HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-18TB 5-18-17
Page 1 of 27
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
May 18, 2017
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb,
Cl Deborah Cipolla-Dennis, Cl Kathrin Servoss
Absent: Cl Linda Lavine
Other Elected Officials:
Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning
Erin Bieber, Deputy Town Clerk
Susan Brock, Town Attorney
Kevin Ezell, Code Enforcement Officer
Jack Davison, Recreation Assistant
Supv Leifer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and board members and guests
recited the pledge of allegiance.
TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION #70 (2017) – APPROVE MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of April 9 and
April 16, 2017.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
1061 DRYDEN ROAD
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, on behalf of the applicant, said they did submit a
package earlier in the week trying to respond what they saw as the highest priorities in the last
discussion. A lot of people have different opinions about this kind of development. They
wanted to share the context of the way they see this project. Part of the reason this project
came about is out of the Tompkins County housing study, the study that was completed last
year. There is a housing shortage in Tompkins County. If you read that study it talks about
small apartment, large apartment and other types of development. This falls under the category
of larger apartment style, 3 (three) bedroom units. A 5% vacancy rate is what you desire in the
county; in large apartments it was around 1.8% vacancy rate. This is that targeted need.
This is on a somewhat isolated site off Route 366. If you look at Varna on a Google
earth map and you look at where you might put this kind of development, it would be hard to
TB 5-18-17
Page 2 of 27
do without wiping out a lot of trees. This site is cleared and was probably at one time
agricultural. It is a big open grass field and they will not have to do any clearing. In the Varna
master plan they show a large development down around the main street and there would be a
lot of tree removal necessary to do that.
They see this as good density. It is close to Cornell. They are targeting faculty and
families. 3 (three) bedroom units are family oriented. These are units with garages and
driveways. The driveway is very street-like. It is a tree lined street with sidewalks. They are
looking at a family based community. It is good density. These are 36 people that won’t drive
30 miles to work at Cornell or downtown. They think it is going to reduce commuting in the
area. The trail connection to downtown is talked about in the Varna Master plan. They are
improving 750 feet of that trail. They see all of those positives of the project.
In the current site plan, they are proposing heat pumps. It has been a point of
discussion but the project now is a project with heat pumps and not gas. They thanked the
Board and the community for their input. They started out with a project that was conventional
gas and no photovoltaics. At the very first meeting, there was a request that the project be
more sustainable and they responded with the idea of photovoltaics on the roof. They heard
through many other meetings that there would be a desire, and we saw the county on a
parallel track, of converting to non-gas systems.
Taitem Engineers did a study for them. Taitem Engineers is the same firm that also
recently published a study for the county saying, in general, the cost of heat pump and gas
systems were a wash. If you read that study, it says that both systems cost $10,000 for a
residential unit. That is a fine study, a good study; it is performing its function. When the
applicant did that study it initially came back and said the premium cost of heat pumps was
going to be $300,000. At that point, they were still promoting a project that was going to be
gas because they could not sustain a $300,000 cost impact. The reason they are thanking the
board today is because they made them look at it again. They took their current design and
asked Snug Planet and Halco, companies they work with, for quotations for gas versus electric.
It turns out that Halco is a lot cheaper than Snug Planet, and the cost premium is now
$100,000. That’s the highest resolution they have for this project to today and they believe
they can exchange the photovoltaics to go to a heat pump system.
Cl Lamb asked whether heat pumps were coming down in price and S Hugo said he
believes they are though their January estimate was based on some historic data.
Gary Sloan noted that the project needs to get bid and that may not be until next spring
and market conditions can change. They could be less or more, but the reality is that this is
close as they can in terms of doing due diligence if it was today.
S Hugo explained some of the trade-offs they’ve done. They did reduce the landscaping,
as shown of the site plan they still have this tree planted street that runs all the way around
the development; this is a sidewalk street with a loop road and a path that goes down to the
trail that they are improving. They are locating a small play structure (at the overlook site). We
believe it is right-sized for a development this size (36 units). It is targeted toward toddlers.
These are units with front porches. Something came up about community and they see this as
a walkable community where people are walking with their kids or strollers and their neighbors
are on the front porch. It is more likely the older kids can play along the trail but the younger
kids you can take to this playground which is fenced on the other side as well. There are picnic
tables and benches.
TB 5-18-17
Page 3 of 27
G Sloan said the house renderings have not changed since the last meeting but they
have taken the end units (12 of the 36) and designed them with an owner suite on the first
floor. There are some people that just want to be on that one level.
S Hugo said most of the site plans are still showing a driveway that comes down on the
western side of the property line. M&R Entities and Mr. Reed are in discussions to create a
combined driveway.
G Sloan said they have been talking with Mr. Reed who is here tonight and they have a
conceptual agreement at this time. They were not able to get it all done prior to the meeting
and that is because of some paperwork that has to be filed with the county, abstracts have to
be reviewed and such. It is a process is about 99% complete. They are hoping that when the
Board takes action, they will have it done or be very close to being finished. It is just legal stuff
that needs to be taken care of. If they are granted site plan approval it would be based on the
driveway with the easement. Then they would have to go back to DOT and present it to them
which will not be a problem. They believe this is a better design.
One of the things that Mr. Reed wanted was access to the trail for any future
development of his property so people could walk down. There will be an easement agreed
upon so his residents will have a legal right to walk across the 1061 Dryden Road property to
access the trail.
S Hugo said the revised planting plan shows the site well planted. There had been
conversation about open space and burying the stormwater management elements. He has a
quote from Shumaker Engineering in Binghamton for that. The pipe would be a 5’ tall pipe
that creates a square 100’ x 50’ and cost $50,000 to $75,000. The backfilling of drainage
stone, filter fabric, and suitable landscaping on top to create proper infiltration was estimated
at $180,000 to $220,000 to bury the stormwater management. Right now, that is not in the
economics for this project. As a team they believe that they have created a walkable
community and the way people are going to congregate is on front porches, the play ground,
the picnic areas and the trail. They do not believe creating a green space would be a good use
of the space. And it’s a quarter million of dollars that the project may not have.
G Sloan asked Ray Burger about the three requests/concerns that resulted from the
County’s 239 review.
R Burger replied that the 239 review recommended following the Town’s Section 909 of
its zoning law which talks about landscape buffering. In that law, as well as giving the 14 ft
tree requirements, it said at the Town Board’s discretion they can substitute a fence. The fence
will satisfy that recommendation.
The second recommendation was that the trail connecting to the rail trail should be
ADA compliant. He will check the details, but thinks this does meet that requirement. The
grade and the surface will comply. G Sloan said they are proposing blacktop. He will do more
homework on that and report back to the Town Board. They will try to accommodate the
County on this.
The third recommendation was concerning the bus stop across Route 366. The
recommendation was to work with the DOT to put striping or signage to make a safer
connection for pedestrians from this development to access the bus shelter.
G Sloan said with the new driveway plan and the arrangement with Bill Reed they will
have to go back to DOT, so those are items they will bring up then.
TB 5-18-17
Page 4 of 27
S Hugo noted with respect to the closest property, there are existing evergreens on the
east and west sides of the driveway and there will be a fence. Cl Cipolla-Dennis noted that
those trees are not on the applicant’s property, so they don’t have control over that buffer. She
just wanted to make that clear. S Hugo said there would still be a fence. G Sloan said they are
working with Mr. Reed, and it just wouldn’t make sense to take those trees down. S Hugo said
the County would require the landscaping or the fence and there would also be a privacy fence
there. With respect to the current plan that takes into account the easement and the sharing of
the driveway, they will create an opening in the trees but will only remove what is necessary to
achieve that.
Joe Wilson, Hunt Hill Road, congratulated the developer, Taitem Engineers, and the
Town Board for collaborating to improve this submission to the level that it has been improved,
particularly the attention to the actual data and emerging data around renewable energy and
the alternative technologies to make use of electricity. They were important points to many in
the community and to the board. What I heard the board say and asking of the developers was
to look at the data as it is emerging now and happily Taitem was involved in studies that
showed the costs were much more comparable than the original submission seemed to reflect.
He also thanked the applicant for listening to the community but what is important to him is
that they went back and looked. The data is beginning to show just what you found. It wasn’t
just a lot of loud voices saying no, no, no. It was look again, look again and you found a
solution that makes sense for everyone including the developer and particularly the tenants
who will have a much more comfortable and possibly more affordable utility bill and utility
input in terms of heating and air conditioning.
