Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-02 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 2, 2021 Zoom Hybrid Present: John Kiefer, Chair, Craig Anderson,Tony Salerno, Daniel Bussmann, Joe Wilson, Linda Wagenet,Alice Green (alternate), Simon St Laurent(alternate) Absent: Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Dan Lamb& Loren Sparling (Town Board), Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) Call to order 6:00 p.m. Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Jolene Lyon read and presented the attached statement and documents. Jerry Lyon provided copies of pictures that were unable to be displayed last time with notations of what they represented. J Kiefer explained that there have been three meetings where there has been a lot of comment on the issue of safety and related issues for the section of trail that goes through the light industrial park. Tonight, we are going to hear from the Rail Trail Task Force and their thoughts on the topic. He wants to be respectful of the board's time. Jerry Lyon said this will be helpful to go along with the questions to be asked of the rail trail representatives. He described the pictures and other documents provided in the package. The town board makes decisions based on valid and reliable information brought to it, and he doesn't believe that was done in this instance. He is not against the trail, but wants it to represent something for town residents. Not a small portion of the people. He noted that survey by Rails-To Trails Conservancy show 3%of people in suburban areas use a trail for transportation. We are rural and will not get that here. People prefer a straight line to get to work. They want the fastest way. The rail trail to Freeville is a long way out of the way. A recreational area in that section of the woods is more beneficial and less expensive. He looks forward to answers from the RTTF. He will make himself available to anyone who would like more explanation on what has been presented. Paula Parker read and presented the attached statement and documents. J Kiefer said he doesn't doubt the sincerity of the speakers,the message is strong and good, but the agenda item was for things not on the agenda. Public comment was ended. In August during the public comment period concerns were raised about the trail going through the light industrial district. At the September meeting there were more comments, and it was pointed out that the Planning Board has nothing to do with rail trail. There are no approvals, and the board has Page 1 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT not been asked to give input on it. Despite knowing that, those present asked the Planning Board to consider and offer an opinion to the Town Board and the RTTF on it. The Planning Board agreed to do that and heard input. They have also invited someone from the RTTF. In October, this group came back with more information. The board has been very generous in time that was allotted for this. The Planning Board has tried to be open to the messages being brought forth. This topic was not first on the agenda tonight and it's been made that way. The last meeting was contentious, and he received a lot of phone calls after that. People recommended curtailing public input. Other boards in the county don't have a generous public input and he pushed back on that. He learns a lot from public input, but tonight is not helping. The Rail Trail item will be first on the agenda. He explained the presentations to this board were about safety, aesthetic, and economic impacts of the proposed trail route through the Pinckney Road light industrial district. The discussion tonight is not about the bridge or alternative route. It is about whether this is the right place for the trail. He has asked Bob Beck to address that and asked the public to not address Mr Beck. When the presentation is done, he will ask Planning Board members if anyone wants to propose a next step. Shirley Lyon presented the attached information but did not address the board. Bob Beck, Chair of the Rail Trail Task Force, gave the attached presentation, and introduced Todd Bittner who has been on the RTTF since 2016. Questions and Comments: • There is no design yet for crossing Pinckney Road or Hall Road? There is no grant funding yet for that section of the trail. Design work is as done as projects are able to be implemented. • That is a dangerous intersection. Of the 66'of the easement for Hanson, there is 40'on which to build a 10'wide trail. The alignment has not yet been determined. The intersection has been looked at by a traffic engineer to start to inform what kinds of treatments would be required to get across Pinckney Road. One will be chosen from the toolkit. • If the trail was there and the concrete company came for a site plan review,the town would not allow a driveway there. If a concrete truck is trying to exit the site and there is a pedestrian at the crossing,there are visibility issues. Clearing the trail will increase the sight lines. Hanson's driveway is 65'wide, so they can work with them as the intersection is designed and get feedback from them. • The concrete trucks don't come out fast. • User activated flashing lights could be used. • What is the communication between the truck exiting and the pedestrian? Visual. User activated signs would be visible to the truck driver. • Where does the toolkit described come from? NYS DOT. These are DOT approved pedestrian crossing safety features. • Who decides ultimately what kind of tool will be used? The entity responsible for the road, town, county, or state. • What is the practicality of veering the trail south toward Route 13? A better sight line. • The bigger constraint with that is the NYSEG substation. • It doesn't seem the trucks are gathering any speed on the driveway. They are noisy. • It isn't the job of the Planning Board to solve the problem, but to point out concerns. Page 2 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT • Has it been standard practice to get easements and then deal with intersections and crossings? Yes, along with the funding. They are just dealing with the intersection on Game Farm Road. The County required a pedestrian safety plan that will be reviewed and approved. • It would be nice to get the timing a little closer so that a trail isn't built and then people can't cross. • It may be possible to have the Hanson trucks stop back a little way from Pinckney Road. They would still have visibility in both directions. • Has there been any input from other businesses in the light industrial park about the trail through there? None have come to the Task Force with concerns. • The crossing at Pinckney Road is less concerning than the Route 366 crossing. DOT will be very involved. • Have there been any discussions with folks in the light industrial park about liabilities they might incur? Only regarding the easement that holds the property owner harmless from potential actions by trail users. The landowner is indemnified and has no liability. • Have the owners' lawyers reviewed the document? There were numerous exchanges