Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-16TB 2-16-17 Page 1 of 21 TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING February 16, 2017 Present: Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Linda Lavine, Cl Deborah Cipolla-Dennis, Cl Kathrin Servoss Absent: Supervisor Jason Leifer Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk Rick Young, Highway/DPW Superintendent Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning Jack Davison, Recreation Assistant Rick Case, Deputy DPW Superintendent Deputy Supervisor Lamb opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. and board members and audience recited the pledge of allegiance. TOWN CLERK RESOLUTION #36 (2017) – APPROVE MINUTES Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of January 3, January 12, and January 19, 2017. 2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION LAW AMENDMENT Cl Lamb opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Cl Cipolla -Dennis noted that the County’s 239 review requested a modification to be consistent with General Municipal Law §239(n) that provides thirty days after receipt of a plat or proposal for the county t o make a recommendation to the local board. It was pointed out that while they are entitled to 30 days, they don’t always need that much time and may respond sooner. Amending our subdivision law enables the town to move faster if they do. It would translate to an expedited and more efficient process for the applicant. There was no public comment. PUBLIC HEARING SOLAR LAW ENERGY LAW AND ZONING LAW AMENDMENTS TB 2-16-17 Page 2 of 21 Cl Lamb opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. and said this local law has had scrutiny by the Planning Board, the Town Board, the Planning Director and our legal advisors and has been discussed for quite a period of time. Judy Pierpont said she is in favor of allowing solar development, but wondered about the process for large developments and whether would be simply allowed or if there was a process. She was advised there was a special use permit process for the large scale developments and the public would have an opportunity to comment on each one. CITIZENS PRIVILEGE Cl Lamb reported that the town first received notice of an award in mid January through the Bridge New York program with respect to the Freese Road Bridge. The board is hoping to communicate that it is good to get funding. The process will take time and all are concerned about the safety of the bridge. This one has had problems in the past and has been red flagged. It could happen again. It could be closed during the process we are engaged in to replace it. The town's job is to make sure it is a safe bridge. There will be a very deliberative process and a consultant will be selected to help with the process. RPFs for a consultant will go out soon and responses should be in by the end of March. The board will work together to select best one for the job and the chosen consultant will look at the options. There are a number of different ideas and priorities on what should be done, and he stressed there is no set design now. Experts and community feedback will guide the process. There is no plan right now on what the bridge should look like. All voices will be heard. Cl Lamb has been involved with officials at the county level and Supv Leifer and the Highway Superintendent went to Syracuse to meet with state officials. It will take some time to get to the point where a particular type of bridge is chosen. Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road, said she first heard around February 1 that there was a plan to replace the bridge. She reminded the board that the following resolution was passed on June 18, 2015: RESOLUTION #102 (2015) – FREESE ROAD BRIDGE Cl Sloan offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: Whereas, the Freese Road bridge over Fall Creek in Varna is and always has been a single-lane bridge, Whereas, this single-lane bridge has proven adequate for the current traffic flow in Varna, Whereas, this single-lane bridge functions as a traffic-calming device and is thus fully consistent with the Varna Hamlet Plan to be implemented along Route 366 in Varna in the next few years, Whereas, the New York State Historic Preservation Office has informed Historic Ithaca, Inc. (on 21 August, 2013) that the bridge should be considered for historical designation, Whereas, widening the bridge to two lanes would tax the budget of both Tompkins County and the Town of Dryden, Whereas, The Varna Community Association Board has weighed the above arguments, speaks for the local community, and has resolved to support the maintenance of the Freese Road Bridge as a single-lane bridge, TB 2-16-17 Page 3 of 21 Be it resolved by the Board of the Town of Dryden that the Tompkins County Highway Department should continue to maintain the Freese Road Bridge over Fall Creek in Varna as a single-lane structure. 2nd Cl Supv Sumner Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Leifer Yes Cl Lavine Yes She is currently circulating a petition with the following six points and has signatures of 100% of the property owners on Freese Road as well as others. The petition reads: To: Dryden Town Board and Dryden Planning It has come to our attention, that the Town of Dryden has indicated its intention to replace the Freese Road Bridge. It is very likely that it would be replaced with a two lane bridge. PLEASE REHABILI TATE and REPAIR the Freese Road bridge for safety. DO NOT REPLACE with a two lane bridge. We are opposed to this plan for the following reasons: 1. The Freese Road bridge is an historic steel truss bridge, and is handsome and functional. It adds to the historic nature of the scenic qualities of Varna. 2. The Freese Road bridge acts as a traffic calming device, forcing cars to slow down and take turns crossing the bridge 3. The Freese Road hill is steep and curved. It would become more dangerous if cars were flowing through Freese Road at a greater speed. 4. As the residential nature of Freese Road increases with more development, reducing speed limits on Freese Road would be advantageous. 5. The Cayuga Trail system crosses Freese Road in several locations. It is also very popular with the runners of Tompkins County, Cornell and Ithaca High School. Traffic needs to be slower to be mindful of pedestrians, runners and cyclists. 6. The residents of Freese Road are opposed to large trucks using Freese Road. It is a residential neighborhood and has a steep hill, curves, and blind driveways that make it unsafe for such vehicles. Kim Klein, 14 Freese Road, said she agrees with L Snyder’s comments. She attended all the meetings held at the VCA during development of the Varna master plan. One of their main concerns was traffic calming features and Freese Road Bridge is perfect for that. It was stated that the bridge would always remain a single lane. Traffic is fast already and two lanes would encourage people to travel faster. Bob Beck, stated the Conservation Board passed the following resolution in September of 2015. Town of Dryden Conservation Board TB 2-16-17 Page 4 of 21 29 September 2015 Resolution to Town Board SUPPORT FOR MAINTAINING FREESE ROAD BRIDGE IN A SAFE CONDITION AS A ONE LANE BRIDGE WHEREAS the Tompkins County Highway Division has proposed replacing the single lane Freese Road bridge with a two lane bridge, scheduled in the Capital Plan to begin design in 2018_and construction in 2019, with the estimated cost of $2,690,000 ($2,152,000 County Cost (80%) and $538,000 Town of Dryden (20%); and WHEREAS, the Freese Road bridge effectively slows traffic approaching the intersection of Freese Road and Rt. 366 without causing any traffic congestion at the bridge, and slows cars going north so that they are less likely to build up enough speed to enter the sharp curve at the bottom of the Freese Road hill at dangerous speeds; WHEREAS the Town of Dryden has adopted the Varna Hamlet Plan (12/20/2012) in which the single lane nature of the Freese Road bridge is identified as one of the current and future vital traffic calming devices; and WHEREAS the Varna Community Association Board passed a resolution supporting the maintenanc e of the bridge as a single lane bridge; and WHEREAS the Freese Road bridge, estimated to date from pre-1900, is one of the most historic in the county and in the nation (a national ranking of 8 out of 10 by historic bridges.org), and is considered by the NY State Historic Preservation Office as having state historical designation status (August 21,2013); and WHEREAS the Tompkins County Highway Department has declared its willingness to repair instead of replace another historic bridge, the Malloryville bridge, and by doing so has indicated