No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-17REGULAR BOARD MEETING Date: January 17, 2001 Place: Lansing Town Hall Board Room Time: 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3, Public Hearing on Senior Citizen Exemption, 4. Public Hearing on Changes in Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance. 5, Flood Hazard Litigation - Kate Hackett and Craig Schott 6. Privilege of the Floor. 7. Cell Tower Request. 8, Highway Superintendent's Report. 9. Engineer's Report: Short Form Environmental Assessment Review -Wr. 17, Ext. 5, 10. Code Enforcement Officer's report. 11. Audit Resolution. 12, Board Member's Reports. 13. Executive Session if needed. 14. Adjourn Meeting. 1 January 17, 2001 The Lansing Town Board met in Regular Session at the Lansing Town Hall Board Room at 7:00 p.m. with Supervisor Farkas presiding. The Supervisor called the meeting to order and had the clerk take the Roll Call. ROLL CALL Stephen Farkas Supervisor Present Herbert Beckwith Councilperson Present Katrina Greenly Councilperson Present Meg Overstrom Councilperson Present Francis Shattuck Councilperson Present Bonita Boles Town Clerk Present Richard John Town Attorney Present VISITORS: George Totman, Pete Larson, Dave Herrick, Lyle Wadell, Richard Meagher, Lee and Bill Sims, Fred Miller, Al Fiorille, Bill Miller, Kirby Frodin, Kris VanTassel, Craig Trowbridge, Tom Policay, Richard Wentworth, L.H. Kallfelz, Tom & Lisa LaVigne, Louise & Dennis Osika, Debra Nicholas, Paige Nicholas, Paul Constantini, Phil Skeps, Richard Wawak, Dave Wilson, Scott Pinney, J. Scott Hicks, John Hicks, Bill and Sue Maul, Todd Mix, Caroline Rasmussen, Ron Ronsvalle, Charles Nedrow, Beverly Abplanalp, Kathy Weinstatt, Mary & Dorothy Krizek, Nancy Loncto, Connie Wilcox, Sandy & Bill Dhimitri, Jill Vaughan, Emily Franco, Jeff and Elizabeth Cook, Louise Barr, Douglas Firth, Virginia Fenton, Bill Lucas, Maureen Ronsvalle, Roger Schnock, James Bentkowski, Bob & Janet Keefe, Pat McDonough, Jennifer Buckingham, Stan Burke, Susan Eyster, Fred & Shirley Stone, Gene & Jeanne Yarussi, George Gesslein, Susan & Kathy Miller, Brad Griffen, Candis Bailey, Lenore Neerbasch, Victoria Freile, Todd Mallinson, Chris Muka, Elizabeth Harness, Julie & Dave Eastman, Carolyn Shaw, Rod Kearl, Kate Hackett, Kent Messer, Craig Schutt, Tom McGiff, Pat Conlon, Garth McMillen and about 10 other residents. Proof of Notice having been furnished, the Public Hearing on the proposed Senior Citizen Exemption was called to order at 7:00 p.m. All persons desiring to be heard, having been heard and no one voicing any objections, the Public Hearing was terminated at 7:02 p.m. RESOLUTION, offered by Mrs. Greenly and seconded by Mr. Beckwith: WHEREAS, New York State has amended the Law to allow changes in the amounts of partial tax exemptions of real property available to qualified senior citizens in the Town of Lansing; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing held a Public Hearing on January 175 2001, to consider an amendment to Town of Lansing Ordinance Number 5 for the Year 1966, as amended, to adopt the most recent income revisions for senior citizen real property exemptions; therefore, it is hereby RESOLVED, that the Town of Lansing Town Board hereby amends the Town of Lansing Ordinance Number 5 for the Year 1966, as previously amended, to adopt the most recent income revisions for senior citizen real property exemptions to change the amounts of partial tax exemption of real property available to qualified senior citizens in the Town of Lansing as follows: Annual income /combined incomes Up to $20,500.00 $21,500.00 $22,500.00 $20,499.99 to $21,499.99 to $22,499.99 to $233499.99 Percentage Exemption 50% 45% 40% 35% 181 _M $23,500.00 $24,400.00 $25,300.00 $26,200.00 $27,100.00 $28,000.00 to to to to to to Continued January 17, 2001 $243399.99 30% $253299.99 25% $26,199.99 20% $27.099.99 15% $27,999.99 10% $285899.99 5% Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilperson Vote of Town Board. (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board. (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor Proof of Notice having been furnished, the Public Hearing on the proposed changes to the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Mr. Shattuck went over the propsed changes with everyone present. He stated that a lot of information was presented to the Board tonight and would be hard for the Board to look over at such a late time. He stated the Town Board was not against growth but felt it needed to be planned growth. The following comments and concerns were voiced: Tom LaVigne: He presented the Board with a petition signed by over 260 residents stating they were in favor of the proposed changes. He thanked everyone involved for all of the hard work that has taken place. Thomas Gift: Asked the Board if the definitions could be changed? He wants to see a good definition of "apartment ". He did not like the wording of "living rooms ". Mr. Shattuck stated that the definition of a condominium was from Tom Neidercorn. Mr. John stated that the proposed definition of condominium was as follows: A building or a group of buildings, in which units are owned individually and the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all the unit owners on a proportional, undivided basis. A legal form of ownership of real estate and not a specific building style. Can contain residential, commercial or a mix of occupancies. He then stated that the definition of apartments as proposed was as follows: That portion of a larger dwelling consisting of one or more living rooms, and occupied by all the members of a family, which group of rooms is separate from all other groups within the dwelling. Mr. John stated that the definition of "apartment" came from the New York State Multiple Residence Law, Section 4 - Subdivision 2. Mr. Beckwith informed Mr. Gift that they did not want to conflict with what the State has. Mr. Gift asked if all the definitions came from New York State Multiple Residence Law. Mr. John stated that it only applied to the definition of "apartment ". Ron Ronsvalle: He read a letter written to him by the Town of Lansing Ordinance Department and approved by the Town Attorney dated November 23, 19990 It stated that tax parcel number 40.-1-14.11 was zoned R1. According to Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance Section 503 Schedule 1, Item number 3, allows the following: Dwelling conversion of existing building to three or more dwelling units, multi - family including apartment and condomium and town house. He stated that he relied on the written approval before he purchased the Triphammer/Hillcrest Road property. The vocal miniorty of Lansing residents who do not want the townhouses built, generally are new comers to the neighborhood. They seem to have a "not in my backdoor" philosophy and do not want change. He felt they were reacting out of undocumented and unsubstanciated fear. He did not feel there would be a decrease in property values. The Horizon Development property values are increasing where multiple housing is present. He felt that his upscale, high end residential townhouses project would be the best land use for this parcel. 