Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-06TB 9 -6 -00 TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 Board Members Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Thomas. Hatfield (arrived at 7:18 p.m.), Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Deborah Grantham Absent: Cl Ronald Beck Other Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck,. Town Clerk Other Town Staff. Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney David Putnam, (TG Miller) Town Engineer Henry Slater, Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer Supv Varvayanis opened.the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Clint Cotterill - At the time of the Bicentennial Celebration in 1997 there was discussion by the Bicentennial Committee about gathering data for a book about the 100 years following the period of the Goodrich (1797 - 1897). He understands that there are about two or three thousand pages of data that has been recorded by people interviewing elderly citizens. The book has not yet been produced. He has spoken with the Town Historical group and they feel strongly, as he does, that this be printed. He suggests that the Town Board. reactivate the bicentennial committee with a few people who will work with Elsie Gutchess, who he assumes has the data that has been collected, and come up with a procedure to get this organized and printed. He has been told that at the time of the bicentennial Celebration the Town Board did agree to front some. money for the printing. that with the understanding that when the books were sold the Town would be reimbursed. Cl C Hatfield has also received an inquiry. He checked with former Supv James Schug who told him that the committee was to publish this information. Mr. Schug believes that anytime Ms. Gutchess is ready, the committee will.move forward. Cl C Hatfield believes it is a worthwhile cause and should be done. Supv Varvayanis stated there is still aline item in the budget for the bicentennial. He will check into the matter and report next week. Cl Grantham distributed a memo to board members. Ann Everett has requested that the Town Board review the road frontage requirements in the Town and flag lots in the Town. Ms. Everett would like the Town to consider other criteria for building lot size and configuration. ZO Slater has looked for discussion in board minutes regarding this and could not find anything that resolved the question. Cl Grantham would like this matter put on the agenda for discussion in October. Erica Evans stated that when she was on the Planning Board they discussed flag lots. They asked to have a meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals because they were allowing the flag lots when the Planning Board felt it was a bad idea That did not happen. +ef .J Supv Varvayanis - I think part of the role of the ZBA is to look at each individual lot and consider what mitigating circumstances there are. If we came up with a new ordinance they would still be able to go to the ZBA and request a variance. Page 1 of 20 TB 9-6 -00 Atty Perkins - I think you need to keep in mind that a flag lot by definition does not need ZBA approval because it has the necessary road frontage. What she may be concerned about is the ZBA granting approval where there is a limited amount of road frontage that goes back to a much larger lot, and that by definition would not be a flag lot. (Supv noted that was what the ZBA had referred to as a flag lot.) The flag lot is a configuration where you can get more lots behind. a particular area without having to build-more infrastructure. and. roads, etc. I think Ann'sl concern probably is that the ZBA grants variances when there is not 125' of road frontage, but Ias you say that's the issue for the ZBA and the applicant. Cl C Hatfield noted it makes sense if you haven't got 100' of frontage but you've got ten acres. Cl T Hatfield - Especially to save on building roads and infrastructure. We may be in the right place. It seems that this is sort of an ad hoc approach to some of the concepts included in what the Planning Board is looking at now, cluster housing and other forms of grouping hou rising so that you get a reasonable utilization of existing infrastructure and maintain open space. Cl Grantham - As Mark says, that's their job, to decide on variances. They can say no if they don't think it is appropriate. In terms of changing the ordinance now, it seems to me we need to wait. That's a pretty big change, and we should-wait until the master. plan is in place. Supv Varvayanis - I don't know how you could change it in such a way that they couldn't come (back and ask for an area variance. i Atty Perkins (displaying sketches) - Our Zoning Ordinance requires 125' of frontage, but that is superceded in most areas by the County Sanitary Code, where you have to have a 200' wide lot or be able to subscribe a circle of the size required by code. To utilize less road frontage what people have done is to have 125' of frontage, but then have a lot that gets wider as it gets deeper. So while one lot may have 125' of frontage and has its area for compliance with the sanitary code behind it. Often there will be another lot that goes back, and they have shared driveways and things like that. That also tends to minimize the number of road cuts and those related traffic concerns. i The second sketch shows the lot that would require a variance. Twenty feet of frontage with land behind. This looks more like a flag. Cl Grani ZBA's job, and 1 variances anyw road cuts. I'll ri Cl T Hat like they got us or somewhere v to sit down and around out they am - So we should say wait on the. master plan. The other. point is that's the don't see how changing the ordinance would prevent people from asking for I guess we can add in the Planning Board concern about the number of ort back to them. ,ld - We have a letter from. DOT in. response to what we did last time. It looks ieir criteria. Are we at a point where we want to try to got back to the parties h that Map, Plan and Report so that the public can eventually have a chance ,view it in an open and public forum. We've got a number of issues floating I think. Supv Varvayanis - We can't really do the Map, Plan and Report until we know the prices and the County 1has to tell us what they are willing to pay first. Cl T Hatfield - So we need them to give us a final number. We've had two different �u��ers pave 1 131 210 TB 9 -6 -00 • Cl Grantham - I don't remember the second one, and on the first one we didn't have any numbers from Cornell. C1 T Hatfield - I think that's correct. We haven't gone anywhere with. it. I'm wondering if it's time to get a number from Cornell and a number from the County or State, whichever the appropriate entity is, and get the Map, Plan and Report buttoned up and have a public hearing. We've got a situation where the DOT is going to respond to us with respect to that side of it, so it makes sense to try to do the work and get the rest of that job finished. Cl Grantham - I'd like to see the County and DOT consider some other sites than in a residential zone. I don't know why we would do a map, plan and report type thing yet. If they can be persuaded to choose a site that's in an MA zone and where there is water and sewer or much closer to water and sewer then all of that might change. Cl T Hatfield - We've invested a fair amount of dollars to get to the point we're at and I don't think it would take an awful lot of work to get that side of the equation put together and on the table. Supv Varvayanis - I copied you on the three or four times that I've written to Barbara Blanchard saying we need numbers. Shouldn't we sit down with the County first? Because if they give us the guaranteed number for that site, then I assume that's the site they want. Cl Grantham and Supv Varvayanis discussed asking the County to look at Jim Ray's property on Lower Creek Road because of its location Route 13 and close proximity to water and sewer. Supv Varvayanis noted that the map received does not indicate that the County has looked at Jim Ray's property. Cl C Hatfield suggested requesting a meeting with Jim Hanson and letting him know the Town's concerns. 