that, depending on condition, it is possible to repair such bridges to a safe condition; and WHEREAS no need has been demonstrated for the Freese Road bridge to carry high weights, since there is infrequent farm activity in the vicinity and there are high- weight limit alternative routes for infrequent high-weight vehicles within two miles; and WHEREAS, expanding the Freese Road bridge to two lanes would potentially require the town of Dryden to make expensive modifications to Freese Road; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Conservation Board of the Town of Dryden urges and recommends that the Tompkins County Highway Division, if feasible, to repair and maintain the Freese Road bridge in a safe condition as a one lane bridge. Approved: 5-0-0 by the Conservation Board on 29 September 2015 He feels strongly that it should remain one lane and hopes it could be refurbished with the money and a pedestrian walkway added on the side. There are trails through Monkey Run and a pedestrian walkway would provide a safe way for people using the trails to cross the road. David Weinstein, 51 Freese Road, urged the board to preserve and protect the 130 year hold historic bridge. It is the second oldest bridge in Tompkins County that still carries traffic. The bridge is rated among the 85 most nationally significant bridges in New York State. It is TB 2-16-17 Page 5 of 21 one of the last remaining pieces of evidence of the technological breakthroughs of the time and should be kept as a remnant of that. The red flag that is currently on the bridge is because if four bolts go simultaneously the bridge will drop 2½" on one side. The weight limit has not been reduced. The bridge is not in any imminent danger. It’s been said that unless we use the funds to replace the bridge with two lanes, we can't utilize the funds. That is incorrect. The regulations in the “green book” that is used as a guide say exceptions should be made when there is historical significance attached to structures. No one has ever had to wait more than two cars and a few seconds at the bridge. At the Forest Home bridge the wait times are hardly more than this and that bridge carries 50% more traffic than the Freese Road bridge will carry in 2030. It should be rehabilitated not renovated. He provided historical information about the bridge (attached). Don Scutt, on a different subject, said taxpayers cannot afford to continue to pay the property taxes they do. He has some information and in 2006 the town had 10.5 million in fund balance. On January 1, 2016, the same funds had 3.1 million. That is over seven million dollars gone. The 2017 budget accounts for use of $450,000 of fund balance. The town can't continue this spiral. He highly recommends disregarding the letter from Tompkins County IDA that recommends a flat rate tax payment on potential new solar industry. The town should make its own decision on any requested PILOT. The town board makes the decision on what is best for Dryden. If the town is looking to grow its tax base via industry and have tax payers subsidize on a local level, then offer PILOTs to all industries. It is unfair to show favoritism to one industry over another. Judy Pierpont said traffic will increase on Freese Road if the bridge is two lanes. She travels Mt Pleasant to 366 and it is a scary intersection. There is a lot of discomfort and feeling of danger there. She would not like to see trucks coming up to that intersection. She often avoids it and instead goes to the light at Route 13 to get to and from Hanshaw Road. Simon St Laurent said he is present with Melissa Miller of the Varna Community Association about their request for funds for a fence. They have obtained a have a few more estimates. Their initial letter suggested a cost of $6,500. They have an estimate for materials of $3,800 plus auger rental. Members can provide the labor to build the fence. They’ve already built a playground. He understands a memorandum of understanding may be required and they are willing to do that. He will get the information to the board. Supv Lamb said the board should have this figured out in a month and will discuss it at the March agenda meeting. Marie McRae, Irish Settlement Road, urged the board to keep Freese Road a one lane bridge. She doesn’t travel it often, but looks forward to going over that bridge and enjoying the quietness and beauty of the road. Robin Hadlock Seeley, 332 Hurd Road, said she had understood that this was a done deal, so it is refreshing to hear otherwise. She works at Liddell Lab on Freese Road. As a walker and jogger, it is not a great experience now with cars racing down the hill and two lanes would make it scarier. The intersection of Freese Road and 366 is hazardous enough, and she told her daughter as a new driver to avoid the intersection. With more housing units, a bus stop, and a pole that interferes with the view at that intersection, she hopes the board hears the concerns of the residents and people who work in the neighborhood. TB 2-16-17 Page 6 of 21 Thomas Seeley, 332 Hurd Road, said he has been a town resident since 1955 and is now the Director of Liddel Field Station on Freese Road. There are seven faculty based there and a lot of undergrads, particularly in the summer. Twice, while waiting for southbound traffic to clear, he has almost been rear-ended. Keeping the bridge a single lane will help keep traffic as slow as possible. He crosses the bridge a couple of times a day and seldom has to wait. Crossing the bridge is actually a positive experience and after waiting for a car to cross the travelers wave at each other. He urged the board for safety's sake to rehabilitate the bridge rather than make it two lanes. T Seeley mentioned that at the intersection at Freese/Mt Pleasant and Route 366, at the site of the old Sinclair gas station, there are two poles that interfere with the view of oncoming traffic. Todd Bittner was unable to be present and asked that his email be included in public comment: Dear Town Board Members, I am contacting you regarding plans for repairs to the Freese Road Bridge. I understand that the Town is considering upgrading the bridge to two lanes and as a Town resident, want to voice my opposition to such a change. The Freese Road bridge is the second oldest bridge in Tompkins County, and as such, should be considered of historic significance and worthy of conservation on its own merits. I am also concerned about pedestrian safety, particularly for users of the Cayuga Trail. The trail was recently extended to create a loop and now crosses the Freese Road Bridge. H ikers now cross the bridge, and being one- lane, the traffic is forced to slow or even stop and travel at a safer speed, and much more aware of pedestrians. If the bridge were widened to allow for two lanes, and not include a dedicated pedestrian walkway, pedestrian use here would become less safe. Conversely, if the bridge were refurbished and an additional dedicated pedestrian walk was constructed - cantilevered to the side similar to the Forest Home Drive Bridge in the Town of Ithaca - user safety would be increased significantly. As a regular bridge user myself, I do not feel that the current one-way configuration creates much, if any, traffic congestion or delays, and would not anticipate that that would change substantially in the future, even with the planned redevelopment efforts for Varna. Additionally, efforts such as the Cayuga Trail extension and the planned Dryden Rail Trail connection to Ithaca, Freeville, and Dryden provide an opportunity to have alternative transportation means, which will hopefully reduce some vehicle traffic and needs to expand vehicle infrastructure such as the Freese Road Bridge. I would also expect that the cost of rehabilitating the current bridge would be much more cost -effective than constructing an entirely new bridge, so hope that project savings could be redirected to other deferred bridge maintenance projects needed elsewhere in the Town. And lastly, considering the protection of Fall Creek itself, having a steel deck for the bridge actually eliminates the need to plow and salt the bridge itself. This helps reduce salt that otherwise directly enters the creek unfiltered. This may be a smaller consideration to some, but is nonetheless important. Consider this - two years ago during our very harsh winter, salinity levels were monitored in some of our local creeks and researchers found that the salt concentrations were equal to those found in the oceans (see: Cornell Chronicle - Winter runoff into streams on par with ocean salinity). While salting roads is quite necessary for public safety, when viable and safe alternatives are available in sensitive areas, they should be provided strong consideration. TB 2-16-17 Page 7 of 21 Thank you for your continued service to the Town and for considering these important issues. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTED WAIVER FROM MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY INSTALLATIONS Cl Lamb opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Distributed Sun has requested a waiver from the moratorium. It would cause them a significant economic burden to be forced to wait to apply for a special use permit for the two projects they have planned in the town. If the solar law amendments are made to the zoning ordinance, the town will have a process in place to review and assess the projects. There were no comments and the hearing was left open. Cl Lamb closed the public hearing on the subdivision law amendment at 7:42 p.m. R Burger explained the purpose of the amendment is efficiency and shortening the time it could take for approval. The board reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and the attachment. RESOLUTION #37 (2017) – Neg SEQR Dec – AMENDING SUBDIVISION LAW TO CHANGE THE FILING DEADLINE FORO PLATS PRIOR TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves amending the Town Subdivision Law to Change the Filing Deadline for Plats Prior to Planning Board Review, and B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden considers this an unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review, and C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of SEQRA, (i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”), Parts I and 2 , and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a signif icant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the EAF, Part 3; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of t he EAF, Parts I and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) its completion of the EAF, Part 3, including the reasons noted thereon (which reasons are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance (“Negative Declaration”) in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and TB 2-16-17 Page 8 of 21 2. The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed EAF and de termination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution. 2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes RESOLUTION #38 (2017) – ADOPTING A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF DRYDEN SUBDIVISION LAW TO CHANGE THE FILING DEADLINE FOR PLATS PRIOR TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town has the authority to adopt the local law referred to above (hereafter “the Local Law”) pursuant to Article 9, §1 of the New York State Constitution and §10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law; and WHEREAS, the Town of Dry den Subdivision Law currently requires that preliminary and final plats be submitted 30 days prior to the regular planning board meeting at which it will be reviewed; and WHEREAS, changing this deadline from 30 days to 21 days increases the efficiency but does not diminish the comprehensiveness of the subdivision plat review, and WHEREAS, the Local Law is enacted to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of present and future residents of the Town of Dryden. Review of subdivision plats by the planning board for consistency with the Town of Dryden’s comprehensive plan, laws and guidelines is an important function of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Local Law was drafted by the Planning Department, with input and advice of the Attorneys for the Town, and was reviewed by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on January 19, 2017, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden reviewed and discussed the proposed local law and adopted a resolution for a public hearing to be held by said Town Board on February 16, 2017 at 7:05 p.m. to hear all interested parties on the Local Law; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Dryden and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to sp eak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed local law is an unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this local law, made a negative determination of environmental significance on February 16, 2017, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3 prepared by the Town’s Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that changing the submittal deadline for plats from 30 days prior to the planning board meeting to 21 days prior furthers the health and welfare of TB 2-16-17 Page 9 of 21 the community and is in accordance with the Varna Community Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposed local law pursuant to sections 239-1 and 239-m of the New York General Municipal Law and issued a letter determination dated February 7, 2017, containing a recommended modification of the law that was not incorporated thus requiring a supermajority vote of the Town Board to pass this resolution, and Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby adopts Local Law of 2017 entitled “A Local Law to Amend the Town of Dryden Subdivision Law to Change the Filing Deadline for Plats Prior to Planning Board Review”, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. 2nd Cl Servoss Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes Cl Lamb closed the public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment to address solar energy systems. The board reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and attachment. It was noted that each application will be reviewed on a case by case basis. RESOLUTION #39 (2017) – Neg SEQR Dec – AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADDRESS SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves amending the Town Comprehensive Plan to address solar energy systems, and B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden considers this an unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review, and C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of SEQRA, (i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”), Parts I and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the EAF, Part 3; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the EAF, Parts I and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and TB 2-16-17 Page 10 of 21 (iii) its completion of the EAF, Part 3, including the reasons noted thereon (which reasons are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance (“Negative Declaration”) in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed EAF and determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution . 2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes RESOLUTION #40 (2017) – ADOPT LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF DRYDEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADDRESS SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town has the authority to adopt the local law referred to above (hereafter “the Local Law”) pursuant to Article 9, §1 of the New York State Constitution and §10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law and sections 261 and 263 of the Town Law of the State of New York; and WHEREAS, the Local Law is enacted to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of present and future residents of the Town of Dryden by amending the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan (2005) to direct that more solar energy options be available in the town, and WHEREAS, the Local Law was drafted by the Town Board, with input and advice of the Planning Department and Attorneys for the Town, and was reviewed by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 17, 2016, the Town Board introduced the local law and set a public hearing for December 15, 2016 at 7:15 p.m.to receive public comments on it; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Dryden and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed local law is an unlisted action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this local law, made a negative determination of environmental significance on February 16, 2017, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3 prepared by the Town’s Planning staff; and TB 2-16-17 Page 11 of 21 WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that directing that more solar energy options be available in the town furthers the health, safety and welfare of the community and is in accordance with the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposed l ocal law pursuant to sections 239-l and 239-m of the New York General Municipal Law and issued a letter determination dated December 15, 2016, determining that it has no negative inter - community, or county-wide impacts, and Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby adopts Local Law ___ of 2017 entitled “A Local Law to Amend the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan to Address Solar Energy Systems”, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. 