Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-09-16 September 16, 2015 1 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING September 16, 2015 A Regular Meeting of the Lansing Town Board was held at the Town Hall Board Room, 29 Auburn Road, Lansing, NY on the above date at 6:03 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Supervisor, Kathy Miller and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Roll call by Debbie Crandall, Town Clerk, showed the following to be PRESENT: Kathy Miller, Supervisor Robert Cree, Councilperson Doug Dake, Councilperson Ruth Hopkins, Councilperson Edward LaVigne, Councilperson ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Guy Krogh, Town Counsel, “Cricket” Purcell, Deputy Highway Superintendent, John O’Neill, Village of Lansing, Mike Sigler, Tompkins County Legislator, Dan Veaner, Lansing Star, Robb and Lin Jetty, Connie Wilcox, Monika Roth, Doug Baird, Tricia Torney, Steven Smith, Tania Lawrence, Charlie Nedrow, Dave and Joyce Heck, David Ferris, Marty Christopher, Dave Buck, Adam Buck, Ted Laux, Jeffrey Cook, John Huether, Sandy Conlon, Doyle, Judy and Lizzy Drake, Karen Campbell, Katrina Binkewicz, Barbara Hlywa, Holly Hardie, Kay Moore, Jeannine Kirby, John Kirby, Lin Davidson, John Fleming, Dan Starner, Dan Konowalow, Michael Koplinka- Loehr, Mike Roach and a few other attendees. LANSING COMMUNITY LIBRARY REPORT – TANIA LAWRENCE Lansing Community Library Report September 16, 2015 Tania Lawrence, LCL Trustee  LCL has started to issue the new “Kids’ Cards” – a county wide initiative issuing cards to younger patrons that have fun images on them.  A new display of artwork by Gerry Monaghan called Bowery and Basketry will be on display through October 26th.  Saturdays in October, from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM, LCL will be hosting “Legos in the Library”. All newcomers are welcome.  LCL will be closed Monday, October 12, 2015 for Columbus Day. Upcoming Programs Include:  September 19th, 2015, 11:00 AM: Book making for pre-school and early grade school children by local children’s author David Kirk. Registration necessary.  October 18, 2015, Time TBD: Tompkins County through Fiction and Memoirs: A Sunday tea and a book reading by Rebecca Barry and Nina Miller.  LCL is exploring the option of Solar Net Metering. We have joined with a group of other local nonprofits to learn more about working with Renovus on this initiative. September 16, 2015 2 MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING – CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF 2015 AGRICULTURE PLAN FOR TOWN OF LANSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Councilperson Robert Cree moved to OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ADOPT THE 2015 AGRICULTURE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF LANSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW at 6:07 pm. Councilperson Edward LaVigne seconded the motion. All in Favor - 5 Opposed - 0 The following residents addressed the Town Board in support of the 2015 Agriculture Plan and encouraged its adoption: Connie Wilcox, Judy Drake, Lin Davidson, Katrina Binkewicz, John Fleming, and Dan Konowalow. The following residents addressed the Town Board and did not support the 2015 Agriculture Plan in its current form: Doug Baird, Jeannine Kirby and Dan Starner. Monika Roth, Agriculture Issue Leader of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County addressed the public and the Town Board. Monica stated that it has been her privilege to work with the farm community in Lansing and developing the plan on behalf of the town. She reiterated that this is a plan which is a set of recommendations and she encouraged the Town Board to establish an Agriculture Committee. She stated the guidance document was not an end it was a beginning, and an opportunity to look at what is going on in agriculture. Monika reviewed the following letter from John Brennan, Farmland Protection Specialist of NYS Ag & Markets: NEW YORK Agriculture State of and Markets Opportunity __________________ ANDREW M. CUOMO RICHARD A. BALL Governor Commissioner Monika Roth, Agricultural Program Leader Cornell Cooperation Extension Tompkins County Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Municipal Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan Dear Monika, I had an opportunity to review the recently submitted Draft Ag Plan for the Town of Lansing and want to commend you and the steering committee for a job well done!! As you know, in my capacity as the grants manager for the Municipal Agricultural and Farmland Protection Planning Grants Program I have the opportunity to review local protection plans from across the state for the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets. To date, we have over 100 planning grants either approved by the Committee or in some stage of completion. I point this out because, in my opinion, the Lansing Ag Plan goes above and beyond basic requirement and helps the reader understand the dynamic nature of agriculture in the community. Additionally, the plan illustrates what the town can do to actively protect the variety of resources (land and water) needed to maintain a viable agricultural industry. Specifically, I commend the steering committee for outlining clear recommendations such as creating a new Agricultural Zoning District to encompass actively farmed areas that include high quality soils necessary for continued farming. This public policy recommendation shows courage of commitment and broadcasts to all that this area is important for agriculture, now and into the future. We hope it is implemented. In fact, September 16, 2015 3 the Department has a follow up grant opportunity to carry through with this zoning adjustment. And finally, the Plan does a fine job in defining agriculture, detailing the importance of the Agricultural District program, outlining the economic value of farming and illustrating agricultural development opportunities emerging in today’s economy. Please keep the Department informed as the Steering Committee moves into the plan implementation phase. Sincerely, John Brennan, Farmland Protection Specialist Cc: Robert Somers, NYSDAM ______________________________________________________________________________________ Division of Land and Water Resources – 10B Airline Dr. Albany, N.Y 12235 – (518) 457-2713 www.agriculture.ny.gov Monika clarified that there has been confusion about the recommended plan. She stated there is a distinct difference between an Ag zone that is controlled by the Town of Lansing and the NYS Ag District (NYSDAM – New York State’s Department of Ag and Markets). The NYS Ag District has been in effect in the Town of Lansing since 1974. It was formed by the farm community by coming together, petitioning the county, approval by the county, then forwarded to NYS and is now an Ag District NYS Law. She noted that provisions of the law provide benefits to farms such as the agriculture assessment along with notice provisions. She explained an Ag zone would be controlled by the town and designate the provided committed uses. It does not take away the rights of farmers to sell their property. Monika noted that the vote is not about the NYS Ag District, the vote is to consider the proposed Agriculture Plan. It is a document that would provide a work plan, establish a committee, and set priorities that would further work with the Town Board on recommendations that are most viable to the town for the continuation of agriculture. Monika reviewed the following Resolution of support from the Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board: TOMPKINS COUNTY AGRICULTURE & FARMLAND PROTECTION BOARD 615 Willow Ave Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone (607) 272-2292 Fax (607) 272-7088 Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board (AFPB) Resolution Approving the Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan August 26, 2015 At the regular monthly meeting of the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board on August 16, 2015, the following resolution was passed. Whereas the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board has reviewed the Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan; And whereas the Lansing farm and rural community has provided significant input during the past 5 years during which the plan has been discussed and developed; And whereas the Plan provides a detailed review of agriculture in the Town, its economic contributions, and the impacts of development pressure as summarized below:  Farming is alive and well in the Town of Lansing. Lansing enjoys a long history of continuous farming.  