No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12- 13TB 12 -13 -00 TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING December 13, 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 HEARING AMBULANCE CONTRACT Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. and Town Clerk read the notice published in The Ithaca Journal on December 5, 2000. Supv Varvayanis explained that the original notice had not included the annual payment for the garage for the ambulance and he would receive comment for 15 minutes. The amount was provided for in the budget but not included in the amount advertised. Jim Schug asked whether the ambulance would stay where it was and Supv Varvayanis said that it would. Hearing was left open in case of further comment, roll was called and Supv Varvayanis called the Town Board meeting to order. CITIZENS PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Robin Seeley - I just wanted to revisit Woodland Park for a minute. I remember a few weeks ago David Weinstein sent a letter to the Planning Board making a list of permits that he thought were necessary for Woodland Park. I don't remember ever hearing a clear answer about exactly when those permits were going to be required. So I wrote a letter to the Town Board stating my belief and agreeing with David basically that there are some DEC permits that are necessary even before groundbreaking for the house and a Section 14.01 review under the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, which I stumbled on in reviewing some archeological work there. But also at the Planning Board's last meeting I think they approved a change in the drainage plan and I think that approving that change in the drainage plan should have been subject to SEQR and also to 239(1) and (m) review. So basically I just wrote a letter asking if I could get a response from the Town on if those permits are really required the way they seem to be. I have a letter from Ralph Manna of DEC which I think basically agrees with David and me that those permits are required, and whether the Town agrees that the change in the drainage plan is an action subject to SEQR and also to 239 (1) and (m). (Copies of letter distributed to board members and attorney.) Board asked Atty Perkins to respond. COUNTY BRIEFING Charles Evans - Unfortunately I missed the last County Board meeting, so I don't have a report concerning County business. However, I'd like to report that I will be resigning from the Tompkins County Board of Representatives effective the end of this year. It's been both an Page 1 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 honor and a pleasure to have served the citizens of the Town of Dryden for the last 19 years. And also working Mike Lane who I first met when he was Mayor of the Village of Dryden and Ala has been since my colleague on the Board of Reps. I realize that all of my decisions have not been popular, but I have done the best I could to keep in mind both the best interests of, what I believe, the Town of Dryden and Tompkins County. Unfortunately last year what you had was a part time legislator, and I do not feel that is fair either to the residents of the Town of Dryden or to my colleagues on the County Board since my not being there just raised their workload as well. I will certainly look forward to seeing the continued development of the Town of Dryden. I've been a permanent resident of this town for 52 years and for four years before that I spent my summers here. I have a lot of concerns and interests in the Town and I certainly look forward to seeing its future development. Thank you. Michael Lane - That's a pretty hard act to follow. Charlie has earned the respect of not only the people of the Town of Dryden in his district, but also the people who he serves with on the County Board. Charlie has often been referred to as the conscience of the County Board of Representatives because of his insight into so many issues that affect people. He's been an advocate for the mentally ill. He's been an advocate for the poor. He's done a great job with the various committees that he's been on and chaired. He's going to be missed. He's always tried to be first to try to compromise. He and I don't always agree on things, but I have the utmost respect for Charlie. Charlie, I'm sorry you are going to be leaving before the end of your term, but we wish you a lot of luck in Tucson. I want to remind you that our Tompkins County Budget has been adopted and that we are moving into our new year. We will be reorganizing again as we always do each year at the beginning of the year. At that time we elect a Chairman of the Board of Representatives, a Vice Chair, and the new Chair designates the new committee chairs for the year. So we will change committees or we will keep committees depending on the preference of the Board Chair. I wanted to report on the Hanshaw Road facility for New York State Department of to Transportation. That is the project which has its goal to move the NYS DOT facility off Cayuga Inlet in compliance with the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan that has been developed by the County over the last few years, making that site available for other kind of activity. Yesterday the communications capital committee, which is a special committee which has this and other capital projects on its plate, voted to recommend to the full board that we proceed to obtain an option on the property on Hanshaw Road from Cornell University. This came about because of what seems to be a solidifying financial situation at the State level. You may recall this money was apparently designated in the transportation bond issue, approximately 3.8 million dollars. That bond issue failed last November 7. However, in meeting with representatives of DOT and particularly Senator Seward's office, we've been told that there are additional funds available, which could replace that money. Based on that we are proceeding with the project and that is what has brought this back to the table at this point. I have a resolution which was passed yesterday (copies distributed to board). The other thing I wanted to talk about a little bit was Red Mill Bridge. That project is a major project for Tompkins County with funding from the State and you've had now two public meetings about that. We have tonight John Lampman here and he would like to talk a little bit about the project and the presentation that was made at the public hearing over at Freeville Fire Station to bring this board up to speed. John Lampman - I brought this large blowup of an aerial photograph that was in the reports I gave you. This was displayed at the meeting. There was a small number of people in attendance at the meeting on November 20, only 5 or 6 members of the public. The sentiment that was expressed largely favored Option B which is replacement of the existing bridge on the existing alignment. That option could include placing the existing trusses from the old bridge Page 2 of 19 TB 12 =13-00 on the side of the new bridge or using it perhaps at another location, a pedestrian trail for • instance. Option D 1, D2 and D3 were not really ruled out, but it seemed the people felt that a lot of work would be needed to do any of them. We'd have to really re- examine them and make sure that those were good locations; make sure that we minimize impacts on other properties. We'd be going through wetland areas on all of them and would require DEC permits. It may not be possible to get a permit on one of the options unless it could be shown that none of the alternatives were workable. Option C was not received well. That is placing a new bridge next to the old, within 50 feet. Most people said they didn't like the idea of having two bridges side by side. Mr. Lampman asked for some opinion from the board to bring back to the public works department as to how the Town would most like to see it proceed. Some of the realignment options would be a little more expensive than the options closer in on the existing alignment or the option C with the bridge right next to the other one. Other considerations include