2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes Cl Lamb closed the public hearing on the Zoning Law amendment regarding solar energy installations. Tompkins County Planning’s 239 review contained six recommendations that the board discussed. #1 – Use of the New York State “Model Solar Energy Law” – The town did start with this model law, but found it lacking in areas. Our modifications were at the recommendation of the planning board and with guidance from our attorneys. We are trying to provide as much detail as we can in the law to help developers know what to do. #2 – Use of Tompkins County Planning Department mapping services – Other data sources were also identified. The board understands that the County’s maps are potentially dynamic and that is a good thing. Review of any application will include use of the most current mapping information available. This part of the local law could be changed later if necessary. #3 – Requiring maintenance of a natural vegetative cover or agricultural use under and around installations to maintain soil health. This is not something we thought to require, but it would likely be addressed in the special use permit process. Applications are subject to SWPPP and any project would have to deal with stormwater runoff. It seems redundant to add this. #4 – Prohibition of development within the 100 year floodplain. This can be handled in the special use permit process. It was noted that flood maps can be notoriously inaccurate and we don’t want to be held up by outdated FEMA maps. #5 – Not locating systems in prime farmland soils, in Unique Natural Areas. This will also be handled in the special use permit process. #6 – Set back requirements – Large-scale systems require a 50’ setback, and small-scale in a residential area require 100’ front yard setback. There was intent that they be different. TB 2-16-17 Page 12 of 21 A front yard in a residential area will help preserve the visual neighborhood characteristics of the neighborhood. The board acknowledges the concerns of the Tompkins County Planning Department outlined in their letter, but feel those concerns are addressed in the town’s proposed law and the special use permit process. The board reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form, paying particular attention to Part 2 and the Part 3 attachment. RESOLUTION #41 (2017) – Neg SEQR Dec – ZONING LAW AMENDMENTS ADDING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM PROVISIONS Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves amending the Town of Dryden Zoning Law to add provisions for solar energy systems. B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden elected to treat adoption of the proposed local law as Type 1 pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the Town. C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of SEQRA, (i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF"), Parts I and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the EAF, Part 3; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the EAF, Parts I and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potent ial relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) its completion of the EAF, Part 3, including the findings noted thereon (which findings are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance ("Negative Declaration") in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and 2. The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed EAF and determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution. 2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes TB 2-16-17 Page 13 of 21 RESOLUTION #42 (2017) – ADOPTING A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES LAW TO REMOVE ITS APPLICABILITY TO SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND TO ADD SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS PROVISIONS TO THE ZONING LAW Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town has the authority to adopt the local law referred to above (hereafter “the Local Law”) pursuant to Article 9, §1 of the New York State Constitution and §10 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law and sections 261 and 263 of the Town Law of the State of New York; and WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden Renewable Energy Facilities Law currently limits solar energy facilities; and WHEREAS, the Local Law is enacted to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of present and future residents of the Town of Dryden by providing more renewable energy options and a regulatory structure to guide their development , and WHEREAS, the Local Law was drafted by the Town Board, with input and adv ice of the Planning Department and Attorneys for the Town, and was reviewed by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on January 19, 2017, the Town Board introduced the local law and set a public hearing for February 16, 2017 at 7:15 p.m. to receive public comments on it; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Dryden and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed local law is a Type 1 action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this local law, made a negative determination of environmental significance on February 16, 2017, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3 prepared by the Town’s Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that allowing certain solar energy systems to be developed through a special permit process furthers the health, safety and welfare of the community and is in accordance with the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Department of Planning reviewed the proposed local law pursuant to sections 239-l and 239-m of the New York General Municipal Law and issued a letter determination dated February 15, 2017, containing recommended modifications of the law that were not incorporated thus requiring a supermajority vote of the Tow n Board to pass this resolution, and Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby adopts Local Law ___ of 2017 entitled “A Local Law to Amend the Renewable Energy Facilities Law to Remove its Applicability TB 2-16-17 Page 14 of 21 to Solar Energy Systems and to Add Solar Energy Systems Provisions to the Zoning Law”, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law with the Secretary of State as required by law. 2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes Cl Lamb closed the public hearing on the request for a waiver of the utilities moratorium at 8:20 p.m. R Burger explained that Distributed Sun has petitioned for waiver from the moratorium with respect to the solar energy systems they plan to install on Dryden Road and on Turkey Hill Road. It presents a financial hardship for them because they have upcoming deadlines for very large payments to NYSEG for establishing an interconnection and they would not be able to continue the process that they’ve already invested a couple of years in unless they can start moving through the special use permit this spring instead of waiting for the moratorium to expire in July. Now that we have just passed the zoning law amendment there is a very robust set of provisions for processing a special use permit for the systems. He emailed a draft resolution this afternoon to the board and Cl Lamb read it aloud. RESOLUTION #43 (2017) – GRANT WAIVER FROM MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY INSTALLATIONS – DISTRIBUTED SUN Whereas, the Town Board adopted Local Law #2 of the year 2016 to provide for a moratorium on certain public utility installations for a period of 180 days ( the “Moratorium”), and Whereas, the Town Board adopted Local Law #1 of the year 2017 extending the Moratorium through July 20, 2017, and Whereas, a petition for waiver of the Moratorium was received from SUN8 PDC LLC, c/o Distributed Sun LLC on February 8, 2017, and at their meeting on February 9, 2017, set a public hearing for February 16, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.to receive public comments on it; and Whereas, the Town Board held a public hearing at the Town Hall, 93 East Main Street, Dryden, New York on the 16th day of February, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering the petition for waiver of the Moratorium; and Whereas, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal; and Whereas, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of the Town of Dryden and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said petition, or any part thereof; and Whereas, the Town Board finds that the newly adopted Local Law # of the year 2017 adding solar energy provisions to the Zoning Law provides for a comprehensive set of regulations for solar energy systems; and Whereas, the Town Board finds that the petitioner demonstrated a hardship that is substantially greater than any harm to the general public welfare that would result from the granting of the waiver, and TB 2-16-17 Page 15 of 21 Whereas, the Town Board finds that the conditions for a waiver as set out in Section 4 of the Moratorium have been met, now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Town Board grants the petition for waiver of the Moratorium that was received from SUN8 PDC LLC, c/o Distributed Sun LLC and will accept applications that might otherwise be prohibited by the Moratorium. 