No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-28Fe:brua.ry 28, 1963 l -= :O TO: r?E =inr Eo:;Y'. '+ As a result of our most interesting meeting with mobile home ;ark . owners on February 1F , I have set up a snecial meeting with- Tom Niederkorn to Fro over his ordinance in comparison with the HEW (Hea.lth, Ekuca.tion, G.n3 ;Telfare) one 11 the New York Mobile Home �.ssociation one. We will not all have a. chance to see these later two ordinances, which the a.rk owners seem rea:ay to accept, but I'm wetting it to as many of you as I can. In any case, there a-re several other major side issues we Trust resolve - -for examclle, i•,ill we treat mobile home parlks as a.. special, separate r%roup or have them come before the planning board like a subdivision? Are we settin7 up more for the zoning enforcement officer than he can ha.nfle? I;er, much control can the Hea.i t 1 D`epa.rtment assume? I think if we can get this last Major hurdle crossed, the road to zoning: will be rel ^.tiirely smoothe. Tom Niedtrkorn thinks he may have the rest of the ordinance dons to P•ive us that niE L but I'm not sure_ et. `_;nyzways a =t trr s�poi.n=t � =e t_nt to a z.ny- thing �5�� un ;c1 ��;roees,� since Siring is ra,pialy Mcon-- =s and no one wa.n�t,s to have any more meetings than necessary then. So...�:,Thursd.6* , i %larch 7 is the date, at 8 p.m. in the Tot-.tn Hall. Please brine your mobile home ra`rk oraina.nce, and the Bonin? re .ula,- tions you have, too. Believe rr, e, we'll t,ry to 'lre:.p it shorter than last time ( thou: h fr.arkly I don't know how c•; e could. have ke^t that a.r•tIcu1ar• .Mee in:`* much shorter•-- t'^.ere wes a. lot of r#•roun: to cover) . Tom Tod(d was unable to make that last mee`in�, but he or someone else from the 'oti:n Boa:r�-. hopefully can be there as an observer. As you can `Hess, the minutes for the last meetint, are extensive. a.ni Ginna,, also burdenec,. with a. bug, does not have them done yet. Ho�aever, I will Lh try to gee U you 2 bcefore the :reefing next Thursday; if not we' 11 hand there out t'cat n ht . The next regular PE meetinn: will be lv.a.rch 21. Thank you, PLEASE SA V -E " 1'HE SLAILPS ON THE ENVELOPE FOR ME l TOfl PLANNDrG BOARD, TO:%,rN OF LRYD�j %�, NEId YORK FebruaIZ 15,196x3 The To-rm of Dryden Plannin_; Board opened its February meeting at 8:00 p.m. at the Toi,,rn Hall, with the follo�•ring me :hers present: Chairman Curtiss, 11r, Hanford, Mesdames Hardesty and Keech, and Drs. -L .engemann and Sheffy. Also present were Mr. Jut es vIalsh of Ellis Hollow, Professor Frank Gilmore and fir. John 2`dcAeill in connection with the rrablic hearing; "r. 'Max Barber, Cornell stud �,•,t � ., s cbs,w�r .^r, and Tor. "i of 11_+-x, d an Tina; l nr Pn rk� crwnerg Tvlessrs: �„ ti.,.. Q.. .,.,_ .., William Conger, Donald Portzline, Robert Relyea (Tagging :flagon), Walter Schwan, and Charles Zeh. Public Hecrin�: I`a_ior Subdivision ti� "Ellis Highl,�nds� Pars; 2 "� Pl•of. Frank Gilmore Advertisement re public hearing read aloud. Mr. John iMacPlleill, Licensed Engineer, presented five conies of the Section 2 plat with Health Department approval stamped thereupon. He noted that their intent had been to present six lots at this hearing; but since they Were unable to secure satisfactory percolation tests for three of the lots, they are at this time .extending Section Two by only the re.-raining, three lots: Lot 4, Block 7; Lot 9, Block 5, and Lot 7, Block $. Mr. MacNeill presented a letter with ackno;.rledgement signed by Mre Richard OCase, signifying that all involved road work had been satisfactorily completed except for some finial g: ading (approximately one day's work) to be completed in the Spring. Prof. Gilmore indicated that percolation trouble is not estimated to continue, but that these tests had been made durirop a thawing period. Following the Health Department recommendation, . he had installed a. ditch for surface water removal, and anticipated that satisfactory percolation tests will be able to be made in the Sprig. Woodland R-d profile as presented shamed filling to brig to permitted 10,%. (Fisting Hunt Hill Road, parallel, is, he stated, steeper than 10%.) Profo.Gilmore stated that he would proceed with the eight lots. so far approved (five in Section Cne, and three in Section Two.) vflnen weather permits, he will make the percolation tests for Health Department approval but may elect to wait to submit the r•e nainirZ three lots in Section Two until plans are further developed. Mr, Welsh eXa,mined the plats to his satisfaction, including the overall plans. Mr. Curtiss determined that the proposal had been adequately discussed. No vrritten material had been received in connection with the hearing, except for the letter bearing the signature of Mr. Case. Prof. Gilmore provided revised copies of the restrictive covenants, including some small adjustments by I'T. Allen Treman, attorney to Prof., Gilmore, Prof. Gilmore noted that these revised covenants will apply also to Section One, previously submitted (2nd will be substituted for those on file with the Planning Board)therefore making everythingb consistent, 3 Torn of Dryden Plannir r Board February 159 1968 Under�rourd Sz�vwce This board requested Prof. Gilmore to report on his • experierres in attempting to secure underground electric service for his development. According to the estimate provided to Prof. Gilmore by �`r. Lacey of the N.Y.S. E.&G.," the cost to provide under round electric service for a proposed it lots would be $144810 with the r;.Y. S.E *8rT. doing the complete installation, Cf this amount, $3,225 was assigned for ditching work9 which could be hired independently by the developer if he so elected. This price was based on an estimated annum revenue to the utility of $200 for each of 11 domes, totalling $2,200, plus street lighting revenue of $500; total annual revenue to the power company: $2,700. The utility would rraltiply this $2,700 x 2 to reach an off -sat figure of $5,400 which they would deduct from the $14,810 estimate, to leave a balance of $9,410 net expended by the developer for the eleven lots, or nearly $1,000 per lot. For comparison, Prof. Gilmore obtained a table from the Niagara- h'ohawk Poorer Company, which charges $1.50 per foot of trench *,,here street lighting is not installed } ` simultaneously, = $300 for two lots = $150 per lot. This per-foot figure is reduced to $1.00 when street lighting is installed at the salve time, and less if telephone is = ;installed at the same time. Niagara - Mohawk assumes 90% ' ,: % "'AV (Mr. Curtiss requested copies of this information for Planning Board reference; fir. MacNeill will supply, if satisfactory to N.M.) From the floor, Ii °r. Relyea pointed out, v' that these Niagara- �-lohawk $1,50 -per- -foot or $1.M -per -foot charges were applied to the t amount of trenching, plus charges for crossing the road and bringing the line to the house. There is also extra charge for transformers, etc. -- which would mean that the contrast in charges betireen the two utility companies is not so sharp as would appear. In Per. Relyea's experience, however, the estimated ratio would be that Niagara- Moha.Wk's rate would be about 60% that of the A?.Y,S.E. &G. (Yr. Relyea is a developer also9 in the Ovego..Vestal area. He took his service underground at the curbline in his development for his service entrances a cost which is passed on 100% to the buyer of the lot.) Hearing closed, 8:35 Pam, Professor Gilrr:ore reported of his Section One, Yr. Curtis s Gilmore might pick them up. 14r. Curtiss stamped and signed approval, that he had riot as yet received_ two approved copies promised to brig them to his office so that Prof. Guide for obi Mobile le Horne Parks (Zonin.;�) - Review of Draft with Park Owners Here followed a work session of nearly four hours' length, a meeting "set up at the request of the Dryden Town Council to give Dryden's mobile home Dark owners an opportunity to review with the planning board their impressions on the "Guide for Mobile Home Parks" as drafted by ,, ?r. Niederkorn as Consultant to the 701 Study Committee. The park owners had met the previous evening to consider the &aft, and had apparently agreed to allow Mr. Robert Relyea of Taggin' Wagon Park, Varna, to act as spokesman. (INr. Relyea also holds the presidency of the New York State Mobile Home Association an association of park operators and dealers.) T'bcm of Dryden Planning Dovd e3� February 1 C, 1968 The attitude of the or rmers was, at least at the outset, belligerent and defensive, •thus making communication at times quite difficult. It soon became evident that much of this antagonism might; well be justified although perhaps misdirected. If it is possible to summarize, the roots of their dissatisfaction might be identified as 1. Animosity toward the professional consultant for failing to make what they considered to be appropriate use of the model ordinances of which they had made hip: airare, namely, the model codes sat forth by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and by the N.Y.S. tiobile Home Association. 