Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-23 PB 9-23-21 TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD MEETING September 23, 2021 Zoom Hybrid Meeting Present: John Kiefer, Chair, Craig Anderson,Tony Salerno, Daniel Bussmann, Joe Wilson, Alice Green (alternate),Simon St Laurent(alternate) Absent: Linda Wagenet Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Dan Lamb and Loren Sparling(Town Board) Craig Schutt(Conservation Board) Chair John Kiefer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and thanked Tony Salerno for chairing the August meeting. Public Comment Joe Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, said he is passionate about the things he talks about and sometimes he is tough on people. One of the people he has been tough on is Alice Green, and he wants to say that what happened Monday night at the Rail Trail Task Force meeting was reprehensible. The meeting was zoom bombed. No one on any board should be subjected to what she went through. He referenced an email from A Green to Planning Board members regarding talking with C Anderson about personal attacks and technical points he had raised. A Green said she followed through with that, saying she was saddened by C Anderson's email. J Osmeloski asked for a copy of the note, and she said she would provide it to him. Pat Foote, 614 Lake Road,thanked the Planning Board for talking about the safety concerns on the rail trail and what is happening near Hanson Aggregates. He lives on the trail, and he played a large role in getting the trail through the William George Agency. They as an agency took safety measures, making sure they had gates in place so when they moved equipment from one side to the other trail users would be safe. He is concerned about Hanson with trail going close there. There is ten acres of property that they own and if we put a trail through and they want to expand in the future, it may be a real problem. They moved there because of safety issues. He thanked the board for talking about it and looking at it closely because he thinks it is important. William George Agency was careful when the trail came through their property to make sure safety was taken care of. He thanked the board again for bringing it up and talking about it publicly. Craig Schutt said last month he brought up concerns about the screening around the solar arrays near the cemetery and asked if it had been followed up on. R Burger said the owners have been contacted and they are putting together an analysis of what the deficiencies are and what they will do to remedy them. He expects a report for the town board before the October meeting. D Bussmann noted that if the owner is going to implement changes,there is a short window left to plant this year. Page 1 of 13 PB 9-23-21 Coordination with Town Board Dan Lamb reported they have put out some feelers to the community about filling the current board vacancy and have not had any success yet. Planning Board members can do outreach also or make suggestions. It is good that we have alternates in the meantime. Craig Anderson said Steve Foote has had an application in for quite a while. D Lamb said we need a deadline, and they will put it in the town newsletter. They will make a good faith effort to advertise and look at who was interested in the past, including seeing if Steve Foote is still interested. The Town Board is going into budget season and will be taking into consideration the request from the Planning Board for more resources for the Planning Department. Approval of Minutes Alternates A Green and S St Laurent were given voting privileges. July 22, 2021—C Anderson asked that the email from NYSERDA be added to the minutes. August 26, 2021—Approval moved by T Salerno, seconded by C Anderson—all in favor Mill Creek Subdivision R Burger recapped that the Mill Creek Subdivision was approved a couple of years ago. It has 20 restrictive covenants listed on the plat, including one where any building must occur in designated area. This was done to protect the wetlands. The applicants and owners of Lot 40 would like to move the designated building envelope on the lot to another location that they have identified as a dry area they would prefer as a building site. The plat is now before the Planning Board for amendment. This is the start of the process, because the Planning Board and all the lot owners are parties to this restrictive covenant. The action for the board tonight is sketch plan approval,the first of three steps. The property owner then needs approval from all the other property owners and if that happens, then the Planning Board can approve modification of the plat. A similar process was used to amend the plat for the Blue Bird Subdivision. J Kiefer said one set of drawings was a sketch showing four different wetland delineations illustrating that their proposed modification stays away from the wetland delineations. It seems they are honoring the concept when the plat was approved to keep construction activity out of the wetlands. Questions and Comments: All other property owners would need to provide written approval? Yes. Significance of DEC approval letter? That the SWPPP amendment has been accepted by Dave Gasper, head of the stormwater program at DEC. The SWPPP accounts for a longer driveway and an impervious surface in that back corner. Page 2 of 13 PB 9-23-21 A short form EAF has been provided and the Planning Board can do a SEAR on this specific action or simply a concurrence that the original SEAR still applies. In the past the Planning Board has approved a sketch plan and the SEAR review before final plan approval. RESOLUTION #10(2021)—APPROVE SKETCH PLAN—MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION PLAT MODIFICATION C Anderson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED,that this Planning Board hereby accepts the sketch plan presented for modification of the designated building area on Lot 40 in the Mill Creek Subdivision. 2"d T Salerno—all in favor Scottie's Auto Repair Shop 2171 Dryden Road Scottie's Auto Repair Shop has a special use permit application before the Town Board next month. R Burger said Scottie's Auto is operating under a special use permit from a couple of decades ago. It envisioned a small enterprise with 15 cars parked on the lot and it has since expanded greatly. They are coming back to amend that special use permit. They have purchased the lot to the east and intend to put a 26-lot parking area there to move the extra cars to. They will take their present two driveways and consolidate them into one. The westernmost driveway would be explicitly tied to the residence next door and there would be no connection between the private residence and the business. The parking lot on the adjacent lot would be accessed internal to their shop property with another driveway established to the new lot. This is a special use permit amendment with a fairly significant amendment to the site plan. The Town Board will take this up at a public hearing on October 21, so they are looking for recommendations from the Planning Board. J Kiefer said the property is in the mixed-use commercial district and the auto repair shop requires a special use permit. There have been some violations on the lot related to the vehicles stored there, and this is the applicant attempting to fix the problem. This would be a modification of the site and essentially clean it up. C Anderson said he drew the map for Scottie. The parking is on a separate lot. He is allowed ten parking spaces in front for an auto repair place and two spaces for every three employees (another 13- 14 spaces). There is parking for 50 cars. The thing that will be difficult is how to close out the second driveway to the house. The idea is to reduce the width to 10' and put a chain across it. The applicant is meeting with Casella to relocate the dumpster. There was discussion about how best to restrict use of the driveway to the house. Ten feet is narrow, and people will still try to use it. There should be some mechanism to delineate that driveway entrance and separate it so that it can't be used by customers of the business. White plastic chain was suggested with a small sign. Screening—There are some new plantings on the plan in front of the new parking area, not close to the entrance because it is wet in there. The application states 15'juniper or eastern red cedar. 