HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-07PH 7 -7 -98
TOWN OF DRYDEN
PUBLIC HEARIIVG
RE: MORATORIUM ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
JULY 75o 2998
Supv Schug opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. He explained the purpose of this
hearing is to hear comments from interested parties and citizens for or against a proposed local
law prohibiting the establishment of any adult use (sexually oriented business) in the Town of
Dryden until the enactment of a comprehensive set of regulations pertaining to adult uses or
August 31, 1998, whichever comes first.
There were no comments by those present and the meeting was left open.
At 7:35 p.m. Supv Schug inquired again if there were any comments by the public.
Marshall Taylor - Inquired when the consultant's report would be received.
Atty Perkins - Received a copy of the draft via E -mail. It is some 50 pages long. With
respect to a time table, the plan is for Dr. Penns & Atty Perkins to speak tomorrow morning for
Dr. Penns to assimilate some of Atty Perkins' comments. He will take the report to the printer
tomorrow and we should have it here by the end of the week. The moratorium will go through
the end of August. This should allow the Board sufficient time to review the report and the
recommendations and the proposed legislation.
Supv Schug - The draft of the law will be published so that everyone has a chance to
peruse it and comment on it.
•
M Taylor - Does the consultant's report contain a suggested ordinance?
Atty Perkins - No, it contains six recommendations.
There was no further comment from the public and the public hearing was closed at
7:40 p.m.
Page 1 of 5
PH 7 -7 -98
. TOWN OF DRYDEN
PUBLIC HEARING
RE: OTTENSCHOTT SPECIAL PERMIT
JULY 79 1998
Supv Schug opened the hearing at 7:35 p.m. He explained that this was a continuation
of the hearing for Mr. Ottenschott's request for a special permit for a materials storage yard at
the corner of Freese Road and Route 366. Explained that phone calls had been received
regarding this and he had requested that any comments be put in writing. He inquired
whether anyone had anything further to offer tonight.
David Weinstein, 51 Freese Road - Has looked at the new material submitted by Mr.
Ottenschott and his attorney for changes in the plan that have been suggested. Complimented
the fact that they are clearing proposing to do some things that might mitigate some of the
problems originally set forth, i.e., increase amount of berm, amount of vegetation along the
road, put up a fence, do something with the drainage. There are still many problems
associated with this project.
He is concerned about the amount of silt which would reach Fall Creek regardless of
the installation of a silt fence. The County Planning Department mentions still having a
concern about this. The State mentions a concern regarding erosion so close to Fall Creek.
With asphalt in the site, there is a potential for oil leakage which could reach Fall Creek. A silt
fence will not prevent this. There is concern with having a site such as this so close to Fall
Creek. If the drainage is changed so that less drainage goes into the neighbor's property, more
drainage will go into Fall Creek.
They talk of limestone to alleviate dust, but he is not sure how that works. Mr.
Ottenschott claims they will clean off any material that drops off onto the road, but does not
explain how this will be accomplished and Mr. Weinstein does not believe it can be done in a
timely fashion.
A big problem that still exists is that there will be a great deal of noise. This area is
zoned as light commercial and Mr. Ottenschott proposes a heavy commercial activity. We
heard these trucks when they were operated a couple of years ago. It is big machinery in use
there and no berm of 17 white pine trees is going to prevent the noise from penetrating the
neighboring properties. Mr. Ottenschott plans to alleviate some of this by not running after
6:00 p.m. at night and not on Sundays. This is annoying on Saturday mornings and during
the dinner hour. People in the neighborhood who are retired are going to hear this all day long.
There is no mention in either plan as to how they will deal with any of the traffic
problems mentioned previously. The trucks are clearly more than 5 tons and the road limit is
5 tons. The heavy trucks will cause the road to deteriorate more rapidly. Trucks entering onto
Route 366 is a problem according to County planners and that issue has not been addressed.
The area has a residential character and presently is in the process of trying to
revitalize itself. This kind of activity will not help that.
Reminded the Board that the Zoning Ordinance gives it the power to deny this permit
based on deterioration of the neighborhood in terms of noise and deterioration of traffic
conditions. The Board is within its rights to deny this permit application on those grounds.
• Supv Schug inquired if either Mr. Putnam or Mr. Fraboni would like to address any of
the comments made by Mr. Weinstein,
Page 2 of 5
PH 7 -7 -98
Larry Fraboni - The difference between gravel and limestone is that you don't have the
small dirt particles in the limestone that there is in gravel. These are the particles that cause
dust. Limestone tends to be cleaner and pack in tighter, thus having a tendency toward less
dust.