with Hanson's corporate offices in Allentown and a rep at the Pinckney Road site. There is no role for NYSEG in the light industrial park,the trail is not on their property there. There is an agreement with NYSEG for a parcel further to the east. • Have there been discussions with Hanson regarding operations of trucks and safety issues? Not yet. They will engage them when the task force is ready to focus on that section. • There will be a hedge installed as a way to keep pedestrians on the trail at the Hanson property. The intent is to reinforce having the public stay on the trail and not venture into the business operations. • A hedge installed on a berm makes sense. If there is still a safety concern, a fence or other treatment might be considered instead. • Rail trails do go through industrial areas without hedges. • Are there plans for a parking area on Pinckney Road?There seems to be a problem at other trail crossings with people parking on the road. There is no plan for parking on Pinckney Road or Hall Woods Road. There is a fairly large parking area on Monkey Run Road. It is one of the issues that needs to be worked on more because there has not been a focus on getting easements for parking for the trail heads. No grant funds have been received for that kind of development. • No easement has been secured for the Leonardo property yet. Trail users will have to exit on Pinckney Road north or south. Swan and NYSEG easements have been secured on the other side of Pinckney Road. They are not at the building part there yet. No grant funds to construct that section have been secured yet. • Those issues to come are part of what the task force will do moving forward. • If the trail is built and the only way out of the area is north or south on Pinckney Road,will there be bike lanes, sidewalks, which direction? Where will they go? RTTF will deal with issues as they come up. • There is concern for this section and people don't want to see a bridge to nowhere for 20 years. If the trail is not completed all the way to 366,what is the impact? The idea was to build the trail from each end to the middle. Getting across Route 13 is the biggest safety issue there. In the interim, as the middle is being constructed, you can bike onto Lower Creek Road through Etna to Freeville and then get back on the trail. It doesn't serve all users yet. (It seems the bridge to nowhere will go somewhere this summer and be connected to other trails.) • If pedestrians get off on Hall Woods Road, how do you get them safely down Hall Road? And on to 366 and Dryden Road? There are no sidewalks on Hall Road for pedestrians to safely walk through. Page 3 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT This could be an interface for the Planning Board to have a role. The charge to the RTTF is the trail itself. • With respect to soil disturbance, there was no SWPPP? DEC permits or Army Corps permits for crossing creeks? They have consulted with DEC and have not needed permits. When the Cascadilla bridge work was done, there was an engineered report studied by DEC. • Depending on the area being worked on in a particular time, a permit might not be required. Anything under an acre would not trigger a permit. • If the town had purchased the property on Pinckney Road this may have been easier. • Business users in the light industrial area would sign an easement readily because they are indemnified for any harm caused to a trail user through or near their property. There would be no recourse to go after a property owner—not a good idea in an industrial development area. J Kiefer said the structure for how this project is being run by the town is that the Town Board created the Rail Trail Task Force and tasked them with putting the trail in on the railroad bed. The Planning Board has never had any role in this. A long time ago the Planning Board passed a resolution in support of the concept of developing the rail trail, but beyond that have never talked about it. In August a group of community members came to this board apparently dissatisfied with working with the RTTF. They had concerns that were not being addressed, so they came in August and September, and at their request and after discussion by board members, the Planning Board members agreed to listen and weigh in. Community members who came forward have put a lot of thought into this and brought some appropriate and correct issues that need to be resolved. More information was presented tonight. The agenda tonight was to hear from the Rail Trail Task Force and then ask board members if they wanted to make a motion for a next step for the Planning Board. J Wilson said he has studied and listened, has taken notes, and looked back at the charge to the RTTF in 2016. He understands that to say raise the issues and advise the Town Board and the public about the issues and considerations for a successful development of a trail along the abandoned Lehigh Valley line that would go through Etna and Freeville and connect to the Jim Schug trail and go through Varna. The Planning Board, on a split vote,voted for hearing more and coming to a collective conclusion. The issue to him was, has the RTTF regarding the light industrial area where so many issues have been raised, been diligent in trying to raise the issues,to advise the Town Board of what those issues were? They have taken on the additional task of suggesting resolutions for them. Has that been done diligently and competently? It strikes him after hearing about the negotiations, seeing what has been developed to date, and how the RTTF went about it, that they have indeed been diligent, competent, have listened to wider range of opinion than just themselves, and consulted experts. He doesn't see a role for the Planning Board going forward. The issues have been addressed for the light industrial area in a reasonable way. People can disagree, and clearly there is some disagreement. In terms of Planning Board intervening or somehow involving itself going forward in the arena they have been asked to look at, he doesn't see a place for the Planning Board. He suggested a resolution to that effect that the Planning Board has no further role with regard to the light industrial area. L Wagenet would second that resolution. Discussion: C Anderson recommends that the Planning Board at least be consulted on the crossings at Route 366, Pinckney Road, and Route 13 from land use perspective and suggested that the Planning Board at least hear what is going on. J Wilson suggested that could be a separate resolution. Page 4 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT It was noted that a preliminary design for the Route 13 crossing has been prepared by Erdman Anthony. A Green is glad this conversation occurred and doesn't think there is role for the Planning Board in relation to the questions concerning the light industrial park. Planning issues involving transportation infrastructure to and from the trail are legitimate planning issues and she doesn't want to lose sight of that. It isn't the charge of the RTTF to deal with those and they are typical Planning Board questions. T Salerno