20 Apparent misapprehension as to the purposes both of the work meeting and of the ordinance itself; and more immediately, a_lack of understanding that the planning; board wished to solicit their comments so as to help to form an intelligently conceived, workable ordina:me. 1. 3. Lack of knorwiedge by the owners of the planning board's attitude t-o yard mobile home parks in general, coupled with fear that said attitude might be antagonistic. The miners felt seriously hampered by the fact that they had not been able to examine the zoning neap prior to this meeting nor to see the entire or- dinance so as to be able to understand how this portion fit into the whole. 5a Dissatisfaction with the ordinance itself a. Yisunderst and ing of the concept of the special permit (they thought these referred to NON�coiiforming uses.) b. Apprehension concerning the process of filing application for special permit with the Zoning Appeals Board (rather than the Planning Board),, which process has the effect of.leaving the only recourse thereafter to the courts. The owners had also labored under the misapprehension that they were the only group so processed -� thus that they as a group were suffer- ing unjust discrimination. (The board attempted to correct this impression.) c. Numerous instances of an.attempt by the code to detail the methods of implementation of the standards set up by the code. d. Many instances of vagueness of established standards, which has the effect of giving a great deal of discretionary power to the enforcement officer e_ who may or may not be a qualified expert in the field involved. And, connected with this... e. Many instances of overlapping of responsibilities between the zoning officer and the Tompkins County Health Department. (Ofaners wanted all health inspection to be under jurisdiction of health department for reasons stated under ''d" above, and to avoid havin• to be subject to redundant inspections These men indicated that they have had experi" ence with inspectors of varying .qualifications, and are cognizant bf the danger to themselves as businessmen in being placed in a position which may be dependent upon the whim of an inspector. They are thus concerned that the scope of any inspector's duties be clearly defined.) U Town of Dryden Planning Board February 15, 1968 f. Some instan(:es of specifications which they felt to be economically unfeasible -- that is to be sufficiently expensive to the park operator that it would price the park out of the range of so::e or several of its present occupants -- plus out of range of the market. go The general impression that they were being discriminated against because their type of business development was placed completely in the special permit category. lx. Relyea and Mr. -Schwan repeatedly stated that mobile home parks are no different from other subdivisions exceot for the fact that.ownership is retained by one person; that the same regulations for processing other types of subdivisions shoLid be applied to trailer parks. (Density ? ? ? ?:.vhh)* *NOTE: In a 3/6/68 telephone discussion on this point, T`r. Schwan observed to me that upon reflection, he realized that mobile home park nPorations do differ in several ways from subdivisions and might much more appropriately be considered as multiple housing. The only important differfnce between Schwan' s Trailer Park and Lansing East Apartments, he suggested, was that he doesn't go 212e In a subsequent conversation with i - ?r. Relyea, he disagreed to the idea of multiple- housing treatment, adhering to the idea that trailer parks are sub - divisions. But' it appeared to rime that Mr. Relyea was using; the work "subdivision" as.used by the health department rather than as defined by the Dryden Subdivision Regulations. We discussed this, and he agreed that that was his understanding of the word9 i.e., he was using it as the health department defines....vhh As.the work session commenced, Chairman Curtiss revieTrred at the request of the owners, the types of land uses permitted in each of the proposed zones, as indicated on the tentative map on display. The canners felt themselves to be at a considerable disadvantage since they did not have conies of the entire ordinance, so could not see hoer their section fit into the whole. Mr. Curtiss stated that the. purpose of this meeting was for the planning board to get attitudes and suggestions from the park owners regarding the draft of the mobile home park regultions. Yx. Schwan inquired whether it would be possible that as each section was covered, that the planning board could give its decisions on the sections involved. Mr. Curtiss ruled that such action would not be possible, as the purpose of this meeting was to get and give suggestions, but not to give decisions. He went on to explain that the ordinance was in the process. of formulation at this time, and that no final decisions could be bound at this time. r`.r. Relyea explained that the atmosphere of animosity was a reflection of the exasperation of the mobile home park owners wit the nlanninrr board's consultant, Mr. Niederkorn. At the request of Mr. Niederkorn for information, the park ormers had supplied copies of some material, and given reference sources of other, for example the January 1968 U.S. Department of Health, Education, ec Welfpre (U. S. D. H. E.T.. ) Environmental Health Guide containing the recommended ordinance governing mobile • home parks (adopted by the states of Pennsul.vania and Florida); and a comprehensive Dryden Town Planning Board .� February 15, 196 study on mobile homes, living, and parks compiled as a Master's Decree Thesis by •Cornell graduate student Peggy Drury under the direction of Professor Lewis Bauer, and sponsored by tho ?% obile Hoare iLnufcturers' Association as authorized by 11.r, Beitler, Division Chairman of Land Planning Operation. The cimers, he stated, had also infoz'mled the consultant that a new revision of the model code issued by the New York State �'obile Home Park Association, was to be immediately forthcoming; and had made available the 1966 -67 copy. Iir, Niederkorn's resultirig draft was, they felt, a misconception in every sense of the word ev was cumbersome, and in no way satisfactory. This draft, they felt, placed responsibility where in their opinion it did not belong, for example, that applications for mobile home permits TATere directeA to the Zoning Rzrd. of Appeals rather than to the Planning Board, The o"mers wanted .to knora why this group of people (park owners) should be placed under the supervision of a mandatory board :ehen no other group is so placed, and pointed out that such a.: process left them with no recourso except throuch the courts, MT. Schwan expressed the ,tuners' ignorance as to the attitude of the planning board toward trailer parks, and their anxiety that the planning board might be prejudiced against such operations. Y'r. Curtiss assured the men that the planning board is broad - minded, and not prejudiced against mobile horses. Cn the contra_', he stated that the board recognized that them is a very ;Treat place for mobile homes in our town and in the county, Mr. Curtiss noted that the whole plan in zoning, or any Part of it, is simply to control growth along some controlled lines. Mr. Portzline agreed that control is necessary, and stated that the owners had come to help create a reasonable control, TIT, Relyea offered the following "guidelines to your present trouble ": "(1) Until •such time as