Supv Schug - With respect to the trucks on the road, the only limiting factor is the
bridge. Mr. Ottenschott doesn't plan to cross the bridge, which has a 15 ton limit. The road
has a 5 ton limit because of the hill and we try to discourage heavy trucks from going on it. I
don't believe we have the right to stop trucks greater than 5 tons, such as delivery trucks, from
going on that road. We don't cross that bridge with snowplows in the winter because of the
weight limit, we use a smaller truck.
years.
We put limits on the roads, but they are not binding for local delivery.
Judy Taylor, 61 Turkey Hill Rd - Where is the drainage heading?
Supv Schug - Along their property and into Fall Creek, where it has been going for
Judy Taylor - Is concerned that a wetland has been filled in.
Supv
Schug - We have had
DEC check that
site several times over the past five years.
They have no
problem with it. The
Town Board can have a provision that Mr. Ottenschott
maintain the
silt fence, and we can
inspect it every
few months.
• L Fraboni - In this case the silt fence protects the part of the site where the waste
materials are most erodable. In a typical construction site that silt fence is under seige all the
time, but in this case it would be pretty well protected from the minute it went it. By waste I
mean soils that aren't gravel at the north end of the site right now. Waste topsoil is a better
term. The south end of the site is where the gravel is stored.
Erica Evans,49 Turkey Hill Road - Will there be broken up asphalt in the site?
Response from audience and Supv Schug - There already is.
Erica Evans - Will there be more dumped there?
Mariette Guldenhuys - It depends on what projects are being operated, but the
application is for storage and retrieval of road construction materials, which from time to time
may contain asphalt.
Supv Schug - The first time we were aware of blacktop in there we contacted DEC and
were advised it was reasonable fill.
Atty Perkins - It is classified as acceptable fill by the DEC.
Erica Evans - That's a water supply that this is going into.
Supv Schug - They are aware of it.
Laurie Snyder, 36 Freese Road - Thanked the Board for reading her letter into the
minutes at the last meetieng. When we talk about storage, how long is that storage? How high
iscan he fill it in, is there a limit? Is discouraged that it seems to be continuing.
Page 3 of 5
PH 7 -7 -98
• Supv Schug - That is something we can address in the SEQR process. The Town Board
can limit the height.
L Snyder - She is only here three months of the year and has noticed a signficant
increase in traffic. Claims to have seen Mr. Ottenschott's trucks (that say Ottenschott on the
side) cross the bridge. Who's reponsibility is it to keep track of whether the bridge is being
used or not?
Supv Schug - The Sheriff's Dept. or State Police Dept., or if the neighbor's see an illegal
use of the bridge, they can call it in.
Mariette Guldenhuys - Pointed out it might have been some other operation, because
Mr. Ottenschott's trucks are called Cortland Paving,
L Snyder - knows that his trucks are called Cortland Paving,
Mariette Guldenhuys - Mr. Ottenschott indicates that they haven't been accessing the
site because this application is pending, so no materials have been removed from the site.
Because of that the materials are at a higher level than they would ordinarily be because no
materials have been removed for quite some time. The purpose of the yard is that materials
will be stored there until they can be used on a different project. The material will be cycling
through the site, and once that begins to happen on a regular basis the height and amounts
stored at any one time will change.
Judy Taylor - This was a wetland, and you said the time to stop it would be in the
begmnmg. Can't it be stopped now?
. Supv Schug - The town can establish a need for a permit to dump over so much
tonnage on your own property. We have no control over fill. All we can do is if it looks like its
enftinging on the wetlands or something. Everybody in the Army Corps of Engineers has been
down to look at that.
Marshall Taylor, 61 Turkey Hill Road - Appreciates that the Town may require that the
silt screening may be monitored and maintained. On construction sites, mines, etc. that is one
of the most abused areas that there is, even when there are requirements for maintenance. Silt
screens have problems either from erosion bypassing around them, problems with the screen
itself, undercutting under it. There is a whole host of problems no matter what technique you
use, particularly with long term use such as this. Urges Board to require (if permit is issued)
to require performance -based monitoring of the silt screen, specifically requnuig that at certain
intervals samples be taken of the suspended solids coming off of the site and other chemicals
that are typically associated with oils and residues that would come out of asphalt materials
and so forth. The samples should be provided to an EPA certified lab. Maintenance should not
be that every six months a new bale of hay is put down, maintenance should be performance
based (based on actual sampling).
