HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-20 TB 2-20-20
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
February 20, 2020
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl James Skaley
Cl Kathrin Servoss, Cl Loren Sparling
Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk
Richard Young, Highway/DPW Superintendent
Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning
Jennifer Case, Bookkeeper
Supv Leifer called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Board members and audience
recited the pledge of allegiance.
TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION #41 (2020) -APPROVE MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of January 9
and January 16, 2020.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
BUDGET MODIFICATIONS
End of year (2019) budget modifications were presented to board members and
explained and discussed.
RESOLUTION #42 (2020) -APPROVE BUDGET MODIFICATIONS AND ENCUMBRANCE
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the attached budget modifications
for the fiscal year ending 2019 and an encumbrance in the amount of$16,745.30 from account
A8020.458 because the scope of work anticipated to be completed in 2019 for the
comprehensive plan is delayed until 2020.
2nd Cl Servoss
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Page 1 of 8
TB 2-20-20
Continuing Education Credits
The Director of Planning has asked the board to approve planning board training credit
for two education sessions attended by Planning Board members.
RESOLUTION #43 (2020) -APPROVE PLANNING BOARD TRAINING CREDITS
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves continuing education credits at the
rate of one credit per hour of participation for the following trainings:
9/25/19 Incremental Development by Incremental Development Alliance - 3 hour at Tompkins
County Library
11/21/19 Stream Buffer Workshop by Tompkins County Water Resources Council - 3 hour at
T.C. Center for History and Culture
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Varna Sidewalk Plan Resolution
Cl Skaley moved a resolution he has prepared and it was seconded by Cl Leifer for the
purpose of discussion. J Skaley explained this has to do with the potential project update for
Route 366 through the hamlet of Varna. The plan presently is to repave from the Ithaca city
line to Route 13. The Varna plan talks about a sidewalk and pedestrian plan. DOT seems to
want to get the paving done and then do the sidewalks (probably on one side of the road). He
wrote the resolution to encourage DOT to consider stopping the repaving around the Turkey
Hill intersection and that would allow extra funds to complete the sidewalk plan. The project
has been on TIP for a number of years. He would like to encourage DOT to rethink their
objectives and help the community appropriately develop. Sidewalks are really important for
bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Page 49 of the Varna plan talks about guidelines for main
street, sidewalks on both sides, crosswalks, etc.
Comments during discussion:
• ITCTC has nothing to do with the project other than getting the funding on the TIP.
• It's too soon; this project is in the pre-planning stages.
• It is not DOT's preference to have a sidewalk only on one side.
• There may not be space for two travel lanes, two sidewalks, bike lane and curbs.
• Road lanes must be at least 14 feet for a good travel lane.
• Some would oppose not paving the entire planned portion of the road.
• DOT has indicated they would do their best to at least put a sidewalk on the south side.
• There will be a study later this year; perhaps do this resolution after the study.
• The preference of the community should be made known.
• Water and sewer lines are deteriorating; the sidewalk can't go over them.
Page 2 of 8
TB 2-20-20
• Water/sewer lines should be replaced before paving commences.
• It is appropriate for the town to express its desires to the DOT so they are aware when
reviewing the project.
• They have that in emails.
• The TIP was originally a$400,000 sidewalk project (not much sidewalk at all). It was
amended in the TIP to $700,000 which would still likely be only one side from Forest Home
Drive to Freese Road. The sidewalk project was merged with the repaving project. That was
originally 2.1 million dollars. When the study was done for this stretch of road, they
discovered they would need two courses of paving instead of one. Now it is a 5.8 million
project, still including the sidewalks. It has been scoped out as getting the paving done
from NYSEG to the city line and getting sidewalks put through Varna. DOT will accomplish
as much as they can given the funding and the desires to have sidewalks in Varna.
• DOT talks about pedestrian safety and there are people on this road with fast cars and
there will be an accident at some point.
• Extending the paved area is counteracting the underlying premise of pedestrian safety and
traffic safety.
• The community has waited a long time for this development to occur.
• These projects are on a ranking system, and the people who speak up the loudest are the
ones who get in to the system.
• There is limited space to have two sidewalks.
• The engineer hired by the town when the plan was developed thought so.
• Four houses might have to be removed.
• The lane width could be reduced. Maybe not.
• We need realistic expectations; driveways could be removed.
• We need to express what we want before there is a plan in place.
• Reluctant to go on record endorsing something that could result in property taken by
eminent domain.
• If we never say anything, we get what DOT gives us.
• Standards have changed with the Complete Streets Act of 2011. That is a design protocol.
Lane width of state roads can be shrunk. This would be the time to ask.
• DOT is bound to follow an adopted plan as closely as possible.