40 farm businesses, their owners, families and employees, generate a total of $20 million dollars in agricultural product sales, one third of the total value of agriculture for the entire county. September 16, 2015 4  Of the land in farming, 43% is designated prime soil and another 22% as having statewide significance, making Lansing the town with the best soils for farming in the county.  Farmers operate about 16,261 acres of land or about one-third of the Town’s land area. Of the total land in farming, 8,834 acres are owned by 40 farmers and 7,427 farmed acres are rented from 80 rural landowners.  1,017 acres of inactive agriculture land in the town has come back into production in the last 5 years. The increase in farmed land demonstrates the demand for land and the viability of farming in the area.  Town population has continued to increase at a significantly higher rate than other towns in the county. During the past 20 years, housing outside the village grew at a rate 3 times faster than development within the village.  Two town farms have sold development rights on 1,446 acres of land (almost 10% of the actively farmed land in the town). And whereas the Plan provides the following recommendations to protect valuable farmland and promote agriculture:  Appoint an Agriculture Advisory Committee to advise the Town on matters pertaining to agriculture and serve as the lead organization to further actions recommended in the plan;  Update/revise zoning definitions pertaining to agriculture in the current town zoning code.  Consider changing much of the RA zone to AG (Agriculture) Zone permitting uses most compatible with agriculture.  Encourage economic development activities that would strengthen the Town’s Agriculture including agritourism, support services, rural enterprises, etc.  Pursue a variety of strategies as recommended in the plan that raise community awareness of agriculture, that promote sustainable farming practices and land stewardship, and that make farming viable in the future.  Continue to support the Purchase of Development rights of farmland where there is a farmer interest. Therefore, it is resolved that, the Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board approves the Town of Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan and recommends its approval by the Town of Lansing Board, and final approval by NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets; And furthermore, AFPB encourages the Town to appoint a Town Agriculture Advisory Committee as soon as possible to review plan goals and move forward with recommendations; And furthermore, AFPB encourages the Town Planning Board to consider zoning recommendations in the plan as deemed appropriate. And furthermore, that the Town Agriculture Advisory Committee review the strategies in the plan and prioritize actions that are most relevant and useful to the Town’s long term goal of protection agriculture. Approved without dissent on August 26, 2015 Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board Ed Scheffler, Chair, farmer Irene Kehoe, County Assessment Lin Davidson, farmer Scott Doyle, County Planning John Fleming, farmer Monika Roth, Cooperative Extension Don Specker, Land Preservation Organization Dave McKenna, TC Legislature Robert Mazourek, Ag Business owner Dan Carey, TC Soil & Water Conser. Monika thanked everyone for their patience through the process of 5 to 6 years and congratulated the Town Board on the plan. Lansing has the highest amount of prime soil in the county which allows viable profitable farming and makes it possible to continue to employ people on farms which contributes to the local economy. She noted Lansing September 16, 2015 5 generates $20 million dollars, one third of the $67 million total farm product sales in the county. Dan Konowalow a member of the committee, noted that a fantastic job was done by Connie Wilcox and Monika Roth in keeping the project alive, if not for them it would have died a long time ago and stated they should be thanked, applaud followed. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING All persons desiring to be heard, having been heard, Councilperson Robert Cree moved to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING at 6:35 pm. Councilperson Ruth Hopkins seconded the motion. All in Favor - 5 Opposed - 0 Supervisor Kathy Miller noted that a copy of the proposed Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan for the Town of Lansing – August 2015 was available on the back table. She encouraged people to read it and a copy is available online under www.lansingtown.com. She stated that if someone needs a hard copy they can leave their name and one will be provided. RESOLUTION MAKING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UNDER SEQRA AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING TOWN OF LANSING 2015 AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Counsel, Guy Krogh reviewed the following SEQRA and Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2- Identification of Potential Project Impacts: Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activit y. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: • Review all of the information provided in Part 1. • Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. • Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. • If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. • If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. • Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. • Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” • The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. E2d b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. E2f c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. E2a d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. D2a e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. D1e September 16, 2015 6 • If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. • When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the whole action@. • Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. • Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, X- NO  YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ E2g b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: _____________________________________________________ E3c c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body. D2b, D1h b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. D2b c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. D2a d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. E2h e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. D2a, D2h f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water. D2c g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). D2d h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. D2e i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. E2h j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. D2q, E2h f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). D2e, D2q g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. B1i h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ September 16, 2015 7 k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. D1a, D2d l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or X- NO  YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. D2c b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: ________________________________________________________ D2c c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. D1a, D2c d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. D2d, E2l e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. D2c, E1f, E1g, E1h f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. D2p, E2l g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E2h, D2q, E2l, D2c h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. (See Part 1. E.2) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. E2i b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. E2j c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. E2k d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. D2b, D2e e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam [has failed to meet one or more safety criteria on its most recent inspection] in need of repair or E1e upgrade? g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ September 16, 2015 8 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. (See Part 1. D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2[0] O) iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of [hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs)] hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane D2g D2g D2g D2g D2g D2h b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. D2g c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour. [D2f,] D2g d. The proposed action may reach 50% of any [two or more] of the thresholds in “a” through “c”, above. [D1g, D2k] D2g e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D2s f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 7. Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2o b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. E2o c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2p d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or E2p the Federal government. e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. E3c f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E2n g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. E2m h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ E1b September 16, 2015 9 i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. D2q j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9. NO X- YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. E2c, E3b b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). E1a, Elb c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land. E3b d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. E1b, E3a e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. El a, E1b f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. C2c, C3, D2c, D2d g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland Protection Plan. C2c h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________ 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in X- NO  YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. E3h b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. E3h, C2b c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round E3h d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities E3h E2q, E1c e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. E3h September 16, 2015 10 f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile ½ -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile D1a, E1a, D1f, D1g g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological X- NO  YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. E3e b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. E3f c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E3g d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ e. If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Yes”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity. iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. E3e, E3g, E3f E3e, E3f, E3g, E1a, E1b E3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. D2e, E1b E2h, E2m, E2o, E2n, E2p b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. C2a, E1c, C2c, E2q c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. C2a, C2c E1c, E2q d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. C2c, E1c September 16, 2015 11 e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. X-NO  YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 14. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. D2j b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. D2j c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. D2j d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. D2j [f] e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. D2j [g] f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. X- NO  YES (See Part 1. D.2.k) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. D2k 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting  NO X- YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. D2m b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. D2m, E1d c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. D2o d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. D2n D1f, D1q, D2k September 16, 2015 12 b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. D2n, E1a f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. D2k d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. D1g e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure X- NO  YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17. Relevant Part I Question(s) No,or small impact may cccur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. E1d b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. E1g, E1h c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. E1g, E1h d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g., easement[,] or deed restriction). E1g, E1h e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. E1g, E1h f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. D2t g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. D2q, E1f h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. D2q, E1f 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). C2, C3, D1a E1a, E1b b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. C2 c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. C2, C2 e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. C3, D1c, D1d, D1f, D1d, Elb D2r, D2s September 16, 2015 13 i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste. f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. C4, D2c, D2d D2j g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) C2a h. Other: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. E1f, E1g E1h k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. E1f, E1g l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site. D2s, E1f, D2r m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3. X- NO  YES Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. E3e, E3f, E3g b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire) C4 c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. C2, C3, D1f D1g, E1a d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2, E3 e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. C2, C3 f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 E1a, E1b E2g, E2h g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Councilperson Edward LaVigne thanked all involved who put many hours into this plan. He noted that it was like a Comprehensive Plan for Agriculture. Guy Krogh noted that it is just one part of an overall Town Comprehensive Plan where there are many things that are looked at, transportation, jobs, the lake, natural areas, residences, support services for residences and agriculture is just one piece. Supervisor Kathy Miller stated that this Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan will be attached to the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that there will be an Agricultural Committee. If anyone is interested on serving on the Agricultural Committee you can put your name on a list. All the meetings will be open to the public and are also noted on the Town’s website. September 16, 2015 14 Councilperson Ruth Hopkins thanked everyone who worked on the plan along with Connie Wilcox. She stated she attended some of the meetings and she knows how hard they worked on this plan and all the energy that went into it. She noted it is a plan, not a regulation and not a rule. RESOLUTION 15-101 RESOLUTION MAKING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS UNDER SEQRA AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING TOWN OF LANSING 2015 AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board: WHEREAS, Town Law § 272-a includes, among its provisions, a declaration that among the most important duties and jobs of local officials is to enact, update, and implement a comprehensive plan, and § 272-a(3)(d) describes an agricultural plan as among the matters that should be duly considered, and Agriculture and Markets Law Article 15 - AAA provides for statewide and county-wide farmland studies and protection plans, and towns and local municipal agricultural plans are recognized as important components