2nd Cl Lavine Roll Call Vote Cl Lavine Yes Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes HIGHWAY/DPW DEPARTMENT Rick Young said with respect to the Freese Road Bridge, this is a new process for them also. There is a lot of work to be done before we know if it will be one or two lanes. There will be plenty of public meetings about this. The county owns the bridges and the town is responsible for a portion of the payments. County Highway is assisting in the process. Town staff did meet with the State and got some information. It could turn out that it is one lane with walkways on each side. A design consultant will be hired. There may be a traffic count. It appears to be a long process. Jeff Smith and John Lampman of the County have been very helpful. Under the grant the town is responsible for five percent of the cost, and that could be covered by another grant opportunity. Martha Robertson said this was a new process and the county had not heard of the state giving towns an opportunity to apply for funds for county bridges. It’s good that the town got the money, but there was really a lack of communication and that may have been worked out. The application said to rehabilitate or replace. It’s important to not establish an attitude that the state will decide what it is going to be. The community's desires and values deserve attention. It is not up to consultants to tell us what we want. Cl Lamb said the consultants will be charged with looking at all options. It still needs to go through a process, and he understands it will also go through a process to be amended to the TIP. M Robertson said Jeff Smith feels it needs to go through the county's process too. No information has gone to the county legislature and it is a county bridge. It needs to be understood that the legislature has a role with respect to their property. Cl Lamb stated that the town will select a design consultant that brings everyone to the table and there is no fear that this is a done deal. R Young said he is communicating regularly with Jeff Smith of County Highway and he also attended the meeting with the state in Syracuse, so he is fully involved. M Robertson said the Supervisor’s press release on the town’s website says "replace Freese Road Bridge" and that is a concern. Cl Lavine said it is important to choose a consultant who is sensitive to the things that are important to the community. Community Choice Aggregation Group – Marie McRae read the following statement: TB 2-16-17 Page 16 of 21 I want to thank you board members for once again putting Dryden in the forefront of supporting changes that benefit both our residents and the planet. By voting last month in support the resolution authorizing a TCCOG committee to explore the possibilities of establishing Community Choice Aggregation here in our area, and in your careful consideration of zoning changes that will allow large scale solar development, you demonstrate leadership in accepting new ideas about our energy supply. Thank you. It was only early in 2016, little more than a year ago, that NY State enacted legislation that allows its municipalities the right to purchase energy (both electricity and gas) on behalf of residents. By doing so, NY joined six other states in moving the control of energy supply f rom corporate to local. In that town resolution I am named as the resident liaison to the exploration committee, so I am here tonight to give a brief overview of what the committee has been doing, tell you where we hope to go in the near future, and try to answer questions you may have. I'll use the shorthand of CCA when referring to Community Choice Aggregation. The TCCOG committee has been meeting monthly since organizing last May. We have met in person with representatives of MEGA – the municipal electric and gas alliance and with reps from Joule Assoc, a downstate firm that is administering the first NY CCA. Both of these organizations would like to administrator a new CCA, but our goal was just to get basic information from them. In September we met via skype with Paul Fenn. He is CA based though he is a consultant to NYSERDA here in New York. Paul wrote the very first CCA legislation and continues to be very active on this issue in many of the seven states that have adopted the strategy. We had a meeting, in person and via skype with reps of Keyes and Fox law firm. They are CA based but are actively following energy regulatory law and tracking rate cases in 40 states. We have a follow up meeting with Joule Assoc scheduled, and have the support o f Paul Fenn for writing an RFP for an administrator, if and when we get to that stage. Why would we go to the trouble of establishing a CCA in this area of load zone C even if our research and a feasibility study show us that that is a reasonable possibility? Primarily it would benefit residents, as consumers of energy, by procuring a stable electricity rate over a given period of time, perhaps three years. A CCA may be able to purchase energy at a rate slightly lower than NYSEG provides on average – though the reduction is probably small, but the CCA can build into the energy purchase contract things such as a fund to help lower the bills of income eligible households, or perhaps an opt up choice where financially stable households can pay a fraction of a penny more and that money goes into a pool for low income residents. These are some of the benefits of local control. Another benefit is the ability to contract for electric energy produced 100% renewably, and to build in to the contract support for local distributed energy resources. Wouldn't it be grand if we could tap the community solar arrays planned for Dryden as part of a 100% local supply. Less than a year ago, 20 municipalities in Westchester County signed a contract for NY's first CCA. They have 110 thousand customers. That CCA offers two options – one is business as usual, fossil fueled electricity, and the other is 100% renewably sourced. Consumers have the choice of selecting either or none. Remember, this is an opt out program where no resid ent is ever locked into the CCA. The price difference between the Westchester options is tiny, however the support network they have established for consumers is expansive – another benefit of establishing local control. And none of this will cost a single tax dollar. Our CCA exploration committee has a lot of work to do yet but we are all enthusiastic about the possibilities. Cl Lavine left the meeting at 8:50 p.m. TB 2-16-17 Page 17 of 21 RECREATION DEPARTMENT Jack Davison reported that he has been working on the spring booklet and has emailed a draft to board members for comment. He is waiting to hear from boy scouts, girl scouts and a few instructors. He is looking at starting a Ti Chi class for adults and is reaching out to an instructor in Freeville. They are still working on putting in the fit trail and will be reaching out to some local organizations like Sertoma and Rotary. They are looking to start an adult beginner fitness class. CPR trainings are being expanded and they are adding a youth coaches CPR class (that will also benefit our coaches). He will be making sure all our coaches take the CEC concussion online courses along with the Heads-Up tackling training for football. Other items he would like to add more information about for the brochure include Dairy Days, Dryden Lake Festival, and the Etna Community Center. He has reached out to other community centers about including their programs in the brochure. The park section of the brochure has been changed. J Davison has met with the Village Clerk and Mike Hattery about taking on the village summer day camp and they have shared their history, budget and other information with him. If we were to take that on we would have to hire a camp director, assistant director and some counselors. It has been a six week program for children. The village has said they would be willing to co-sponsor the camp and would need a