15' may be excessive. Page 3 of 13 PB 9-23-21 The goal is to get parking just in front of the building, nothing out front closer to the road. All cars to be moved to the back. There could be a condition that autos are only to be parked in spaces shown on drawing. The plan will accommodate the number of cars currently on site. Cars that are waiting for parts will go in the long-term parking and the daily cars will be up front. J Kiefer noted that it is pretty clear in Section 901 that vehicles stored on property in the town need to be registered and inspected, and if not inspected need to be demonstrated as operable. Applicant claims the vehicles are all registered. The SUP approval should state that, and proof should be required that they are in fact registered and an inspection or statement from the owner that the vehicles operate. Recommendations to Town Board: • That there be some sort of access control for the second driveway(plastic chain, barricade, cones). • That the screening and planting plan is adequate to screen vehicles • That cars only park in spaces on the plan • That cars there now (at the time of application and/or approval) be documented as registered and operating status/inspection. 2 Pros Construction 450 Cortland Road This property is in the rural ag district, is a contractor yard that requires a special use permit. They have placed a container modified into an office along Route 13 which was not part of their site plan. They are now asking that it be included in the site plan. The zoning law does allow for outdoor displays and this is a demonstration of a product that they are selling. Zoning law will allow for outdoor displays with screening from highways. They have planted six bushes so there is a partial screening from the highway. C Anderson said he is concerned with public access. It appears the railings are not complete in the pictures. D Bussmann said this is clearly a marketing effort. How does it compare to signage regulations? • It has a banner on it. • It functions as a second sign which is allowed in the district and is under the square footage. • Display is an allowed use in the district. • Steps, railings and signate need to meet code. • Does it meet design guidelines? Outdoor display is mentioned, but there are no restrictions or guidelines on size or placement. • Commercial guidelines, rural corridor character area would apply, and it says metal sheds or buildings are discouraged. • There is no landscaping around the building, along the sides or under the deck. • We could request more landscaping. • We had asked that their sign be a monument sign, and the one on the structure is not that. • One way to make the structure better would be to remove the banner from the sign, or mount it in a better way. Page 4 of 13 PB 9-23-21 Recommendations to Town Board: • That code enforcement officers are comfortable with the building being a publicly accessed facility. • That it meets the signage code. The Planning Board is not impressed with the current approach to the signage. • Improve landscaping on site, so you don't see under the building/deck. Safety Concerns& Economic Impact the Proposed Rail Trail May Have on Hall Road and Pinckney Businesses J Kiefer said he is interested in what people have to say about this, but wants to make it clear that the Planning Board has had very little to do with the rail trail. Three or four years ago they passed a resolution in support of the rail trail, but since then it has not been on their agenda. The Planning Board has no approvals associated with the rail trail. He understands that people are pleased they are taking the topic up and hoping they will pass an opinion along to the Town Board. He wants it clear that the Planning Board has no decisions to make associated with the rail trail project. T Salerno said at the last meeting several members of the public asked the Planning Board to address. Dan Lamb said while the Planning Board doesn't have a direct involvement, they can take it upon themselves to make recommendations to the Town Board. C Anderson said he spoke as an individual at the Town Board about safety concerns that he didn't think were being addressed. J Osmeloski said some people are curious as to why the Planning Board wasn't asked to weigh in on this when this the Planning Board's main function is land use and obviously land use questions will come up. He thinks the Planning Board should have been involved from the beginning is curious why the Planning Board was never asked by the Town Board to weigh in. He thinks it is a mistake. J Kiefer asked if there were any business owners present who have a business in the commercial park. There were not. He asked if anyone present who lives adjacent to or are familiar with the area. There were not. Public Comment: Pat Foote said he think it is important to think hard about safety in an industrial park. We don't want people that own land there now thinking that someday they are going to develop and find out later they can't because of the trail.They already own the ten acres. It seems like a problem, and it seems like a viable solution to go around it. He is hoping the board will consider the safety issue. Craig Schutt said he spoke at the last Town Board meeting and brought along the Cornell Design Connect Trail Plan from 2015. In it,there are concerns about that area because it is an industrial area, and they came up with alternatives to go around it as a safer and better route. It appears that plan has been neglected, and no one has paid much attention to it. The cement company applied for a permit to build two different times and were rejected because it was not a compatible use for safety issues. Finally,they were allowed at the current location. If the trail was there first, he is sure they wouldn't have been allowed to build because of safety. Suddenly it is ok to put a trail where the company is Page 5 of 13 PB 9-23-21 doing business. Why now put a trail where they are? It is a problem. It appears that the trail will be right next to the driveway at Hanson. Big trucks are in and out of there many times a day. They are moving right along to get up the hill to Route 13 and they can't stop quickly. There will be pedestrians, kids, and bicyclist and it could be dangerous and needs to be looked at closer before any decisions are made. Then there is the bridge issue. If the trail went around Hanson and down along Fall Creek and crossed there,the whole bridge issue would go away. There are several things to be considered. Jolene Lyon read the attached statement. Paula Ann Parker, 50-year resident of town of Dryden, read and presented the attached statement and information regarding the economic impact on businesses in the industrial park. Shirley Lyon said she is quite familiar with construction sites, and they owned Gold Sport Cycle, so they are familiar with tractor trailer trucks delivering. She's seen the difficulty in turning and with their blind spots they requested assistance to get out of the driveway. She has contacted Mike McAllister at Hanson and they have moved the matter to their legal arena. She talked with Duke's safety division and they are requesting all recordings and letters and she will supply those. They have never been contacted by the RTTF concerning any safety measures. Hanson has about 80 daily trips with possible expansion. They have a road count of about 900 cars in 2015. They are concerned with visibility with their trucks waiting to exit and proximity of the rail trail. She distributed drawings of scenarios to the board and explained the line-of-sight issues. Duke is extremely upset and said it would increase their liability. Once the bridge is opened on both sides you have what he referred to as an ant path. They will exit and go up Hall Road to either go to the store or come down 366. He said they have been operating safely, but unfortunately some of the customers that pick up equipment are not the best drivers with their trailers. Sending bikes and curious kids would through there would definitely increase their liability. When Lyons sold land to 84 Lumber,they sent a scout out who for 30 days looked into road trips, zoning, and other things. She doesn't know if someone in the future looking at that industrial section would say they want to relocate there because it drives up their liability. There are three representatives of these companies that are not happy. They have requested all recordings. They mentioned something called attractive nuisance. Under New York State law,for children 17 and under, if you put up no trespassing signs and they still go by and get in construction sites,the owner is liable. It doesn't work with children. The only way to mitigate it is to fence in all their equipment and hire more people. This will impact the economics of