41 Supv Varvayanis has had a lot of discussion regarding the ambulance service lately. He noted that the water and sewer projects have not made much progress as the City of Ithaca has a lot of issues that are not quite forthcoming. The Town of Ithaca has been moving and has not yet looked over the numbers that the City gave them. The Town of Ithaca does not seem to like the numbers the City gave them and wants them to justify the price. This is holding up the regional group as other members cannot join until the City and Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden are in agreement. Supv Varvayanis would like all parties to negotiate simultaneously. Supv Varvayanis stated with respect to the union matter we have received a joint declaration of impasse and a mediator has been assigned. Three air conditioners have been installed, one each in the Town Clerk's Office, Zoning Office and Board /Court Room. With respect to Deibler Drive, a request has been made to pave a.portion of the road, which has not been formally dedicated to the Town, although the Town has :maintained it. Mr. Diebler is willing- to deed this to the Town. as well as an area sufficient for a turnaround. Atty Perkins stated that after it has been maintained by the Town for that period of time it is a Town road and we should straighten out the title to it, formalize it, and get whatever property is necessary for a turnaround (as determined by the Highway Superintendent). If the Town were now to stop maintaining it because it wasn't owned by the Town, the Town could be compelled to maintain it. The Town owns the first half of the road and apparently the second half was built later and never deeded to the Town. Jack Bush is to speak.with Atty Perkins about what he requires for a turnaround. Atty Perkins stated that there will need to be a survey of what it is that is to be conveyed to the Town, an abstract of title, and the necessary instruments to • accomplish the conveyance. Page 3 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 RESOLUTION #218 - AUTHORIZE WORD FOR CONVEYANCE OF DEIBLER DRIVE Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Attorney to order a survey of the property to be conveyed-to the Town of Dryden as a continuation-of Deibler. Drive, including a turn around, and to prepare the necessary instruments to effect the transfer of the property. 2nd Supv Varvayanis Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Cl_Grantham has attended a workshop on Budget and Capital -Planning and distributed information from the workshop to the board members. Cl. Grantham.has a.copy of the report regarding_the cost of developments to municipalities. Cl T Hatfield has previously received a copy from the Supervisor. Cl T Hatfield. - That report that has been cited from time. to time was very narrowly drawn and very specifically targeted to the impact on rural land and farmland as opposed to the way it is being-quoted by some of the public. There is some misinformation. Look at the executive summary. It is very, very clear what their purpose was and what they were trying to point out. You have to look_at.their assumptions. They put them together three different-ways and they come at it from different weightings. We can do a lot of things statistically with numbers and they've done a very nice analysis there. For people to sit here and say for every new house you add to the tax roll, which adds a dollar tax revenue to the town, costs a $1.20 to serve is disingenuous. It's not logical. If that's true, you ought to be able to reduce the town tax burden by $1.20 for every dollar you take off the tax roll. It doesn't work that way. Cl Grantham - No. Once the houses are built and people live in them, the only way you can reduce is by tearing them down and moving the people out and removing all the infrastructure. It's not that you take it off the tax. roll and the cost adjusts. Cl T Hatfield - I understand what the report was trying to get at as long as you take it in the context of what the specifics of that report or what they were trying to accomplish. It has merit and it is a very readable document. But to waive it around and use it in terms of an argument when you have certain types of development,. it is disingenuous at best. We have members of the public saying that and misusing the report. Cl Grantham - I think that what people are saying is that you can't just say that if you put a bunch of houses in town somewhere or all over the place that you are going to get more money in.taxes and it is good for everybody. You've got to look at the cost side, too. You collect taxes from those, but there is a cost side to the town and to the school district. Although the town doesn't have control over the school budget,. it still impacts the school budget. And that's what people are saying. That there is a cost to new development and we need to think about where it goes and things like clustering. so that you. reduce infrastructure so that those costs can be minimized. Cl T Hatfield- I don't.think anyone here would- argue against that general statement, least of all myself. But when people start arguing specifically about a house or a development • within the narrow confines of a specific site, the road is already there, the sewer is already there and the water is already there, the marginal cost of that addition is pretty negligible. If Page 4 of 20 you are trying to control school district growth by eliminating housing stock, you are ignoring a lot of other economic factors that are influencing growth or the lack of growth. Cl Grantham - The point of putting something where there is already infrastructure is exactly the point. That is the cost effective way of doing it in general. That's the point that people are trying to make. Cl T Hatfield - So I guess I don't understand the argument against the Lucente property. Sewer and to see any type of development. water and road is already there. Cl C Hatfield - And fire protection and police protection. Cl T Hatfield - It's already there. It's a cluster -type approach. The infrastructure is already there. What am I missing? E Evans - I would say that the size of it is too great. I think if you look at it from-the point of what makes the community present and I'm not against having a cluster there, but not the size that he has proposed. Cl T Hatfield - You're saying that the concept is okay, but instead of 170 maybe it should be a number less than that. E Evans - Maybe half of it would be very usable, would be very helpfial and perfect for that area. I have absolutely no objection to half the size. And I agree with you that all the services are there, but they are not there for 170 units. • Cl T Hatfield - Thank you. I haven't been able to understand..... Cl Grantham - Nobody has said to me that they want that development blocked. People are very concerned about the size of it. Cl T Hatfield - That's very different than what I've been hearing from this side of the table. E Evans - People who are living in Varna have lived on a state highway all their lives. They bought their houses on a state highway. It isn't Cayuga Heights. It's a state highway and that lot for a nice development of half the size proposed would be very nice. There are buses there, there is everything there. But to have at least 340 extra people with cars in that small space, that's not logical planning. Supv Varvayanis - I agree with Deb. The impression_Lalways had was that they thought it was too big, not that they didn't want to see any type of development. Joyce Gerbasi stated that she has heard very loudly that a shovel should not be laid to that land when she has suggested that the infrastructure is already there and "you are anti- sprawl, why are you against it ?" Supv Varvayanis - There may be those out there, but they haven't talked to me. Cl T Hatfield - That's helpful to me, and I realize the ball is not in our court right now. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW D - ESTABLISHING CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL • Page 5 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. and the Town Clerk read the notice of hearing published in The Ithaca Journal in August 25, 2000. 0 Joyce Gerbasi - I think it is a good idea if you can get people to serve on it. The idea is a good one. I'm wondering if we could combine the CAC and the Dryden Lake Committee. That is a planning structure and has to be approved by the Town Board. The County has made it clear that they would like the EMC representation to come out of a CAC, but only two towns have them. Cl Grantham - I have several people who are interested and a couple more who are considering it. Joyce Gerbasi would be interested in being on it, and by law she has to be. There being no further comment, the hearing was left open at 8:10 p.m. Town Clerk noted that because the regular meeting is established in the organizational minutes, a resolution should be made to change to two meetings per month. The media can then be notified of the change and it.will_not.be necessary to notice one as a special-meeting each month. RESOLUTION #219 - ESTABLISH TWO REGULAR MONTHLY MEETINGS Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby establishes that it will hold two regular monthly meetings to be held on the first Wednesday of each of month at 7:00 p.m, and the second Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Cl T Hatfield. suggested that the first. monthly meeting be used for public hearings and to discuss the agenda for the second meeting and general discussion. He would also suggests the meetings be adjourned by 10:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW E - FEE STRUCTURES FOR. ATTORNEYS & ENGINEERS Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and the Town Clerk read the notice of hearing published in The Ithaca Journal in August 25, 2000, Atty Perkins - What this local law proposes to do is set up a method where the Town may charge back to developers the reasonable and-necessary expenses incurred.by the Town in connection with review of site plan, subdivision, etc applications, and the dedication of facilities to the Town. The Town for years has been operating under kind of an ad hoc method of doing it which is not necessarily the recommended way of doing it. This local law came about because of a case involving the Town of Onondaga, Homebuilders Association of Central New York, Inc et al v. The Town of Onondaga In that case, which was an Appellate Division case m the 4th Department, the Appellate Division upheld a local law where by the developers are Page 6 of 20 • • 11 • required to reimburse the Town for engineering and legal expenses rather than pay a fixed fee in the form of application fees. The Court held that pursuant to the powers given to the Town under Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, a Town is vested with implied powers to impose a permit fee based upon impactual engineering and legal costs so long as the expenses to be reimbursed are reasonable in amount and necessary to the accomplishment of the Town's regulatory and proprietory functions. This basically worked the exception to a Court of Appeals case in 1976, The Jewish Reconstruction Synagauge of the North Shore, Inc. v. The Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor, where the Court said you just can't have things that are open -ended as far as the fee. This local law hopefully is drawn tightly and carefully enough so that it does not provide for any open -ended fees. There is a procedure here for determining them. I would point out an article to you in The Planning News, Summer 2000. The summary of the article, lessons learned about fee structures: Fees may not be open - ended, in-which, case they are not. They are based on the actual reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the Town. They must be reasonable, uniform and predictable, and in that regard I think you should understand that the Town of Onondaga case allows disparity in rates. In other words what the Town Attorney charges the Town may not be the same as the Town Attorney charges is connection with fees that are reimbursed. That was specifically addressed in the Town of Onondaga case. Fees should be based upon reliable, factual studies, statistics and experiences of local government in cases of the same type. This may be something you `cant to take a look at. See whether or not our actual fees, as well as the reimbursable fees, are realistic today. Fees may be based on cost figures drawn in part from rough estimates of the previous year's expenses. In other words, what did this cost the engineer before to review a 50 lot subdivision; what does it cost for review of instruments necessary to convey a town road, or water and sewer facilities. You can distinguish between residential and non - residential, as well as by size. It's okay to have a different fee structure for residential as opposed to commercial. Fees are not taxes. Fees must be charged to all applicants including charities. For example, you • don't have the authority to waive fees because it's a church or religious or charitable institution. Fees should not exceed the average_ cost for work-on. similar projects. Of course this goes to the reasonableness of them. Fees are not intended to raise review; they are to cover costs. That is the underlying theme of this local law, to pass the cost of this review on to the developer who stands to profit rather than to the taxpayer. J Gerbasi wondered if a developer would receive an estimate and wa.: told that there would be an application fee, and with respect to the reimbursable fees, there is a procedure for the developer to deposit with the Town Supervisor an estimated cost for review which has to be based on the criteria previously mentioned. Cl C Hatfield - That should all be explained when an application is made through the Zoning Office. Atty Perkins - This does not apply to every subdivision, for example. If a subdivision is exempt under our subdivision regulations, then no one is going to have to pay even if engineering review is required or if there is a question for the Town Attorney. It's only when there is an actual action that has to be taken by the Town. Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing on the Conservation Advisory Council at 8:25 p.m. RESOLUTION #220 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #4 OF 2000 ESTABLISHING THE TOWN OF DRYDEN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: 16 RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Local Law, to be known as Local Law #4 of 2000 as follows: Page 7 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden as follows: 40 Section 1. ESTABLISHMENT:_ Pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 12 -F, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby creates a conservation advisory council, known as the "Touin of Dryden Conservation Advisory Council" (hereafter the CAC). Section 2. PURPOSE AND DUTIES: The purposes and duties of the CAC are to: a. Report directly to the Town Board. b. Assist the Town Board and Town staff in the creation, improvement and implementation of plans and policies related to environmental protection and management, open space, natural areas and features, and agriculture. c. Conduct and maintain an inventory and map of the natural resources within the Town of Dryden and maintain a current index of all open areas in public or private ownership within the Town, including but not limited to natural landmarks; glacial and other geomorphic or physiograpic features; streams and their flood plains; swamps, marshlands, and other wetlands; unique biotic communities; scenic and other areas of natural or ecologic value. Such index shall include ownership, present and proposed future uses (if known) of such open areas, so as to provide a base of information for recommendations by the council for their preservation and /or use. d. Seek to coordinate, assist and unify the efforts of unofficial bodies, private groups, institutions and individuals within the Town which are organized for similar purposes. e. Recommend to the Planning Board features, plans and programs relating to • environmental improvement for inclusion in the Master Plan of the Town of Dryden and, similarly, recommend to the Town Board appropriate and desirable changes in existing local laws and ordinances relating to environmental and land use controls or new local laws and ordinances. f. When referred to it, and in a timely manner, review development applications and make recommendations to the Town Board and Planning Board on environmental assessment forms and environmental impact statements, regarding. open_ areas, natural areas, significant environment features and agriculture. g. Direct itself toward accomplishing the purposes set forth in General Municipal Law Section 239 -x(1) and comply with the provisions of this Local Law and General Municipal Law Section 239 -x. h. Carry out such other duties as may be assigned to the CAC from time to time by the Town Board. Section 3. MEMBERSHIP: The CAC shall consist of nine (9) members, appointed by the Town Board, who shall serve for terms of three (3) years. One member shall be the Town representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (four of the initial members shall be appointed for two years and five of the initial members shall be appointed for three years). Any person residing within the Town of Dryden who is interested in the improvement and preservation of environmental quality shall be eligible for appointment. Each member shall be entitled to one vote. Section 4. OFFICERS: Page 8 of 20 :'•11 a. The CAC Chairperson shall annually be appointed by the Town Board. For the • year following the establishment of the CAC and thereafter, the members of the CAC shall recommend a member to the Town Board to serve as Chairperson which recommendation shall not be binding upon the Town Board. b. Accurate summary records of the CAC meetings and activities shall be transcribed, approved by the CAC and reported to the Town Board as required. Section 5. PROCEDURES AND REPORTS: The CAC shall: a. Adopt rules and procedures for its meeting and matters referred to it; b. Oversee the preparation of necessary applications and reports to the State in order that the Town receive appropriate monetary reimbursement for the CAC pursuant, to 6 NYCRR Part 636, Section 6. COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES: The members of the CAC shall receive no compensation for their services as members thereof but. may be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in performance of their duties_ within the appropriations made available for the same. Section 7. INTEGRATION WITH GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW SECTION 239 -X. Except to the extent this local law shall. specifically provide to the contrary., the CAC shall be governed by the provisions of General Municipal Law Section 239 -x. Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This local law shall take effect on filing with the Secretary of State as provided by the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law. • 2nd Supv Varvayanis Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Cl T Hatfield noted that a committee had been formed to work with the Village of Dryden on joint projects and wondered whether anything was happening. Atty Perkins is reviewing a proposed contract for water service on North Road and will-report at the next meeting. Other matters for discussion with the Village include recreation and police protection. We have not been notified whether the Village has appointed a committee. Supv Varvayanis noted that part of the discussion regarding the paramedic situation is suitable for executive session, but not all of it. Cl C Hatfield stated his son -in -law does not feel that it is necessary to pay drivers, but that we need to make it work one way or another. Supv Varvayanis asked Atty Perkins if we did not budget to pay drivers and found we needed to do that mid year, could we increase the rates charged by the ambulance district at a later date to come up with the money. Atty Perkins stated it could be taken from contingency or the rates can be raised, although he's not sure that will cover what is hoped it will because there is usually a lag time recovering that money. Those are fees that are set by the district based on calls and are not part of the overall operating budget. If you anticipate x number of calls, you anticipate collecting. x amount of revenue and to the extent that is not. sufficient to cover your costs, you can raise the fees. Cl T Hatfield noted that we recently started charging • mileage and that is starting to come in. Page 9 of 20 TB 9-"0 Cl C Hatfield stated it had been brought to his attention that we'd gone through these things before and once the department gets to a low point they will dig their heels in and make it work. He's been told that there is no need to pay drivers, there are plenty of drivers and if 40 they get scheduled properly there won't be a problem. Cl Grantham wondered what this board needs to do to help the situation. We have two full time paramedics who are both out presently, and there is one frill time position open. Supv Varvayanis stated that currently part time workers do not require a drug test, while full time workers do and-wondered if that was a.policy that should be continued., The board believes that should be changed for all part time employees. Cl T Hatfield noted that perhaps candidates could be hired conditioned on the results of the drug test. Supv Varvayanis stated that Dianne McFall insists that currently policy provides that test results be back before hiring and. that takes. about three weeks. That is giving us problems. Atty Perkins stated a resolution by the Town Board could change that. Cl Grantham suggested the board look carefully at the policy, draw up a resolution and bring it back to the board next week. Cl T Hatfield feels the current policy is hindering progress at this point and noted that part time people are driving the same equipment and have risk /liability aspects. Supv Varvayanis will look into a policy change. Supv Varvayanis noted that in the past if someone at the Highway Department (an MEO) wanted to answer a call at the Fire Department they were allowed to do that and were still paid. Either that policy has faded-away or people are not aware of it he. wondered if we should now make it a formal policy, subject to approval by the Highway Superintendent. Atty Perkins suggested that he check with our counsel on the union matter prior to doing so. Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing on fee structures for engineers and attorneys at 8:46 p.m. 0 RESOLUTION #221 ADOPT LOCAL LAW #5 OF 2000 - FEE STRUCTURES FOR ENGINEERS AND ATTORNEYS Cl T Hatfield offered the. following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Local Law, to be known as Local Law #5 of 2000, as follows: SECTION 1. Legislative Findings, Intent and Purpose The Town-Board hereby finds and. determines that in. order to protect and safeguard the Town of Dryden, its residents and their property with respect to certain land developments within the Town, all buildings, highways, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, other utilities and parks within developments should be designed and constructed in a competent and workmanlike manner and in conformity with. all applicable governmental codes, rules and regulations and dedicated and conveyed to the Town in a legally sufficient manner, that in order to assure the foregoing, it is essential. for the Town to have competent engineers retained by the Town to review and approve plans and designs, make recommendations to the Town Board and Planning Board, inspect the construction of highways, drainage, water and sewer, other facilities and parks to be dedicated to the Town and to recommend their acceptance by the Town, and to have competent attorneys retained by the Town to negotiate and draft appropriate agreements with developers, obtain, review and approve necessary securities, insurance and other legal documents, review proposed. deeds and easements to assure the Town is obtaining good and proper title and to generally represent the Town with respect to legal disputes and issues with respect to developments, and that the cost of retaining such competent engineers and attorneys should ultimately be paid by those who seek to profit from Page 10 of 20 TB 9-"0 such developments rather than from general Town funds which are raised from taxes paid by • taxpayers of the Town. This local law is enacted under the authority of Municipal Home Rule Law Section 10(1)(ii)(a)(12) and (d)(3) and Municipal Home Rule Law Section 22. To the extent Town Law Sections 274 -a, 274 -b, 276, 277 and 278 do not authorize the Town Board, Site Plan Review Board or Town Planning Board to require the reimbursement to the Town of legal and engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration of applications for site plan review, special permits, subdivision approval, and for the approval, amendment or extension of planned unit developments, it is the expressed intent of the Town Board to change and supersede such statutes. More particularly, such statutes do not authorize the deferral or withholding of such.approvals in.the event such.expenses are not, paid to the Town. It is the expressed intent of the Town Board to change and supersede Town Law Sections 274 -a, 274 -b, 276, 277 and 278 to empower the Town to require such payment as a condition to such approvals. SECTION 2. Definitions As used in this local law, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated: A. APPLICANT - Any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind who or which requests the Town through its Planning Board, Site Plan Review Board or Town Board to approve a development or application. B. DEVELOPER - Any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind who or which constructs or proposes to construct one or more • highways, drainage facilities, water,_ sewer or other facilities,. utilities or parks within or in conjunction with a development and to convey or dedicate same to the Town. C. DEVELOPMENT - Shall mean and include, an application for site plan approval, special permit approval, subdivision approval, or planned unit development approval. D. DRAINAGE FACILITY - All surface water drainage facilities, including, but not limited to, detention and retention basins, storm sewers and their appurtenances, drainage swales and ditches, and any easements through or over land on which said facilities may be constructed or installed in or in connection with a development. E. HIGHWAY - The term. highway" includes a street, avenue, road, square, place, alley, lane, boulevard, concourse, parkway, driveway, overpass and underpass and also includes all items appurtenant thereto, including but not limited to bridges, culverts, ditches, shoulders and sidewalks in or in connection with a development. F. PARK - An area of land located within a development which is open. to the public and devoted to active or passive recreation. G. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - A planned unit development established under Article XXII of the zoning ordinance of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act). H. SITE PLAN REVIEW - Uses allowed with site plan review pursuant to the zoning ordinance of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act). Page 11 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 I. SPECIAL PERMITS - Uses allowed by special permit pursuant to the zoning ordinance • of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act). J. SUBDIVISION - A subdivision. of land pursuant. to the Land. Subdivision. Rules, and Regulations of the Town (including environmental review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act). K. TOWN - The Town of Dryden. L. UTILITIES - All water, sewer, drainage, gas, electric, telephone, cable television facilities and any easements through or over which said facilities may be constructed or installed in or in connection with a development. SECTION 3. Reimbursement of Fees and Expenses A. Site Plan Review. 1. The applicant,_ in. connection_ with. an, application_ for a site plan approval in the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration. of such site plan review application. 2. A developer who constructs, or proposes to construct, one or more highways, drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with an approved site plan by the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable. and_ necessary legal and. engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks and the dedication. of same to the Town. B. Special Permits. 1. The applicant, in connection with an application for approval of a special permit in the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration of such special permit application. 2. A developer who constructs, or proposes to construct, one or more highways, drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with an approved special permit by the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary legal and engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks and the dedication of same to the Town. C. Subdivisions. 1. The applicant, in connection with an application for approval. of a subdivision in the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review and_ consideration. of such subdivision application. 