HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-21TB 5-21-20
Page 1 of 13
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
May 21, 2020
Via Zoom
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl James Skaley,
Cl Kathrin Servoss, Cl Loren Sparling,
Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk
Rick Young, Highway/DPW Superintendent
Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director
Khandi Sokoni, Town Attorney
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Town Clerk
RESOLUTION #62 (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 April 9 and
April 16, 2020.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Highway Department
R Young reported they are performing usual duties while social distancing and getting
Mott Road ready for pavement. They continue to sanitize the town hall and highway facilities.
Supv Leifer asked if he planned to update the 284 agreement. R Young said he was holding off.
They have some absolute repairs that need to be done and Mott Road will be done with grant
funds. They may use stone and oil and there are a few purchases that he needs to make. He
is looking for better prices.
George Road Bridge
Cl Servoss reported that construction is proceeding well. At a meeting on June 4 they
will schedule a final walk through with DOT and the consultants during the week of June 8.
She asked board members to attend and will let them kno w when the date and time has been
set.
Planning Department
R Burger reviewed the Planning Department report (attached). The Planning Board
steering committee continues to work on the comprehensive plan update and is putting
together a mail survey.
TB 5-21-20
Page 2 of 13
The solar project at 2150 Dryden Road is ready to break ground now that construction
is opening up. When the site plan was approved in 2017 there was a tree cutting restriction
centered on the northern long-eared bat, and the window in which to do that tree cutting has
expired for this season. Since 2017 there is new data on the northern long-eared bat and the
closest habitat is in Seneca County. The applicant has secured a jurisdiction letter from US
Fish & Wildlife Service and they have concurred there is no habitat present. Applicant has
requested that the tree cutting restriction be removed so they can move forward.
Atty Sokoni said this is a minor change and was imposed erring on the side of caution.
Given the new information there are no liability concerns. There was discussion about whether
the proposed resolution waives this condition for only this year or permanently. All
construction will occur this year, so it doesn’t matter.
RESOLUTION #63 (2020) – Modifying Tree Cutting Plan for Five Large-Scale Solar Energy
Systems at 2150 Dryden Road
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. SUN8 PDC LLC received site plan approval from the Dryden Town Board on 8 -17-17 to
construct five large-scale solar energy systems at 2150 Dryden Road in Dryden, New
York, Tax Parcel #38.-1-3.1 to be subdivided into five lots, and
B. The Tree Cutting Plan presented in Drawing C-105 had a seasonal tree cutting
restriction from May 1 to August 30 on a portion of the site that was intended to protect
Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) habitat, and
C. The current owner, Dryden-Tompkins Solar II, LLC has applied for removal of this
restriction based on current data indicating no NLEB at this site and provided a
concurrence letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service dated 5 -14-20, and
D. This request is based on delays on this project due to the mandated NY State PAUSE
guidance in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic, in which construction on solar sites
was postponed as it was identified by NYS as a non -essential activity. As such, tree
cutting on the site was not able to occur prior to April 30th, and
E. TG Miller evaluated this request on behalf of the Town and confirmed that there is no
longer a need for restrictions on timing for tree cutting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board finds that the current data on NLEB habitat supports the conclusion that
the tree cutting restriction is no longer needed to protect the NLEB and approves removing this
tree cutting restriction as this change is de minimis and results in no harm.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
The Planning Department report includes an update of two projects before the Planning
Board: a Dollar General store at 1408 Dryden Road and a townhome development at 9 Freese
Road. R Burger reported that NYS DOT has confirmed funding (1.5 million in federal funds
and $345,000 in state funds) for a pedestrian bridge over Route 13 for the rail trail. The
Zoning Board of Appeals will meet June 2 for a variance on a front yard setback.
TB 5-21-20
Page 3 of 13
M Robertson thanked Joe Wilson and Alice Green for responding to her request for
more outreach on the west side of town regarding the comp plan update. A zoom meeting has
been set up for June 8.
Cl Skaley noted a letter of concern regarding the Dollar General store. He said there are
additional lands for sale nearby, and he wonders if this will start a wave of development in the
area. The Route 13 study is ongoing. He asked if a moratorium was appropriate until the
study can be completed.
R Burger explained that this is a small lot in between other businesses and will use a
shared driveway. It is a relatively low traffic business and is not adding a driveway in a
dangerous area for any traffic. There is an operating Dollar General on the north side of the
village, the Family Dollar store on Freeville Road is vacant and the old Dollar Store on Freeville
Road has been vacant for a number of years. There is also a Dollar General proposed on Route
79 in Caroline.