• It is a 30 mph zone, but a good portion of the cars go much faster.
• They would still like a traffic light at Route 366 & Freese Road (that has been requested).
• The Varna plan should be attached to the resolution when it is sent to DOT.
The board discussed the wording of the resolution and agreed on the following.
RESOLUTION #44 (2020) - REVISED SIDEWALK PLAN FOR VARNA
Cl Skaley offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, the Varna Community Development Plan adopted in 2012 describes a
transportation goal that includes a plan for sidewalks, bike lanes and traffic calming measures
to enhance pedestrian safety and improve the character of the community, and
Whereas, the project to upgrade Rt 366 through Varna has been on the MPO TIP for a
number of years awaiting funding, and
Whereas, the project is now in early design stages, and
Whereas, Region 3 DOT has indicated a preference to use current funds to repave Rt
366 from the City Line to Rt 13 and limit the sidewalk plan in the hamlet based on available
funds, therefore, be it hereby
Page 3 of 8
TB 2-20-20
Resolved that the Town of Dryden urges Region 3 DOT to study the feasibility to revise
their planning for the Rt 366 upgrade to include sidewalks on both sides of the road,
appropriately placed pedestrian cross-walks and a bike lane and traffic calming measures as
described and laid out in the Varna Community Development Plan.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Leifer Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Varna Zoning Presentation
D Weinstein explained that the Planning Board had formed a subcommittee to examine
the discrepancy between the current zoning and the Varna plan to see if there was a way to
make the two more compatible. They produced a plan that was discussed by the Planning
Board over several meetings. There was a unanimous recommendation of proposed changes to
the Town Board. He made the same PowerPoint presentation to the Town Board on January 9
but two members were absent, so he presented it again.
Comments/Discussion:
• Every proposal seen in Varna since the new zoning has been at the maximum allowable
density.
• The proposed density is a compromise between what the Varna plan envisioned (454
bedrooms) and what the zoning would currently allow (2700 bedrooms).
• Some the proposed zones on the map have been changed since the last presentation.
• Why can't this change wait and be incorporated in the comp plan update and resulting
zoning? Experience is that the last one took a number of years. There is potential for a lot
of development in that time.
• People who care about climate change are pushing for density near destination. The new
comp plan will include climate change, sustainability and greenhouse emissions as a
component of it and may have a recommendation on where to build.
• Community character is important to the people who live there; it is reasonable to have a
modest amount of density.
• The idea of densifying a node was convincing to people when the zoning was adopted.
• Experience says we need to find a different way of getting to the goals articulated in the
Varna plan.
• State law says zoning should reflect the comprehensive plan. If the current zoning is in
conflict, it is something that should be corrected.
• That goes along with the road update and having the road improved along with sidewalks to
make a holistic community instead of the current drive-through community.
• If the board wants to go through the redline version of the document, D Weinstein will do
that with them.
• The map has been changed since it was last presented; a few lots are different.
• The highest density allowed in the Varna Plan in the residential area was 10 single-family
homes with 2 extra if they were green and 1 additional if it was a redevelopment. This
proposal is 6 plus 2 if green development.
• The community thought the hamlet could increase by 50% under the Varna Plan; the zoning
would allow an increase by four times. That is the incompatibility.
• None the scenarios anticipate a change in Hillside Acres.
• Planned Unit Developments are still allowed in the hamlet.
Page 4 of 8
TB 2-20-20
• They are spot zoning for not necessarily a good reason.
• It gives the board a tool of flexibility to deal with a new situation not envisioned.
• PUDs can end up going against the whole idea of predictability in zoning.
• The County is still falling behind in owner occupied homes.
• If you don't provide a landscape that clearly wants diversity in terms of both income and
types of housing, you'll get the most dense thing because that is what developers make the
most money from.
• There are small entrepreneurial developers who have indicated they may be interested in
building different kinds of housing, but there has not yet been a proposal.
• Ithaca Neighborhood Housing has expressed an interest in developing subsidized housing in
the Varna area, either for rent or for sale.
• The community would like a mixed type of development.
• When combining parcels you can carry the zoning 100'into the new zone.
• The plan has been presented in Varna via presentation at the Varna Community
Association, the Varna Newsletter, and the Varna list serve and people who live there are in
favor of it.
• Percentage of property owners that are aware of it is not known.
• There has been no negative feedback.
• The plan was developed in a series of charettes in Varna by the residents.
• The 12-acre parcel would be a good opportunity for a Community Housing Development
Fund project. Having a prime location like this would truly make affordable development
possible.
• There is increased interest in smaller, more unique developments.
• There is a trend to have a development approved, and then they sell the property.
• It may be a good idea to have time limits on approvals and/or that they be shovel ready.