2. A developer who constructs, or proposes to construct, one or more highways, • drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with an approved subdivision by Page 12 of 20 TB 9-6 -00 the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary legal and engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks and the dedication of same to the Town. D. Planned Unit Development. 1. An applicant, in connection with an application for the approval,_ amendment or extension of a planned unit development in the Town, shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the review and consideration of such planned unit development application. 2. A developer who constructs or proposes to construct one or more highways, drainage facilities, utilities or parks within or in conjunction with a planned unit development in the Town shall reimburse the Town for all reasonable and necessary legal and engineering expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the inspection and acceptance by the Town of such highways, drainage facilities, utilities and. parks and. the dedication of same to the Town. SECTION 4. Exceptions A. The following developments are hereby excepted from. the application of, this local law. Any division of land that does not meet the definition of subdivision in the Land Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the Town. B. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this local law, an applicant or developer shall not be required to reimburse the Town for any part of a legal or engineering fee • incurred by the Town for services performed in. connection. with. matters„ including but not limited to those resulting from complaints by third parties, as to which the Town Board determines the applicant or developer had no responsibility or was beyond the reasonable control of the applicant or developer. SECTION 5. Deposit and Payment of Fees A. Simultaneously with the filing of an application for approval of a development and prior to the commencement of any construction of buildings, highways, drainage facilities, utilities or parks therein, the applicant or developer, as the case may be, shall deposit with the Town Supervisor a sum of money, as determined in Section 6 of this local law, which sum shall be used to pay the costs incurred by the Town for engineering and legal services as described in Section 3 of this local law. B. Upon receipt of such sums, the Town Supervisor shall. cause such monies to be placed in a separate non - interest bearing account in the name of the Town and shall keep a separate record of all such monies so deposited. and the name of the applicant or developer and project for which such sums were deposited. C. Upon receipt and approval by the Town Board of itemized vouchers from an engineer and /or attorney for services rendered on behalf of the Town pertaining to the development, the Town Supervisor shall cause such vouchers to be paid out of the monies so deposited, and shall furnish copies of such vouchers to the applicant or developer at the same time such vouchers are submitted to the Town. D. The Town Board shall and audit all such vouchers and shall_ approve payment of only such engineering and legal fees as are reasonable in amount and necessarily incurred by • the Town in connection with the review, consideration and approval of developments and the inspection and acceptance of highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks within or in Page 13 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 conjunction with such developments. For purpose of the foregoing, a fee or part thereof is reasonable in amount if it bears a reasonable relationship to the average charge by engineers or attorneys to the Town for services performed in connection with the approval or construction of a similar development and in this regard the Town Board may take into consideration the size, type and number of buildings to be constructed, the amount of time to complete the development, the topography of the land on which such. development is located,_ soil. conditions, surface water, drainage conditions, the nature and extent of highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks to be constructed and any special conditions or considerations as the Town Board may deem relevant; and a fee or part thereof is necessarily incurred it was charged by the engineer or attorney for a service which_ was. rendered- in order to protect or promote the health, safety or other vital interests of the residents of the Town, protect public or private property from damage from uncontrolled, surface water run -off and other factors, assure the proper and timely construction of highways, drainage facilities, utilities and parks, protect the legal interests of the Town including. receipt. by the Town. of good and proper title to dedicated highways and other facilities and the avoidance of claims and liability, and such other interests as the Town Board may deem relevant. E. If at any time during or after the processing. of such application or in the construction, inspection or acceptance of buildings, highways, drainage facilities, utilities or parks there shall be insufficient monies on hand to the credit of such applicant or developer to pay the approved vouchers in full, or if it shall reasonably appear to the Town Supervisor that such monies will be insufficient to meet vouchers yet to be submitted, the Town_ Supervisor shall cause the applicant or developer to deposit additional sums as the Supervisor deems necessary or advisable in order to meet such expenses or anticipated expenses. F. In the event that the applicant or developer fails to deposit such funds or such additional funds,. the Town Supervisor shall notify as applicable, the Chairperson of the Planning Board, Town Board and /or Town's Code Enforcement Officer of such failure, and any review, approval, building permit or certificates of occupancy may be withheld by the appropriate Board, officer or employee of the Town until such monies are deposited. G. After final approval, acceptance and /or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy relating to any specific development, and after payment of all approved vouchers submitted regarding such development, any sums remaining-on account to the credit-of such applicant or developer shall be returned to such applicant or developer, along with a statement of the vouchers so paid. SECTION 6. Deposit Amounts The amount of the initial deposit for the various developments covered by this local law shall be as set forth in a schedule of deposits established from time to time, by resolution of the Town. Board. Said schedule shall remain in effect and_ shall. apply to all. applicants and developers until amended or revised by subsequent resolution. SECTION 7. Application Fees The deposits required by this local law shall be in addition to any application fees as may be required by other laws, rules, regulations or ordinances of the Town, and shall not be used to offset the Town's general expenses of legal and engineering services for the several Boards of the Town, nor its general administration expenses. SECTION 8. Severability If any clause, sentence,_ paragraph, subdivision,. section_or part of this local law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment, shall not affect, Page 14 of 20 TB 9-6 -00 is impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment is rendered. SECTION 9. Effective Date This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State. 