said some members have spent a lot of time reviewing information brought to the board and done research on their own. He agrees that he doesn't see a role for Planning Board. The RTTF has heard the concerns raised in this process. The Town Board has heard these things and making these notes and information available to them is the appropriate place for them to be. The RTTF was created to be the lead in creating this trail. There is a gap here. They were tasked with building the trail. It is kind of out of their scope to worry about what happens to people once they leave the trail and head up Hall Road or down Pinckney Road or leave the trail anywhere to go elsewhere. That is the scope of what they were tasked to look at.That is where the Planning Board comes in,where the Village Planning Board comes in, and where others come in to look at how people get to and from the trail. S St Laurent said we have let ourselves be drawn into a site plan review that is not in our jurisdiction and it is time to stop. D Bussmann said he agrees it was right to listen to this presentation to get a level of confidence that concerns are being addressed. It may not be what everyone wants, but a lot of the issues that are being presented can be resolved with best practices. Other that the concerns of traffic off site, he doesn't think it is necessary for the Planning Board to weight in. J Kiefer activated S St Laurent as a voting member for tonight. RESOLUTION #11 (2021)—NO ROLE FOR PLANNING BOARD REGARDING TRAIL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK AT PINCKNEY ROAD RESOLVED,that the Planning Board has no further reason to be involved or intervene in the issues of safety, aesthetics, and economic impacts with regard to the Dryden Rail Trail routing through the Pinckney Road light industrial district. Motion by J Wilson, 2nd L Wagenet In favor—J Kiefer,J Wilson, L Wagenet, D Bussmann,T Salerno, S St Laurent Opposed—C Anderson C Anderson said it would be wise to have communication between boards and encourages that dialogue, specifically with respect to safety concerns and planning for crossings at Pinckney Road, Route 366, and Route 13. T Salerno said he does have concerns regarding how people get to and from the trail. Looking at property uses around the trail is certainly within the purview of the Planning Board. He'd like to see some involvement in thinking about how the rail trail intersects with zoning and other things around it. Page 5 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT J Kiefer suggested making this an agenda item. A Green is on the RTTF and if something of interest comes up and the board feels it is important to look at,the RTTF could be invited back to address the board. Tim Woods, Conservation Board member, said he just conducted a 3.5-month investigation on the question of due diligence and legal issues on the trail and there are significant impediments to the connectivity of the trail. Are we ever going to get a trail that connects Etna to Freeville? His position is that because of four major impediments the town will never get connectivity. He would like to get his information out to board members. He was told he could send it to the town clerk with instruction to share it with particular boards. J Kiefer said the public has brought forward concerns that need to be addressed in an honest respectful,straight forward way and he hopes that happens. They have put a lot of careful thought into it and hopes that they can work it out. The Planning Board doesn't bring much value to the conversation and have chosen not to. He encouraged open dialogue with the RTTF and thanked everyone for their testimony. A Green thanked the presenters and the Rail Trail Task Force for the 6 years of work they have done on behalf of the town. Approval of Minutes J Kiefer said after the last minutes he received many phone calls on two topics. One was concern about the sort of environment on the Planning Board and the possibility of it impairing recruitment for the board. He shared that Tom Hatfield had told him that the sign of a good board is one that is able to have good,fierce debates on topics and then go out later and have a beer. It is his intent to have a strong set of arguments on topics and for board members to state their piece, members of the public express their view and then make the decisions that the board is asked to make. The other concern was how to engage the public. Some people think we need to cut back on input, and he pushed back on that. The public engagement processes on the board's agenda were there when he became involved. The meeting opens with comment from the public, then as we move into the agenda and talk about specific projects,there is also an opportunity for the public to weigh in. It has worked out well for us. The Planning Board can decide how to have to public input. The Open Meetings Law requires that the public be able to witness what the board does, but does not provide that the public can participate. He asked board members whether they wanted to have a discussion on public engagement in the future. Until then, meetings will continue in the current format. At the request of C Anderson, an inaccurate sentence was removed, and on motion of J Wilson, seconded by T Salerno, the minutes were unanimously approved. Coordination with Town Board Dan Lamb was asked if he anticipates any zoning changes regarding dispensaries wanting to move into the town and how the Town Board is viewing the topic of legalized recreational marijuana. He responded that the Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act allows communities to opt out of having dispensaries in their communities if they act before the end of the year. That does not prevent anyone Page 6 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT from using, consuming, or possessing marijuana in the town. If you don't opt out, you are privy to the sales tax revenue. In this case, marijuana is taxed at a rate that would allow 4%sales tax to stay in the county. Of that,the town would get 75%, a good deal for our municipality. There is no interest on the Town Board to opt out and do not plan to do so by the end of the month. With respect to what happens next,the legislation sets up an office of cannabis management. They will promulgate advisories to the municipalities on zoning and regulations that go out to those interested in being licensed. There are 11 different types of licenses that businesses can apply for to participate in the retail, growing, or processing opportunity. The state sees this as a growth industry. Projections are 350 million dollars in tax revenue annually. That will be spread out among the various municipalities that participate. The advice from Tompkins County is that we can't do anything until we get more direction from the state. No one will have the ability to sell, grow, or process marijuana in the next year. We will have plenty of time to adjust our zoning law and decide where this sort of thing can go. We can regulate the hours of operation and other aspects. We are not under the gun to get out in front of this. There