• Varna has potential to be a really interesting development where new ideas are tried out and
the high allowable density is working against that.
Supv Leifer will forward the proposal to Atty Sokoni for review and to prepare for public
hearing. There may need to be changes after the public hearing based on comment. The
public comment can be held open as long as possible.
PROPOSED BUSINESS INTRODUCTION
983 Peruville Road
Ray Burger explained that service business will require a special use permit. He would
like to introduce it tonight and schedule for a public hearing next month. The existing building
will be remodeled inside. It is a basic site plan review. Parking will be 9 spaces out front. The
sign fits the commercial design guidelines.
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE
Bruce Brittain said he is an engineer and worked on the design of both Forest Home
single lane bridges. He has been frustrated that Freese Road bridge seems to be stalled out
and thinks the only way to move forward is if everyone bends a little. He came up with a
design that no one will be really happy with but that everyone can live with. He did not
reference any previous alternatives and did not work with any stakeholder group. This is his
design, a single lane bridge, single span, plate girders, concrete deck, trusses restored and put
on the sides, HS 20 load limit, 14'lane (any municipal/emergency vehicle can cross the
bridge). He thinks this is the way to go forward and asked board to give it some serious
consideration. (The attached was previously emailed to board members.) The information has
been provided to Doug Mills at DOT. Supv Leifer will send the updated information.
Page 5 of 8
TB 2-20-20
Cl Lamb said the board appreciates this and have discussed it with DOT and the
consultant as well. This plan is viable as one of the alternatives. It reflects one of alternatives
and more style than what was proposed. There would need to be enough space for a bicycle.
A decision would need to be made about whether the bikes are on the deck or on the
walkway. This bridge won't need flashing lights, or it could be put in provisionally without
lights and a backup plan.
Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road, thanked B Brittain for his proposal and read the
attached letter.
Martha Robertson, 1655 Ellis Hollow Road, speaking as a citizen not as a county
legislator, said she has driven the bridge many times. She agrees with everything L Snyder
read, particularly the concern about overbuilding the bridge. If the road is posted at 9 or 5
tons, then 15 tons for the bridge should be plenty. That will drive many things in terms of
what's possible in terms of historic preservation or adding a walkway. Bruce has done a great
job on his proposal but she questions why you would overbuild a bridge with so little traffic
and so modest a need. If there is no plan to build the road to an unlimited amount, an
unlimited weight on the bridge is unnecessary spending of taxpayer money. If the board will
express a clear willingness on this, then the DOT could be convinced. We don't have to go very
far to find a precedent for it.
Janet Morgan, 940 Dryden Road, commended the board on thoughtful questions and
reasonable discussion tonight. It's good to have the board working on all this stuff. She
couldn't hear the discussion of the budget modifications however and asked the board to think
about that next time. She was interested in those numbers and couldn't hear it.
Cl Lamb said Mr Brittain's plan is a replacement plan. While the old trusses will be
used, SHPO or Federal Highway may not like this plan any better than the others. He's not
saying the board won't support it, but we need to brace for negative feedback from SHPO and
Federal Highway.
D Weinstein said it eliminates the beams and stringers. The National Historic Bridge
Foundation has made a claim to SHPO that those are not part of the historic structure.
Brittain's plan will maintain the pins, which are very historic and unique, as well as the
trusses. This is a hybrid, a compromise.
M Robertson said we don't know what could be saved if you were looking at a 15-ton
bridge instead of an unlimited one.
COUNTY BRIEFING
M Robertson reported that Leslyn McBean-Clairborne has been elected as chair of the
legislature and Shawna Black is vice-chair.
The Route 13 survey is open and over 1000 people have completed the survey so far.
Comments will be accepted until February 28.
Senator Chuck Schumer visited the Veterans Services Office today and announced a
push for the VA to start recognizing four additional diseases as presumptive qualifications for
benefits for Vietnam era veterans. They are trying to raise awareness because the VA Office of
Management 8a Budget is refusing to accept those as qualified areas for benefits. Two of the six
veterans in attendance have two of the possible qualifying diseases.
Page 6 of 8
TB 2-20-20
Tuesday morning at 10:30 at the Habitat for Humanity's location at 1932 Slaterville
Road there will be an announcement welcoming the Town of Dryden as the first associate
member of Community Development Housing Fund. The town has made a $50,000
commitment to affordable housing in Tompkins County.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
R Burger has presented the board with the department's monthly report. The Planning
Board will begin review of two projects this month. One is a Dollar General store near NYSEG
on Route 13 and the other is at 19 Quarry Road where an additional storage building is
proposed.
There is one more meeting on the T-Connect service proposed by TCAT this Saturday at
the Poets Landing community room. The proposal is to use smaller buses to bring people in
from a mile radius of the village to connect to the main TCAT bus.