thereof pursuant to § 325(b); and WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing has been pursuing an agricultural plan and preservation program since 2008, the details of which committees, meetings, public documents, and input relative to the same are more expressly delineated in such plan, and such plan must be adopted in accord with Town Law § 272-a, and this plan was duly referred, as required to the Town Planning Board, NYSDAM, and the Tompkins County Planning Department (the “Agencies”); and WHEREAS, the adoption of this Plan is a Type I Action under SEQRA such that an environmental review and FEAF are required, and the Town Board duly issued a Notice of Intent to act as lead agency for a Type I Action with coordinated review, and in the 30 days following service of such notice upon all involved and interested agencies some agencies have concurred and some have not responded, but none objected to the Town being the lead agency for environmental review and none requested lead agency status in respect of this matter; and WHEREAS, the Town caused a Full Form Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”) to be prepared, including mapping under the EAF mapping system, and ERM, FWS, and SHPO mapping, including data point sampling of key areas where significant natural communities or other issues were denoted as existing, and the Town Board caused an examination of all such areas and of the FEAF, paying particular attention to the questions therein presented; and WHEREAS, such Ag. Plan was duly referred to the Town of Lansing Planning Board for due consideration and recommendations, and the Planning Board referred the matter back having indicated its approval of such Ag. Plan; and WHEREAS, the requisite General Municipal Law § 239 referrals were duly made, and the reply and recommendations of County Planning are reflected in their letter dated July 15, 2015, none of which concerns affect this environmental review or adoption of the Ag. Plan as the recommendations were directed at expressions of support, requests for the right to review any future concomitant zoning changes, and notations as to updated county comprehensive planning documents; and WHEREAS, the requisite consideration of agricultural district issues required under Town Law § 272-a and A&M Law Articles 25-AA and 25-AAA have duly occurred, including through the Town’s agriculture and farmland consultant , the Cornell Cooperative Extension, and the Town has neither identified nor received any specific objections to the plan in respect of agriculture district issues and protections, including because the goal of this plan is to enhance such protections and agriculture generally; and September 16, 2015 15 WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing Town Board duly noticed and conducted a first public hearing at the Lansing Town Hall, 29 Auburn Road, Lansing, New York 14882, upon July 15, 2015, whereat all persons were given an opportunity to voice any concerns respecting the Ag. Plan and its potential impacts, environmental or otherwise; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of such first public hearing the Town Board directed minor adjustments to the Ag. Plan, mainly as to small updates and typographical matters, and the Town of Lansing Town Board duly noticed and conducted a second public hearing at the Lansing Town Hall, 29 Auburn Road, Lansing, New York 14882, upon August 19, 2015, whereat all persons were given an opportunity to voice any concerns respecting the Ag. Plan and its potential impacts, environmental or otherwise; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2015, the Town of Lansing Town Board, in performing its reviewing agency functions in conducting an environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and SEQRA: (i) pursued its thorough review of the project and the completed FEAF, as well as a review of all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action; and (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern of the project to determine if the proposed action may have any moderate or significant adverse impacts on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c); and (iii) reviewed the FEAF on the record; and WHEREAS, each identified potential environmental impact was analyzed and duly considered by the Town Board in relation to the question of whether any potential environmental impacts were so probable of occurring or so significant as to require a positive declaration, and after weighing the above and all other potential impacts arising from or in connection with this project, and after also considering: (i) the probability of each potential impact occurring; (ii) the duration of each potential impact; (iii) the irreversibility of each potential impact, including permanently lost resources of value; (iv) whether each potential impact can or will be controlled or mitigated by permitting or other processes; (v) the regional consequence of the potential impacts; (vi) the potential for each impact to be or become inconsistent with the Town’s master plan or Comprehensive Plan and local needs and goals; and (vii) whether any known objections to the Project relate to any of the identified potential impacts, the Town Board found that these factors did not cause any potential impact to be or be likely to become a moderate or significant impact such that a negative declaration will be issued. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. After consideration of the potential environmental impacts, including those reviewed in accord with 6 NYCRR § 617.7(c), the Town Board finds that the proposed action of approving and adopting the Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan will have no moderate or significant negative environmental consequences or impacts. 2. This declaration is made in accord with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and SEQRA, and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, and accordingly, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing, based upon: (i) its thorough review of the FEAF, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review; (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have any moderate or significant adverse impact on the environment, including, but not limited to, the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR § 617.7(c); and (iii) its completion of the FEAF, including the findings noted therein (if any, and which findin gs are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance (“Negative Declaration”) in accordance with SEQRA for the above referenced proposed actions, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement is therefore not required. 3. A Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Lansing is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign, as required, the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and September 16, 2015 16 signed FEAF and determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution. 4. The 2015 Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan be and hereby is approved and adopted, and it is declared that the same shall be deemed a part of the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Lansing. 5. Pursuant to Town Law § 272-a (12), a copy of such plan is hereby ordered to be filed with the Town Clerk and with the County Planning Department. 6. The Town Clerk deliver and file a certified copy of the Resolution with the following persons and agencies: 1. The Town Clerk of the Town of Lansing. 2. The Town Supervisor of the Town of Lansing. 3. All Involved and Interested Agencies. 