a lot of right of way would be required to move to a more remote relocation and the wetland impacts. The intersection site distance at options D 1 and D2 would not be as good as the existing site distance. Mr Lampman noted that the consideration that forces us to look at anything else is the historic structure itself. The structure has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Option B has been sent to the State Historic Preservation Office for them to look at and see if they would accept moving the bridge or using the trusses on the sides of the bridge. If they would accept that, any of the options would be available. The only thing known at this time is that they would like the old bridge to remain. They may be willing to see it used at different sites or on the sides of the new bridge. • Cl Beck - The present alignment is certainly the simplest for everybody. We don't need any additional right of way. It's a little bit longer than one of the other ones. That cost would probably be more than overcome in the costs of the right of way and road building. Who has input to the Historical Society? They looked at the bridge years ago and apparently the people in the immediate area don't have a lot of concern about it. It may not be up to us to decide, but it seems the local community should have some say about what options the Historical Society recommends. J Lampman - It would make sense to convey those opinions to Albany. We haven't done that yet, but it's something that we could look into to see whether it really would have any effect on their thoughts. Cl Beck - It's a concern to us. We need the bridge, and if I had to choose any of them rather than not have any bridge, I think we could live with any of them. But this one certainly looks like it may be the simplest and maybe the safest with the site distance. We've probably been the major user of the bridge over the years, but there's a lot of traffic there and I don't expect it to decrease. Supv Varvayanis - Keeping the current alignment is I think the cheapest fiscally. Also it would have the least environmental damage. I certainly favor that, too. Cl T Hatfield - And I think it's the safest as far as the site distance. It seems to me those are three paramount concerns. Supv Varvayanis - In fact, I was kind of wondering, considering when you just look at it quickly it's so obvious that you would want to keep the same alignment. What was the big isreason for moving the bridge in the first place? Page 3 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 J Lampman - Looking at the other alignments? We thought, as Ron mentioned earlier, that I neglected to say that maybe finding a narrower channel to cross at might shorten the • bridge and save some money that way. However, the additional highway construction would probably more than offset that. The real idea of going to another location was driven by the fact that we might be forced to keep the existing bridge and if that is the case, then what are the other alternatives that are available? Cl T Hatfield - And you won't have an answer to that until you hear back from Albany. If they're willing to let us use it somewhere else, along the trail system, that would seem like it would be in the best of all answers. We could maintain the current right of way with the best site distance. Those are things you've got to keep in mind. Cl C Hatfield - I agree whole heartedly with keeping it where it is and I would encourage that the old bridge be removed to a trail or someplace rather than attach the sides to a new bridge. It makes more sense. It's the cheapest and most economical one. The bridge on this end is the shortest bridge, but when you get all done, the cost is more in the long run. It just makes sense to put a new one where it is. Cl T Hatfield - What you make by straightening that road out, you lose by putting the site distance just the other end of that bend. So if you've got big slow equipment coming out and a car comes around the corner at 60 mph, you've got a formula for a bad result. That site distance is critical. Cl Beck - You can't have it far enough when you have a tractor, a chopper and a wagon. The other thing that I don't think has been addressed is the neighbor effect on any of the other ones because you'd have to acquire a right of way and the bridge location would be adjacent to somebody different than it is now. It happens now that one neighbor is fairly recent and I own the property on the other side, so really you're not changing anything in the neighborhood. But if you went to any of the other ones, you're going to affect some other people's land that is may be very adverse to the change and you may have to get into eminent domain to acquire those things. I hate to stir that up. I can't see any necessity for changing it. I think that would have come out if you'd started leaning toward any of the other options I think you certainly would have gotten into a little bit more of a hornet's nest than you have at this point. J Lampman - Those are the reasons really that the realignment options met with opposition at the public meeting. The people that were there were really the people who owned property right around the bridge for the most part and they were especially concerned with the option at the top of the picture, D3, where that would really impact three or four other property owners that haven't had to worry about it in the past, and be splitting people's properties who had plans for their land. You would be getting into some right of way difficulties probably. That's what they were alluding to in trying rework the alignment to try to make it fit through whatever plans they had. Cl Beck - Without knowing who attended that meeting I would assume that there might have been a couple more who might have been once the word got around. How soon do you expect to hear from the Historical Society? J Lampman - We submitted a report to them back at the beginning of November and I believe they have 60 days to respond, so it is coming due soon. At this point I guess I'd say that the Town favors Option B in some form, with use of the trusses or relocation to be determined. Thank you. Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. RESOLUTION #275 - AUTHORIZE DRYDEN AMBULANCE INC CONTRACT Page 4 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 • Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute a contract with Dryden Ambulance, Inc. to provide ambulance service for the Town at a cost of $153,590. 2nd Cl C Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes RESOLUTION #276 - APPROVE ABSTRACT # 112 Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract # 112, as audited, vouchers #940 through #1094, totaling $336,343.98. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes • Peter Meskill, Tompkins County Sheriff, asked the board if there were any issues or concerns within the Town, traffic or otherwise, that the board felt should be addressed. He stated they have worked on several different traffic initiatives during the course of the year. They have a speed monitoring trailer with flashing speed indicator on order and expect it in about two or three weeks. It has the ability for the Department to hook a laptop computer into it and pull data out of the machine so that they can tell how many cars go by, the speed of the cars by various percentiles and other information, so that they can use that and gain the most efficiency from their patrols. They would know from the data where and when there a lot of high speed activity that requires a patrolman. The car seat inspection program has been a success, with about 250 car seats having been inspected to date. Cl T Hatfield advised Sheriff Meskill that residents of Turkey Hill Road have been concerned with speed and truck traffic. Cl Grantham has previously spoken with him about that and told him that the board had forwarded a resolution to the County with their concerns. The Sheriffs Department does not currently have scales to weigh trucks, but is seeking grant funds for a scale program. Supv Varvayanis asked whether the Department had received