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
Planning Board- Cl Lamb reported the Planning Board has been discussing Varna
Auto who wants to expand their business. They were sent to the ZBA for a variance. It would
be an expansion and modernization of a local business. They have proposed moving forward
with wind law amendments. R Burger said that likely that will be done at the same time as
solar amendments. There was more discussion about the comp plan, and they are moving
forward with a public speaker series.
Conservation Board- Cl Sparling reported the Conservation Board would like Dryden
to start a program like Brighten Up Caroline where they distribute free LED light bulbs. There
was discussion about the water quality improvement project, and they would like input on
decisions being made.
RECREATION &YOUTH COMMISSION- Cl Sparling reported they talked about
Project LEAD, a summer youth employment readiness program geared toward 13 to 15-year-
old youth. They are looking to put out a call to work organizations for participation and would
like a link on the town's website.
AG Committee -received the Planning Board's comp plan presentation
Rail Trail Task Force-Also had the comp plan presentation. They are making
progress on the trestles in Game Farm section. They are halfway through the three-year
stewardship agreement with DEC and are trying to get a permanent easement. Dryden has
passed a resolution in support of a reduced speed limit on Game Farm Road and the Town of
Ithaca has just passed one. They are making progress with an easement on the VanGuard
Press property.
Climate Smart Community Task Force -Will reduce their meetings to once every
three months or so. There is a focus on getting students in the various school districts
involved in outreach.
Safety & Preparedness Committee -Janice Bretscher reported the committee has
reached out to the Tompkins County Healthy Neighborhood program and are trying to set up a
collaboration with them. They are run out of the Tompkins County Health Department and
they provide free home visits to promote safe and healthy homes. They supply carbon
monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, radon monitors, child safety products,
pest control products and such for free if there is a need. She distributed pamphlets from the
group.
Page 7 of 8
TB 2-20-20
Tony Bretscher is stepping down from the committee and Glen Hughes will be joining.
CERT Program Update -They are currently drafting the policy and procedure manual
and volunteer registration for the program. All individuals who completed the fall basic
training course who are now interested in joining the team are completing three online incident
management courses and submitting basic background checks. Of the 9 participants who are
eligible to join the team, 6 or 7 are on target to join.
They are visiting police and fire departments in town to introduce the CERT program to
them and offer assistance and get feedback on the program. It is their understanding that
CERT volunteers are considered to be good Samaritans and are covered under the town's
workers compensation at no additional cost to the town.
The next basic training course is being organized for spring and will be announced
soon.
Broadband Committee-Will be applying for USDA Connect grant in March (the
deadline was moved up from May). It could come as a partial or full loan, combination
grant/loan or full grant. The amount of money available could potentially cover the whole
project. Yates County received 10 million dollars in December for a similar plan.
Other Business
B Avery reported that there was recently a Stipulation and Consent Order in court
matter between Hanshaw Village Mobile Home Park and Tompkins County. The stipulation
agreed to a reduced assessment of$150,000 for the last six tax bills. She has computed the
amount and a voucher will be submitted for payment in March. The amount is a little over
$4,000.00.
There being no further business, the board adjourned to executive session at 8:58 p.m.
to receive advice of counsel on the matter of waivers under 900(G) of the Zoning Law. No