Bill Reed said he has been here before and had voiced some of his issues. He is really
the person most affected by the development because it adjoins a lot of his property line. He
and G Sloan have had a good discussion and got a draft agreement between them. It became
clear that the area that is going to include the vegetation between the two properties exists on
his property in a place where he is probably not going to do anything with it even if he comes
back at some point in the future. There is still going to be some kind of vegetative screen there.
If the road does come through the other spot, it was an area he was concerned about because
he felt that having two driveways right next to one another was not going to be a sensible, safe
way to access the road in that location. Having one driveway is really a better and safer
solution. It also ends up right across from the property across the street so it isn’t a star fish.
Those are the main points and he expects they will get this agreement done in the next couple
of weeks. It will be good for him in the long run. He may not be in a position to develop it, but
having that road access and so on will probably make the property a better opportunity for
someone in the future.
Jacques Schickel said since there was no structure there before, he would encourage
the Town to give them a big tax break because a little bit of money is better than none at all.
The same logic you are trying to con us with regarding the industrial solar.
Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road, said she was concerned about the parking and how
many parking places there are in relation to the number of bed rooms. Applicant explained
that each unit is limited in its lease to use of two spaces. L Snyder believes it will be a problem.
The public hearing was closed at 7:38 p.m. Supv Leifer would like to schedule a
meeting to vote on the project. A lot of materials were just received by the Planning
Department and the board needs time to review them. He said written comments from the
public will be accepted up until the meeting. A special board meeting was scheduled for
Tuesday, May 30, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. at the town hall.
TB 5-18-17
Page 5 of 27
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW
PERTAINING TO UNSAFE BUILDINGS
AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Ray Burger explained the intent is to repeal the 1981 law regarding unsafe buildings
and amend provisions of Local Law No. 1 of 2007 regarding enforcement of the state Uniform
Fire Prevention and Building Law. These amendments insert enforcement mechanisms for
unsafe building and property maintenance code issues. These amendments make things
clearer and get rid of a law that just hasn’t been working for us. Because it is a new local law
SEQR is required. There are nothing but positive impacts. It provides a more enforceable
structure for taking care of unsafe buildings and property maintenance code issues. It would
be a positive impact on the environment.
Vickie Bland said she’s glad to see progress and hopes the next step will be that the
judicial system will enforce the laws.
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. and the board reviewed the SEQR
forms.
RESOLUTION #71 (2017) - NEG SEQR DEC - Amending Local Law 1-2007 regarding
Unsafe Structures and Property Maintenance and repealing Local Law 2-1981
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves amendment of certain provisions of Town of Dryden Local Law
1-2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Local Law”) pertaining to the enforcement of the
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (“the Uniform Code”) and the State
Energy Conservation Construction Code (“Energy Code”) in the Town of Dryden exclusive of the
Village of Dryden and Freeville and repeal of Local Law No 2 of 1981 pertaining to the repair
and removal of unsafe buildings and collapsed structures.
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
SEAF, 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 SEAF,
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 5-18-17
Page 6 of 27
(iii) its completion of the SEAF, 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
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 SEAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
RESOLUTION #72 (2017) - A Resolution Adopting Local Law No. 4 of 2017 to Amend the
Town of Dryden Local Law 1- 2007 providing for the Administration and Enforcement Of
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and Other Town of Dryden
Local laws and Ordinances and repealing Local Law 2-1981.
Supv Leifer 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 Board, with input from the Planning Department, determined that
Local Law 2-1981, which covers unsafe structures, is insufficient to adequately address the
issues such structures present and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of
the Town, and that said local law should be repealed; and
WHEREAS, Local Law 1-2007 provided for the administration and enforcement of the
New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code (“the Uniform Code”) and other Town of
Dryden local laws and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board, with input from the Planning Department, has determined
that the provisions of Local Law 1-2007 are inefficient to address issues of exterior property
maintenance in the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board determined that Local Law 1-2007 should be amended by
including more extensive enforcement provisions for exterior property maintenance, and by the
addition of additional enforcement options for unsafe structures; 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 to enforce the Uniform
Code, as mandated by the State of New York; and to maintain consistency with the Town of
Dryden’s comprehensive plan, laws and guidelines; 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 Town Board; and
WHEREAS, the Local law was introduced at the Town Board meeting on April 20, 2017,
and the Town Board of the Town of Dryden reviewed and discussed the Local Law and set a
public hearing to be held by said Town Board on May 18, 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
TB 5-18-17
Page 7 of 27
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of
the Town of Dry den and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak and
comment on the Local Law, or any part thereof, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the 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 Dry den, 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 May 18,2017, 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 amending the Local Law will codify and clarify
the enforcement of Unsafe Structures and Property Maintenance; and
Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby adopts Local Law of 2017
entitled amend Town of Dryden Local Law 1-2007 providing for the Administration and
Enforcement of New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and Other Town of
Dryden Local Laws and Ordinances and repealing Local Law 2-1981; 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 Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDER ACCEPTING EASEMENTS
FOR RAIL TRAIL
Supv Leifer opened the year at 7:46 p.m. and said tax parcels being considered are 44.-
1-11.2, 44.-1-2.323, 54.-2-6 and 55.-1-11 and are all between Varna and Freeville. The Rail
Trail Task Force has done a lot of work to acquire these easements.
There were no public comments and the hearing closed at 7:48 p.m.
Cl Lamb noted that momentum is building with this project. As we gain more
easements it raises the profile of the project. The Task Force is making good progress.
Supv Leifer thanked the group and everyone that has worked to accomplish something
in the past fifteen months that some people thought wasn’t possible.
RESOLUTION #73 (2017) - AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE
PURPOSES OF PROVIDING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PUBLIC
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the 2005 Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan and the 2011 Recreation
Master Plan bo th identified a need for increased outdoor leisure and recreational space; and
TB 5-18-17
Page 8 of 27
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to create a recreational trail (“the Trail”) for non-vehicular
use by the public within abandoned railroad property; and
WHEREAS, the property owners listed in the attachment hereto entitled “Trail
Easement Agreements Town of Dryden” (“the Property List”) wish to grant to the Town
easements (“the Trail Easements”) across those portions of the parcels they own consisting of
abandoned railroad property (“the Easement Areas”) for the Trail; and
WHEREAS, the property owners agreed to grant the easements to the Town for
nominal consideration, and the Town will not have to expend funds to acquire the easements;
and
WHEREAS, such property owners executed proposed agreements with the Town (“the
Trail Easement Agreements”); and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to accept the Trail Easements; and
WHEREAS, §247(3) of the General Municipal Law provides that the acquisition of
interests or rights in real property, including by easement, for the preservation of open spaces
is a public purpose and that such acquisition requires a public hearing subject to due notice;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed acquisition of the Trail Easements was
held on May 18, 2017 at 7:05 p.m. at the Town Hall of the Town of Dryden, 93 East Main
Street, Dryden, New York 13053, and notice of such public hearing was duly given by posting
at the Town Hall and publication in The Ithaca Journal on May 8, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board on December 15, 2016 issued a negative declaration
under Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Regulations adopted pursuant
thereto by the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State (collectively, “SEQR”)
with respect to acceptance of the Trail Easements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the Town Board finds that the acceptance of the Trail Easements and
execution and recording of the Trail Easement Agreements in the form attached hereto is in
the public interest; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Board finds that the Easement Areas are suitable for a
recreational trail; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Board approves the Trail Easement Agreements and
authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute them and any and all related documents required
for recording of such Agreements.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 5-18-17
Page 9 of 27
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE
James Shippy, 11 Dodge Road: I wanted to let the Town Board know that I am in
strong support of the 6 (six) month moratorium as proposed by the Dryden Planning Board. I
do support solar but we can’t rush into it carelessly without balancing the benefits. Industrial
size solar collection equipment doesn’t belong on a residential road like Dodge Road. There are
better and more appropriately zoned areas for this type of venture. I recommend the Town
Board consider all of the benefits of hitting the pause button to allow this to be done properly
and in the proper areas.