will be no surprises or taking advantage of the town or trying to find a loophole to get in here right now. We don't have to act right away. The town will take up rezoning once the comp plan is adopted because we'll want to adjust our zoning law. We may have more guidance from the state on how to adjust for this new industry at that time. If the town doesn't feel there is enough time,the board can pass a moratorium until it is ready. Licenses won't be available for at least a year. Planning Department Update Ray Burger reported that last month the Town Board approved the amendment for the special use permit for Scotties Auto. They have an adjoining lot where they will be able to put in 14 parking spaces behind the building, giving them a total of 37 spaces. The recommendations made by the Planning Board were put in as conditions of the SUP. The Town Board also approved a special use permit for Knickerbocker Bed Frame Company at 17 Hall Road and the Planning Board recommendation was put in as a condition of the SUP approval. Most of the stretch code does apply to new construction, but pieces of it apply to remodeling. Once we know what the plan is (no application has been received yet), we'll know more about what portions apply. Town Code Enforcements Officers are charged with enforcing the stretch code and have had training in that regard. Alternations is in the law, and that is unique for the building code. In LEED alterations include changing the surface of a wall. A member asked how alterations will be interpreted. It has an impact. R Burger said he is relying on the town's Code Enforcement Officers to apply the code. It is a lot of new stuff and they have been attending trainings, both in commercial and residential. C Anderson asked if Knickerbocker would have to update their exterior lighting. That would be site plan review and in the purview of the Planning Board. It looks like they would have to have a minimum of two charging stations. R Burger will try to get a response from the Code Enforcement Officers. He expects a building permit application by the end of year and will have engineered plans to make these judgment calls on. There was some discussion about whether the HVAC system will be electric or natural gas. That is unknown currently. Knickerbocker did answer the four areas of concern for Tompkins County energy as part of their application. Page 7 of 8 PB 12-2-21 DRAFT The next steering committee meeting for the comp plan will be January 12. RESOLUTION#12 (2021)—RECOMMEND J KIEFER FOR CHAIR FOR 2022 RESOLVED,that the Town of Dryden Planning Board hereby recommends the appointment of John Kiefer as Chair for the 2022 calendar year. Moved by C Anderson, 2"d by A Green All in favor The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery Page 8 of 8 Planning Board: I'm here to address a concern I have regarding the Task Force's statement about the pedestrian bridge over Route 13. The Task Force members have stated repeatedly that the Department of Transportation(DOT) "chose" the bridge as the "safer option." The Task Force has said this repeatedly at their meetings and at public outreaches. Whenever I heard or read this, red flags popped up in my head. You see, I have some experience with the DOT. A few of you might recall the traffic concerns that residents had at the base of Mineah Road(a dead end road) when the Pineview Ridge Apartment complexes were proposed. I was one of those residents who conducted a traffic safety study at the intersection of Mineah Road, Kirk Road, and Route 13. During this process, I spoke with several people from the DOT and made many good contacts who appreciated our efforts at collecting data. (As a result of these efforts, I am pleased to see a yellow caution light is now being installed at the bottom of Mineah Road). So when I heard that the DOT "chose" the bridge, I decided to give the DOT a call. Their response was that they would never make a recommendation between two options,only if' a particular option was considered safe. But just to be thorough,both the DOT and the Rail Trail Task Force was FOILed for this information(Freedom of Information Law). As you can see from the attachments, neither the DOT nor the Task Force could provide any documentation where the Department of Transportation "chose" the pedestrian bridge. But after this information was requested, I have noted a change in the way the Task Force members respond. In the beginning, they said the DOT "chose"this option. Then I heard Task Force members saying that the DOT "suggested" this option. And then, at the last Town Board meeting,David Lamb finally said that it was based on one man's opinion from the DOT. So we have an opinion,but we don't have any supporting documentation (See attached FOIL responses). So to conclude,we've heard a lot of talk from the Task Force. A lot of talk. And I don't doubt their enthusiasm for this bridge. But unfortunately, I have come to doubt their credibility. , Dear Ms. Lyon, have inquired with the Regional Group involved at this point and no such document exists. Yours Truly, Darrell Marcy Regional Records Access Officer New York State Department of Transportation, Central New York Region darrell.marcy_@dot.ny g�v From: norepiy_opejnf'oil@ its.ny_.gQk/<its.sn,.openfoil@its.,1y_.g v> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:38 AM To: dot.sm.mo.records.access<MO-RecordsAccess@dot.ny_g9v> Subject: Open FOIL NY Request From : Shirley Lyon : Proposed pedestrian bridge in the Township of Dryden, Tompkins County New FOIL Request for Department of Transportation Submitted on:8/22/2021 12:38:19 AM Request Confirmation Number : LYON_DOT_20210822003819623 INFORMATION SUBMITTED: Title Mrs. First Name Shirley Middle Initial d Last Name Lyon E-Mail _..0 Telephone Fax Affiliation/Organization Citizens group Street Address 1 29 Mineah rd Street Address 2 City. Freeville State NY Zip Code 13068 Country USA Short Title Proposed pedestrian bridge in the Township of Dryden, Tompkins County Description Specific NYDOT"recommending"in written form the pedestrian bridge over Rt.13. Specific NYDOT recommendation saying going under(Fall Creek) Rt.13 Bridge located in the Township of Dryden to b unsafe FOIL Response Format Email If fees apply, please contact me if costs 25 will be greater than Additional Information I am an individual seeking information for personal use Dear Ms. Lyon, I have inquired with the Regional Group involved at this point and no such document exists. Yours Truly, Darrell Marcy Regional Records Access Officer New York State Department of Transportation, Central New York (legion darrell.marcy_@dot.ny.gov From: norenkf-ones foilOu its.nv.aov <its sm.openfoi! u its.nyegov> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:38 AM To: dot.sm.mo.records.access <MO-RecordsAccess@dot n;.g_ _ > Subject: Open FOIL NY Request From : Shirley Lyon : Proposed pedestrian bridge in the Township of Dryden, Tompkins County New FOIL Request for Department of Transportation Submitted on: 8/22/2021 12:38:19 AM Request Confirmation Number : LYO N_DOT_20210822003819623 INFORMATION SUBMITTED: Title Mrs. First Name Shirley Middle Initial J Last Name Lyon E-Mail _... . - Telephone Fax Affiliation/Organization Citizens group Street Address 1 29 Mineah rd Street Address 2 City Freeville State NY Zip Code 13068 Country USA Short Title Proposed pedestrian bridge in the Township of Dryden, Tompkins County Description Specific NYDOT`recommending"in written form the pedestrian bridge over Rt.13. Specific NYDOT recommendation saying 1")V (2 R going under(Fall Creek) Rt.13 Bridge located in the Township of Dryden to b unsafe FOIL Response Format Email If fees apply, please contact me if costs 25 will be greater than Additional Information 1 am an individual seeking information for personal use F r.