action was taken.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk
Page 8 of 8
F-
Lij
o
Y w
CD m }
Iy V1 z LL JO
O Q
LL
w J z V) 0 g o 0
O O w F-
LU H
x "' z o ui LU
L~ w N C O J
c U w 0 U p cm w > >
r Z w L w LL w co ca
LL
z > OJ p O w 0 0
w a w w w ~ O z z
c J Q U LG Ow 0: V) F" w w
F- z N O F- O LU Z z
a p w wO LU a
> JLnZ wO OQ
w w
>� O c z o z 0 0 0
V > 0- W Q F- z m m
w
F- w
z w W
�
O Z c O
w F_Z w � F= F-L
N LL
Li.l C7
U O
w P N O O c z � w
U J `a V W N J C7 U'
F- < LiJ > x Q w w
-� s U O O
D a Z L� w 2-5 O O
LU
O w C7 O F- ca m
M N r-I r-I O O
d; d
rH O%* r-i � d d. 00 0 O
0 0 0 0 � O O 6 C'4 C14
Ln Ln
0 rr-I rr-I r�-� �-I NO n Opi 0 a a
F- aaaa Q Q a a F- oo
N a W z >
LU V J Uj z Z U Q Z N
V w
LU
U w w Fw- w OU p N U U N w LU O
w Z w
N z N ° N F- O U in °C w N Q LL C7
F- w H v = m Z z vwi a vwi Q Y Q U m m
x F- z — OU Z U U Q U a 2 2
O w O LL Q O O w 0 w w w
U U O H > U U V) IY U 1= w tr
Ln r-I N O N M r-1 H
O"1 00 d 1* N rt � d 00 � d O-i 00
O O O O 000 0 0 0 � Ln O O O O O 0) L U dF O O LIJ
E H H m l0 M 00 N r, 'ITM N m m N 00 Z Q Z
0 r-I O 0) 1.0 I l0 W O 00 N O O m M 0 O N N
H 0) r-I r-i H ri 00 00 a) I- n r" N 0) O �F Q Q O
LL < < QaQaaQa aaQQ a z * 00 z
o,
r�
0
01 m H O O O O N In w m I, I\ m m Ln l0 l0
L r-I l0 O Ln M O O O O O N r-I O d' I� n 01 N O N
m --:I, r-1 * r-I W 0 0 0 o N of 0 ct I.D CO 0) 0) v 0) N
} 00 0) N 0) Ln O O O O w m It Ln Ln o r- m I- Ln r�
p M r-I m w r- r- O O O N m r-I N N N l0 r-I 0) 00 r 4
d N r I ri N c-I M ri lD r6 N lG) ri N O ri Ln I�
SOLL QN V V} V} V� V} i/} V? V} V} V? V� V? V? V} m 0 V} V}
a
0
H �
z Z Z z Z LU
O O O O O N
Ln
U U U U U w
Z a a 0_ a a w
Ln cn Ln N a
Ov 0 0 N w
3: a u
w Ln U w
N Q Q Q Q Q z p `"
w
Ln F- FF- F- o
� � ri0000
00 0 0 06 -10000Om
cN-i r-I � rm-I � rm-I M O O
00 Q1 0)
00 00 00 00 00 00 N N N
O Ul) 0 O vmi O V) O V) O v^i o
F- cn cn F- V) F- Ul) F- In F- in F- cn V) Ln
z z z
o 0 0
w w
V w LU w z
0 0 Z 0 z o F— F— F
g V) Ln
a s a a g o 0 0
O O co co
N z z z
V U LL U LL ca H cr F- FF-
N N N d d d d
O O O
O O O O m m co
Z E 00 00 E Ln Z E 00 E 1p E 00 E
O o N N O M O O Ln O O r O
Z Il (( Ln I1 c Ln Ln ii Z LL. N L" N U. N Z LL (n (n N
O
V) Z
i l0 Cl ON 00 r-I 00 d' Ln Cl
Hrq
n N 00 O O N am d Ln '
d M N Ln l0
fd O Ln Ln N
N m
N i-1 N M R* Ln lD
N Vy1 IAV/ �(/} N V/ N N i/} kn
H (!} h N
J W W w
f-
>z W
U LL LL LL D
Lu w 0 0
pIZ-' I- ►- ,n NNJ
Z O Z
Z LL LLJ LU LmU m
III Lu
m = z
' U � U � uw z Z w z O
O O O LnYQ QO > > Uw > > wzW w w w W QF-
_N N N O O U = f- d W J J Ca J Ca J J J O pY[ W
Z W Z Q w _Z Z Z G Z C Z Z Z w J U
Z z z J =, Z a o W O MOO M O O O O O U z
Q a Q m m w J z Q � z a Ln a w w w v N
m W m > J a 0 oc w w O w O w w w w O
F- m a U m m U m �-
6 O O O r
rl rr � ri "I r-I
M m O O O r H r-I r-I r-I N r r-I r-I
`1 d: ':T ': d: O O N 00 N N N O 6 0
00 00 00 O O CD O O N M d d r-I ri ri rH r-i r-I O O O
� Ol Ol Ol N N r-Ir-I r-Ir- r-i ri ri r-I r r-I r T-i ri M I� r-I
� Ln � :t d .t lD O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln In m r, tt
-I r-I r-I r-i r-i Ln Q Q a Q CO CO m m m CO r-I N rr-IF- V) F-- Vn �-° � f° r
- aaaaaa0000000000QaQ
z z
W w
ZO z0 > > z = _ ~ z h- z
z U U a � z Q J Q Q z 0 0
w a a w w w a W m w > U a
> Ln N W W = w = < Z O m z z z Z I-'-I Z
nm � � � � � in ON owc w0 z z a Q w
J
U U U U U U U w U_ Q Q m w O w
o_ D D
Q 0 > DF- � OHO O w w wcn �-
U w ww
cn in a a a a a U m m in Ln in in LL in a in
N d' d O
p d; It d ri ri � i d
d0 O ON d rf) co N N N N -* O O N 00 0 0 O O O N
Iy 00 00 Ly 00 O O O O O Lt1 N N Rt d r-I ri 0) ri ri r-i
Z E d E V1 z £ Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol �t r-I ri r-i r-i ri ri 0) ri ri ri mm
�t 0) 0) d d in Ln Ln Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln CO
O %- o O O H r-I r-I r-I .-i w Q Q
z LL 0 LL in z LL (n LL Q a a a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
t D CF Ln * N lD I� w M N N r-I I� d Ln m w I� N
01 00 01 ri 00 00 O 00 ch O N Ui 1.0 lD :: lD Ln I� M n N
N N O m w m N m N m m O m O w ri w d' W ri N N
lD l0 01 Tt m I- O m Ln m w N 1.0 N d* I� O M d' a) m m
O W m O m N m ri m lD I, Ln ri N ri O O q o vc v).