complaints about speeding in Varna and Sheriff Meskill stated they had had a few, and have tried to address them. Sheriff Meskill suggested that residents contact the Department directly and provide information such as the location on the road, the specific problem, and if there is a specific time, such as morning or evening rush hour. ATTORNEY Atty Perkins - I think you had distributed to you a determination with respect to the • Slaterville Ambulance Contract. This is something that you have to do annually in order to contract with them for fire protection and really, the reason for the contract with them for fire Page 5 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 protection is so that you can also contract with them for general ambulance service to cover that area of the Town. There is no expectation that it is a significant fire contract. So someone will need to move that and I will tell you that this determination already contains a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to sign the Slaterville contract, so a second resolution won't be necessary. RESOLUTION #277 - DETERMINATION & RESOLUTION FOR SLATERVILLE AMBULANCE CONTRACT Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town Board caused notice of public hearing to be published in The Ithaca Journal, the official newspaper of the Town of Dryden on November 1, 2000, to consider the advisability of adopting a resolution, in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 -b of the General Municipal Law, authorizing the SLATERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., to furnish general ambulance service for all of the residents of the Town of Dryden, and WHEREAS, a public hearing pursuant to such notice was held on November 8, 2000, and which said notice of hearing described: (1) the general ambulance service which is proposed to be furnished; (2) the area to be served; (3) the names of the fire company affected; (4) the time and place within the Town where such hearing will be held; and (5) that all persons residing within the area to be served or persons, firms and corporations owning real property within the area to be served, or persons, firms and corporations whose business interests or employment would either be benefitted or adversely affected, whether or not a resident or owner of real property within the area to be served shall have the right to be heard in person or by representative at the public hearing, and at which public hearing it was pointed out that the Town of Dryden was served by several other Fire Companies which did not provide general • ambulance service to the area proposed to be served by the Slaterville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. and the understanding between the Town and the Slaterville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., was that the fire protection contract is to be entered into principally for the furnishing of general ambulance service in the area to be served by Slaterville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. in the Town of Dryden, and WHEREAS, the matter was fully considered and discussed by the Town Board and all persons present at the time of such hearing were given an opportunity to be heard with respect thereto and their statements considered by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board deems it in the public interest to authorize the furnishing of such fire protection and general ambulance service and to enter into an agreement therefor with SLATERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., for the consideration of FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($4,100.00) for one (1) year, to be paid on or before February 1, 2001 and WHEREAS, the consent of SLATERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. to furnish general ambulance service has been obtained, and NOW, AFTER HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE STATEMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING: on motion of Supervisor Mark Varvayanis, seconded by Councilperson Ronald Beck, it is RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds, in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 -b of the General Municipal Law, that it is in the public interest to authorize the furnishing of such fire protection and general ambulance service for the said residents of the Town of Dryden, and it is further 0 Page 6 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 RESOLVED, that such fire protection and general ambulance service shall be furnished • subject to the rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by SLATERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., and approved by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, and it is further RESOLVED, that within ten (10) days after the date of the adoption of this resolution the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy thereof and the determination on which it is based to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Tompkins together with the consent of SLATERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor be, and he is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the TOWN OF DRYDEN and SLATERVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., for such general ambulance service for the consideration of the payment by the Town of FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($4,100.00). 2nd Cl Beck Roll Call Vote C1 Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Atty Perkins - You also should adopt a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to sign all of the Fire Contracts with the various fire departments. Public hearings were already held on all of these and of course the contracts simply reflect the budgeted amounts. RESOLUTION #278 - AUTHORIZE FIRE CONTRACTS • Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute fire contracts with the following companies on behalf of the Town in the amounts indicated: Neptune Hose Company No. 1 of Dryden, Inc $151,475. Varna Fire Department 1189532. W.B. Strong Fire Company of Freeville 111,000. Etna Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. 105,000, Brooktondale Fire District %800. 2nd Cl C Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Atty Perkins - You have also received a proposed resolution for the senior citizens exemption and basically that requires a public hearing on the resolution, then you may adopt the resolution and the Clerk then can certify it to Assessment. The Division of Assessment would like it in January. RESOLUTION #279 - INTRODUCE PROPOSED CHANGE IN SENIOR CITIZEN EXEMPTION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES Supv Varvayanis introduced the following proposed resolution changing the income • levels for senior citizen exemption for real property taxes in the Town of Dryden and it was Page 7 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 RESOLVED by the Town Board of the Dryden that a public hearing shall be held on the proposed resolution on the 3rd day of January, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall, 65 East Main Street, Dryden, New York, WHEREAS, Real Property Tax Law §467 permits the Town Board to adopt a resolution partially exempting from taxation by the Town certain real property within the Town owned by persons sixty -five (65) years of age or over, and WHEREAS, the Real Property Tax Law provides an option for the Town to set the income eligibility levels, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD AS FOLLOWS: 1. Real property owned by one or more persons each of whom is 65 years of age or over, or real property owned by a husband and wife, one of whom is 65 years of age or over, shall be exempt by taxation by the Town of Dryden to the extent set forth in the following formula: PERCENTAGE ASSESSED VALUATION EXEMPT ANNUAL INCOME FROM TAXATION Not more than $20,500 provided in this resolution shall be More than $20,500 but less than $21,500 More than $21,500 but less than $22,500 More than $22,500 but less than $23,500 More than $23,500 but less than $24,400 More than $24,400 but less than $25,300 More than $25,300 but less than $26,200 More than $26,200 but less than $27,100 More than $27,100 but less than $28,000 More than $28,000 but less than $28,900 More than $28,900 50 percent 45 percent 40 percent 35 percent 30 percent 25 percent 20 percent 15 percent 10 percent 5 percent 0 percent 2. Any exemption provided in this resolution shall be computed after all other partial exemptions allowed by law have been subtracted from the total amount assessed. 