4. Any person requesting a copy; And further, that the Town Clerk provide a Notice of this Type I negative declaration to the NYSDEC for publication in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), by sending such notice, in forms required by the DEC, to the Environmental Notice Bulletin, 625 Broadway, Rm. 538, Albany, NY 12233-1750. The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Supervisor Kathy Miller, duly seconded by Councilperson Robert Cree, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. Again, Supervisor Kathy Miller thanked everyone for all their hard work it is greatly appreciated. CONCEPTUAL SOLAR ELECTRIC OPTIONS - MIKE ROACH, with RER Energy Group, a Commercial Solar Development thanked the Town Board for inviting them and allowing them to give the following solar presentation. Handouts were also made available to the public. September 16, 2015 17 September 16, 2015 18 September 16, 2015 19 September 16, 2015 20 September 16, 2015 21 September 16, 2015 22 The Town Board thanked Mr. Roach for the presentation. Supervisor, Kathy Miller informed Mr. Roach that the town already had the information on how much was spent on electric bills. She noted that the Town Board will discuss this at the next work session meeting to consider potential savings for the town TOMPKINS COUNTY LEGISLATOR – MIKE SIGLER Tompkins County Legislator Michael Sigler Report for September 16, 2015 More personnel issues at last night’s meeting to update you on than business. Kathy Luz Herrera resigned from the legislature last night. She’s served her constituents well, reelected just 20 months ago after a bruising primary. Betty Falco was honored for her service last night. She’s retiring from her position as the director of the Health Planning Council. She was instrumental in putting the prescription discount program in the county in place among many other things. She was given a standing ovation and recognized with a resolution. At the September 1st meeting, Tompkins County Administrator Joe Mareane delivered the 2016 recommended County Budget. It maintains services, reinvests in infrastructure, addresses organizational pressure points, and remains within the County’s projected property tax cap. Administrator Mareane notes that the Budget reflects both the effects of the improving economy and a return on investment from what has been done to make the County stronger. He says, “The Recommended Budget raises the County property tax levy by just 1.3%--well below the final State-imposed tax cap of 1.8%. Also “The budget is balanced with a tax rate that will go down in 2016 – from $6.86 per $1,000 to $6.74 per $1,000. Acknowledging that assessed values are also rising alongside the strengthening local economy, the average homeowner will pay an additional $15.36 next year for County taxes and $4 more in solid waste fees.” September 16, 2015 23 The recommended Budget supports total expenditures of $171 million (an increase of 0.8%, after an accounting adjustment in the way in which bond anticipation notes are calculated), and local dollar spending of $85 million (an increase of 1.9%). The Legislature, by a vote of 10-3 (Legislators Jim Dennis, Mike Sigler, and Glen Morey voted no: Legislator Kathy Luz Herrera was excused) requested that New York State assess the health and environmental risks associated with large-scale new natural gas pipelines and compressor stations. The measure, recommended by the Legislature’s Planning, Energy, and Environmental Quality Committee, supports a position taken in June by the American Medical Association advocating legislation to require a comprehensive health impact assessment regarding what the AMA cites as the health risks of such natural gas infrastructure. At committee, proposed language was struck that would have also called for a moratorium on such pipeline development while such risks were investigated. Legislator Carol Chock, as she did at committee, stressed that this measure focuses on large-scale interstate pipelines, not smaller local pipeline projects. Legislator Martha Robertson called this a “very good start” on developing needed information and said such a request is “certainly timely.” Legislator Sigler criticized the measure as vague and misdirected, questioning what its scope should be. I went farther with the measure than what was in the legislation. If natural gas is as a big a health threat as suggested in the legislation, then I argued a moratorium should be put in place. The legislation included the health risks legislators voting for the study believe are attached to natural gas. If they believed these are risks, I do not, then a moratorium on any installation would be called for and an immediate retrofit to public buildings would be called for. I put that forward: it did not get a second. The Legislature extended for two more years, the added one-percent sales tax for the County, authorized as required by the New York State Legislature, as it has been in two-year increments since 1992. Without this approval, the County would lose $10 million in sales tax revenue. Again, I want to thank Marcia Lynch for contributing a great deal from this report. LOAP VAN REPORT – CONNIE WILCOX Connie Wilcox – Liaison Officer to the Lansing Housing Authority followed up on her report given at the August 19th Town Board meeting on the LOAP van. Connie noted that there is an absence of dispatching for the aging van at Woodsedge. David Stoyle at the Office of Aging gave Connie several alternatives available to seniors for transportation and provided a booklet at their meeting. Gadabout provides services to Lansing at a charge of $3.00 each way and it is necessary to set up an appointment. There is also a Way to Go, volunteer services with many different options. Connie stated that the LOAP van has never been the responsibility of the Town other than purchasing, insuring and maintaining. It originated as a function at the Lansing Methodist Church and LOAP. The Lansing Older Adult Program which is not to be confused with Lansing Senior Citizens found volunteers to drive the van from the churches. Connie noted that there is no more LOAP in Lansing and maybe it is time to look at the validity of maintaining and keeping the van. September 16, 2015 24 A survey was done at Woodsedge with 28 participants. Out of the 28 only 4 used the van on a limited basis as most have their own vehicles or found transportation with family or friends. One of the comments was to have transportation available to take them to the food pantry, gather their goods and have the food right at their door. Councilperson Edward LaVigne noted that he had talked with Nancy Myers and there is a mobile food pantry that could come right to Woodsedge. Connie noted that the van is not being used for all the senior citizens in Lansing only at Woodsedge. The current van is not handicapped accessible. Connie researched the information for the Town Board in order to make a decision for the budget. She also noted that other towns do not provide the service. The information will be used by the Town Board to determine the budget item and they thanked Connie for the research. PLANNING CONSULTANT REPORT – MICHAEL LONG Michael thanked the Town Board, Town Attorney and all the community members for all their work on the Ag Plan. He noted that the paperwork can now be filed with NYS Ag & Markets to receive the $25,000.00 grant reimbursement for which he thanked the Town Board. Michael reviewed the following report with the Town Board and it was made available to the public: Planning Board Project Update: September 14, 2015 meeting • Novalane – Jack Young o Preliminary Plat subdivision plan with turn around extension of Smugglers Path. o SEQR – classified as an “Unlisted Action” and will have resolutions available. o Public Hearing opened Feb 9th for the “Flag Lots” – still open. o Storm Water Plan SWPPP reviewed by TG Miller, letter dated Jan 26, 2015 of issues, revisions currently underway o Site meeting to walk future Smugglers Path road extension – 5/7/2015 – o Request for 1 lot subdivision as an interim step before the entire subdivision is completed – Sept 28, 2015. o Preliminary and Final Plat approvals. TBD • West view Partners, Boris Simkin – Major Subdivision – 4 Lots. o Designated a Major subdivision (4 lots and ROW issues) – phase plan completed by T.G. Miller with ROW access and future roads included (drawing dated 12/15/2015). o Revised Subdivision Plan - submitted to TG Miller Storm Water Plan for 4 lots. o Revised 239 Review from County – response 50 foot buffer 3/30/2015 o SWPPP plan reviewed by TG Miller, recommended changes, Meeting held on 4/8/2015 – still waiting on revisions. o Field work completed 9/4/29015 with Dave Herrick on site. o Public Hearing date – TBD after storm water plan revisions… • Whispering Pines VI – Subdivision 28 lots - Richard Thaler o Revised Plans being developed by engineer. (submitted 3/26/2015) o 239 Review from Tomkins County – letter dated 4/24/2015 with 100 foot setback from stream bank. September 16, 2015 25 o Storm Water Review – T.G. Miller currently underway – Lot #7 ok with drainage easement. Balance