There was discussion about a moratorium until the Route 13 study is complete and
perhaps the comp plan is complete. J Wilson said that there have been several comments and
concerns about sprawl along Route 13 and that the zoning is inconsistent with the old comp
plan’s goal of grouping development around villages and hamlets. Increased traffic turns on
Route 13 could cause safety issues. R Burger pointed out that a development node was clearly
identified at the NYSEG area of Route 13.
Atty Sokoni said moratoriums are a legitimate tool to help prevent a municipality from
being inundated with a kind of development before you can prepare for it. They tend to be
viewed narrowly by the courts and you have to be fully aware of what the risks area.
J Wilson said that Dollar General had provided some very particular information on
traffic and when it is expected and which way it will turn. He said he wouldn’t target that
particular store, but think about the bigger issue of sprawl.
County Update
M Robertson reported that the facilities and infrastructure committee met this morning
and Jeff Smith, Highway Manager, made it clear that with the budget concerns they will be
doing minimal work (patching and urgent safety repairs). The county will be looking at how to
manage the 2020 budget and are anticipating an 11- to 18-million-dollar gap. They expect the
Governor to announce more cuts in early June.
Freese Road bridge was mentioned and J Smith confirmed that the town board had the
authority to make a request to the state and identify a preferred option.
The county is having conversations about reopening and have had several meetings
that are on the county’s YouTube site.
M Robertson emphasized the importance of the 2020 census, reporting and reporting
correctly. Related to that, redistricting is done based on census information and that is
anticipated to be late. The state has moved the petitioning schedule earlier and it will be
impossible to redistrict in time. The November 2021 election will be based on old census data.
The legislature needs to decide whether they want the next term for legislators to be shorter
and if so, it needs to be on the ballot for 2020 and voted on by the public. The government
operations committee is working on how to make it best work and not impact other elected
positions. They currently are in cycle with town elections. They will continue to have
conversations and hope that the public will weigh in. A decision will need to be made by July.
TB 5-21-20
Page 4 of 13
She noted that depending on the census count, the city could gain a seat on the legislature and
make the total number of legislators an uneven number of seats.
Citizens Privilege
None
Special Joint Commission - IAWWTF
Supv Leifer explained that the Acti-flow System Pump Replacement project will require
a public interest order and public hearing. The town’s share (1.98%) is $2,033.16. The
hearing can be scheduled for next month.
RESOLUTION #64 (2020) – ADOPT PUBLIC INTEREST ORDER IAWWTF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACTFILOW SYSTEM
Cl Skaley offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that Dryden Town Board hereby adopts the following Public Interest Order
In the Matter
of
the Proposed Improvement Project Pursuant to
Town Law §202-b for the Wastewater Treatment
Plant in the City of Ithaca serving the Town of
Dryden known as the Actiflow Capital Project
ORDER CALLING
PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a plan and proposal have been duly prepared in such manner and in such detail as
heretofore has been determined by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York,
relating to the Capital Project recommended by the Special Joint Committee (SJC) for Replacement Pumps
and Piping for the Actiflow High Rate Sand Ballasted Tertiary Treatment Phosphorus Removal System,
pursuant to Town Law § 202-b, at the Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) in the City of
Ithaca owned and managed jointly by the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden (Owners),
which wastewater treatment plant provides wastewater treatment services for the Town’s Consolidated
Sewer Districts served by such wastewater treatment plant, such improvements to be constructed and owned
by Owners, and
WHEREAS, said plan and report have been prepared by Koester Associates, Inc. and have been
filed in the office of the Town Clerk where they are available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2020, the Special Joint Committee SJC resolved to recommend to the
Owners to establish IAWWTF Capital Project 424J Replacement Pumps and Piping for the Actiflow
Tertiary Treatment Phosphorus Removal System in an amount not to exceed $102,685.00, and
WHEREAS, the SJC thereby recommended authorization of this project contingent upon action by
Owners committing their percentage of reimbursement shares to the Joint Activity Fund allocated per the
Joint Sewer Agreement as follows:
Municipality Percentage Project Cost
City of Ithaca 57.14 $58,674.21