your map clearly defines.., if you do not allow areas in which you will permit parks on the same basis as all other subdivisions, you are in deep trouble, We object to the fact that my application for a subdivision of mobile homes does not follow the same procedure as other resident l subdivisions," and "(2) I do not see where mobile home parks differ from other subdivisions except for the fact that all facilities in the park are o-aned privately and administrated privately; therefore the category in which you have placed us is discriminatory," Mrs. Hardesty challenged the point that trailer parks �Lre in every way similar to other residential subdivisions save the point of cmmership, asking if the ovmers did not ackn%Tledge that mobile home park development was characterized by much higher density than "other subdivisions" of individually- otrtned permanent residences, Mr. Relyea asked whether she would be ,;,Tilling to testify that no private homes in the area were as densely located, Dr. LenTemann acknowledged that such might be extant, but Pointed out that these homes were constructed fifty or more years ago, and that we have the task of guiding future development. At this point, the owners expressed unwillingness to spend the tine to review the Niederkorn draft, since it was so far from satisfactory or oven workable, in their view, and so far from the nationally. accepted guidelines. They wished instead to review the suggested code of the N.Y.S. Isobile Hone Association, since it already reflected the recommendations of both the New York State mobile home park owners and the U, S. D. H. EoWe tLir, Relyea supported their contention with two points, (1) that he felt it to be extremely detrimental that a man hired at the taxpayers' expense would go aginst everything set up and accepted natiornzri.deo guidelines,- and (2) that there was • no continuity between this section and the original ordinance, Town of Dryden Planning Board ..6= The Owners were persuaded, he :ever, that draft point by point, inasmuch as it would be to evaluate the draft. unless it were revie %•!ed fact that the planninU board was not at all f ordinance, that it would be perhaps even more time, korn) Dr railer Park February 15, 1968 it i %4ould be worth while to review the fiery difficult for the Planning Board with the owners, and in view of the a ?riliar with the Owners' s'aggested ti.:=rc,- consuming to consider it at this Point by point, the cbJectio�;s azld sui gestio�ns of the mobile home park owners re the drafted "Guide for Mobile Home Parks, To��n of Dryden" s = 9 yden were in the main as follows, expressed principally by 1#r. Relyea who apparently represented the sentiments of the group except for the few instances so noted: Section 1 (Objection) Left to discretion of inexperienced planner. Dust be spelled out clearly. Section 2 "Mobile Home" should include It electrical conveniences". "f,`obile Home Lot" Substitute "A parcel of land for the place7ent mobile hone and the exclusive use of its occupants. "Plobi1e Home Lot ,iidth a -- -.-- -- _.;- ...�'� (Objection) The draft definition does not cluster -type arrangements, which can be very desirable. (Mr. exhibited a sample plan of a cluster arrangement for a mobile SEE ALSO SECTIOPd 6e6 "A"obile Home Park" Strike "for non - transient use ". "Permanent Residence" Delete. "TOnpor sio��n Delete. 6 IV u Yet Y U \uV) I of a single allow f or Relyea home park.) P1r. 53hwan pointed out that this section has omitted a definition of "Travel Trailer" and "'Travel Trailer Park ". H " e stated that it is important to discriminate between self - contained" and "non self contained" trailers. (This term refers to toilet facilities. If non - self-contained trailers are for the tO be accon ""odated, it 1s necessary park to provide central facilities.) In his opinion, it is well to require that nona• self - cc ontained trailers be located in an area separate from the self.. contained trailers -- not only because of the toilet requirements but also because the camping activities surrounding use of these non - self. - contained units can be a nuisance to occupants of the self- contained trailers. Section 3 3.1 3.z 30 3 Sabstitute "valid permit" for "special Cb ject to "Zoning Board of Appeals ". Should have three copies: one, plaruling owner. permit". board; one, health department; one, Dr. Sheffy opined that if it was Mr. Nieder�corn': -. intent that all trailer parks should go into a special category,, then the planning board would need to question whether or not this is wise. ?sir. Relyea ex'Olained that what confuses them here is that an application is sub. mitted to the zoning board of appeals prior to the titre that the plarinirg board grid the zoning officer have made rercon- mendations. Dre Lengemann stated that he understood that the Owners would application go somile -where else before the Zoning Board of Ap eal prefer to have the be two boards involved before the ocmers would have to resort to the courts, would 0 . -I Trme,n of Dryden Planning Board Febl%.nary 15, 1969 3.4 (Objection) "S 1ecial permits shall be issued every three years..." This is placing the burden of Tnaking application upon trailer park or,:mers. This should be set up so that these applications are sent to the Owners at the appropriate times. Also, "any char ?:ges" shou]_d be spelled out specifically, Should deal with violations. Section_ 4 4.1 Regarding inspection and enforcement unless you employ a licensed engineer, ve think this shniil d be governed bv the health department, We think that the only charge the zoning enforce ".ent officer should have is to determine whether or not our buildings comply with certain setbacks, etc., or in some tray have violated the physical setup. We want to have the areas of responsibility defined as to duties of the health department and duties of the zoning officer. We do not wish to have an uninformed person regulating us. The zoning enforcement officer is to enforce zoning regulations, and is not a health enforce ent officer: 4.2 Entirely too inclusive. Should be worded: "A representative of the TMm of Dryden may inspect a mobile home park at reasonable intervals and at reasonable bones to determine compliance with the ordinance." 4.3.3Substitute, in essence, 5.1 from bel(xr, and renumber the present 493.3 to 4-.3.4 1. cticn 5 5.4 Concern as to meaning of "public record" - -don't want undue publicity. (Mr. Curtiss explained that this would be interpreted as enteri4g the material in the planning board files, which are public record not publishing of same.) 5.5 'plant areas of responsibility ,spelled out -- health department versus zoning responsibilities. Section 6 6o 1 603 6.4 NO111 (Repeat of what has been said before.) Why discriminated against as compared to other developers? In favor of trees -- BUT t Should be left out completely because these things will be sho-6m on the set of plans. This makes the enforcement officer an arbitrary governor of our park. Should be worded that we are responsible for taking care of stagnant grater, etc.,-but determining the method should be the responsibility of the owner. At this point, ?,,r. Relye officer should be a qualified Officer should be one and the (There was some discussion of should be a graduate engineer Professional Engineer.) a offered the following recommendations: The enforcement engineer the ^tern i_n_eer and the Zoning Enforcement same man. Be sure you have a very knowledgeable person. this point, and the suggestion ices made that this person with practical experience, but.not necessarily a Licensed 6.5 1,17hy screening? (Dr. Longe-a -.rm non- residential.) It was but there was dissention a all desirable, and whether and retain adequacyo replied, to establish pr. areas versus agreed that "screeni_ng" .; ° �d be defined, s to whether. or not opaqilas fencing was at or not shrubbery could be made to attain Mr. Portzline stated that he could not live with this requirement, because OIL his present setup. Totirn of Dryden Planning Board 3- rebru ary 15, 1968 6.5.2 Landscanin makes it impossible for the low-- budget person to afford the rental, Z would rather have more people than shrubbery. You drive them out when you get the tab so high that they can't afford to live here. 606 Mr. Schwon statelthat this is much too restrictive. He disputed the idea that a lot needs to be 50 x 100, with costs of improved land -chat it i.sp and recolmmended that the whole paragraph be put before a special co`wiittee for further study, in that he felt a great many different factors bear on this. (Upon questioning, Xr. Schwan replied that he thouht he would not object to a controlled density ratio.) Mr. Relyea asked if the board t-rould concur that a representati�ra of the I ndustry should re -draw this paragraph. I,r. Curtiss replied that the board would certainly ;cant to do mrsething to restudy this. 6.803 This should be the responsibility of the industry concerned, not the burden of the residential park developer. Also, "located" should be changed to "Locating ". 