of site still being reviewed. o Water District Extension –Town Board Public Hearing held 4/15/2015 with Town Board Approval completed. o Lot #7 – Treat as VI - #1A – Flag Lot public hearing 5/11/2015 and requesting Final Plat / SEQR approval and site plan approval 5/11/2015 meeting. o Public Hearing – Completed May 11, 2015 – SEQR and Preliminary Plat Subdivision approved. o SEQR / Preliminary Platt / Final Platt • Forest Circle Drive – Major subdivision of 17 lots. o Tompkins Co. 239 review has been completed. o Storm water plan revisions requested T.G. Miller. o Will require a variance as 1 lot is less than 150 foot of road frontage. o Revisions are being made to the SWPPP materials. o Revised plan should remove flag lot condition as per Engineer Tim Buhl o Required Public Hearing – establish date…. • Ag Plan – Follow up meeting – finalize report meeting June 1, 2015 o Joint Planning Board and Town Board meeting held– June 22, 2015 o Town Board Public Hearing Meeting – July 15, 2015 o Town Board establishes 2nd Public Hearing for Sept. 16, 2015 • Eisenhut Subdivision / (Sciarabba) Flag Lot - Minor subdivision (2 parcels). o Sketch Plan review (Aug 10, 2015). o Planning Board waiver for length of driveway over 500 feet and waiver for shared drive) o Public Hearing required – Sept 14th meeting. • Conway Subdivision ( Lansing Station) Flag Lot – Minor subdivision (2 parcels) o Sketch Plan Review (Aug 10, 2015). o Planning Board waiver required for 3 continuous flag lots o Public Hearing required – Sept. 14th meeting. • Comprehensive Plan – Wed. October 14 2015 at 7:00 PM Councilperson Ruth Hopkins submitted an application to Design Connect (Cornell University students) and they have accepted working with the Town of Lansing again. This time it will be a study of conceptual kinds of ways of planning. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR A resident addressed the Town Board in regards to the Town of Lansing’s Local Law #5 of 2004 – Unsafe Buildings. It was suggested that revisions on Section 7 and 8 along with definitions that need clarification are necessary to assist the Code Enforcement Officer. A resident addressed the Town Board and stated they were in favor of a van for the elderly. The same resident was allowed to comment again on the Ag plan after the Public Hearing. The resident is not in favor of the plan and stated that the town excluded people from having the public decision making process. September 16, 2015 26 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT SCLIWC BOLTON POINT WATER SYSTEM AGREEMENT TO CHANGE 2016 WATER RATE RESOLUTION 15 - 102 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT SOUTHERN CAYUGA LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL WATER COMMISSION BOLTON POINT WATER SYSTEM AGREEMENT TO CHANGE 2016 WATER RATE SCHEDULE The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board: WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing is a signatory to the amended, supplemental, restated and consolidated agreement of municipal cooperation for construction, financing and operation of an Intermunicipal water supply and transmission system dated as of June 5, 1979, as the same has been amended from time to time, (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement each municipality agreed to pay to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”), water revenues based upon, in part, a water rate schedule annexed as Exhibit I of Schedule A to the Agreement; and WHEREAS, based on changes in costs, the Commission believes it is advisable to adopt a new water rate schedule; and WHEREAS, Schedule A of the Agreement provides that the water rate schedule may not be changed by the Commission without the written agreement to such change of all the parties; and WHEREAS, Exhibit I of Schedule A to the Agreement has been amended from time to time since the initial date of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, among other changes, the basic water rate is being increased and the flat rate charge per 1,000 gallons shall be non-fluctuating and equal to four dollars and forty four cents ($4.44); and WHEREAS, the following rate schedule appears below; and EXHIBIT I SCLIWC - BOLTON POINT WATER SYSTEM 2016 WATER RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016 RATE STRUCTURE: The flat rate charge per 1,000 gallons shall be non-fluctuating and equal to four dollars and forty four cents ($4.44). This rate is equal to three dollars and thirty two cents ($3.32) per 100 cubic feet. The foregoing rate will be the rate charged for all regular quarterly bills sent after January 1, 2016. Actual or base consumption may occur prior to January 1, 2016. MINIMUM BASE CHARGES: Notwithstanding the foregoing rate structure, the following minimum base charges shall be applicable to the meter size indicated below, for regular quarterly bills sent after January 1, 2016. The table below shows the amount of water consumption that is permitted before the minimum base charge would be exceeded: BASE MINIMUM BASE METER SIZE CONSUMPTION CHARGE (INCHES) (GALLONS) (DOLLARS) ¾ 10,000 44.40 1 30,000 133.20 September 16, 2015 27 1-1/2 45,000 199.80 2 90,000 399.60 3 140,000 621.60 4 200,000 888.00 ≥6 350,000 1,554.00 Multiple Housing and mobile home parks of over two dwelling units, using a master meter, will be computed as follows: The quarterly master meter reading will be divided by the number of dwelling units and the water charge will be figured on this number as if the unit was individually metered. The water charge will then be multiplied by the number of units on the master meter and this will be the billing rendered. If the calculation of the water consumed per dwelling unit is less than the allowable consumption for a three-quarter inch meter, then the billing will be calculated by multiplying the number of units on the master meter times the minimum base charge for a three-quarter inch meter (e.g., if there were 20 dwelling units on the master meter, and total water consumption shown by the master meter was 100,000 gallons, the Commission billing would be $888.00 (20 units times $44.40) rather than $444.00 (100,000 gallons at $4.44/1000 gallons)) An annual charge for each fire protection main serving a fire suppression system will be billed along with the first quarterly water bill of the calendar year. WHEREAS, upon due deliberation thereupon, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that the proposed changes be and hereby are approved, by the Town Board; the Supervisor and each Councilperson be and hereby are authorized to execute the SCLIWC Bolton Point Water System Agreement to Change Water Rate Schedule by, for and in the name of the Town of Lansing. The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Supervisor Kathy Miller, duly seconded by Councilperson Edward LaVigne, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2016 WATER RATES FOR THE TOWN OF LANSING RESOLUTION 15-103 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2016 WATER RATES FOR THE TOWN OF LANSING The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board: WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing is a signatory to the amended, supplemental, restated and consolidated agreement of municipal cooperation for construction, financing and operation of an Intermunicipal, water supply and transmission system dated as of June 5, 1979, as the same has been amended from time to time, (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement each municipality agreed to pay to the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”), water revenues based upon, in part, a water rate schedule annexed as Exhibit I of Schedule A to the Agreement; and September 16, 2015 28 WHEREAS, the Town must set its water rates for 2016 so as to allow the Commission to begin first quarter billing; and WHEREAS, upon due deliberation thereupon, the Town Board of the Town of Lansin g has hereby RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing does hereby establish the following water rates for the Town of Lansing residents within the Town of Lansing Consolidated Water District for the year 2016. Water Rate (SCLIWC) $ 4.44 per thousand gallons Operation and Maintenance Fee (TOL) $ .61 per thousand gallons TOTAL RATE $ 5.05 per thousand gallons BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that #1 and #2 accounts are