HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-12TB 06 -12-02
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
June 12, 20-02
Board Members Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Charles Hatfield, Cl Stephen Stelirk,
Jr., Cl Deborah Grantham
Absent: Cl Christopher Michaels
Other Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk
Other Town Staff: Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney
Henry Slater, Zoning Officer
David Putnam (TG Millers), Torn Engineer
Supv Varvayanis opened the meeting at 7:04 pm, led the audience in the pledge of
allegiance and noted that Cl Michaels was absent due to the birth of his daughter yesterday.
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Dan Karig, Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Council, stated that one of the main
charges of the Conservation Advisory Council. (CAC) is to create an open space inventory and
that occupied their time for most of the past year. They were hoping to have a draft available
tonight, but the data has been slow in arriving and they are still fine- tuning it. He did present
the board with the table of contents and statement of purpose and stated their inventory would
be clearly just an inventory. They will not draw conclusions about what they think should be
done. It will be about 35 pages long and has nine chapters which include Physical Resources
and Hazards, Floodplains & Stream Classification, Steep Slopes & clay -rich soils, Agricultural
Soils & Agricultural Districts, Wetlands & Hydric Soils, Aquifers, Biological Resources, Land
Use /Land Cover, Unique Natural Areas, Political Resources, Managed Open Space Assets, and
Historical and Cultural Resources. Each chapter will have an 11" x 17" map. They hope to
have a draft ready by July and have a. public meeting to collect comments then finish the
document. David Weinstein stated the Planning Board should make sure this document is
congruous with the new comprehensive plan and that they don't contradict each other. George
Frantz is working with both the Planning Board and the CAC and Dan Karig believes the
information is being shared that way. D Weinstein suggested that the Planning Board and the
CAC should meet prior to any public meeting to compare the documents.
David Weinstein, 51 Freese Road, asked the Town Board to drop the counterclaim law
suit against him in light of the recent decision by Judge Mulvey. He believes it would be the
appropriate next step to take. He stated he had had a conversation with Jack Bush and he
thinks that there is an agreement that his concerns can be taken care of by some things that
he needs to do on the neighbors' property and by the cutting of some dead and dying tree limbs
on a tree on his property. D Weinstein is willing to have the limbs removed, but is reluctant to
do anything with the lawsuit still pending. He said if the lawsuit was dropped they could
proceed to work out the concerns because he does think they are in agreement. He
emphasized there is no settlement on the table right now. He believes the concerns can be
taken care of without lawsuits, and he could save attorney's fees. He said he thought the Town
would like to save some money too, and asked the Board to do what they could to take
appropriate action to make sure the counterclaim against him is dropped.
Atty Perkins said since it is a matter that involves litigation it is best left for discussion
in executive session.
Page 1 of 14
0
TB 06 -12-02
Marie McCrae of Irish Settlement Road said she is distressed by recent: actions of the ,
Highway .Department. She was outraged by what happened on Hurd Road. She used to travel
the road a lot, but no longer does. She is sickened by what happened there. Now they are on
Hammond Hill Road and while the work that was done there does not compare to the
`disastrous destruction" done on Hurd Road, she feels that it was a bit excessive. She doesn't
understand why her tax dollars were spent on that section of Hammond Hill Road.
Bob Wise, 258 Hunt Hill Road, requested that the lawsuit against Dr. Weinstein be
dropped. He'd rather not have his tax dollars spent that way. He understands that Hunt Hill
Road may be scheduled for repaving this summer and he would like to see the plans for that
and see if it is strictly paving or if there will be widening or straightening involved.
P Walbridge, 123 Hunt Hill Road, asked the Town Board to drop the suit against David
Weinstein. She said she finds it an embarrassment and her friends in this County remark
about Dryden suing it's citizen over a wall. She said all members of the board should act to
stop this. She offered a copy of the injunction that was granted to the board. She remarked
that the countersuit was not approved by the Board and by the Board's action they are letting
it go on and she finds it obnoxious. She also is concerned that at the last board meeting the
board did not insist that the Highway Superintendent respond to the Board's questions. The
Court said certain things are not going to happen and therefore they don't have to keep an
injunction on these roads and yet Genung Road, for example, is in The Ithaca Journal article
and as a public official she thinks the Highway Superintendent needs to respond in public as
to what he is doing. It is a public record and the public needs to hear about that. They also
have not heard why Hammond Hill was decimated. The Board did not approve that work and
yet the Highway Department which is spending funds is going ahead and doing it and the
Board is not upholding the public trust. She would like to see some action to make sure the
law is followed. '
Bob Vanderbeck, who lives on the upper portion of Genung Road. He is concerned with
all that is going on that Genung may be involved. I-ie has lived there for 40 years and no one
he knows who lives there wants the road decimated like Hurd Road and so on. There seems to
be a lot of conflict between what the Highway Department has supposedly said they were going
to do and what the newspaper has outlined is going to happen. He doesn't want the road
decimated. It is the kind of road that people go to walk on and when people have weekend
guests they take the guests for a stroll on the lane. It is a small lane with character and the
last. thing it needs is ditching dug and trees cut down. No one wants that. It's not necessary.
15 or 20 years ago the Highway Department resurfaced the road with what he believes is oil
and stone, on the existing roadway. It was very nice and lasted for quite a while but it never
had any maintenance after that. It never washed out:. It has slowly deteriorated until now it is a
mess. Now it does need resurfacing and most of them would like to see that happen - on the
existing roadway without any further infringement to the banks or the sides. It is not needed.
There is no washout. It is fine the way it is except that it hasn't been attended to in many
years. It has been neglected although they do a good job plowing it in the winter. They don't
want the character of the road altered or destroyed.
Robin Seeley, 332 Hurd Road, said that for many weeks, ever since the Hurd Road
project was mentioned she has been trying to get a written project description to fund out what
the scope and extent of the work on the Hurd Road has been. She submitted a FOIL request
several weeks ago and again on Friday because she thought there would be a SEQR discussion
and environmental assessment form that might have a project description on it tonight. She
said if the Board looks at it tonight, it hasn't been available to the public. None of the residents
of Hurd Road have seen it and she was hoping they would have a chance to look at it before the
Town Board made a decision. She has some sort of a description of the work from the Highway I
Department for the road that crosses their property and it mentions a lot of things that she has
Page 2 of 14
T8 0642 -02
questions about so she is anxious to see a more recent written project description and she is
® sure other residents would like to see it too. (.A copy was given to her to review)
RE: CROWN CASTLE APPLICATION
(Copy of transcript is attached to these minutes.)