ri ri M 00 V"- ri d' - ' in' 01 :: 1. 4n' in' I� Lr N
en [t Ln �C N t/� t/� i/} i/} t/y N t/�
DATE: February 5, 2020
TO: Dryden Town Board
FROM: Bruce Brittain
RE: A Modest Proposal for the Freese Road Bridge BIN 3209800
I would like to make a proposal for the Freese Road Bridge project. I believe that this plan, while
not perfectly aligning with any single stakeholder group's particular viewpoint, should
nonetheless be acceptable to all affected parties. It consists of a new single-lane, single-span,
multi-girder bridge with no posted weight limit, and with the trusses restored and retained as
decorative elements in their appropriate position relative to the traveled way. In addition, a new
pedestrian walkway would be constructed outboard of one of the trusses. (This design concept is
similar to that which was successfully utilized for both of the single-lane bridges in Forest
Home.) Details are as follows:
• The bridge would be built strong enough to have no posted weight limit, and would thus be able
to support the weight of any vehicle.
• The bridge deck would have 14 ft of clear width (one 10 ft travel lane and two 2 ft
shoulders). This would satisfy NYSDOT's minimum width requirement, accommodate all
emergency and municipal vehicles, and yet still be close enough to the current width to retain
the bridge's historic appearance.
• Bridge rails would be attached to the new concrete deck, thereby providing improved support.
• The historic trusses would be restored to their original condition. Among other repairs, this
would involve removing the non-original elements that were added in 1952: outriggers, loop
rods, additional bottom chord angles, etc.
• The restored trusses would be located immediately outboard of the bridge deck, and at the
proper height relative to the top of the deck.
• The trusses would serve no structural role, supporting only themselves. However, flexible
connections between the trusses and the bridge rail posts (or bridge deck) could serve to
stabilize the trusses.
• The trusses would have expansion bearings supported by concrete pedestals at each end of the
bridge.
• At mid-span, the trusses have fixed bearings, where they are pinned to the tops of the original
central posts. These posts would, in turn, be supported by transverse beams attached to the
outer girders of the new bridge. This would put a concentrated load at mid-span, but the trusses
are surprisingly light for their size, and the bridge's new girders can simply be designed strong
enough to accommodate this static load.
• As now, the single-lane portion of the new structure would be 166 ft, the full length of the
trusses. If the span of the new bridge deck is less than this, say 140 ft, then the difference
would be accommodated by utilizing single-lane concrete approach slabs that extend to the ends
of the trusses (approximately 13 ft on each end). Thus, the concrete would begin where the
trusses begin, and end where the trusses end, giving the appearance of a concrete-decked steel-
truss bridge 166 feet long, similar to what is there now. (If desired, the joint between the
approach slabs and the concrete deck could align with the first panel point on the trusses, thus
lending further coherence to the design.)
• Utilities, such as the existing water main, would be supported under the deck, protected by the
girders.
• A new pedestrian walkway would be located outboard of one of the trusses, either on the
upstream or downstream side. This walkway could be cantilevered off the outer vehicular-
bridge girder, or it could be separate and supported by its own girders. Design of this walkway
could either be in keeping with the design of the trusses, with a wooden deck and period-correct
lattice railing, or it could be modern in design, in order to better differentiate it from the original
structure.
• Rather than traffic lights, there would be signage in accordance with MUTCD
standards. Advance warning signs would read ONE LANE BRIDGE/ 100 FT/BE
PREPARED TO STOP. At the bridge itself, the pavement would narrow in a clearly defined
manner, with Yield Lines painted across each approach lane, and signs which read YIELD /TO
ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
Please see the attached drawings:
Figure 1: Elevation and Plan
Figure 2: Elevation Detail
Figure 3: Cross-Section at Mid-Span Truss Support
Figure 4: Cross-Section with Cantilevered Walkway
Figure 5: Cross-Section with Separate Walkway
Figure 6: Signage
(Note: All cross-sections have been drawn with a 2% cross-slope, curbs and scuppers to
accommodate drainage. Other arrangements are also possible.)