6.9 Making this :mandatory is inappropriate, The owners' group felt that such recreational park: develppment should be governed by the law of supply and demand, 6.10,1 No quarrel. 6,10.2 2ntrn2l Streets. We encourage off - street parkin; rather than street parking. .,re would rather see a street of 18 feet of pavement -- a twp -way street with no parking. (Mr. Portzline did not agree.) 38 feet is excessive; 32 feet is sufficient for a collector street. Access Streets. A proper intersection with a principal high7vray will have to be more than 24 feet. Suggest that highljaa v regulations would specify. Dea&end Streets. Should be 1,000 feet for mobile ham;es. Couldn't get by with 500 feet. 6.10.3 Should specify so as to avoid arbitrary* ruling by enforcement officer. (Refer to U.S.D.HOEOW. code.) 6.11.1 Suggest not necessary to specify 18.0 square feet. 12 spaces per lot should "be adequate for off- street parking. 6e13'.1 Specify what is "durable ". AddlIsuch as concrete, blacktop, or gravel 6.14 (Should be numbered 6.13.27) Owners recommend following wording in U.S.D. H.E.W. model code. Dr. Sheffy recommends rewording as follows: "No outdoor storage of garden equipment, tools, furniture, m chi.nery (7) appliances, vehicles (7) or similar i.teris shall be permitted on the mobile home lot except that required for park maintenance." 7.1 Lead back to.health department. Park owners feel that this is not under the jurisdiction of zoning ordinances. Also, would be too restrictive in that it would require junking an established system. State specifically that the Tompkins County Health Department shall be the one to decide, by adding to the first sentence "as required by the Tompkins County Health Department.'* 9.1 Provided by mwhom? Should be shelled out according to U. S. D. H. E. "!. code, 10.1 Why National Board of Fire Undermiiters? Take out last sentence. 10.3 Strike "and shall not exceed 400 gallons capacity ". 10.4 Eliminate�apacity, 11.2 Suggest using wording of N.Y.S.M.H.A, code. 12.1.2 Delete, 12.2.2 Substitute "orderly" for "good ". The oi-mers provided to the pinnnincp board a cony of the i3.Y. S.I%H.A. suggested code, Plus a copy, of the U.S.D.H. E.1. Environmental Health Guide (including model ordinance). Adjournment, 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Virginia H. Hardesty I'Mrs. L. B.) Secretary to the Planning Board ; TOTtd PL id'I?AG BOARD, TC:r,i ('F D7 )I 'd, T `'J YORK__�� biva � �.1 IQ68 MIN The 1'otvm of Dryden Planning Board opened its February rmeeti.:1; at 8:00 p.n . at the To m, Hall, with the. folio ?.;i.ng mer::b ?7's pi'es�nv: Chairman Curtiss, 111r, Hanford, 11.esdariles Hardesty and Keech, and Drs. Lenge-r,9,11:n and Sheffy. Also pres.ont were Mr. James Walsh of Ellis Hollorvi, Professor Frank Gilmore and A':r. John Yac veil_l in con:ection with Y; the public hearinJ; i r. ?`ax Barber, ^" _11 ed...d,nlA Ob V.rrAw. rd j'm.tn of Dryclean T„ "Ar Pcxk, owners Messrs,, ar, Willia`n Congrer, Donald Portzline, Robert Relyea (TaTggin` Wag on) , Walter Schwan, and Charles Zen, Pudic He?rir.7 *`aior S�ibdiv-ision -- 1 °Ellis ? i hlsnds, Part 2." Prof: Fran Gilm!�r? Adveetis mnt re public hearinu read aloud. John MacNeill, Licensed Engineer, presented five conies of the Section 2 plat with Health Department approval stamped thereupon. He noted that their intent had been to present six lots at this hearing; but sirce.they were unable to secure satisfactory percolation tests for three of the lots, they are at this time extending Section 7% -io by only the remaining three lots: Lot 4, Block 7; Lot q, Block 5; and Lot 7, Block j. Mr. MacNeill presented a letter with ackno:,ledgement signed by Mr. Richard eCase, signifying that all involved road work had beon satisfactorily completed =ept for some final grading (approximately one days work) to be completed in the Spring. Prof. Gilmore indicated that percolation trouble is not estimated to continue, brit that these tests had been made during a tha : ng period. Follo;�ring the Health li ; =.p�rtr^ent recor::men3ation, he had installed a ditch for surface water removal, and a ' icipw1tet-? that satisfactory percolation tests will be able to be made in the Sprit. Woodland Rrd profile as presented shot-red filling to br�,ng Lo permitted 10 %. (Existirc Font Hill Road, parallel, is, he stated, steeper than 10 %, ) Vf. ri.01 jL - U (five in Section One, and the percolation tests fcr submit the remaining thre t rc I. the e:o,ht lots s far ap4r of e1 l,ilaL L1E: L�TVUlC.i pi �'GCL� W�i 421 r' �7 '1'� r • -' three in Section Two,) }rinen weather permits, he will make Health Lepartlment approval Ad but may elect to wait to lots in Section Two until plans are further developed. Welsh examined the plats to his satisfaction, intluctin; the overall plans. Mr. Curtiss determined that the:-) proposal had been adequately discussed. No written material had been received in connection with the hearing, except for the letter bearing the signature of fir. Case. Prof. Gilmore provided revised conies of the restrictive covenants, including some &gall adjustments by i-ir. Allen Tremano attorney to Prof. Gilmore, Prof. Gilmore noted that these revised covenants will apply also to Section One, previously submi.tte*d (and will be s0stituted for those on file with the Plannir%Z Borrd)therefore making everything consistent. Town of Dryden Planning Board ®2_ Underground Service, The board requested experiences in attempting to secure underground Fe'oriuIck 150 1968 Prof,, Gilmore to report on his electric service for his developmont. According to the estimate provided to Prof. Gilmore by IN'r. Lacey of the N.Y.S. E.&G., the cost to provide underground electric service for an proposed 11 lots would be $14*810 with the NeY.S.r.&G. doing the coirplete installation. Of this amount, $3,225 was assigned for ditchirg workp which could be hired independently by the developer if he so elected. This price was based on an estimated annual revenue to the utility of $200 for each of 11 homes, totalling $2,200, plus street lighting revenue of $500; total annual revenue to the power company: $2,700. The utility would multiply this $2,700 x 2 to reach an off set figure of $5,400 which they would deduct from the $14,810 estimate, to leave a balance of $9,410 net expended by the developer for the eleven lots, or nearly $1,000 per lot. For comparison, Prof. Gilmore obtained a table from the Niagara"Mohawk Power Company, which charges $%50 per foot of trench where street lighting is not installed simultaneously, = $300 for two lots = $i 50 per lot. . This per -foot figure is reduced to $1.00 when street lighting is installed at the same time, and less if telephone is -- installed at the same time. Niagara-Mohawk assumes 90% (hire Curtiss requested copies of this information for Planning Board reference; fir. r yacNeill will supply, if satisfactory to N -H.) From the floor, Mir. Relyea pointed out that these Niagara - Mohawk $1. KO- per -foot or $1.00 -per -foot charges were applied to the total amount of trenching, plus charges for crossing the road and bringing the line to the house. There is also extra charge for transformers, etc. __ which would mean that the contrast in charges between the two utility companies is not so sharp as would appear. In Mr. Relyea's experience, ha�,rever, the estimated ratio would be that •Niagara- Mohawk's rate would be about 60% that of the N.Y.S.E. &G. (Mr. Relyea is a developer also, in the Owego - Vestal area He took his .service underground at the curbline in his