Ruth Rosenburg gave a. recapitulation regarding their application process, stating in the
end that their position is that the hearing was closed on May 1 and asked the Town to please
make its decision tonight.
Supv Varvayanis said that he agreed that the hearing %vas closed on May 1 and
normally that would mean they had that period to make their showing. The Board asked for
more information because it felt they didn't: make a showing. He feels the Board is bending
over backwards to help them. If they haven't made the showing at an open public hearing can
they now come back and say they wanted more opportunity to make the showing but yet they
don't want to give any information. Should the (ward make its' decision on what is in front of
it?
Atty Perkins - If you take the position the public hearing was closed then you can make
a decision on what you had before you at the close of the public hearing. On the other hand,
didn't they promise to do some other things and submit them?
R Rosenburg said they had not. They got: the questions and their position is they rest
on their public hearing.
Supv Varvayanis - Okay, that's fine with me.
Richard Comi - The issues that I think Mahlon is talking about is they did provide the
change in the propagation studies to clear them up and they did complete the EAF. The
information that was presented that night, they did provide that information. What has since
happened was after the meeting the letter came out from one of your board members through
Henry that was additional requests. That's where these two sites were asked from. The one on
Hunt Hill, they did provide that propagation study and it demonstrates that can't be used.
That's the difference. I'm just trying to...
Atty Perkins - But they did respond to the open questions...
R Comi - That evening. However, one of your board members slid say he had
additional questions and would generate them and it's that list of questions that has generated
these two questions concerning two NYSEG poles. Those questions they say they are not
answering,
Supv Varvayanis asked for a copy of the tower ordinance.
R Rosenburg - I want to point out that the propagation studies that xvc provided after
the hearing were the same ones that we provided before the hearing, but instead of being
overlays, they were hard copies.
Supv Varvayanis - In section 8 it says that you will supply an inventory of all existing
towers within four miles, which you did not do.
40 R Rosenburg - No. Your consultant said that given the technology for IWO, four miles
was too wide an area. Ti?UO's technology does not cover four miles so we weren't required to do
that. Mr. Comi can speak on that. And Mr. Ezell was there at the time also.
Pagc3of14
TB 06 -12 -02
ZO Slater - He's not here now. •
Supv Varvayyanis - Do you have a comment on that Mahlon?
Atty Perkins - I think we should ask Mr. Comi what he asked the applicant to do and
the justification.
R Comi - Basically, what I see here is the question of one of the board members has
asked to take a loolc at two other possible alternatives. We've heard the applicant say that
because they believe the hearing was closed that they don't have to provide that information.
At: the very least I would suggest: to the board that: you get on the record that; they are refusing
to look at two other possible alternatives.
Supv Varvayanis - We are on the record.
R Comi - Well, it's marginally on the record. 1'd make it very clear is what I'm
suggesting. Number two, if they provide all of the other discussion that was there relevant to
cost, as far as I'm concerned is not applicable because there is in the documentation of your
ordinance that says alternative sites must be proven to be commercially impracticable. Which
means that the amount of money they have to spend on a road or improving the tower or the
site should not be taken into consideration unless they can prove that the alternate is
commercially impracticable. If the carrier tonight wanted to come in and truly talk about these
poles, and it's on NYSEG property, and they're dealing with NSYEG already, in my opinion they
simply could have come in here with something from NYSEG saying you can't: go on my poles.
That would have ended this entire question of those deletions. I don't believe it's unreasonable
for the board to ask them to look at only those two locations because your document also •
states that you will undertake a review of an applicant in a timely fashion consistent with the
responsibilities and act within a reasonable time frame given the relative complexity. It's
obvious based on the public hearing last month and the fact that one of the board members
did mention he had some items and issues that this is a very complex issue for building a new
tower. So C don't think it's unreasonable to ask that. However they are liable to say we aren't
going to give you that, then you've got a decision to make. Now 1 don't know if that answers
your question at all, but based on the law, that's my thinking.
R Rosenburg - In the first place ghat Mr. Comi has not addressed is that the public
hearing was closed. Mr Comi, Mr Slater, your consultant and your Toning officer had many
months to raise every single pole in the whole community. This is truly ridiculous. What we've
said tonight is the hearing is closed. We have pointed out to you that these particular poles,
are somebody's idea it was, there is no proof that they would in fact satisfy the coverage gap.
We have pointed out right off the top all the problems with using poles which are 115 kb
transmission lines on wooden poles which will not support the .....
Supv Varvayanis - Can -you tell me what the difference between this pole on the top of
the hill and the same poles at the bottom of the hill that you've already included are?
R Rosenburg - To me, that one was a middle pole and it was 115 kb transmission line.
That's my belief. The other issue, as 1 explained to you before is, on 115 kb transmission line
poles NYSEG would have to shutdown their service and reroute the service in order to take any
kind of maintenance installation of our poles. In the event of an emergency we could not get
those things up and running. We'd have to wait for NYSEG's willingness to do that. NYSEG
has also said that in the peak summer months we really would just have to stand in line and
wait. And we know that because we have a master lease with NYSEG and the master lease
says that they have to perform the work on the poles and that we have to wait for them. But
Page 4 of 14
T8 06 -12-02
with 115 kb transmission line NYSEG has told us that they have to reroute all the service.
They can't go in and act on our poles without doing that.
Supv Varvayanis - It seems to me you're providing an awful lot of information when you
say you don't want to provide information.
R
Rosenburg - Alright.
let's
take out the issue of the two poles because they are not
properly
before us, and we will
rest
on our complete
hearing...
Supv Varvayanis - A.lright...
R Rosenburg - I'd be happy to have your decision tonight.
Supv Varvayanis - Fine. I'll make a motion that they didn't comply with Section 8 of
our ordinance and that we therefore reject the application.
Cl Grantham - Second.