TB 5-21-20
Page 5 of 13
Town of Ithaca 40.88 $41,977.63
Town of Dryden 1.98 $2,033.16
=============
TOTAL: $102,685.00
=============
WHEREAS, the IAWTTF serves the Town of Dryden Consolidated Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, the maximum proposed to be expended for the improvements is $102,685.00 of which
Town of Dryden’s share is $2,033.16, with the proposed method of payment being that the Town will
reimburse the City of Ithaca for the former’s share pursuant to a contract between the Town and the City of
Ithaca. The Town will not issue or co-issue any bonds but pay its share of expenses from sewer rents and
charges from the Consolidated Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, due to the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of the State of New York
has authorized municipalities to conduct certain public hearings and meetings by virtual means in order to
ensure the public health and safety, be it now
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, Tompkins
County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. A public hearing is scheduled for June 11, 2020 at 6:05 PM via Zoom, to determine
whether it is in the public interest to approve a Capital Project for Replacement Pumps and Piping for the
Actiflow High Rate Sand Ballasted Tertiary Treatment Phosphorus Removal System at IAWWTF, as
recommended by the SJC. Access details for the Zoom meeting shall be posted on the Town of Dryden
website at www.dryden.ny.us 24 hours prior to the date of the hearing. In addition to participation in the
public hearing via Zoom, all members of the public wishing to submit written comments on this proposal
may do so in writing addressed to the Town Clerk at 93 East Main Street, Ithaca, NY 13053 or by email to
townclerk@dryden.ny.us
Section 2. The Town Clerk of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to cause a
copy of this order to be published once in the Ithaca Journal and also to post a copy on the Town website
and notice boards not less than 10 nor more than 20 days before the date of the hearing.
Section 3. This order shall take effect immediately.
2nd Supv Leifer
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Supv Leifer reported that at the SJC meeting yesterday th ey discussed the possibility of
granting an easement to a development. He will keep the board advised of the situation.
Susan Brock has submitted an engagement letter for legal services for the commission and he
asked the board for authority to execute t hat document on behalf of the town.
RESOLUTION #65 (2020) – AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE ENGAGEMENT
LETTER FOR LEGAL SERVICES (S BROCK FOR SJC)
Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
TB 5-21-20
Page 6 of 13
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute,
on behalf of the town, an engagement letter for legal services for the Special Joint Commission
with Susan Brock dated January 6, 2020.
2nd Cl Skaley
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Varna Water/Sewer Improvements
The Board discussed the process for applying to the Environmental Facilities
Corporation for improvement/replacement of the water sewer infrastructure in Varna. Bond
counsel has prepared resolutions to set public hearings for the water ($3,021,956) and sewer
($5,358,570) projects to begin the process for bonding.
RESOLUTION #66 (2020) – SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
IMPROVEMENT OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN CONSOLIDATED SEWER DISTRICT
FACILITIES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden (the "Town") proposes to undertake
the acquisition, construction and installation of improvements to the Town of Dryden
Consolidated Sewer District sanitary sewer system including, but not limited to, the replacement
or rehabilitation of sewer mains, manholes, pump stations and other facilities, and the
acquisition of machinery, equipment or apparatus required in con nection therewith, at a
maximum estimated cost of $5,358,570; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board now desires to call a public hearing regarding the acquisition,
construction and installation of the Town of Dryden Consolidated Sewer District improvements,
as required by Town Law Section 202-b;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board will hold a public hearing to
hear all persons interested in the improvement of the Town of Dryden Consolidated Sewer District
facilities, which public hearing shall be held via Zoom in the Town of Dryden on June 18, 2020,
at 6:10 p.m. (link to be posted the town’s website -dryden.ny.us – prior to the meeting); and be
it further
RESOLVED, and ordered that the Town Clerk give notice of such hearing by publishing
in the official Town newspaper the Notice of Public Hearing in substantially the form attached
hereto and by posting the Notice of Public Hearing on the Town's official sign -board not less than
ten nor more than twenty days before such hearing.
