HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB 2026-06-18TB 6-18-26
Page 1 of 13
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
June 18, 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
Guests: Tony Salerno, Planning Board Chair
*denotes attendance via Zoom
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 6:06 p.m. Board members and audience recited the
pledge of allegiance.
TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION #139 (2026) – APPROVE MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of May 14 and
May 21, 2026.
2nd Cl Dravis
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
53 PINCKNEY RD
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m.
Bolt Storage, a self-storage facility at 53 Pinckney Rd, applied to amend their existing
Special Use Permit (SUP) to add 19 modular storage units to their site. The application was
introduced at a prior meeting and was brought forward for a public hearing tonight. Applicants
Nick Camacho (Construction Manager, Bolt Storage) and Sebastian Martinez presented the
proposal via Zoom.
Proposed improvements to the site include:
∙ 19 prefabricated 8 x 20 storage units (roughly 3,040 sq ft in total) that will be
assembled on-site and placed along the east and south perimeter fence lines within the
existing fenced area
∙ Two additional parking spaces on the west side of the property
TB 6-18-26
Page 2 of 13
∙ Relocation of the existing northern chain link fence approximately 38 feet to the
south, providing additional open space to support the Town’s future Rail Trail plans.
The fence would still prevent Rail Trail users from accessing the site.
Addressing a question from Cl Buck, the location of all 19 new units was confirmed to
be outside the mandatory 50-foot buffer from the adjacent stream (Fall Creek). The original
plan included 24 units, five of which were removed specifically to comply with Planning Board
comments regarding the stream buffer requirement (based on the County’s 239 review).
Ben Brown (29 Pinckney Rd) inquired about the proximity of the proposed units to
power lines located between the storage facility and his property. N Camacho confirmed units
will remain within current fence limits. The eastern fence line will be moved approximately 10
feet to accommodate eight units along that side. This movement does not bring the fence closer
to adjacent electrical lines.
R Burger informed Board members that the project requires a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) because the storage containers along the southern fence line (adjoining
Dominion property) would have a zero-foot setback instead of the requisite 7.5 feet. The
Planning Board has already recommended approval of this variance. The ZBA hearing is
scheduled for July.
There were no further comments, and the hearing was left open at 6:16 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
2150 DRYDEN RD
Supv Leifer opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. The application was introduced at a
prior meeting. No Board action on this would be taken at tonight’s meeting.
Emil Gevorgyan (owner) and his representative Marty Moseley (Municipal Relations
Consulting) appeared on behalf of Speedline Garage, located at 2150 Dryden Rd, adjacent to
the Willow Glen Cemetery and near Rte 13 solar installations. The applicant seeks a Special
Use Permit (SUP) to change occupancy on two buildings from agricultural to commercial. The
applicants would like to convert said agricultural buildings into a vehicle repair garage and
storage facility. No new construction or additions are proposed. Spec Consulting has been
engaged for additional drawings and analysis.
Proposed modifications to the site plan include:
∙ The fire department mandated a 20-foot-wide emergency access road with specific
turnouts to ensure fire apparatus maneuverability. Accordingly, the fire apparatus
access road (currently unimproved) will be widened to 20 feet with turnout areas to
allow emergency vehicles to pass. A fire apparatus turnaround area will also be
incorporated near the buildings.
∙ A monument sign is proposed near Rte 13, located outside of the DOT right-of-way.
∙ The Planning Board requested that a maximum total vehicle count (interior and
exterior combined) be indicated, consistent with limits set for similar operations (40-50
vehicles at comparable sites), and so the parking area will be defined with a stated
maximum of approximately 70 vehicles (vehicles awaiting repair). Visitor parking will be
near the buildings.
∙ An exterior oil-water separator will be added to capture and contain fluid spills.
∙ All site lighting is proposed as dark-sky compliant (2700-5000 K).
TB 6-18-26
Page 3 of 13
R Burger noted that Town Code Enforcement conducted a site visit on Tuesday and
identified nearly 100 vehicles on-site in various states of dismantling. Under current zoning,
the volume and condition of the vehicles qualify the site as a junkyard. Operating as a
junkyard is not a permitted use in this zoning district. He recommended the application not
advance until the site comes into compliance.