RESOLUTION # 153 - DENY CROWN CASTLE CO., LLC APPLICATION
Supv Varvayanis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board does hereby deny the site plan application of Crown
Castle Co., LLC to erect a. 120' monopole type telecommunication tower at 1387 Dryden Road
in the Tour of Dryden
2nd Cl Grantham
® Roll Call Vote Cl Hatfield Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
ZO Slater has written to the Supervisor and } Board on behalf of the Planning Board
based on a resolution made by the Planning Board on May 29,2002, to ask the Town Board to
have the town's consultant, Richard Comi, revicxv a proposed amendment to the current local
law concerning the installation of telecommunications towers and equipment. The amendment
was drafted by Natan Huffmann who is familiar with the industry and involved with the
industry. His suggestions center around the technological advances in the telecommunications
industry in the last four years since the current local law was adopted. Board would like Mr.
Comi to review it. A copy %vas delivered to Mr. Comi for comment and recommendation, which
he will do without cost to the Town.
COUNTY BRIEFING
None.
COUNCIL PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Cl Hatfield asked why the 'Town xvas still paying the health insurance premiums for
John Tottey. Supv Varvayanis said lie has asked Joe Steliik a number of times about it and he
recommends that the Town continue paying until a final decision is reached. Cl Stelick
suggested that we get something in writing from Mr. Steliik stating why for the record.
RESOLUTION # 154 - APPROVE ABSTRACT # 106
Page 5 of 14
TB 06 -12 -02
Gl Grantham offered the fallowing resolution and asked for its adoption.
RF,SOLVE, D, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract #107, as audited, vouchers
#431 through #513, totaling $188,005.56.
2na C1 Stelick
Roll Call Vnte Cl Hatfield Yes
Gl Stelick Yes
Supv VaTvayanis Yes
G1 Grantham Yes
COUNCIL PRIVILEGE OF THE FLUOR
Cl C3=diam stated it was Cbe recommendation of the
and Associates for design of the new 'To %vn Hall, includixag the
construclaun oversight. The cost of the oversight of the constt
the building cost. The estimate for building cost in the needs
masonry construction and is a rough idea. Everything except
fixed cost.
SuDding C' -omni ttee to hire Egner
part of their proposal for
action phase would be 8 -751% of
assessment was based on
for the construction phasic is a
RESOLUTION #155 -, HIRE EGNER & ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN �
CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby accepts the proposal from Eimer and
Associates for design and construction oversight for the new Town lull, at an estimated coat. of
136,000.
2nd G1 Stelick
RoE Call Vote C1 Hatfield Yes
Gl Stelick Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
C±1 Grantham said that they had a letter iTom the Aquifer C'.oin ;ttec of the Water
Resources Coup {a1 fray .lvyce Oerlasi with some questions about the Count partiigation in
an aquifer study. Sloe has completed the questiormaim and reviewed it with the Board- `foam
Clerk %vill forward completed farm to 'Fate Hackett at Tompkins County Plann no-
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Jack Bush stated shat he gas very happy with the decision reached. by Judge Mulvey;
that it proves to biro that the Highway Department has done nothing wrong amd are totally
within their right, and in his opinion it's not only a victory fox the Town of Dryden, but also a
victory for every Highway Superintendent in New York State,
Board members were provided with a profile of a road grid right- of -way provided by
Cornell Local Roads, and J Bush pointed crut that it coincides with Judge ul 'e s deci %I
Also distributed was a copy of po %vver point pre ntation given at the Highway school last week
that talks about road safety. It contains Statistics having to do wilh accidents and fatalities
and indicates that they are greater on local roads vs state roads, part aF the logic being that
ixider roads are safer,
Page 6 of 14
TB 06 -12=02
J 'Bush stated that the information printed recently in The Ithaca Journal with respect
® to road construction in the Town was incorrect. .It was old information. Fernando deAragon
had requested information last: January regarding what roads might be closed for more than a
da_y. It is an attempt to let the public know what is going on. The form was completed in
January and since then plans for work had changed. He has contacted Mr deAragon and
asked him to remove Hunt Hill and Genung Road from the list. Mr deAragon stated this
information is not set in stone and should not be treated as such because of variables such as
time delays and weather delays.
With respect to the work done on Hammond Hill Road and the pictures Cl Grantham
has, he had measured 11', not the 8' as noted in the photos, and further back it was more like
15'. For the most part they tried to keep the road the same as it was for the new gravel that
was put down with the exception of at the cross -over pipe. That had to be widened in order to
get the equipment in to do the job. They did put some stumps along one edge and fill that
area, and J Bush said he did not look at that as road widening; it was simply putting 51l on
private property and they had written agreements from this owner. They will hydroseed along
that bank and all the ditch line. One picture says "from top of hill looking at culvert area
including trees cut above back slope of ditch on right" and he said that would be an
interpretation of where the back slope of the ditch is. He doesn't see anything wrong with that
and in any event they had permission from the property owner.
Cl Hatfield stated that the board had voted unanimously for the road to be improved
with a $6000 amount for gravel. There have been no comments from the landowners and there
shouldn't be any question from anybody. The objections have come from the other side of
Town.
® P Walbridge asked if there would be no work done on Genung Road and J Bush
responded that on Mr. Vanderbeck's road frontage the inlet side of the pipe seems to collect: a
lot of gravel and they've had to clean that out in the past:. As far as paving, there will be none
on Genung Road. P Walbridge said that: according to the Court papers there are no plans to do
any work along Genung Road, so she doesn't want to have to worry about the Highway
Department coming back and saying that it isn't road work. J Bush said there is no scheduled
road work other than if gravel is blocking a. driveway culvert and water running in the road.
She asked if there would be any fill or any banks cut and he said no. Mr Vanderbeck said that
during recent hard rain there was no water on the road and everything is fine; he has cleaned
his ditch himself.
J Bush said that he had previously stated at a meeting in Ellis Hollow that he would get
back to people up there before they take any action, but if a tree falls down and if somebody
calls, they will respond.
In response to a question J Bush said that there is no paving plan for Hunt Hill Road.