development for his service entrances -- a cost which is passed on 100% to the buyer of the lot.) Hearing closed, 8:35 p; m. Mr. Curtiss stamped and signed approval. Professor Gilmore reported that he had not as yet received two approved copies of his Section One. Yr. Curtiss promised to bring them to his office so that Prof. Gilmore might pick them up. Guide for Mobile HoMe Parks (7,onin*) -- Review of Draft with Perk Q,mQrs Here followed a work session of nearly four hours' leigth, a meeting. set up at the request of the Dryden Town Council to give Dryden's mobile home park owners an opportunity to review with the planning board their impressions on the "Guide for Mobile Home Parks.' as drafted by 14r. Fdederkorn as Consultant to the 701 Study Committee. The park owners had met the previous evening to consider the &aft, and had apparently agreed to allow T r. Robert Relyea of Taggin' Wagon Park, Varna., to act as spokesman. ( ?fr. Relyea also holds the presidency of the New York State Mobile Hone Association -- an association of park operators and dealers.) Ton of Dryden Flaming Board -3a - February 1„ 1968 The attitude of the owners eras, at least at the outset, belligerer?b and defensive, •thus making communication at times quite difficult. It soon beca:re evident that much of this antagonism might well be justified --m although perhaps misdirected. If it is possible to summarize, the roots of their dissatisfaction might be identified as 's 1. Animosity toward the professional consultant for failing to make ghat they considered to be appropriate use of the model ordinances of which they had made him aware, namely, the model codes set forth by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Velfare, and by the N.Y.S. Mobile Home Association, 2. Apparent misapprehension as to the purposes both of the work meeting and of the ordinance itself; and more immediately, a lack of understanding that the planning board wished to solicit their comments so as to help to form an intelligently conceived, workable ordinance. 3. Lack; of knowledge by the owners of the planing board' s attitude to=. and mobile home parks in general, coupled with fear that said attitude might be antagonistic. 40 The owners felt seriously hampered by the fact that they had not been able to examine the zoning map prior to this meeting nor to see the entire or- dinance so as to be able to understand horfr this portion fit into the whole, 5. Dissatisfaction with the ordinance itself: at Misunderstanding of the concept of the special permit (they thought • these referred to NON conforming uses.) b. Apprehension coneernin� the process of filing application for special permit with the Zonin Appeals Board (rather than the Planning Board), which process has the effect of.leaving the only recourse thereafter to the courts. The owners had also labored under the misapprehension that they were the only group so processed -- thus that they as a group were suffer- ing unjust discrimination. (The board attempted to correct this impression.) CO Numerous instances of an attempt by the code to detail the methods of implementation of the standards set up by the code. d. Many instances of vagueness of established standards, which has the effect of giving a great deal of discretionary power to the enforcement officer m_ who may or may not be a qualified expert in the field involved. end, connected with this... e. Many instances of overlapping of responsibilit1es between the zoning officer and the Tompkins County Health Department. Miners wanted all health inspection to be under iurisdiction of health department for reasons stated under "d" above, and to avoid having to be subject to redundant inspections. These men indicated that they have had experi4 ence frith inspectors of varying qualifications, and are cognizant tf the danger to themselves as businessmen in beirig placed in a position which may be dependent upon the whim of an inspector. They are th'as concerned that the scope of any inspector's duties be clearly defined.) To,,rn of Dryden Plan Board fa Some instances .of specifications unfeasible - -that is to be suff operator that it would price the several of its present occupants February 1-, 1963 which they felt to be economically icier:tly expensive to the Dark -park out of the range of some or -- plus out of range of the market. g. The general impression that they were being discriminated - agains-t because their type of business development was placed completely in the. special permit category. Ij'r. Relyea and I.T. Schtvran repeatedly stated that mobile home parks are no different from other subdivisions except for the fact that ownership is retained 'py one person; that the same regulations for processirYY other types of subdivisions shoild be applied to trailer parks. (Density ? ? ? ?..vhh)* y�I : In a. 316163 telephone discussion on this point, Tir. Schwan observed to me that upon reflection, he realized that mobile home park uparations do differ in several ways fron subdivisions -® and might much more appropriately be considered as multiple housing. The only important diffemnce between Scln%ran's Trailer Park and Lansing East Apartments, he suggested, was that he doesn't go u1.. In a subsequent conversation tti *1. Ix, Relyea, he disagreed to the idea of multiple -housing treatment, adhering to the idea that trailer parks are sub- divisions, But it appeared to me that Mr. Relyea was using the work "subdivision" as used by the health department rather than as defined by the Dryden Subdivision Regulations, Tile discussed this, and he agreed that that was his understanding of the words i.e., he was using it as the health department defines...,vhh As the work session commenced, Chairman Curtiss reviewed at the request of the comers, the types of land uses permitted in each of the proposed zones, as indicated on the tentative map on display. The o:2iers felt themselves to be at a considerable disadvantage since they did not have copies of this entire ordinance, so could not see how their section fit into the whole. Mr. Curtiss stated that the purpose of this meeting was for the planning board to get attitudes and suggestions from the park owners regarding the draft of the mobile home park regulaions. Mr. Schwan inquired whether it would be possible that as each section was covered, that the planning board could give its decisions on the sections involved. 1'r. Curtiss ruled that such action would not be possible, as the purpose of this meeting was to get and give suggestions, but not to give decisions. He went on to explain that the ordinance was in the process. of formulation at this time, and that no final decisions could be bound at this time. I1r, Relyea explained that the atmosphere of animosity was a reflection of the exasperation of the mobile home park ocme-rs w! t the planning board's consultant, Mr. Niederkorn. At the request of Mr. Niederkorn for information, the park owners had supplied copies of some material, and given reference sources of other, for example the January 1968 U.S. Department of Health, Education, & b;elf pre (U. S. D. H, E.':a. ) &ivironrnental Health Guide containing the recommended ordinance governing mobile hone par)cs (adopted by the states of Penns lvania and Florida): and a comprehensive Dryden Tom Plaxming Board -- - February 15, 1963 study on mobile homes, living, and parks co,lpiled as a I "aster's Degree Thesis by Cornell graduate student Peggy Drury under the direccion of Professor Lewis Bauer, and sponsored bry the Mobile Home Z antiaicturers' Association as authorized by Mr. Beitler, Division Chai l ;an of Land Planning OpAration. The ocvrners, he stated, had also infor��ed the consultant that a now revision of the model code issued by the New York State Mobile Home Park Association, .wr.as to be immediately forthcoming; and had made available the 1966 -67 copy. Mr. t i ederkorn' s a�esulting draft was, they felt, a misconception in every sense of the word -- was cumbersome, and in no way satisfactory. This draft, they felt, placed responsibility where in their opinion it did not belo4g, for example, thpt applications for mobile home permits ?,ire to the Zoning R-wd of Appoals rather than to the Planning Board. The %iners wanted to know why this group of people (park o