E Gevorgyan disputed the vehicle count (stating the presence of 54 vehicles) and the
“junkyard” characterization. He described his operation as a niche German-vehicle repair shop
as well as a personal hobby collection, maintaining that the vehicles are either customer cars
awaiting repair, cars for his own personal use, or cars that he intends to fix up to sell or keep.
He acknowledged that a lot of his personal vehicles are inoperable simply because he has yet to
repair them, as acquiring some of the parts is difficult; he typically does not store customer
vehicles that are beyond repair. No vehicle is dismantled to the point where it cannot be
reassembled. He stated that he does not purchase vehicles solely for dismantling or parts sales,
which is the sole purpose of a junkyard. When a car is beyond repair, it either gets picked up
by anyone willing to take it or scrapped.
R Burger responded that mixing a commercial business with a hobby can become a
difficult situation, but that ultimately it is incumbent on the owner, not the Town, to prove that
their business is not a junkyard as defined by Town zoning. The Planning Board recommended
that a limit be set on the number of vehicles on-site, as that stipulation was typical of SUPs for
other automobile dealerships and repair garages. To allow for vehicles in transition, a limit of
40 or 50 was proposed.
The current code allows only one unregistered vehicle on-site for repair businesses.
That is why repair shops typically work just on customer cars that have State registrations.
The current volume of vehicles on-site may be a violation of this.
Cl Lamb felt there was a certain rigidity being imposed that was not reflective of what
the owner is trying to do. His work caters to a niche market and is very much out of sight,
much different from a junkyard along Rte 13 that is highly visible. He wonders if there is room
for flexibility here, given that everything that the owner has done reflects the business that he
is in. It is not a situation where he accepts junk vehicles to be scrapped.
Cl Buck expressed concern regarding inoperable vehicles and the site’s porous surface.
With approximately 100 vehicles stored on-site, the risk of oil and coolant leakage into the local
watershed and nearby creek is substantial. Addressing a question about current fluid
management practices, the applicant stated that, if a vehicle is not on his premises for the
purpose of dismantling or repair, and if all the fluids are contained within the vehicle (i.e., not
leaking), he does not drain the fluids. However, if the vehicle is leaking or has a front-end
impact, the fluids are usually drained at the auction where they were purchased. The only
fluids that he drains are oil and coolant, and that is why he has proposed in his application an
exterior oil-water separator/grease trap to mitigate spills. Board members noted these may not
meet the applicable DEC standards.
E Gevorgyan does not want to register as a vehicle dismantler, as it is a headache to do
so and his business is not a junkyard. Supv Leifer pointed out that even if registered just as a
repair shop, New York State DEC regulations require registration with the DEC and compliance
with vehicle dismantler regulations for any facility receiving more than 25 end-of-life vehicles
per year or storing more than 50 end-of-life vehicles on-site at any time. A motor vehicle repair
shop that is registered with the NYS DMV would be exempt from this requirement if it stores no
more than 50 end-of-life vehicles on-site at any one time. With the owner’s stated count of 54
vehicles, registration with the DEC appears required regardless of whether the operation is
classified as a repair shop or dismantler. Supv Leifer advised the applicant to consult a lawyer
knowledgeable on this subject rather than make assumptions.
TB 6-18-26
Page 4 of 13
M Moseley asked Board members if they had any further issue with the site plan itself,
as he wanted to ensure everything of concern was addressed. Updated plans addressing
driveway/pull-out concerns have been submitted to the fire department. R Burger voiced his
recommendation of minor vegetation clearing from sight lines. Ongoing maintenance protocol
will probably be needed for the culvert at the low point of the access road to prevent it from
damming up.
Tim Arnold, speaking on behalf of the Dryden fire department, requested further review
of the road access to the site before a final vote is conducted by the Town Board.
Chris Morrissey, Planning Board member, noted at least three stop work orders have
been issued for this site over approximately two years, with the business continuing to operate.