not included in the current Town of Lansing Consolidated Water District. Therefore, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing does hereby establish the following water rates for the Town of Lansing residents in the #1 accounts being Algerine and Lansing Station Roads and #2 accounts being Drake Road. This will also include future water district extensions for the year 2016. Water Rate (SCLIWC) $ 4.44 per thousand gallons Operation and Maintenance Fee (TOL) $ 1.06 per thousand gallons TOTAL RATE $ 5.50 per thousand gallons BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that #9 account residents with a Consolidated Water District Outside User Agreement will pay 2 times the water rate of the users that are not included in the current Town of Lansing Consolidated Water District. Said rate to be paid to the Town of Lansing as an outside user to equalize the taxed O&M fees of the CWD that inside users must pay. This rate will be charged until such time as the applicant’s lands are brought within the Consolidated Water District: Water Rate (SCLIWC) $ 4.44 per thousand gallons Operation and Maintenance Fee (TOL) $ 6.56 per thousand gallons TOTAL RATE $ 11.00 per thousand gallons The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Councilperson Ruth Hopkins, duly seconded by Supervisor Kathy Miller, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins -Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. RESOLUTION HIRING DIXIE FRANKLIN AS PART-TIME COORDINATOR FOR LANSING DROP IN PROGRAM RESOLUTION 15-104 RESOLUTION HIRING DIXIE FRANKLIN AS PART-TIME PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR THE LANSING DROP IN PROGRAM The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has accepted the resignation of Karen Bauer as Part-Time Program Coordinator for the Lansing Drop In Program and; September 16, 2015 29 WHEREAS, said position, Part-Time Program Coordinator, for the Lansing Drop In Program was sought to be filled; and WHEREAS, the Town Board had previously interviewed for a posted and advertised part-time position, and WHEREAS, an acceptable and qualified individual was located, and is therefore proposed to be hired to fulfill such job requirements; and WHEREAS, after review and discussion of such proposal, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that Dixie Franklin be and hereby is approved to be employed as a Town of Lansing Grade 4 Employee, as a Part-Time Program Coordinator, for the Lansing Drop In Program, with such employment to commence September 11, 2015 at the rate of $15.25 per hour. The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Councilperson Robert Cree, duly seconded by Councilperson Doug Dake, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. RESOLUTION HIRING ERIN HAYS AND KARA MILLER AS PART-TIME RECREATION ASSISTANTS FOR LANSING DROP IN PROGRAM RESOLUTION 15-105 RESOLUTION HIRING ERIN HAYS, AND KARA MILLER AS PART-TIME RECREATION ASSISTANTS FOR THE LANSING DROP IN PROGRAM The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has accepted the resignations of Karen Yahn and Dixie Franklin as Part-Time Recreation Assistants for the Lansing Drop In Program and; WHEREAS, there is a need for a third Recreation Assistant to act in a substitution capacity when the need arises as the Drop In Center operates with three employees at all times; and, WHEREAS, said positions, Part-Time Recreation Assistants, for the Lansing Drop In Program were sought to be filled; and WHEREAS, the Town Board had previously interviewed for the posted and advertised part-time positions, and WHEREAS, acceptable and qualified individuals were located, and are therefore proposed to be hired to fulfill such job requirements; and WHEREAS, after review and discussion of such proposal, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that Erin Hays hereby is approved to be employed as Town of Lansing Grade 2 Employees, as Part-Time Recreation Assistant, for the Lansing Drop In Program, September 16, 2015 30 with such employment to commence September 11, 2015 at the rate of $11.52 per hour, and it is further RESOLVED, that Kara Miller be and hereby is approved to be employed as a Town of Lansing Grade 2 Employee, as a Part-Time Recreation Assistant for the Drop In Program to act in a substitution capacity when the need arises, with such employment to commence September 11, 2015 at a rate of $11.52 per hour. The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Councilperson Edward LaVigne, duly seconded by Councilperson Robert Cree, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES FROM FINGER LAKES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION 15-106 RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES FROM FINGER LAKES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board. WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing has a need for a Planner to provide basic planning services for the Town and assist with updating the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Ordinance, along and together with additional projects and duties as further requested by the Town Board and Planning Board, all pursuant to the terms of a written proposed agreement between the Town and such Planner; and WHEREAS, Michael Long, (now Finger Lakes Planning and Development) has served as the Planner for the Town of Lansing since September 22, 2014; and WHEREAS, such agreement has been reviewed and approved by all parties thereto, and upon due deliberation thereupon, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the contract for planning services from Finger Lakes Planning & Development. Said contract is an hourly basis for the Town of Lansing pursuant to the terms of the contract as presented at this meeting; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Supervisor or Deputy Supervisor be and each is hereby severally authorized to execute such contract by, for, on behalf of, and in the name of the Town of Lansing. The question of adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Councilperson Doug Dake, duly seconded by Councilperson Edward LaVigne, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. September 16, 2015 31 RESOLUTION SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW #8 OF 2015 – AN UPDATED LICENSING, IDENTIFICATION, AND CONTROL OF DOGS IN THE TOWN OF LANSING RESOLUTION 15-107 RESOLUTION SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW #8 OF 2015 - AN UPDATED LICENSING, IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF DOGS IN THE TOWN OF LANSING The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board: WHEREAS, in 2009 and 2010 the State of New York mandated that municipalities assume almost all responsibility for dog licensing and control; and WHEREAS, the Town adopted Local Law #2 of 2010 for the purpose of meeting such mandate and amending the rules for dog control in the Town, and since such date several problems have arisen and been recognized relative to such local law, including insufficient fine levels, insufficient controls for the leashing of dogs, inadequate provisions for harboring dogs, and improper impounding requirements, and these problems have spilled over into public areas and Town parks, and a request for a new local law with meaningful controls and penalties was forwarded to the Town Board from the Town Constables and the Director of Parks and Recreation, among others; and WHEREAS, this action is a Type II SEQRA Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Parts 617.5(c) (20) and 617.5(c) (27), and therefore no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, this updated local law proposes to amend and update Local Law No. 2 of 2010, the prior dog control local law, and to replace and amend the same by, among other things: (i) updating and adding definitions; (ii) specifying updated processes for dog licenses and renewals; (iii) adding administrative provisions covering lost, stolen, or deceased dogs, making rules for purebred licenses and kenneling, prohibiting acts of cruelty to animals and dog licensure, requiring leashing, prohibiting nuisances and chasing, worrying, and attacking of animals, vehicles and persons, and prohibiting damage to property; (iv) addressing dangerous dogs and proceedings; (v) providing for nuisance abatement and remedial order procedures; (vi) addressing impoundments and enforcement, including increased