the industrial zone. She was told as soon as they receive the information from her, he will be writing a letter to the Town Board, cc-ing the Planning Department, with his displeasure about what is going on. Different individuals in the legal department referred to negligence, ordinary negligence, and gross negligence. They are wondering if the board is totally aware of what is going on. She doesn't know who would want to move there when we are taking a part of business land with eminent domain and now we're driving up their liability and increasing their safety problems. They were also a little upset because they (in the industrial area) were never surveyed or contacted for their input by anyone. Mike McAllister said that about a year ago someone stopped in and talked about the Page 6 of 13 PB 9-23-21 trail, but never talked about any problems. They thought it had gone away and they had no idea what was going on in the township. Jerry Lyon said they owned Gold Sport Cycle for 43 years and were very careful with who test drove motorcycles. They knew their customers well. One thing they did when they test drove the bikes was find out where they were going and told them where not to go. They were told not to go on the section of Pinckney Road where Saunders (now Hanson) is because of the stuff on the road. The road became slippery. They never had a customer who had a failure on a test drive. Two months ago he got angry with the Rail Trail people after hearing how much work they've done. He has little confidence in the work done by the Rail Trail Task Force; it is not complete. Safety was a main concern in their business, and they had no failures. It baffles him why the Town Board did not ask the Planning Board to look at the safety issues on these roads, especially Pinckney Road. When they first opened,they had customers from Etna that would test drive motorcycles and come to their shop using along Fall Creek to Pinckney Road. There was a trail by the creek in the later 70's. Who is in charge of safety? That is one of your responsibilities and for the most part the Planning Board does a good job. But if you haven't been asked to look at the safety issues,where are we? Where does the liability fall? For safety on motorcycles, like bicycles, people need to be aware of their surroundings. He and his wife bicycle the Schug Trail and they have been passed by bicyclists that went across, never stopped and hardly look both ways. If that happens on Pinckney Road with the concrete trucks and large amount of traffic,the road conditions from the crap on the tires of the concrete trucks.... He hopes the board will consider looking at this because he has no faith that the rail trail people have looked at anything to do with safety. Did they look at the important stuff first? He doubts it. He hopes the Planning Board would consider taking a harder look at this for the liability that could be on the table for people's lives that could be harmed by this. He never lost a customer because they had a problem in their service shop. Their customers were their family,and he thinks the board should take a hard look at the safety issues on this rail trail. Planning Board member comments: A Green said as a volunteer on the Rail Trail Task Force for the last 5.5 years, she has worked with team of folks who are dedicated, and they are all volunteers. It's really quite possible that they need help from the public to look at all of the aspects of safety across the entire 10.5 miles of the trail. There are more than twenty crossings across the entire trail. She appreciates the incredible amount of work that has done been by the public who have spoken to examine this question to keep our citizens safe,to keep our businesses in good shape. They certainly don't want to do anything that would harm business and certainly don't want to do anything that would endanger users of the trail. The issues raised are real and important. Some who came to the RTTF meeting Monday night had a chance to hear from John Lampman, a Dryden resident, who is a 30-year highway traffic engineer. He has helped them with some safety plans for crossings, most recently on the crossing at Game Farm. On Monday night he explained the results of his site visit at Pinckney Rd and made some recommendations for mitigations, some of which were already included in the agreement that was made with Hanson Aggregates: a vegetative barrier that would make clear the pathways of the rail trail versus the driveway, cutting some vegetation in certain places, adding stop signs, adding flashing lights. In his professional, a local resident who knows it very well, it was not a particularly dangerous intersection with the mitigations he was professionally recommending. Hanson Aggregates gave an easement for the rail trail several years ago and it has been Page 7 of 13 PB 9-23-21 filed in the courthouse. They had the opportunity to put the rail trail easement agreement that the town provided through their legal department and consider the implications of the trail coming through and they approved it. She thinks that one of the reasons that it was approved was that the town already has an easement for utilities along that trail. To answer the question of what if they wished to develop along that corridor sometime in the future,the town has the utility easements and those preclude development. No property owner in the entire length of the 10.5 miles of the trail,the property was conveyed from the Lehigh Valley Road, has been able to develop those particular parts of the corridor. She wants to assure people that safety is important;that they have contacted experts. She would recommend that if town Planning Board decides to weigh in,that they make a site visit. She thinks it is important to look at the entire 66' corridor that Hanson provided an easement for, and then look at the mitigations recommended by the highway professional. She would welcome recommendations to make it safer. In terms of impact on the businesses there,there probably was an oversight on not contacting all the businesses there. As volunteers their emphasis was really on getting in touch with those folks that were directly impacted by the trail and could provide them with easements. But as we move forward, it makes sense for the rail trail to have further conversations with folks there. There are a couple of businesses (the climbing wall,the batting box) there that are recreation related businesses. These old rail trails historically go through industrial corridors (that's how the railroads operated) so there are precedents for rail trails being created near industrial areas. In many places it is an advantage. Folks that might want to come to the climbing wall, would be able to commute on a bicycle. Folks that might be working in the business that replaces VanGuard Press, would have a built-in recreation corridor for lunch break recreation. So it's a recreational trail, a multi-use trail and a commuting trail. In many communities, proximity to a light industrial area of a trail is an advantage for developers. She won't deny that there will need to be some coordination and real attention to the safety issues there, but she thinks the vision of the town for the last two decades has been to follow the old railroad corridor and develop to the advantage of the new transportation way that it will create. They also talked about the alternative route at the RTTF meeting, and will make public the RTTF's assessment of the feasibility of the alternate route that has been presented. In a systematic way the members of the task force have spelled out why they did not pursue that alternative early in the history of the trail. Their hope is that they can create a safe trail,taking into consideration many of the issues that have been made. They want the industrial park area to be enhanced as a result of having this new multi-use trail as a resource for our town. An audience member said that his understanding was that Saunders gave the easement prior to Hanson's purchase. The easement as signed by Hanson Aggregates in 2018 was produced. C Anderson said he believes there are safety concerns. Hall Road has no sidewalks, no bike paths; it is a narrow street shaped like a question mark. There are a lot of bends, a lot of blind spots for someone walking or biking on the road. People will exit on Hall Woods Road and jump on Hall Road to go to the Plantation Inn if they rebuild or go to the gas station for water. It will happen and he doesn't know how to mitigate that. The same with Pinckney Road. If you look at the concrete plant, it is dangerous