The site has also reportedly operated without any DMV automotive license (repair, junk, or
otherwise) since inception. Regarding the application itself, the number of vehicles being stored
on-site is not clear and there is an ambiguity as to use of the site. It is unclear what its actual
purpose is: automotive repair shop, chop shop, or scrapyard. There have also been significant
site modifications since the last SUP. It is his opinion that the property could potentially be
classified as a major subdivision due to one common road serving multiple parcels that have
different uses. He noted that Scottie’s was sued by the Town for a very similar issue, and that
regardless of where the business is located, it is in the Town of Dryden and must abide by its
zoning code. He does not understand why there would be selective enforcement when
comparing the two businesses.
R Burger requested the applicant come up with a total maximum vehicle limit for the
site (interior and exterior storage combined, as it is one business). He also indicated a
condition of the SUP should be regular inspection access to enforce that number.
Supv Leifer directed the applicant to address DEC licensing and registration
requirements promptly, as one of the conditions of the SUP will be proof of this.
There were no further comments, and the hearing was left open at 6:47 p.m. until next
month.
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
53 PINCKNEY RD
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
Following a review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts 1 and 2,
the Board determined the project would have no significant adverse environmental impacts.
The site is not in a critical environmental area or floodplain or near historic sites. Wetlands
(i.e., stream feeding into Fall Creek) are present on the parcel but will not be disturbed.
RESOLUTION #140 (2026) – NEG SEQR DEC - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDED SPECIAL
USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL SELF-STORAGE UNITS TO BE
LOCATED AT 53 PINCKNEY ROAD, TAX PARCEL 44.-1-2.332
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of 1401 Dryden LLC, Bolt
Storage for an amended Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for additional self-storage
units to be located at 53 Pinckney Road, Tax Parcel 44.-1-2.332; and
TB 6-18-26
Page 5 of 13
B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden
is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with
approval by the Town; and
C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its
independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of SEQRA,
(i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”), Part I and any and all
other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its
environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental
concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the
EAF, Part 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the EAF, Part I
and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action
and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of
environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) its
completion of the EAF, Part 2, including the reasons noted thereon (which reasons are
incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance (“Negative Declaration”) in accordance with SEQR for the above
referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not
be required; and
2. The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and
directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the
foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed EAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Site plan approval and the special use permit is contingent on the ZBA granting the
side-yard setback relief in July. R Burger noted that this condition has been incorporated into
the first Resolved clause of the resolution.
RESOLUTION #141 (2026) – Site Plan and Amended Special Use Permit for Additional Self-
Storage Units at 53 Pinckney Road, Tax Parcel 44.-1-2.332
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. 1401 Dryden LLC, Bolt Storage has applied for an amended Special Use Permit
(SUP) and site plan approval to add eight (8) 160 square-foot modular self-storage
containers to the east of the existing large self-storage buildings, four (4) 160 square-
foot modular self-storage containers to the north of the existing large self-storage
buildings, and seven (7) 160 square-foot modular self-storage containers to the south
of the existing large self-storage buildings, for a total of 19 new units and 3,040 new
square feet of modular self-storage at 53 Pinckney Road, Tax Parcel 44.-1-2.332;
TB 6-18-26
Page 6 of 13
and
B. An application, sketch plan, and Short Environmental Assessment Form have been
submitted; and
C. The Town Planning Department considers the application in conformance with
the requirements of the Code of the Town of Dryden (Code) §270-11 and §270-12;
and
D. The Planning Board unanimously voted that the SUP be approved with standard
conditions and 1) that a 50-foot setback from the waterway is observed for any
placements on the west side of the property, as recommended by the County GML 239
letter, and 2) confirmation with the Town Stormwater Manager that a SWPPP is not
required; and
E. Applicant has revised site plan to 1) remove the four (4) proposed units from the
west side of the property; and 2) Town Stormwater Manager has determined that a
SWPPP is not required; and
F. The Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed the application pursuant
to §239 –l, - m, and –n of the New York State General Municipal Law and
determined that the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or