Two weeks ago, I was in this very building for the IDA meeting. It was pretty disturbing
on a couple of points. There were five members of that Board that didn’t bother to show up. I
am at a loss to understand how the residents’ concerns can be heard if five people are not
there. When the developer got up and talked at the meeting, not once did the developer address
the fact that they are shifting gears. They got this far down the road promising 2% now they are
talking about cutting it back to 1% in terms of the fees that they will get going forward. It does
not seem well organized. The whole process has been special meetings and exceptions. My
experience is that if you need special meetings and exceptions to get things done, then you are
rushing into something. You are pushing forward at something. We can all take look at our
lives and realized how many times we have rushed into things without property planning and
had it turn out well. There is nothing wrong with the hitting pause button to study this and
make sure it goes in the right places and is done the right way so the Town of Dryden benefits
to the maximum. I don’t think the developer has that in mind. They just want to push forward.
There is a sense of fear amongst the advocates for this to move forward; that if we don’t grab it
and do it now we might lose them. The good news is that they are not the only developer out
there. The residents should come out on top. The Town should come out on top. How well the
developer fairs is not my concern but the residents and the town is really where it’s at.
Dirk Swart, 1172 Ellis Hollow Road, I want to talk about the solar project. I am directly
impacted by it; my property abuts it. I am not actually against project as it stands but I do
think the moratorium is a good idea. I have to thank the Board for proposing the moratorium
and I think that should go ahead. I feel that, in a situation like this, there is almost nothing to
be lost by having a six month moratorium and everything to be gained. To me it seems like a
no brainer. If there is an argument that there is some sort of urgency, my response would be if
you coddle them as a project now, how are we going to trust you for the next 30 years. And if
there is some sort of legislation or something, you should have had that earlier. I see no
reason why a six month moratorium is a bad idea and every reason why it is a good idea.
Having said that, I think the developer has been very responsible, they have been good at
attending meetings. I think there’s not a problem with that. But again I am not against the
project in principle, but I do think a moratorium is a complete no brainier and something we
should ask you to do and something that will give us time to go over all the rules and all these
things that are very important and will far reaching impacts for the next 30 years, which is the
lifetime of our children.
Sarah Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, read a statement:
I have addressed the board several times in the past regarding the concerns I have about the
impact the Verizon cell tower and the proposed solar farm will have on the viewscape of my
property and consequently its market value. Last June I presented pictures of how the cell
tower would affect the viewscape from my property; the pictures are recorded in the documents
related to the cell tower permit. Due to the foliage on the large willows along the stream
bordering the proposed cell tower site at least the lower ½ of the 170’ tower is shielded from
view. Since it would be impossible to shield the entire tower I concur with the board in their
resolution of the natural screening being sufficient in mitigating the impact the tower will have.
With the revised solar plans of April 12th the solar arrays have been moved into the field next
TB 5-18-17
Page 10 of 27
of my property and surround the tower thus changing the impact. Since I have been unable to
get an answer as to whether the willows along the stream that provide the natural screen for
the tower will be cut down by Distributed Sun should their plans go forward, I must assume
that the removal of the trees is their intent. There are legal documents that clearly state that
natural screening is to be in place as a condition of the special use permit for the cell tower; I
am asking that the board put the following condition into the resolution should they decide to
approve the special permit for the solar farm.
No trees or large shrubs will be removed from along the stream known as SI (Aquatic Resources
Report, April 12th) and no trees will be removed from lot 5 from the cell tower site southward
toward route 13.
I understand that this condition will be an inconvenience to Distributed Sun but for these two
projects to be compatible on the same property it is necessary.
I also support the moratorium as passed by the Planning board and the Ag committee.
Joe Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, this is the resolution you passed on the cell tower.
It is a great document, even though the cell tower should never have been approved, when you
approved it, you passed this document. In this document, three times it mentions the tree
buffer. Why is that important? Because when you went through SEQR, on question number 9,
Impact on Aesthetic Resources, you answered yes. Basically it will affect our view shed. During
SEQR, you had to mitigate the effects on the view shed; in SEQR you said “much of the parcel
is buffered by existing vegetation along Route 13.” In the resolution, you said “to the maximum
extent possible, the visual impact on the neighboring residences and the public have been
mitigated.” It is true, it is great. You have all those trees blocking the cell tower. Here’s the
problem. Now we get the solar farm coming in and wanting to cut down all the trees to get
maximum solar and that makes sense. But what it does basically is make your ruling of SEQR
during the cell tower review moot, erroneous or wrong. It would not apply anymore because all
those trees would be gone. What is the effect of a SEQR that is compromised or erroneous?
Let’s go to the DEC website. “What happens if an agency does not comply with SEQR?” You
complied with SEQR during the cell tower, but is that going to remain in effect? “If an agency
makes an improper decision or allows a project that is subject to SEQR to start, and fails to
undertake a proper review, citizens or groups who can demonstrate that they may be harmed
by this failure may take legal action against the agency under Article 78 of the New York State
Civil Practice Law and Rules. Project approvals may be rescinded by a court and a new review
required under SEQR. New York State’s court system has consistently ruled in favor of strong
compliance with the provisions of SEQR.” When you pass the Special Use Permit for the solar, I
want a guarantee that none of those trees are coming down. If I don’t see that, then I will file
an article 78 because I cannot wait to file Article 78 once the solar farm goes in and starts
cutting trees. It is too late then. There better be a guarantee that none of those trees are
coming down or I will file an Article 78. Thank you.
Terry Habecker, 15 Dodge Road, read a statement:
It shouldn't be necessary to blatantly deface the environment in order to save it. The huge footprints of
the proposed Sun 8 solar projects would be much more than a blemish on the countryside; they would
dominate it.
Those who support the Sun 8 projects have cited the need to preserve the environment for their
posterity. I, too, have grandkids and I'm not worried that delaying or modifying these projects will
endanger their futures. Feeling good about Dryden's contributions to the green energy revolution
seems to have obscured the real work that needs to be done.
TB 5-18-17
Page 11 of 27
Cornell University, which is leasing much of the land for the solar arrays recently rejected a proposal to
divest the university's endowment from the largest, top 100 oil companies. The Board of Trustees
stated that only when a company's actions are, "morally reprehensible", will the board consider
divestment. That's the extent of Cornell's commitment to a green energy future.
In the 2016 election the Green Party ran on what they called the Green New Deal, which was a four part
program for moving America quickly out of crisis into a secure, sustainable future. The second part of
the Green New Deal was a Green Transition Program that would have converted the old, gray economy
into a new, sustainable economy that would have been environmentally sound, economically viable and
socially responsible. The Greens wanted to invest in green business by providing grants and low interest
loans to grow green businesses and cooperatives with an emphasis on small, locally based companies
that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to
enrich absentee investors.
I don't believe the Green Party received even 2% of the votes nationally.
A green revolution would require significant changes to the American lifestyle. No candidate from any
political party would win an election running on a platform that would mitigate climate change. Such a
platform would have to include a severe contraction of the economy, a curtailment of citizen travel, a
major downsizing of our military, (which happens to be have the largest carbon footprint of any
organization in the world), and on and on.
Essentially, we're cooked if the American public and politicians don't wake up fast, and a few solar
arrays in Dryden aren't going to make any difference. At least the Town should take the time to insure
that green energy is provided in a way that maximizes the benefits to its constituents and minimizes
environmental impacts. I support the moratorium.
Craig Schutt, 69 Schutt Road: I would like to address the rules of the Special Use Permit and
how it could pertain to the solar. Article 12, Special Use Permits, section 1201 “In this Law
some uses are allowed subject to a Special Use Permit being granted by the Town Board. The
purpose of Special Use Permit review and approval procedure is to assure that the proposed
use is in harmony with the Law and will not adversely affect the neighborhood…” I don’t know
how you can say these big solar farms are not going to adversely affect the neighborhoods.
Then it goes into the Town Board actions. There is a list of 6 actions you are supposed to look
at and determine how many of them will or won’t satisfy the standards.
“A. Compatibility of the proposed use with the other permitted uses in the district …” There are no other solar
farms out there. How is that compatible with an agricultural economy? I don’t see it.
“B. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjoining properties and with the natural and manmade environment.”
They will destroy the natural environment in these areas.
“D. The overall impact on the site and its surroundings considering the environmental, social and economic impacts
of traffic, noise, dust, odors, release of harmful substances, solid waste disposal, glare, or any other nuisances;”
The list includes items that won’t be impacted, I admit, but at the end “or any other nuisances”
I believe this could be a big nuisance. A big nuisance in the fact that it can affect other land
owners, home owners’ value of their property or a nuisance for the normal activities that take
place in the cemetery. I think that is what we need to look at.