there. Up until now he hadn't heard anyone on the RTTF say it is a problem. A Green is the first to acknowledge there is a problem and he thanked her for that. There is an economic loss to Page 8 of 13 PB 9-23-21 Hanson. He understands they have ten acres of property that they want to expand on. What will the Town Board do when they come for a special permit to expand the business? He recalled when someone on Cricket Lane wanted to open a full-time auto mechanic shop and they were turned down because of safety concerns. They were dealing with 20 cars a day and 2 trucks. Now we're dealing with 80 trucks and 1000 cars. There are safety concerns and economic concerns. People have invested in Dryden in that industrial area, and we are not looking out for them. That's an issue. Someone will say your insurance is going up and the next person might say you might have to put in a sidewalk or help us pay for a sidewalk. He thinks the Planning Board should look into it. We owe it to the town to do that. D Bussmann said that the attractive nuisance law does impact businesses. It is really important if the trail goes through the area that those concerns are mitigated; that it balances with reducing risk to a certain degree for Hanson. They have an existing condition right now where it is still valid, but a lot less likely that it could be a problem. If you have young teenagers and kids,the situation was summed up really well because that's what they do. If you can't mitigate that as well as the traffic concerns, it is probably not a good location. He appreciates that the RTTF did consult a traffic engineer.A lot of times they can solve issues. J Kiefer said he understands there are mitigation measures proposed. S St Laurent said this is kind of in his neighborhood and he has spent a fair amount of time at Campbell meadow. His family rides Lower Creek Road and Pinckney Road at least once a week and frequently more often. He has lived for 21 years in the zone where the concrete trucks are most dangerous. He lives on Route 366 where they are roaring by with often too much speed, and no one really seems to care about that. He has seen concrete trucks on Pinckney Road, and they are battling the hill, but they aren't moving that fast. They really can't. There is a stop sign at 13 anyway and while they are supposed to stop there,they usually do. He's up for a better plan, but has yet to see one. It doesn't sound like going under the bridge, especially with a detour along 13 is a great plan for a variety of reasons. Listening to this, he is delighted that people are growing in their concern about diesel exhaust and particles, but again,that is his life on 366 and people seem oblivious to that, so he isn't sure why it suddenly matters in this location. He is extra puzzled that people don't think a sign will keep people away from a concrete plant, which is a kind of obvious dangerous zone, but at the same time they think a sign will keep people from taking a massive shortcut across Route 13. He doesn't think the Planning Board needs to be consulted here. He doesn't find the concerns particularly convincing. He thinks they are addressable and that they are extremely selective concerns. He is not impressed. J Wilson—The Planning Board as a whole has not been involved in this. Most members are not as informed as the rail trail group or the concerned citizens about the details of the issues at hand and which may have been faced by the rail trail group. He has no prejudgment on any of this. He thanked the group that presented today, except that the personal attacks on honesty and integrity and competence were not used as reasons for the Planning Board to be involved. He commended those addressing issues rather than personalities. Safety, economic impact, and tonight's health concerns are all complex issues. They are not easily decided in 45 minutes of listening to one another tonight or when the issue of the Planning Board's involvement was raised about a month ago. He doesn't see them being resolved tonight. We haven't heard the rail trail group respond to various issues raised here. He would like to hear about their thinking, research, rationale, and what experts they may have involved on these issues that have now been raised. Or they may say they didn't think of something, or in that precise way. He thinks the Planning Board, before it weighs in, needs to find out what kind of process, effort, research, and Page 9 of 13 PB 9-23-21 knowledge has been accumulated by the rail trail group over its five-year operation before deciding to weigh in. He thinks the Planning Board is being asked to update the comp plan to change the proposed route of the rail trail. That is a considerable undertaking. If the Planning Board is going to recommend to Town Board to change the proposed route, it needs to be folded into the comp plan update process. For all those reasons he doesn't think the board can collectively make a reasonable or competent or well-informed decision on the merits of the concerns raised. He thinks this board should first hear from the rail trail group as to what they have done on the face of the issues raised. He is not familiar with the area in question and would want to see that. He thinks all Planning Board members should be invited to do that and see it together. Then he would be willing to say whether the Planning Board has something new and constructive to offer to what has been raised by either the people who have raised the concerns or the rail trail group who have done the work they have done. T Salerno said when you look at it all, and because they are working on the comp plan update and he has looked at the 2005 comp plan,the route that has been proposed for this trail has been reviewed by Planning Boards in the past. The plan had this route in it, and the light industrial park was there. A lot of this came up at the last meeting and he appreciates the things that were brought up and it made him think about some things. Since then, he has been looking at the Rails to Trails Conservancy information and how other municipalities deal with these rail trails and where they run. He is finding that a lot of the trails go through industrial areas because that is where the railbeds were. There is one in Lysander that goes right across the driveway of a concrete facility, a completely grade level trail intersection, and he could see what they did to mitigate that crossing. He looked at the ways the trails cross busy streets and how they mitigate traffic issues and all those things. He doesn't have a great concern about the route of the trail as it is proposed. He agrees there are safety issues and that there are things that need to be done to be sure it is safe for all. Something needs to be looked at for the way the trail meets Hanson's driveway and the road and the way the trail crosses. Through the last weeks he has looked at few hundred miles of trails around the country, and he appreciates the insurance information because he thinks there are legitimate concerns there. He also doesn't have an issue with the Town Board not asking the Planning Board for input because that is what they have the rail trail committee for. The Town Board made the decision to put that in the hands of that committee. Some members of the Planning Board have been a part of Rail Trail Task Force at various times. As a member, he is happy to look at this if the Planning Board decides that they should put forth some recommendations to the Town Board. But he is not upset that Town Board did not ask them. If he wants to know what is going on with the rail trail, he reads their minutes and is on their mailing list. He is familiar with the area of concern and did visit the site and looked at where the trail will go along the edge of the industrial park and how it goes in the middle when you get near Hanson. He likes the idea of a site visit. He appreciates the efforts of the Rail Trail Task Force. Yes,there are safety concerns and if the decision is to make recommendations,that is okay. He noted we are already seeing a mix of recreational use in that light industrial area. Is that an issue? He doesn't know. He also looked at Duke's property and it is already fenced in. S Lyon said the trailering of equipment in and out of that area that is a concern. T Salerno noted it is already a mix of uses. Page 10 of 13 PB 9-23-21 He appreciates the input and if the public wants the Planning Board to look at it, he doesn't have a problem with that, but doesn't think it is the role of the Planning Board to second guess the RTTF or the Town Board. They can