-o i-): Bambi Avery , ,, : , I� ;t.. ,.. . r ►7y.�,=, S:_bi FOIL Request (- Sep 2, 2021 at 12:11.40 PM Shirley, - In response to your FOIL request of August 23, 2021, 1 do not find and have not been provided with any communication from NYSDOT (email/paper letters/texts) that state extending the Rail Trail under Fall Creek bridge to be "unsafe" and why. Per your request, -1 have added the TB 8-19-21 and PB 8-26-21 recordings to your thumb drive. You can pick it up at your convenience. Bambi Bambi L. Avery, RMC, MMC Dryden Town Clerk 93 East Main Street Dryden,New York 13053 fax-607-344-8008 SUMMER BUILDING HOURS — MO -i Na RS 8:00 AM m 4:30 �M FRIDAYS 8:00 AM — NOON "Breath in, breath out, move on." - Jimmy Buffet n :r a R ' t, �Y r fiv 24 Am 'Am plillpill1l 2 � , k` i t , t 'a -gat }� a- F - ��r G 4 t i A_ 4>1-7 i•- 5 ra 4, U Y�J��t4Syr °•"w• ,... � , 1�}''•'KcS 1"3a�.�"'tr-.`°rf �(k.r4 tt 0., � � 1� � vl° ' f `H.14YVBR.h�ts+.fV?.11EaC�i .1i1>n�BSCfvc•aEwe��.�: � ��� •� � K 1 t "{' . y 'F R• 314 ¢ �1 !� 3 «�i �•' -� J I -' .. �1. r t `,• J FA.�L �r;.�2� ,�' a�j% i r 4 � �iy,� '''St�.l `,�`,�;,,±v'�� L1+tYl�.�n.' v t jt ;tjo�1 ! �s ! pp,,A� r•`A rrJ •3L lf, �5� 1 ♦t`'., �`K'R`+blf; t .o +� ,� _• C. � >. }, sr�t e'�r /fef iFL .x . a� i[Y 1�.' 'iJ,g S f' •r ,3"' _ i• t �r'�• � ;1�+` `�' �f���a; r•tj2� � ,�j� ?�•f�•. r �,. �2.':t � r �� ��, •}�I, •. !•'� �•!'�I f Lf ;k.. w� ��; r 41}.:t��"�'���yt�a'��T,y 'f`g���� r�, ,t�\� t� ,+i -' a .v.„ •is n`tr r-�ryl2sa! ie 9 + .1��', h"`a s `, d 3 �3 . St 7 �`✓�ef`1 .'�,} 'K x a>Rr} Q ��' • • .v, J r• ,� .y t i $P`g ,ir)�c - .r c .i , f �v�' his c� t 'fit ,f ♦y`4,`--.t -°et7� f�:, .v '�"• �!�`'�, �,.`�1�� � tl � .' ,`-it-��.v' .fe.� { �•�. ' 2�` r ,A �1F K � - ). 44 s� ' '�k `rh�,`'�4 y,s �'%7�t�t•d*�,}�•Ys r'`u 7. i� ' rR _ '��� r{i• r '5.�.7 $3 i�ti r �'� 4I,JW.ti'�3at1 vf' .. , 1 j1.L'.> t 1 j '�.r �� ' ! ff �J r ! ♦94�fi� �Nti� t . `• fd r ./;; I 4��"fit� �.l"n' �s4 • ��A� {���o}r Utt a�.,�.�r, t ���i r � - r + +r 1 •�����r, -,.+ ,>S r' �fK k { t ,e 1 ,t�������Y «.� '+.•• ,, r , 04 1 ; ck7�c '.7...' a�+ :v ' ` 1tt rs S>.•j)' '�}`,'J 4t 1wr�.d • v y •'t�1�} �:4�y9�jt i�4 ,��4•. 'ftl � _ ' �S?L��FS'1.3 v+�'J'S • 'fr} �• � I', i 1(//I } _9r i 4� �� r 1V � Iye i } � '1��rc��rr`��. .. ' Y J'�. � � t.1Y i� 1. K� -y. / i �� ` �" N Ars FI •ri+.� }• 1 ..'`+Y���r\ . rl go )- L (� �^,y !,•_�4� _ :*�,"� - � r ��'` rr� j1�1 .ry' � �F .{_ rt jV'1,1xry '�1, :i'' Y �yi�p x•'i.J ( C°ft..,3 - � -. •i. -hl'r • J � o r4 � �- '`•% } y���,_!�` IICC" ter.'��ra r,�r 1 t.. � .'1� r ., - �.�iC43 { i 'l'_ ��f fj�1-! '7 ��r'i'•".�1 i •.1,('; � •'(. `' Y•§.1 flcyt�.�1�� 1'.' l .; t ' _.� -1.; .1 r•ter \''S' r ��"� 4 ' f r ���(�l. �.i!���.�: �.. wAl et 7-3 CL 5 } r ftt,l;r cu X. gf.�9c f 1 A + o ,la, .. 7 it f,}/ 'vA� t 1y."._,' t 5... • k� \ .- tlk Cll " FN �Y t ,i� fi Y� raS dt WR:as; ,.1.„ � I`t' <�� �,' ('•`� � I. � � i. 4AF + E, •� � r< w at 104 41 !�'` `� '<k � / t 7 +7�'- y M��` t3i'c�'�._.Je y. � `' 4T � � .9,�`� �'• ��� - a. ,, . �'k' i ly ok i, r 4. � �' y. it ±5 ,�,� �• `�•• -5• �a 1 ,, _ IF fill n' F�?,'` gal J'•� �t11J{t .r.L .(�' - X. {4 _.�. 4-1 ems.. ,it Qj CU 's a' #" 7 r > s r „ . ,•F s� '� S k Qj A L i t fF r tf '4k ' wSF F j' 4 �S , ,� .: 'r ?_ ■ �''' .^ 4 :i 14 ,y /f'. S #l' 1,4�jb+§3' 11 y".fIF 1 yowlCL i t _ �t r A""•,.. iF�r�°�. .'l�a` I. �r t,' �t � �, .i k`t$3� � � o ifii (� 'I�. v Q �; :.,,fit Co i,. a+ e'a'i i s§X.. • fit. a d ^1 � t �,� •'� i i e a ii � �l'd ��,'� !r''is � (� g@� c3' W @ t P R .,, a '.{r f .t ��► t a! ,. a ✓6 �� � i � /\�• ) - 3 �_ '(� � � i4 $� � :; ., t, � ',+.l,�y�. •� � •�� � M y� r�{ '��. Q� � Vim! t '� )l Q Q � �•. "if tam�e�S�a '�. a � M » � 'l '\ 11 <e i •T �la' Co Q Co ro 's7. (� �- i'�•, m lr� !.s!+`.M, ,;•'. at':.. _`iP 1C� �. ` `� t f ,<��C��-.' ,� "� ^ MrA •7` Y �yi ; , ',+ 1r�.i'All, 6P'y'. r 's .F,.a v t., � b1,.• i '� s� 1�r< ) !l( r9"9it>6 r'�aKro>'+;?, _ ,� 1 ^• rot �'�.:#� �''' �, 1` ���- T � ��t9?lr:e'T"w� \kvi X. . r� 1 � r,. .'r` i f r.� rt _� •�+. `� rd i t: is +;� .. ._ � �nl- ,,,` �y�'l��r� t,.1 f �'!�"�IA�t t�.►:' ;'� `'� .f��i�:,�� - o 'Pt e d#t atl Y c v. t 4 'jgf��1 .,5 @j Syr • Y,nlbrr +� J�,;� •(' ay N r1 z r �`4 ;.1\4 Y t �t,srs1 14, a a rwY (j t V r, ar •r�"s --mow- T 4 .I + ''{� � , ����{. rr�+v�i►�++-'v�"" c .mot .� ;a,. ,g■�t �.r�� � {�< �i # �� � � • f s; � *'I�.+f'� v�ilr��y� .4.°� �.� .~i�•�:: . lFe�"l .�..,,s i t •!°( :�: •� '1 .�--+e-_...a..> "+ �:., :�� `� �.� � Via'v asl,`;.�t f i• .:,_�� t * t• �. ,moo �. ,� �k .ss.Y, ,Re� s �� fir '_0 � � a y'�k:x r+ f t ,`T,i "'�� -:.�+, •si' ,A++S,,�+' + `bra:n $a • �.. rAj tC 4 Ak ✓`_ f t yyF � 7r +i�' 7 '� �` t• ji'f�*�2 14 AN ..»•f � Fk IS� •, It {. '.I¢. � 9 mac• (�,�j � xi�: r /,t.�'f e •1. t. �. � .arty}` ��►.l�Se ;r.J �,°�., rka• � y� j`e.! • � � .,,yam � A <:, . -• ��. � �., F `�. '-. r •� t,r ? , �.. .. 1. � 7 k• k 9' `ter FS �; 1* 4• �, �. M �.� k� r -PY AF T7- Alt AA so- IQ g +++ _ ' k s t 1, �.> - ji . 4 V�Qz- 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 (Z)�encouraged Eby 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. The disparity between Bob Beck's description Of the Fall Creek Trail and what I found is so vast that I am at a loss for words. .. ...except to award it 1 `�t t f 5 Pinocchio's ! Hall Woods are identif ied D e sio g n Nternative Routes and intersections Hall Woods Road (Figure 14) This segment of rail bed runs adjacent and parallel to Hall Woods Road and is within close proximity to adjacent residential structures. Some community members have expressed concern or general disapproval for trail development. Concerns listed included removal of the existing evergreen trees, privacy,and safety issues. - Alternative 1 (stay on rail bed): If the trail stays on the rail bed,significant tree and shrub removal, widening, and grading work is necessary. It is recommended that buffers and signage instructing users to stay on the trail be installed to increase privacy. Alternative 2 (skirt the trail just south of the rail bed):The trail can continue east of Route 13, but skirt south,adjacent to the rail bed,avoiding the residential area north of the road. Alternative 3(Monkey Run Reroute East): If the trail is rerouted to avoid Route 13 it is possible to ( Y ) � continue the trail along Fall Creek to avoid Hall Woods Road. From aerial imagery and site visits, it appears the area soi.rth of Fall Creek approximately 500 feet from the Route 13 bridge is relative y clear of brush and shrubs.This portion of the creek bank is of adequate elevation to not be in a flood zone.'The trail could connect back with the rail line immediately east of Hall Woods Road,to exit onto P n ney Road near the NYSEG substation. 