the written scope, the standards contained in 6 NYSCRR Part 617, 40 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden that it is hereby determined that the resubmitted DEIS is not adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review based upon the reasons set forth in the Clough Harbour Associates letter of November 6, 2000, which the Town Board hereby adopts as its reason. Supv Varvayanis - I'll move that. Cl Grantham - I'll second it. Any discussion? Cl C Hatfield - So he has to put in more information, is that what you're saying? Atty Perkins - Yes, and I think another resolution would be that we send them a copy of this resolution. I think they already have a copy of this, but it wouldn't hurt just for the record to send them a copy of this resolution under the supervisor's signature. Cl Grantham - We need a separate resolution to do that? Atty Perkins - I think that would be appropriate, or you could add it to this resolution. That a certified copy of this resolution and the Clough Harbour letter of November 6, 2000 be forwarded to they project sponsor. Cl Beck 2 The only comment I'd like to make, and I guess it's obvious, but it seems that the representatives or whoever is preparing these is doing everything they can to circumvent this, the information we're requesting instead of answering the questions. It seems like they're using every tactic to go around them rather come forth with the information that we really need. I'm sure that's an obvious comment. Cl Grantham - You mean the preparers of DEIS. Cl i C Hatfield - They're just dragging it out longer. Cl Beck You ask for some information and you get the same statement back you've had three other times. They word it a little different instead of going ahead and doing the work. The traffic situation is no different than it was at the beginning and the buried debris, they continue to use a few borings. It seems to me that we've just not gotten the information we requested. Cl Grantham asked if the board would consider amending the motion to add Atty Perkins' suggestion regarding forwarding the resolution to the project sponsor and the board agreed. RESOLUTION #266 - DETERMINATION REGARDING THE RESU13MITTED DEIS FOR THE VARNA II PROJECT Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: Whereas; the project sponsor has on October 12, 2000, resubmitted a DEIS following a determination by the lead agency (Town of Dryden) that the initial DEIS was not adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review, and Page 24 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 Whereas, Clough Harbour Associates, consultants retained by the lead agency, have is reviewed the resubmitted DEIS using the final written scope, standards contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617, written comments received from the public, and their May 19, 2000 letter determining that the initial DEIS was not adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review, and Whereas, the opinion of Clough Harbour Associates is detailed in their letter of November 6, 2000, and Whereas, the Town Board has thoroughly reviewed the resubmitted draft EIS, the written opinion of Clough Harbour Associates dated November 6, 2000, the written scope, the standards contained in 6 NYSCRR Part 617, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden that it is hereby determined that the resubmitted DEIS is not adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review based upon the reasons set forth in the Clough Harbour Associates letter of November 6, 2000, which the Town Board hereby adopts as its reason, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Supervisor shall forward a certified copy of this resolution, together with a copy of Clough Harbor's letter of November 6, 2000, to the project sponsor. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote ENGINEERING Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Nothing additional than what has already been addressed. ZONING OFFICER ZO Slater - You have the monthly report. There is nothing unusual. There has been no movement on the Peregrine Hollow Subdivision. As you know there was an untimely death of one of the partners. On Finger Lakes Stone Company, as we discussed last month, I wrote to Mr. Dolph thanking him for his cooperation and inquiring about what he could do to mitigate the noise and early deliveries, etc. He called me and committed to work that out in a reasonable time frame and with reasonable responses. That was Monday. It could be as simple a thing as keeping the doors and windows closed when they are operating or scheduling deliveries for after 7:00 a.m. On Project Impact, we are searching for a project coordinator. Two people have applied and I need to get the two mayors and supervisor to do some interviews. I think one of the applicants is very well qualified. Anne Margaret Esnard from Cornell University School of City and Regional Planning is going next week to the National Project Impact Summit and as well as Cornell will be representing the Dryden Community Project Impact. She'll be taking our job description with her and see if there is anybody nationally who is interested in coming here to do the job. Cl Grantham - I got a call from a neighbor asking about the work that is going on on Genung Circle. There's a driveway in there. Is that a single house? Page 25 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 ZO Slater- There is a house being built back in there. All of the lands that remain in the Genung area have been sold to two separate buyers and they are each going to build a house. 