Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB 2026-05-14TB 5-14-26 Page 1 of 6 TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING May 14, 2026 Zoom Hybrid Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Leonardo Vargas- Mendez, Cl Christina Dravis, Cl Spring Buck Other Officials: Loren Sparling, Town Clerk (appointed) Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director *Cassie Byrnes, Secretary to the Supervisor *Denotes attendance via Zoom Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 6:07 p.m. FINANCIALS/HUMAN RESOURCES RESOLUTION #116 (2026) – APPROVE ABSTRACT #5 Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract #5, as audited, general vouchers #396 through #533 ($3,185,497.68) and TA vouchers #20 through #23 ($10,077.92), totaling $3,195,575.60. 2nd Cl Lamb Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes Cl Buck Yes Cl Dravis Yes Cl Lamb Yes Supv Leifer Yes DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS Authorize Renewal of Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement The Board reviewed an agreement between the Ithaca and Cayuga Heights sewer plants, with Dryden being a part-owner of the Ithaca plant. The agreement would allow waste to be sent from the Cayuga Heights plant through a connecting pipe to Ithaca and they would be charged for this. Resolution #117 (2026) – Authorize Renewal of Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Village of Cayuga Heights constructed, owns and operates the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in the Village of Cayuga Heights, which serves its Village as well as certain areas in the Town of Dryden, Town of Ithaca, Town of Lansing and Village of Lansing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 5-G of the N.Y. General Municipal Law, the Town of Dryden, City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca jointly constructed, own and operate the Ithaca Area TB 5-14-26 Page 2 of 6 Wastewater Treatment Facility, located in the City of Ithaca, which provides wastewater treatment services in certain areas in their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant operates at full capacity during certain parts of the year, and the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility has excess capacity; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to provide wastewater services to their respective communities and meet their wastewater discharge permit requirements in the most efficient manner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dryden Town Board determines that joint actions and cooperation among the Parties to meet their respective needs are in their best interests, will benefit their respective citizens, and will help protect the water quality of Cayuga Lake; and be it further Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized to execute such Intermunicipal Wastewater Agreement and any other necessary documents in order to effectuate the same; and Resolved, this resolution shall take effect immediately. 2nd Cl Vargas-Mendez Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes Cl Buck Yes Cl Dravis Yes Cl Lamb Yes Supv Leifer Yes Authorize Supplemental Agreement #3 for Engineering Services – Dryden Rail Trail Phase 2 Supv Leifer explained that this was a supplemental engineering agreement for Phase 2 of the Dryden Rail Trail that adds $81,000 to the original $262,000 contract. The increase was attributed to project delays and higher inspection costs. Resolution #118 (2026) – Authorize Supplemental Agreement #3 for Engineering Services, Dryden Rail Trail Phase 2 Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: Whereas, the start of construction for the Dryden Rail Trail Phase 2 PIN 395071 (the project) was delayed until this year; and Whereas, the Town of Dryden, originally authorized in 2023 an agreement with Erdman Anthony for engineering and construction inspection services in the amount of $262,000, and Whereas, this delay has resulted in additional engineering work and increased construction inspection costs by Erdman Anthony; Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves Supplemental Agreement #3 for Engineering Services with Erdman Anthony, in the form as presented, for an additional cost not to exceed $81,000; and be it further TB 5-14-26 Page 3 of 6 Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized to execute such Supplemental Agreement and any other necessary documents in order to effectuate the same; Resolved, this resolution shall take effect immediately. 2nd Cl Lamb Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes Cl Buck Yes Cl Dravis Yes Cl Lamb Yes Supv Leifer Yes Resolution – Authorize Code Enforcement Contract with the Village of Freeville The Village of Freeville lost its code enforcement officer and has asked the Town to provide temporary code enforcement services until they can fill the vacancy. R Burger informed Board members that these services would be paid at a rate of $70 per hour on an as-needed basis, rather than through a fixed contract like the contract the Town has with the Village of Dryden for $54,000 a year. The Town has the staff to undertake the additional work, but they will be stretched. Resolution #119 (2026) – Authorize Code Enforcement Contract with the Village of Freeville Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Village of Freeville requested that the Town of Dryden provide Code Enforcement services while the Village seeks to fill their Code Enforcement Officer vacancy; and WHEREAS, the Town has three Code Enforcement Officers and wishes to help a neighbor in need. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dryden Town Board agrees to enter into a contract with the Village of Freeville to provide code enforcement services; and be it further Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized to execute such a contract and any other necessary documents in order to effectuate the same; and Resolved, this resolution shall take effect immediately. 2nd Cl Lamb Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes Cl Buck Yes Cl Dravis Yes Cl Lamb Yes Supv Leifer Yes Resolution – Approve Varna Water & Sewer Improvement Project Change Order A change order for the Varna Water and Sewer Improvement Project was considered that increases the contract sum by $12,366.35 for sanitary sewer and $9,881.51 for water. This is for work on Freese Road due to location updates. The Board has been asked to approve this so that there will be no issues with CDBG, as the total amount is just over $20,000. TB 5-14-26 Page 4 of 6 Resolution #120 (2026) – Approve Varna Water & Sewer Improvement Project Change Order Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Change Order No. 3 (issued and effective 01/09/2026) that adds $12,366.35 to the Varna Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Contract B) sum and adds $9,881.51 to the Varna Water Improvements (Contract C) sum. 2nd Cl Lamb Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes Cl Buck Yes Cl Dravis Yes Cl Lamb Yes Supv Leifer Yes Conservation Board Request to Include Two Students as Non-Voting Members The Board discussed a request from the Conservation Board to include two students as non-voting members. Cl Buck explained that the Conservation Board currently does not have seats for them as voting members but would like to have them as liaisons with the school. It was noted that a change to the number of Conservation Board seats would require a change to the local law that established the Board (Local Law No. 1 of 2004). In contrast, advisory boards such as the Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee, Agriculture Advisory Committee, and Climate Action Committee were initially created through resolution of the Town Board; as such any changes to the membership structure of these committees can be made by resolution. Given the unlikelihood that the students could make a multi-year commitment to the Conservation Board, opinions were expressed that the students should not have voting privileges and the enabling legislation be left as is. Should the Board desire to make them permanent members in the future, they will amend the local law. Cl Lamb wondered if the positions were specific to these two students or whether they would be maintained in perpetuity. Cl Buck answered that the prime motivation was to have a link with the local school community and to encourage connection. Board members were very supportive of fostering high school student involvement in municipal issues. People have to start somewhere to figure out if what they are interested in now is what they want to do with their lives later. Supv Leifer noted that the Town of Dryden is served by multiple school districts, not just the Dryden Central School District. Cl Lamb thought this another way for Town government to connect with the community. He wondered, though, if this role would be limited to local high school students. Would home-schooled students or graduates still residing in the community be considered? R Burger mentioned that General Municipal Law, Article 12F, which establishes conservation boards, allows for two appointments who are between the ages of 16 and 21. Cl Buck understood this to mean that of all the Conservation Board members, two can be between 16 and 21. There was extensive debate over the title that would be given to these roles. Among those titles considered were “Intern,” “Liaison,” and “Junior Member.” The Board opted to use the title “Youth Liaison” for these students, as liaisons exist to report back to their peer groups. Interns are there for the experience, not to communicate back to the school. The phrasing allows for official recognition of these students – beneficial for college applications – without requiring a supervisor/mentor role that an “Intern” title might necessitate. The liaison roles will TB 5-14-26 Page 5 of 6 also not change the membership of the Conservation Board, thereby avoiding the local law needing to being changed. Resolution #121 (2026) – Approve Conservation Board Request to Include Two Students as Youth Liaisons Cl Buck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the Conservation Board’s request to include two local high school students as non-voting youth liaisons at Conservation Board meetings and activities. 