20I 5 Co rfi-e,t 1 P ' kl rails to-trails conservancy Home > Resource Library > Economic ImRact > Suburban Trails Survey Data • Suburban rai s Survey Data Rails-to-Trails Conservancy has conducted surveys along trails in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for over 10 years.This infographic shows the aggregate responses for suburban trails from surveys conducted from 2006 to 2016. i Create Account(/membershiR/registern jsg in(/membership/looinl?f=1&ReturnUri=%2finembership fmanage-account%2f) Press(httos://www.railstotrails.org(Rr.ess/1 PrivaW(https://www railstQtrails org/pHvacvn SecUrity(htt s://www.rAilstotrails.orgsecurity/) Join eNEWS(/convio? un httR/3A/.2F%2Fsecurerailstotr itsorg% Fit% FSS ry yl3FACTION REQUIRED%3D 1RI ACTION USER REOUESTS%26SURVEY ID%3D9040%26s_src%3Dwebsite%26s_subsrc%3Denew footedink: Contact Us Chttps,//www.railstotrails.org/contact/) Copyright©2001-2020 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy(RTC).All rights reserved. 20 RAID-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY SURVEYS; 2006-2016 SUBURBAN TRAILS SURVEY DATA railstnsrancy 15 OR YOUNGER:3% PURPOSE OF TRAIL USE 85+;13% 18-25:4% 28-35: 10% 64°/O R .;> 4S+-•"t.'4�7`/% . ..s."4lXR:yRP. :�;d`�'1WL4 - Ai3.'b 56-05:22% AGE OF ®, � 25% RESPONDENTS 6% w 3% 35-49:19N. h � k ON M! 3% 45-55:28•f.547 r9 ' • MALE PRIMARY TRAIL ACTIVITY � 1 BIKING WALKING/MIKING JOGGING/RUNNING WALKING A PET OTHER EQUESTRIAN (MINTER SPORTS 42% 31% 12% 11% 4% 0% 0% • 1 • • • • YEAR • GOODS: 1 OUTING (BIKES,SHOES,CLOTHES,ETC.) OD,BEVERAGES,ETC.) W o se 44% ca N OR W co) 1S•d. U. C4 U. ® \° a ,t 01-40 0 t3 7% � � � 0 z so t�l a W M LESS THAN 10-60 60-120 120+ N. 10 MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES DAILY 3-5 1-2 ONCE FEW ONCE FEW FIRIT MEEK WEEK WEEK TIME$A MONTH TIMES A TIME MONTH YEAR v ul Q N f� tdo LL e a w 40 Q a a � ad cis n. . i CL 6 a I Ix qq i I 1 qq ID s ` to f _ cl a c0 N = L � u +Q)+ i m 4. -6 �' a1 t]A N LL U qp vi m O UO �, E 0 cc __ a' aJ +J O Q1 L 'a � � � v o U } E E s Q O O E N C N = O +•+ f0 cv N z O Q a CD s w > N L N i+ u he Q �' •� -0 m LL C U > U ca tU a) cv O aJ v 4- L =; L o E � � U taA > i OU cu 4-0 4� o N a, o aA a, - -D _0 E U U f6 N L >, L N O � L O c Ocv U a1 a) W _ N C: a1 a) O >, (A 'a (B w V C N N t11 O O LA > 00 O 30 O .Q - c v -0 -a Q — 4- V O X0 'n 0 4— M v �c tU oc v O c t c� +, +r N tap o 3 -J L +.. u N +' (10 O — o c o o �, s bD a LL = 4 O ?j a, cv N u o 0 a O = = U +'L L � (A O � ca L CO O + LL U O O V) a > Y N j. O � � (3) O t � LL H O U = N — 0 E 4--+ r: — t 4- 41 a) — L ,_ -0 ca aJ >� W U CC O Q - L � N a) � L L 4 N O 'O W L O N !E O LL O a) O = L .� O +� +� N �` tap a-' •� O v aJ +' + N O G � fC bpm O L N > O "C U (1) .Q Ln i E N O 0 4- A AJ ++ t a E O oO _v O O t �_ dJ i c°n oU Q �' Q 4a-� 3 +' B E w ` Al � F 1 J � { � u�7 y 1 t r.: •� ffi. :� 1 fi1if,� � Ile14 ,3 Y. n 'i� 1' ) ,� Spa♦ ; � 1 r lir, d , I iY 4 ill O• - C O b.0 ++ O to rB ►-, C O +-' O N +-+ Z aJ 3 N Oo O N M .� — N U Vi }+ U •> t1A > 4-' N N -O O vi aJ Q R O aJ s. O o -0 O Q) O Q U V) U cn 4-+ N U O O N O cB _ O Q > Q v L. E O E �• N O 4A 'n 4J N ± v QJ = H , t1A QJ -0 4J C � > �+ V >, Q r,. ,C +,Ln -0U � O v O ° CC u ° _ _ E +-+ cn O N Q) O � — O a }' Ln tw o t t�A � c� > — U N V v _� L �' � L. O aJ O N +., a L. 4- O cu cn v 4J 0 0 a� v N aJ 4-' 0 "- � `n o U. L. (A ra aJ ri -0 � > � O o O 1U' -0 Ln N O m z a a s a0A - ' O - cn = Ln U � uo +� — L — N ro 4+ — — U L Ln aJ ice.., a� tn O O 4- -Y m p aJ >� O >, O N > + N L aJ Q) 4- 0 +� m N cB j cu Fz tlA U U >' O- rV i i- 00 Y c Q) O v�i tj H � W Q 4-+ O ], >- cn � aJ b�A O 4-1U Q — -0 2 can m OU �'' .0 as-J Q F— tLO C = Town of Dryden Planning Board lil Evaluating The Economic Impact on Businesses And The Safety of Trail Users On The Planned Rail Trail Crossing Through the Hall Road Industrial Park Good Evening, I'm here today about the Rail Trail in the Industrial Park and the safety of trail users. I've told you and the Town Board about the negative impact on businesses in the Industrial Park when trail users are exposed for their operations. No response. I've told you and the Town Board the hazards and uncontrolled exposures in the Industrial Park to trail users. No response. It is wrong to ignore concerns of the public for the safety of trail users. was hoping that the RTTF had done due diligence to evaluate the exposures to trail users, especially in the Industrial Park, so I FOILED for the SEQR, SWPPP and DEC permits for this project. All I received was one FEAF (SEQR) dated December 2016 entitled "Easement Acquisition Authorization" and with a negative declaration: Agency Use Only[If applicablej Project: Easement Acqulslaon AulhoArallon Date: Decemtoer 1b.20t0 "The proposed action is the Town Board's authorization to acquire trail easements across properties containing the former Lehigh Valley Rail Road bed. .." "An implemented SWPPP will prevent or mitigate any environmental issues that may arise as a result of the alterations." "NYDEC, an approved SWPPP prior to undertaking improvements" Per the NYSDEC Region 7 Regional Permit Administrator: "When this document was prepared it looks like it was just for the land acquisition, not the actual projects." Planning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 2 of 8 There have certainly been major alterations & soil disturbances done in building the trail to date. Does the George Road crossing come to mind? How about the bridgework at Game Farm area? Orthe planned spur trail at Monkey Run? Why weren't those sensitive areas evaluated? Why were no FEAF (SEAR) / SWPPP / DEC permits done for those areas as evidenced in the 2016 SEAR? She also wrote: "If you think they should have had permits or there were possible violations I would need exact locations and I can report them to Law Enforcement" Where is the required assessment of the concrete batch plant, the NYSEG substation, the potential PCBs, the attractive nuisances, the truck traffic, the Pinckney Rd crossing, etc? One example of sloppy management is the barricaded trailhead at Game farm Road, but it's fully open at the other end at Stevenson Road today. Trail users can easily get into the dangerous area and the Town is liable. Obviously, the hazard wasn't fully evaluated and the exposure adequately mitigated. Building this trail has been a casual and cavalier venture. a FIB 1 1fi t 7 7 r 1 J G -Y 4 r Planning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 3 of 8 Who is going to hold the RTTF accountable for lack of due diligence? Who is overseeing this project? It is wrong not to have checks and balances in a Town project. It is wrong to continue this project and cause an unnecessary liability exposure to the town. The RTTF has lost credibility with it's members having conflicts of interest and lacking the skill sets to design and build a trail. Get the Trail out of the Industrial Park and do what is right for the community and the businesses