Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-24 / 3.3 SPECIAL MEETING �. NOVEMBER 24 , 1987 S upv Cotterill called the special meeting to order at 12 noon Roll call was by the Town Clerk : P resent : Supv Cotterill , Clm Evans , C.lm Webb , Clm Garlock , Clm S chlecht and Atty Perkins Co Rep Tillapaugh - report from the consulting engineers , O ' Brien & Gere , on their evaluations of the possible landfill sites . There ✓ eport essentially states 2 sites in Dryden and 1 in Enfield would be permitable as landfill site - DR2 ; DR7 and EN3 . Other sites that t hey explored or investigated were 2 in the Town of Groton which t he soil was heavy permeable type soil and the hit water 2 feet d own , so they did not continue any further with that test . - - - 2 sites in Dryden - one just north the old landfill site on Caswell Rd , bedrock was found to be very shallow . Another site near t he West Dryden Community Center was also tested . The borings showed that the bedrock was quite shallow in several spots . - - - They did another test boring in Enfield . and they had the same ✓ esults with the shallow bedrock . - - - There will be a public information meeting . next Monday , Nov 30th at 7 : 30PM at NYSE7G - - - It looks like the situation with Enfield are the steep grades and long hills that the Board will probably vote to exclude Enfield so that will leave the 2 sites located in Dryden . He has put on the agenda for the next County Board meeting 1 resolution to exclude D R2 as a potential site for the landfill and also another ✓ esolution to exclude DR7 for future consideration . - - - The County is still considering the site that is adjacent to the present Landstrom landfill . Mr Landstrom has offered a fair amount o f land to use as a landfill but it is a very hard job to work with D EC . They claim that there is a primary aquifer there , but no one in that area can get water from 200 feet to 400 feet depth . Mr L andstrom and his attorney have been working to get the designated aquifer tossed out of there . They will not do anything unless someone does a lot more testing . - - - The County has also found out that a person in Ithaca who works w ith the USGS survey agency has had the job for the last year or two to update the aquifer situation in the Finger Lakes area and he ✓ eports that he does not feel there is an aquifer there . He started w ith DEC with regard to Landstrom in July to get this declared as n ot an aquifer . Jim Dwyer found 2 memos from the water resource agency in Albany to DEC in Syracuse dated August 24th and Sept 4th • which just laid there and nothing has happened . The Planning Commissioner , County Administrator , Public Works Commissioner , B oard Chairman , and Chairman of the Solid Waste Committee has met X37 w ith DEC about 2 weeks ago . DEC said that to permit a landfill in • that area would be marginal . At the present time the Board has d ecided not to consider it any more . Mr Landstrom and his attorney h ave found information so they want to pursue it further . Co Rep Watros - Dec 7th is the date that the Board is planning on t o select the site . They have 3 resolutions next weeks agenda and E nfield will also have a resolution . This will put the Board in a position where they will have to vote down these resolutions to t erminate further consideration of the 3 sites . They may turn them all down or they may turn down one . We don ' t know what they will do o n Dec 7th , decisions will have to be made . We felt that the best position is to put ourselves on the offense with the resolutions ✓ ather than to wait for their resolutions of selecting a site . Co Rep Tillapaugh - at the solid waste meeting last week Jim Dwyer stated that a litigation would be tossed out of court unless it was f iled after a permit was obtained for a landfill . :If litigation was f iled before the permit was obtained there would be no basis if no site had been chosen . Co Rep Tillapaugh - he has expressed several times to the committee that it should not be in Dryden , since the old landfill was here someone else should now have burden . The committee is saying that t hey do not have to have the best site in Tompkins County . • Clm Evans - has heard that there are .3 members on the Board were opposed to the sites being located in Dryden , but there are 5 other members who are leaning against a Dryden site and wanted to know w hat we could do to help influence them before the vote ? Co Rep Watros - give those members an alternative . That is what t hey are looking for and Landstrom is the only alternative so far . Atty Perkins - what about these other sites that have not been t ested yet ? Co Rep Watros - this is an alternative before the committee that t hey haven ' t been willing to accept at this point . He felt that if something could happen