3. The real property tax exemption on real property owned by a husband and wife, one of whom is 65 years of age or over, once granted, shall not be rescinded solely because of the death of the older spouse so long as the surviving spouse is at least 62 years of age. 41 No exemption shall be granted: (a) If the income of the owner or the combined income of the owners of the property for the income tax year immediately preceding the date of making application for exemption exceeds the amounts set forth in the formula in this resolution. Income tax year shall mean the twelve month period for which the owner or owners filed a federal personal income tax return, or if no such return is filed, the calendar year. Where title is vested in either the husband or the wife, their combined income may not exceed such sum. Such income shall include social security and retirement benefits, interest, dividends, total gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset which may be offset by a loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset in the same income tax year, net rental income, salary or earnings, and net income from self - employment, but shall not include a return of capital, gifts or inheritances. In computing net rental income and net income from self - employment no depreciation shall be Page 8 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 allowed for the exhaustion, wear and tear of real or personal property held for the production of income; (b) Unless the title of the property shall have been vested in the owner or one of the owners of the property for at least twelve (12) consecutive months prior to the date of making application for exemption, provided, however, that in the event of the death of either a husband or wife in whose name title of the property shall have been vested at the time of death and then becomes vested solely in the survivor by virtue of devise by or descent from the deceased husband or wife, the time of ownership of the property by the deceased husband or wife shall be deemed also a time of ownership by the survivor and such ownership shall be deemed continuous for the purposes of computing such period of twelve (12) consecutive months. In the event of a transfer by either a husband or wife to the other spouse of all or part of the title to the property, the time of ownership of the property by the transferor spouse shall be deemed also a time of ownership by the transferee spouse and such ownership shall be deemed continuous for the purposes of computing such period of twelve (12) consecutive months. Where property of the owner or owners has been acquired to replace property formerly owned by such owner or owners and taken by eminent domain or other involuntary proceedings, except a tax sale, the period of ownership of the former property shall be combined with the period of ownership of the property for which application is made for exemption and such periods of ownership shall be deemed to be consecutive for purpose of this section. Where a residence is sold and replaced with another within one (1) year and both residences are within the state, the period of ownership of both properties shall be deemed consecutive for purposes of this resolution. Where the owner or owners transfer title to property which as of the date of transfer was exempt from taxation under the provision of this resolution, the reacquisition of title by such owner or owners within nine (9) months of the date of transfer shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement of this paragraph that the title of the property shall have been vested in the owner or one of the owners for such period of twelve (12) consecutive months. Where, upon or subsequent to the death of an owner or owners, title to property which as of the date of such death was exempt from taxation under such provisions, becomes vested, by virtue of devise or descent from the deceased owner or owners, or by transfer by any other means within nine (9) months after such death, solely in a person or persons who, at the time of such death, maintained such property as a primary residence, the requirement of this paragraph that the title of the property shall have been vested in the owner or one of the owners for such period of twelve (12) consecutive months shall be deemed satisfied; (c) Unless the property is used exclusively for residential purposes, provided, however, that in the event any portion of such property is not so used exclusively for residential purposes but is used for other purposes, such portion shall be subject to taxation and the remaining portion only shall be entitled to the exemption provided by this section; (d) Unless the real property is the legal residence of and is occupied in whole or in part by the owner or by all of the owners of the property, provided that an owner who is absent while receiving health- related care as an inpatient of a residential health care facility, as defined in Section 2801 of the Public Health Law, shall be deemed to remain a legal resident and an occupant of the property while so confined and income accruing to that person shall be income only to the extent that it exceeds the amount paid by such owner, spouse, or co -owner for care in the facility; and provided further, that during such confinement such property is not occupied by other than the spouse or co -owner of such owner. 5. The Town shall notify or cause to be notified, real property in the Town of the provisions of this resolution. legend set on or with each tax bill to such persons reading citizen tax exemptions. Senior citizens have until (month) apply for such exemptions. For information please call or writ Page 9 of 19 each person owning residential This may be met by a notice or "You may be eligible for senior (day) _ (year) to e ," followed TB 12 -13 -00 by the name, telephone number and /or address of a person or department selected to explain the provisions of this resolution. Failure to notify, or cause to be notified any person who is, in fact, eligible to receive the exemption provided by this resolution or the failure of such person to receive the same shall not prevent the levy, collection and enforcement of the payment of the taxes on property owned by such person. 6. Application for such exemption must be made by the owner, or all of the owners of the property, on forms prescribed by the Office of Real Property Services and shall furnish the information and be executed in the manner required or prescribed in such forms, and shall be filed in such assessor's office on or before the taxable status date. 7. At least sixty (60) days prior to the taxable status date, there shall be mailed to each person who was granted an aged exemption on the latest completed assessment roll an application form and a notice that such application must be filed on or before the taxable status date and be approved in order for the exemption to be granted. Within three (3) days of the completion and filing of the tentative assessment roll, notice by mail shall be given to any applicant who has included with his application at least one self - addressed, pre -paid envelope, of the approval or denial of the application; provided, however, that upon the receipt and filing of the application there shall be sent by mail notification of receipt of the same to any applicant who has included two (2) of such envelopes with the application. Where an applicant is entitled to a notice of denial such notice shall be on a form prescribed by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment and shall state the reasons for such denial and shall further state that the applicant may have such determination reviewed in the manner provided by law. Failure to mail any such application form or notices or the failure of such person to receive any of the same shall not prevent the levy, collection and enforcement of the payment of the taxes on property owned by such person. 