hers) should be placed under the supervision of a mandatory board i•;hen no other group is so placed, and pointed out that such a:- process left them with no recourse except through the courts. PIr. Sohwan expressed the o:aners' ignorance. as to the attitude of the planning board toward trailer parks, and their anxiety that the planning board might be prejudiced again^t such operations. IIr. Curtiss assured the men that the planning board is broad - minded, and not prejudiced against mobile homes. On the contrary, he stated that the board recognized that there is an very great place for mobile homes in Odr uo7m and in the county. Mr. Curtiss noted that the whole plan in zoning, or any Part of it, is simply to control growth along some controlled 3:ines. Mr. Portzline agreed that control is necessary, and stated that the oirners had come to help create a reasonable control. Mr. Relyea offered the following "guidelines to your present trouble" • "(1) Until .such time as your man clearly defines... if you do not allow areas in which you will permit parks on the same basis as all other subdivisions, you are in deep trouble, We object to the fact that my application for a subdivision of mobile horses does not follow the same procedure as other resident Nll subdivisions," and 11(2) r do not see where mobile home parks differ from other subdivisions exce_jt for the fact that all facilities in the park are timed privately and administrated privately; therefore the category in which you have placed us is discriminatory." Mrs. Hardesty challenged the point that trailer parks tme in every way similar to other residential subdivisions save the point of ownership, asking if the owners did not acknowledge that mobile home park development was characterized by much higher density than "other subdivisions" of individually -owned permanent residences. I• -Tr. Relyea asked whether she would beI,�•ri.11ing to testify that no private homes in the area were as densely located. Dr. Lengemann acknaviled;ed that such might be extant, but pointed out that these homes were constricted fifty or more years ago, and that we have the task of guiding future.development. At this point, the o?•mers expressed umrillingness to spend the time to review the Niederkorn draft, since it was so far from satisfactory or even workable, in their view, and so far from the nationally- accepted guidelines. They wished instead to review the suggested code of the Ni.Y.S. Mobile Home Association, since it already reflected the rec o;r rendati.ons of both the New York State mobile horse park oT,ners and the U. S. D.H. E.W. iir. Relyea supported their contention with two points, (1) that h felt it to be extremely detrimental th -nt a ran hired at the taxpayers' expense would go aginst everything set up and accepted natiorrzide,;guideli.nes, and (2) that ti:are wcc•' no continuity between this section and the oririnpJ ordinance. Town of Dryden Planning Board The owners were persuaded-, how,,Tever, that draft point by point, inasmuch as it would be to evaluate the draft unless it were reviewed fact that the planning board was not at all f ordinance, thp.t it would be perhaps even more, time. of (Nieder Trailer F February 15, 1 X58 i t would be worth while to review the f ery difficult for the Planning Board with the cvrers; and in view of the airiliar with the owners' .Waggested time - consuming to consider it at this Pgin ±. bar poi " ±, the cbetio,s a�� ub es2ions of the mobile home park owners n °a sq the drafted "Guide for Mobile Home Parks, To:•rn of Dryden" were in the main as follows, expressed principally by Mr. Relyea who anparontly represented the sentiments of the group except for the few instances so noted: Section 1 (Ob jection) Left to discretion of inexperienced planner, ifust be spelled out clearly. Section 2 "Mcbil_e Home" should include "and electrical conveniences". 1114obile Home Lot" Substitute "A parcel of land for the Placement of a single mobile home and the exclusive use of its occupants. "i >fobil,e Home Lot iolidth" (Objection) The draft definition does not allow for cluster- type arrangements, which can be very desirable. (Mr. Relyea exhibited a sample plan of a cluster arrangement for a mobile home park.) SEE ALSO SECTION 6.6 "Mobile Home Park" Strike "for non - transient use ". "permanent _Residence" Delete. • "Temporary Residence" Delete. ;r. SchT,ran pointed out that this section has on;itted a definition of "Travel Trailer" oee and "Travel Trailer Park ". He stated that it is important to discriminate between "self- contained" and "non self_ contained". trailers.. (This term refers to toilet fgejlltiES. 'f non - self - contained trailers are to be accommodated, it is necessary IL for the park to provide central facilities.) In� his opinion, it is well to require w�vu Uy that non_self- contained trailers be located in an area separate from the self - contained trailers --- not only because of the toilet requirements but also because the camping activities surrounding use of these non - self - contained units can be la nuisance to, occupants of the self- contained trailers. Section 3.1 Substitute "valid permit" for "special permit". 3.2 Object to "Zoning Board of Appeals ". 3.3 Should have three copies; ono, planning board; one, health department; one, Owner, Dr. Sheffy opined that if it was Mr. Niederkorn'�: intent that all trailer parks should go into a special category, then the planning board would need to question whether or not this i.s wise. ?fr. Relyea explained that what confuses them here is that an application is sub- mitted to the . zoning board of appeals prior-to the time that the pl�nnning board and the zoning officer have made recommendations. Dr. Len, ernann stated that he understood that the otirners would prefer to have the application go somr:ewhere ,else before the Zoning Board of Appeals, so that there would be two boards involved before the o�mers would have to resoi -t to the courts. I Town of Dryden Planning Board February 15: 1968 3.4 (objection) "Special permits shall be issued every three years..." This is placing the burdan of making application upon trailer park ormers. This should be set up so th:�t these applications are sent to the criners at the appropriate times. Also$ "any changes" should be spelled out specifically. Should deal with violations, Section 4 4.1 Regardirg inspection and enforcement -- unless you employ a licensed tangineex we think this Scngi d be Joverned bJ the health dena.rtl ?ient, We think that the only charge the zoning enforcement officer should have is to determine whether or not our buildings comply with certain setbacks, etc., or in some way have violated the physical setup. We want to have the areas of responsibility defined as to duties of the health department and duticls o" the zoni � officer. S.ty do not wish to have an uninformed person regulating us. The zoning enforcement officer is to enforce zoning regulations, and is not a health enforcement officer. 4.2 Entirely too inclusive. Should be worded. "A represe ntative of the Tom of Dryden may ins'Pect a mobile home park at reasonable intervals and at reasonable times to determine compliance with the ordinance." 4.3.3Substitute, in essence, 5.1 from below, and renumber the present 4.3.3 to 4.3.4 S1cti_on 5.4 Concern as to meaning; of "public record" - -don't want undue publicity. (Hr. Curtiss explained that this t,ca�ld be.interprEted as entering the material in the planning board files, which are public record not publishing of sore.) 5.5 W alt areas of responsibility ,spelled out -- health department versus zoning responsibilities. Section 6 -a 6.1 NO3 ! 1 (Repeat of what has been said before.) 