2nd Supv Leifer Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes Cl Buck Yes Cl Dravis Yes Cl Lamb Yes Supv Leifer Yes PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT #336PR9-21 Supv Leifer attempted to open a public hearing for the Varna sewer and water project, which is nearing 95% completion. The project has been ongoing for four to five years. A hearing at the end stage is a standard CDBG requirement to allow people to make any comments before the project gets finalized. The notice was provided by consultant Jay Grasso (G&G), but supplemental information was missing and no representatives were present to provide details. Supv Leifer declined to open or continue the hearing without proper documentation. The matter was tabled and will be re-noticed for a June date to allow for proper information dissemination. Additional Items Evan Carpenter, chair of the Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC), presented a formal request from the Committee regarding the proposed conservation subdivision law, as follows: “The Dryden Agriculture Advisory Committee requests from the Planning Board and Zoning Advisory Group the following: 1) To allow local farmers and landowners a 90-day review period to analyze the proposed changes to the Conservation Subdivision Law. 2) That Nan Stolzenburg (consultant) provide visual models showing how a 20-acre, 50- acre, and 100-acre farm would be developed under the new law. 3) Immediate release of the finalized density formulas and tables for Conservation Subdivisions. 4) A document from the Zoning Advisory Group with complete current definitions. 5) Investigating whether Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or existing conservation easements (e.g., NRCS) can satisfy the 50% open space requirement. The Dryden Agriculture Advisory Committee thinks these requests are reasonable in light of the important differences between protecting important farmland (agriculture) and unique natural areas (conservation). The demands of the planting season and the TB 5-14-26 Page 6 of 6 consequent limited time available to farmers to review the documents justifies our request for a 90-day review period.” Regarding the request for clarification of terms, E Carpenter noted that terms that are second-nature to those on the Planning Board and Zoning Advisory Group (ZAG) are unfamiliar or mean different things to the farming community. To a question about AAC presence at ZAG meetings, he responded that Doug Antczak has pretty much been there from the beginning. E Carpenter has brought this to the attention of the Town Board because if the proposed conservation subdivision law relates to farmland, the AAC has neither had the chance to really understand what has been going on, nor understood what has been said at the ZAG meetings for the past few months. They are unsure if the conservation law will even work for farmland. They are equally confused as to why the conservation subdivision section was fast-tracked for Town Board approval when the AAC has yet to really understand it. Tony Salerno, chair of the Planning Board, explained that the conservation subdivision section was fast-tracked to address calls for a moratorium on major subdivisions by multiple Town advisory boards. He clarified that density requirements are defined by the existing zone (e.g., Rural Residential or Agricultural), not by the conservation subdivision itself. The law does not change underlying density requirements but focuses on inventorying sensitive resources like soils of statewide importance, prime farm soils, wetlands, and archaeological sites. Although the conservation subdivision law was originally designed specifically for conservation zones, the Zoning Advisory Group tried to expand this idea to include agricultural lands, so as to protect them as well. Cl Buck added that agricultural lands do not have a lot of protections on them. There are not a lot of ways to reserve them for agricultural use or to protect those rare soils. Rolling these lands into the conservation subdivision update is one of the best tools out there to respond to concerns about farmland protection. R Burger informed Board members that the earliest the ZAG and Planning Board can forward recommendations to the Town Board is June, so the earliest there could be a public hearing for the local law would be July. Board members declined the 90-day delay, emphasizing the need to move forward with the zoning rewrite and noting that the legislative process (i.e., public hearings in July) already provides a natural two-month window for feedback. T Salerno encouraged the Agriculture Advisory Committee (or any other advisory board) to email specific questions for clarification before the next ZAG meeting, at which point they could be discussed. PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS FOR MAY 21, 2026 Next week’s meeting will include two special use permit application introductions (53 Pinckney Rd and 2150 Dryden Rd) and a major discussion on the fire district starting at 6:30 p.m. Supv Leifer emphasized 10-minute limits for presentations at this meeting to ensure efficiency. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Town Clerk (appointed)