8. Any conviction of having made any willful false statement in the application for such exemption, shall be punishable as set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 467(7). 9. This resolution shall be applicable to the Town tax for assessment rolls based on taxable status dates occurring on and after January 1, 2001 and the provisions of said resolution shall govern the granting of an exemption under Section 467 notwithstanding any contrary provisions of that section 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Atty Perkins - The procedure is a little different with respect to the disability exemption. Well need to introduce a proposed Local Law, have it seconded and schedule a public hearing on that. The reason that these are different is because the statute which allows you to create partial exemptions for senior citizens gives you a choice of which way you are going to do it. I think the resolution way is a little easier. But the one for disability exemptions only allows the Town to act by Local Law. RESOLUTION #280 - INTRODUCE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: Page 10 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby introduces the following proposed local law . and sets a public hearing on the matter for January 3, 2001, at 7:15 pm. at the Town Hall, 65 East Main Street, Dryden, New York 1. This local law is enacted pursuant to Section 459 -c of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York as most recently amended by Chapter 222 of the laws of 2000. 2. Real property located in the Town of Dryden, owned by one or more persons each of whom is disabled and whose income is limited by reason of such disability or real property owned by husband and wife, or siblings one of whom is disabled and whose income is limited by reason of such disability shall be partially exempt from taxation by said Town for the applicable taxes specified in Section 459 -c based upon the income of the owner or combined income of the owners. Such partial exemption shall be to the extent set forth in the schedule following. PERCENTAGE ASSESSED VALUATION EXEMPT ANNUAL INCOME FROM TAXATION Not more than $20,500 50 percent More than $20,500 but less than $21,500 45 percent More than $21,500 but less than $22,500 40 percent More than $22,500 but less than $23,500 35 percent More than $23,500 but less than $24,400 30 percent More than $24,400 but less than $25,300 25 percent More than $25,300 but less than $26,200 20 percent More than $26,200 but less than $27,100 15 percent • More than $27,100 but less than $28,000 10 percent More than $28,000 but less than $28,900 5 percent More than $28,900 0 percent 3. The partial exemption provided by this law shall, however, be limited to such property and persons as meet the conditions, qualifications, exclusions, and limitations set forth in Section 459 -c of the Real Property Tax Law. This local law shall be administered in accordance with said sections of the Real Property Tax Law, as now adopted, and as they may be amended from time to time, and the provisions of said section as provided in Section 459 -c, shall be applicable to the effectuation of the exemption provided for in this local law. 4. Application for such exemption must be made by the owner or all of the owners of the property on forms prescribed by the State Board to be furnished by the Tompkins County Assessment Department and shall include the information and be executed in the manner required or prescribed in such forms, and shall be filed in the said Assessment Department office on or before the appropriate taxable status date. 5. Any conviction of having made any willful false statement of the application for such exemption shall be punishable by a fine or not more than $100 and shall disqualify the applicant or applicants from further exemption under this local law for a period of five (5) years. 6. This local law shall be applicable to the Town tax for assessment rolls based on taxable status dates occurring on and after January 1, 2001 and the provisions of said local law shall govern the granting of an exemption under Section 459 -c, notwithstanding any contrary provisions of that section. Page 11 of 19 7. This local law shall take effect immediately. 2nd Cl C Hatfield Cl MILO 06-01=47C., Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes TB 12 -13 -00 Atty Perkins - The other thing I have to review with you is the status of Diebler Drive, which is a mess. (Map presented) This is off Caswell Road near Lower Creek. If you look at the survey map it is divided into two parts. This lower part shows the intersection with Caswell Road and the upper part is a continuation of that which shows the future extension of it. What the surveyor has found is that the centerline of the pavement on the road that exists as constructed is not in the centerline of what we own. If you were to continue the extension of Diebler Drive along the same lines as the existing, by the time you get down to the end if you want a straight road you'll be way over on somebody else's property. What he has done is suggest that all of this be realigned and if you can think of it as basically shifting the whole road, at least what we're going to own, a little bit clockwise so that we will bring the centerline and the existing pavement in the center. What this means is that we would probably give up to Doreen Diebler this gore of land here and acquire from her additional property here. The same thing here. When we ended up with it we'd end up with a straight line and the road that's already built would be in the centerline of what we own. This also shows the proposed turnaround at the end of the additional property to be acquired and this is a 60' turn around as opposed to a 50' road. This has been staked out in the field. Jack's been out to look at it and is comfortable with that. I did have a chance to speak with him and review this with him and he feels, I think rightfully so, that we should be sure that we get this pavement and everything else in the centerline of what we own so that we've got room on both sides to work when we need to. I thought I would bring you up to date on this. The offer has been made by Mr. Diebler to make the conveyances and so forth, but I thought you should be apprised of what's going on before we go any further. Cl Grantham - Can you remind me why this came up? Atty Perkins - The Town only owns sort of the front half of the whole road although it has been plowing and maintaining the rest of it. And there is not a suitable turn around at the end. So what we want to do is to convey to the Town what in fact the Town has been maintaining all those years, and to convey additional land to construct a turn around at the end of it. This was at the request of the landowner and Jack. This is just an interim report. I wanted you to be aware of what's going on before we get too far along. It probably we mean at some point abandoning these thin little gores of land to the adjacent owners and acquiring different land from them. Cl T Hatfield - So we'll have to make a determination at that time that it's a fair exchange. Cl Beck - The road was built to specs and it's a development that was approved? Page 12 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 Atty Perkins - I can't speak to that Ron. I really don't know. It's been there a long time, I do know that. Cl Beck - We're not taking on a big liability? Atty Perkins - No. We're basically correcting what's already there. Supv Varvayanis - Since we've been maintaining it, we have the liability anyway. Atty Perkins - What we might better do is own it, rather than have a road by user. Cl Beck - We couldn't abandon the second half for maintenance at this point? Atty Perkins - No. (Map left with Supervisor) TOWN CLERK Minutes have not been reviewed by all board members so approval was postponed. B Hollenbeck - I'm going to appoint Bertha McGory as Deputy Tax Collector this year at $8.50 per hour. I would like you to acknowledge that appointment and authorize payment. She will not be acting as Deputy Clerk, but will focus only on tax collection and I think that will work out well. RESOLUTION #28f - APPOINT BERTHA MCGORY AS DEPUTY TAX COLLECTOR Cl C Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby acknowledges the appointment by the Town Clerk of Bertha McGory as Deputy Tax Collector and will compensate her for those duties at the rate of $8.50 per hour. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote COUNCIL PRIVILEGE Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Cl Grantham presented three CD's from the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization which contains a draft characterization of the watershed. One copy is for the Town, one is for Southworth Library and one is the Village of Dryden. The Village of Freeville got theirs directly. Our copy is for public record. Town Clerk will deliver the copies to the Village and Southworth Library. ENGINEERING Dave Putnam presented the map he had prepared showing ag designated parcels and existing sewer service (blue line) and proposed changes (red line). Dark green. is active • agriculture, yellow is in the ag district without ag use, light green is land with. an ag use code in the tax records, whether it's forest or wood lots, or other coded uses. Board noted that some Page 13 of 19 TB 12 -13-00 of the properties with ag uses may be incorrect and others may not be included. Dave Putnam noted that this is for information only at this point. Supv Varvayanis stated the DEIS process has not yet begun, although there is a proposal for a consultant. 0 ZONING OFFICER ZO Slater (presented monthly report - With respect to Project Impact we have considered getting a coordinator to handle the project and coordinate some activities. The two Mayors and the Supervisor have interviewed a very likely candidate. The job now is to see if we can work out a way to pay for it. The fence will be installed tomorrow for Ithaca Produce. I got word this afternoon that the contractor will be there tomorrow to begin work. Mr. Cox was in this morning and asked me to apologize to the Board for his aggressive attitude last week. He said the truck drivers that deliver there still leave their lights on and disturb the neighborhood. I said would report that to the Cutias. The United Asphalt and Wilcox Specialties permits have been issued and the work has begun. There will be just under 200 building permits issued this year, the best it has been since 1987 or 1988. It was probably about 40 new homes, and the value of new homes has steadily risen. There are less modular homes than in the past. Some new homes are valued at over a half million dollars. The Village has also been busy this year. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Jack Bush - Last month we talked about culvert pipe for Livermore Road. Legal counsel has told me that because of the price I needed to do a formal bidding process. I've is started that I'd like to ask the Board tonight to pass a resolution allowing the Highway Superintendent to accept a bid for 100 linear foot by 108 inch in diameter concrete lined aluminized steel pipe for Livermore Road, not to exceed $32,000. Atty Perkins noted he would have to accept the lowest responsible bid. Cl T Hatfield stated that Jack needed to be in a position to replace the culvert pipe as soon as possible. Cl T Hatfield stated he had received a call from Louis Stuttle who is concerned about the possibility of having the road closed in the Spring when he frequently uses it to access his farm fields. J Bush said the work would have to be done during a time when the ground is not frozen in order to be able to properly compact the material, and he believes he can get it done prior to the time Mr. Stuttle would need it. Cl T Hatfield stated he is more concerned about having to close the road for an extended time during the Spring due to flooding concerns, etc. Jack noted that in the event of a large runoff prior to the time of repair the road would probably have to be barricaded for protection of the town and its citizens. Supv Varvayanis suggested that since the work would probably not happen until Spring perhaps we should ask about engineering to make it a flood control dam at the same time. Dave Putnam stated that in order to do that land would have to be acquired from Stuttle to impound water on and tear out the whole road and rebuild it like the Virgil Creek Dam was built. Cl Beck wondered if there was a severe problem downstream. The creek runs down through Lee Road across Route 13 and over to Lewis Street. D Putnam noted that Lee Road was the worst spot where the houses sit lower than the top of the pipe. It is such a big watershed that there may not be land enough to build on to impound any water practically. A flood control structure would require an emergency spillway that crosses the road. Atty Perkins stated the permitting process would not be completed in time to do it in the Spring. Page 14 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 RESOLUTION #202 - AUTHORIZE HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT TO ACCEPT BID FOR PIPE Cl C Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Highway Superintendent to accept the lowest responsible bid for 100 linear feet by 108 inch concrete lined aluminized steel pipe for Livermore Road, not to exceed $32,000. 2nd T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes J Bush stated he already has license agreements from both parties affected by the work to be done on Livermore Road and have let them know that he would be asking for permanent easements. He believes it is a good time to do this and in the future the Town will have access in the event of necessary maintenance and /or repairs. He is suggesting an area 100' from the centerline of the road in each direction and 300' each direction from the center of the new pipe. Board agrees and the Town Attorney will take the necessary steps to obtain those easements. J Bush distributed a letter to the Board regarding the second shift he has put on. He would like some kind of incentive pay for the full time employee and is asking for an additional $.50 per hour. If the Board agrees, they would like to take the necessary steps to implement this. Cl T Hatfield stated he does not have a problem with the concept, but would like an opinion from the Town's legal representative in the union negotiations. Cl Grantham stated this is a pretty different setup and wondered if other than plowing they were doing any outside work. J Bush said not necessarily, though there may be situation such as downed tree limbs or replacing a sign. Cl Grantham wondered if he had checked with the union whether this second shift was okay, and J Bush replied that his understanding was that if the men volunteered to do it there wasn't an issue. Supv Varvayanis will check with counsel regarding this. J Bush distributed an article from the Town Topics concerning children at play signs. He also gave the Board information regarding his health insurance. J Bush read thank you notes from Bill and Sis Johnson and Ernie and Beverly Schaufler regarding the work done on Freese Road, J Bush - I'd like to publicly thank all the highway employees for the fine job that they've done. Jack provided the board with a copy of the letter he wrote to Ward Hungerford regarding making Turkey Hill a no through truck route. He also gave them copies of a highway safety fact sheet entitled How Road and Bridge Improvement Save Lives stating that he felt it was important that the Board members read. George Frantz, regarding the billboard study - The sense he got from the Board last time was that the Board was interested in pursuing Option 1 which would limit billboards to • the MA Zoning District with the restrictions he suggested. Billboard face would be limited to 160 square feet. There would be no more than two billboard faces on any one structure. There Page 15 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 would have to be at least one -half mile between billboard structures. It is important that no billboard structure be within 100' of the R -B, R -B 1, R -C or R -D residential districts in the Town, or the residential districts within the Village of Dryden or the Village of Freeville. 