Advantages of this plan include:
• New bridge, long life
• Open steel-grate deck replaced with concrete
• No weight limit, so bridge can accommodate all emergency and municipal vehicles
• Width meets NYSDOT minimum
• Removal of central pier from creek bed, for improved hydraulic performance
• Preservation of historic trusses and general appearance of original single-lane bridge
• No need for compensatory traffic calming measures on Freese Road
• Addition of safe pedestrian creek crossing, separated from vehicular traffic
• Little to no ROW acquisition necessary
• Proven safety record of bridge would be retained, and further enhanced by improved Signage
and increased strength of bridge rails and approach guiderails
I hope this design will allow the Freese Road Bridge project to move forward. Although none of
the stakeholder groups would attain 100% of what it wants with this plan, I believe that everyone
would secure that which is most important to them. The result would be a final product that
should be satisfactory to everyone.
Thank you for allowing me to weigh-in on this project. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
0
AAAA
L
Z
m
m
i
O
�0
O
O
z Z
.. O C
w 1— --�
cx < �
:) � o
vvvv - -i Z
L.LwQ
0
N
i
N
- / z
F—
O 1 I1 01
ca
Q
0 O
N
O
Z
O
o w � �
j > Q
� W �
- J UJ
ll. W 0
a
N
N
Z
Q
co
do
v0
NO
ON
O
ozc(
0
w t Q
cc
57
� O
LL v Q t-
o
N
z
lillix x x x x x x H
F-
m
m
co
O
O
I
C>
tt1
z w
x x1iff >
W
� z
LLIV) Q
� I
�„ V ,<
/ � L -i
� 0 <
.�. C� ---
LL
0
N
lilliyl,
Z
co
m
O �
N
zW
o �
L �
ti. U � �
0
N
Z
- Q
o � Zvi LD
J o � � l Cfl
H 0 CD
Z
O
N
O
W 0
Q O L CO
CL >
W
W W
O „
� �- F- S0 W
W �
aQ
LL
L L
0 Q
s
L 0 ,- 'V
CL 0
k 5� z
L" L rV
C� O co
N
0
C
0
u
to
CD
E
3
o
Q
s
cn 'E
G
CL 'e
wry
ci
wr
- -i
C t _ L. w0
20 February 2020
To: Dryden Town Board
From: Friends of the Historic Freese Road Bridge (FHFRB)
We have formed a new, larger group of residents—from Varna,throughout the Town of
Dryden, and beyond—who support the rehabilitation of the Historic Freese Road Bridge at its
current location.
Thank you for writing to Mark Frechette, NYS DOT, 2/13/2020, requesting clarification on
several key points.Thank you also for reading our letters and listening to our concerns at the
Public Information Meeting on 1/15/2020. We are grateful you wrote the DOT that you "share
our concerns" about increased traffic and speed, preserving the historic character of the bridge
to the extent possible, and safety.
We believe there are options—as yet unexamined—that could satisfy the true needs of the
Town and its residents while also preserving the character and history we treasure. The
clarifications you seek from NYS DOT on the one lane bridge options may be helpful. However,
we believe there are several questions still left unaddressed:
We believe rehabilitation to a 15-ton limit (rather than unlimited) is the best option, but it
has not even been studied. We believe such an option would:
• serve the community perfectly well, given that the road itself is posted at 5 tons (at the
intersection with Hanshaw Rd.) and 9 tons (at the intersection with Rt. 366);
• likely cost taxpayers less than overbuilding to an unlimited standard that is not needed;
• help preserve the historic integrity of the bridge as the changes required would be less
radical; and
• likely require less disturbance of Fall Creek.
Where are the data showing that the Freese Road Bridge is unsafe as one lane? Clearly, one
lane bridges function safely across NYS, most without traffic lights.The best local example is the
handsome rebuilding of the Upstream Forest Home Bridge as a one lane bridge with historic
trusses, AND a pedestrian path—even though that bridge carries more than twice the traffic
that Freese Road does.
For a straight bridge, such as the Historic Freese Road Bridge,there is no need for traffic lights,
as drivers have extended views of the bridge from either direction.The existing signage works
well. In comparison, both Forest Home bridges are much more curved and have much shorter
sight lines, yet DOT has only required signage to direct traffic through those one lane
bridges. Are the Forest Home bridges unsafe? If so, NYS DOT should provide those data as
well.