183 Continued, January 17, 2001 Increase traffic was another concern. Tompkins County is currently planning to modify and rework route 34B to the Mall. Unsightly run down property fear was another concern. Mr. Ronsvalle invited anyone to visit his Lansing properties to see that he maintains them to the highest standards. The last concern was that of losing open space. He stated that this parcel was for sale for at least ten (10) years before he purchased it. The Triphammer Triangle could still be purchased to those wishing to have open space which could then be developed into a park. The townhouse project would add local revenue and numbers to the Lansing sewer project. It has been professionally engineered and will be professional built in Lansing. No views will be obstructed. He stated that he currently has Tompkins County Health Department approval. To change the zoning ordinance on him now would set a negative president for future developers interested in Lansing. He then requested the Lansing Town Board not to let a minority of residents adversely effect his goal to supply the needed high end housing that he can offer. He told them that they should encourage that diversity in housing options. To continue to limit density in South Lansing will promote growth in other areas creating suburban sprawl. He stated that he was not asking for a zoning variance or a political favor. Contigent upon site plan review, he asked the Board to honor the current two (2) year old zoning ordinance for which he has strictly followed and continues patiently for their approval. He thanked the Board for their consideration. George Gesslein: He stated that he did not come to discuss changes in the zoning ordinance. His major concern was that the zoning ordinance be reliable so that developers and builders can count on them as being the word for what they want to do. He stated that people like Mr. Ronsvalle will invest substantial amounts of money to develop something based upon the document that they believe to be valid. The Town Board needs to be very careful that they don't take the position of changing their zoning ordinance, either directly or indirectly every time somebody comes up with a new project. If this is done, people will stay away from the Town of Lansing. He stated that Ron Seacord did a nice job with his business and technology park, how ever some of the neighbors complained about truck traffic so now at the entrance to the park is a sign that reads: Passenger Cars Only. This makes it very difficult for him to sell or lease these properties to commercial people when they read the sign. He asked the Town Board to seriously consider making sure there is someplace in the Town where multi - family and affordable housing can be put because if there isn't, it will wind up elsewhere and sprawl will result. Fred Miller. A number of people have concerns opposite Mr. Gesslein. He stated that growth is not necessary a good thing. Many long time residents do not consider development a good thing. His concerns are water including quality and ground water contamination. He stated that a lot of Lansing is zoned Agriculture and felt it should stay that way. He felt the Board should consider giving more tax breaks and more benefit to agriculture instead of construction. He told the Board Members to give the farmers a break. He informed the Board that he had not had a tax break in 20 years and that this would not give the residents one as the taxes continue to go up. He felt there should be a long term moratorium on any further construction. Paul Cosantini: Thanked both Boards for all of their hard work. He stated that 48 units, 96 bedrooms, 14 acres, no sewers was not his definition of low density. He stated that when he bought his home ten years ago which was in a low density zone, projects such as Mr. Ronsvalle's would not have been allowed under the ordinance that was in effect at that time. English language should have some resemblance in the law. He stated that is was not a vocal minority that asked for the moratorium but that it was the Lansing Town Board. He was presently surprised. He urged the Board to preserve the meaning of low density, keep the faith of many residents who bought when they thought they understood English. He asked the Board not to allow projects such as the one proposed in a low density zone. Robert Keefe: Reminded the Town Board that four to five years ago the Planning Board spent over five years polling residents in order to draft a comprehensive plan and land use ordinance P 184 Continued, January 17, 2001 which is almost a duplicate to what they are looking to approve tonight. He stated that the current zoning ordinance is full of typos and inconsistancies. He told the read. He stated that recently a car dealership went at the Lansing review which according to the ordinance, in Section 503 it states dealership. There is no Astrex, yet when you go to the other secti used car sales needs a site plan review. Board it should of been proof Plaza without any site plan that SC 802 is required for a car on (802.14) it states new and Bev Abplanaln Did not feel multi - family units should be allowed 100 feet from rural agricultural zoning. She told the Board Members this is a grave error. We are already losing farm land and once it's gone it's gone. She stated that it is the wrong time to open up our agricultural land for uses other than agriculture. She encouraged the Board to set back and give themselves a little more time and get more information from the agricultural services committee and other citizens. She thanked the Board for their time in this matter. Bill Miller: Asked the Board if there were any other issues in the October revision that can be spoken on tonight. Mr. Farkas stated that other issues would take place at a later time. Kathy Weinstatt: Stated that herself and many other people are trapped ecomonically in small apartments without a lot of options. She would like to have more choices to choose from, therefore would like to see more development for that reason. She stated that, she too, was part of the community and anyone's needs could change at any time. Doug Firth: Echoed comments made by Paul Cosintini. He stated that the 1997 Draft Ordinance did not permit multi - family housing in R -1, low density and R -3, mixed use residential zones. He stated that "density" was clearly defined in the 1979 ordinance and the 1997 draft ordinance. He stated that it was time to correct the mistakes made in 1998. He told the Board that they represented the public and they should take a step in the right direction and vote the changes in tonight. He stated that when he went door to door to approximately 100 homes with the petitions that were turned in earlier by Tom LaVigne, 100% of the residents were in favor of the proposed changes. He felt this was a vocal majority. Richard Maul: Felt development would have a large impact on the school system. He stated that there has been a 19% student increase in the last two years. He told the Board not to allow irresponsible development. Lenore Nehrbasch: She asked the Board and everyone in the room: How would they feel if they wanted to build their dream home and they bought a piece of property, spending their hard earned money (ten's of thousands of dollars) within the minimum lot size requirement and suddenly the Town Board decides that they did not want you to build your home there