decision about mid-March. There was some discussion about expansion of hours and the number of weeks the camp runs. Consideration would need to be given whether that would make it more of a childcare program and subject to different regulations. Cl Servoss suggested there be a discussion about taking this camp on at the DRYC meeting next week. There could then be a recommendation to the board. Cl Lamb asked whether J Davison felt like the department was meeting demands. J Davison said he believes they have things covered well right now. He doesn’t see a need to hire additional at this time. He and Rex Hollenbeck have a good handle on things. They’ve settled in and are able to take on bigger projects. Having a part -time person would give him more time to work on bigger projects and do more research and office work. Another person could help with some of the evening and weekend events, perhaps 10 to 15 hours a week. He’d like to review and update the recreation master plan, work on the funding and planning for the fit trail, and investigate taking on the summer camp further. He enjoys doing those things as well as working with the community, parents and children, and likes the idea that he has the opportunity to provide new opportunities for the community or take an existing program and improve it. When asked about trainings that he might benefit fr om, he said he’s enjoyed attending conferences and seminars in the past and would like to attend conferences with a goal of professional development. Cl Lamb said the board is getting the sense that the department is finding its direction right now. It might a need a few more resources, but might not need a whole new full time employee, which is a departure from what they had been thinking previously and there will be more discussion. J Davison said that whatever the board decides, he promises that he and Rex give 100% to the programs. They enjoy what they do and he thinks what they do provides great service to the community, and it brings them great joy and fulfillment to be able to do those things. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ray Burger said there will be a public information meeting at the Varna Community Center on the 22nd to discuss the sewer and water consolidation study. TB 2-16-17 Page 18 of 21 The applicants for the planned unit development at 1061 Dryden Roa d have submitted their development plan. It will go first to the Planning Board and they may hold a special meeting March 1 at VCA at 7:00 p.m. Documents are on the website. The Planning Board at their regular meeting this month has three subdivision reviews and ZBA has an area variance request coming before them. The application for a doggy daycare at 2186 Dryden Road is not yet complete. We may see it on the March 16 agenda. COUNTY BRIEFING Martha Robertson stated again that she has a problem with the wording in the press release on the town’s website regarding the Freese Road bridge that says the bridge will be replaced. M Robertson said she is excited that they think they have an agreement with the PSC and NYSEG on the West Dryden Road pipeline and moratorium on natural gas service in Lansing. The utility proposes to the PSC that they build a compressor station on the distribution lines in Lansing pressure the gas to serve existing customers in the Lansing area. It won't provide for any growth and no new customers could be hooked up which is causing a lot of complaints in the town and the village of Lansing. M Robertson said her group is committed to working with developers and trying to make people aware of new technologies that can work in Lansing. For example there is a proposal by the Computing Center at the IDA to build a 6000 sq ft building that will use heat pumps and solar panels in Lansing. So nobody has to wait for a pipeline or even that compressor station. The process at the PSC will take quite a bit of time and they are reviewing the compressor station proposal right now. NYSEG proposes they will draft an RFP for non-pipeline alternatives to provide energy for growth in Lansing. If it appears that the compressor station works, they will go ahead with the RFP. They had hoped those processes would happen at the same time, but believe they have developed a real sense, particularly at the PSC, to work on a different idea providing energy to a growing community without increasing fossil fuel use. When asked about the energy navigators programs, M Robertson said the county has half the funds needed for a navigator for commercial and industrial buildings in their budget and have proposals to the Park Foundation and TCAD for the bal ance. They are waiting to hear back and from the county’s point of view; they would really like to move forward. Cl Cipolla-Dennis asked if were possible for the town to potentially move ahead with volunteer energy navigators to help developers find alternatives that exist by working with the Heat Smart or Solutions group from Sustainable Tompkins. It could possibly help folks now that are seeing natural gas as an impediment to their development. M Robertson said they have put professional people in touch with some developers. She’s hoping to build a collaborative spirit on this type of thing. M Robertson suggested that the town look at an energy code. The city and town of Ithaca are starting to look at that and making it part of the building code . It’s been mentioned by both NYSEG and the PSC. Nick Goldsmith is working on that and they may have a proposal by the end of the year. Cl Cipolla-Dennis said it had been discussed some here and there was some pushback from code enforcement staff. She thinks there are things we can do, and doing it this year would have been tough because the code enforcement staff have been dealing with learning and implementing a new code. One of the concerns is if you have different standards in different towns then developers will shop around. But if all the towns work together it will be less of an issue. M Robertson suggested it could be discussed at TCCOG. TB 2-16-17 Page 19 of 21 Cl Cipolla-Dennis thanked M Robertson for all of her work with the PSC. It's very positive and she is glad to see us working toward that solution. Mike Lane said TC3 is getting closer to the selection of a new president. They have narrowed their search to three candidates and will arrange to have each candidate come in to meet with groups from the college. There should be a press release in a few days. He gave some updates from the county’s capital projects report. The legislature has authorized a supplemental agreement with Delta to update the design for the Game Farm Road bridge. The old Red Mill Road bridge has been moved to Dryden. Seven bids were received for that bridge replacement and the contract is being done by Silver Line Construction of Burdett ($993,000). Seven bids were received for the repair West Malloryville Road bridge and the contract was awarded to Silver Line Construction ($399,000). He noted that one-third of the bridges in Tompkins County are in located in the Town of Dryden. Bob Beck asked if there was a plan for the rail trail to go under the Game Farm Road bridge and was told the design was modified to include that. ADVISORY BOARD UPDATE Planning Board – Three proposed subdivisions will be taken up at their next meeting. They are also working on a recommended method of controlling construction that impacts a town road. This would put best practices and regulations in place for public infrastructure and utilities. Conservation Board - B Beck said they continue working toward completing natural resources conservation plan. Rail Trail Task Force – B Beck reported they had a vigorous meeting last night and thanked the board for recording easements obtained to date that cover 12 parcels along the route. They are working on the remaining 19 easements and some are very close to done. They have applied for additional grant funding. They will be applying for two permits from DOT for the Fox Bridge that will be required in order to use the bridge for the trail. Contacts continue with the Game Farm in an attempt to get through that property. They are working on recruiting efforts and community involvement. There will be a meeting tomorrow with to talk about potential grant applications through New York State and possibly applying to the Park Foundation. Recreation & Youth Commission – Cl Servoss reported the group is starting a process to create a policy for possible distribution of the recreation reserve funds. That will probably not be available until April or May. Ag Committee - R Burger said an Advanced GIS class at SUNY Cortland has volunteered to work on the maps for the farmland protection plan. NEW BUSINESS Rec Department staffing – has been talked about. Appoint DRYC member – Board members reviewed the applications of David Peck and Deana Madigan. TB 2-16-17 Page 20 of 21 RESOLUTION #44 (2017) – APPOINT DRYC MEMBERS Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby appoints the David Peck and Deana Madigan to the Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission for terms expiring December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2018, respectively. 