Marge Darchangelo - Lives across from the site. She has experienced first -hand and
seen how the storage area has devastated people and property in the immediate area. Agrees
with Mr. Weinstein that the trucks have broken down the road and will continue to do that.
The Town is responsible for keeping that road in repair.
She has not heard or seen any reference to securing the site so that the children can
not go in there. They slide down the piles and ride their bikes down the piles. This is a
problem.
•
Page 4 of 5
PH 7 -7 -98
• Supv
Schug -
It
has
been addressed
by Mr. Ottenschott & his engineer and its on his
report. They
propose
a
four
foot fence, gate
and lock.
L Fraboni - We determined the height after considering who we were trying to keep out
that the site was a hazard to. Children should not be able to get through the fence or
reasonably get over it. We are trying to keep it from being a creative nuisance to kids of an age
that can be injured by being on the site. You won't keep a 15 year old out, but I didn't think
that was an issue last time.
Supv Schug
- So that has been addressed, as well as the
down hill
drainage. Whether
it is sufficient is for
the Board to determine when we
go through
the SEQR
process.
Supv Schug closed the public hearing on the Ottenschott Special Permit at 7:35 p.m.
Page 5 of 5
TB 7 -7 -98
• TOWN OF DRYDEN
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
JULY 79 1998
The Board met in executive session for a short time prior to the opening of the meeting
at 8:00 p.m.
Board members and guests participated in a moment of silence followed by the pledge
of allegiance. Roll call attendance by Town Clerk indicated the following in attendance: Cl
Ronald Beck, Cl Thomas Hatfield, Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Deb Grantham, Supv Schug, Attorney
Perkins, Zoning Office Kevin Ezell.
We have some business in front of us that well move through and then well go over the
short form on Ottenschott, but will probably not make a determination tonight. That had been
presented to us some time ago and looking it over, we had a couple of questions and have
asked Mr. Ottenschott to adjust Part 1.
We have a request to make a resolution requesting a speed limit reduction on Game
Farm Road. This is in conjunction with requests by the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County.
We have the center portion of Game Farm Road and I would ask that we do a resolution
requesting a 35 mph speed limit.
RESOLUTION #160 - REQUEST SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON GAME FARM ROAD
Cl D Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
• RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby requests that the speed limit on that portion
of Game Farm Road which is the responsibility of the Town of Dryden (the center portion of
said road) be reduced to 35 miles per hour, and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk forward a certified copy of this resolution to the
Tompkins County Highway Superintendent.
2nd Cl T Hatfield
Roll Call Vote Cl
R
Beck
Yes
Cl
T
Hatfield
Yes
Cl
C
Hatfield
Yes
Cl
D
Grantham
Yes
Supv Schug - There is an item on the agenda to review the Nextel Co- location request.
We have asked them to postpone that. We have to talk to them further and we'll have a
preliminary hearing prior to our August meeting.
With respect to the Lucente matter, we have not received any further information from
Mr. Lucente. We have received notification from the Planning Board that they would like the
opportunity to review, comment and make a recommendation to the Town Board once the long
form EAF for this project is accepted by the Zoning Officer and before any further Town Board
action. Cl D Grantham agrees that this is a good idea.
We have received a request from an organization inquiring about opening a cemetery in
our township. Attorney Perkins will forward them a copy of our cemetery ordinance.
• The joint cable commission matter was discussed. The cost of becoming part of that
negotiating committee is not prohibitive. The town could join and negotiate on its own also.
Page 1 of 7
TB 7 -7 -98
• Cl D Grantham - Will not oppose negotiating on our own, but does feel we should at the
very least have some informal representation on the Intermunicipal Cable Commission to see
what is going on.
Cl R Beck - It seems that their objectives are not necessarily ours, and if we are not
successful, we can join up and spend the money. We won't have a vote on the commission,
there are 4 for Ithaca and 3 for all the Towns combined. We wouldn't have a vote for the Town
of Dryden.
Cl D Grantham - Even if we negotiate on our own, we need to have someone attending
the Intermunicipal Cable Commission meetings.
RESOLUTION # 161 - NEGOTIATE WITH TIME WARNER CABLE
Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that Town Board appoint a committee to enter into negotiations with Time
Warner Cable for the Town of Dryden's franchise on our own as opposed to joining the
Intermunicipal Cable Commission.
2nd Cl R Beck
Roll Call Vote Cl
R
Beck
Yes
Cl
T
Hatfield
Yes
Cl
C
Hatfield
Yes
Cl
•
D
Grantham
Yes
Supv Schug will write and advise the Intermunicipal Cable Commission that the Town
will not join, but would like to keep our representative on board.