They are trying to resolve an issue on the Ellis Hollow end and try to make that safer and get
rid of the sharp and steep hill and possibly try to eliminate some of the deep ditches.
P Walbridge stated that at the meeting in Ellis Hollow they had asked that an engineer
be contacted regarding drainage on Hunt Hill Road, and that could be applied to other roads,
and that he not work by knocking on doors, but talk to people to get something more rational
than digging out ditches. That has been done in the past and made it worse.
R Seeley had comments on the project description for Hurd Road. With respect: to
Phase 1, it says cut trees and brush and says it is exempt from SEQR. Her understanding is
that the tree cutting that has already been done is not exempt from SEQR and she doesn't
understand how cutting trees and brush can be called maintenance of existing landscaping or
natural growth since it is destroying that growth.
Page 7 of I4
TB 06- 12-02
With respect to Phase 3, Cut back banks, it says it will require working beyond the right
of way and written permission has been obtained from both property owners. She states she
has looked at the file of easements that the Highway Department has and she doesn't see that
the easements allow permission to cut back the bank or cut the trees on the bank. She says
the easement gives the Highway Dept permission to park vehicles on the owners property while
there is construction. She does not believe that is written permission to cut trees and cut away
a person's property and suggests that somebody look at those a little more carefully and see
what they actually say.
With respect to Phase 5, Cleaning existing ditches as needed. Clean debris out of
ditches. She states that is a really good idea because the ditches need cleaning. But her fear
is that her definition and the Highway Department's definition of back slope seem to be
different and in the past when ditches have been cleaned, they have also been widened and the
soil has been stripped away so they are bare soil. She was wondering if that means just clean
the debris out or does it mean actually scooping it down to the bare sod.
With respect to Phase 6, Paving, Surface Treating Shoulders. It said shoulder material
will be placed on existing shoulders along paved edge. R Seeley states that on most of Hurd
Road there is no longer an existing shoulder, that the existing shoulder was paved back in the
early 1990's when the road was widened. She stated at least three town board members have
been there with her and she has shown them that the road was widened 2'12 feet in the early
nineties which took up all the shoulder. It makes her nervous when it says shoulder material
will be placed on existing shoulders along paved edge. She says there is no existing shoulder
so she doesn't know where the shoulder material will be placed. J Bush said that there is
shoulder on Hurd Road, but agreed that there are some places where the pavement drops off to
the ditch. He agreed to meet with her on the road to discuss the matter.
Supv Varvayanis asked Atty Perkins to review the easements granted by property
owners for road - related work.
li
With respect to Finger Lakes Stone Quarry, Atty Perkins stated that ZO Slater Vs report
summarizes the current understanding of where we are on this. He stated that as he
understands it., the Town has no permit authority over the operations there. It is not subject to
a special permit, at least that is the interpretation that has historically been made. Atty
Perkins has a copy of a letter from Zorika Henderson to the Town Board regarding the quarry,
and stated there is potential for people who are directly a.flected by the noise (which he
understands to be the major concern) to bring an action to abate a private nuisance if in fact
they can make that showing. The Town itself does not have a noise ordinance so they do not
have any permit authority or jurisdiction over what is going on there so he fails to see how the
Town can show that it is caused any harm or that it has any special injury. Obviously those
people who are directly affected by the noise can make the showing of a special injury, which is
something that has to be present in order for them to get relief. Cl Grantham asked Atty
Perkins to look at the website for Finger Lakes Stone Quarry because the nature of their
operation has changed according to their websitc.
Z Henderson said that the DEC mining specialist lawyer feels this can be handled with
a special session and outlines the article in her letter, and suggested that Atty Perkins contact
the DEC mining specialist lawyer. Atty Perkins said that from what he understands, it would
take legislative action by the Town Board first, and is a path the Town can take. He will review
that and comment.
Page 8 of 14
TB 06 -12-02
Atty Perkins said he had not been able to talk to Cl Michaels about the flexible spending
® plan, but had been unable to, so he does not have a report on that yet. The board does have
information on the deferred compensation plan and that just awaits the action of the board.
RESOLUTION #156 - ADOPTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden wishes to adopt the Deferred Compensation Plan for
Employees of the State of New York and Other Participating Public Jurisdictions (the "Plan') for
the voluntary participation of all eligible employees; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden is a local public employer eligible to adopt the Plan
pursuant: to Section 5 of the State Finance Law; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden has reviewed the Plan established in accordance with
Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 5 of the State Finance Law of the State
of New York; and
WHEREAS, the purposes of the Plan is to encourage employees to make and continue
careers with the Town of Dryden by providing eligible employees with a convenient and tax -
favored method of saving on a regular and long -term basis and thereby provide for their
retirement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden hereby adopts the Plan for the voluntary
participation of all eligible employees; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the appropriate officials of the Town of Dryden are hereby authorized
to take such actions and enter such agreements as are required or necessary for the adoption,
implementation, and maintenance of the Plan; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Administrative Services Agency is hereby authorized to file copies
of these resolutions and other required documents with the President of the State of New York
Civil Service Commission.
211d Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote
HIGHWAY (con't)
Cl Hatfield Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Atty Perkins reviewed the easement forms used by the Highway Dept. He stated the
only thing he thought was deficient was that the Sutton easement did not mention tree removal
and should be included.
R Seeley says that as she reads it, it says the Town has permission to put a vehicle on
the land while they are cutting trees. It doesn't say the landowner gives permission to have the
trees cut or the bank cut.
Page 9 of 14
TB 066 12-02
Atty Perkins said it does. It is a right, privilege and license to use and occupy
temporarily while reshaping steep bank to prevent erosion and increase line of sight. It says
remove trees in area to be reshaped, and then it talks what they're going to do with the
excavated earth, either it will be left there or hauled away at the option of the grantor. He said
the easement is fine.
Supv Varvayanis asked whether cutting trees needed SEQR action and Atty Perkins
said if the trees were within the ditch line it did not require SEQR action.
C1 Grantham said that the tree cutting could be written in and the easement resigned
by the owner, and this is the one where the trees are on top of the bank. J '133ush said it is a
very small bank and they are going to shave off the corner of it so that people can see down the
road further. All work will be done from the road.
Cl Grantham said that the project description done for the Hurd Road work was nicely
done.
The Board reviewed the environmental assessment form for the Hurd Road project.
Answers to the questions were no or none, except C2 which was marked "minimal', because
Supv Varvayanis stated that some residents feel it would change the character.
Cl Grantham asked J Bush if he would be doing erosion control until the reseeding
takes hold and he said he would.
RESOLUTION #157 - NEG
SEAR DEC - HURD
ROAD
PROJECT
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked
for its
adoption: is
RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR
review for the Hurd Road highway project as outa.i.ned in the project description. 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.
2nrl Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote Cl Hatfield Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Robin Seeley said that she had been extremely nervous since she heard about the Hurd
Road project and after seeing the project description said her mind had been eased
tremendously, that she appreciated it and told J Bush that he had done a great job.
R Seeley pointed out to the board that the diagram for road design previously
distributed was for new construction, and said that Mr Harp had made it clear that there were
two separate standards, one for constructing new roads and one for maintaining an old road.
Supv Varvayanis said that they were all aware of that.
TOWN CLERK O
Page 10 of 14
T8 06 -12-02
B Hollenbeck reported that tax collection ended May 31 and distributed to the board a
copy of the final trial balance and the 2002 tax reconciliation. The total adjusted warrant was
$6,061,503.79 and unpaid bills returned to the County totaled $511,981.57. Penalties and 2114
notice fees paid to the Supervisor were $8,841.71.
RESOLUTION 0158 - APPROVE MINUTES
Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the minutes of March 6, 2002 and
March 13, 2002.
2nd Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote Cl Hatfield Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
C1 Grantham Yes
ENGINEERING
No report.
ZONING OFFICER
ZO Slater told the Board ghat the NYS Fire Prevention & Building Code will go into effect
July 3, 2001. Code Enforcement personnel now have to pass a competency test acid be
certified. For the first six months it will be the applicants choice whether they want to conform
to the current code or the new building code standards. On January 1, 2003 only the new
code will be enforced. The new code will probably require some amendment to our local law
that allows enforcement of the code, part of the reason being new features of the code such as
operational permits. These are left to the community as to whether they want to enforce these
matters.
ZO Slater noted that Supv Varvayanis had attended a presentation by the Department
of State relative to the new code.
There have been over 100 building permits issued for the Village and the Town as of
May 31, 2001,
DISCUSSION
Supv Varvayanis noted that he had responded to Darrel Harp that the Town would like
to hire him, but had never given a retainer before. Cl Hatfield said he wasn't: sure the Town
needed to hire him and if you go through the list of seven things Cl Hatfield thinks the town is
already doing those things. C1 Stelick said that the Town won't necessarily use him, but
wanted to retain him for availability if needed. Cl Hatfield said he supposed we could ask his
opinion, but he's not sure it's necessary to spend a lot of money. Supv Varvayanis said
hopefully it wouldn't be a lot of money. J Bush said he didn't see a. need to hire D Harp, that
he costs $200 an hour and he feels that our Town attorney is more than capable of doing the
® job and giving the Town advice on any of those topics. I•Ie thinks it's a waste of money.
Page 1 I of 14
T13 06 -12 -02
Supv Varvayanis said that Matt: Shulman had been thinking of filing a HUD grant
application for the Hanshaw Village Mobile Home Park. The Tompkins County Health Dept has
said that they would like to see municipal water in that park. Cl Hatfield commented that they
needed sewer too and Supv Varvayanis said they are out of the area we are currently allowed to
service for sewer. Matt Shulman has asked if this is something the board would like him to
pursue (for water). Cl Grantham said she thought that perhaps the owner should take care of
the water and funding could be sought to improve the homes in the park. ZO Slater said M
Shulman is looking for direction on what project to work on for next year. Cl Grantham said
he should focus on this community. Atty Perkins said a water district would need to be formed
and so they are really looking for a source to fund the improvements. Work within the park
would be part of the engineering and the question would be who would own the lines. The
CDBG hinds will be used only to bring water to the park. This would be consistent with what
was done in the Cortland Road district. A map, plan and report would have to be prepared
based on the assumption that CDBG Rinds would be secured. D Putnam explained some of
the difficulties and operational issues in providing grater to the area and how they could be
dealt. with. After further discussion, the sense of the board was that Matt Shulman should
pursue this.
The July 3, 2002 meeting is cancelled. The next meeting of the board will be July 10,
2002. Supv Varvayanis will be leaving town on July 11 and be back in time for the next board
meeting (August 7, 2002).
On motion of Cl Grantham, seconded by Cl Stelick and unanimously carried, the board
moved into executive session at 9:1.5 p.m. to discuss litigation (Seeley et al v Bush and
Casalaro v Town of Dryden). No action was taken and the board moved back into regular
session at 9:37 p.m.
The Board reviewed the insurance proposal from George B. Bailey Agency. 0
P Walbridge asked the Board why they were not dropping the suit against D Weinstein
and Supv Varvayanis responded that they had been advised by the Town Attorney that there is
a settlement proposal going to Dirk Galbraith tomorrow morning.
P Walbridge - But have you even approved this countersuit that the Judge indicated
was a separate suit?
Supv Varvayanis - The Board never took action on it.
P
Walbridge -
Why
is the Board willing to keep paying Mahlon money and the attorney
for David
money and
%vhy
not drop it?
Cl Grantham - On advice of our attorney.
P Walbridge - So the majority is just willing to just keep this going.
Cl Hatfield - It's almost to an end.
P Walbridge - I have to admit as a citizen I'm really disappointed that you feel that
somehow you have to have this sort of competitive keep at it with your own citizens. That's
what it looks like to those of us who are over here. I'm not in the executive sessions, but
somehow I gather there aren't three of you up there tonight that are willing to stop this. I find
that deeply disappointing.
D Weinstein -
Even if we got to
exactly the same
place
it's still going to wind up costing
a bunch of money to
have the lawyers
create papers. It
just seems like particularly a big waste
Pale 12 of 14
TB 06 -12 -02
of money for me and a big waste of money for the Town too, when I think we could take care of
® the concerns without a lawsuit going on.
Supv Varvayanis - Can I make a motion to go back into executive session?