and they would not issue any more building permits and keep the moratorium until they change the law and make the minimum lot size a little bit bigger? She stated that was exactly what was being done to Mr. Ronsvalle as he has spent his hard earned money, talked to George Totman, and then the Board stopped him and he is being singled out. She stated that he is a responsible developer and that it would take quite a few single family home owners to pay the amount of taxes that Mr. Ronsvalle pays on his town houses. She said she hoped by the time her children are old enough to understand Lansing politics, that the attitudes in the town change so that people will live with their neighbors, in peace whether the neighbors live in a mansion, apartment, or in a mobile home. Bill Maul: Stated it was his backyard and invited Mr. Ronsvalle to build his dream house there. Pat Conlon: Asked the Town Board if they or if the Planning Board considered designating a multi - family area exclusively? Brad Griffen stated that they did not. Pat Conlon stated that he would entertain the thought somewhere down the line to take a serious look at it. Captain Christopher Paulse: He stated that he is a resident in one of Mr. Ronsvalle's apartments at 692 Ridge Road and has been for about a year in a half. He was sent by the Army 185 Continued, January 17, 2001 to attend Graduate School at Cornell University. He could not find a suitable place to live when his family first came to the area. He then found Mr. Ronsvalle's apartments and is very happy with the apartment and with the Lansing School District. His wife is a teacher at Lansing and they contribute in many ways to our community. He would like to see more people like himself come to this area. He stated that Ron Ronsvalle's apartments were beautiful and that they meet the requirements needed for a family of three. He stated that he supports the continuation of building such apartments in the area. Jim Bentkowski: He stated that he was a realtor and an appraiser. He was concerned that he has not seen any documentation regarding any reduction in values and would like to see something in writing. He submitted a letter to the Board. He felt the Hillcrest and Triphammer Road parcel was the best location with access and visibility and availablibility to public water. The question of whether the site was zoned for residential Town House development was addressed extensively with repeated trips to the Town Offices, discussions with the Town Attorney and Code Enforcement Officer. It was explained to himself and Mr. Ronsvalle that Town Houses would be permitted according to the current zoning laws. Today, Mr. Ronsvalle has complied with all current Town Codes and Health Department regulations for description of his Town Houses. To delay issuing the building permit is in fact penalizing Ron for attempting to provide affordable housing within current zoning laws. It is his understanding that Lansing residents for responsible development have put pressure on the Town Board to change the zoning code to excluded multi- residents in R -1, L -1 and R -3 zones. He supports site plan review but believes to change the code to exclude Ron's development after considerable time and expenses is not profitable. This amounts to changing the rules during the games. He felt this would send a poor signal to the community about the strength of our laws and the ability of our elected Board Members to enforce those laws. His further concern is that Ron will suffer extensive monetary damages as a result of a reversal or amendment of those laws. He stated that the demand for housing in Lansing is strong, for example: The property at 5 Dandyview Heights was listed at $ 129,000.00 and sold for $ 140,000.00 in 129 days. Three parties bid on the property. The potential buyer understood additional apartments were to be constructed in that neighborhood. At the time of purchase, 6 units were constructed on Ridge Road, 18 units were located across the street, therefore it appeared the market is not overly concerned, in that area, with apartments. He felt certain groups were trying to shape our community by attempting to zone certain types of individuals out of their neighborhood. He appealed to the Board to move with caution as it attempts to regulate rezoning as to who and where and how much they can afford. It will effect all residents in the Town of Lansing. Roger Schnock: Mr. Schnock stated that he has been a resident since 1970 and is an apartment owner. He was speaking because he owns a 5 acre parcel of land that he bought with the assumption that one day he could divide it and put two duplexes on it. He rents to two of Ron Ronsvalle's employees who he said are hard working, blue collar people that are in the $ 15,000.00 to $ 25,000.00 income range. He stated that he enjoys these people and did not feel the fear that some people had about the complexes were in order. He has not heard the work "compromise ". Nancy Loncto: She stated that she supported the proposed changes. She stated that it was the beginning of progress and that a lot of things needed to be taken under consideration. She stated that she has been low income, single, divorce, been in crisis, lived in an apartment in which she needed at the time. She felt they were looking at the moratorium as a part of an emergency crisis situation that needed to be dealt with in a larger planning context. Tom Baldwin: He has been a resident of this area all of his life and has seen many changes which are inevitable. He has also been a tenant for 30 years and is now in the process of building his first home in Lansing. Decent affordable housing is hard to come by in this area. He asked the people who felt the town house should be built in another section of town if tenants were second class citizens or those other people who they don't want in their neighborhood? He did not think that was the case. He stated that he did not know if Mr. Ronsvalle should be allowed to built his development on the site on Hillcrest and North Triphammer Road as he has not been to the site i • Continued, January 17, 2001 but he did say he understands the concerns of the neighborhoods as he is very concerned also. He felt it was the Board's responsibility to make sure Mr. Ronsvalle delivers the kind of development he promised to develop. He thinks it would be a compliment to the neighborhood in the area as he did not think the lot would stay an open field as it has been for sale for 10 years and could end up with single family homes. He stated that there were three things you can count on in life which are death, taxes and change. He stated that managed change is a good thing. He stated that he sympathized with the neighbors in the area and understood them but asked them not to make it an us vs. them issue. He told the Board it was important to consider all groups of people but to altamently make the right decision for the people as a whole. He asked the Board to look into their heart and to all of the evidence and information that has been presented to them and not to react with emotion but with logic and intelligence and make the right decision. Tom McGiff: He stated that he is not against growth but that he was absolutely confused when he found out that this particular project was being proposed and