2nd C1 Grantham Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes PUBLIC HEARING NILES WALTER & JOYCE KIRK SPECIAL PERMIT 3 Kirk Road Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. and Town Clerk read the notice published in The Ithaca Journal. This is an application for a special permit to operate an upholstery business at a home residence. Mr. Kirk was present, would like to change the location of his business and all necessary documents have been submitted. • Dan Senecal - I can't think of a better place to put it. All Mode Communications is right across the street and Diversified Foods on the other side. How that ever got switched from commercial when they are right on Route 13, I don't know. I bought some property right next door to him and I was under the impression that it was zoned commercial, the tax bill said it was. Then later I was told that it wasn't, that they had changed the zoning there. I don't have a problem with his business. ZO Slater - The zoning change was in 1985. People in residential homes on the south side of Route 13 felt that area should maintain a residential appearance and the Town honored that wish. Supv Varvayanis asked if there were any other comments from the audience and there were none. ZO Slater - I would point out that Mr. Kirk's business, Fall Creek Upholstery has been located just outside of Freeville for twelve years. That was a straight forward allowed use in that district. He was well received by the community during that time and I. haven't had any complaints about his business. You know that property has been a problem property for a long time and we now have an opportunity to see something that serves both the residential and commercial communities. Engineer has recommended removing standard condition number 7 because it is such a small impact on a large parcel. The septic design calls for some setbacks because of the proximity of a tributary and a permit has been issued by the Health Department. The Health Department will make an inspection before the system is covered. Engineer has recommended an erosion and sediment plan for during construction. • Board reviewed the short form environmental assessment form. Page 15 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 Public hearing closed at 8:58 p.m. RESOLUTION #222 - SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - KIRK SPECIAL PERMIT Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR review for the special permit application of Niles Walter Kirk. and Joyce Kirk-for a home occupation business at 3 Kirk Road. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents. 2nd C1 T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes RESOLUTION #223 GRANT KIRK SPECIAL PERMIT Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town. Board hereby approves the application for a special permit by Niles Walter Kirk and Joyce Kirk for a home occupation business at 3 Kirk Road, subject to • the following conditions: 1. Approval by Town Engineer of a during construction erosion and sediment plan; 2. Standard Conditions of Approval (7 -12- 2000), excepting #7. 2nd Supv Varvayanis Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes ZO Slater noted that the Town does not currently have in. his opinion an. adequate. home occupation sign regulation and would like to see that addressed. ZO Slater will work with Mr. Kirk. with respect to his sign. SITE PLAN REVIEW GUTHRIE MEDICAL CLINIC EXPANSION 1780 Hanshaw Road Supv Varvayanis opened the hearing at. 9:04 p.m.. and Town Clerk read the notice published in The Ithaca Journal. Page 16 of 20 rr:01oim Supv Varvayanis read the following letters into the record: from Harvey Rogoff, Owner is of Ithaca Self Storage faxed 9/ 1 /00; from James W. Hanson, Jr. dated September 6, 2000; and from Harvey Rogoff faxed 9/6/00. Present on behalf of the applicant: Herman Seiverding of Integrated Acquisition & Development, retained by Guthrie as contractor to build the facility, Thomas Walker, Regional Administrator for Guthrie, Tim Buhl of Resource Engineers, and Phil Wajenski and Tom Colbert, partners in Integrated Acquisition & Development. Mr. Seiverding followed the outline of the site plan checklist pointing out some of the considerations in planning the site. H Seiverding - Guthrie is proposing square foot facility with 44 parking spaces. along with 137 new parking spaces as well number of handicapped stalls. The reason consolidate its Ithaca operations on this sit Cliff Street and Hanshaw Road. to expand its facility. It currently has a 7,200 The proposed addition would be 17,750 square feet as an area for ambulance and delivery and a for the expansion is driven by Guthrie's desire to e. They are currently operating on two locations, on Relative to adjacent land uses and how this project fits within the neighborhood: It is an MA Zoning District, which allows industrial manufacturing, building supply and other rather intense uses. This is an office use and within the zone is the most benign use possible. Some of neighboring uses are a building supply facility, a mini self - storage facility, Hi -Speed Checkweigher, the Armory, and Cayuga Press (more industrial type uses). There is an adjacent residential zone on the opposite side of Royal Road. • In terms of the location, design and height of the proposed building, the proposed addition is all to the rear of the existing building. The architecture of the addition is similar to the existing building, a brown brick clad building with a number of window openings. The main entrance into the facility will be relocated away from Royal Road over to the side, where it will be accessed from the parking lot. There is also included a drop off area where people can be dropped off and walk into the facility. The overall height of the building won't be any different than the existing building, approximately 13 feet high. They have tried to incorporate some decorative detailing which doesn't exist of the existing building. The new entry is highlighted by creating a porch canopy with a cupola over it. The entrance will come out to the edge of the canopy. The entrance will be much more visible and accessible. The location, construction and design of the parking. There will be two parking areas. The current parking area will be extended somewhat to the north, and the intent is that this will be used for employee and staff parking. Patient parking will be the new 137 space parking lot, which will be asphalt and include a number of islands for landscaping as well as being surrounded by low berms with vegetation for screening and to enhance the aesthetics of the site. The sidewalk will run along the east edge of the parking lot that will lead to a large plaza - like area from which you would then enter the building. Site lighting. There will be a total of 7 or 8 lights added in the parking area. These will be approximately 20' high and will be the "shoe box" fixture, a fixture that casts all of its light down rather than up and out, in an effort to avoid any kind of spilling of light onto adjacent properties. The landscaping along the berm and around the perimeter of the building and the existing parking lot will consist of a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, flowering plants, with. an, emphasis on deer resistant varieties.. Relevant to the comment made by the • Court we are looking for species that are native and not invasive. This will also be conducive to Page 17 of 20 TB 9 -6 -00 the use of the front area of the site as a retention area to filter any stormwater run off from the site to these retention areas before they exit. • I think there's a question on that application relative to waste disposal. There is a dumpster. Presently that dumpster just sits in the parking. lot. As proposed the dumpster will be