Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1992MINUTES OF TOWN BOARD MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1992, AT 7:30 P.M. Those Present: Teresa M. Robinson, Supervisor Ellard L. Sovocool, Councilman Gordon C. VanBenschoten, Councilman Carl E. Haynes, Councilman Donald E. Cummings, Councilman Jack Fitzgerald, Attorney Also Present: Leland Cornelius, Betty Sperger, George Senter, Lee Shurtleff, Phil Shurtleff, Phyllis Doyle, Peg Palmer, Monica Carey, Verl Rankin, Stuart Stein, Harry Missirian, Doug Cotterill, Chris Dempsey and Penco Representative Board meeting got off to a late start due to previous meeting on solid waste. Stuart Stein of the County Board of Representatives and Harry Missirian of the County Planning Board presented the Tompkins County Reapportionment Committees proposed reapportionment plans. This process is brought about every ten years as a result of the census and adjustments to district populations must be made according to law. They are required to have a new reapportionment plan in place in time for the 1993 election of the County Board. Their purpose tonight is the present three proposed variations and to seek input from the Town. Map R -28 is an option from the Town of Lansing to Town of Groton. Map R -29 is an option from the Town of Dryden to the Town of Groton. Map R -30 is the same as Map R -29 with Town of Ithaca adjustments. They would like to have from the Town which of the two we would prefer. An answer is needed no later than March. Peg Palmer would like the Board to consider the whole County not just Groton. This reapportionment is for County Board purposes only. Maps were left for Board to look over and get back to the County with any input we may have. Moved by Mr. Haynes, seconded by Mr. Sovocool, that the minutes of January 13th be approved as presented. Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson. Claim Nos. 05 to 39 of the Highway Fund in the amount of $16,731.72 and Claim Nos. 1 to 39 of the General Fund in the amount of $108,987.25 were presented for audit. Moved by Mr. Cummings, seconded by Mr. VanBensccoten, that the bills be approved for payment as presented. Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson. Monthly reports from the Town Clerk, Tax Collector, Bookkeeper and Town Justice Heffron and Alexander were reviewed. Also the Town Justice Annual Report for 1991 was reviewed. GEORGE SENTER - CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - Year to date building permits issued are two - In 1990 we had three and in 1991 we had five. The ZBA has a hearing on junk cars on February 20 with three violations. In the process of starting to check the town for junk vehicles again. Once started this has to be done quick. LEE SHURTLEFF - FIRE CHIEF - A copy of the Fire Department's 1991 Annual Report has been sent to all Board Members. The Fire Department would like to increase communications with the Town since 10 percent of our budget is involved. They had 457 ambulance calls which is an increase of 16 percent and the fire calls increased 10 percent. A lot of the fire calls were attributed to motor vehicle accidents. They have instituted a number of fire prevention programs. Volunteers are spending many more hours in training. VERL RANKIN AND MONICA CAREY - PLANNING BOARD - Do you have a copy of the proposed amendment? yellow. All Town Board Members had a copy that was highlighted in V. Rankin - We weren't here for the last meeting but the proposal was to delete that one phrase "neighborhood- service commercial ". I don't know how that ever got in there but evidently sometime when the zoning ordinance was rewritten it was in there and after looking this over, we'd like to have it deleted. T. Robinson - Jack is that a major change? Atty. Fitzgerald - Yes, it's a substantial change. V. Rankin - This could almost put some housing development in there too. Is that right. Atty. Fitzgerald - What the Board wanted to know is what you're specifically trying to exclude from the industrial areas. Do you have any wherefores? M. Carey - It's listed as neighborhood- service commercial which is these small businesses that keep popping up in the homes which we have all over the town and we wanted to sort of eliminate that up there in that section and make it mostly industrial. We've got commercial business up there now which will stay, but we'd like not to encourage housing or residential areas up there, instead to encourage industrial business because it's close to water and sewer lines if we did get some sort of large industry in the area. It's also on a main highway which encourages industry also. V. Rankin - Originally when this area was designated for industrial the Planning Board figured this was the best area in the whole town for industrial development .................. T. Robinson - In reading the minutes over, there was some discussion on both sides the road. V. Rankin - Well, that's another thing. In considering this, it would be a good thing to put both sides the road into industrial even to Salt Road. M. Carey - I thought it was only up to Lick Street on one side. V. Rankin - That don't make any difference. It would be great if it was on both sides of the road to Salt Road. That's up to you people. Our Board didn't ask for