“E. Restrictions and/or conditions on design of Structures or operation of the use (including hours of operation)
necessary either to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses or to protect the natural or scenic resources of the
Town;”
You have 4 out of 6 here that I think you are going to have a hard time defending when it
comes time to do this.
TB 5-18-17
Page 12 of 27
Don Scutt, I need to ask you to make Dryden win in some situations. You need to
make winners of us, the Town’s people of Dryden. You don’t need to make Cornell University a
winner because they are the big winner in this solar project. You do not have to make an out-
of-state corporation financed by Wall Street the winner. You need to make us, the townspeople
the winners. You were elected by us and represent us, you represent no one else.
Here’s what I know:
A little over 10 years ago, we had $10.5 million in the bank. Now we have a quarter of that left.
That is close to $8 million that has disappeared. Over that time and at the current rate of
spending and revenue, we will never get that money back, even if we wanted to. Last year, our
town taxes went up 17% last year. That is the 3rd year of double digit tax increases. By your
silence, you seem to be confirming what Martha Robertson and her cronies at the IDA are
doing. This is crony capitalism to give an industry a tax break. You would never consider, ever,
giving us that same tax break. That’s not right. I don’t know what has happened over the past
couple of years and I don’t know what happened with last year’s tax increase but I consider
that poor planning or I consider it Machiavellian. Once again, Machiavellian. You are sort of
hoping people are not paying attention. Trust me, people are paying attention. Dan Lamb,
Jason Leifer, Kathy Servoss you are up for election this fall. You need to start listening to
people. A lot of people talked in favor/against solar. But your silence is definite to me. Your
silence of accepting this IDA agreement to have a corporation pay pennies on the dollar when
we pay our fair share of taxes is disheartening.
I call upon Board members Dan Lamb, Jason Leifer and Kathy Servoss, all up for election this
fall, to make a public statement or pass a resolution stating that you are against the plans of
the Tompkins County IDA to negotiate on your behalf. As far as I am concerned, I went to the
IDA meeting, the deal is already done. But your silence, once again, not making a stand one
way or the other is hard to interpret.
While we are at it, I call on you to balance the budget this year and pass the budget prior to
Election Day. Don’t do it like you have the last 4 or 5 years -the Thursday after Election Day.
Once again, I want you to change your focus, change direction and work to lower our taxes and
grow this Town like you were hired to do.
Marie McRae, Irish Settlement Road: My idea would be to have the solar installation
approved as soon as possible.
I would like to read excerpts from a letter submitted to board by the County Environmental
Management Council on April 26th. It’s part of the public record.
The EMC participated in the review of the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 2015 and that for the Energy
Road Map in 2016 that established goals for the County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
identified the capacity of potential renewable energy resources within the County to meet those goals.
The EMC is now engaged in a project to identify the quantity of renewable energy that must be produced
in New York State and Tompkins County to meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of 80%
by 2050.
If we apportion the Tompkins County contribution according to population, that would require Tompkins
County to produce about 0.587 TWh annually. Tompkins County is currently producing only about 7.2%
of its "quota". The proposed 29 MW of solar pv facilities will produce 8.7% of our overall need.
The EMC’s Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has closely examined the Environmental
Assessment Forms for the Ellis Tract and Dryden Road sites for the proposed solar facilities. Our
members have also walked both sites with the developer. The ERC discussed wildlife habitat impacts with
ornithologists and natural resource professionals. Wetland experts and field botanists were also
consulted. None of these qualified professionals found any potential significant negative environmental
impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed solar facilities.
The developer has met with us and many of the neighbors of the proposed facilities. He has modified his
plans to address the concerns that have been expressed. The major negative impact on the Cemetery is
Route 13 that is noisy, polluting, and a distraction from quiet contemplation at the Cemetery. By contrast
the solar farm there will be as quiet and unobtrusive a neighbor as might be possible. Without prohibiting
the landowner from any future use of his land, this project may be more protective of the interests of the
cemetery’s stakeholders than most.
TB 5-18-17
Page 13 of 27
Joe Wilson, Hunt Hill Road: I recently wrote a letter to the Board regarding the efforts
of my colleagues on the Planning Board. In short summary, had I been allowed to be at this
special meeting, which I requested to have postponed until I returned from vacation, I would
have voted against the majority’s recommendations. I wanted to add a couple of points. First of
all, I have read everything that is under the Solar 8 SUP postings on the website of the Town
including the comments and all of the expert reports. In effect, and this is one of my two major
points that I would like to make and add to what I wrote, since December, you, the community,
the various state and county agencies which have charge of scrutinizing the environmental
impact of projects, like the Solar 8 project, have all looked at great depth at every conceivable
environmental issue that can be raised about this project. In short, at this point, a
comprehensive environmental impact statement has been conducted over the past 6 months.
My point is that there is not a reason now once you have digested what has already been
provided to you by these agencies and by my fellow citizens and others, is enough. We don’t
need to spend more money or time doing an environmental impact statement.
My second point is the following, there have been many calls for a moratorium on solar
projects. There is a moratorium on large community aggregation solar projects in the Town of
Dryden at this time excepting for the Solar 8 project. So if the Planning Board or if citizens
want to see a survey done to identify alternative sites, then it can be done. The moratorium
lasts until July 21st. One proviso, because we are so conscious about spending, it will be the
town tax payer who will have to pay for that survey. You can’t make Solar 8 do it.
Judy Pierpont 111 Pleasant Hollow Road: I want to read part of a letter that Buzz
Lavine submitted to the Board and I think the public should hear it because it clarifies a major
misunderstanding from the IDA hearing. 2. The May 9th County IDA hearing on the solar projects’ PILOT's elicited
major concerns from the public regarding the apparent “hosing” the Town was being asked to accept. Those concerned citizens
noted that the annual rate of increase of PILOT payments throughout the life of the project had been decreased from 2%
originally to now only 1%. Many citizens said the Town was being “hosed” because of that change. However, it turns out that the
decrease to the 1% rate is merely recognizing that the solar company would instead be paying the other 1% directly instead of
through the PILOT. Unfortunately the IDA hearing rules didn’t allow the
developer to respond to that misunderstanding right then at the meeting. The long and the short of it is that along with the 1%
rate of increase, the developer would be making separate payments directly to the fire and ambulance districts. Under the 2%
rate those payments were part of the PILOT. The end result either way is that the developer will pay $8‐million in tax payments
over the life of the project ‐ either way, i.e. no change in the total amount. And that of course would keep these projects ranked
as the county's third largest tax payer, right behind the Cayuga Power Plant and the Borger natural gas compressor station in
Ellis Hollow.
I would like to add a comment to Buzz’s welcome direction of this misunderstanding. Although
I am in favor of the solar mostly because I think it is urgent to do it and I don’t see that we are
going to be able to do it otherwise in the future. It does seem to be the development that
Dryden has been waiting for. In one shot it adds a huge amount of taxes, reducing the tax
burden of all. As I have said, it is benign development. I would dub this development the goose
that lays the golden egg and I think we would be nuts to chase it out of the yard because we
are not ready for it or weren’t expecting it.
Beverly West, 1214 Ellis Hollow Road: I want to urge the Town Board to accept the
Planning Board recommendation for a moratorium of six months on the proposed solar
projects for Ellis Tract and for 2150 Dryden Road. We, who are most affected directly and who
have grave concerns, are not the enemy. We want solar, and those of us who can, already have
it. We want to support community solar for others but this process with the two projects has
been crazy. The scale is way too big, beyond the existing zoning and original community solar
plans. We were not even made aware that the new solar plan was passed in January or
February. Furthermore, these project plans with Sun 8 were made public way too late for
reasonable discussion with the parties most affected.
TB 5-18-17
Page 14 of 27
Last night I went to the East Hill Village meeting which is a proposal between Cornell, the Town
of Ithaca and so forth. It was so completely different. They wanted to know who felt they would
be affected, what their concerns would be and insisted they would take all of this into
consideration as they make a plan. That’s not what happened here and it is what I wished
could have happened.
The developer has been exceedingly willing to talk with us. He has already made modifications
that help a great deal but issues remain to be worked out. Some of the modifications solve one
problem but create another. The tall trees that will, in fact, eliminate the view we are trying to
protect or form a corridor right down Ellis Hollow Road where you can see nothing but trees.