2nd Cl Skaley
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 5-21-20
Page 7 of 13
RESOLUTION #67 (2020) - SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING IMPROVEMENT OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN
CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT FACILITIES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden (the "Town") proposes to undertake
the acquisition, construction and installation of improvements to the Town of Dryden
Consolidated Water District water distribution system including, but not limited to, the
replacement of water mains, valves, hydrants and other facilities, and the acquisition of
machinery, equipment or apparatus required in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated
cost of $3,021,956; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board now desires to call a public hearing regarding the acquisition,
construction and installation of the Town of Dryden Consolidated Water District improvements,
as required by Town Law Section 202-b;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board will hold a public hearing to
hear all persons interested in the improvement of the Town of Dryden Consolidated Water District
facilities, which public hearing shall be held via Zoom in the Town of Dryden on June 18, 2020,
at 6:10 p.m. (link to be posted the to wn’s website -dryden.ny.us – prior to the meeting); and be
it further
RESOLVED, and ordered that the Town Clerk give notice of such hearing by publishing
in the official Town newspaper the Notice of Public Hearing in substantially the form attached
hereto and by posting the Notice of Public Hearing on the Town's official sign-board not less than
ten nor more than twenty days before such hearing.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Community Garden
The town has been providing space for a community garden near the town hall since
2010 and at that time signed a lease agreement with the Dryden Community Garden
Association. The group provides a certificate of liability insurance to the town. The town does
not manage the property but has assisted with repair of the fence. Supv Leifer would like to
execute a new lease with the same terms and asked the board to authorize him to execute that.
RESOLUTION #68 (2020) – AUTHORIZE USE FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor prepare and
execute a new lease with the Dryden Community Garden Association for a one-year term, to
renew annually, and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute the same.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sparling Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
TB 5-21-20
Page 8 of 13
Cl Skaley Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Varna Zoning Proposal
The board has received a memo from the town attorney on the Varna zoning proposal
prepared by the Planning Board. Supv Leifer asked for public comment on this matter.
Buzz Dolph said he owns fifty percent of 5 and 9 Freese Road and they are under
contract to sell that property to Maifly Development. Maifly has submitted plans for
development that are under review by the Planning Board. He thinks that lowering density in
Varna would be a huge mistake. He believes it is in the best interest of the town overall and is
in the best interest of the planet to put density where people work, where there is public
transportation, sewer and water. He can’t think of a better place in Tompkins County than
Varna. He tried with Tiny Timbers to provide homes at an affordable price for owner occupied
housing. It took three years to get all the necessary approvals and during that time he was
building houses in other places. Unfortunately, he didn’t make any money with the Tiny
Timbers project. If people believe that home ownership in Varna is an option, they should
rethink that. Construction of new homes other than people buying a few acres in the country
and putting in a septic and putting in a modular and things of that sort isn’t happening. No
one is developing and the reason is that it is to difficult to make it happen and make a profit.
He believes the best thing for Varna, if there ever is to be any change, is to begin to embrace
development in a way that would provide what people in the township would like to see. He is
not a big fan of Trinitas. He thinks they are taking the only green space in Varna and painting
it with townhouses. He believes there should be a corridor of high density, 3 -4 story buildings,
business on the bottom and apartments above, parking behind or underneath. To lower
density is keeping in its current condition because no one will be able to come in and do it at a
profitable level. There hasn’t been a lot that has happened in Varna in the last 75 years and it
will continue to stay that way. The town needs to rethink how the town embraces developers
and tries to work with developers. He doesn’t know if anyone has told Trinitas what the town
would like to see. Developers are not the enemy. Things don’t get built without development.
The city has done a pretty good job of creating a thriving downtown and making it more robust
every day. Single family houses – it doesn’t happen, certainly in the city. In 2018 there were
500 building permits for apartments in the city of Ithaca. For the previ ous 15 years there has
been an average of 2 single-family owner-occupied houses, and he believes 95% of those were
INHS. You can’t build small houses inexpensively and make money. So, you have to start
looking at other types of development.
Charles Geisler, 517 Ellis Hollow Creek Road – read the following statement:
I will address the Maifly discussion underway in Varna (3 pts & some comments--)
a. There’s more than one way to design and build Maifly.
b. There is useful thinking in the 2005 CP that can anchor our housing thinking (we should go back
to it).
c. To ignore cluster subdivisions, which is a family of options, has negative consequences not just
for open space, which the 2005 Plan sought, but negative climate consequences (an impetus for 20/40
Comp Plan).
Expanded Comments
TB 5-21-20
Page 9 of 13
a. “More than one way to design and build Maifly.” Analogy--cake making and consulting different
cookbooks. Do same here: one “cookbook” is The New Urbanism cookbook; another is the Cluster
Subdivision cookbook; another is the INHS integrated housing cookbook; and there are more. We have
the luxury now to study & discuss multiple recipes and bake them into the housing section of new Comp
Plan.
b. “What’s really useful in 2005 CP thinking?”
i. Overall housing goal (p. 34): “Provide for a variety of affordable, high-quality housing options for
all town residents.”
ii. Insightful coverage of cluster subdivision—has much in common with New Urbanism.
iii. Warning about overreliance on student rental housing; some is okay but don’t ruin the recipe!