that. We are interested in deleting those words. J. Fitzgerald - You're going to get those words out of there, but then your going to allow the Super 8 or Super 7 or the allied services to a residential area, you're going to allow into a commercial area, is that correct. It say's here that the idea of this thing, as I perceive it, that you have an industrial area and you don't want residential areas in there or those commercial enterprises that serve as residential areas. M. Carey - No. What we're saying is that the residential, people who start their businesses in their houses. The way it reads now is that somebody could put a house up there and have a business in their house and we want to eliminate that. We can do that all over the rest of the town and we want to sort of keep that more for the industries and not have the housing with the little businesses being involved up there. G. Senter - Can I add something here? The way I read that, Teresa, is that you can't put a residence in an industrial area. I'm a little confused here. It states you cannot put a residential house in an industrial zone. My thought was that why would you change this because all you have to do right now was to deal with service type businesses which is your auto repair type buiness which is already there and grandfathered in. You don't have any industry up there right now. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought maybe that's what they wanted to do was get that out of there because that's all they have up there anyway. Board discussed what's there now, what can't go in an industrial area, etc. J. Fitzgerald - I'm reading it like George. It precludes that type of operation if that's what you interpret the neighborhood- service commercial to be. My idea of what they are talking about here was the small corner grocery store, those places of that style today, that would be cropping up in a small area. The little gas station with the goods and civic services (banks, police stations, town halls) that's the civic arrangement, you're going to leave that in there as being restricted from this area. But what this sentence says is that it's intended that no residential development or this service connected commercial business or banks or other things that would be servicing a residential area are allowed in there now. That's what is says now. So if you are trying to remove this particular phrase, "the neighborhood- service commercial" business, it's already precluded from that area. If you're interpreting that as meaning a residential connected business, it's already restricted. It says it's not allowed in an industrial area. That's what the sentence says, it's not allowed there. V. Rankin - Then we should get rid of those words, is that what you're saying Jack? J. Fitzgerald - No. I'm saying that as it's written now that is precluded from that area. So, if somebody had a residence in that area now, they're grandfathered into the area, and they wanted to run a neighborhood- service commercial business you would have some grounds for saying they couldn't do it because this is an industrial area and that you don't want that type of business in there. They'd have an argument that they were grandfathered in the residence already. What I'm saying is that it is precluded now. If you don't want somebody to operate a beauty parlor out of their residence, that's what is says. It says that now. That's what we didn't understand when we looked at it the first time. Is that the way you read it George? G. Senter - Yes. V. Rankin - Why is the whole hassel over this thing then? I think our ZBA man was in on this. C. Haynes - Some of those small businesses have gone in up there since this code has been enforced, haven't they. Does that essentially mean that we gave some permits to people that we shouldn't have. Like the storage facility. T. Robinson - Read from letter Lyle Raymond wrote - "Section 355 states that it was intended that no residential development or neighborhood - service commercial and civic services normally developed in conjunction with residential neighborhoods be allowed. Then he said, second "I observed that every one of the commercial activities currently located in the industrial zone are, in fact, listed under Section 133, Sales and Service Activities. None fit the definition of industrial under Section 134. Third - What are these services activities doing in the industrial district, which says they are excluded, the way I read it, since they all provide commercial sales and services associated with residential development, not manufacturing, assembling or processing of goods. Fourth - The observation further shows that during the life of this industrial district, it has attracted not industrial use, but commercial sales and service activities, which are mixed with residential use, both within the industrial zone and across the road from it which amounts to very much the same thing in terms of impacts, in my opinion. V. Rankin - I think what we're trying to do is to get this back to what the original intent was. T. Robinson - What he's saying is that this zone should be redesignated as "Industrial /Commercial Mixed Use ". V. Rankin - Please don't confuse us any more, Teresa. G. Senter - He's saying instead of excluding you should include it. J. Fitzgerald - Right. T. Robinson - Reading from ZBA letter - 2) "This retains the Industrial designation and puts all property owners on notice that this can occur. 