Why can’t we go back to some of the natural borders that already exist there? There is much
confusion and misinformation; everything keeps changing. The six month moratorium is not
asking to stop the project but simply giving time to consider seriously alternate sites, work out
more details on the current plans and give some assurance that future projects will be handled
more transparently. The environmental review is not complete. People came for two days and
listed species they could hear on those two days, that’s crazy. We much appreciate the time the
County and Town Boards have given to hearing us speak and write and to all of the people who
voiced concerns. We hope that you approve the moratorium to be able to provide solar for
Dryden in the best possible way. We really want solar. Thank you.
Janis Graham, 1150 Ellis Hollow Road: A lot of my neighbors who were unable to
attend urged me to urge you to read their letters in support of the moratorium. I mostly wanted
to clear up a misperception. I feel that most of the over 45 neighbors who signed the petition
against the Ellis Tract project back in March would have embraced 2mw being placed on each
of the three sites: off Dodge Road, Turkey Hill Road and the Turkey Hill/Stevenson Road
access. I am pretty sure there would have been some grousing because that is what we all do
but I also feel pretty confident that the parties could have found common ground relatively
quickly because with 2mw there would have been plenty of room to maneuver.
Related to this subject of scale, David Weinstein asked me how much smaller the project would
have to be to be acceptable. I wasn’t really able to answer on the fly but I have given it some
thought. I would imagine even a 20% reduction would have afforded the wiggle room needed to
make the project largely palatable. The problem with the current plan is there has never been
this wiggle room. There has been dispute and controversy over the adequacy of setbacks and
vegetative cover/screening because in this plan they are window dressing. They are an adroit
attempt to overcome the fact that the project too big for this site. Because substantive changes
in the project size and/or basic footprint have always been non-negotiable, every so called
positive accommodation, such as a better set back here, ends up triggering a negative
consequence such as more trees and natural screening being removed there.
You have heard this before. You have citizens really ready and willing to make sacrifices to
accept solar in their backyards but this particular project in this magnitude is simply asking
too much of our neighborhood.
Are you going to openly and publicly discuss the Planning Board’s recommendation for this
moratorium before advancing the Sun 8 projects? I think some of the problem is that we have
never heard you guys talk. I have been to enough of these and I have watched you go back and
forth with the developers and I see you coming back with good stuff but we have never seen
that - any of you guys talk to Sun 8. We have no idea. It’s just this wall of silence.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis: The town board has not had a hearing on this. We have not gotten
to the point where we can set a hearing. We are listening to you, but we are not actually in the
part of the process where the town board talks about it or talks with the developer. What
you’re seeing like with the 1061 Dryden Road project is different.
TB 5-18-17
Page 15 of 27
J Graham said if the board was going to discuss the moratorium that would be lovely
for them to hear.
David Weinstein, 51 Freese Road: You only put a moratorium in place if there is a
specific piece or pieces of information that you need time to gather and without which an
informed decision can’t be made. The only missing piece of information that has been
mentioned here has been an investigation of all the alternative sites in the Town, that could, in
theory, be possible to put solar installations. We have never applied this requirement to any
other controversial development in the Town, that all potential alternative sites need to be
identified. This would create a very bad precedent to do that and in fact, if I thought it was
reasonable thing to do, I would have done so on many of the large residential development
projects that have come before us. We have never applied that criteria of we have to identify
every other site within the Town that would be possible. We have actually never turned down
any kind of development proposal on the argument that it could be placed someplace else. That
piece of information would not enter into the decision of whether the proposals on these sites
are worthy to move forward. Therefore, it is not reasonable that we would put in place a
moratorium on these conditions. The Planning Board recommendation, which many people
have talked about, is not a valid recommendation. It will have to be rescinded at the next
meeting because it was never placed on the agenda for that meeting which was a special
meeting specifically put together for one item and that was to review the SEQR on that issue.
Finally, let me just say, in terms of the neighborhood around the cemetery site. There are 65
acres of current commercial and industrial facilities that would be visible from the cemetery
site if there weren’t tree buffers blocking their view. The kind of tree buffers that Sun 8 is
proposing to put blocking the solar panels. 65 acres compared to 52 acres of solar panels. So,
what is that neighborhood? It’s a commercial neighborhood more than the solar panels would
ever be.
Martha Robertson: I want to clear up a couple of things that have been discussed. To
follow up on David’s point about asking a developer to consider all alternative sites in the town,
I will talk about one site that has been mentioned a few times, the County’s former dump on
Caswell Road. I asked the County Administrator and County Attorney about this. Aside from
the fact that you can’t ask a developer did you try every other piece of property, I wanted to find
out. Some five years ago we actually looked at that site ourselves for possible solar. The
County has seven buildings with Liberty Solar’s panels on them, so we asked Liberty Solar to
take a look at that site. They walked it and found out several things. Mainly, it is much too far
from the necessary NYSEG interconnections. It would cost far too much money to make that
connection. That was the first deal breaker on the site. Secondly, it’s much too wet. There are
wetlands within the site. And in the future, the County is looking at that as a possible
composting facility and is reserving it for that potential use. The real deal breaker was that it
is way too far from the appropriate interconnections.
As far as the IDA, they won’t be able to vote until after the town has completed the
SEQR. There has been some negotiation back and forth. Heather McDaniel is looking at the
financials and will be bringing a recommendation to the board about what the charge should
be and what the annual accelerator should be. She is also getting information about other
PILOTS around the state and the numbers that have been agreed to. Tioga County just signed
on for something like $3,400 a megawatt, not $8,000, so it may be that we are getting a much
better deal than other arrangements throughout the state.
Kim Anderson said she has attended previous board meetings and the recent IDA
meeting and was encouraged by the approved PILOTS for Mecklenburg and Enfield for
community solar projects. She learned from H McDaniel that the $8,000 per megawatts is
based on the analysis and is actually a very good rate considering Yates County is $4,800 per
TB 5-18-17
Page 16 of 27
megawatt. In addition it was discussed how in reality these are not cash cow investments and
only return 5% to 6%. It’s not something that is like a corporate welfare situation. They
discussed the NYSERDA recommended PILOT which is $3,300 to $4,900 per megawatts, so the
negotiated is $8,000 is actually very good. She understands they are still trying to determine
who is going to pay the fire and ambulance fee.
In the six months that this matter has been in public realm there have been roughly six
public hearings and she’s noticed the comments in opposition are really about aesthetics. The
IDA mentioned that it’s not really a financial issue in terms of a financial issue. It’s really
nothing but a win for the Town of Dryden and Dryden residents.
One thing that was brought up was that Cornell lands are currently tax exempt, and
having these projects on the land would actually mean tax coming in to the Town of Dryden.
So the 8 million dollars coming in would be money that would be going right into a town that
seems to desperately need tax relief as many of the residents have already stated.
It seems apparent through the IDA meeting that it is a sound financial investment and
that they would be interested in moving forward, but the SEQR needs to be completed. She
agrees that it is not reasonable to put a moratorium in place. The projects are sufficiently
reviewed and the potential impacts and community concerns have been heard and adjustments
have been made. Someone mentioned at another meeting that these would be delay tactics
and she encouraged the board to move forward to a vote.
Pat Dubin supports the project whole heartedly. The two things that keep going
around in her mind are 7500 homes that will get significantly reduced fees for their power and
that Distributed Sun will be the third largest tax payer in the town if these projects are in
place. It is going to be a lot of money and revenues. She’s heard the board criticized about
failing to bring in revenue and now the criticism seems to be because there is a project that if
you approved it could bring in substantial revenues and she is trying to wrap her mind around
that.
In terms of the moratorium, she was at the special Planning Board meeting and she
thought it was a terrible idea then and still does. The only thing it gets is delay for no purpose.
It is obstructionist to the project. There have been many, many studies and most people are
aware there are not other connection points that will work for a project of this size. There was
no point looking for other sites. It is a fruitless thing to do, especially considering that there is
a moratorium now. Distributed Sun was subject to it. They applied for a waiver for good
reasons and the board gave them that waiver. If there is another moratorium that challenges
the original waiver, that moratorium would be specifically designed to obstruct the project
because it would be for the only project that would be affected by the new moratorium. She
hopes you will reject the notion of a moratorium and review the project as quickly as you can.