(p. 53 or 54., I think)
c. “Don’t ignore the 2005 cluster subdivision housing solution to affordability”: there are
greenhouse gas consequences of not doing this. Many thousands of people employed in Ithaca now
commute to Cortland or Homer, or Truxton and burn fossil fuels to do it. Transportation is the #1 source
of greenhouse gases. Heating, cooling, and electrifying detached houses add to cost and
(un)affordability—these are next largest sources of greenhouse gases in the US. From a greenhouse gas
standpoint, cluster subdivisions have appeal.
A FINAL THOUGHT: 2005 CP repeatedly calls for balance—in housing types, design, unit numbers, and
even affordability options. Balance is the rubric we should carry forward to new Comp Plan.
David Weinstein, 51 Freese Road, said the reason the Planning Board created the
proposed modifications for zoning in Varna is because the people of Varna worked hard on a
community plan that would set guidelines and goals for they community that they felt would
create a better community that they would want to keep living in. That was done in 2012 and
was approved by the Town Board as part of the comprehensive plan. The Varna Plan specified
an increase of about 450 bedrooms, that would about double the community that ex isted in
2012. That was pretty generous of the community. Unfortunately, the zoning that was created
from that would increase the potential density in Varna about six times what the people of
Varna said was reasonable. That was a real dilemma. Clearly t he zoning was out of compliance
with the goals of the comprehensive plan, which is not something a town is supposed to do.
The Planning Board created a new zoning that reduced densities. They were also overly
generous and said they couldn’t keep to the 450 bedrooms, but said it was reasonable to go to
something like 1200 bedrooms. So, a lot increase but not nearly what the current zoning has.
He believes this is a much better recipe to create what the people of Varna said they wanted: to
remain a largely rural environment that had greater density but compromised in allow some
greater density but keeping some of the character of the community as it exists now. For that
reason, this modification of the zoning not only makes sense, but would get the town zoning in
line with the comprehensive plan, which is a necessity as far as state law goes.
Judy Pierpont said the main reason she has been in favor of reducing density and
bringing it into compliance with the Varna plan is there doesn’t seem to be another way to
constrain the kinds of development like Trinitas the current plan for Maifly except by doing
that. She is extremely in favor of the kinds of development that was suggested in the 2005
comprehensive plan with more planned and clustered development s with various kinds of
housing that would be more green in the way they have densities created. She also wouldn’t be
TB 5-21-20
Page 10 of 13
adverse to greater densities in parts of Varna if the town had a way of making the kinds of
development that the Varna people and Dryden people have said they wanted in the
comprehensive plan. Developers come along and they want to do a kind of inappropriate
student-housing-type development. There doesn’t seem to be a way in the current zoning to
force them to do the kinds of projects that the comprehensive plans have said is the kind of
development we want. They have deliberately said that they don’t want to become a student
housing center, so how else besides controlling the density can the town work toward the kinds
of developments we’ve said we wanted and keep the student housing at bay because that’s kind
of development that’s wanted. And as Buzz said it would destroy that beautiful green hillside.
She would like to see that left as open space and prefer a greater density along the road if that
can happen. She doesn’t if the town has the ability in the current zoning to do that or how
that can be done.
J Pierrepont’s letter sent to the Planning Board:
I have been following your efforts at revising the Varna zoning law to bring it into compliance with the
Varna Plan/ Dryden Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical undertaking as well as a legally necessary
one. Thank you for doing this work so deliberately and carefully. I am glad that it is finally coming to
fruition and would like to see both the Planning Board and Town Board pass the new law as soon as
possible.
Of course, like other Dryden residents, I would have liked to see the new law passed a while ago --before
the Trinitas and Maifly projects came before the Planning Board. It would have given much clearer
guidance to these developers. But I do not see why the consensus of the PB should not govern any
decisions on site plans and permits starting from now, this May 28 meeting. If passing the new zoning
has been held up for technicalities and wording, that should not change the principle according to which
present zoning decisions are made. I urge you to abide by the density and housing type specifications
put forth in the new law in any consideration you give to pending site plans. Better yet, take up the
remaining zoning law issues to ready it for Town Board approval while putting off any consideration of
projects whose outcome is made ambiguous by the future of the zoning law. Holding off seems sensible
to me; passing on any plans that would soon stand in violation of the zoning law and the Comp Plan
would be counter to the whole purpose of the law, the Plan, and all the work that you have done to bring
about a rational and consistent set of documents.