there. urge you to go on record tonight to safeguard the public by making a recommendation to stop, or at least pause, this project. When you do this, the Town will be avoiding lawsuits for negligence as you are again being made aware of the safety and health issues of building a trail through the industrial park. Thank You, 90-4�(�Zt Paula Parker Planning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 4 of 8 December 2016 FEAF (SEQR) prepared by Ray Burger A. Project and Sponsnr Information. Name of Action or Project: Trall Easement Acqulsitlon Authorization Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map): Muttilple lax parcels along the former Lehigh Valley trail Road W. Brief Description of Proposed Action(include purpose or need): The proposed actlan Is the Tom Boards authorization to acquire trail easements across properties corkalning the former Lehigh Valley Rall Road bed for the purpose of creaUng an official Term recreatimal trail.Tl*Initial acquisFlions involve 12 parsers but utirnat"as marry as 40 or more pars may need easements to complete the envisioned trail This cation Inct Ms consideration of those future aMilsitions as we l as improverrAnls to the proposed trail which may result In construction activities that disturb more than 10 acres. • Attach additional sheets,as necded. The proposed action is the authorization,by the Town Board,to acquire trall easoments from eight(6)properly owners across a total of 12 tax parcefs immediately and,ultimately,up to 40 or more easements.The land Is currently used by the pubic as a social troll.The easemenu are necessary for IN estab%shmenl of an official Town tra l on the forrner Lehigh Val`-ay Rail Line.As slated,as many as 40,or more,easements may be necessary In order 1 u°xfertaka Completion of the entire 11.3 mile(approxfmale)envisioned trait.No physical alteration of the land surface Is currently proposed.Future Wtorotlonswill be limited to altering the ex sling Impervious rail bad to be In compliance with ADA requlremerts aid to make repass to the existing rail Alterations are anticipated to be limited to not more Nan a i O'tol V wido swath within the easements,an the already signtr=nIty Impervious surface.A Implementod S WPPP will prevent or mitigate any envi onmental Issues that may arise as a result of the alterations.Nbst cuupled buildings are well av from Me Irall,mllotIng rtolso and odors which may be associaled with construction equipment operation.Fences,trallhead klosks,and benches are th only structures p(oposed.Tho Impact an open space and recreation Will-be poslUve.Completion or:he oevistoned trail may lead to loss automobile Ira t'bicyclists uldizo the troll for commuting.After considarlrrj Part I and It of Uiu FAF,the Town Board concluded that no negative impact would result frof the Town acrkulring easemenla from properly ommws or from actual future construction or an official Town trall, [�] A_ This project will result in no significant adverse impacts an the cnvironhicht,and;therefore,an environmental impact B .......... ApprpYp g B Goyernment Approvals,Fundiug,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"tnoludes grants;loans,-loans, relief;and any other forms of financial assistance.) y .. Governt�entntity If Yes Ideuflfy Agency and;Approval(s) ,Applicutlon Date Reryutred- - Actua)or ro ected ( . P ) a.City Council,Town Board, ®YesL]No Town Board must approve acqulsitlons of December 2010,ongoing of Village Board of Trustees easements and future funding of Improvements b CO;Town or Village IDYes(]No rlanning Board or Commission c City Council,Town';or C�Yes.�No :....Village Zoning Board.of..A eals....: - :...: d:Otfiijr local agencies .. _1]I'60No •. . . . . - : e;County agencies [JYes[INo f.Regional agencies Mes❑No `g.State:agencies OYesONo :' NYDEC,an approved SWPPP prior to urldertaklrig Improvements h.Federal agencies E]YesElNo - Name of LeadAgency: Town Board of the Town of Dryden Name of Responsible Officer in Lend Agency: Jason Letter _- Title of Responsible Officer: Supervisor Signature of lesponsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: �2 Signature of 1'rcparer(if differcatt froth Responsible tidiest Date: Planning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 5 of 8 FOIL REQUESTS Date & Request Response Comments October 22, 2021 One FEAF (SEQR) "The proposed action is the Town Dated12/15/16 Board's authorization to acquire T/O Dryden: trail easements across properties No SWPPP's containing the former Lehigh SEQR / SWPPP Valley Rail Road bed... ..' "An implemented SWPPP will prevent or mitigate any environmental issues that may arise as a result of the alterations." "NYDEC, an approved SWPPP prior to undertaking improvements" November 16, 2021 November 22, "Please be advised that a diligent 2021 search of the files maintained by NYSDEC Nothing received DEC produced no responsive records" Any NYSDEC Permits November 16, 2021 November 29, '7 have been advised that we do not 2021 have any NYSDEC permits as listed T/O Dryden: Nothing received In your Freedom of Information Request." Any NYSDEC Permits Planning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 6 of 8 i November 16, 2021 Review of FEAF (SEAR) with NYSDEC Region 7 Contact: "When this document was prepared it looks like it was just for the land j acquisition, not the actual projects." "in the meantime 1 will see if we have anything- record here on for the actual projects... " "1 didn't come up with anything. If you think they should have had permits or there were possible violations I would need exact locations and I can report them to Law Enforcement? From: Tracy, Elizabeth A(DEC) <elizabeth.tracv@dec.nv_gov> Reply: Tracy, Elizabeth A(DEC) <elizabeth.tracv@dec.nv_gov> Date: November 16, 2021 at 2:34:48 PM To: parker.pwp@gmail.com <parker.pwpQgmail.com> Subject: Fw: SEQR QUESTION Hi Paula, I would contact the Town and see what other documents they have for this project. When this document was prepared it looks like it was just for the land acquisition, not the actual projects. I would suggest putting in a FOIL request to the Town and in the meantime I will see if we have anything on record here for the actual projects if you know the locations. Elizabeth Tracy, Elizabeth A... -_Fo: parker.pwp@gmail.com 11/16/21, 3:12 PM I didn't come up with anything. If you think they should have had permits or there were possible violations I would need exact locations and I can report them to Law Enforcement? Before doing this I would suggest that you ask the Town to respond to you if they had any permits with the DEC for any of their projects along the trail. From: Paula Parker<parker.pwp@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 20212:59 PM To: Tracy, Elizabeth A (DEC) <elizabeth.tracy@dec.nygov> Subject: Re: Fw: SEQR QUESTION MN—TIt r r r r + source. 