Jacques Schickel said some Enfield town board members got up and spoke against the
PILOT at both the Enfield public hearing meeting and at the recent IDA monthly meeting. The
question is why can’t this board? Because this is not good for us. He also said he supports
the moratorium.
Ed Wilson, Wellsley Drive, said he supports the moratorium that the Planning Board
has requested. From what he understands, the County energy plan states that meet their
goals we should install 950 MW of solar in Tompkins County. If you figure that a 2 MW system
takes roughly ten acres of land to do, that’s 475 2 MW systems, or almost 5,000 acres of land
in Tompkins County that should have solar on them to meet the energy road map. That would
be a significant amount of land then if you prorate it to the land area of the Town of Dryden.
We’re going to have 1,000 acres or more of solar projects that should be sited to meet the
county energy plan. With that in mind, NYSEG has to upgrade almost 4 miles of distribution
TB 5-18-17
Page 17 of 27
line to accommodate the local solar development site. So within a 4 mile radius of that there
could be a lot of other solar opportunities. We should plan to upgrade the transmission to
handle all those opportunities. We took 6 months to look and say where can we put the solar
projects that we have now and where would the other 8 or 10 go so that we can really plan our
land use, our utility infrastructure, NYSEG’s transmission grids, so that it meets a longterm
plan. We’ve talked often about how we haven’t required this of others before. But you haven’t
also had someone who comes in and says we are going to take 5,000 acres of land in Tompkins
County and build here and there and we will tell you about the other 4800 acres someplace
else later. It could lower costs, be better planning, better accepted by the residents, and if we
could get 8 million in tax revenue, which he thinks is small from what it should be, but with all
the other opportunities, we could multiply the gain and keep people and residents happy with
the final plan. In six months the board could do that. With his background, he offered any
help he can.
Pat Fitzgibbons, said the SEQR process in New York requires the local governments to
consider not only environmental impacts, but also social and economic impacts. He doesn’t
see how the board can decide on SEQR until every property adjacent to the solar farms and
every property that can have these solar farms are reevaluated in terms of assessment by real
estate professionals. There is certainly going to be a huge impact on those homeowners. Also
ultimately it is going to affect the tax base. Those properties aren’t going to be worth as much
and the taxes are going to go down.
Net metering is only available on a first come first served basis. NYSEG does not have
to accept all solar that is generated. The 29 MW installation will probably preclude landowners
from putting solar on the roof and getting any benefit from it. It won’t meter back into the grid.
At the IDA meeting he asked a Tompkins County legislator and IDA member what the
status of the 2012 Tompkins County Law that states there shall be no tax exemptions for solar
arrays. M Robertson said she checked and it had been reinstated.
He said there a lot of issues like this that we don’t have answers to and things keep
popping up. There needs to be more time to fully evaluate everything.
Bharath Srinivasan of Distributed Sun summarized what they have done in the last
few days. They have completed a full ecological assessment, a full SWPPP with wetland
protection mitigations that we have agreed on with TG Miller, an extensive aquatic resources
assessment which included wetland delineation, habitat assessment for any concerned
threatened or endangered species, a phase one environmental site assessment, a phase 1 and
phase 1A1B archeological assessment with over 425 shovel pit tests, a visual impact statement
with several additions and glare analysis, and presented all of this. These are the components
that go into what is called an environmental impact statement. Whether or not we call it that,
all the work for that has been done. The work was submitted to the NY DEC, the NY Historic
Preservation Office and the Army Corps of Engineers. They have also received the information
from both the Town and other concerned citizens. The DEC wrote back to the town clarifying
that there is no adverse impact proposed by the project, and there is no concern with any
endangered species. SHPO concurred with the test findings at the 2150 Dryden Road property
saying that there is no impact to any cultural or archeology resources. There are two other
studies done on the same property, one when the tower was proposed and one when the
commercial warehouses were built.
Addressing the fact that the net metering capacity is being consumed by the project, he
said it is not true. The project pays for upgrades to host the entire capacity. In their analysis
the lowest rated component on the circuit is what defines what can be connected now by
residential homeowners. They estimated that capacity to be between 200 and 350 KW.
TB 5-18-17
Page 18 of 27
Because they are paying for upgrades and upgrades are not exactly to the size of the project,
collectively that net metering capacity available in the area goes up to between 600 and 700
KW because of the projects upgrade. More people will be able to install solar.
He also stated they have been present at every public hearing since December. They
have presented voluntarily at four meetings of the town. They were here in January, February,
March, April and May. They have provided a few thousand pages of documentation and are at
the point where the state and federal agencies are starting to provide concurrences. At this
point he doesn’t know what else they can do to provide information on environmental impact.
HIGHWAY/DPW DEPARTMENT
No report.
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Jack Davison reported spring programs are running presently. Lacrosse, track and Tai
Chi are the three big ones right now. Lacrosse had an increase of 7 participants this year;
there are 6 more participants for track. For the first time they’ve had lacrosse games outside of
the summer season (with Ithaca, Watkins Glen, Whitney Point). Rex is setting up a miniature
track meet with Groton and Trumansburg – another first for the program. Tai Chi is currently
held at the town hall on Tuesday mornings with 4 people signed up and a fifth who is
interested. They’ve had requests for time later in the day and may try to accommodate that
request if the instructor is able to do that. A Lifelong Partnership class on constitutional law
was held here as a satellite class with four participants. There were over 100 participants at
the annual Easter Egg Hunt. Karate classes are picking up with participation moving from six
to ten in each class (maximum is 15 per class) and they are excited about the growing interest
in that. Van transportation to this class from school has reached maximum capacity.
Summer camp programs include art camp, archery camp, golf camp (will still be able to
use the driving range if the course is sold), basketball camp, dance camp, new this year is
horse camp at Healing Rein farm, soccer camp, football camp and cheer camp. Adult programs
for summer include classes on WWII and Nazi Resistance inside Nazi Germany (free), Yoga at
Montgomery Park (free), sessions of different types of ball room dancing, handball (targeted
toward young adults) and pickle ball.
Upcoming field trips include Sea Breeze, Skate Estate, and a family field trip to a
Binghamton Rumble Ponies game (on a night when they have fireworks).
J Davison said he had been asked if we were getting a good return on our participating
in the Rec Partnership. Last year we spent $14,596. If the participants last year had had to
pay full price for everything, the total would have been more than $72,000. There were 329
participants. He computed the average saves and estimates about a $44,000 return in the rec
partnership. After evaluating it, he believes it is really beneficial. They do offer programs that
we don’t have here. Maintaining the rec partnership is a good thing to do.
Fit Trail project – they are pursuing working with Eagle Scouts. They’ve been having
trouble finding a 501c3 tax exempt organization to be the conduit for fund raising, but if they
get an eagle scout they can get someone who can do that and help with the project, and it will
help out a community member who is trying to get their eagle badge. If that doesn’t work for
some reason, we may have to talk about using the rec reserve or finding some other way. J
Davison has applied for grants from NYS Health Association, Lowe’s and Home Depot. He is
trying to get the remaining $3,750.
TB 5-18-17
Page 19 of 27
He has been working about increasing the department’s outreach. The Facebook page
had 216 followers a year ago, when Jennifer Jones left in October there were 284, and
currently there are 470 followers, so that has really increased. They’ve had a lot less calls
asking what’s going on. He and Rex have made it a point to be proactive about communicating
with people. They will keep doing surveys at the end of seasonal programming to see how
people enjoy programs and how they feel about how the department is doing.
The Village has found a sponsor to do 4 concerts in Montgomery Park, four consecutive
Saturdays July 29 through August 19. That will be in addition to the 7 concerts in Ellis Hollow
and 7 at the VFW. Hopefully we can get the same kind of sponsorship next year and continue
to build that. It’s awesome that we have 17 free concerts at different locations around the
town.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Ray Burger said with respect to the solar projects and TG Millers’ punch list, most of
those items were getting agencies to weigh in formally and so far DEC has responded on their
jurisdictional matters. SHPO has responded with respect to the 2150 Dryden Road site and
were requesting more information on the Ellis Tract. After everything is received he will report
to the board and the public hearing can be resumed.