40 Maximum height of a billboard would be 15 feet. Billboard would be removed from the area where there is a lot of residential development or potential for residential development. Illumination of billboards would be regulated so that the lights only show on the billboard face and do not spill over. This may in fact result in an electrical savings to billboard owners. Proposals for screening are made in his study. Cl T Hatfield - Henry and Mahlon can take a look at how it fits with existing zoning. Supv Varvayanis - I am hoping to get some public input and with the holiday season and all, Mahlon and I talked about extending the moratorium another 60 days. Cl T Hatfield - I think that's a good idea. Atty Perkins - You have a draft of a local law. Actually, you are not going to extend the moratorium because it expired today. You will have a second temporary moratorium which will be effective as soon as you can schedule a public hearing and we can adopt the moratorium and file it with the Secretary of State. We need three days from the time we publish and post, other than that you are free to set any date you want, for the limited purpose of taking comments on establishing a second temporary moratorium for an additional 60 days. After discussion, the board decided to hold the public hearing on December 20 at 8:00 am. George Frantz will provide the Town with copies of the report in final form. RESOLUTION #283 - INTRODUCE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW SECOND TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON BILLBOARDS is Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the following proposed local law is hereby introduced and a public hearing will be held consider its adoption on December 20, 2000 at 8:00 a.m. at the Town Hall, 65 East Main Street, Dryden, New York, Section 1. Title. This local law shall be referred to as the Second Temporary Moratorium on the Establishment of Outdoor Advertising Billboards in the Town of Dryden. Section 2. Definition. An "Outdoor Advertising Billboard" means any device, object or building facade situated on private premises and used for advertising goods, services or places other than those directly related to the premises on which said sign is located. Section 3. Purpose. The Town of Dryden zoning ordinance was initially adopted over 30 years ago. The zoning ordinance contained certain provisions loosely regulating Outdoor Advertising Billboards. Since the adoption of the zoning ordinance, the New York Court of Appeals has ruled that local governments may regulate the time, place and manner of commercial speech (as opposed to its contents) to effectuate a significant governmental interest and the regulation of aesthetics constitutes such an interest. Current Town of Dryden zoning ordinance regulations do not prohibit Outdoor Advertising Billboards, and to many persons, such signs are aesthetically objectionable in a rural town and if misplaced, often are egregious examples of ugliness, distraction and deterioration. The Town through the Planning Board has undertaken a review of the Town Comprehensive Plan and has recently conducted a town -wide survey is Page 16 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 of residents to solicit their input on recommendations for updated local ordinances. Pending the receipt of a final draft of the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board is concerned about the lack of restrictions on the placement of Outdoor Advertising Billboards in light of the Court of Appeals decisions. In order to preserve the environment and to provide for an orderly discussion of identified and yet unidentified concerns about Outdoor Advertising Billboards in a lawful, thoughtful and reasoned manner, the Town Board determines that it must declare a second, but shorter, moratorium on the establishment of any Outdoor Advertising Billboards pending a thorough review of the existing state of the law with respect to the same and the enactment of appropriate local legislation further regulating, prohibiting, or requiring the removal of the same. Since the original moratorium became effective on June 16, 2000, the Town Board has engaged the services of a consultant who has conducted a thorough review of the existing conditions that relate to Outdoor Advertising Billboards. The consultant has inventoried the Outdoor Advertising Billboards in the Town of Dryden and examined the current Town of Dryden regulations pertaining thereto. The consultant has presented two drafts of his comprehensive report to the Town Board. In addition to the inventory of and analysis of the existing regulations, the draft reports contain a thorough discussion of state and federal regulations, other approaches to regulation in New York State, a discussion of relevant court cases, a study of the effectiveness of Outdoor Adverti sing Billboards as a marketing tool, and recommendations for Town of Dryden regulations. The draft reports also contain a survey of other municipal regulations, a survey of Outdoor Advertising Billboard users, and illustrative examples of Outdoor Advertising Billboard designs. The report has not yet been accepted by the Town Board and no decisions have yet been made on what, if any, changes are appropriate to Town of Dryden regulations. More time is needed to finalize the report, disseminate it to the public, receive comments, and propose and enact changes, if warranted, in Town of Dryden regulations. Based on all of the foregoing it is necessary for an additional, but shorter, moratorium. Section 4. Prohibitions. No person, firm or corporation shall construct or submit any application for an Outdoor Advertising Billboard to the Code Enforcement Officer during the effective period of this moratorium. The Code Enforcement Officer shall not accept any application for an Outdoor Advertising Billboard and shall not issue any permit for the same during the effective dates of this local law. The Town Board shall not hold any public hearing on any pending applications for Outdoor Advertising Billboards during the effective dates of this local law. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not entertain any appeal of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the Code Enforcement Officer during the effective dates of this local law if the same pertains to Outdoor Advertising Billboards. Section 5. Invalidity. The invalidity of any provision of this local law shall not effect the validity of any other provision which can be given effect without such invalid provision. Section 6. Term. This local law shall be in effect for a period of 60 days from its effective date unless sooner repealed. is Section 7. 