Ito ._ :
C1 Grantham - You have to state for what?
year.
Supv Varvayanis - To discuss the litigation against David Weinstein.
Cl Hatfield - Before we go back, let's pass the insurance bill. It's up $10,000 from last
RESOLUTION #159 - ACCEPT QUOTE FROM BAILEY INSURANCE
Cl Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby accepts the quote of $59,558 for insurance
coverages from George B. Bailey Agency.
2nd C1 Stelick
Roll Call Vote Cl Hatfield Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Supv Varvayanis Yes
Cl Grantham Yes
Supv Varvayanis - 1 guess we don't have to go into executive session. David Weinstein
appears to be requesting that we give him the settlement offer directly tonight, rather than
through his attorney tomorrow. Is there a reason we shouldn't do that? Or do you want to talk
about that in executive session?
Atty Perkins - The reason that we shouldn't do that is that he has counsel and it would
be inappropriate and a violation of professional ethics to discuss it with him without his
counsel present.
D Weinstein - I don't have a problem.
Supv Varvayanis -.Even if he requests it? I'll take your...
Atty Perkins - I feel very uncomfortable doing that. I think that's not the preferred way
that you conduct Town business. It's been said already that if he checks with his attorney at
8:00 tomorrow morning that he'll have a document that I think will accomplish what he wants.
D Weinstein - Are you ununlling to tell me what's going to be in this document?
Atty Perkins - I'm addressing the board. I want the record to reflect that I'm not talking
to David, but if he can wait until 8:00 tomorrow morning hell know it's what we talked about:
earlier.
Cl Hatfield - Legally I think we ought to stack with that process. It's been started, we
ought to finish with his legal counsel.
isAtty Perkins - I just don't want to create an ethical dilemma here is all.
Page 13 of 14
TB 06= 124)2
On motion of Cl Hatfield, seconded by Cl Stelick, meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Hollenbeck
Town Clerk
Page 14 of 14
Y
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
8
9
10
11
12
131
141
151
2
Rosenberg
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: We have a
couple people on citizens privilege.
Crown Castle, I believe would%like
to continue the discussion after the hearing
was closed last month.
MS. ROSENBERG: My name is Ruth'
Rosenberg, I represent Crown Castle Atlantic
and Independent Wireless One. I want to give
you a little recapitulation of the timing and
scope of our application.
On November 8th, the year 2001, Crown
Castle and IWO, met with Richard Comi and
Kevin Ezell, pursuant to your Town ordinance
on Telecommunications Towers, to do a site
1611 visit and to have a discussion about what
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
would be required in an application for our
proposed telecommunication facility.
On December 17th we submitted an
application for 120 foot monopole, equipment :
shelters,
cabinets
and
appurtenances on New
York State Electric and Gas Company property
on Route 13. This site will accommodate six
carriers. Which by the way, F might point
out, would include the county if the county
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
141
l�l
3
Rosenberg
has a need to be on a tower. And their
proposed tower I think on Hunt Hill Road is
not forthcoming.
On January, 29th we submitted a
supplement to that application to answer many
of the questions that Mr. Comi raised and to
provide him more information. We had
thereafter multiple conversations with Mr.
Comi, telephone conversations with Ronald
Graiff, our RF engineer, Jacob Warner, IWO
engineer and Ron Brunozzi with respect to the
water tower feasibility on the rear of the
NYSEG property. NYSEG by the way is New York
State Electric and Gas Company, that's the
1611 short version.
171
Usl
191
201
211
221
231
241
25
On March 15th Mr. Comi wrote a letter to
the Town, stated that the Applicants had
complied with the zoning regulations and
recommending that a public hearing be
scheduled.
On May 1st that public hearing was held
before this Board. And the public hearing was
closed by the vote of the board. The board
then set the meeting for tonight presumably
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
Rosenberg
for the decision. And that is why we are here
tonight.
On May 14th, in response to request by
Mr. Michaels, we provided additional copies,
hard copies of the propagation maps which
apparently were confusing as in the overlay
format. And we presented a confirmatory
propagation study confirming Mr. Comi's
analysis that the proposed county site on Hunt
Hill Road would not in fact close the coverage
gap on Route 13 for IWO.
A couple weeks ago I got a letter from
Mr. Slater, enclosing questions from Mr
Michaels, who isn't even here tonight; general
questions. And then enclosed in that letter
was a map, alternate structures, general
overview, IWO map, which was previously
submitted, and a request that we provide
propagation studies, Town location suggestions
using existing NYSEG transmission poles.
Mr. Michaels questions relate to the
subject of microcells primarily. Or the use
Of multiple cells instead of one cell for
coverage. That subject, for those of you here
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
MI
251
A
Rosenberg
before us, remember, was introduced at the
public hearing. Some.members of the Town
Board at that time expressed interest in
conducting a moratorium to investigate that
subject and perhaps modifying the Ordinance
presently in effect.
Mr. Comi, the Town's consultant, pointed
out that no such plan could properly impede
the consideration of Crown Castle and Iwo's
application, which was complete and then
before the Board.
The Applicants submitted proof that no
existing Town tall tower could close the
coverage gap experienced by Zwo. And those
were all shown on the propagation studies.
It's the position of the Applicants now
that the request for additional information
with respect to two particular NYSEG towers
near Mineah Road is untimely because the
public hearing has been closed, barring
additional testimony or evidence.
This process before the Town has now
spread over a period of six months, in fact
over seven months. Requesting new information
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22'
23
24
2 511
Rosenberg
on still new poles now would encourage
N
continuous exploration of new ideas, without
supporting evidence. After a full public
hearing had been conducted, the town's
consultant had satisfied himself that the
requirements of the Ordinance had been met,
that the Ordinance had properly been applied
as to the applications, and an opportunity had
been afforded to all to present testimony at
the public hearing.
The mischief that could occur is
prejudicial to the Applicants and contravenes
the notion of a closed public hearing. An
Article 78 proceeding would properly review
only what was presented at the public
hearing.
Without waiving or modifying that
position, we point out the following with
respect to the two NYSEG poles identified by
the Town in its communication to me the end of
May
1. The two poles are in a residential
district at the top of a hill, approximately
between 1,400 and 1,700 feet from, Mineah
I
9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131
141
151
161
171
:I
1 911
2011
2 ill
2 211
2 311
2 411'
2 511
Road.