partially approved by someone's interpretation of the existing ordinance. He felt that the Board needs to develop process that is more responsible. He felt it was inconceivable that Ronsvalle's project fits in with the ordinances spirit of a low density situation. He felt that the message given was that if this kind of development was acceptable, then the whole process has no credibility. Joe Wawak: He asked if a person owned a single family home and wanted to build an apartment or make the single family home into a two family home, would they have to have an extra 40,000 square feet and Mr. Shattuck stated that in R -1 yes, you would have to have a total of 80,000 square feet in order to change your single family home into a two family one. Mr. Shattuck stated that the proposed changes state that a homeowner would need 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit which will include all duplexes. Mr. Shattuck also stated that if you had three or more dwelling units in an R -2 zone you would need 8,000 square feet per dwelling unit. He also stated that there is an appeal process someone can go through that have a pre- existing lot size that would be taken into consideration. (ZBA) Mr. Shattuck stated that the lot size changes would make changes across the board for anything built per dwelling unit. Carolyn Rasmussen: Has lived in Lansing for 19 years at which time she bought her house for $ 20,000.00. Did not feel this comes down to people in Lansing being against poor people or against renters but that 96 bedrooms, 46 units is not low density. She stated that it was not a good use of that particular piece of property. Garth McMillen: Felt that there are three big issues which include property values, the density and the traffic. He had spoken to professional appraisers who told him the only effects it may have would be privacy issues and traffic. He stated that privacy issues would be if there were no natural barriers or fencing in your backyard to keep some kind of privacy adjacent to these parcels. Traffic would be if the particular street which the single family resident is on, would be directly impacted by an increase in traffic. He felt if there were no woods and there is an open field that there is no privacy there anyway such in the Dandyview area where there was an open field to begin with. The appraisers said a lot of times the developer will create barriers with shrubs, etc. It was also the appraisers general feeling that duplexes and triplexes are for the most part, along with single family residences and do not tend to decrease property values. Mr. McMillen did not feel a change at this time should be made as far as the zoning issues. He felt a lot of it could be achieved by conducting a thorough site plan review process and address the more difficult issues on a case by case basis. He felt that if the Town were to make major changes in the zoning ordinance, it should be put to a town wide vote. Mr. Beckwith stated that a town wide vote was not legal. Mr. McMillen stated that if the Board was ; onsidering a major change, they could be setting a president for the next group who comes along with a complaint and is not happy. He stated that he is a landowner and has future plans of possibly doing some kind of development to supplement his retirement which now brings up a concern if he has enough land according to the proposed changes. 187 Continued, January 17, 2001 Robert Keefe: He stated that the purpose of the ordinance should be to promote the best safety and general welfare of the community. He stated that his house was appraised in September of 1999 for $ 169,000.00 before Ronsvalle's apartments went in. It was reappraised in November of 2000 for $ 161,000.00. He did not feel the economy had dropped that much. He stated that he has had people trespassing on his property from the apartment complex. He has documentation of people destroying his property and the amount of liter has increased because of Mr. Hovanec, as there is a single dumpster for 15 apartments. Traffic has increased, Health Department has concerns about the raised bed sceptics. Had site plan review been there and had there been a previous zoning ordinance before plans were submitted, he would not be in the situation he is now in. RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Shattuck: RESOLVED, that everyone desiring to be heard, having been heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m. Carried. Mrs. Greenly stated the following: " I regrete the position that Ronsvalle has been put in through this erratic process. I also regrete the position the residents near multiple housing have been put in though the seemingly swiss cheese document of our zoning ordinance that we are working on. The decisions made here are made with due consideration. A vocal majority has spoken. The particular site needs to stay low density and low traffic. It is not us vs. them. We do need apartments and town houses in Lansing but we also need to make sure that the improved zoning document is not squishy, that it is very clear and that it will clearly embrace the full range of housing that Lansing residents need and require." Mr. Shattuck stated the following: "In none of the Planning Board meetings or any of the meetings that we have had as a Town Board has the price of property ever come up. That has never been a consideration for the reasons that we are talking about instituting changes in our ordinance. We have never looked at property whether it be devaluation of property value or enhancement of property value as any of the reasons that we see fit to do this or to even talk about change. Again it comes back to when the Heritage Town Apartment complex was the trigger for this. It was one of many things that were going on in the Town. Last year we told you that we were a new Town Board, there were three brand new members and we no longer take that title, we're here, we know what we're doing, we've looked this over and we understand again back it's pre- existing neighborhoods that are here, we're trying to develop zoning issues that compliment each other throughout the town. We are looking on a wide range of factors such as ground waters being one of the main ones. You are on bedrock, you lean towards the lake, it doesn't matter what you do if you don't have good water and sewer and good planning. The only part that bothers him and it sounded a little bit Ithacain was I heard the word sprawl a couple times and when you hear sprawl you go back and you listen to people who say smart growth. Smart growth in the city means sprawl, smart growth in Lansing means good planning and we really want to try and plan where to put things. We've told the developers that there will be a lot of areas that there are going to be able to develop in and there are going to be some areas that they are not going to be able to develop in. With this document, we are restricting where those areas are now. Everything is subject to change and when people say that there was problems with the yellow copy of the ordinance that was put in a couple of years ago, I don't think so, I think that the previous Town Board did a good job, they worked hard to put in zoning in a place where there was no zoning. What we found since then is there are small areas that need to be changed. They