3) The Commercial designation would, in effect, legalize the sales and service operations already there and provide for further expansion of these activities, which, given what has actually occurred, seems to be a more likely outcome. 4) Given that the area also contains a mixture of residential use, and that small commercial sales and service establishments are often run in conjunction with one's residence in other zones in the Town, it would seem appropriate to allow this type of mixed residential use to continue under special permits. In fact, this might even attract more such small commercial businesses, knowing that they can live on their lot. Requiring special permits would unequivocally put those wishing to put a residence there on notice that an industry or other commercial activities may move in next door. One might even require that residences will only be considered if they are in conjunction with a commercial business on the lot. L. Sovocool - That's what we don't want, isn't it? T. Robinson - Right. C. Haynes - When was this last master put into effect? T. Robinson - I can't remember. V. Rankin - We should update this every four or five years. M. Carey - It's longer than that. George say's it's been at least ten years. A consultant was hired at that time. C. Haynes - I'm wondering if it isn't time to do something like that again. M. Carey - We've been talking about doing it G. Senter - I can live with it the way it is. T. Robinson - The other thing about it is, if you redo this thing over again and then we pass it without a lot of hesitation, we'll do one thing instead of all these little tidbits. Board Members and those present discussed getting some outside assistance from the County Planning or whomever to update our current zoning master plan. This is a charge from the Town Board to the Planning Board. Mr. Rankin brought up Local Law No. 1 of 1988 "Regulating Solid Waste ". That restricts alot of people around town, especially farmers. He can't legally spread manure in Lansing or haul dirt from his side of the road to Lansing. Town Board should look it over and possibly put some waivers on it, especially if you have to pay $500 for a permit and never get it back. Supervisor Robinson said maybe we could come up with some kind of permit. Mr. Rankin asked the Board to keep it in mind. INSURANCE PROPOSALS - DOUG COTTERILL- LAWRENCE UNITED CORP. Presented summary of proposed coverages for the Town of Groton. There is very little change from the program that we currently have. Mr. Cotterill reviewed coverage with Board and explained coverage. He indicated that the premium is very close to what they charged the Town four years ago when they provided the insurance coverage. The annual premium quoted is $34,912.00. INSURANCE PROPOSALS - CHRIS DEMPSEY - DEMPSEY INSURANCE CO. Presented schedule of insurance quote and the charge per item to the Board. Introduced Marge Woods from PENCO Harford out of Albany Dempsey Insurance felt it was important to bring her out to explain the coverages and pretty much to let us know what we're up against. Ms. Wood spoke of the history of Harford and the number of municipalities they serve thus making them aware of our needs. Mr. Dempsey assured Board that they have always been here and will always be here to work with the Town in their insurance needs. The annual premium quoted is $38,971.91. Supervisor said that proposals would be discussed later. We should get on with the agenda. Supervisor received a letter from the Office of Community Development stating that federal grants stipulates that a Drug -Free Workplace Plan must be implemented while a grant is being administered. To meet some of the requirements of this plan, the City of Cortland's Office of Community Development is sponsoring a Drug -Free Workplace Seminar on Tuesday, March 17, 1992. The cost of the program is $25.00 per individual. Gordon VanBenschoten volunteered to attend this program. This seminar is an eligible expense that can be paid with Block Grant funds. Supervisor Robinson received a letter from Jim Schug, Supervisor of Town of Dryden, which included two resolutions passed by the Town of Dryden , one pertaining to Sales Tax and one pertaining to State Mandates. If we agree with these, they would suggest and appreciate our Board's consideration in passing a resolution along these lines. Supervisor read two resolutions. After some discussion by Board Members, it was decided to act on the resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. 