2nd Cl Servoss Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes Cl Servoss Yes Cl Lamb Yes The board introduced the following proposed local law providing for alternates for the Conservation Board and set the public hearing for March 16, 2017 at 7:05 p.m. Title: A Local Law to amend Section 3 of Local Law No.4 of the year 2000, as amended by Local Law 1 of the year 2004, to Provide for the Appointment of Two Alternate Members of the Conservation Board. Section 1. HISTORY. Local Law No. 4 of the year 2000 adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden created the Town of Dryden Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) with 9 voting members. The Town Board has discussed the benefits of appointing alternate members to the Conservation Board who can sit as voting members when a regular member is absent or unable to vote due to a conflict of interest. The Town Board wishes to amend Local Law No. 4 of the year 2000, as further amended by Local Law 1 of the year 2004, to provide for the appointment of two alternate members to the Conservation Board. Section 2. Amend Section 3 of Local Law No. 4 of the year 2000, as amended by Local Law 1 of the year 2004, to read as follows: “Section 3. MEMBERSHIP: The CAC shall consist of nine (9) full members, appointed by the Town Board, who shall serve for terms of three (3) years (four of the initial members shall be appointed for two years and five of the initial members shall be appointed for three years). The Board may appoint two alternate members to serve for terms of one year or part thereof ending on December 31st of the year of appointment. One full member shall be the Town representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. Any person residing within the Town of Dryden who is interested in the improvement and preservation of environmental quality shall be eligible for appointment. Each member shall be entitled to one vote. Alternate members shall be entitled to vote when they are sitting as a member due to a member’s absence or recusal due to a conflict of interest.” Cl Servoss reported that the grant application for Dryden Lake Festival has been submitted. If successful it will require an agreement and signature by the Supervisor. Cl Lamb announced we now have a consulting team from the Cornell Institute of Public Affairs to work with us to create our revolving loan program for small business in town. They will meet at town hall next Friday with staff and come up with a working document to be used to administer the program, report to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, design a web page linked to our website and produce a flyer. Emphasis will be on job creation. They should be ready to present the program to the public in May. R Burger said he anticipates applications for large scale solar energy systems. There will probably be a hearing at the March meeting for that and to set the fees for solar projects. TB 2-16-17 Page 21 of 21 There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery Town Clerk HISTORY and DESCRIPTION of the FREESE ROAD BRIDGE by D. A. Weinstein Feb 17, 2017 The Freese Road bridge was built in 1887 The records of the Groton Bridge Company “Bids of Record” Daybook list the “Varna Bridge replacement” in 1887, a new bridge replacing the “wrought iron truss, 140’ ” bridge built in 1878 (Thurber 1985). State records erroneously and curiously assigned 1920 as the build date in their reports that were created many years later. The Freese Road bridge was built by the Groton Bridge Company, and the Company records list no bridges built after 1915 (Thurber 1985). There are no reports from any newspapers of any work involving the bridge in 1920. The earlier date of bridge construction is further supported by the fact that only two pin- connected Pratt pony truss bridges, the Freese Road bridge’s design, were built anywhere in the US after 1915 (one in Ohio and one in Michigan) and neither was built by the Groton Bridge company. In fact, the Groton Bridge Company did not build any pin- connected Pratt pony truss bridges after 1899, according to their records (Thurber 1985). The recently replaced Red Mill bridge was built in the same year, 1887, using a similar pin-connected span with side-bar diagonal to the posts, typical of the bridges that the Groton Bridge Company were constructing at that time. The design of the bridge makes this bridge one of the more important bridges in New York (HistoricBridges.org). In reference to the Freese Road bridge, this website states, “It is a metal continuous 6 panel pin-connected Pratt pony truss, fixed. This is one of two bridges in the county that feature an extremely rare continuous two-span design. Nearly all pin-connected truss bridges were built as simple spans. This bridge acts as one single span, with a pier in the middle, forming the continuous design.” HistoricBridges.org gives the Freese Road bridge a National Historic Significance Rating of “8 of 10” based on meeting all of its criteria for an “8” rating: (1) an extremely rare truss bridge, (2) an uncommon truss bridge with remarkable historic integrity, and (3) an extremely old example of its type. (http://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=newyork/freese/). Only 85 bridges of any kind in New York have a rating of 8 or higher. Bridges with this level of significance have a unique design characteristic (or high level of ornamentation, which is missing from this bridge). Eligibility for the National Historic Register The Mead and Hunt 2002 report, “Evaluation of National Register Eligibility,” done for the NY State Department of Transportation, used the erroneous date of 1920 as the construction date instead of the actual 1887 date of construction, but still judged the bridge eligible for the National Historic Register. Because they used the later date, they included the bridge as an Eligible Post-Standardization Pratt Truss bridge. It was listed in the following table marking their judgment that it is eligible: Table 1. Eligible Post-Standardization Pratt Trusses BIN Region County Eligibility Criterion Explanation Freese   Road  bridge   ID#3209800  3  Tompkins  A-­‐1   Historical  significance  to  local   community.              C-­‐5  Dates  to  period  of  early  standardization.              C-­‐6  Multiple  span.   Standardization began in 1909. In fact, given its 1887 date of construction, the Freese Road bridge should have been included in the table in Mead and Hunt (2002) listing “Eligible Pre-Standardization Pratt Truss bridges.” For pre-standardization bridges, the C-5 criteria for eligibility has as its explanation, “Pony truss with pinned connections.” As a pony truss bridge with pinned connection, the Freese Road bridge clearly meets this criterion. Statewide in 2002 there were 63 pre-standardization Pratt trusses eligible for the National Historic Register. Because these bridges date to the pre-standardization period, they represent a group of structures built as the type was evolving, including uncommon or innovative examples of the type. All pre-standardization bridges are considered to be eligible unless they have a significant integrity problem. The Freese Road bridge, along with 23 others in NY, possesses significant historical associations and consequently was recommended as eligible for the National Register under Criterion A-1 (Table 1), identified as having a historical significance to the local community. Specific features common to the Pratt truss type also make a bridge eligible under Criterion C (Table 1), including: • Verticals in compression and diagonals in tension • Through or pony truss arrangement • Iron or steel construction • Pinned, bolted, or riveted connections With its pony truss and its pinned connections, the Freese Road bridge is also eligible under these criteria. Only one other bridge in Tompkins County was deemed to meet any of these criteria. Along with 13 others in New York State, the Freese Road bridge meets both Criterion A- 1 and Criterion C-5, “Pony truss with pinned connections”. The Freese Road bridge is one of only 26 in the state to also meet Criteria C-6, “Multiple span”, joining only eight other bridges to meet both A-1 and C-6. Trials and tribulations of the bridge Unlike many modern bridges which have an expected