After discussion it was decided that Cl T Hatfield, Cl C Hatfield and Michael
Allmendinger will serve on the committee to negotiate.
Supv Schug - You've all had an opportunity to review the proposed local law on the
adult entertainment moratorium. Any further discussion or can we have a resolution?
RESOLUTION #162 - ADOPT PROPOSED LOCAL LAW H OF THE YEAR 1998
"MORATORIUM FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADULT USES"
Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board adopt proposed Local Law H as Local Law #4 of the
year 1998, a local law providing for a moratorium for the establishment of adult uses until
August 31, 1998, as presented, and it is further
RESOLVED, that said Local Law will take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State
of the State of New York.
2nd
. Cl C Hatfield
Page 2 of 7
TB 7 -7 -98
is Roll Call Vote Cl
R
Beck
Yes
Cl
T
Hatfield
Yes
Cl
C
Hatfield
Yes
Cl
D
Grantham
Yes
Supv Schug - We haven't addressed the Health Dept. request yet.
Cl Grantham - Will look it over and get back to Jim with some answers for the
questions on that request.
The Board reviewed Part 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form for Martin
Ottenschott. Supv Schug read the questions and answers on the form as amended and signed
by Mr. Ottenschott on July 7, 1998. The following changes were made:
Part A - 17(b) was changed to Yes.
Part B - 3 changed to Yes
3(a) Town will require restoration, fill leveled & seeded for future
development
3(b) No
3(c) No
Mr. Ottenschott's attorney noted that they intend to use the property indefinitely.
• Judy Taylor - requested that Fall Creek be monitored regularly for effects from operation of the
materials storage yard at the site.
Discussion was had regarding Question 15 and whether the property was located in a
100 year flood plain. It was noted that according to Flood Plain map, the property is not
located within those limits.
With respect to Question 19, the audience noted that the exhaust from vehicles
produces odors.
With respect to Question 20, the audience and Cl D Grantham noted that there will
definitely be an increase in noise.
Cl D Grantham inquired where water would come from for water control of dust and to
clean the road. She was informed that if they needed water they would bring it in via a tanker
truck.
With respect to Question 25, it was noted that County Planning and DEC were not
required approvals, but reviews. Supv Schug noted that we would have DEC's review by July
14,
Part C - 8 - Cl D Grantham and residents feel the answer should be no. There are no
similar operations in that area.
12 - Cl D Grantham and residents feel the answer should be yes.
• Residents would like hours of operation more restrictive and Supv Schug pointed out
that there are times that Mr. Ottenschott would not be using the lot at all. Residents would
Page 3 of 7
TB 7 -7 -98
• like to see more limitations rather than less. They are concerned with odors emitted from the
machinery.
The Board reviewed Part 2 - Project Impacts and Their Magnitude. Supv Schug read
the questions aloud, answers follow.
Impact on Land
1. Yes
Other impacts: Change in topography by adding clean fill material. Potential Large
Impact, Can not be mitigated.
2. No
Impact on Water
3. Yes
Other impacts: Sedimentation into Fall Creek, Potential Large Impact, Can be
mitigated. Residents would like Fall Creek monitored.
4. No
5. Yes, Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing
body of water to the extent that there will be obvious visual contrast to natural conditions,
Potential Large Impact, Can be mitigated.
Other impacts: Flooding of downstream and adjacent properties from storm water
runoff, Potential Large Impact, can be mitigated.
6. Yes, Proposed Action would change flood water flows, Potential Large Impact, can be
mitigated.
Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion, Small to Moderate Impact, Can be
mitigated.
Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns, Small to Moderate
Impact, Can be mitigated.
Impact on Air
7. Yes
Other impacts: Dust generated by site use, significant amounts of dust drift into
community, Potential Large Impact, Can be mitigated.
Residents are also concerned about exhaust from vehicles at the site. Atty Perkins
pointed out that the example given is 1,000 or more vehicle trips in an hour as something that
might have an impact. Residents pointed out that large vehicles emit more exhaust than a
normal car.
Impact on Plants and Animals
8. No
9. No
Impact on Agricultural Land Resources
10. No
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
11. Yes
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast
to current surrounding land use patters, whether man-made or natural. Small to moderate
• impact.
Page 4 of 7
TB 7 -7 -98
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which
will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource,
Small to moderate impact.
Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources
12. No
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
13. No
Impact on Transportation
14. No
Impact on Energy
15. No
Noise and Odor Impacts
16. Yes
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels
for noise outside of structures, small to moderate impact.