with Landstrom that there would be a majority of the Board to vote for the site to be located there . Clm Schlecht - did you indicate , that if it was not this question o f the aquifer that it would still be marginal at the Landstrom site , and this is not based on any tests . Co Rep Tillapaugh - that was correct , that statement was made by Mr K irchbaughn , regional director in Region 7 . /13S Co Rep Watros - hoped that their resolutions would be appealing to . those undecided members on the Board , if nothing else to allow for a parallel study of whatever they select along with Landstrom and h opefully the conclusions are good that they will be able to use t he Landstrom site . Co Rep Tillapaugh - the County has a consent order from DEC which states that Landstrom site will close July 1st of 1988 and there is a possibility that there will be an extension of 6 months if there is a litigation case or something that they have no control over . The County has asked for an extension of that consent order to 1989 . Atty Kublick - wanted to know if there had been any discussion for the need for 1 years water monitoring on the chosen site . 1 years w orth of data gathering on the candidate site . ? Co Rep Watros - there hasn ' t been any and they are talking the possibility of having the landfill operating by July of 1988 . Co Rep Tillapaugh - on DR2 there is a wetland area and someone from Cortland is in charge of siting or declaring the area wetland . He h as toured that area and he does not know how long it will take for h im to give the report as to whether it is a wetland or not . It is n ot on the present map . From that area water drains from there to Mill Creek , Fall Creek and past the DR7 proposed site . • Cim Schlecht - wanted to know if they had looked at other sites o utside of the county . Co Rep Tillapaugh - no other county would take Tompkins County . There was some discussion regarding the possibility of state lands . Atty Perkins - wanted to know if they had any feeling as to which site will be selected ? • Co Rep Watros - absolutely none . They can influence some of the B oard but we are taking the position that we do not want it in D ryden . Clm Schlecht - in light .of the more recent estimates of cost , is t here any merit to go back and look at alternatives at this time ? Co Rep Tillapaugh - did not think that burning is a feasible solution at the present time , maybe in the future . Cim Schlecht - if all of this was done in the Phase I study where w ould he be able to find it , and was it studied ? Co Rep Tillapaugh - it was studied but was not sure if it was done by the engineers . Bill Mobbs and Frank Liguori have checked into • this and they have the information ? /36 Co Rep Tillapaugh - with regard to the statement concerning DR1 at the last Town Board meeting that he was in favor of the site being located in West Dryden and he was the reason for them testing DR1 . This discussion took place in executive session with the solid waste committee and with the Board . At that time the engineers gave t hem a preliminary report of their investigations of the sites . At t hat time there were the 2 sites in Dryden and 1 in Enfield that . they were going to recommend as a potential site for the landfill . H e stated that this was not right , you are looking at Dryden again f or another landfill . If you folks are going to push and encourage a landfill in Dryden again , he told them they should explore the area more and look at the place if you are going to site one there , it should be the place that has the least impact on the residents o f Dryden . He also , told them that as you look at these sites DR1 is probably a little more isolated than the rest . He told them he w as not encouraging to actually put it in Dryden , but wanted it looked at as it is being studied , and pick the one that has the least impact on the people in Dryden . He wanted it known that he w as not in favor of it being in Dryden . Atty Perkins - wanted to know if there were more copies of the ✓ eport available ? Co Rep Tillapaugh there are about 8 copies available . RESOLUTION # 173 RETAIN ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS iClm Evans offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption : RESOLVED , that this Dryden Town Board retain the firm of Davoli , McMahon & Kublick , P . C . to represent the Town of Dryden in connection with advising them as to their legal rights , remedies and procedures regarding the siting of the landfill in the Town of D ryden . The compensation to be paid to the firm is at their standard hourly charge at $ 125 . 00 per hour together with d isbursements upon properly submitted and audited vouchers according to procedure . 2nd Clm Schlecht Roll call vote - all voting Yes Adjourned : 2 : 00PM d Susanne Lloyd Town Clerk