will seem large to the people that are adversely affected but are really small and we are making those changes looking at the whole town as how it has to be built, where growth can happen, where it shouldn't happen, where we cdn provide infrastructure for businesses and for multi - family housings and for dense apartment complexes and where that's not possible to do and where we can also protect those pre- existing neighborhoods." RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Shattuck and seconded by Mrs. Overstrom: Continued, January 17, 2001 WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board, having received public comment concerning a provision of the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance, as amended July, 1998, involving the conditions required for the construction of multiple dwellings units in the Town of Lansing, particularly the category entitled "Dwelling, conversion of existing building into three or four dwelling units, multi - family including apartment and condominium, townhouse "; and WHEREAS, the Lansing Town Board, having received further comment concerning the provisions of the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance, as amended July, 1998, related to the issues of density, particularly involving multiple dwellings; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, by prior resolution imposed a moratorium until December 31, 2000, in the granting of building permits for multiple dwelling units as entitled in the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance as "Dwelling, conversion of existing building into three or four dwelling units, multi - family including apartment and condominium, townhouse" in order to review the Land Use Ordinance in light of the public comment received and to consider possible amendments to such Ordinance, which moratorium was, by a subsequent resolution, extended until February 21, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received proposed amendments to the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance from the Planning Board recommending changes to the approval process and the areas in the Town where multiple dwellings could be constructed; and WHEREAS, the Town Board mailed a newsletter to all Town residents describing the proposals and inviting the residents to a public information session to receive public comment on December 13, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Resolution of the Town Board dated January 3, 2001, a public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. on January 17, 2001 at the Lansing Town Hall for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposals to amend various portions of the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance related to multiple dwellings and density, and the Town Board having heard public comment and after due deliberation being had, therefore, it is RESOLVED, to make the following amendments to the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance: Amend Section 402.3 under Descriptions of Districts - Intent, to provide a new description of density in the RI zone. Amend the first sentence of this section to read as follows: "The intent of the R1 District is to designate areas where agriculture is still occurring and has been the historic use of land, and where concentration of non -farm development, primarily one and two family residential, are also occurring." Amend 402.4 under Descriptions of Districts - Intent, to provide a new description of density in the R2 zone: Amend the first sentence of this section to read as follows: "The intent of the R2 District is to designate areas where the expected and desired use of land is a mixture of varied types of residential development at a density higher than the R -1 District." Amend 402.5 under Descriptions of Districts - Intent, to provide a new description of density in the R3 zones: Amend this section to add a third sentence to read as follows: "In the R3 District, however, mobile homes on individual lots and additional retail trade in a home are believed to be desirable and suitable under certain conditions and circumstances." Amend Section 503 Schedule I (A)(3) under Schedule of Land Use or Activities, to read "Dwelling, conversion of existing building into three of four dwelling units." This amendment will allow such use in all zones, except in Industrial Research zones, with Site Plan Approval Required for all permitted zones. Add a new Section 503 Schedule I (A)(4) under Schedule of Land Use or Activities, to read 189 Continued, January 17, 2001 "Dwelling, multi - family including apartment and condominium" This amendment will allow such use in the RA, R2, and B 1 zones with Site Plan Approval Required, and will prohibit such use in the R1, R3, L1 and IR zones. The proposed amendment adds a requirement of a 100 foot setback for any apartments or condominiums in the RA zone. Add a new section 503 Schedule I (A)(5) under Schedule of Land Uses or Activities to read "Dwelling, townhouse." This amendment will allow such use in the RA, R2, and B 1 zones with Site Plan Approval Required, and will prohibit such use in the R1, R3, L1 and IR zones. Amend Section 504 Schedule II under Area, Yard, Heights and Coverage Requirements, as follows: All buildings in the RA zone With or Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf /Dwelling Unit or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. Amend L 1 zone as follows: All buildings in the L 1 zone - Lake Shore category With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf /Dwelling Unit. All buildings in this category Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf /Dwelling Unit or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. Create a separate Lake Frontage category in the L 1 zone. All buildings in this category With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sf /Dwelling Unit. All buildings in this category Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf/Dwelling Unit or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. All buildings in the RI zone With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf/Dwelling Unit. All buildings in this zone Without Public Sewers and Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf /Dwelling Unit or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. Amend R2 zone as follows: All buildings in the R2 a.cate ory for buildings containing 1 or 2 Dewlling Units. All buildings in this category With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. All buildings in this category Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. Or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. All buildings in the R2 b category for buildings containing 3 or more Dwelling Units. All buildings in this category With public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 8,000 sf /Dwelling Unit. All buildings in this catagory Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. Ft. or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. All buildings in the R2 c. category for Non- residential or Mixed Development. All buildings in this category With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. All buildings in this catagory Without Public Sewers or Water will reguire a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. All