Page 2, February 19, 2020
As far as we understand,there are only two public vehicles that are too wide to cross the bridge
now: one fire truck and one snow plow. If a re-built one lane bridge were 14 feet wide, both
could cross,without an "unlimited" posting. The Friends of the Historic Freese Road Bridge
(FHFRB) question, again, why the town would spend money to overbuild this bridge?According
to the Town's own posting, the road gradient and structure do not support these two heaviest
vehicles. If the bridge is overbuilt, and larger vehicles begin using Freese Rd. as a result,the
future road maintenance costs will far surpass the costs to occasionally repaint the bridge
trusses of a rehabilitated one lane bridge.
You have asked NYS DOT for clearer direction on their requirements. We ask that you seek their
rationale for their statements, not just "clarity and confirmation" of prior statements. Given the
internal contradictions in their own policies and standards, and that exceptions can be made
and have been made, your constituents are only asking for reasonable flexibility in this case.
We have reviewed Bruce Brittain's proposal for a one lane bridge on Freese Road, including a
new pedestrian path which is much in demand. It is a comprehensive draft and we request that
Barton &Loguidice be asked to review and expand on his ideas. In prior conversations B&L has
told us that they absolutely can evaluate such options, if the Town asks them. Please do.
Finally,we want to address concerns about "congestion," if there are more nearby residents in
the future. It must be recognized that the intersection of 366 and Freese/Mt. Pleasant is the
true source of delays for travelers across that section of Dryden, not the one lane bridge.
What's needed to improve traffic flow and safety is a full traffic light at that intersection.
Making the bridge two lanes would do nothing to solve the real problems in this area.
We have observed that exceptions to NYS DOT orthodoxy can be made where there is the will
of the citizens and the support of the town boards. You certainly have understood by now that
it is the will of the citizens that the Historic Freese Road bridge be rehabilitated as a one lane
bridge. We are convinced there is a compromise to be had here, and look forward to partnering
with you to achieve it.
Thank you for your consideration S tee C k n� v�rti',4 k e
Martha Robertson Laurie Snyder
Kenneth Burkhart Will Parker
Hilary Lambert John Burger
Kim Klein Michael and Chris Kimball
Jan Morgan Christina Stark and David Weinstein
Off ee of the Supen�isor Jason A Leifer,Esq
93 E Main Streets 607/844-8888
Dryden,NY 13053 supervisor@dtyden.ny.us
February 13,2020
Mark Frechette,P.E.
Director,Planning,and Program Management
NYS DUF,Region 3
Mark.Frechette@dot.ny.gov
Dear Mr.Frechette,
This letter is to follow up on prior conversations and to formally request determinations from your agency regarding
the design of the Freese Road Bridge in Varna. The Town seeks clarity on the matters concerning the single lane
policy and posting limits. Both these issues were raised at the Public Information h4feeting(PIM)held in Varna op
January 15,2020 and our residents need more information.
It is clear that some members of the Vann Community are adamantly opposed to a two-lane bridge in place of the
existing single lane bridge. Among many things, opposition to a bwo-lane bridge is based on the belief that it will
increase traffic and/or vehicular speed. Additional opposition concerns the need to preserve the existing historic
bridge to the extent possible. The Town certainly shares these concerns. We also recognize that safety is a top
priority or your agency and that the bridge project mast conform to established criteria pertaining to safety.
We request a specific written statement confirming requirements for a new single lane bridge in Varna. We need tt)
know the exact mitigations that would be required pursuant to the BridgeNY grant program and NYSDOT policy,
We understand these to include such options as a twinning,traffic signals,or making Freese Road one-way. For
example, is traffic signaling required for a single lane bridge,and if so,would it have to be: 1)flashing red-yeIlow-
green,2)flashing yellow,or 3)flashing red style signal?
Residents have noted that the view for crossing vehicles is unobstructed and that cars can see other vehicles
approaching prior to entering the bridge lane. For this reason,some question the need for a traditional traffic light at
this location. In addition,they cite the Forest Home Bridge as an example of a one-lame bridge that does not include
a traffic signal.
The other issue that came up at the PIM concerned the posting limits of the bridge,should it be rehabilitated to a level
that permits SHPO to give a determination of no adverse impact.
We understand NYSDOT has provided direction that any bridge rehabilitation alternative shall provide capacity for
an HS-20 live Ioad truck(all members shall have an inventory rating greater than 1 for this live load). Furthermore,
the bridge would be unposted upon completion of the project. Some members of the Varna Community have requested
that the original 15 ton posting remain upon completion of the project and this contradicts the direction we have been
given from the State. We ask for your clarity and confirmation regarding this position as well.
We a reciate your attention. to this matter and willingness to provide answers to these questions. If you have
co tern about this .ques I 1 free to contact us.
Best r gards, "
as rf DD a.
ervis e 8 ervisor