0 Cl Grantham - So they are not developers doing subdivisions? ZO Slater, - No. They'd have to go through subdivision to do that. That was all consolidated and we did an administrative review on that some time in the summer for two different buyers of the remainder of the old subdivision. PUBLIC WORKS No report. Jack Bush distributed the following letter from John and Barbara Krout of 37 Hartwood Road: Dear Town of Dryden and Tompkins County Highway Superintendents: We live on Hartwood Road (off of Ellis Hollow). We are writing to give our full support to efforts to repave and widen Ellis Hollow Road. This road is sorely in need of repair, and widening it to include biking / jogging lanes would make it much safer for all. We are sure you are aware that this road is heavily used by motor vehicles, bicyclist and pedestrians alike. We drive on this road daily and frequently see cars swerve into oncoming traffic to give bikers and walkers safe passage. We are also aware that some people who live on or near Ellis Hollow and Ellis Hollow is Creek roads have expressed concerns over repaving and widening, fearing that this would encourage speeding. This makes no sense to us. If speeding is a problem, then stepped up policing is in order. Keeping a road in poor repair and dangerous is hardly the solution to speeding. We hope that repaving and widening can be completed in 2001. Thank you. Sincerely, John A. Krout & Barbara J. Knout J Bush - I wanted to give some time to John Lampman from the County. He presented myself and the Town Supervisor a Project Scoping Alternative Study for Red Mill Road Bridge. (Board members have copy & copy available at the Clerk's Office). We are going to try to set up a meeting for the public to voice their concerns. J Lampman - We are looking to try and set up another public information meeting. We are looking at next week or the following week to do that. What we have in this report is a conceptual study of what we have seen as alternatives after we finished with our public meeting in February. The alternatives shown are listed as rehabilitating the existing bridge to a 24' width and unrestricted load posting, replacing the existing bridge on the existing alignment, building a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge and thereby maintaining the existing bridge for pedestrian/ bicycle usage, or coming up with a new alignment at some distance within 1000 feet of the bridge up or down stream and again retaining and rehabilitating the existing bridge. There is a map, figure 1, following page 6 of the report that shows all the alternatives. Page 26 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 • Alternative A, the rehabilitation of the existing bridge to the greater width and weight capacities, they see as not really being a feasible alternative because of the costs and the amount of work involved. You are essentially building a new bridge. There is a table on the following page after that figure that goes through some of the construction considerations for each alternative. One of those is the length of road needed to get to a bridge at a new location from the existing. On the same page there is a costs table that looks at each of these alternatives conceptually. I gave to Jack and Mark a copy of a revised cost table that broke down alternative B. The alternative B that is listed in this report shows moving the bridge; when the new bridge goes in on the existing location, the old one goes to some other location yet to be specified. The cost of that is what you see in option B of that table. Another angle on option B could be incorporating the trusses of the existing bridge into a new bridge; taking a new bridge and just doing an aesthetic treatment with the trusses on the outside. That would cost about $120,000 less than the option B that is included in the table. So that cheaper project is not really broken out, but I did give those figures to Mark and Jack. In the back of the report as an appendix is a discussion of the cost breakdown which includes that other option. One thing you'd probably be interested in is what would happen with the town's share of the project. Right now the budget for the project is $700,000 for construction. The Town's share of that is expected to be about 1% of the project cost. All the options listed in table 1, with the exception of the option I described a few minutes ago, exceed the existing budget for construction. Unless we come up with some new money from someplace, we'll have to come up with some different shares because the State and Federal shares will be capped at the budget amount. The County and Town will be looking to make up any additional expenses. One other thing that is not in table 1 is intersection site distance which has been mentioned in the past as being a consideration of some importance. Options A, B, and C are basically retaining the existing location of the intersection, so there would be no change in site distance. Going to Option D where there is D -1, D -2 and D -3, only D -3 which is moving the intersection to the northeast of the existing location has a site distance that is not worse than the existing location. Board discussed a possible meeting date. Cl Beck will be out of town during the time period suggested. Cl Beck - I'm very pleased that the alternative C, Malloryville bridge, does not appear in this plan. I think that was a very good move. J Lampman - That was based on input that we got at the first meeting. Supv Varvayanis asked J Lampman to explain more fully why Option A was not viable. J Lampman - There were two