inter-community impacts; and
G. A public hearing was held on June 18, 2026, with public comments registered
in the meeting minutes and considered by this board; and
H. Applicant has provided Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Based
upon the information provided by the applicant, and the information known about the
surrounding environs, this action appears to qualify as an Unlisted Action under the
provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR); and
I. Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the
Town Board of the Town of Dryden has, on June 18, 2026, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed
and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts
1, 2, and 3; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board approves the sketch plan documents, submitted with the
application dated December 15, 2025 and amended on May 8, 2026 and May
12, 2026 as site plan for 53 Pinckney Road, Tax Map Parcel #44.-1-2.332
conditioned on the following:
The Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals approves applicant’s request for an
area variance for the placement of seven (7) storage containers on the side yard
property line (with no setback) with neighboring Tax Map Parcel #44.-1-2.331; and
2. The Town Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested
Special Use Permit listed in Code Section 270-12 have been met, specifically that:
a) The proposed use is compatible with the other permitted uses in the Mixed-use
Commercial District as self-storage is allowed with a Special Use Permit (SUP) in
TB 6-18-26
Page 7 of 13
this district, according to §270-5.2 and this area of Route 13 and Pinckney Road
contains other commercial businesses and other self-storage businesses; and
b) The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural
and manmade environment, as there are other businesses and other self-storage
businesses in this area to the Route 13 and this stretch is lined with commercial
buildings; and
c) Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use is
adequate. Parking is not expected to increase significantly on the parcel; and
d) The overall impact on the site and its surroundings considering Code §270-13.3:
proposed use will not produce conditions that are noxious, offensive or hazardous
to the health, safety or general welfare of the community… Nuisances such as
noise and lighting have been considered and found to be negligible; and
e) Restrictions and/or conditions on design of structures or operation of the use
necessary to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses have been
incorporated into the site plan; and
f) The project complies with the requirements for site plan review and conforms to
the Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable.
3. The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with all other provisions of
the Code and other applicable ordinances, approves this Site Plan and Special Use
Permit for the addition of self-storage units at 53 Pinckney Road, Tax Map Parcel
#44.-1-2.332 within the Town of Dryden.
2nd Cl Vargas-Mendez
Roll Call Vote Cl Vargas-Mendez Yes
Cl Buck Yes
Cl Dravis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
N Camacho thanked the Board and confirmed plans to proceed with the variance
process.
PRESENTATION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF ARTICLE IX OF THE
DRYDEN SUBDIVISION LAW – CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS
Tony Salerno, Planning Board chair, presented the Planning Board’s recommended
replacement of Article IX of the Dryden Subdivision Law that governs Conservation
Subdivisions. This was an informational presentation only. No action would be requested
tonight. The Planning Board voted unanimously to send this recommendation forward.
T Salerno acknowledged that the draft distributed prior to the meeting was missing item
#8 from the Purposes statement: “To promote mixed-income housing options.” A corrected
version will be distributed tomorrow morning.
The proposed law is part of a phased zoning rewrite aligned with Dryden2045. Key
priorities addressed include increasing the supply of affordable housing; protecting Dryden’s
rural character, agricultural lands, and conservation resources; and balancing private property
rights with community conservation goals. Conservation subdivision was described as a “best
TB 6-18-26
Page 8 of 13
of both worlds” tool, allowing development flexibility while preserving open space, farmland,
and rural character. The draft law was developed with input from the Zoning Advisory Group
(ZAG), Climate Action Committee, Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC), Conservation Board,
and Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee (AWHC) over several months.
The law would require major subdivisions in Conservation and Rural Agricultural (RA)
zones to be conservation subdivisions. (The current conservation subdivision law applies only
to major subdivisions in Conservation zones.) Conservation zones presently comprise 44.39%
of the Town’s acreage; RA accounts for another 30%.
Conservation subdivision mandates preserving 50% of a parcel’s total acreage
(excluding already protected NYS DEC wetlands) as open space. In addition, prime soils, soils
of statewide importance, and all agricultural lands must be inventoried as part of the
conservation subdivision process; currently no such requirement exists. Conservation
subdivision does not change density requirements (which are determined by the zone itself). It
simply allows more flexibility in lot layout, encouraging clustered development and defined
building envelopes that maintain contiguous tracts of productive land.