0 r r r r • r . sendersor r r emails. IPlanning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 7 of 8 Region 7 - Syracuse P: 315-426-5992 1 F: 315-426-7408 www.dec.ny_gov RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of 11/16/2021, Reference#W092195-111621 Date: 11/22/2021 Dear Paula, I write in response to your Freedom of Information Law(FOIL) request seeking: Full or Simple SWPPP: Town of Dryden Rail trial project from 2016 to present(November 2021) Specifically, any reports or permits with respect to hazard mitigation/environmental assessments/soil disturbance for the proposed Dryden Rail Trail and bridge work from Village of Dryden to Game Farm Road, Ithaca NY. Includin a planned spur trail down to Fall Creek through Cornell land Cornell Plantations) west of Route 13. Including:Full SWPPP(Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Soil Disturbance Form and/or Simple SWPPP(Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Soil Disturbance Form Please be advised that a diligent search of the files maintained by DEC produced no responsive records. NYS DEC staff ha noted that the Town of Dryden is an MS4, therefore the Town handles stormwater construction. If you believe you have been unlawfully denied access to responsive records, you have the right to appeal. Any such appeal must be submitted in writing and within thirty(30)days of the date of this email. Appeals must be directed to: FOIL Appeals Officer Office of General Counsel New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 14th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1500 Your FOIL request is now closed. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 315-426-5992 and reference FOIL #W092195-111621, or simply reply to this email. Thank you. Sincerely, Region 7 FOIL Coordinator Planning Board Presentation December 2, 2021 Page 8 of 8 a — '.; T•' r�I i� b�f-. VIO O A. JAW Id 737 rr. x. P r F 3 • µ s r� f ., x j ` lh j lh 1 W W N N cr. �%• �►`"4'r. O 1 � v� O � O to O t!r O � VI � 00 / I j oo — Fr W j W ... tJ J tw- w O I -4 J 1 tJl W r � f� •A I Ur J a, r f''s R* f- • I I I � O `D co *96 r � tQ ON N ur i W O I O° I N • ` F .Y (a -I Vi I ,f �p 1 ! - - i..-I♦•at _ 4F 4 ` CD 0 r � r �• `° J 00 A``t... o ,e O � �:. -� "'� � �', .,!)�. Ems^` • ' b � r k� .tea¢ i 41 00 W x _ of i".�",x• •e °'00 F j Q Cil Go J t' A ♦ t O ! O CD « � • • • ' f , Vehicle Stopping Distance and Time Highway traffic and safety engineers have some general guidelines they have developed over the years and hold now as standards. As an example, if a street surface is dry,the average driver can safely decelerate an automobile or light truck with reasonably good tires at the rate of about 15 feet per second(fps). That is,a driver can slow down at this rate without anticipated probability that control of the vehicle will be lost in the process. The measure of velocity is distance divided by time (fps), stated as feet per second. The measure of acceleration(or deceleration in this case) is feet per second per second. That assumes a reasonably good co-efficient of friction of about .75;better is .8 or higher while conditions or tire quality might yield a worse factor of.7 or lower. No matter the velocity,that velocity is reduced 15 fps every second. If the initial velocity is 60 mph, 88 fps,after 1 second elapsed,the vehicle velocity would be 73 fps,.after 2 seconds it would be 58 fps decreasing progressively thereafter. For the true mathematical perfectionist(one who carries PI to 1000 decimal places), it would have been technically correct to indicated the formula is'fpsps' rather than'fps',but far less understandable to most drivers. Since at speeds of 200 mph or less, the difference from one method to the other is in thousanths of seconds,our calculations in these examples are based on the simple fps calculations. Given the previous set of conditions, it would mean that a driver could stop the described vehicle in a total of 6.87 seconds(including a 1 second delay for driver reaction)and your total stopping distance would be 302.28 feet, slightly more than a football held in length! Virtually all current production vehicles' published road braking performance tests indicate stopping distances from 60 mph that are typealiv 120 to 140 feet, slightly less than half of the projected safety distances. While the figures are probably achievable, they are not realistic and certainly not average;they tend to be misleading and to those that actually read them,they create a false sense of security. By increasing braking skills,drivers can significantly reduce both the time it takes to stop and the distance taken to stop a vehicle. Under closed course conditions,professional drivers frequently achieve 1 g deceleration (32 fpsps)or better. A reasonably skilled driver could easily get deceleration rates in excess of 20 fpsps without loss of control. It is very possible and probable that with some effort,the driver that attempts to be aware of braking safety procedures and practices can and should get much better braking(safely) than the guidelines used nationally,approaching that of the professionally driver published performance tests. To determine how long it will take a driver to stop a vehicle,assuming a constant rate of deceleration,the process is to divide the initial velocity (in fps)by the rate of deceleration. You may want to use our'jf'elricie Stopping Distance Calculator to do r actual model calculations. 60 MPH= 88 fps. (fps=1.467 * MPH). If the vehicle deceleration rate is 20 fpsps(rather than the previously calculated 15 fps),then stopping time=88/20=4.4 seconds. Since there is a 1 second delay(driver reaction time) in hitting your brakes(both recognition and reaction time is often 2 seconds),the total time to stop is 5.4 seconds to 6.4 seconds. To determine how far the vehicle will travel while braking,use the formula of 1/2 the initial velocity multiplied by the time required to stop. In this case,this works out to be .5 * 88 4.4= 193.6 feet, plus a reaction time of either 88 feet for a second delay in reaction time,or 176 feet for two seconds reaction time. That yields 281.6 feet or 369.6 when added to the base stopping distance of 193.6 feet. If the driver is very responsive and takes only a half a second to react,the distance is reduced to 237.E feet.Notice that the reaction time is a huge factor since it is at initial velocity. Based on pure math, it is evident that there is a very large difference in the reported performance tests and reality. Assuming a deceleration rate of 32 fpsps(1g),calculations indicate a braking stop time of 2.75 seconds(88/32). Distance traveled now is-calculated to be 121 feet,which is for all practical purposed,the published performance figures, excluding reaction times. The intelligent driver will error on the safe side and leave room for reaction time and less than perfect conditions.That driver will also hone the braking skills to give more of a margin of safety. That margin can save lives. Pay attention to the need to react quickly. Braking/Stopping Distances 10 1 14.7 i 5 22 27 15 22 11 33 ! 44 20 29.3 1 19 44 63 25 36 30 55 85 30 44 43 66 109 35 51.3 59 77 + 136 40 58.7 ! 76 88 ( 164 sH 45 66 97 99 196 0 F73. 119 --�— 110 ----�229 - 55 i 80.7 I 144 121 265 60 88 "r'2 j 132 304 65— 95.3 202 i 143345 — 70 102.7 234 154 388 75 110 268 165 433 n 80 ; 117.3 j--305 6 i 481 85 -- 124.7 345 --�-_- 187 —_�_--532 —s 90 132 386 198 584