473 Bone Plain Road, property maintenance violations – An appearance ticket has been
issued and it is in the Court’s hands at the moment.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis asked R Burger to explain why the town can’t move ahead with the
solar projects with contingencies as some projects in the past have proceed. R Burger said it is
a matter of the complexity of the project. Rather than try to hash some the items out (ie,
cultural resources) we are asking for the agencies that have primary jurisdiction in those
arenas to weigh in and give us their professional opinion. Conditions can’t be attached to a
SEQR declaration, but could be to a special use permit.
COUNTY BRIEFING
Martha Robertson reported that the County Legislature has taken the next step in its
budget process for 2018. The tax cap for them will be approximately 2.4% this coming year so
they’ve set the levy increase at that level. If that ends up being the amount that the budget it
increased it would mean a $24 increase for the median home in Tompkins County.
They also set a public hearing for June 6 at 5:30 p.m. on a potential new local law that
would provide a temporary partial tax exemption for developers who are building housing
where they have to puts roads and infrastructure and pay an additional cost for the value of
that infrastructure before they can actually sell the homes. They want to encourage
neighborhood development, and a developer has to put in quite a bit of money before the
houses are even built and sold. They’ve heard this is one of impediments facing developers.
The exemption would also be available to towns and school districts. There would be a partial
exemption for three years.
The draft housing strategy was unveiled last night and is on the Planning Department’s
website. There’s an outline of what they see the need as being and some proposed ideas for
how to work at addressing that need. They are taking comment until May 31 then the
Planning Department will revise the strategy and bring it back to the legislature for approval.
TB 5-18-17
Page 20 of 27
With respect to the TC3 budget, their fiscal year is a little earlier and every year there is
a meeting with TC3 and Tompkins and Cortland Counties. For the last several years TC3 has
asked for very modest increases. Cortland County has had a hard time agreeing with that. By
law the sponsor counties have to pay the same percentage increase. While Tompkins would be
willing and able to fund more, they have refused. This year Carl Haynes has been so
conservative. They are proposing to lay off 19 people and a bunch of other cuts and still they
need a 1% increase. For Cortland County that is an additional $16,000. Tompkins has about
2/3 of the students and so has 2/3 of the share. Tompkins would like to do more than that.
Cortland residents should be contacting their legislatures and encourage them to support TC3
at the 1% level. It’s not a lot of money and is a lot of value. Our community has thrived
because we have that option here.
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
Planning Board – No report other than what has been said.
Conservation Board – Still working on the Natural Resources Conservation Plan.
Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission – No report.
Ag Committee - Cl Lamb said the farmland protection plan is coming in for its final
edits. It will be good for helping us understand our farmland. We produce about a quarter of
the County’s marketable goods. They expect the report to be finalized this summer.
Rail Trail Task Force - Bob Beck reported there are 36 landowners from the Village of
Dryden to Ithaca (not including the Village of Freeville, Village of Dryden or Town of Dryden
properties). Twelve easements have been secured and approved by the board. There are 17
more that have been pledged and we are waiting for their signed return. There are half a dozen
or so that are still being negotiated, so they’ve made tremendous progress. They are planning
to have a table at Dryden Dairy Days and Dryden Lake Festival. They will have charrette on
June 17 from 9:00 a.m. to noon. They are putting together an invitation to that for all
landowners of the railbed and within a couple of hundred feet. He asked for approval from the
board for postage and envelopes.
OLD BUSINESS
Bridge NY – Supv Leifer reported they have picked a contractor, Barton & Loguidice, for
design of the Freese Road and George Road bridges. It is the same contractor that has worked
on the Malloryville and Red Mill Road bridges. He thanked the committee for their assistance
in the matter. Once the state signs the contract then we can discuss the parameters of what
we are looking for with the design contractor and set a public meeting.
VCA fence funding – The board reviewed this last week. This is for the daycare center
at the Varna Community Center. It is sorely needed to remain open and they are under
pressure from their insurer to put up a fence. With the MOU, it opens up the playground for
use by the recreation department for their programs so the Town is getting something for it.
The playground will be even more important with the new development in the hamlet. We will
figure out how to get access from the trail to the playground. The contract is for no greater
than $4,000.
RESOLUTION #74 (2017) – AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH VARNA
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
TB 5-18-17
Page 21 of 27
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves an agreement with the Varna
Community Association to provide up to $4,000.00 toward fencing the playground and the
Supervisor is authorized to execute the same.
2nd Cl Servoss
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
MOU for Montgomery Park basketball courts – The Town is contributing town funds
toward the basketball courts. The idea is that the rec department will have those for program
usage. Cl Lamb has been working with Mike Hattery of the Village on this. The board
discussed the terms of the agreement.
RESOLUTION #75 (2017) – AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH VILLAGE OF DRYDEN
FOR USE OF MONTGOMERY PARK
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding
with the Village of Dryden for use of Montgomery Park and authorizes the Supervisor to sign
the same, subject to approval by the town attorney.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
NEW BUSINESS
Payments outside the abstract – Supv Leifer presented bills for payment to the
Justice Court Fund, Village of Dryden for the Cortland Road Sewer District, and Main St.
America Group and asked for approval to pay them outside the abstract.
RESOLUTION #76 (2017) – AUTHORIZE PAYMENTS OUTSIDE THE ABSTRACT
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the following payments outside the
abstract:
Main St America Group $ 688.00
Comptroller’s Office – Justice Court Fund 21,654.50
Village of Dryden (for Cortland Road Sewer District) 43,335.28
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 5-18-17
Page 22 of 27
June Pride Month – Cl Cipolla-Dennis provided board members with a proposed
resolution last week. This resolution supports the rights, freedoms, and equality of persons
who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and/or asexual. The resolution
provides the history of why this is a good thing to do and provides that the rainbow flag will be
flown at the Dryden Town Hall each year during the month of June.
RESOLUTION #77 (2017) – DECLARE JUNE AS PRIDE MONTH
Cl Cipolla-Dennis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas the Town Board of Dryden, New York supports the rights, freedoms, and
equality of persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and/or
asexual (LGBTQIA); and
Whereas those who took a stand for human rights and dignity at the Stonewall Inn in
New York City on June 28,1969, are among the pioneers within the human rights movement;
and
Whereas the Stonewall protestors were subject to police harassment and invidious
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and
Whereas this decisive moment in history was followed by the creation of gay rights
organizations in every major city in the United States within two years of the Stonewall
Uprising; and
Whereas the Stonewall Uprising has been followed by many positive progressive historic
moments; and
Whereas in December 1973, the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted to
remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses; and
Whereas in 1974, Elaine Noble became the first openly LGBTQIA candidate elected to a
State legislature in the United States when she won a seat in the Massachusetts House of
Representatives; and
Whereas in 1975, the Civil Service Commission eliminated the ban on the employment
of homosexuals in most Federal jobs; and
Whereas, on January 8, 1978, Harvey Milk made national news when he was sworn in
as an openly gay member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors; and
Whereas in October of 1979, 75,000 people participated in the National March on
Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights to demand equal civil rights; and
Whereas in October 1987, thousands of activists took part in the National March on
Washington to demand that President Reagan address the AIDS crisis; and
Whereas in 1987, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts became the first
Representative to voluntarily come out as an openly gay Member of Congress; and
Whereas in May of 1996, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court decided
that a Colorado constitutional amendment preventing the enactment of protections for gays
and lesbians in that State was unconstitutional; and
Whereas at the turn of the century in 2000, Vermont became the first State in the
country to legally recognize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples; and
Whereas, on June 26,2003, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in
Lawrence v. Texas, that under the 14th amendment, States could not criminalize the private,
intimate relationships of same- sex couples; and
TB 5-18-17
Page 23 of 27
Whereas, Tompkins County was one of the first counties in the State of New York to
pass a Local Law No. 6-1991, amended in its entirety in 2004 as Local Law No. 1-2004,
(commonly known as Local Law C), to protect against discrimination based on gender identity,
gender expression and sexual orientation, and
Whereas, on October 28, 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Prevention Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama; and
Whereas the bill expanded existing Federal hate crimes laws to include crimes
motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or
disability; and
Whereas, on January 4, 2010, Mayor Annise D. Parker was sworn in as Houston’s first
openly gay mayor; and
Whereas in December of 2010, Congress approved and President Obama signed the
repeal of the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” law, allowing gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve openly
in the United States Armed Forces; and
Whereas, The Marriage Equality Act passed both houses and was signed into law in
New York State on June 24, 2011, making the state the sixth in the nation to do so; and
Whereas, passing the Marriage Equality Act in New York State more than doubled the
percentage of Americans who live in states with fair marriage laws and applies to more than
42,000 same-sex couples raising 14,000 children in the state; and
Whereas, the year 2012 marked the first year that all 50 States in the United States
had at least one openly LGBTQIA elected official; and
Whereas, on January 3, 2013, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin was sworn in as the first
openly gay United States Senator; and
Whereas, on June 26, 2013, the-United States Supreme Court ruled, in United States v.