In general, I am in favor of concentrating housing in village and hamlet centers for the benefits of
transport hubs and preservation of green space. The Town and County do need appropriate and
affordable housing for people who work in the area. I favor also the principle of cluster zoning to create
livable community groupings with surrounding green space. But it seems to me that these principles,
although embodied in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, have not been achievable through zoning. Thus,
absent some way of incentivizing or enforcing the kind of grouped housing for working people and
families that Varna has said it would like to have, it seems that zoning by density of housing type and
numbers of beds is the only way to discourage massive developments of rental units designed mostly for
Cornell students. The huge numbers of student rental units proposed by Trinitas and Maifly would
overwhelm the balanced residential character of Varna, exactly what the Varna Plan and the new zoning
law are designed to prevent. Passing on either of these two projects would sadly, and permantenly,
undermine all the efforts to preserve the character of Varna and to build within appropriate constraints.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Martha Robertson said there really needs to be some kind of balance and she hopes we
can find more opportunities for housing in Varna for reasons mentioned by Buzz and Chuck.
We are still seeing trouble finding places that are the right location and not contributing to
sprawl. We need opportunities for people to live here and not drive through Varna from
somewhere else. It is a problem that the comp plan and zoning don’t match up and however
TB 5-21-20
Page 11 of 13
that is sorted out, it’s important. As far as affordable housing, INHS can construct housing
that’s affordable to moderate income folks because they pull in different kinds of subsidies
from different kinds of places that enable the homes to be either rented or sold at lower prices.
They still have to pay similar prices for labor, material and land that made it impossible for
Buzz to do the right thing as a private business. They are a great developer and are very
entrepreneurial and very interested in the Varna area. On the other hand, Buzz has a
particular piece of land and she doesn’t know that INHS is in a position to offer…. It’s a private
business here and it isn’t right to try to micromanage what happens on a specific parcel. INHS
is very interested in Varna and a year ago talked about the Trinitas parcel, so if there’s an
opportunity there hopefully it can be pursued. Who knows what the current economy is going
to do for that proposal? It’s hard to micromanage and the goal really is to try to find a balance
so that housing can be brought into the town and Varna is a great place for it so she would
encourage that to be the attitude here.
Joe Wilson said if you read the comp plan with regard to the villages and hamlets and
Varna in particular, there are drawings and maps that show a mixed -use, multi-story
development for apartments or townhouses for Buzz’s Tiny Timbers area, but that leaves the
lower area as green space. That sounds a lot like the kind of thing that Chuck was talking
about and it certainly conforms very specifically to what the Varna plan anticipated because it
is laid out in great detail.
Cl Skaley said one of the things that is not happening in current proposals is creating a
diversity of structures that people can choose to live in. Buzz is probably correct in that it may
have to have some kind of subsidized situation and that is why he’s been involved with INHS
about this and they are interested in coming to Varna. There are several structures that could
be rehabilitated and made into more appropriate housing instead of being torn down and
creating something that is out of character to the rest of the community. One of the thin gs in
the SEQR is determining whether the project relates to the character of the community. In the
case of Trinitas, the Planning Board clearly said it did not work. In this case, the proposed
zoning still increases the density. So it’s not just a question of density, it’s also a question of
different kinds of living spaces for people to buy into. He hopes we can work more with local
developers and that is the case with Maifly. Trinitas has gone around the country to college
towns and plopped down big projects in residential areas, the latest one in Ann Arbor. Ann
Arbor didn’t feel the project was appropriate but hadn’t changed their zoning to not allow it.
In 2010-2012 there was a large amount of participation by community members and
businesses in the area and that is how the Varna plan got developed. Do developers decide on
the community structure or does the community decide what kind of development to choose?
There is case law that if zoning does not conform to the comprehensive plan, it can be
challenged. This proposal provides more guidance in the type of community fabric that the
citizens and residents of the Varna area have asked for.
Cl Skaley said he believes developers would still choose to come to Varna and do the
kind of development that does not create a disproportionate community feel. Hopefully with
the upgrade of the Route 366 paving and adding sidewalks and crosswalks we can create a
community where people can move about that may also promote some small business in the
area. The new urbanized perspective is that you create a multitude of opportunities.