buildings in the R3 zone With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf/Dwelling Unit. All buildings in this zone Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 40,000 sf /Dwelling Unit or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. ROOM Continued, January 17, 2001 Amend B 1 zone as follows: All buildings in the B 1 a. catagory With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. All buildings in this category Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. All buildings in the B 1 b. category With Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. /Dwelling Unit. All buildings in this category Without Public Sewers or Water will require a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. Or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. All buildings in the B1 c.categ_ory With Public Sewers or Water bill be subject to special permits or special conditions for Minimum Lot Area Requirements. All buildings in this category Without Public Sewers or Water will reguire a Minimum Lot Area of 20,000 sq. ft. Or Health Dept. Approval, whichever is higher. Add a new definition in Appendix I at A.27.1 Condominium. A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually and the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a propotional, undivided basis. A legal form of ownership of real estate and not a specific building style. Can contain residential, commercial or a mix of occupancies. Add a new denifition in Appendix I at A.37.1 Dwelling, Apartment. That portion of a larger dwelling consisting of one or more living rooms, and occupied by the members of a family, which group of rooms is separate from all other groups within the dwelling. And it is, FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of the present Ordinance and the zoning changes shall be on file with the Town Clerk and shall be available to anyone desiring to review the same. Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Frances Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor Mr. Farkas stated that it will be a challenge to the Planning Board and Town Board to look at the whole process zone by zone, area by area and invite the people from each area to come in and make comments and input on any changes that might happen in the existing ordinance so that everyone has an opportunity to do this. He stated that they have to make sure development happens that is consistant so that there can be affordable sewer. TOMPKINS COUNTY FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM: Kate Hackett gave a lengthly presentaion to the Board regarding the program. She stated that there is a grant program where the County pays 1/3, the Town pays 1/3 and the owner pays 1/3. She stated that the program is set up to minimized future flood damamges. Municipal suppot is a requirement. She stated that any area in Tompkins County is eligible for a grant. Mr. Brad Griffin asked Ms. Hackett where the County's third was coming from. She stated that it comes from County revenue. Craig Schott also gave a presentation and went over the application process. Nancy Loncto asked if private citizens could use in kind contributions. Mr. Schott stated that they could. Jeff Cook asked why rip -rap was installed in other Town's but not in Lansing. Mr. Larson stated that it is very frustrating when you try to deal with the Army Corp of Engineers and with the Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Cook would like to see some of the gravel taken out of Salmon Creek. 191 Continued, January 17, 2001 Ms. Hackett felt this would be eligible for a grant and will look in it. Janet Keefe: She requested that money be returned to a resident who was given some guidence in error having to do with a special condition permit for a home business. She stated that a good friend of hers, Mark Nijland of 149 Hillcrest Road whom she is representing tonight, applied for a permit through the Town on November for a home business (computer consultant). She stated that Mr. Totman informed Mr. Nijland that he needed a special use permit for which he was charged $ 25.00. Mr. Totman later informed him that he needed to complete a SEQR and suggested that he appear before the Town Board in December to stake his intentions and ask for approval. He appeared and the Board told him it was not necessary and sent him on his way. She stated that as long as you live in the dwelling, with no more than three unrelated people working there, no more than three outside parking spots, nothing outside the home that is visable or smells or has sounds to any neighbors, you do not need as special permit as it is considered a special condition with no fee required. She asked that Mr. Nijland's money be refunded and not let it happen again. REGULAR FEBRUARY MEETING• Mr. Farkas stated that the Regular Meeting in Feburary will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. due to many employees attending an Association of Towns meeting in New York City. CELL TOWER PUBLIC HEARING• The information requested has been obtained therefore, the Town Board made a motion to hold a Public Hearing as follows: * * * Said Resolution was not published in time, therefore the Public Hearing was canceled. Pete Larson, Highway Superintendent, reported the following: BID OPENING FOR NEW BOX FOR DUMP TRUCK: Mr. Larson stated that bids will be opened at the Regular Meeting in February for one (1) 2001 Multi - Purpose Heavy Duty 14ft. Dump /Spreader Box. LIGHTING DISTRICT - LAKE WATCH AREA: Mr. Larson has received a petition from residents on East Lake, Reach Run, Teeter Road area for a request to light the intersection of the south end of East Shore Circle and also the intersection of East Lake. Mr. Larson stated that he would like the Water Wagon and East Shore Dr. area included. He has prices from N.Y.S. Electric and Gas and New York State. The cost for putting in 150 watt, high pressure sodium light at each of the mentioned intersections would be $ 163.00 per year or $ 13.59 per month. Wooden poles would cost an additional $ 140.00 with the total per intersection being $ 300.00 per year. He stated that said lighting could be put into an "at large" lighting district. The people involved will attend the Regular Meeting in February. AGREEMENT TO SPEND TOWN HIGHWAY FUNDS: Said Agreement was signed by all Board Members and is on file in the Town Clerk and the Town Highway Superintendent's Office, HORIZON AREA SEWER LINES• The Board asked Mr. Herrick to do the necessary design work in order from Mr. Larson to perform the necessary work early in the Spring. Therefore, the following Resolution was offered: on- Continued, January 17, 2001 RESOLOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Shattuck: WHEREAS, by prior resolution of December 20, 2000, the Town Board determined to extend the sewer main in the public right of way along Horizon Drive, as an alternative to a resident constructing a private sewer lateral across a neighbor's back lot; and WHEREAS, in order to construct such a sewer main extension, the Town Engineer must prepare plans and specifications for the construction; therefore it is hereby RESOLVED, that the Town of Lansing Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Engineer to prepare the necessary plans and specifications for the extension of a sewer main along Horizon Drive, and that the cost of such plans and specifications shall be an operations and maintenance expense. Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith,Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Concilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor SEQR: Dave Herrick, Town Engineer, reported the following: Mr. Herrick alerted the Town Board the he has the Short Environemtal Assessment forms to allow the Town to be Lead Agency on three water districts. He stated that he is now working on the bidding specifications. WATER DISTRICT 17, EXTENSION 5: Mr. Herrick will be attending a meeting regarding a proposed water district in the Algerine, Lansing Station Road area. After a lengthly conversation, it was the consensus of the Board to have Mr. Herrick present the district one on one with figures. The Board felt a lot of time and money has been spent on this area and would like have it taken care of one way or another. APPOINTMENT OF NANCY LONCTO TO PLANNING BOARD: RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Shattuck and seconded by Mrs. Greenly: WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing Planning Board has a current vacancy; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received and reviewed the applications of candidates for appointment to the Planning Board to fill the vacancy and has duly considered such applications, therefore, it is hereby RESOLVED, that the Town of Lansing Town Board hereby appoints Nancy Loncto to fill the vacancy on the Planning Board for a seven year term. Carried. MYERS ROAD BRIDGE BAN: RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Shattuck: 193 Continued January 17, 2001 BOND RENEWAL RESOLUTION Deted January 17, 2001 A RESOLOUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $ 542,800.00 SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN OF LANSING, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK TO PAY THE COST OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MYERS ROAD BRIDGE IN THE TOWN OF LANSING. WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing has entered into an Agreement dated August 19, 1997, with the County of Tompkins for the joint reconstruction and financing of the Myers Bridge in the Town of Lansing; and WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the captial projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have been performed; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, by bond resolution dated November 19, 1997, and by resolution of correction of the maximum maturity date dated September 2, 1998, authorized the issuance of $ 616,000.00 serial bonds of the Town of which bonds having a maximum maturity of the serial bonds not to exceed twenty years, and by a Bond Renewal Resolution dated February 3, 1999, and by a Bond Renewal Resolution dated February 2, 2000; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York as follows: Section 1. For the specific objects or purposes of paying the costs of the reconstruction of the Myers Road Bridge in the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $ 542,800.00 serial bonds of said Town pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, apportioned among such costs of construction in accordance with the maximum estimated cost of the improvement. Pursuant to subdivision 10 of paragraph a of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, it is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the reconstruction of the Myers Road Bridge in the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, the aforesaid specific object or purpose is twenty years and that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized for said purpose will not exceed twenty years. Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid specific objects or purposes is $ 542,800.00. The plan of financing the same consists of the issuance of said serial bonds in the amount of $ 5425800.00. Section 3. All other matters except as provided herein relating to such bonds shall be determined by the Supervisor. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity clause provided for in Section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and ontain such recitals, in addition to those required by Section 1.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the Supervisor shall determine. Section 4. It is hereby determined that subdivision 10 of paragraph a. of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law applies to the specific object or purpose of the cost of construction set forth herein, and that the period of usefulness thereof is twenty years computed from the date of the issuance of the first serial bond or the first bond anticipation note issued therefore. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will not exceed twenty years. Setion 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law the rize the issance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of he serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the R 1 Continued, Jan 17, 2001 Supervisor, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Supervisor, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law, Section 6. The full faith and credit of the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on such bonds as the same become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year suffcient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable each year. There shall be levied on all the taxable real property in said Town a tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable. In the event that the annual collection of such assessments shall be less than the amount required to pay the principal and interest of said bonds as they shall become due, the Town Board shall direct that surplus moneys not otherwise appropriated be applied. Section 7. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the Supervisor who shall advertise such bonds for sale, conduct the sale- and award the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of said Town, provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers she shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of the Supervisor shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds who shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase money. Section 8. The validity of such bonds or any anticipation note or notes issued thereon in anticipation of the sale of said bonds pursuant to this bond resolution may be contested only if such obligations were authorized for an object or purpose for which the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York is not authorized to expend money or if provisions of law which should have been complied with as of the date of publication of this notice were not substantially complied with, and an auction, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced with twenty days after the date of publication or such obligations were authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 9. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in fulll in the Ithaca Journal, which is hereby designated as the official newspaper of said Town for such purpose, together with a notice of the Town Clerk in the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll which resulted as follows: Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board. (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor AUDIT RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mrs. Overstrom: RESOLVED, that the bookkeeper is hereby authorized and diredted to pay the following bills as approved by the Supervisor: Voucher Numbers: 1-44 FUND APPROPRIATIONS General Fund $ 32,247.86 Highway Fund $ 155473.39 195 Continued, January 17, 2001 Lansing Lighting Districts $ 15320.61 Lansing Water Districts $ 373.65 Lansing Library (HL) $ 7,491.04 Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilperson Vote of Town Board. (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor RESOLUTION, offered by Mrs. Greenly and seconded by Mr. Beckwith: A RESOLUTION AUHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $43,936.00 SERIAL BONDS OF THE TOWN OF LANSING, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK TO PAY THE COST OF HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT, BEING TWO TEN WHELL DUMP TRUCKS, TWO WING TOWER PLOW UNITS AND TWO BOX/SPREADER UNITS. WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital projects hereinafter described, including compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, have been performed; and WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital projects; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York as follows: Section 1. For the specific objects or purposes of paying the costs of the purchase of certain highway equipment, being two ten wheel dump trucks, two wing tower plow units and two box/spreader units, for the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, there are hereby authorized to be issued $43,936.00 serial bonds of said Town pursuant to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, apportioned among such items of equipment in accordance with the maximum estimated cost of each. Such items of equipment are as follows: a) The purchase of two ten wheel dump trucks, for which, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph (a) of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, it is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is fifteen years and that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized for said purpose will not exceed 5 years; b) The purchase of two wing tower plow units, for which, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph (a) of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, it is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is ten years and that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized for said purpose will not exceed 5 years; C) The purchase of two box /spreader units, for which, pursuant to subdivision 28 of paragraph (a) of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law, it is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is ten years and that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized for said purpose will not exceed 5 years; Section 2. The aggregate maximum estimated cost of the aforesaid specific objects or purposes is $43,936.00. The plan of financing the same consists of the issuance of said serial bonds in the amount of $43,936.00. Section 3. All other matters except as provided herein, relating to such bonds shall be determined by the Supervisor. Such bonds shall contain substantially the recital of validity claused provided for in Section 52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals, in addition to those required by Section 1.00 of the Local Finance Law, as the Supervisor shall determine. i Continued, January 17, 2001 Section 4. It is hereby determined that subdivision 28 paragraph (a) of Section 11.00 of the Local Finance Law applies to the specific object or purpose of the purchase of the equipment set forth herein, and that the period of usefulness thereof is ten years computed from the date of the issuance of the first serial bond or on the first bond anticipation note issued therefore. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will not exceed five years. Section 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the seria bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the Supervisor, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents, and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Supervisor, consistent with the provisions of the Local Finance Law. Section 6. The full faith and credit of the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged to the paymenty of the principal and interest on such bonds as the same become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable each year. There shall be levied on all the taxable real property in said Town a tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest on such obligations as the same become due and payable. In the event that the annual collection of such assessments shall be less than the amount required to pay the principal and interest of said bonds as they shall become due, the Town Board shall direct that surplus moneys not otherwise appropriated be applied. Section 7. The powers and duties of advertising such bonds for sale, conducting the sale and awarding the bonds, are hereby delegated to the Supervisor who shall adverse such bonds for sale, conduct the sale and award the bonds in such manner as he shall deem best for the interests of said Town, provided, however, that in the exercise of these delegated powers he shall comply fully with the provisions of the Local Finance Law and any order or rule of the State Comptroller applicable to the sale of municipal bonds. The receipt of the Supervisor shall be a full acquittance to the purchaser of such bonds who shall not be obligated to see to the application or the purchase money. Section 8. The validity of such bonds or any bond anticipation note or notes issued thereon in anticipation of the sale of said bonds pursuant to this bond resolution may be contested only if such obligations were authorized for an object or purpose for which the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, is not authorized to expend money, or if the provisions of law which should have been complied with as of the date of publication of this notice were not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of publication or such obligations were authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Section 9. This resolution, which takes effect immediately, shall be published in full in the Ithaca Journal, which is hereby designated as the official newspaper of said Town for such purpose, together with a notice of the Town Clerk in the forms provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call which resulted as follows: Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Herbert Beckwith, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Meg Overstrom, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Beckwith and seconded by Mr. Shattuck: Continued, January 17, 2001 RESOLVED, that the Regular Meeting be adjourned to go into Executive Session at 10:35 p.m. to discuss a personnel matter. Carried. RESOLUTION, offered by Mrs. Overstrom and seconded by Mr. Beckwith: RESOLVED, that the Executive Session be terminated and the Regular Meeting be reconvened. Carried. On motion, meeting adjourned at the call of the Supervisor. G- 1 �JI