levels of fines for violations as criminal procedures; (vii) providing for redemption and adoption processes consistent with the NYS Ag. and Markets Law; and (viii) making numerous provisions for administering such licensing and dog control requirements, including the adoption of a license and fee schedule for such law; and WHEREAS, upon due consideration, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing will be held at the Lansing Town Hall, 29 Auburn Road, Lansing, New York, being in the Town of Lansing, on the 21st day of October, 2015, at 6:07 pm, to consider the adoption of proposed Local Law #8 of 2015 – a local law for the Licensing, Identification, and Control of Dogs in the Town of Lansing, and to thereat hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, and to take such action thereon as is required or permitted by law; and it is further RESOLVED, that this local law and matter be referred to the Village of Lansing for its adoption or other consideration; and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, is hereby authorized and directed to cause a Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the official newspaper of the Town of Lansing, and also to post a copy thereof on the Town signboard maintained by the Town Clerk. September 16, 2015 32 The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Supervisor Kathy Miller, duly seconded by Councilperson Doug Dake, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR PROPOSED DRAINAGE DISTRICT #8 FOR CAYUGA WAY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION 15-108 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAP, PLAN & REPORT FOR PROPOSED DRAINAGE DISTRICT #8 FOR CAYUGA WAY SUBDIVISION The following Resolution was duly presented for consideration by the Town Board: WHEREAS, Developers WB Realty Group, LLC and WB Property Group, LLC (herein severally and together, the “Developer”), affiliated owners of land commonly known as the Cayuga Way Subdivision, being jointly composed of the lands in the Cayuga Way Subdivision and an adjacent portion thereof commonly known as a portion of Lakeview Phase II (sometimes called Phase III), which was acquired by Developers to connect proposed Rose Ann Lane to the Grandview Drive Extension (all together herein, “Cayuga Way”), are proposing the dedication of roadways, stormwater lots, and easements to stormwater facilities; and WHEREAS, the SWPPP has always envisioned that the common facilities and stormwater operation, maintenance, reporting, and repair obligations would be managed by a drainage district operated by the Town as an Article 12-A improvement district; and WHEREAS, the Developer has previously executed a Developer’s Agreement to cover certain costs of subdivision, environmental, stormwater and other review costs of the Town, including drainage districts, and the Developer has requested that the Town begin the drainage district formation process under Town Law Article 12-A in respect of the conditions of approval of the SWPPP and the Cayuga Way subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Developer is required to design, construct, monitor, and maintain one or more forms of stormwater management practices for such subdivision, and, for reasons related to the apportionment, payment, and recovery of long-term stormwater maintenance and monitoring costs and expenditures, among others, the subdivision approval required that the properties benefitted by the stormwater facilities pay the cost of the same, and therefore the Town Board has concluded that a drainage district be utilized for the management of stormwater for this subdivision and the Developer concurs; and WHEREAS, the creation of such Drainage District (hereinafter Drainage District #8) is deemed to be in the public interest, and in the interest of the affected property owners proposed to be included in such district, and the Town now desires to examine the feasibility of such a district, and accordingly, based upon due deliberation thereupon, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has hereby RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Lansing hereby directs the Town Engineer to proceed with the preparation of a Map, Plan and Report (“MPR”) pursuant to Town Law §§ 209-c and 209-d relative to proposed Drainage District #8 for the Cayuga Way subdivision; and it is further RESOLVED that the cost of such map, plan and report are authorized in an amount not to exceed $2,000.00, said amount to be paid by the Developer; and it is further September 16, 2015 33 RESOLVED AND DECLARED that the requirements for a permissive referendum do not apply as there is no expenditure of public funds for this MPR, as the Developer is paying the expenses of preparing the MPR pursuant to the terms of this Resolution and the afore- referenced Developer’s Agreement. The question of the adoption of such proposed Resolution was duly motioned by Councilperson Ruth Hopkins, duly seconded by Supervisor Kathy Miller, and put to a roll call vote with the following results: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried, and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. APPROVE AUDIT RESOLUTION 15-109 Councilperson Edward LaVigne moved that the Bookkeeper is hereby authorized to pay the following bills. CONSOLIDATED ABSTRACT # 009 DATED _09/16/2015__ AUDITED VOUCHER #’s 890-991 PREPAY VOUCHER #’s 890-896 AUDITED T & A VOUCHER #’s 70 - 77 PREPAY T & A VOUCHER #’s 70 - 73 FUND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS GENERAL FUND (A&B) $ 49,606.10 HIGHWAY FUND (DA&DB) $ 114,670.13 LANSING LIGHTING (SL1, 2 &3) $ 1,336.61 LANSING WATER DISTRICTS (SW) $ 17,593.66 TRUST & AGENCY (TA) $ 38,413.85 WARREN ROAD SEWER DISTRICTS (SS1) $ 300.88 CHERRY ROAD SEWER DISTRICT (SS3-) $ 0 Supervisor Kathy Miller seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote: Councilperson Robert Cree - Aye Councilperson Doug Dake - Aye Councilperson Ruth Hopkins - Aye Councilperson Edward LaVigne - Aye Supervisor Kathy Miller - Aye Accordingly, the foregoing Resolution was approved, carried and duly adopted on September 16, 2015. September 16, 2015 34 BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Doug Dake Emergency Preparedness Committee The committee met last night and they have a draft Emergency Plan. Doug will provide a copy to the Town Board and Town Attorney. The plan will be reviewed at the work session meeting on October 7th. Edward LaVigne Nothing to report at this time. Robert Cree Nothing to report at this time. Ruth Hopkins Clarity Connect Ruth noted that she already reported on Clarity Connect earlier in the meeting. Kathy Miller NYMIR Kathy and Sharon Bowman attended a meeting with NYMIR on Monday in regards to safety and risk. They suggested that the town have a committee that meets four times a year and they should look to establish one. Monthly Report The Supervisor submitted her monthly report for the month of July, 2015 to all Board Members and to the Town Clerk. TOWN COUNSEL REPORT Guy Krogh Local Laws There are draft local laws that the Town Board has or that the Planning Board has under review. He reminded the Town Board that he will not be available next week. Proposed Local Law #8 of 2015 – Licensing, Identification, and Control of Dogs Guy informed John O’Neill (Village Trustee) that he has had conversation with David Dubow (Village Attorney) in regards to reviewing this law. David will advise the Village of Lansing on what it has to do to allow the Town of Lansing to enforce the proposed Town Law within the village. Debbie Crandall, noted that tomorrow she will be mailing the proposed law to Jodi Dake, Village Clerk. September 16, 2015 35 MOTION TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION Supervisor Kathy Miller moved to ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PRIVATE INFORMATION ON PARTICULAR ACCOUNTS FROM PARTICULAR RESIDENTS AT 8:12 PM. Councilperson Robert Cree seconded the motion. All in Favor - 5 Opposed - 0 MOTION TO EXIT EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilperson Doug Dake moved to EXIT EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:29 PM. Councilperson Edward LaVigne seconded the motion. All in Favor - 5 Opposed - 0 ADJOURN MEETING Meeting adjourned at the call of the Supervisor at 8:30 p.m. Minutes taken and executed by the Town Clerk. Respectfully submitted, Debbie S. Crandall, RMC