Atty Sokoni said the proposal originally came from the Planning Board. She has
cautioned about certain aspects of it. It can be sent back to the Planning Board for
clarification or move forward with the process. For example, the definition of redevelopment
has been removed, but the concept is referred to throughout the law. The qualifier “rental” was
removed. Supv Leifer suggested they ask the Planning Board for comment on removal of the
definition of redevelopment. They meet next week. At the agenda meeting June, the Town
TB 5-21-20
Page 12 of 13
Board could discuss whether should be any changes to the proposal. Cl Skaley noted the
attorney had made minor edits. The Planning Board had not so ught legal counsel.
Comments/discussion:
• Remove the new definition section; there should only be one.
• To limit types of uses if they are rental is a substantive change and legally not proper.
• Final language needs to be agreed on before introduction and a hearing.
• The Planning Board can be asked to clarify the redevelopment question.
• The board has the version prepared by the Planning Board and the version as edited by
Atty Sokoni.
• They will move forward with the version as edited by Atty Sokoni.
• The Planning Board will be asked to address the questions with respect to removal of the
definition of development.
• Town Board members have not had adequate time to review the document and materials.
• The intent of the Planning Board was to get rid of the redevelopment bonus.
• The dictionary definition of redevelopment will be fine for other purposes in the zoning law.
• The redevelopment bonus was there for a reason.
• In the current instance, there used to be a house on the property that was plowed under
some years ago.
• Something buried below is not a current, existing improvement.
• A bonus is given because we want land redeveloped; if it isn’t in good order, why not
redevelopment.
• We want to incentivize that kind of work.
• It seems erratic to do it in this case.
• The Planning Board has struck redevelopment bonus. Do they want to red efine it or get rid
if throughout Article 7?
• The language will be clarified in June and a hearing scheduled by July.
• Applying redevelopment across parcels is also a problem.
• Is it better to give bonuses for the green development we’d like to see than bonuses for
redevelopment?
• It is likely the areas will be altered anyway, then the question is how it should look and
what kind of density.
The Planning Board will review the document as edited by Atty Sokoni and provide
feedback. The Town Board will finalize language at the June 11 meeting.
Advisory Board Updates
Broadband Committee - One member of the committee has resigned and replaced by
Karl Kolesnikoff. The Reconnect grant has been submitted and the committee is investigating
another grant opportunity. A December announcement is expected for the Reconnect grant.
There needs to be support from outside the town before taxpayer money is spent. Some
phases may not be covered by the Reconnect grant, but it seems essential to get that grant.
The committee spent a lot of time determining how to structure the timeline and get financial
support.
Rail Trail Task Force – Supv Leifer is working with the Town of Ithaca and the County
about the Game Farm Road crossing. The Multi-modal funds have been obligated ($345,000).
TB 5-21-20
Page 13 of 13
Climate Smart Task Force – Supv Leifer and Alice Green have been working to fill in the
loose ends on the LED streetlight project. Work should commence soon on the EV charging
station now that construction has opened up.
Safety & Preparedness Committee – Supv Leifer said the town should look into the plan
presented by Nina Saeli.
Planning Board – No report.
Conservation Board – Has not met.
Zoning Board of Appeals – Will hold a hearing June 2 for the first time this year.
Ag Advisory Committee – Has not met.
Recreation & Youth Commission – Cl Sparling applauds Marty Conger who has been
fielding calls from parents on the summer camps, wh ich have now been cancelled. She’s
handled things on her own for the past month or month and a half. It looks there will be
virtual programs this summer by the library and others. Dryden is partnering with Groton to
have outdoor films. The summer music series is still a possibility. There is some hope for fun.
Cl Servoss presented a resolution for consideration on the Freese Road Bridge. She had
a conversation with DOT regarding the deletion of a statement in the resolution of April 16.
Removal of language regarding the need to improve the bridge infrastructure is concerning and
they would like to see a version of that brought back. The proposal adds a bullet point: Need
to Improve Bridge Infrastructure to provide a safe, unposted, crossing over Fall Creek. It does not refer
to one or two lanes. According to the state it should refer to safe and unposted.
Cl Lamb said he felt safe deleting that because the statement was clear on the posting
and the one lane policy and the need for traffic signaling. At this point it doesn’t really matter
and is clear what we are looking for. He doesn’t think it will affect how DOT responds to the
project.
After discussion, no action was taken on the proposed amendment.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk