Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-01TB 11 -1 -00 TOWN OF DRYDEN . TOWN BOARD MEETING November 1, 2000 Board Members Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Ronald Beck, Cl Thomas Hatfield, Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Deborah Grantham Other Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Jack Bush, Highway Superintendent 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 7:00 p.m. Robert Cox spoke to the board regarding the operation of Ithaca Produce: The problem is the noise factor is getting out of hand. During the summer they can't sleep during the night, can't open the windows, because they are running diesels all night long. They start between 9:00 and 11:00 at night. Their permit says their operating hours are 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. They are certainly running more than that. The neighbors don't feel they ought to take it anymore. It is not zoned RC and he wonders when the residents have a chance to enjoy the •, neighborhood. He has spoken to Dick Cutia. One night at 3:00 a.m. he called the State Police. He and Mr. Cutia have been friends for 30 years, but he can't sleep at night. Mr. Cox does not want to put anyone out of a job, but he believes that the permit is being violated. Mrs. Porter lives next door and the trucks run all night, and she has to get up and go to work in the morning. Sun Ho Porter - I live right next to Ithaca Produce. I have talked to them for the past twelve years. Before they started I talked to them and said it's going to have noise, what are you going to do about it. It's been twelve years and is now at point where I go over and talk to both of them, and I'm not going to take this anymore. Now there is another driveway right next to my driveway. Somebody should have notified me. Trucks are running all night long. I have talked to them many, many times. I have to get to work in the morning. I called their son two weeks ago and he said he'd have something and call me next week, and he didn't call me. Ms Porter then visited Mr. Cutia who explained that they would be putting another building up. She would like these problems solved and would like buffering put in before starting another building. She wonders who is responsible for the second driveway. Supv Varvayanis asked ZO Slater whether the screening was as specified in the plan. Mr. Cox stated the permit specified screening on the south and west side. ZO Slater explained that Mr. Cox has been to see him twice in the last few months. When asked if he would like ZO Slater to take official action, he said he would like to work on. ZO Slater did talk to the Cutias about the situation and explained their responsibilities under the 1988 permit. They assured ZO Slater that they would work it out with Mr. Cox's help. . Mr. Cox explained that the refrigerated trucks have an automatic thermostat on the trucks and they run off and on all night long. Page 1 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 ZO Slater stated that Cutias have permission to build another building according to a plan submitted to the Town in November of last year, contingent upon engineering approval (not received at this time). The second driveway the Town has no control over and it is a DOT issue. It was a request at the last hearing and the Cutia's applied because of that request and the construction on Route 13. Mr. Cox is concerned with the depreciation of his property. It is for sale now, and if he says it operates 20 hours day and you can hear the trucks, he'll lose the sale. Supv Varvayanis asked ZO Slater to look into the matter as he now has an official complaint. ZO Slater stated they will have work within the parameters of their granted permit or face potential suspension by the Board that granted the permit. S Porter stated she would like trees or a fence put up before the Cutias begin another building. R Cox shared with the Board a plan he has suggested for the expansion of the building. He has given a copy to ZO Slater and to Mr. Cutia. Ms Porter would like the parking away from her house. At 7:23 p.m. Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing regarding the Crown Construction Special Permit modification. Town Clerk read the notice published in The Ithaca Journal. John Lafian of Crown Construction presented the plan previously approved by the board. He would like to get their engineer and the town's engineer together and do a feasibility study on what would be most cost effective and worth while in terms of the parking location. They would like to extend one of the current parking lots. There would be a significant increase in the parking. One spot has already been approved, but they are considering a different location in the back of the building, malting an increase of some 5400 square feet, perhaps more parking than is necessary. ZO Slater - In 1994 the applicant proposed 19 parking spaces for the area they were using which appeared to be adequate and were approved. Three of those spaces were in the garage area that they now want to convert to office space. In June when the applicant was here for the modification approval, they had said they would build a 2600 square foot parking space in the area indicated on the site plan. That would provide approximately 14 parking spaces to go with the 13 they would retain from their previous approval, malting a total of 27 which is what the facility would require. Now they see a need to provide a little more ease of working space by adding an additional 250 sq ft of office space, 3000 square feet of office space for the facility. Based on our formula they will need in the neighborhood of 30 parking spaces. Their question is now what is the most economic way to do that, and they are here to work with you to (1) get approval for the additional office space and (2) to get a consensus from the Board of which place to put the parking. J Lafian stated they would like permission to put the parking in whichever location the engineers decide is best. ZO Slater noted that part of the area now is not used for parking, but for storage. The average number of vehicles in the lot is between 10 and 14, and 20 is probably adequate, but that's not what the formula provides for. Total area provided for parking would be approximately 11,000 square feet. Cl Grantham stated that parking should not be bigger than is necessary- because of an increase of runoff. Mr. Lafian stated that the increase would clean up the area and provide for easier maneuvering. ZO Slater that increased runoff will result in the need for an increased retention area. Pagc 2 of 13 I ]I,, L I TB 11-1 -00 Board believes the alternatives for parking are reasonable, but does not want to give an • "either/ or" approval. Applicant's engineer will consult with the Town's engineer and applicant will return next week with a plan and request approval for that and for the increased 250 square feet of office space. D Putnam stated if the applicant comes back with a plan and the drainage plan isn't complete, approval could be granted contingent upon engineer's approval of the drainage plan. Public hearing adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Applicant will return on November 8, 2000. David Weinstein, 61 Freese Road - Presented letters from himself and. Erica Evans with respect to the Varna II Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Both letters recommend that the Board not accept the draft EIS. (Letters attached to these minutes.) D Weinstein - I did not bother listing everything that were problems, but there is a sufficient list of things that are incomplete or have inaccuracies or where the information provided is woefully in error, like them saying that the Town would receive $200,000 from sales taxes when if you actually run the numbers the Town Board at best could only get $5,000 from sales taxes. here. Supv Varvayanis - They assume that every dollar in sales tax within the Town stays D Weinstein - Even if you do that, that's not the way it works, as you guys know. D Weinstein - I wanted to spend more time on a different issue, with regard to the road • construction on Freese Road. As you all know there has been a major effort by the Highway Department trying to alter the curve in Freese Road and I have some concerns about what is being done. I don't want to come here to criticize Jack Bush or Dave Putnam because I think what happened was neighbors, particularly the neighbor at the top of the hill on Freese Road, was concerned about not being able to get out of their driveway. They called Jack. He came out and recognized there is a problem here and he and Dave came up with an engineering solution that was going to make it better for that neighbor. That's what you'd like to see your Town officials doing, come up with a solution that could fix a problem that exists. An engineering solution is a great thing but it only covers some of the issues involved when you think about doing a road reconstruction in a situation like that. There are other issues that people don't think about. For example, I live at the bottom of the hill. Any straightening out of the curve at the top of the hill and I can guarantee you that people are going to perceive that they can go faster at the top of the hill. In the middle of winter (as you know it is a much sharper curve at the bottom of the hill) I can almost guarantee that this winter I will be back here telling you I've had people crashing through my wall and crashing into my trees because they haven't been able to negotiate the bottom of the hill because they are carrying too much speed down through. What I'm really trying to say is what I wish would have happened and what I would like to see happen if he's planning on doing any additional work in the coming year (he suggested to me that he might want to do some more work next year on this area) is if we could meet as a community, the neighbors who live there. If you could have gathered us all together and we could have talked through some of these solutions and maybe come up with a compromise which maybe isn't as perfect as say Dave would like to make it at the top of the hill, maybe saved a little more of the erosion on the side of the hill, maybe cut a few less trees. We might have been able to reach a better compromise that everyone in the community felt better about. Right now, except for the two immediate neighbors, most of the people who live there feel like they're just getting something done to them that they don't necessarily think is the best thing to be done. The message I want to send is for projects like this that are going to • be pretty major, if we could get some community involvement before the Highway Department Pagc 3 of 13 TB I1 -1 -00 moves forward. I think a lot of community input into crafting a better compromise would make everyone a lot happier. 0 Supv Varvayanis - I think Jack is trying to get more community involved. Maybe he didn't do it as much as he could and we'll try to encourage him to get more in the fixture. In this one project I talked to Mahlon, and probably a SEQR review would have been advisable, and would also have given the citizens more time to have input to this. We'll try to make sure we follow proper SEQR procedure in the future. As far as Varna II, I talked to Clough Harbour today. They weren't aware we had a meeting today and they will be getting a letter in the mail today or tomorrow. I think our deadline is November 10, but verbally they told me they also are recommending that we don't accept this at this time. George Frantz distributed two items of information to the board, one on Tourist Oriented Directional Signs and one on Illustrative Examples of Billboard Designs (as he envisioned under Option One in the Study that he prepared). These are things that can be incorporated into the final version of the study. G Frantz - In summary, essentially what I've done over the past couple of months is first of all inventory the billboards (or off premises advertising signs) in the Town of Dryden. I actually identified 18 within the Town overall, several of them actually are not legal signs and at least one of the ones identified as not being legal has been removed and a couple of the others are still being investigated. One of them, # 17 on the map, is actually a legal sign, on premises. That is on Peruville Road and the garage owner owns an L- shaped lot. His actual business is about a quarter mile south of Peruville Road on Wood Road, but because his lot has frontage on Peruville Road it is a legal sign, and I will correct that in the final document. Probably the major finding of my study was the fact that a good number of Towns in New York State have actually prohibited off premises signs. Unfortunately though at this point that practice in New York State which has been upheld by the New York State Courts is now being challenged in Federal Court and there is some question whether or not Towns in New York State will actually be allowed to entirely prohibit off premises advertising signs, or billboards, within their jurisdiction. I came up with four options that the Town may want to consider pursuing. One would be to prohibit off premises advertising signs (billboards) throughout the Town. Unfortunately this report was finished within a week of finding about two pending court cases in Federal Court that have thrown into question the whole idea of totally prohibiting billboards throughout the Town. The second option would be to allow these signs only in the MA Zoning Districts along Route 13 east from NYSEG and just north of the Village. In amending the zoning ordinance to limit billboards to those areas of the Town would also throw into zoning non - compliance most of the billboards along Route 13, if not all of them, simply because they are outside the MA Zone. In addition to limiting them within the MA Zoning District I also recommend that you're not allowed to have any billboards within half a mile of another billboard structure to avoid clustering. They would be much smaller; the maximum size being 150 square feet. You could have no more than two billboard faces, either side by side, stacked on top of each other, or back to back. You won't get a whole bunch in one area or four or five in one structure. No billboard structure within 500' of the boundary- of an RB, RB -1, RC or RD Zoning District, those being the residential zoning district. That restricts them further and also protects residential areas from the aesthetic impact of those billboards. Another recommendation I have would be (and a number of Towns have done this in the State of New York) that billboards that do not comply with the new zoning regulations would have to be removed within three years of adoption of this amendment. This is a way to Pagc 4 of 13 TB 11-1 -00 get rid of the billboards that, most of the billboards for instance now in existence in the town, do not comply with the set back requirements. There is at least one structure that is too close to the intersection of Etna Road. Under current zoning they are noncompliant and they can remain as long as they are maintained. What a number of municipalities have done is say we want those to come down, but we can't tell you you have to do it immediately, so we'll give you three to six years to recoup at least part of your investment, then they must come down. Another recommendation, indirectly related to billboards, is to revise the criteria for granting special permits to sort of tighten them up. For instance, have a clause that says that the Town Board would determine if there is actually a need for the use in the proposed location. That is a way of giving you a little more strength in terms of being able to say no, we don't think there is really a need for this in this particular location, and you can deny it. Existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affect is another finding that I'm suggesting, and again it's a way of looking at any special permit use in the Town, not just billboards, but any special permit use. You say this may be a good use someplace else in the Town, but in this particular location it is really not. Cl T Hatfield suggested that existing billboard could be grandfathered in with an additional condition of screening. The "super structure" could be screened with trees and low shrubs. Supv Varvayanis - What's the difference in saying it's banned in the Town outright and saying it's allowed in an MA Zone if you prove to us you need it, and then well, gosh we don't think you need it in an MA Zone? G Frantz - I'm very leery at this point of saying ban them outright, and again I'm just a • land use planner, but my recommendation would be to tread very carefully. Given the MA Zones, it would be fairly hard to deny. It's tough to say we don't think there's a need for a proposed billboard in this location. These are criteria that as part of a special permit process could be used, if you felt that there was a particularly onerous proposal. My understanding of the law in New York State is that if you allow something in your zoning ordinance by special permit the assumption is that it is an appropriate use for that area. That's why you have to be careful what you allow in your zoning ordinance under special permits, or more importantly where you allow certain special permit uses. You have the memo about these new cases in Federal Court. At a conference a few weeks ago it took the attorney several times to explain the logic behind the argument that the billboard companies are using. It made me just a little leery at this point because I really don't know where it is going to go. The attorney that is representing the Town that is being sued is at this point really concerned. Supv Varvayanis - It seems to me that if it's illegal to ban naked ladies, it should be illegal to ban billboards. G Frantz stated that some courts have upheld that it is okay to ban billboards on aesthetic grounds and safety grounds. Cl T Hatfield noted that both of those are argued in a special permit process. We have a process now that works by special permit, perhaps we can take a look at that and add some spacing requirements, screening requirements and have them blend where they're appropriate. He suggested that might be a direction for the Town given the current legal environment and issues. Page 5 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 G Frantz noted that another player in this whole thing is the State of New York and their permitting process for billboards. The Highway Beautification Act says the structures are allowed in industrial and commercial areas and perhaps the town's ordinance should parallel this. He stated that all Park Outdoor signs have the necessary DOT permits. At least one billboard currently in the town does not meet with the 15 foot set back requirement. He suggests that set back requirements could prevent blocking a particular scenic view along the highway. Whatever the Town decides, whether to allow them to be grandfathered and continue forever or to have an amortization period, several Towns that now prohibit billboards did not implement any sort of amortization period and the Town should know that many of those billboards still exist because the billboard companies were allowed to continually refurbish them. If the Town should decide to limit billboards to an MA Zone, G Frantz suggests going with an amortization period, otherwise the billboards will continue to be there as legal noncomplying uses. Joyce Gerbasi suggested that lighting be addressed so that only the billboard is lit and lighting does not spill over to the road. G Frantz stated that could be included and would say something along the line that there shall be no glare or light spillage beyond the face of the billboard. J Gerbasi wondered if there would be a change in the special permit process where it would involve not changing the character of the neighborhood. Atty Perkins stated it would be difficult to implement a special permit process for this; it would be very pretentious and litigious. Cl Grantham stated if it was limited to MA Zones, she does not think that is such an issue. Atty Perkins asked if it would be limited to MA Zones as a matter of right or with site plan review or with special permit, and suggested perhaps site plan review is enough if you have enough other restrictions that they can't be within a half mile of each other, etc. Everything in an MA Zone requires Site Plan Review. Adult entertainment is allowed in the MAA Zone by site plan review, and Cl Grantham stated we have enough restrictions on the set backs and so on for those. is Cl T Hatfield suggested looking at the billboards the same, and that way it is a matter of right with site plan review. When the old ones require maintenance you can make them comply with the existing set backs, etc. G Frantz - Because they're already allowed by special permit, I simply continued that. But if they are only allowed in the MA Zone, then perhaps site plan review would be adequate. Atty Perkins - That would give you an opportunity to address screening of the superstructure for any new ones, lighting that only casts down on it, and things like that. Supv Varvayanis - Sounds like we have a consensus. I'm sure when I read it, the 500' also included municipal boundaries. G Frantz - I did include boundaries between the RB, RB -1, RC or RD zoning districts and because of 'Medback at the last meeting I included residential districts in the Villages of Dryden and Freeville. Lewis Street west about 600' or so is zoned residential so it would be very important to protect those houses from billboards. With that restriction there might be one between Lewis Street and North Street if it's not in the parking lot of the Dollar Store. G Frantz did follow up on telephoning the businesses that utilize billboards and was able to talk with representatives of four more businesses. There were eleven advertisers contacted in the original mailing. Two of them are non -profit type organizations. He received responses from seven of the 9 businesses. Only one of those identifies themselves as a Town of Dryden business. September was the first time one of the seven had every used a billboard, believing it was a way of conveying a change of merchandise lines to the public. Four of them Page 6 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 have done it for three years or less. One had used billboards at least eight years and one said about 15 years. One has done it for about 35 years. As far as importance in terms of advertising dollars, three say billboard advertising accounts for between 0 and 10% of the total budget, two said between 11 and 20% and one was 31 to 40% and one didn't really know. They asked to compare effectiveness of billboards to radio, TV, newspaper, etc and nobody really had any hard evidence that it was anymore effective. Three of them pointed out that in their mind the billboard advertising was important because it directed out of town motorists to their business. There is not a lot of hard data on this in the marketing research he used either, but there is the perception on the part of businesses that it is worth spending money on. Because we have businesses in the Town of Dryden that use billboards to direct out of town motorists to their location, the DOT Tourist signs might be a viable alternative for them. This is a DOT permit process and DOT must approve all the signs. The Town would direct businesses to the State. Businesses are responsible for buying, erecting and maintaining the signs as Mr. Frantz understands it, but he will get more information on that. This may be something that the Chamber of Commerce would be willing to take on and assist businesses with. Mr. Frantz will make revisions to the draft. He will include screening as a recommended action and also some language about precluding lighting that has glare or spillage off the face of the sign, revise the user survey section to include the new information and add the information on the Tourist Oriented Directional Signs as well as the last court cases. Cl Grantham explained that there is an item in the budget for consulting to get the master plan finished, but it was a guess. She has met with George Frantz, Supv Varvayanis • and Barbara Caldwell to talk about what is involved in the remainder of the master plan work and then in developing a zoning ordinance and asked George Frantz to come up with an estimate. He also gave a proposal for hiring on a contractual basis. B Caldwell was pleased that this was happening. There is $15,000 in the preliminary budget, but Mr. Frantz estimates between $20,000 and $35,000 for master plan work. He explains the range depends on what kind of a planning business actually got the job. An estimate of $15,000 to $20,000 was given for the zoning ordinance. He includes in that some time for the town attorney. His proposal for the general plan and support on a contractual basis would be at a rate of $27.50 hour for his own services. Cl Grantham - If we are going to change the preliminary budget, we pretty much need LO do it tonight. Cl T Hatfield - We can make the changes at the hearing to adopt the budget. We've done that in the past. B Hollenbeck - You do it at the hearing though, not now. Cl T Hatfield - We made three or four changes at the hearing, then adopted it. Cl Grantham - That's fine with me as long as we don't have to rehear :it if we change it. Supv Varvayanis - We wouldn't be able to rehear it, that's the deadline. Cl Grantham - I know, that's why I'm saying that maybe the should change it tonight. • Supv Varvayanis - I'd be willing to change the figure to $30,000 tonight. We don't have to spend it if we don't want to. Pagc 7 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 Cl Grantham - That would just be for the master plan. 0 Cl T Hatfield - Because there's additional dollar reference in there for the zoning. I guess the thought I had was to incorporate the dollars so that you can do either /or and then I think you'll probably have to do a request for proposals. Cl Grantham - Yes, we would. Supv Varvayanis - We wouldn't have to, but we ought to. Cl Beck - Incorporate both of them and change it to $50,000. Cl T Hatfield - That's what I'm saying. Change it to $50,000 and that way the funds are available as the process unfolds. D Weinstein - This is for the Town review? Or is it for the whole process? We're not thinking of finishing the process in a year. Cl Beck - It's this year's budget, but it can be carried over to the next year. Cl Grantham - The proposal includes quite a few public information meetings and public hearings and so on. It's pretty thorough. If we go with the top amount of $35,000 for the master plan and $20,000 for zoning, it's $55,000, which would be a $40,000 increase. I would move that we do that. Cl T Hatfield - I'll second it so we can discuss it. I'm thinking that there may be some 0 other dollars in bLere so we don't need to increase the overall budget to accommodate that. I'd like to take a last look before we adopt it. (examined the preliminary budget) Okay, I'll make that change. B Hollenbeck - Don't you think you should wait til the hearings and make all the changes at once? I'm not sure you ought to do this now. Supv Varvayanis - This is equivalent to the workshop we had. B Hollenbeck pointed out the preliminary budget has been published in today's newspaper with hearings to be held next week. Supv Varvayanis - The Town Board has adjusted to get to the preliminary budget and then you have the hearing on the preliminary budget, right. We can still adjust it. Atty Perkins - I don't know without checking. Cl Grantham - My thinking is that if we do it tonight we give people time to see it. Cl T Hatfield - I don't see any problem with it and if for some reason we find out we shouldn't have done it tonight, we can do resolution over again next week at the budget hearings. Cl Grantham - Yes, eve can do that. B Hollenbeck - It says after the preliminary hearing you can alter or revise the preliminary budget. 0 Pagc 8 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 Cl Grantham - Does it say we can't alter it before? • B Hollenbeck - I don't have the law book, I just have this manual. Supv Varvayanis - But the preliminary budget is whatever the Town Board gets back to me with. Cl T Hatfield - I think what she's saying is that's published now and available and we have a hearing and then we adopt it. Supv Varvayanis - Why don't we do a resolution now, and as Tom said, if it's not legal, we'll do another one at the hearing. Bambi doesn't like that. B Hollenbeck - I don't care, I'm just trying to save any potential trouble. Cl T Hatfield - We've got enough discussion on the record. I think hall building itself are. That's in a capital those dollars need to be looked at if we are going to go forward. Atty Perkins - Did you approve a preliminary budget? And that's what the public hearing is based on? Cl T Hatfield - We had a budget workshop and we made some recommendations and we have now in our hands a budget that's labelled preliminary. Supv Varvayanis - We didn't officially vote on it. Cl T Hatfield - We didn't make any action so far. Mark provided us with a tentative budget, the supervisor's budget. We reviewed it at a budget workshop, made some recommended changes as a board, some things up, things down. Not much; a few items. That goes to the public hearing as the next step. That's what we've done in the past. Cl Beck - My concern was that we needed to earmark some dollars to start taking a look at what the needs of the town hall building itself are. That's in a capital fund already. Nobody's said how much is in the fund, but there's a lot of money there, right? Supv Varvayanis - We've got three hundred and some odd thousand dollars. Cl Beck - Then we need to have the discussion as to how we are going to proceed and then just go ahead and discuss and decide to spend some money for that. Supv Varvayanis - And that money was distinctly earmarked for the Town Hall. Cl Beck - And that should come out of the capital fund, even the planning process for it? That's what was bothering me a little bit. You do a study and it comes out of the actual cash capital fund. Supv Varvayanis - We don't have to have a hearing for that or anything. If we decide to spend the money, we spend the money. We've got about two million, but not all of that is for the building. We'd have to have a public hearing to take that out. Cl Grantham - On the capital reserve for the Town Hall, we had a hearing to establish it in the first place and that's why we don't have to have a hearing again. • Cl T Hatfield - I think we have a building committee in place, you and Deb and Bambi. Pagc 9 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 Cl Grantham - We're going to look at what was done a few years ago. Do we need to do something about this resolution? Cl T Hatfield - Act on it, or withdraw it. Supv Varvayanis - It's on the floor. Call the vote. RES #254 - INCREASE BUDGET AMOUNT FOR MAS'T'ER PLAN /ZONING ORDINANCE Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby increases the budget amount for the master plan and zoning ordinance from a total of $15,000 to a total of $55,000. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Cl Grantham - The proposal on the last page would mean that the planner would be available during planning board meetings, and actually could be available during special permit hearings. It's an option, and as he points out, the work would be mixed. It would only be partially on the master plan. He would be doing other work as well. I think there are plenty of times when we could use the help. Cl Beck - I'm sure it's a matter of getting off dead center. A lot of times we don't have time, or high salaries, or volunteers to get some of this stuff done. It certainly needs doing. Supv Varvayanis - I did happen to notice that $27.50 times 20 hours a week comes pretty close to what we just budgeted. Cl T Hatfield - I think we've got to get some proposals in hand and take a look at some options. Cl Grantham - I think it is hard to decide tonight on this. It's better to just have the budget line in there. Cl T Hatfield - You've talked with Barbara about it, and I'd like to get some feed back from them. I think Ron's right. There are times when things get to the point where its nice to have expertise at the table. ZO Slater requested that the Town Board authorize the Town Attorney to take necessary steps at resolve an issue at 43 Sweetland, where there appears to be business operating without the necessary special permit. ZO Slater believes it is the operation of a commercial logging business and storage yard for both materials and equipment. They have been advised by the owner of the property that he is cutting firewood for his own personal use, but there is a good record of activities that indicate something completely different. Pagc 10 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 • RES #255 - AUTHORIZE TOWN ATTORNEY TO TAKE ACTION REGARDING 43 SVFEETLAIITD ROAD Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to take action on recommendations of the Zoning Officer regarding a business operating without the necessary special permit at 43 Sweetland Road. 2nd Cl Beck Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Varvayanis Yes Cl C Hatfield Yes Cl Grantham Yes Supv Varvayanis advised the board that Mr. Kramer should have the names of the people to work on the mini Grace Commission next week and will advise the board when he receives them. Supv Varvayanis has provided the Board with copies of an MOU received from the County regarding the Hanshaw Road DOT site. Jim Hanson forwarded it so that comments could be made. Supv Varvayanis has received a draft of the Joint Sewer Agreement. Copies will be mailed to Board members tomorrow. Cl Beck stated he had read the letters regarding the Ambulance's new computer and wondered if it was going to work. Supv Varvayanis stated as far as knows, it would work. Cl Beck - It sounds like it's a piece of junk with no warranty and no local service. Do you disagree with that? Supv Varvayanis - It's the same supplier and contractor we've been using. Cl T Hatfield - I thought we were going to try to get someone different. Supv Varvayanis - We've were thinking of getting someone else. Cl Beck - I thought we made that recommendation. Supv Varvayanis - Right now that's still our contractor. I guess we could cancel our contract in the middle and not get our money back. B Hollenbeck - Does the contract say that we have to get new computers from them? Supv Varvayanis - No, I don't think we have to get new computers from them. I didn't think it was that big a deal. When it was brought over, it was my understanding that this was an example of the kind of thing the want. He never said this is the exact model. Cl Beck - It's another case of communication problems, another friction area that . shouldn't happen. People are unhappy about it. If they didn't get something that's going to Page 11 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 work, or we screwed up, or we ordered something other than what was supposed to be ordered... U Supv Varvayanis - I have a meeting at 7:00 a.m. Monday morning with the paramedics in my office. Let's just see what's going on. They're all on stall. Cl Beck - Have we got copies of who was actually hired? Supv Varvayanis - I'll get that to you. CI T Hatfield gave Tony Hall, reporter for The Courier, a copy of a letter received from the Dryden Grange asking for help with Dairy Day. Cl Grantham - Jack, for your edification, I don't know if you get the Ellis Hollow Newsletter, but someone who was at the Genung Road meeting put a note in saying if you have comments and you couldn't come to the meeting, call you or Mark or me. I got one phone call from Marianne Saphra on Genung Circle. She said she would like Genung Road to stay just the way it is. The other thing was we might get some information that you might find useful. I got asked at Cornell to give some ideas for a student project and they are going to give us some information on how to site and build salt storage sheds, so I'll pass that on to you at the end of the semester. They are not experts or anything like that, but for what it's worth. Supv Varvayanis - On the subject of Genung Road, we had a number of people who wanted a warning for the stop sign on Ellis Hollow on both sides of Genung. Have you thought about putting that in? J Bush - The County would do that. I'll give them a call. Cl C Hatfield - What came out of that meeting on Genung Road. 40 J Bush - To have another meeting and let them know what Dave and I came up with, a couple of different options. It will probably be sometime in late April or early May. Cl Grantham - They would like the road resurfaced and that sort of thing, but in general they don't want it widened. It's mostly paved, but there's a part where the paving is gone. Cl Grantham had one comment on the budget from a citizen who thought that board members each received $8,800. The Justices are also lumped together and she suggested that could be clearer on the budget. The citizens also wanted to know what elected officials received in previous. Supv Varvayanis will ask D McFall to clarify that on the budget. Cl Beck suggested putting the Town Hall on the agenda for next week stating we pay people pretty good salaries here and then ask them to work in nasty conditions for some pretty important business. On agenda for next week: Crown Construction Joint Sewer Agreement Mini Grace Commission Budget Town Hall Page 12 of 13 TB 11 -1 -00 On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 13 of 13 • Town Board of Representatives November 1 2000 Town of Dryden 65 East Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 Dear members of the Dryden Town Board of Representatives. I have reviewed the most recent draft of the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): Varna II Apartment Complex ". I find that this document is still unsuitable for public comment because it still contains inaccurate information, incomplete discussion of both sides of many issues, and omissions of issues that were supposed to be discussed. Therefore, I request that the town not accept this draft, sending it back to the developer until it presents an accurate and fair discussion of all the environmental issues involved. Some of the areas that are incompletely treated: 1. Failure to demonstrate that quality housing is in great demand and short supply in this area. 2. Failure to acknowledge that community density goals can only be fairly achieved by • implementing the same density on every parcel within the community. 