VA
Rosenberg
2. A new access.road with several eases
to approach the poles, covering several
rivulets, would have to be constructed, at a
cost of approximately $70,000.
A new power line and telephone line to
approach the poles covering would have to be
constructed to deliver service to iwo,s
facility. we do not know whether a power line
would be permitted by NYSEG to come under
their 115 kv transmission lines, which is the
poles you identified.
Easements and leases would have to be
negotiated and approved by the underlying
landowners affected by the roadway and the new
Power lines, and installation on NYSEG
property as well as from NYSEG.
The power poles identified are not the 30
foot high poles that were described in the
letter of Ron Graiff on microcells that were
submitted to you, but there are 17.5 kv
transmission line poles that are 60 feet
high. These transmission lines are wooden
structures and would not support, it is our
E4
ON
Rosenberg
belief, the equipment that needs antenna
arrays that needs to be put on them.
Moreover, NYSEG would have to service
these. NYSEG would not permit the carrier to
service them. Because they are 115 kv
transmission lines, in order to install or
maintain equipment NYSEG would have to shut
the circuit down and re -route power. That
would require not only be difficult and
expensive but we would have to wait upon
NYSEG's convenience to do that.
In peak periods NYSEG would not be
willing or have the capability to re -route
their power and IWO and other carriers would
1611 have to wait to have maintenance performed.
171
Wool I
191
20
im
221
231
241
2.
This is a very big issue. When carriers have
to provide uninterrupted service, in partic-
ular for 911 calls it would not be worth the
carrier or the community's interest to have
shutdowns For protracted periods when service
was unable to be performed and continuous
coverage provided.
The new access road would be difficult to
keep clear, although it would be available to
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
ON
Rosenberg
belief, the equipment that needs antenna
arrays that needs to be put on them.
Moreover, NYSEG would have to service
these. NYSEG would not permit the carrier to
service them. Because they are 115 kv
transmission lines, in order to install or
maintain equipment NYSEG would have to shut
the circuit down and re -route power. That
would require not only be difficult and
expensive but we would have to wait upon
NYSEG's convenience to do that.
In peak periods NYSEG would not be
willing or have the capability to re -route
their power and IWO and other carriers would
1611 have to wait to have maintenance performed.
171
Wool I
191
20
im
221
231
241
2.
This is a very big issue. When carriers have
to provide uninterrupted service, in partic-
ular for 911 calls it would not be worth the
carrier or the community's interest to have
shutdowns For protracted periods when service
was unable to be performed and continuous
coverage provided.
The new access road would be difficult to
keep clear, although it would be available to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14I
151
E
Rosenberg
snowmobiles, it would be a handy place for
snowmobilers to perform their trips. We could
not secure them, we could not secure
installations in the manner required by
Section 11 of the Ordinance. We could not
fence or close off the poles as your Ordinance
requires.
There is no present method of determining
how expensive the installation would be
because of multiple users, potentially
multiple poles, multiple land owners, whether
NYSEG would even permit the use. There is a
great deal of question whether wooden poles
would support and your engineers tell us
1611 preliminarily they would not support the
17
Fi =l
191
201
211
221
231
Mall
MI
antenna array.
On the other hand, there are at least
three residences along Mineah Road affected by
the new access road and power line. No
certainty that they would be in agreement with
IWO or additional carriers that would have to
use this right -of -way.
Verizon has already committed to filing
an application to locate on the site, on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
10
Rosenberg
NYSEG plant property. Verizon, unlike IWO,
does not have its equipment at the base of
towers and cabinets. Verizon requires 12 x 20
equipment shelter, generator and back -up
fuel. So we're talking about a request to
consider two additional poles, post - public
hearing, with a lot of questions without any
justification for providing those questions at
this late date we argue and contend that the
site in an industrial district, which is the
New York State Electric and Gas Company site,
a public utility use already approved with
many poles and towers, with water towers, the
town's two water towers, and with other public
utility facilities would be the appropriate
site.
A site where each carrier can readily
reach the tower and perform the maintenance
without relying upon maintenance conducted by
NYSEG, without being concerned about being
shut off or being unable to provide services
to its constituents, and to indeed, important
911 calls.
So in conclusion, our position is that
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
. � 13
14
1�
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
Supervisor & Perkins
the hearing was closed on May 1st, and we ask
the Town to please make its decision tonight.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Okay. Well,
Mahlon I certainly agree the hearing was
closed on May 1st, and normally that would
mean they had that period to make their
showing. We asked for more information,
obviously we felt they didn't make a showing.
My feeling is we're bending over back-
wards to help them. Could you -- I mean if
they haven't made the showing on the open
public hearing can they now come back and say,
well, gee whiz, we want more opportunity to
make a showing, yet we don't want to give any
information. Should we just make our decision
on what we have in front of us?
MR. PERKINS: Well, I think if you
take the position the public hearing was
closed then you can make a decision on what
you had before you at the close of the public
hearing.
On the other hand, I think that didn't
they promise to do some other things and
submit them?
L!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
4Va
Comi
MS. ROSENBERG* No, we did not
promise to do some other things and submit
them. We got these questions, and our
position is we rest on our hearing, we rest on
our public hearing.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Okay, that's
fine with me.
MR. RICHARD COMI: The issues I
think Mahlon are talking about, they did
provide the change in the propagation studies
to clear them up and they did complete the
EAF. The information that was presented that
night they did provide that information.
What has since happened was after the
meeting the letter came out from one of your
Board members through Henry that was
additional requests.
sites were asked about
That's where these two
The one on Hunt Hill
they did provide that propagation study and it
demonstrates that cannot be used, we discussed
that. That's the difference mainly.
MR. PERKINS: So they did respond to
the open questions that were left.
MR. COMI: That evening. However,
1
2
KA
0
5
1
7
9
10
11
12
® 13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Comi
one of your Board members did say he had
additional questions and would generate them.
And it's that list of questions that has
generated these two questions concerning two
NYSEG poles. Those questions they're saying
they're not answering.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Mahlon, do
you have the tower Ordinance.