different options of rehabilitation that were considered and they included adding more piers to support the structure and also coming up with a new structural system to account for the widening and increased dead load that would result from the widening and the increased spreading out of the trusses that would make it more difficult to support the load. Also with the deterioration of the existing elements, the engineer considered that they would have to replace so many elements of the bridge that they saw the cost of it as something that could be done, but that it would really be approaching a real replacement of the bridge. You'd be replacing so much of it in the rehabilitation that you'd • basically be building a new bridge. Page 27 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 Supv Varvayanis - The cost is about the same, but is the final project close to as good? J Lampman - I guess what they are saying is that in effect it wouldn't be a rehabilitation • because you'd be I starting from scratch almost. Cl C Hatfield - Did I understand that you'd put more pillars in the creek? J Lampman - They looked at that as a way to increase the capacity without increasing the member sizes quite so much. Cl C Hatfield - With a new bridge you wouldn't have to do that? J Lampman - With a new bridge with a girder design, we theoretically could span the creek without a pier in the middle at all. Cl C Hatfield - That would be an ideal thing to prevent debris from cluttering up and flooding. J Lampman - I don't know that there is a history of debris catching on the pier that's there now, but I'm sure it has been bombarded in the past, ice flow, debris, etc. It may be something though that we want to keep just for the sake of historical considerations. We do need to consider'the historic element. The bridge has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and whatever we do should be approved by the Historic Preservation Office. We've been working with Historic Ithaca to try to come up with alternatives that 'they think would be acceptable to the State. Cl Beck - Can you clarify a little more about the State and Federal money being capped? J Lampman - Technically, the project has no cap. If there is a need then the budget should expand to cover it. However, the region is fiscally constrained so that if a project expands in scope, some other project is going to have to be cut in order to pay for it. The way this Region has decided to do that in the past, is if the County has a project waiting in the wings, we'll lose that project if we apply the money to this project. That may be something that is acceptable to the County or the Town. So the money is available if we want to pay the cost in other ways. I just wanted you to have that introduction to the report. Hopefully we'll have comments from the public that you'll be aware of and you may want to recommend an option, D Weinstein - Could you lay out what the public's roll is in the decision making process? How many hearings are going to be held? J Lampman - We don't plan on any official hearings, per se, but public information meetings. We've had one already and we want to have another one now to show the people what our options are and take their input. We take that as another piece in the information that we have to come up with a recommendation. I don't think they'll be voting on an option. D Weinstein - But if there was strong sentiment one way or the other, like historic preservation, you'd,,, J Lampman - Right. Speaking of historic preservation, one of the things we asked of Historic Ithaca was to try to come up with some alternate sites for the existing bridge if they had a lead in that way. So far we haven't gotten any., but that is something else that you could consider, such as for a trail in the town or something, i Page 28 of 31 TB 11 -8 -00 The public meeting on this is tentatively scheduled for November 20 at the Freeville Fire • Hall. Dave Weinstein (to Jack Bush) - Are you done with Freese Road? J Bush - Like I told you on the phone, we plan on cutting some trees this year. We are renting a bucket truck, sharing it with the Village of Groton, to take some trees along the bank. We won't be cutting into the bank until this Spring. D Weinstein - I thought you said on the phone you would wait until after winter to cut the trees. J Bush - Not the trees. The bank itself. D Weinstein - What's the advantage of cutting them now? You won't have anything to hold the bank. J Bush - I don't think Bush - that will be an issue. If anything the trees that are undermined are more of an issue to me as far as them coming down. Some of them are dead. If you look at the root system you can tell some of them have died. There D Weinstein - You're talking about the trees lower down, toward the bottom. J Bush - Where we stopped, from there to the bottom. D Weinstein - Are you open to having a meeting with local citizens to try to see if there may be some in between measure other than cutting that bank way back. I can't tell you how many people have said why are they butchering Freese Road. I know you have engineering reasons to do that, but it would be nice if there were some less drastic solution that didn't require cutting all those trees all the way back to the top of the hill. J Bush - At one time the road was probably fine the way it was, but in time it's gotten so much more traffic I feel it is important to protect the Town by doing the things that I think should be done. Part of that is removing those trees that could come off the bank and fall into the road. There certainly is an erosion