3. Gross errors and overestimates of the tax revenues to be brought to the town. 4. Failure to acknowledge documents verifying the cost to the community in additional services. 5. Incomplete detailing of recreational advantages to the community. 6. Incomplete detailing of drainage stream maintenance commitments. 7. Incorrect characterization of the community as rental instead of owner - occupied. 8. Inadequate characterization of groundwater recharge (based on faulty assumptions) and geological integrity of site. 9. Inadequate description of how all storm water on parking lots will be captured into the pond. 10. Inconsistent and erroneous runoff assumptions and estimates. 11. Inconsistent and erroneous estimates of current and future population in Varna. is12. Inaccurate and inconsistent estimates of the impacts on rt. 366 traffic. 13. Incomplete discussion of problems with traffic exiting site. 14. Incomplete description of method of calculating site distances. 15. Incomplete acknowledgement of impacts on local school. 16. Inadequate discussion of costs to the town for repair of infrastructure (roads, water and sewage lines, etc.) from increased use. 17. Failure to acknowledge viable lower - density alternatives. 18. Failure to acknowledge the reduction in impacts that would come from project size reduction. 19. Unreasonable estimates for assessment and property taxes that will be paid. 20. Unresolved confusion over water and sewer district impacts. 21. Contradictory statements over whether or not this project will increase sprawl. 22. Erroneous discussion of the consequences of the "no construction" alternative. 23. Failure to discuss the irreversible loss of current community character with the project. I have not attempted to list all the problems with the DEIS, but this partial list clearly indicates that the DEIS is not acceptable in its current form. As in the past, I will be glad to provide details concerning each of these problems should they be requested. Thank you for your time and attention, David Weinstein Wednesday, November 01, 2000 Mark Varvayanis Supervisor Town of Dryden Dear Mark, Town Board Members and Mr. Perkins, Because of classes on Wednesday evenings I have not been able to attend Board Meetings, and 'want to express my concerns after reading some of the 3 Volume Reply of Steve Lucente. I found most of the conflicting statements in Volume 1, obviously. He speaks of the positive effect his development would have on VARNA. I would like right here to state that he only addresses the "Hamlet of Varna, and speaks of it repeatedly. He mentions the low number of owner occupied homes as if the small area down by route 366 would be the only area affected by his apartment development. All of us in the immediate vicinity - as far as up on Deerhaven and out to Baker Hill would suffer from the additional traffic and those of us on Turkey Hill also additional noise and pollution. He states that his development would not add to roadway maintenance, but we all know that increased traffic wears roads. He states that Mt. Pleasant Road is a County Road, when in fact it is a Town of Dryden Road. He glibly proposes the removal of trees and shrubs to facilitate a better entrance and clearer view. Removal of vegetation destroys drainage and run -off. As a plus he mentions additional sales tax. Where from? He mentions increased jobs. Once the building is built, and it will be built by whoever has the lowest bid, no doubt an out of town company, the number of additional jobs will be Y= minimal. He offers a better variety of home selection. Apartments are hardly that, and he touts additional recreational facilities. Varna has built a nice playground, the Town already planned the recreation path, quite a while before Mr. Lucente came along. and so there seems to be plenty for not only "the Hamlet" but for all of us and all who would like to partake. The document speaks of the Land Institute Standard, but so many units do not preserve natural vegetation but add contamination due to car exhaust and dripping fluids. It is not buried contamination I worry about, but people and vehicle contamination. This project does not deal with waterways, other than pollution by run off into Fall Creek. The document states that the traffic increase would only be 1 and 112 %. This amount of increase on a VERY limited access path is substantial, and enough to cause concern and danger. The document also touts the increase of community business. There is no guarantee that this will happen - as a matter of fact the Varna 1 development has not produced anything of that sort other than a dangerous intersection. With the opening of a new Tops in Lansing, the traffic from a large apartment development such as Mr. Lucente proposes will only increase traffic flowing out and across Freese road to Lansing. I strongly urge the Town Board to deny a project of this size. I realize that the lot is appealing and a project half the size of the proposed VARNAI I could be a possibility, as could 1 or 2 family houses. Name - {Please Print) SS ,,JJ I Town cf ®mden Town Board Meeting November 1, 2000 for- � p- z Address r� Gam- S`% c:2 92 y/G 721A/ "e oQ If fi�4/tV to o q C k p S f-. l .r ka. CA Ill `i' lLf V so