7 - OPPOSITION TO ANY NEW STATE MANDATES Moved by Mr. Cummings, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Robinson Abstained - Haynes WHEREAS, County, City, Town and Village governments are continually struggling with the problem of funding State mandated programs, and WHEREAS, it is fiscally irresponsible for the state to mandate programs required to be implemented by local governments without providing the necessary funding for such programs, and WHEREAS, the citizenry and taxpayers cry out for fewer regulations and controls and a decrease in the rate of growth of government and a reduction in the overall size and cost of government, and WHEREAS, taxpayers, whether they be individuals, businesses or property owners, are presently extremely overburdened with taxes and need relief from the ever increasing tax burdens imposed by the State and by local governments in order to meet State mandated programs, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Board of the Town of Groton as follows: 1. The Town Board goes on record as being opposed to the imposition of any new State mandated programs or requirements unless adequate anf fiscally responsible sources of funding are provided by the State in connection with such mandates. 2. The State Legislature and the Governor should move with all due speed to reduce the size of State government, the size of the annual budget, and eliminate State mandated programs which are not funded to their totality by the State. RESOLUTION NO. 8 - OPPOSITION TO ADDITIONAL SALES TAX IN TOMPKINS COUNTY Moved by Mr. Cummings, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Robinson. Abstained - Haynes WHEREAS, all levels of government are experiencing difficulties in balancing their budgets and providing sufficient funds for appropriate governmental functions, and WHEREAS, the general economic conditions now experienced by taxpayers make it extremely burdensome for taxpayers to be saddled with any additional taxes given the high level of taxes which currently exists at all levels of government, and WHEREAS, the growth of government in recent years is disproportionately large in relationship to the ability of taxpayers to fund the same and such growth is not commensurate with the need for services but adds to an already exceedingly large number of government employees, and WHEREAS, all governments whether they be Federal, State, County or local must exercise considerably more fiscal restraint, and WHEREAS, County government has grown at an especially alarming rate and the County tax burden has become excessive, unfair and burdensome to all County taxpayers, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Board as follows: 1. That the Town Board is strongly opposed to the implementation of an additional sales tax on residents of the County of Tompkins and urges the County Board of Representatives to re -think such a proposal, cut the level of County programs, personnel and budget in order to balance the County budget without the need for additional sales tax increases or additional real property tax increases. 2. That if the County decides to ask the State Legislature for an increase in the County sales tax, that any such increase be shared (after the first full year of collection of the same) between the local governments within the County according to the same ratio and formula as presently exists. 3. That the County Board of Representatives adopt a policy of conservative fiscal restraint and stem the continued growth of County government, personnel, departments and programs and learn to live within the means and ability of the taxpayers of the County and not increase the burden on the already overtaxed individuals, businesses and property owners. Agreement between Town of Groton and Family & Children's Service of Ithaca was presented to Attorney for his review. The only apparent change was the total amount of $15, 892 of which a minimum of $1,008 is eligible for reimbursement from the State Division for Youth and Tompkins County $6,938 in CYS funds. In 1991, the amount of the contract was $6007. Clerk brought to the Boards attention that the amount budgeted for 1992 was $11,000 and in 1991 it was $9,000. Any reimbursements should show up in budget revenues. Attorney pointed out a typographical error in Agreement which should read Agency will reimburse the "Town" not the Village. Consensus of Board was to leave budget figure as is and amend budget when funds are nearing depletion. RESOLUTION NO. 9 - ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICE OF ITHACA FOR 1992 Moved by Mr. VanBenschoten, seconded by Mr. Sovocool Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town of Groton enter into Agreement with Family & Children's Service of Ithaca in the amount of $15,892 to implement and supervise Town and Village of Groton Youth Commission. Discussed proposed contract between Town and County for Groton Town Youth Commission for 1992 Youth Bureau Services. Attorney Fitzgerald said Item 14(B) should be clarified as to amount to be received - whether the $3,019 is each calendar quarter or annually. Attorney Fitzgerald also suggested that the insurance figures in the contract be compared with our new insurance coverage to make sure that we have proper coverage. Supervisor is to check on these two items for accuracy. RESOLUTION NO. 10 - ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH TOMPKINS COUNTY FOR THE PROVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES Moved by Mr. Haynes, seconded by Mr. Cummings Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town of Groton does hereby enter into Agreement with the County of Tompkins for the provision of youth services for the term January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992. The Town currently has Disability Insurance and Workman's Compensation with the State Insurance Fund. A