problem there to try and address and make that right. I don't feel there's a need for a public meeting. D Weinstein - You've put the stone down in the ditch so the reason for cutting the banks back is you think the bank is going to collapse on top of that stone? J Bush - No. It's all hardpan. We've done similar projects in other areas and haven't had any problem. Part of the erosion problem is along the edge of the pavement. That's why I kept getting phone calls. The only way to stop that is to get the water away from the edge of pavement by moving the ditch over. The stone is to protect that ditch and keep it from getting deeper and deeper. D Weinstein - You've done that. I'm unclear about why the bank needs to be cut further back. J Bush - That section I would have done this year if I had time. I didn't go the rest of the way because of the chance of getting snow and having equipment that wasn't ready for plowing the road. M Walbridge - But why does the bank need to be cut back ?_ If you've already stabilized the road, • why is the bank getting cut back. Page 29 of 31 TB I1 -8 -00 J Bush - Erosion of the bank. D Weinstein - So you do think the bank will erode down on top. J Bush - It has been for years. The way it was before we cut the bank it was eroding. That's why you've got trees that are undermined. L Carpenter - You're not cutting the bank any further back than where you've got the stone. You were italking about down at the foot of the not a Route 13 project. That's hill. weeks, I D Weinstein - The stone actually goes all the way down to the bottom. The lower portion you will cut back to match not a Route 13 project. That's that weeks, I same slope. J Bush - To blend with the existing ground that's there. I got a booklet from Deb a month or so ago, and that's one of the ways that they wrote about. One of the ways to control that type of erosion with things straight up and down is to reshape the bank, so that's what we've done. M Walbridge - How much was this project costing, do you know? This is a lot of man hours, it's a huge project. This is the type of project it would be nice to know what it is costing the town. J Bush - It would have cost you that anyway. I wasn't going to lay my men off so that we didn't have to pay our men. This is normal work for us. It's not a Route 13 project. That's a large project. To do it in two weeks, I don't think it's a large project. D Weinstein - Taking off 100 loads of gravel. 40 J Bush - 'We've done it for years, way before my time. It's part of improving roads. i SUPERVISOR DISCUSSION Supv Varvayanis - I'd like to thank you all for your indulgence. Have you read the Joint Sewer Contract? Is there any discussion? Cl Grantham asked what would happen next and Cl C Hatfield stated all municipalities would comment on this draft, and it goes from there. Atty Perkins will comment in writing. He has some editorial questions and some suggestions about verification, and a question about the open space line and its legality. Cl Grantham noted that on page 7 there is a comment about developing a long term master plan for at least the next five years, but there is no definition of that or what that means. It may be related to the open space, but it is really unclear, and it needs to be stated more specifically in this document what a master plan for this purpose consists of. Cl Grantham wonders how open space acquisition can be accomplished and Supv Varvayanis stated that he believes they are all in agreement there is no way it can be done, but are wondering why it was put in there. Cl C Hatfield stated it appears to be the city's way of attempting to regulate growth in the rural areas. Supv Varvayanis doesn't believe they are actually convinced they can do that. Cl C Hatfield noted that there has been progress made, although it has been slow. They are trying to model this agreement after the way Bolton Point operates. Supv Varvayanis has spoken with Mr. Kramer regarding the mini grace commission. When Mr. Kramer has the list of people who will work on this he will forward it to the Supervisor. Page 30 of 31 TB 11 -MO The Board discussed whether to close the town offices the Friday after Thanksgiving. • The board is agreeable, and Supv Varvayanis will check with Joe Steflik, and if he doesn't see a problem with it, the Town offices will be closed Friday, November 24, 2000. RESOLUTION #267 - APPROVE ABSTRACT # 111 Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract #111, as audited, vouchers #849 through #939, totaling $379,242.56. 2nd Cl C Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes B Hollenbeck informed the board that she had received requests to publish individual employee's wages on the web in connection with the budget information. Her position is while it may be available, there is a difference between that and advertising the individual wage paid to each employee. The law requires that elected officials salaries be published. A phone call was made to the Comptroller's Office today and they don't recommend that a list of names be published, with salary or otherwise. Cl Beck noted that many businesses publish the salary of certain positions. Supv Varvayanis stated it is public information by law, but we don't have to publish it. B Hollenbeck stated that most positions are detailed in the organizational meeting minutes each year. The wages will not be published on the web. On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 31 of 31 Town of Urvden Town Board Meeting • November 8, 2000 Name - {Please Print} ) & ?Q, �10 � Y fed Address 61 -_ S+af*4OJ U /T/ AlflI I 2 2 2�iG 7361/