pass on the concerns the public has. Jerry Lyon said it seems we are missing something. The RTTF has done a lot of work and a lot of people are focused on the bridge and a lot of people are focused on the safety. He is probably one of the few people who knows what is down along Fall Creek to the Route 13 bridge where there is already an underpass. It is beautiful there. Look at the advantages for the community of what that has to offer. How can we alleviate this safety issue? How can we alleviate this enormous expense of the bridge? He is not saying it may not someday be needed, but who is going to use it? How is our community going to be able to use it and get the value out of this? A lot of people don't know what has been done, and he's heard about how much work has been done, and he's sure it has. But do we know how people want to use this? Look at the educational opportunity for kids. The last time he was there he saw two big herons. The educational ability of having it closer to the stream and more visually pleasant compared to going through the industrial park... He still wants to know who is going to use it. What are the advantages of this rail trail going through the industrial park to the proposed pedestrian bridge? We need to slow down and look at what is the advantage for the residents of Dryden. It seems to him that the RTTF has been operating in a bit of a bubble. When you look at what the good is for the community, he thinks we should step back and take Joe's suggestion that we take a look at this and what advantages are for more people to be able to use it, and make it an opportunity for more people in the community, not just a handful of people that will ride their bicycles back and forth. He questions how much of that they will do. He tends to look at the financials of things like this. Maybe someday that bridge will be needed, but he doesn't believe it has been looked at strongly enough. They could have been looking at the bigger group of people that could take advantage of putting the rail trail along the stream. J Kiefer said while the Planning Board has not specifically been asked to comment on the trail, it has come up from time to time. We've had a few new businesses move into the industrial area. As part of the site plan approval the board asked them if they would have an easement go by their property. He never heard anyone say there was a problem with a business going into the industrial park. C Anderson noted one business was not required to put a sidewalk out front if they gave the town an easement. J Kiefer said there was no concern that it reduced the value of the property or other issues. His point is that this hasn't come up to the board in work they've done where the trail has been mentioned. He said he walks on the trail just about every day and he sees situations like we are talking about in other places. The trail goes through the Village of Dryden and there is a car repair place and a sewer plant there. The examples talked about here are not unique. They exist all along the trail. He does think the concrete plant entrance concern is convincing. It needs a well thought through plan. Kids may come off the trail and look for ways to get to the convenient store. That is a legitimate point and an important one. The question tonight is do we see a role for the Planning Board. He is not upset that Town Board chose to use the RTTF and not use the Planning Board. He thinks the RTTF has thought about a lot and welcomes input. The topics tonight are new things to talk about. They are legitimate, important things but it is not clear to him they are Planning Board things to talk about. He will leave that to the board and if they want to visit the site or ask experts to come in and talk to the board. He asked for responses. Page 11 of 13 PB 9-23-21 A Green said she has always valued the input of the Planning Board. The more eyes on the safety issues the better. Someone from the RTTF can talk about the safety mitigation measures that have been discussed here or a rail trail meeting can be the venue. And Planning Board members can give input at RTTF meetings. She is neutral. C Anderson thinks the Planning Board should look into it more. He has been trying to get some questions answered and would like to invite someone from the RTTF to come to a meeting. D Bussmann would have appreciated the Town Board asking for Planning Board input. He would like to hear directly from the RTTF about what steps have been taken and the thought process.Yes, add it to the Planning Board agenda. Joe Wilson would like to hear about the RTTF's process of addressing the issues,whether they see new issues raised by public input and if so, how they will address them. He would like it added to the agenda. He does not think there was any reason for the Town Board to ask for Planning Board input when they have the RTTF. S St Laurent does not see a need to ask the RTTF to a meeting. Safety concerns are relevant to the Planning Board, but how many boards do you want to tie up with this conservation? He has already proposed some board time for discussion of future trails and said that we should have consultation from a variety of boards. The RTTF was formed for a reason, and it was not to put more work on the Planning Board's plate. T Salerno commented that is good that things were discussed here and is not sure if we have more to do than summarize the concerns and pass them on to the RTTF and Town Board. The Planning Board could come up with resolution that says certain things should be addressed in the plan, but he doesn't believe this board should come up with a resolution that supports one plan or another. If people want to keep talking about it, he is willing to do that and pass along findings to the Town Board and RTTF. Yes, at least one more meeting to address questions others on the board might have. J Kiefer said knowing how busy the board is, he would say no to more discussion of it. They've heard interesting things and there are other folks to think about this. Based on comments from board members,there will be another session a month from now to hear from experts on the topic and then decide if this is something the board feels compelled to follow up on with a resolution to the Town Board. C Anderson suggested that members forward any questions they have in advance of the meeting. J Kiefer will collect requests for items members want to hear about. T Salerno suggested that the RTTF review the Planning Board minutes. J Osmeloski asked that the public get as much notice as possible on who presenters will be so that people can prepare questions. Comp plan update—J Kiefer said he and R Burger have their biweekly meeting with the consultant on Tuesday and there is a zoom meeting with this group on Wednesday, September 29, at 6:00 p.m. Page 12 of 13 PB 9-23-21 1279 Dryden Road—R Burger reported that R Wawak(who made a presentation to this board in the spring) is ready to bring a revised site plan back to the board in October or November. This is a multi-family project requiring a special use permit and the Planning Board will provide recommendations to the Town Board. It was suggested that sidewalks might be appropriate, but ditches on the site may make that difficult. Stretch Code—C Anderson asked for an update. R Burger reported it was adopted as a local law effective September 1. They have recognized that the ventilation requirement in the stretch code is in conflict with the uniform code, so the code enforcement officers are following the uniform code. The local law was filed with the Secretary of State and the Code Council. We have a local law that is in effect, stretch code is in effect in the town and the ventilation requirements are not being enforced because of the conflict. There is a study going on right now to see if there are other conflicts. When a list of conflicts has been prepared, R Burger is hoping that we can move forward with a clean adoption, including a public hearing, of the stretch code minus any sections that were in conflict. Hopshire-C Anderson asked if it was too late to ask Hopshire to consider a new site plan. They use the parking lot across the street, and he suggested there might be a sidewalk from the new parking lot being constructed to a point where people would cross Route 13 to access the parking lot at Covenant Love. • The primary reason for expanding the parking lot was to not have cars park on Route 13 or people walking along Route 13. • There will be events where even the additional parking will not be enough. • There is an approved site plan in place to act on. • Someone could ask if they would consider this suggestion. • DOT would have to be involved because of crossing the drainage ditch. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery Page 13 of 13 September 23rd, 2021 Planning Board: I'm here to speak about the Rail Trail Task Force's intention of sending pedestrians through a light industrial zone. Last month we covered the dangers of sending pedestrians those on foot,bikes, e-bikes, gyro-boards, and horses—near a cement facility and the heavy trucks they use. Having been informed of those dangers,the Town will be held liable should the obvious dangers come to pass. Recently you received a copy of the Rail-Trails&Liability report from the National Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. This is the guidebook all Rail Trail Committees must operate by, and it spells out in detail what a town will be held liable for and what Rail Trail Committees must watch out for, such as dangerous crossings like the one we have on Pinckney. Perhaps less obvious is the attraction a light industrial zone holds for our youngest trail users. As a child,who hasn't seen a towering mountain of stone and wished to climb it? Or,as a teenager,perhaps the pull of a little mischief proves too great to resist. Irregardless of signage that points out obvious danger or private property,children will be children. By sending these young trail users through an area zoned for light industrial use,we are subjecting these neighboring businesses,who have been appropriately located,to massive increases in their liability insurance. By mixing recreation with light industrial use,we are not acting in accordance with our own zoning laws nor are we being good neighbors to those who have invested in our community. I want to close by urging each one of you to carefully review the Rail Trails&Liability Report that was sent to your mailbox. Although it has been said that the planning board's input is not needed regarding this project, I think it very clearly falls under your purview. Jolene M. Lyon Town of Dryden Planning Board Evaluating The Economic Impact on Businesses And The Safety of Trail Users On The Planned Rail Trail Crossing Through the Hall Road Industrial Park September 23, 2021 Good Evening, I'm not here to talk about the pedestrian bridge or the alternate trail route. I'm here to talk about the rail trail crossing through the Hall Road Industrial Park, the economic impact on businesses anrd thA safety of trail users Ld l 1 L I ,V " V L V , %A N I 1. This is a complex topic and 3 minutes isn't sufficient to delve into all the ramifications, so I will be providing supporting documentation for you. For 30 years I was a Risk Manager with International and National insurance carriers as a General Liability Specialist. My responsibilities were to visit our insureds to confirm and evaluate the exposures to loss and I would assess the controls in place to mitigate hazards that could negatively affect their bottom-line profitability and insurability with us. Exposures to loss are inherit within and inseparable from the operation. For example, Hanson concrete trucks have to go over the road and the exposure can't be changed or it affects their operation. An Underwriter accepts the exposure when providing the policy coverage. Exposures are directly relate to premium. An uncontrr�Ilerr�l exposure iS When there iS no Way to reduce or eliminate the risk - a business operating by a volcano. AhazarrJ can cal ise a loess malt® it more likely to occur or make u %A %_1LA VCdU %, CA ♦7 Uf\L I I. I I I 1I lam V Vl.i 1 f\V it worse. Example is a fallen tree on the trail where users would try to climb over it and be injured. The tree can be removed and the hazard is mitigated. I've included a sample recommendation of what an insured needs to do to mitigate the hazard. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE I The Underwriter & I would decide if the exposures were controlled and the hazards mitigated sufficiently to prevent a loss. The uncontrolled exposure might be excluded from the policy meaning that the business owner would have no coverage for a claim and would be liable from the 1st dollar. Coverage vvould continue or the policy 'would be non-re newed or occasionally short cancelled. There is no way for the Task Force to mitigate the uncontrolled exposure of trail users in the park. Each current & future business will have the uncontrolled exposure evaluated by their own GL carrier. The GL premium is most likely to increase and impact the bottom-line profitability of the busi Iess. Uncontrolled exposures to Rail Trail users are present in the Hall Road Industrial Park: o Airborne Concrete o Traffic Particulates o Attractive Nuisances o Diesel Exhaust o Vacant Properties o Noise o and more. ... o Heavy Equipment To use the one example of diesel exhaust, the majority of vehicles in the Industrial Park are heavy trucks which typically run on diesel fuel. It is common practice to leave trucks idling_ while loading or unloading. Wind drift can PXnr)Qp trail umerc to diesel filmes causing discomfort or illness and the subsequent claim for harm to their health. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE Prevailing winds are from north and west. The trail is south of the largest operation. Trail users could be subject to diesel exhaust which has a distinct odor. People freak out over smells from industries. They could see visible carbon particles wafting over them (soot). They can submit a claim wanting monetary compensation for their physical and emotional Harm. if a rhilrl is involved, the drama increases. The personal injury lawyers are ready to help! In this situation, Underwriters will note that there is an uncontrolled exposure, that more people could submit claims and the General Liability policy should be cancelled. The next insurance carrier would protect themselves by increasing the premium to cover uncontrolled exposures, incurred losses and potential claims. It �� a vi.��(:o��� c',cle that is almost impossible for a business to recover from. GL rating periods last 10 years, so a claim follows a business for up to 10 years before it drops off the current policy year premium calculation. Just because there is no financial award or settlement of a claim, there are always defense costs factored in premium calculation. Insurance premiums and claims history impact the profitability of a business. It is not unheard-of for businesses to fold over high insurance costs. This could be the scenario for current and future businesses in Hall Road Industrial Park. Note - The previously listed exposures to loss are discussed in the attached supplemental information. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 3 SUMMARY: So, there is an uncontrolled exposure to the businesses in the Park from trail users, and I here is an uncontrolled exposure to the Trail users from the business operations in the Park. ?When was a Risk Assessment done by the Rail Trail Task Force? A document published last week and the feasibility assessment published by the Rail Trail Task Force on Monday, September 20, 2021 does NOT address the safety of the rail trail users in the Industrial Park or the economic impact to established and future businesses in the Park. You can't change the operations of the businesses to eliminate risks to trail users, And you can't mitigate the financial impact of the Trail on the businesses in the Park, But you can completely avoid the consequences to everyone by relocating the trail away from the middle of the Industrial Park Which is the more palatable solution for attracting and 11 Keeping businesses in the Town of Dryden T" You, I a Park irw Retired Risk Manager C.-lel al Lifabllltl.y %..'tJ aIIJt *The T/O Dryden mandates who must operate only within the Industrial Park DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PACE 4 AIRBORNE CONCRETE PARTICULATES: https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2020/08/19/houston-air- ollution- breathe-concrete-plants-TCEO 909 n,A Tuo Sep}I 9900x� AbDut Mt. It's hard to breathe with a concrete plant in your backyard rt 1 https://www.eDa.ciov/enforcemenVicement-manufacturing_enforcement- initiative nealUl and Eri-v1IU111ne11Lal 1J11ects o Cement Plant Emissions Cement plants area significant source of sulfur dioxide,nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, which are associated with the following health and environmental impacts; • Nitrogen oxide(NOJ can cause or contribute to a variety of health problems and adverse environmental impacts,such as ground-level ozone,acid rain,global warming,water quality deterioration,and visual impairment.Affected populations include children,people with lung diseases such as asthma,and exposure to these conditions can cause damage to lung tissue for people who work or exercise outside. • Sulfur dioxide(S02)in high concentrations can affect breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease.Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema,children,and the elderly.SOz is also a primary contributor to acid deposition,or acid rain. • Carbon monoxide(CO)can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissues,as well as adverse effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems.CO also contributes to the formation of smog(ground-level ozone),which can cause respiratory problems. Particulate utter is linked to serious heaitn` conditions, including reduced lung development in children, higher rates of asthma, bronchitis, heart disease and cancer. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 5 EXHAUST The majority of vehicles in the Industrial Park are heavy trucks which typically run on diesel fuel. It is common practice to leave trucks idling while loading or unloading. Wind drift can expose trail users to diesel fumes causing discomfort or illness and the subsequent claim for harm to their health. Mount Selik(f f Centers fir Sinai Occupational Health Diesel Exhaust Exposure What is diesel exhaust? - Diesel exhaust(DE)is a mixture of :bny particles that is emitted by the engines of diesel-powered trucks.buses.cars.trains.and boats.DE is also emitted by off-road dic that power agnCultuial.maintenance.and construction equipment,such as trxtors. �rv�ijir'u, .nd g?ifii aio",ihi.27 .(„��� .,r i t n., ��,ni t.�Xin% - - DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 6 DIESEL EXHAUST (cont): 61 www.osha.gov Q U DUNITED STATES RTMENT OF LABOR OSHA MENU Safety and Health Topics Diesel Exhaust Diesel Exhaust 9R4 Overview Standards Diesel engines provide power to many types of equipment used in a large number of industries,including transportation,mining,construction, Hazard Recognition agriculture,as well as many manufacturing operations.Occupations with potential exposure to DE/DPM include miners,construction workers,heavy Evaluating Exposure equipment operators,bridge and tunnel workers,railroad workers,oil and gas workers,loading dock workers,truck drivers,material handling operators, Control Measures farmworkers,long-shoring workers,and auto,truck and bus maintenance garage workers. Additional Diesel exhaust is a mixture of gases and particulates produced during the Resources combustion of diesel fuel.The very small particles are known as diesel particulate matter(DPM),which consists primarily of solid elemental carbon (EC)cores with organic carbon(OC)compounds adhered to the surfaces.The Workers'Rights organic carbon includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons(PAH),some of which cause cancer when tested in animals.Workers exposed to diesel exhaust face the risk of health effects ranging from irritation of the eyes and nose, headaches and nausea,to respiratory disease and lung cancer. Standards OSHA has not established a standard for diesel exhaust as a unique hazard,however exposures to various components of diesel exhaust are addressed in specific OSHA standards for general industry and maritime. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 7 NOISE: Probably the most unexpected noise exposure would be at the concrete plant. Again, people freak at the supposed harm to themselves when exposed to loud noises. The duration and the decibel level would not be sufficient to cause a hearing loss, but that would not stop someone from submitting a claim. Difficult to disprove, so likely the claim would be paid and again, increasing the commercial insurance costs to the business. C Y www.epa.gov What is Noise Pollution? The traditional definition of noise is"unwanted or disturbing sound".Sound becomes unwanted when it either interferes with normal activities such as sleeping,conversation,or disrupts or diminishes one's quality of life.The fact that you can't see,taste or smell it may help explain why it has not received as much attention as other types of pollution,such as air pollution,or water pollution.The air around us is constantly filled with sounds,yet most of us would probably not say we are surrounded by noise. Though for some,the persistent and escalating sources of sound can often be considered an annoyance.This"annoyance"can have major consequences,primarily to one's overall health. Health Effects Noise pollution adversely affects the lives of millions of people. Studies have shown that there are direct links between noise and health. Problems related to noise include stress related illnesses,high blood pressure,speech interference,hearing loss,sleep disruption,and lost productivity.Noise Induced Hearing Loss(NIHL)is the most common and often discussed health effect,but research has shown that exposure to constant or high levels of noise can cause countless adverse health affects. Learn more about the health effects: The Noise Effects Handbook 0+,Office of Noise Abatement and Control,US EPA,1981 Noise and Its Effects.-t±by Or.Alice H.Suter,Administrative Conference of the United States,November 1991 Protection from Noise Individuals can take many steps to protect themselves from the harmful effects of noise pollution.If people must be around loud sounds,they can protect their ears with hearing protection(e.g.,earplugs or ear muffs).There are various strategies for combating noise in your home,school,workplace,and the community. Learn more about noise pollution prevention: Noise Pollution Cleannehouse& i he Role of EPA Under the Clean Air Act,the EPA administrator established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control(ONAC) to carry out investigations and studies on noise and its effect on the public health and welfare.Through ONAC,the EPA coordinated all Federal noise control activities,but in 1981 the Administration conclu noise issues were best handled at the State and local level.As.,result,ONAC was closed and p..... responsibility of addressing noise issues was transferred to State and local governments.- overnments.However,EPA- f Q DRYDEN PLANT\TING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 8 HEAVY EQUIPMENT: Heavy equipment backing up to load or unload may not see a pedestrian or biker. An audible backup beeper may not be heard as many Trail users could be wearing headphones or earbuds. Many heavy-duty vehicles are not equipped with back-up cameras. This scenario is a likely fatality. vh`il6s auxin the Most Backover Fatalities 200 - .1.� Trailer V ri k ppL.; Forkittt car �gp Triink . 20 Pick-up Truck 16 E OSHA Integrated Managenient infornititier'] DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 9 HEAVY EQUIPMENT (cont): 1;,f^ THE CONSTRUCTION CHART BOOK - -- � \ RESEARCH AMU TRAINING Fatalities Involving Vehicles, Heavy Equipment, and Road Construction Vehicles and mobile heavy equipment were a major source of Among fatalities involving vehicles and heavy equip- fatalities in construction,resulting in 7.681 deaths tiont 19C2 to ncnt it road construction sites, most were workers on foot or 2010, about 404 deaths annually (chart 46a).' Following the non-passengers uifo were struck by vehicles or heavy equipment - injury trend in construction,the number of such deaths reached in the work zone or passing vehicles that entered the work zone. 470 in 2O06 and dropped to 271 in 2010.However.vehicles and Front 2008 to 2010, the percentage of such deaths at road con- equipment hverc not ahyays listed as "cause of death" in these struction sites was more than[out-times that of other construction 1:Ilfatalities,(;IUscts q(deattU are 4ategOr(,t_'(I as-collision.