enclosed and screened at one end of the parking lot. The area is currently served by public water and sewer. There is fire hydrant located within a distance of less than 500 feet from all four corners of the site. The area is served by NYSEG with electricity and natural gas. There is an existing sign at the corner of Royal. Road. and the driveway. That sign will be relocated to the new entrance for patient parking. A directional sign will direct staff and delivery and. ambulance vehicles to the other parking lot. There is a buffer area proposed between the parking lot and Royal Road. This area will be a couple of feet above the grade of the parking.lot on-both-sides. It is not high enough to block anyone's view pulling in or out of the site. The landscaping material will consist of a mix of deciduous and evergreen-trees and. flowering_ shrubs. There is not yet a detailed list of which plants will be used. The detention area in the front will also be heavily landscaped and there will be a new area created just west of the entrance to Royal Road. and that retention area will feed into the existing retention area. Both areas will be landscaped with plants that are sensitive to the use of this portion of the site. The proposed number of parking spaces is somewhat less than the ordinance calls for. The Zoning Board of Appeals last night granted a parking variance for that deficiency. Comments made by the neighbor relative to truck access was discussed and whether • traffic from this Royal Road site will impede traffic headed to the mini storage facility. Applicant does not believe it will. All turning movements from Royal Road into the site are right hand. turning movements, an unrestricted. movement, so traffic will not be held up. Site access will also be provided via a second curb cut further up Royal Road to make sure there is emergency access. Tim Buhl - What is proposed for drainage is similar to what is done throughout central New York and in particular in Cortland County where there is a sole source aquifer at the Tops site. It is sheet drainage off of the parking lot to a grass lined ditch which helps filter any solids or impurities which could potentially be in the storm water before it gets off the site. The general concept is to drain everything pretty much to the west and. southwest. In front. of the berms is a grass lined swale. There are actually three small retention basins, on just above (north) of the driveway, a new one in front of the parking lot just before the turn into Royal Road, and they tie into the existing retention basin. Calculations are being done now and the intent is to have no increase. in peak. discharge off . the site. If for some reason that can not be accomplished, there is a back up area that can be used for additional retention further to the north of the building if necessary, but initial calculations indicate it will be sufficient. A landscape architect on staff is very familiar with local species of plants and tolerance to climate and wildlife. A detailed schedule will be submitted for the Town Engineer's review. The erosion and sediment control plan will be a separate and distinct plan showing the location of control devices as well as a narrative will be submitted. In general they are trying to make the site one that blends in and will be an asset to the • area Page 18 of 20 UN-061 ' 111, If necessary low height trees will be substituted for some existing trees. Visibility of the mini- storage facility's sign will not be blocked. Snow removal will not be a problem and will not in any way impede visibility. Applicant does not feel their driveway will impact the ability of trucks to turn in or out of the mini storage facility's driveway. The second driveway will be used mainly by emergency vehicles. Erica Evans inquired how medical waste would be handled and Mr. Walker explained that they currently maintain a regulated medical waste disposal contract which is separate and distinct from the firm that disposes of their normal waste. The regulated medical waste is maintained in red bags in a separate storage area inside the building, behind locked doors. There are Federal and State sanctions against improper disposal of that waste that are sufficient to cause them to abide by the regulations. Construction is anticipated to being during the first two weeks of October and should be complete in June. ZO Slater noted that the County Health Department had referred. to a Federal wetland to the immediate south of the project. That is incorrect; it is a NYS DEC recognized wetland. There is a Federal wetland due south of the current Ithaca Self Storage. Probably the wetland will keep the wooded area across from the Guthrie site a wooded area for a long time. Cl Grantham asked if current hours would change. They are currently open a couple of evenings for a few hours each. They expect they will gain some efficiencies as consolidation of the sites occurs and may look at the possibility of weekend hours in the future to increase access for the community. No specific schedule has been worked out yet, but their goal is to expand services. ZO Slater suggested that hours not be limited as emergencies happen 24 hours per day. ZO Slater - He is interested, as is the County, in the species of the landscaping materials and believes they can submit that at a later date. They need to have landscaping in place by the time they apply for a certificate of occupancy. Review of the landscape materials could be subject to our engineering, zoning, and county planning approval. He has looked at the concerns of Mr. Rogoff of not being able to see the Ithaca Self Storage facility sign from Route 13. He does not believe that is an issue. Route 13's elevation is considerably higher than Mr. Rogoffs elevation and you must proceed quite a distance currently past the Hanshaw Road intersection with Route 13 before you're aware of the facility sign. He does not believe there is any possibility of the northernmost trees ever growing large enough to interfere with his view of 13 and facility signage. The Board reviewed the long form environmental assessment form (copy in project file). RESOLUTION #224 - SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - GUTHRIE MEDICAL CLINIC Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR review for the site plan application of Guthrie Medical Clinic for expansion of their facility at 1780 Hanshaw Road. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents. 2nd Cl C Hatfield • Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Page 19 of 20 TB 9-6 -00 Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. RESOLUTION #225 - APPROVE GUTHRIE MEDICAL CLINIC SITE PLAN Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the site plan application of Guthrie Medical Clinic to expand their facilities at 1760 Hanshaw Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by Town Engineer_ of_a drainage control -plan, erosion. control plan, and landscape plan; 2. Standard Conditions of Approval. (7 -12- 2000). 2nd Cl C Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield. Yes Cl Grantham Yes At 10:04 p.m. on motion of Supv Varvayanis,. seconded -by Cl T Hatfield, and unanimously carried, the board moved to executive session to discuss the employment history • of a particular individual. At 11:08 p.m. the Board - returned from-executive session, no action-was taken,_ and on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 20 of 20 Town cf Dryden Special Town Board Meeting September 6, 2000 Name - {Please Print} J c I S v- V.0) eo� Address KI ! F,titiq� tj IAA NJ