MR. PERKINS: No, I didn't have it
on the agenda.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Can you run
and get a copy?
MS. ROSENBERG: While he's doing
that, I wanted to point out that the
propagation studies that we provided after the
hearing were the same ones that we provided
before the hearing but instead of being
overlays they were hard copies. It wasn't new
testimony. I have a copy of the Ordinance, do
you want to look at mine?
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Okay
(Handed) Actually probably in here too.
Mahlon, can I get your opinion?
MS. ROSENBERG: Excuse me, could you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25�
W
Supervisor
talk out loud so we can hear what you're
asking, for the record.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Section 8, it
says that you will supply an inventory oz all
existing towers within four miles, which you
did not do.
MS. ROSENBERG: No, your consultant
said that given the technology four miles is
too wide an area, IWO technology does not
cover four miles, so we were not required to
do that; Mr. Comi will confirm that. And Mr.
Ezell was there at the time, I believe.
MR. COMi: He's not here now.
MR. PERKINS: I think we should ask
Mr. Comi just in case.
MR. COMI: Basically what I see here
is a question of - one of the board members
has asked to take a look at two other possible
alternatives. We have heard the applicant say
that because they believe the hearing is
closed that they don't have to provide that
information. Okay.
At the very least I would suggest to the
Board that you get on the record that they are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
_. 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 -7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MI
15
Comi
refusing to look at two other palatable
alternatives.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: It's on the
record.
MR. COMI: Number one, I think it's
marginally on the record. I would make it
very clear is what I'm suggesting. Number
two, if they provide all of the other
discussion that was there relevant to cost, as
far as I'm concerned is not applicable.
Because there is in the documentation of your
Ordinance that says alternative sites must be
proven to be commercially impracticable.
Which means that the amount of money they
have to spend on the road or improving the
tower or the site should not be taken into
consideration unless they can prove that the
alternate is commercially impracticable.
If the carrier tonight wanted to come in
and truly talk about these poles, and it's on
NYSEG property and they're dealing with NYSEG
already, in my opinion they simply could have
come in here with something from NYSEG saying
you can't go on my poles. That would have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
%1]I
211
221
231
24L
2 511
16
Comi
ended this entire question of those two
issues.
I don't believe that it's unreasonable
for the Board to ask them to look at only
those two locations. Because your document
also states that you will undertake a review
of an applicant in a timely fashion considered
consistent with the responsibilities, and
act within a reasonable time frame given the
relative complexity.
It's obvious based on the public hearing
last month and the fact that one of the Board
members did mention he had some items and
issues,
that
th_s
is a very complex
issue for
building a new tower. So I don't believe it's
unreasonable to ask that. However, they're
liable to say, we're not going to give you
that. Then you've got a decision to make.
Now I don't know if that answers you're
question at all, but based on the law that's
my menu.
MS. ROSENBERG: In the first place
Mr. Comi has not addressed that. The public
hearing is closed. Mr. Comi, Mr. Slater, and
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 511
17
Rosenberg
your consultant and your zoning attorney had
many months to raise every single pole in the
whole community. This is truly ridiculous.
What we have said tonight is that the hearing
is closed, we have pointed out to you that
these particular poles, if somebody's idea it
was, there is no proof that they would in fact
satisfy the coverage gap.
We have pointed out right off the top all
the problems with using poles which are 115 kv
transmission lines on wooden poles, which will
not support the antenna.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Can you tell
me the difference between this pole on the top
of the hill and the same poles at the bottom
of the hill that you've already included are?
MS. ROSENBERG: I believe that one
was a metal pole. And it was not 115 kv
transmission line, that's my belief. The
other issue, as I explained 'before, is on 115
kv transmission line poles NYSEG would have to
shut down their service, re -route the service
in order to take any kind of maintenance or
installation of our poles.
J
04
2
3
4
r
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Rosenberg
In the event of an emergency we could not
get those things up and running. We have to
wait for NYSEG's willingness to do that.
NYSEG also said that in the peak summer months
we would have to just stand in line and wait.
And we know that because we have a master
lease with NYSEG. And the master lease says
that whenever they have to perform the work on
the pole that you have to wait to when it's
convenient for them.
But with 115 kv transmission line NYSEG
has told us they have to re -route all the
service, they can't go in and act on our poles
without doing that.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: It seems to
me you're providing an awful lot of infor-
mation when you say you don't want to provide
any
MS. ROSENBERG: Let's toss out the
issue of the two poles because they're not
properly before us, and we will rest on our
complete hearing.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Okay, I'll
2511 make a motion.
MJ
=?
W
5
6
7
- 9
10
11
12
to 13
14
1 �i
16
17
18
29
20
21
22
23
24.
25
wotj
Motion
MS. ROSENBERG: Happy to have your
decision tonight, please.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Fine. I'll
make a motion that they didn't comply with
Section 8 of our Ordinance and that we
therefore reject their application.
COUNCILWOMAN GRANTHAM: Second.
SUPERVISOR VARVAYANS: Any
discussion? (None) Call the vote.
POLLING BOARD BY THE CLERK:
Q. Councilperson Hatfield?
A. Yes,
Q. Councilperson Stelick?
A. Yes.
Q. Supervisor Varvayans?
A. Yes.
Q. Councilperson Grantham?
A. Yes.
MS. ROSENBERG: And that is the
complete reason why you're doing this, Section
8?
M
1
2
3
II
5
21
a
J
10
11
12!
131
141
1 5J
161
171
_:I
391
201
211
221
231
2 411
2-511
20
Motion
C E R T I F I C A T E
This is to certify that I am a Certified
Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and
for the State of New York, that I attended and
reported the above entitled proceedings, that
I have compared the foregoing with my original
minutes taken therein and that it is a true
and correct transcript thereof and all of the
proceedings had therein.
Dated: June 17, 2002
4
�.�
hn F. Drury, CSR, RP
Town of Dryden
Town Board Meeting
June 12, 2002
Name - {Please Print)
y4vzn� �r� eo ��
pr/
Address
;I
ydt t,,A- -�. 61) q). c &I . A" 'C'&
X06 S- S %7r ST- a qr N� /3 4L