A significant point of discussion centered on whether to require conservation
subdivisions in Rural Residential (RR) zones (~8,000 acres / ~13.53% of the Town). Taken
together with the Conservation and RA zones, approximately 88.7% of Town acreage would be
covered by the conservation subdivision requirement. The AWHC expressed concern that
extending the requirement to RR could discourage housing development by adding perceived
regulatory burden. A proposed compromise was to require conservation subdivision in Rural
Residential parcels that overlap with State-defined agricultural districts (~23.85% of the RR
zone). Without protection in place, these active farmlands remain vulnerable to fragmented
development. An overlay map was presented showing this intersection, with representative
parcels rendered in green.
Conservation subdivision may be used voluntarily in any zone. However, developers
would be required to use it for major subdivisions in both Conservation and Rural Agricultural
zones. There are currently protections in place for land in Conservation zones, but there are no
protections on farmland. This law would rectify that. It would shift the process to “inventory
first, lot lines last,” whereby developers must first identify sensitive areas (wetlands, steep
slopes, prime soils) before drawing parcel lines and determining building envelopes.
Cl Lamb suggested that language be drafted that would give the Planning Board
discretion to apply conservation subdivision requirements to major subdivisions in areas where
Rural Residential and agricultural districts overlap on a case-by-case basis, rather than a
blanket mandate. T Salerno pointed out that problems may arise where RR lots have already
been subdivided into two or three sublots; if, in the future, one of those sublots is split in two,
then it becomes a major subdivision that requires a conservation subdivision, which would not
make much sense in that case. He added that he was uncertain as to the way the law could be
written that would allow such discretion. Cl Buck expressed that this might be confusing for
people, as agricultural district maps are not static, but constantly in flux. T Salerno responded
that people who are in an agricultural district know they are in an agricultural district because
they have had to apply to be in the agricultural district.
T Salerno stated that the zones themselves are not under consideration in this phase of
the zoning update, though reference is being made to them. The question of “are these zones
right for what is there” might be taken up as much as three years from now. Also to be
considered at a later stage are density bonuses to encourage conservation subdivisions.
TB 6-18-26
Page 9 of 13
R Burger advised that if the Board wanted to act on this recommendation, they should
give direction to him and the Town Attorney to put this into the format of a local law for
introduction at a future Board meeting to set a public hearing.
T Salerno offered that Board members should realize the dynamic nature of agricultural
district boundaries (which change via owner application) and the proximity of some
RR/agricultural district overlays to nodal development areas (which includes the villages).
Concerns were raised that stringent preservation requirements in agricultural districts near the
villages might conflict with the goals for higher-density affordable housing there. He noted that
the agricultural districts are concentrated in the north and east of the Town and would impact
the village nodes more than they would Varna and Ellis Hollow. He summarized that flexibility
would be needed in those areas where RR and the agricultural districts overlap.
R Burger will convey to the Town Attorney this nuance that leaves it to the discretion of
the Planning Board to apply the conservation subdivision tool to those areas where agricultural
districts and the RR zone overlap.
T Salerno also noted that future work might be needed regarding agricultural zones in
areas identified for nodal development.
Cl Lamb clarified that conservation subdivisions go to the Planning Board for review,
not the Town Board. SUPs and site plan reviews come to the Town Board.
Nancy Munkenbeck raised concerns that language specifically prioritizing
soils/farmland of statewide importance and prime farmland – language that was present in an
earlier draft – was removed or weakened at the last ZAG meeting. She expressed concern that
the current draft does not sufficiently prioritize the protection of this farmland over other
conservation interests. Current draft language places these agricultural lands as equal in
priority to other conservation resources (steep slopes, good vistas, etc.) rather than specifically
elevating them. She argued that the primary concern of the agricultural community is not to
protect all agricultural land equally, but to protect particular soils. These unique geological
assets are irreplaceable and should be the first priority for preservation during the site
inventory process. Prioritizing these soils in the site design criteria would direct development
toward less fertile areas and protect the most valuable farmland. She asked Board members to
review this.
Evan Carpenter, AAC chair, noted that the AAC has not had time to review the last
changes that were made to the conservation subdivision law. State soil classifications (prime
farmland, soils of statewide importance) are objectively defined by State standards and easily
identified from available mapping, and so this should be included.