life span of no more than 50 years, the Groton Bridge Company bridges were overbuilt and consequently have stood the test of time for more than a century (with periodic maintenance, of course). The Freese Road bridge withstood the flood of July 8, 1935, which had a peak discharge of 15,500 cubic feet of water per second (ft3/s) measured approximately 1 mile (and little additional drainage area downstream) and an average discharge for the day of 8,280 ft3/s. (https://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=04234000). The Creek rose to a height of 9.5 feet above the bottom of the creek bed. The Creek is typically about 1 to 2 feet deep under the bridge. The bottom of the bridge is estimated to be approximately 14 feet above the creek bed. It also survived the ice jam of February 21, 1971, when the Creek rose to a record height of 11.16 ft., and another ice jam of January 19, 1996, during which peak flows of 9450 ft3/s and heights of 7.5 ft. Large blocks of ice were left marooned on the banks and adjacent fields following this jam. In between was the flood of October 28, 1981, which was caused by an intense set of thunderstorms dropping 4.4 inches of rain throughout the watershed in just 6 hours. The Creek rose 8.35 ft., and experienced its second highest peak flow in recorded history of 11,900 ft3/s. Over the course of the day, an average 7,000 ft3/s tore away at the bridge approach on the north side. Despite a large tree becoming wedged under the bridge according to reports, the bridge held firm. However, after the blowout of the north approach, the bridge hung in the air above the water for weeks (or months) while the repair moved along, which included a major redo of the north side bank which had been completely washed away. The repair included depositing of over 10 vertical feet of large rocks to form a berm stretching nearly 100 feet upstream from the bridge on the northwest side, and the installation of a large metal vertical abutment, 30 feet long and 14 feet high, anchoring the northwest side of the bridge. The  Freese  Road  bridge  stands  intact  despite  losing  its  landing.    Photo credit: Laurie Snyder, Oct 28, 1981. Earlier in its history, the bridge survived a similar set of circumstances. A major flood on August 26, 1922 was reported as “toppling it into the creek” (Ithaca Journal Aug 26, 1922) and “flood waters ate away at the ground on the west side of the abutment” (Ithaca Journal November 6, 1922). This loss of the northwest ground attachment is exactly what happened in 1981, except that in 1922 there was no mid-span abutment to keep the bridge suspended above the water. When the bridge was repaired later in 1922, the same bridge structure was used, but new abutments were built part-way along the span. The bridge was then lifted and reset upon them. Support for this interpretation is the fact that the bridge still contains pin-connections, a construction method that was replaced by using rivets or bolts after 1900. Additionally, it is a bridge built by the Groton Bridge Company, and that company was no long in business in 1922. This bridge has been well-maintained. In 1952, contracts were issued for “rebuilding and strengthening” the bridge, according to local papers. This is probably when extra metal diagonal cross-ties were added to the Pratt trusses. In the early 2000s a thief cut out one of these 2”x2” cross ties, exactly 15’ long. Fortunately, county work crews noticed the missing piece soon thereafter, and quickly replaced it. Around 2010 the bridge decking was replaced after the evaluation in 2009 that the deck geometry required a high priority of replacement. At that time, the rest of the structure was rated as “Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is”. Periodic additional repairs of various parts of the bridge have occurred over the last 30 years, causing temporary closures lasting a few days to a week, including one recently in which work crews had to drive a bucket truck down the southeast bank and into the stream so that they could make repairs to the bridge structural underside. The bridge’s predecessor, the 1878 Varna bridge had been washed off of its abutments by a flood on January 24, 1887 that was reported by the Ithaca Daily Journal, “The Iron bridge at Varna was swept away by high water and ice”. The Journal reported on May 5, 1887 that “the Groton Iron Bridge Company have engaged men this week in replacing the Varna bridge upon the stone abutments from which it was lifted by the water and ice this spring”. In all probability, the previous bridge was tipped into the stream, and, when attempts to put it back in place failed, that triggered the construction of the new bridge. History of the Groton Bridge Company Founded in 1877 and originally called the Groton Iron Bridge Company, the Groton, New York company was the result of a merger between the Groton Separator Works, an agricultural machine manufacturing company and the Groton Iron Works, an iron foundry. Between 1877 and 1882, the company produced an average of 25 bridges a year. The following years were even more productive, as the company secured contracts in 27 states, making Tompkins County one of the major bridge building centers in the US. Its principal markets were New York, northern Pennsylvania, and neighboring states. The company reorganized in 1887, becoming the Groton Bridge and Manufacturing Company. Absorbed into the American Bridge Company in 1900, the Groton shop continued in operation for one more year and then was closed and dismantled. However, the former proprietors repurchased the shop in 1902 and, with new equipment, began business as the Groton Bridge Company. A contract to build bridges over the Erie Barge Canal bolstered company finances in 1906. By 1920, its bridge building business had diminished to the point that Groton sold its equipment to the American Bridge Company and went out of business (Lichtenstein and Associates 1999; Mead and Hunt 1999). Pratt Truss and Pin Connections The Pratt truss is a very common type of bridge construction, but has many variations. Originally designed by Thomas and Caleb Pratt in 1844, the Pratt truss successfully made the transition from wood designs to metal. The basic identifying features are the diagonal web members which form a V-shape. The center section commonly has crossing diagonal members. Additional counter braces may be used and can make identification more difficult. The Pratt truss was originally designed in timber, using iron for the diagonals, though by 1852 the first all-iron Pratt was produced. In fact, the Pratt is the only truss form to be executed in wood, iron, and steel. The Pratt truss reverses the load bearing system of the Howe truss, using its verticals in compression and the diagonals in tension. The panels in the Pratt have a diagonal that extends from the upper corner downwards toward the center. The mid-point panel, and sometimes several adjacent panels of the Pratt often include a crossbar system, which extends from each corner of the panel to reduce buckling. The span length of this truss generally ranges approximately 25 to 150 feet. Pratt trusses can be found in several variations. A regular full-slope Pratt has hip verticals in tension adjacent to the inclined end post (Mead and Hunt 1999). Truss members can be joined with pins, rivets, or bolts. The use of pin connections, introduced in the 1840s, allowed for easier erection of bridges, much of which could be completed off-site. The first bridge utilizing pin connections was built in 1858 for the Lehigh Valley Railroad, designed by their chief engineer John W. Murphy. Pin connections remained popular until the end of the nineteenth century when they were replaced by riveting (Mead and Hunt 1999). References http://historicbridges.org (accessed 2/14/2017) https://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=04234000 (accessed 2/14/2017) Lichtenstein and Associates 1999. Pennsylvania Historic Bridge Inventory and Evaluation. Lichtenstein and Associates, Langhorne, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Harrisburg. Mead and Hunt, Inc. 1999. Contextual Study of New York State’s Pre-1961 Bridges. Mead and Hunt, Madison, Wisconsin. Prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, Albany. Mead and Hunt, Inc., and Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc. 2002. Evaluation of National Register Eligibility. Prepared for New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, New York and Federal Highway Administration Albany, New York. Thurber, P.J. 1985. A Study of the Groton Iron Bridge Company and the Preservation of America's Historic Metal Truss Bridges. Cornell University Masters Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.