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. Page 17 of 19 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes TB 12 -13 -00 Board reviewed the proposed agenda for the joint meeting with the Village of Dryden regarding the proposed Cortland Road Water District and found it to be satisfactory. Supv will contact the Village Mayor to schedule a meeting. Supv Varvayanis stated he will be at the meeting of the Loan Oversight Committee regarding the three applications submitted during the reopening of the HUD grant program. The meeting will be held December 20, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. Tottey. Supv Varvayanis will contact Joe Steflik regarding a recent letter received from John RESOLUTION #284 - APPROVE FUND TRANSFERS Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this town board authorize the transfer of $350.00 from Justice Al 110.105 (pt clerk) to Al 110.104 (security), and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $1,000 from A1330.2 (Receiver of Taxes equipment) to A1330.400 Receiver of Taxes (for supplies), and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $4,000 from A1490.401 Public Works (floor drain system) to A1490.400 Public Works (contractual) for supplies, and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $300.00 from building equipment (A1620.2) to A1620.100 to cover the cost of new custodian, and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $2050 from A5010.102 (Clerk personal services) to A5010.111 ($300) vac, sick etc, A5010.200 ($850) equipment and A5010.4 ($900) contractual, and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $4223 from A7310.101 (Youth Conservation Corp personal services) to A7310.400 (Youth Conservation Corp contractual), and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $250 from B3620.2 (CEO equipment) to B3620.4 (CEO contractual), and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $7500 from DA5120.4 (bridges contractual) to DA5120.1 (bridges personal services), and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $500 from DA9030.8 (Social Security) to DA9050.8 (Unemployment), and it is further Page 18 of 19 TB 12 -13 -00 RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $38,525 from DB5110.100 (Repairs personal services) to DB5110.111 (vac, sick etc) $8500, DB5112.110 (OT) $25 and DB5112.210 (contractual) $18,000, and it is further RESOLVED, that this Town Board authorize the transfer of $16,400 from SM4540.412 (radio update) to SM4540.100 (paramedics personal services) $4000, SM4540.110 (OT) $2000, SM4540.111 (vac, sick etc) $3500, SM 4540.200 (equipment) $900, SM9030.8 (Social Security) $1000, and SM 9060.8 (medical ins) $5,000. 2nd Cl Grantham Roll Call Vote C1 Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes On motion of Cl T Hatfield, seconded by Cl Grantham, and unanimously carried, the Board moved into executive session at 9:05 p.m. to discuss the medical history and employment history of a particular individual. No action was taken. On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ��YL�/ ✓// Y'G�l�ilc.�ca�C Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 19 of 19 f' i 12 December 2000 Town Board, Town Supervisor Town of Dryden Town Hall, E. Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 RE: Woodland Park subdivision Dear Board members and Supervisor Varvayanis, A total of 3 houses have already been built in the 40 acre Woodland Park subdivision. I agree with David Weinstein, Town of Dryden Planning Board, that several permits /reviews required by state law are necessary before any more houses may be constructed in the Woodland Park subdivision (undated letter to Town of Dryden Planning Board). Specifically, I agree with David on the following points: that Woodland Park is required to have a SPDES construction stormwater permit before any more construction occurs; that the drainage system (retention basins and drainage runoff required by the Town will apparently also require a DEC permit for disturbance of a protected stream bank; and that drainage changes approved by the Town are subject to SEQR and should also be submitted to Tompkins County Planning under GML 239 -1 and -m. 1) DEC permits According to DEC (see attached letter) the Notice of Intent (NOITT) should be submitted two days before construction begins, and submission of the NOITT implies that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) has been developed and submitted to the Town. The regulations for the General Permit list the items that shall be included in the SWPPP (http: / /www.dec. state. ny.us /website /dow /cnstruct.htm). They include a site map indicating drainage patterns and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities, areas of soil disturbance, and outline of areas that will not be disturbed, the location of major structural and nonstructural controls identified in the plan, the location of areas where stabilization practices are expected to occur, surface waters (including wetlands), and locations where storm water is discharged to surface or ground water(s); and the name of the receiving water(s) ... Each plan shall include a description of appropriate controls and measures that will be implemented at the construction site..." and "...the erosion and sediment control component of a SWPPP shall conform to and be implemented in a manner consistent with the technical standards set forth in Appendix E [General Permit for Construction Activities: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines]. Where conformance with Appendix E is not attainable, the operator shall describe what equivalent erosion and sedimentation • control practices will be implemented together with an explanation as to why �i conformance with Appendix E cannot be achieved. This explanation... shall be i presented in the SWPPP." The regulations also state that new stormwater discharges that require other DEC permits must submit information specified in Appendix G of the General Permit (ECL, 6 NYCRR Part 621). Since the drainage system required by the Town for this subdivision includes disturbance of the bank of a protected class C(t) stream, it appears that Appendix G must be included. 2) Sect. 14.09 Review It also appears that any project requiring a state permit (from DEC, DOT, etc. ) is required to have a review under Sect. 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Chapter 354 of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). According the website of the Field Office of this agency, "if your project requires any permits or is receiving funding /grants or any other approvals from state agencies (such as DEC, DOT, State Ed, etc.) review by OPRHP is required." (from http: / /nysparks. state. ny. us /field /fsb /projectreview.htm). 3) SEQR and GML 23 9 -1 and -m The Town recently approved changes in the drainage plan in the subdivision. I believe that this action should have been subject to SEQR review under 617.2 (b) (1) • (modified approval) and should have been submitted to Tompkins County Planning under 239 -1 and -m, since the subdivision is located on a county road (Ellis Hollow Road) and will apparently be using part of the county's drainage system. Conforming with these laws and regulations will help insure that the subdivision will be constructed in a way that has the least impact on the protected stream and surrounding properties. 1 would appreciate a written response from the Town explaining 1) whether DEC permits will be required before the fourth house is built, 2) whether the project will be submitted for Section 14.09 Review, 3) whether the town intends to do SEQR review on the drainage changes and submit the modified plan to County Planning under 239 -1 and - m. Respectfully, w4y R. H. Seeley Hurd Rd. Town of Dryden mailing address. 332 Hurd Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 12/06/00 WED 18:57 FAX 315 426 7425 1�in NYSDEC DEP SYRACUSE New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 7 615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, New York 13204 -2400 Phone: (315) 426 -7438 FAX: (315) 426 -7425 December 6, 2000 R. H. Seeley FAX: (607) 255 -8088 Dear R. H. Seeley: 0001 John P. Cahill Commissioner Per your telephone call and fax of this date, the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activites does require that the Notice of Intent, Transfer or Termination for Storm Water Discharges ( NOITT) be filed at least two days prior to the: commencement of the construction activity. I would also conclude that the commencement of construction activity on any one lot of an identified subdivision proposal falling within the jurisdiction of the General Permit would require such filing in advance of commencement. Filing of the NOITT is intended to signify that plans for the control of erosion and sedimentation at the site have been prepared and will be implemented at the site. Please understand that DEC is unable to review most of those filings, and it is the applicant's responsibility to follow and maintain those plans in force. For further guidance, I suggest you contact Regional Water Engineer Steven Eidt at this address and 315 -426 -5000. Thank you. I Ralph Manna, Jr. Regional Permit Administ cc: Steven Eidt Michael Barylski