Agriculture and conservation go together. The soils around here were developed
thousands of years ago, and they have been protected by agriculture. There is a responsibility
when you have land and farmers understand that. Trillium Woods is there because for
centuries it has been surrounded by farmland. In other parts of the Town are scenic areas
surrounded by farmland. Unique areas like these are not found surrounded by housing
development. Farmers take care of the conservation areas. It is in our ethos. It is what we do.
We care for the land because we make our life from the land.
Craig Anderson suggested that there be included in the draft a prioritized list of things
that are in constraint (e.g., prime soils, soils of statewide importance, UNAs, etc.) that would
protect those things from development. Unfortunately, timing is an issue, with the ZAG having
their meetings early in the month and getting copy out at the end of the month. This does not
allow for advisory boards, which meet in the middle of the month, to weigh in on matters until
the following month. That is what is happening now; nobody has seen the draft that was
TB 6-18-26
Page 10 of 13
offered for consideration tonight, which is completely different from last month’s draft. He
asked Board members that the advisory boards be given time to review the current draft.
T Salerno acknowledged the concerns of all but noted that different advisory boards
have different priorities. The Trillium Woods subdivision is unique in that it has so many
different elements on the site: farmland, UNAs, and DEC wetlands. Usually, only one element
would be at issue. He returned to the “inventory first” dictate whereby such elements are first
inventoried on a property and then left untouched by way of their count towards the
stipulation of 50% preserved open space.
Cl Lamb confirmed that prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance could be
incorporated into the content of land that is protected in a conservation subdivision, and that
the current draft was passed unanimously by the Planning Board. He noted that approximately
7.8% of the Town’s total land mass (~4,500 acres) falls into the categories of prime farmland,
prime farmland if drained, or farmland of statewide importance, which he feels is not a lot of
acreage.
T Salerno committed to reviewing language from previous drafts, noting the changes at
the last ZAG meeting were primarily the removal of RR from the required zones and minor word
tweaks. Additional language raised tonight concerning the prioritization of prime farmland and
soils of statewide importance can be addressed by the Town Board during the public comment
period.
The Board plans to formally introduce the local law on July 16, with a public hearing
scheduled for August and a potential vote in September (if no substantive changes arise from
the public hearing). If additional changes are needed, the public hearing will be kept open.
Such timing will allow advisory boards to submit comments in July and early August.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
R Burger stated that the department’s monthly report is available on the Town’s
website. However, the report incorrectly lists the Trillium Woods subdivision as being at the
stage of a preliminary plat review. The project is currently at the sketch approval stage. The
preliminary plat has not yet been received.
COUNTY BRIEFING
Dan Wakeman briefed the Board on what is occurring at the County level.
Bridge work is ongoing. Money is being shuffled around for this.
At the Facilities and Infrastructure Committee meeting today, a geothermal system was
proposed for the County’s Center of Government downtown campus. This open-loop system
would utilize two 175-foot-deep wells (separated by approximately 150-200 yards), with the
primary thermal transfer located in the bottom of the Old Jail facility, to provide heat for four
buildings.
Several months ago, the scope of the Center of Government building was revised to
45,000 sq ft with a $50 million budget cap. Holt Architects revised their plans accordingly.
There is now no fourth floor in the current design other than for mechanical, though structural
provisions have been included for a future addition.
Budget discussions are underway with fiscal pressure. The County has approved a tax
cap exception to the levy. D Wakeman cautioned this does not guarantee the cap would be
exceeded, but the fund balance replenishment policy must be honored. Forthcoming
TB 6-18-26
Page 11 of 13
discussions on this will be interesting. A new fund balance policy is also under review to limit
one-time requests (OTRs) in the upcoming budget cycle to maintain long-term fiscal stability.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
Tim Arnold, Deputy Chief of the Dryden Fire Department, reported that the department
responded to 26 total calls last month. Twelve (12) of these were medical/EMS calls. On-scene
personnel averaged 5.7 firefighters with an average enroute time of 2 minutes 52 seconds.