6.3 Why discriminated. against as compared to other developers? In favor of trees -- BUTi 6.4 Should be left out completely because these things tidll be sho; -n on the set of plans. This makes the enforcement officer an arbitrary governor of our park. Should be worded that we are responsible for taking care of stagnant water, etc., but determining the method should be the responsibility of the owner. At this point, 414r. Relye officer should be a qualified Officer should be one and the (There was some discussion of should be a graduate engineer Professional Engineer. ) a offered the follo;aring recommendations. The enforcement engineer; the Tc*rn Ei&ineer and the Zoning Enforcement sam ea man. Be sure you have a very kno- ledgeable person. this point, and the suggestion was made that this person with practical experience, but not necessarily a Licensed - 6.5 Why screenin�;? (Dr. Lengemann replied, to establish private areas versus non- hesidential.) It was creed that "screening" should be definod, but there was dissention as to ;Yh;ther. or not opaque fencing was at all desirable, and whether or not shrubbery could be made to attain and retain adequacy. r`rd Portzline stated that he could not live with this requirement; becausa of his present setup. R y ToT.na of Dryden Planning Board �8_ Febni ary 15, 1:168 6.59 2 Land scapin; makes it impossible for the lou�bud_;et. person to afz "ord the • rental. I would rather have more people th�,an'shrubbery. You dive there out when you get the tab so high that they can't afford to live here. 606 Mr. Schwan stateithat this is much too restrictive. He disputed the idea that a lot needs to be 50 x 100, with costs of improved land what it isp and recoinnended that the whole paragraph be put before a special committee for further study, in that he felt a great many different factors bear on this. (Upon quostionu-ig, I-ir. Schwan rer�lied that he thou_;ht he.would not object to a controlled density ratio.) Mr. Relvaa asked 7_f' tbe. board ?: : *o` l d GO:p ^ur that. a ro�r400v;itatiVc Of lily industry should redraw this paragraoh.r Mr. Cu 3'tiss replied that the board would certainly want to do something to restudy this. 6.803 This should be the responsibility of the industry concerned, not the burden of the residential park developer. Also, "located" should be changed to "locating ". 6 ®9 Makikg this mandatory is inappropriate; The cTners' group felt that such recreational park development should be governed by the law of supply and demand. 6,10.1 No quarrel. 6.10.2 Tnternal Streets. We encourage off street parking rather than street parkin". ,Ale would rather see a street of 18 feet of pavement -.._ a two. way street with no parkins. (ter. PortzlisZe did not agree. ) 38 feet is excessive; 32 feet is sufficient.for a collector street. Access Streets. A proper intersection with a principal highway will have to be more than 24 feet. Diggest that highT.ra'. regulations would specify. • Dev"&end Streets. Should be 1,000 feet for mobile homes. Couldn't get by with 500 T eet. 6.10.3 Should specify so as to avoid arbitrary ruling by enforcement officer. (Refer to U. S.D.H. E.W. code.) 6.1101 Suggest not necessary to specify 180 square feet. 12 spaces per lot should be adequate for ff._street parkin°. 6.13.1 Specify what is "durable ". Add "such as concrete, blacktop, or gravel." 6.14 (Should be numbered 6..13.27) Ouners recommend f ollowino wording in U.S.D.. H.E011. model code. Dr. Sheffy reco_n:n ;ends rewordi_n7 as follows: "No outdoor storage of garden equipment, tools, furniture, milachinery ( ?) appliances, vehicles (?) or simi.l.ar items shall be permitted on the mobile home lot except that required for park maintenance." 7. 'r Lead back to.health denart:nent. Park crmers feel that this is not under the jurisdiction of zoning ordinances. Also, would be too restrictive ill that it would require junking an established system. State specifically that the Tompkins County Health Department shall be the one to decide, by adding to the first sentence "as required by the Tompkins County Health Department." 901 Provided by whom? Should be spelled out according to U. S. D. H. B..; code. 1001 I&Ih National. Board of Fire Under�,riiters? Take out last sentence. 1093 Strike "and shall not exceed 400 gallons capacity ". 10.4 Fliminatt. apacity. 11.2 Suggest using wording of N.Y. S.1•i. H. . code, 12.102 Delete. 12.2.2 Substitute "orderly" for :;good ". • The cniners provided to the plarxiinor board a copy of the N,Y.SeV*H.Aa suLnested code Plus a copy of the U.S.D.H.E. -T. Er�vi_xoi�mental_ H�a1_th Guide (jljcludiry model ordinance), , Adjournment, 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Virginia H. Hardesty N!rs. L. B.) Secretary to the Planning Board. F�brua.ry 28, 1068 As a result of our -most interestinno me.eting with mobile horr.e Nark owners on F e�'orua ry l� , I have set up a s; -)ecial meetin_ iVith Tom, X<ie-derkorn to r o over his ordinance in cormj- .rison with the HEW (Health, - duca.tion, anY elfare) one a.nd the 7,ew York IiViobile HOME .1;ssociation one, die will not a21 have a. chance to see these later two ordinances, zv .,h* ch the park owners se::m rea::y to accept, but I'rj s.ettin, it to a.s many of you a3 I car.. In any c?se, there a.re several other :major side issues we must resolve - -for exz.:«cle, rill we treat mobile hone parks as a special, se arGte grou,D or have them come before the -clan nine- boas like a, subd.ivisior_? Are we settinz up more for the zoning enforcement officer than he can handle? Ho:a much con'-.rol can the he a! tin . DeE,a.rtrr,ent assur e? I think if we can g:et this last ma. jor hurdle crossed , the r^a.d to zoning will be rela.tively smoothe• Tom Niederkorn thinks he ,_ra.y have t'ne rest of the ordinance core to ive us that niEht, but I'm not sure yet. Anyways, at this point, we Plant to do any - thin to speed up the process, since Springy is rapidly upon us and no one wants to have any more meetin .o•s than necessary then. T ` a_ 1,14rch is the date at p.m• `L r' u!l So ....lhur��.d: 1_�.. 7 , in U:.e _oP,n i_.a_1 . Please brim. your 7-nobile home .::ark or finance, and the zonin • rer.ula.- tions you have, too. Believe me, we'll try to ke..p it shorter than last time ( thou: h frankly I don' t know how we could have kept that articular mee t i nV-. much shorter- -t!- :ere was a lot of e•round to cover). Tom Told was una le to mlake that last T.-e I eLing,, but he or someone else fro_:, the wn Boar'. hopefully can •b there as an observer. As you can guess, the minutes for the last meeting are extensive a.na Ginna, also burdsneu Pith a. bug, does not ha.ve them done vet. However, I will try to et they to you hx before the rPPi.ir - r��t Thursua. if not we' 1i �? - y V Y, n: them out L,r.at ni.:nt . The next re`ula.r PE me=et 'inn: will be i'_a.rch 21. Thank you, M• PLEAS' SuV THE S` Alo -IFS O. THE r.i' ?V LO?r, FOR l' i r' AN ORDINANCE LICENSING WN D KREGULATING SECOND D OR USED MATERIALS, K. AND AUTO PART'S ACTIVITIES AND BUSINESSES Section 1. Legislative Intent. By the adoption of this ordinance the Town Board of the Town of Dryden 'declares its intent in so do- ing to be to regulate, control and license the activities or businesses known as auto "graveyards ", junk yards, second -hand parts collection areas, the processing of used metals for resale and the dumping, accum- ulation, collection or storage of waste, second -hand or used mater- ials of whatever composition. Said Town Board hereby declares that such activities or businesses can constitute a hazard to property and persons, and a public nuisance. Such materials may be highly in- flammable and sometimes explo- sive. Gasoline tanks on old autos often contain in some quantity com- bustible gasoline; the engine and other parts of such autos are fre- quently covered with grease and oil which is also inflammable. The tires, plastic seats, tops and other elements of such autos are also in- flammable. Batteries and other elements of such autos can contain acids and other matter potentially harmful to humans. These autos frequently contain sharp metal or glass edges or points upon which a human could receive serious cuts and abrasions. These autos can nstotute attractive nuisances to enc and certain adults. The once of such junk yards, collee- n or storage areas is unsightiv and tends to detract from value of surrounding land and property un- less such areas are properly main- tained and operated. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance: (a) The term "person" shall mean an individual, an association, a partnership, a corporation. (b) The term "auto" shall mean passenger auto, truck, tractor - truck, trailer, bus, motorcycle or other vehicle, however propelled, as well as tractors, bulldozers, machinery and equipment. Section 3. License Required. No person shall engage in or con- duct on real property within the Town of Dryden either for himself or for and on behalf of any person directly or indirectly as agent, em- ployee or otherwise any activity or business either for profit or other - .vise, at wholesale or retail, which .nvolves the collection, storage, ourning, dumping, disassembling, ,dismantling, salvaging, sorting or .iherwise handling or arranging for ,ale, resale, storage accumulation or , ollection, or otherwise of second- hand autos, the bodies, engines, or parts of such autos, or of any other second -hand or used property of whatever material it is composed or any waste material whether com- se d d of wood, paper, cloth, card - d, plastics, metals, stone, ce- t of otherwise without first ob- taining a license from the Town Board therefor as hereinafter pro- vided. Section 4. Application for Li- uense. Each applicant for a li- sence hereunder shall submit to the Town Clerk a written application supplying, under affidavit, the fol- lowing information: That the ap- plicant is over eighteen (18) years of age; that he is a citizen of the United States; a description of the type of business or activity he in- tends to conduct, and the nature of the materials he intends to handle; the name and address of the owner or owners of the land and the right of occupancy of the applicant to the use of the land. In the application, the applicant shall agree that if granted the li- cense applied for he will conduct the activity or business pursuant to the regulations 'hereinafter set forth and that upon his failure to do so such license may be revoked forth- with. A person presently engaged in or conducting an activity or business such as described herein -on real property within the Town of Dry- den must apply for a license there- for within thirty (30) days of the adoption of this ordinance. If the place where he conducts such ac- tivity or business presently com- plies with the requirements a per- son must meet to secure a license in the first instance, he shall be is- sued a license therefor if he meets the other requirements contained herein. If the place where he con- ducts such activity or business does not presently comply with the re- quirements a person must meet to secure a license in the first instance he may be granted a temporary li- cense for one (1) year, during which year he must arrange the place where he conducts activity or business so that it does then com- ply with the requirements a person must meet to secure a license in the first instance. If at the end of such year such person has not so arranged his place of such activity or business he shall forthwith cease and desist engaging in or conduct- ing the same and shall remove from such place any autos, parts or other materials of the nature de- scribed herein. If the person conducting such activity or business is not the sole owner thereof he shall state such fact at the time he applies for his temporary license and the Town Board at the time of issuing such temporary license shall send the owners of each of them a notice of the issuance of such temporary li- cense to such person together with a copy of this ordinance. Section 5. The License. The fee for the licese is hereby fixed in the sum of $25.00 which sum covers not only the cost of issuing the li- cense itself but also the cost of mak- ing the necessary inspections of the premises to ascertain compliance with the regulations hereinafter pre- scribed. Such licesnse shall be placed at all times displayed in a conspicuous place at the licensee's place of ac- tivity or business for which it is is- sued. Such license shall be effective from the date of its issuance until the 31st day of December of the year of such issuance after which a new application for license must be made yearly if licensee desires to continue such activity or business. Such license is personal with the licensee. It does not go with the title to the land nor may it be sold, assigned, transferred or disposed of. Such license may be revoked by the Town Board after a public hearing thereon at which the li- censee shall have an opportunity to be heard. Upon revocation of a license the Town Board may re- quire the removal of autos, parts and materials left as above provided in the case of an applicant for a .temporary license who fails to qual- ify for a license. Section 6. (a) The licensee must person- ally manage or be responsible for the management of the activity or business for which the license is granted. (b) The licensee must erect and maintain a six (6') foot fence of closed meshed wire or sheet metal or other material acceptable to the Town Board, adequate to prohibit the entrance of children and others into the area of activity or business and to contain within such fence the materials mentioned in Sections one (1) and three (3 ) of this ordinance, and if such area abuts a public street or highway such fence shall be twenty -five (25') feet from the boundary line thereof. All the materials dealt in or collect- ed by the licensee shall be kept within such fence at all times. (c) In burning the auto parts and other materials collected, ac- cumulated or dealt in by the li- censee, the licensee shall at all times exercise discretion so as not to create a public nuiiance or haz- ard. (d) The autos, parts and mater- ials collected, accumulated or dealt in by 'the licensee shall be piled or arranged in neat rows so as to per- mit easy, clear passage through the areas. (e) There shall be maintained at each such place of activity or business for which a license is issued at least one (1) fire extinquisher of approved design and capacity for each 20,000 square feet of area. Each fire extinguisher shall be hung or mourned in a conspicuous place, clearly marked and available. (f) When the area is not super- vised by the licensee or his,employ- ees the fence shall be locked at a secure gate in a secure manner. (R) Suitable sanitary facilities connected to public sewers or septic systems approved by the Tompkins County Health Department, shall be available for use and conven- ience of the employees of the li- censee as well as the general public visiting the area. (h) The area of the •licensee's activity or business shall not be used as a dump area nor as a place for burning of trash. (i) The Town Peace Officer. the Town Clerk or the Town Board or any of its representatives shall be granted access to the area of the activity or business of the licensee at all reason hours to inspect the same for compliance herewith. Section 7. Violation of Ordi- nance and Offense; Penalties Therefor. (a) The owner or licensee of any such place of business who commits or Nrmits any acts in vio- lation of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to have committed an offense against such ordinance, and also shall be liable for any such violation or the penalty therefor. Each week such violation shall continue or be permitted to exist shall constitute a separate violation. (b) For every violation of any provision of this ordinance the. per- son violating the same shall be sub- ject to a fine of not more than $50.00 or imprisonment not exceed- in' 30 days, or by both such fine fine and imprisonment. (c) Conviction for any above - mentioned violation shall constitute and effect an immediate forfeiture of the license. (d) Any person violating this ordinance shall be subject to a civil penalty enforceable and collectable by the Town in the amount of $50.00 for each such offense. Such penalty shall be collectable by and in the name of the Town for each week that such violation shall con- tinue. (e) In addition to the above. provided penalties and punishment, the Town Board may also maintain an action or proceeding in the name of the Town in a court of com- petent jurisdiction to compel com- pliance with or to restrain by in- junction the violation of such or- dinance. Section 8. Saving Clause. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, im- pair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section -or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect ten days after publication and posting or immediately upon personal service as provided by Section 133 of the Town Law. BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN JANE KORBAS Town Clerk Dated: June 3rd, 1960 Pub. ,June 8, 1960