-"non- sites(chart 40x'I.11s'4011f rash road eOnst TtIQ1I(1t1\tfCS had eh 101S c`I collision,""struck hC a vehicle/mobile equipment,and"caught percentage of non-collision deaths t W"I compared to other con- in/betweeni (such as it worker caught between parts of a dump struction sites(20'.i).Deaths Caused by collisions between%ehl- truck).Vehicles and hcas,equipment are also im ohed in"struck cles or mobile equipment were more likely to occur on streets and by object"(such as by a vehicle part),and other events,for exam- highways, accounting for 311 of the 384 street and highway plc,deaths resulting front fires and explosions deaths in construction between 2008 and 2010. Front 2008 to 2010. vehicles were the source of more Stratif icd by construction occupations.205 construction than half of the fatalities in road construction sites-'—double the laborers died lieween 2008 and 2010 as it result of incidents proportion of such deaths in the overall construction industry involving vehicles and mobile hemy equipment — nearly 70 (chart 46b).Between 2(W and 2010 when industries were cooled deaths annually(chart 46d).Occupations with the highest num- by NAICS(sec'page I for industry classifications and codes),269 her of vehicle-and mobile hcacy eyuipnu'nt-related deaths also construction workers incuited truck-related d'.ths at road con- include foreman,operating engineer,and mick drivel: Cf these struction sites,with I00(37`:r)workers killed by(lump trucks In (deaths,63 construction laborers and 22 operating engineers died addition,131 road-site fatalities resulted from a vehicle or mobile at road construction sites during the same period (chart 40 ). equipment backing up. During the eight-year period,a total of Such numbers were even higher during the booming economy. 737 construction workers died at road construction sites,account- Between 2003 and 2007, 495 construction laborers died from ing for nearly 807 of road construction fatalities in all industries, in related to vehicles and heavy equipment — about 100 Most of these construction workers were employed in Highway. deaths per year. Street,and Bridge Construction(NAICS 23731). A www.osha.gov C Q U UR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONTACT US FAQ A TO Z INDIX ENGLISH ESPANOL OSHA v STANDARDS V ENFORCEMENT TOPICS V HELP AND RESOURCES V Safely and Health Topics Preventing E3ackavers • :�� USTRY Overview Standards A backover incident occurs when a backing vehicle strikes a worker - who is standing,walking,or kneeling behind the vehicle.These ides Causing the OSHA Letters of incidents can be prevented.According to the Bureau of Labor ,Meet Backover Statistics,over 70 workers died from backover incidents in 2011, tald-2005-2010' Interpretation - These kinds of incidents can occur in different ways.For example .. _ _... bmnp InrcR W DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 10 ATTRACTIVE NUISANCES / VACANT PROPERTIES: Attractive nuisances currently exist in the industrial park, The large parking lot at the vacant factory is beckoning skate- boarders to come and play. The gates of the NYSEG transformer yard have been open day & night for weeks. How exciting will it be to explore the forbidden transformer area? Taking selfies in unusual spots is very popular. f t �" DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 1 1 TRAFFIC: Just installing pedestrian crossing controls on Pinckney Rd does not eliminate the exposures to trail users. Concrete trucks can Vb`eigh up to 4V tcns Billy loaded aiid r equir e more time and distance to brake if a trail user is in their path. Miles per How Far The Driv.er Driver Vehicle ,Tot-A! Hour Rig Will Have Perception Reaction Braking Stopping i Tf a left i�i 1 [31'i rtt c Distanco DMAnce Dittaiii_fe _ Second,._ 15 mph ._.-. 2� ft 1 T ft 17 ft _ 29#t 1 63 ft -34 mph - _... ,_44 ft - 33 ft — 33 ft 115 ft - -' 18 t ft 45 m h y 66 ft _ 50 ft i 50 ft 260 ft i 360 fit S4 mph 73 ft 55 ft 55 ft 320 ft ' --0 430 ft i 55 mph 81 ft 61 ft 61 ft 390 ft 512 ft If they are merging onto Pinckney Road with front wheels turned, a sudden braking could cause a rollover. Again, a likely fatality for the driver and the trail user. Are Cement Truck Accidents Common? /An acclUent will a cement lr LjcK'- Is more comr-non ll ldll most people think. According to 2017 statistics from the U.S. Department of 'Ira nsiavrtation: e nne-,r„ fkne% A nnn r.,,.,nl„ lnc-f f-k,-%;r I;%inc- ;n r �Ilic-ir�nc IVIVIC LIICi11 `t,VVV I.JCVIJIC IVJL LIIC11 IIVC3 111 LVIIIJIVIIJ with large trucks. Concrete trucks caused roughly QE 7 f�f�lit-i©c wnnrl ,'� r IULUIILI\..-) y\-ul ►y. • 68 percent of those who died in these collisions with a big truck were in passenger vehicles. • 14 percent of the fatalities were to pedestrians, those on bicycles, or motorcyclists. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 12 TRAFFIC (coot): Two Kentucky Pedestrians K:11'1t,-:,d In se d,r ate A1;c1de11Ls That Involved Cement Trucks Some people say lightening never strikes twice. However in Louisville, KY there have been two different fatal accidents in the last six months hat involved an Advance Ready Mix concrete truck and pedestrians. The latest truck accident occurred 0 h failed to yield �,. he right of way and hit two women in a crosswalk at 12th and Broadway. One woman received serious injuries after being trapped underneath the truck. Her death was not quick, she underwent six urgeries and had to even have her leg amputated after the accident, but even then doctors couldn't fix all the problems. She started having breathing problems and ten days after the accident she died. This terrible truck accident comes nearly six months to the day after a 24-year-old woman was struck and killed by another Advance Ready Mix concrete truck while crossing the street. As Virginia(VA)truck accident injury attorneys we know the law and how regular car accidents are much different than accidents involving a commercial truck. There are many parts that are the same,but evidence law apply_inq_ to interstate trucking is vastly more complicated. DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 13 SAMPLE RECOMMENDATION FOR A TRAIL HAZARD: 2021-09-01 IMPORTANT A large tree was seen fallen across the Dryden Rail Trail approximately 200' from the George Road trailhead. Hikers were trying to crawl over the tree trunk in order to continue on their journey and are likely to be injured if the tree isn't removed immediately. Fallen trees, branches and debris are a hazard to Trail users and can be mitigated with regular inspections and routine maintenance. In order to maintain a safe trail and prevent trail user injuries, the following Risk Management Practice should be implemented to include, but not limited to: 1. Inspect: A well-designed inspection schedule will help ensure that you inspect all of your trails at specified intervals. Inspection forms will serve as a means to record trail condition in detail, noting any faults along with their location and severity. Thorough inspections will identify problems as they begin. 2. Plan: The ultimate aim of planning maintenance works is to enable trail maintenance to be proactive as opposed to being reactive. 3. Repair: Remedial maintenance work can be carried out after a thorough inspection. 4. Record: It is vital to keep records of all action taken to maintain your trails. Records and photos of inspection and maintenance work serve as proof that you are managing your Trail to a high standard and to reduce the chance of a loss. Required Time For Compliance: 60 days DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION PAGE 14 Task Force consideration of an alternative route for the Dryden Rail Trail between Pinckney Road and Route 13 Between spring 2016 and summer 2017,the Rail Trail Task Force gave consideration to the possibility of routing the portion of Dryden Rail Trail from Pinckney Road west to Route 13 away from the former Lehigh Valley rail bed in order to closely parallel Fall Creek and to use the Fall Creek bridge underpass at Route 13. At that time, Bob Beck"bushwhacked"through that wild stretch which has no paths or hiking trails. What he found was that he had to cross two steep-sided ravines, several small streams and a sizable low wetland area. Recognizing, (1) that the potential route was ecologically-sensitive and located within a Cornell Botanic Gardens protected Natural Area (a part of the Monkey Run Natural Area and designated as a Tompkins County Unique Natural Area); (2) that Cornell Botanic Gardens had indicated approval would not be granted there for construction of our 10'-wide multi-use trail; and (3) that a ready-made direct route, favorably passing through a developing commercial node and protected from encroachment by the Town's sewer and water easement,already existed on the former rail bed, further consideration of the Fall Creek route was ruled out. Soon thereafter, for the chosen route, (1) the Town received donated trail easements from Hanson Aggregates LLC and from Pro-Lawn LLC (neither, traversing their driveways or used portions of their properties),assuring trail access between Pinckney and Hall Woods Roads,and (2) encouraged by NYSDOT, a Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) grant, NYS Multi-Modal grants and a County Tourism Program grant, totaling over$2 million, were received for design and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Route 13.