Five new interior firefighters recently graduated.
The department is hosting an Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) on
Thursday evenings and Saturdays for several weeks. Over 12 participants have already signed
up, including three Dryden Fire Department members.
Storm protocol was activated by the County during the recent weather event. Fourteen
(14) firefighters from Dryden Fire responded to handle the storm-related calls.
The transfer of the Etna facility to Neptune for management as a regional training
center (the action for which was authorized roundabouts April) was then discussed. The
transfer is in its “due diligence” phase, with legal inspections, disclosures, and documentation
in progress (much like a commercial property sale). Particular attention is being paid to the
underground storage tank on the property, which is currently being investigated for any
liabilities. Etna’s trailer and ATV have already been sold; the status of the pickup truck is
under question. It is believed that Neptune’s attorney is working with Etna’s attorney (Brad
Pinsky) to finalize documents. The transfer was targeted for completion by June but is now
anticipated by July.
Cl Lamb requested that a status update on the plans previously presented be provided
at the July meeting.
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee
Cl Vargas-Mendez reported that the study results on the Leonardo property are being
finalized by Fisher Associates. Feedback from the last meeting will be incorporated before
distribution of the final report.
Conservation Board
Cl Buck reported that the Conservation Board has been discussing the conservation
subdivision article.
Climate Action Committee
Via email, Cl Dravis reported that the next two Repair Cafes will be held on July
25th and October 10th at the Dryden Center for Community. Committee leadership will remain
the same for 2026-2027, with Jack Wright as Chair and Evan Kurtz as Vice Chair. The
Committee is looking at what grants to possibly apply for next year.
Veterans Committee
TB 6-18-26
Page 12 of 13
Via email, Cl Dravis reported that the Committee is moving forward with two ideas: 1)
adding businesses to the County’s FAVOR (Find & Assist Vets of Record) discount program;
and 2) the Hometown Heroes banner project.
The Committee also received the following compliment from Tompkins County
Department of Veterans Services:
To start things off, I need everyone to look backward in time with me, very briefly, and
extend a public “thank you” to the Town of Dryden, the Dryden Veterans Committee,
and Dryden Town Councilperson Christina Dravis. Included first in the attachments
with this listserv post is a picture of the billboard near the intersection of Route 13 and
Hanshaw Road. For the Memorial Day Weekend, passersby saw the message for our
Veterans community: “Remember & Honor.”
The Tompkins County Department of Veterans Services (TCDVS) salutes those in
Dryden responsible for that display. I hope all who saw it appreciated the display, the
effort undertaken to post that message, and those who served in this country’s Armed
Forces, past and present.
Planning Board
No report was given.
Rail Trail Task Force
Cl Lamb reported that the Rte 13 pedestrian bridge is set for a soft opening in late
October. A press event will be held at that time, and there has been outreach to the offices of
Senator Gillibrand and Congressman Josh Riley requesting their attendance for this. A grand
opening event is planned for spring 2027.
A smaller bridge project led by Charlie Trautmann (Cornell Engineering program) is
nearing completion. It is not yet open to the public. Cl Lamb noted that this is a great
partnership between Cornell, the Park Foundation, members of the Finger Lakes Runners
Club, and other groups.
Three donated trees have been delivered to the Town’s DPW. Three more are on the way.
They are being cared for by a Rail Trail Task Force member.
Supv Leifer added that several Hallwoods Road residents have raised concerns about
trees being removed for construction of the Rail Trail pedestrian bridge, thus reducing
screening from Rte 13. R Burger stated that additional utility pole work (for electric rerouting)
will add to the clearing and recommended that Rail Trail organization replant vegetation.
Agriculture Advisory Committee
No report was given.
DRYC (Dryden Recreation and Youth Commission)
Supv Leifer reported that the Town playgrounds need significant upgrades. Dryden Lake
has been on the backburner for years. Etna was last redone in 2008 or 2009. The DRYC is
exploring the NY PLAYS grant to help fund these improvements, though grant rules require
separate applications per playground, a noted inefficiency.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
TB 6-18-26
Page 13 of 13
Respectfully submitted,
Loren Sparling
Town Clerk