Windsor, that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional and that
the Federal Government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the
purposes of determining Federal benefits and protections; and
Whereas, on July 21, 2014, President Obama took action to protect LGBTQIA workers
by signing an Executive order prohibiting Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis
of sexual orientation or gender identity; and
Whereas, on June 8, 2015, Triathelete Chris Moiser became the first transgender
athlete to earn a spot on the United States national team; and
Whereas, on June 9, 2015, the United States military’s equal opportunity policy was
updated to protect LGBT service men and women from harassment and discrimination; and
Whereas, on June 23, 2015, New York City’s Stonewall Inn received a landmark
designation by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission so that the bar cannot be tom
down or developed without approval; and
Whereas, on June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell
v. Hodges decided by a vote of 5-4 that the 14th amendment requires all States to license
marriages between same- sex couples and to recognize all marriages that were lawfully
performed out of State; and
Whereas, on July 2015, the Equality Act was introduced on July 23,2015, by
Congressman David Cicilline with bipartisan support, as the first comprehensive civil rights
bill, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender
identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public
accommodation; and
TB 5-18-17
Page 24 of 27
Whereas, on July 17, 2015, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission rules that discrimination based on sexual orientation is “sex discrimination” as
outlined in title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and
Whereas, on October 31, 2015, the Obama administration announced that it would
approve the spouses of refugees who are approved for resettlement in the United States, even
gay spouses who come from countries where legal unions are not possible; and
Whereas, on November 10, 2015, President Obama is named Out Magazine’s “Ally of the
Year” and is the first sitting President featured on the cover of a national LGBT news and
entertainment periodical; and
Whereas, on December 21, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration shortened the
lifetime ban that was enacted in 1983 to allow some blood donations by gay men; and
Whereas in the first 10 weeks of 2016, according to a Human Rights Campaign tally,
more than 200 bills across 34 States were introduced that are considered anti-LGBT, the
threat on the civil liberties of LGBT people has increased on the State level since the Supreme
Court ruling on marriage equality; and
Whereas, on May 13, 2016, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education released
joint guidance to help provide educators the information they need to ensure that all students,
including transgender students, can attend school in an environment free from discrimination
based on sex; and
Whereas, on May 18, 2016, Eric Fanning was sworn in as the first openly gay Secretary
of the Army, marking the first time a branch of the military is led by an openly gay person; and
Whereas, we reflect on these accomplishments, and we recognize that discrimination
and exclusion continues to exist in the daily lives of LGBTQI individuals and families, and
Whereas, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) reports that 20%-
25% of homosexual people are the victims of hate crimes at some point in their lives; and
Whereas, NCAVP also reports that transgender people of color are at the most risk, with
an outrageous statistic - 79% of transgender people of color will be the victim of a hate crime
during their lives; and
Whereas, NCAVP reports, “Police response to anti-LGBT violence is extremely uneven,
with a majority of respondents saying that law enforcement was "hostile" or "indifferent" to
their claims of violence”; and now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Dryden Town Board shall memorialize these historic
accomplishments and recognize the continued struggles of the LGBTQAI community; and be it
further
Resolved, that the Dryden Town Board declares that June be declared Queer Pride
Month in the State of New York; and be it further
Resolved, that the Pride flag be raised at the Dryden Town Hall on the first day of the
month of June of every year from 2017 forward, and be lowered on the last day of the month of
June of every year from 2017 forward.
2nd Supv Leifer
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 5-18-17
Page 25 of 27
Cortland Road Sewer District – The board needs to increase the rates in the district to
reflect the Village’s increase. The board set the public hearing for May 30.
902 Dryden Road – Ray Burger explained that this project is an advanced construction
phase. They have decided they want to revise the sidewalk layout. There was a fire truck
turnaround in the original site plan that is a remnant from when 15 units were proposed. The
final project is only 10 units and the fire truck turnaround is not necessary. The Planning
Department has a letter from the fire department confirming it is not necessary. Part of
reconfiguration is removing that turnaround and bringing the sidewalks from the units out to
the front, connecting with the main sidewalk along Route 366. Because this was special use
permit the town board has jurisdiction on site plan review and needs to approve the change.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis asked that the resolution of approval reflect receipt of the letter from the fire
department.
RESOLUTION #78 (2017) – APPROVE SITE PLAN REVISIONS – 902 DRYDEN ROAD
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, the Town Board approved the special use permit and the site plan for the
townhome project at 902 Dryden Road by Resolution # 68 (2016) on March 17, 2016; and
Whereas, the applicant, Modern Living Rentals, LLC has constructed the buildings and
has submitted a revised site plan dated April 25, 2017 reconfiguring the sidewalks; and
Whereas, some sidewalks are being added to the front side of the development to
improve connectivity and appearance and some sidewalks are being deleted internal to the
development; and
Whereas, a fire truck turnaround is being deleted that is no longer needed by the fire
department; and
Whereas, the Varna Fire Department accepted the revised plan by letter dated April 28,
2017; and
Whereas, the Planning Department, having inspected the construction site, finds that
these changes improve the access to and from the individual units and recommends these
revisions; and
Whereas, the Varna Fire Department accepted the revised plan by letter dated April 28,
2017;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Town Board finds that the proposed changes are
minor and have no negative effect on the environmental impact of the townhome project, and
the Town Board hereby reaffirms its negative determination of environmental significance in
Resolution # 67 (2016) dated March 17, 2016, in accordance with the State Environmental
Quality Review Act; and
Be it further resolved that the Town Board approves the revised site plan dated April 25,
2017.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 5-18-17
Page 26 of 27
Code Enforcement Contract – The contract to provide code enforcement services for
the Village of Dryden needs to be renewed. The new contract is for one year commencing June
1, 2017, for the annual amount of $26,000 to be paid in monthly installments. This is $2,000
more annually than the previous few years.
RESOLUTION #79 (2017) – APPROVE CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CODE
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE VILLAGE OF DRYDEN
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves a contract with the Village of
Dryden to provide code enforcement services to the village for the annual sum of $26,000.00
and the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute the same.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
IV4 Services Agreement – Supv Leifer met with Matt Wagner of IV4 and discussed
about migrating everything off of servers in this building to the cloud and a Microsoft service.
Microsoft is offering some incentives. By doing this and moving everyone to Office 365 and a
one drive type service we may be able to save $400 to $600 per month. The number of
machines covered under the contract is also being reviewed and since we have fewer employees
than ten years ago that may save some money. The county is also considering hosting data
through a shared services plan for municipalities, but in the meantime we will continue
working through IV4. Supv Leifer will keep the board informed of his progress.
Recreation Reserve – There was discussion about the money pledged for the
backboards at Montgomery Park. It was noted the town has a memorandum of understanding
for use of the park. This will be reviewed by the town attorney.
Volunteer Drivers for Recreation Van – Supv Leifer said volunteer drivers would be
covered under the town’s insurance. J Davison has reached out to a couple of church leaders
for assistance in recruiting volunteers to drive people to the adult fitness courses during the
day. There’s a van driver course that people can take for a fee and that would satisfy the
insurer’s requirements that drivers be properly licensed and certified.
On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried the board moved into a
closed and executive session at 9:45 p.m. to consider the employment history of two particular
individuals and proposed litigation.
The board moved back to regular session at 10:25 p.m. and passed the following
resolution.
RESOLUTION #80 (2017) – PERMANENT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING APPOINTMENT
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby appoints Raymond Burger, from the certified
list of candidates through Tompkins County Civil Service, to the permanent position of Director
of Planning as of May 18, 2017.
2nd Cl Servoss
TB 5-18-17
Page 27 of 27
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
The board moved back into closed session for consultation with the town attorney
regarding proposed litigation. No further action was taken.
Respectfully submitted,
Erin A. Bieber
Deputy Town Clerk