Impact on Public Health
17. No
Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
18. Yes
Proposed Action will set an important precedent projects, Potential Large Impact, Can
be mitigated.
Atty Perkins - Does not believe it will set a precedent and that should not be checked on
the paper. He believes the question refers to future projects on the site in question, not
projects in the town as a whole.
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Small to moderate
impact.
Atty Guldenhuys - questions this answer. The project is allowed by special permit and
therefore is not a conflict. It does not seem to conflict with the plans and goals.
Supv Schug - Believes that it does conflict.
Atty Perkins - Agrees with Atty Guldenhuys, it does not conflict with officially adopted
plans and goals, but there is certainly an impact on the growth and character of the
neighborhood and believes that is what needs to be articulated.
D Weinstein - There is a statement in the zoning law as to what the goal of an RC Zone
is, so that is an official statement of what the goal is for this kind of an area and clearly says
that the goal is for light commercial and residential.
Page 5 of 7
TB 7 -7 -98
• Atty Perkins - I don't think that is what that question pertains to, but I certainly think
that if you want to articulate another answer under other impact on growth and character of
the community or neighborhood, that's the proper place for it. You can say as much as you
want there as long as it pertains to the growth and character of the community or
neighborhood.
Marshall Taylor - You are cutting to the core of the Town Zoning here. You are saying
that because you have a special permit process by which you can allow things, then no zoning
can have a goal that says we are going to preserve the character of this type of neighborhood
and not let an industrial site in as long as you have a special permit process. According to
your interpretation, Mr. Perkins, there is no goal in conflict.
Atty Perkins - I'm saying that that question does not pertain to the Zoning Ordinance, it
pertains to the master plan or comprehensive plan. We have no plans to put a super highway
through there or a school on that site or a sewage treatment plant on that site. Nobody has set
forth in any long range plan a use for that site. That is what that question refers to.
You have a better opportunity at the bottom to articulate all of the things that you want to.
Marshall Taylor - It seems that you
are cutting the
rug
out from under the Town Board
when you say that the Town Board cannot
articulate goals
for
its zoning.
Atty Perkins - Certainly they can, but that is not what that question pertains to.
Supv Schug - Noted they had gone through this without the benefit of the attorney.
Marshall Taylor - This is important because if Mr. Perkins is right, that's fine. If it does
address zoning goals, then it seems to me the Town is advocating that zoning means anything.
Supv Schug - read the question again: Will the proposed action conflict with officially
adopted plans or goals. We said it was a small to moderate impact.
M Taylor - And it was argued that it should be left blank because it was not applicable,
correct Mr. Perkins?
Atty Perkins - I11 answer that if you want me to, but I've already spoken to that issue.
M Taylor - Was that your recommendation?
Atty Perkins - Certainty that was my recommendation, and my recommendation also
was that that question is best answered on the last double line there where it says other
impacts.
Supv Schug - Which would be?
Atty Perkins - Let these people tell you what they are and if you agree with them, write
them down. That is allowed to happen.
Cl D Grantham - The section is titled Impact on Growth and Character of Community
or Neighborhood. The question is Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing
community and you need to articulate what those impacts are.
No comment
from
the
public.
• Supv Schug
- We
can
go back through all the minutes, letter and recommendations.
Page 6 of 7
f
TB 7 -7 -98
0 Number 19 - Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts. Yes.
Supv Schug - We don't have to adopt these tonight.
Atty Perkins - I think if you go back and look at the comprehensive plan that was
adopted in 1968 or 69, you'd find that this is consistent with that plan. It is certainly
consistent with the purpose of zoning, and that is to have controlled development.
Supv Schug - If you have any comments, we will formalize these on the 14th. It will give
us a chance to put in the comments that were made here tonight, and we should have the
comments from the DEC by then.
Cl D Grantham - Offered to write something for the Health Dept. request and get them
to Supv Schug tomorrow.
Adjourned to executive session at 9:15 p.m. No action was taken
Respectfizlly submitted,
A 14ajz"I'�(e
Bambi L. Hollenbeck
Town Clerk
Page 7 of 7
TOWN OF DRYDEN
Public Hearing - Varna
PLEASE PRINT
July 7, 1998
Name Address
r�� �s!Jr'�1� , -• -
dr;� Pecs.
36 'Fig
os^d
( y,SD
V n S+-, . C6(4 I
If et e l&;
►q
ral
C.o r4�l c,nd 5-4-ca-\.c. ocr4 .
i VL - _�
9Fy 0 v1i 4, Al