gentlemen from PERMA would like to present his program for the Town's consideration. The Village currently belongs and speaks highly of the program. He will be around next year to provide us with a quote. The New York Planning Federation is having a meeting here on April 1st and 2nd. It will be held here in the evening and you are all invited to attend. State Insurance Fund performed their annual audit. The Department of Labor sent a letter asking if we were still holding money for Unicor Construction and Rosenthal. We were't holding when they got through and we're still not holding. Atty. Fitzgerald is sending the Department of Labor a letter in this regards. Received letter from the Office of Rural Affairs regarding teleconference for local govenments sharing services to be held March 2nd at Tompkins Cortland Community College. RESOLUTION NO. 11 - AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND NYC SEMINAR Moved by Mr. Haynes, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the following to attend the Association of Towns Conference in New York City on February 16 through 19: Teresa Robinson, Liz Brennan, Arland Heffron, Alton Alexander, Margaret Palmer, George Totman, Mary Decker, Monica Carey and David Ofner. Discussed ACC line extension on Pleasant Valley Road. The line extension was put in by ACC and included 7 or 8 hookups on this private extension. Mr. LaParco refused hookup the first time for a fee of $200.00. Now the cable company wants $40.00 to hookup and he thinks he doesn't have to pay. Under our normal line extensions, which comes through this office, all hookups pay the original fee and any subsequent hookups have to pay the same amount. Clerk received annual letter this date from ACC providing us with an update on what has happened over the year. Attached was a list of line extensions which were built in 1991. Pleasant Valley Road was listed as having 2750', .52 mi. with 11 passings and 21 homes per mile. ACC builds line extension based on the following: 1) those which meet minimum density requirements, 2) upon receipt of aid in construction from residents, 3) other contractual obligations, 4) other business reasons. Supervisor requested motion to go into executive session. Moved by Mr. Haynes, seconded by Mr. Cummings, to go into executive session to discuss litigation at 10:30PM. Board meeting reconvened at 11:00PM. RESOLUTION NO. 12 - RETAIN FITZGERALD, TAYLOR, POMEROY & HEDLUND CASE Moved by Mr. Haynes, seconded by Mr. Cummings Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson ARMSTRONG - RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby retain Fitzgerald, Taylor, Pomeroy and Armstrong to pursue the possibility of getting the insurance company to accept the defense of the Hedlund action. RESOLUTION NO. 13 - CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEYS - HEDLUND CASE Moved by Mr. Sovocool, seconded by Mr. Cummings Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby consent to the substitution of Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Mitchell and Hughes for the firm of Fitzgerald, Taylor, Pomeroy and Armstrong to represent the Town in the defense of the action brought against the Town by Grace A. Hedlund, Donald V. Hedlund, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Lynnette M. Brown and Douglas R. Brown, Individually and as Husband and Wife, and all others similarly situated. It is the Town's understanding that the firm of Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Mitchell and Hughes will bill on a time basis at the rate of $125 for partners and $100 for associates time. RESOLUTION NO. 14 - ACCEPT 1991 JUSTICE COURT AUDIT Moved by Mr. Haynes, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby accept the 1991 Justice Court Audit reports as submitted by Ciaschi, Dietershagen, Schaufler and Mickelson, Certified Public Accountants. RESOLUTION NO. 15 - ACCEPT LAWRENCE UNITED CORPORATION INSURANCE PROPOSAL FOR 1992 Moved by Mr. Cummings, seconded by Mr. VanBenschoten Ayes - Sovocool, VanBenschoten, Cummings, Haynes, Robinson RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby accept the 1992 insurance proposal as submitted by Lawrence United Corporation of Cortland in the amount of $34,912. Letters were received from Stone Hedges Country Club and The Elm Tree Inn advising us, in accordance with Section 64 and 109 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, that they intend to renew their liquor license. The Board had no objections. Supervisor Robinson received a quotation from Ciaschi, Dieters -Hagen to perform our 1991 annual audit. The rate is $3,300 for the financial audit and $1,700 for compliance audit for a total of $5000. This audit is required by law even though the State will also be auditing the Town's records. Some discussion was held on the cost of this audit. It was felt that the increase was excessive considering the economic times. There should be less work to it now that all the deficencies that we had a couple years ago have now been taken care of. Supervisor Robinson is to call Ciaschi, Dietershagen to see if we can negotiate a lessor amount. There being no further business, Mr. Sovocool moved to adjourn meeting, seconded by Mr. Cummings, at 11:25PM. Unanimous. Colleen D. Pierson Town Clerk