Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-1301'13 10 -13 -05 TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING October 13, 2005 Present: Supv Stephen 'TrUurnbull, Cl Stephen Stelick, Jr., and Cl Martin Christofferson, Cl Christopher Michaels, Cl Michael I-lattery Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk Other Town Staff: Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney Henry Slater, Zoning Officer Drive Putnam, TG Miller Engineers .Jennifer Dube, Recreation Coordinator Supv Trumbull opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. and led board members and guests in the pledge of allegiance. John Conway, who owns property on which Verizon Wireless has expressed interest in constructing a tower, asked for clarification on the status of their application and explanation of what needs to be done. He understands from their attorney that they need to complete some paperwork to see if a second tower can be constructed because one has already been approved for the NYSEG property just up the road. He asked if they could submit the necessary paperwork and come back to the November meeting for a decision. ZO Slater said they couldn't: possibly do it: at the November meeting because the County has 30 days to complete their 239(1) & (m) review. He explained that Verizon Wireless had submitted an application to construct a telecommunications monopole 120' tower on Mr. Conway's property on August 5, 2005. On August 7 their representative, Bob Burgdorf, called and said don't go forward with the application until he has advised the Town that: his client is ready, and as of today they are still not ready. He said there was a tower approved in July of 2004 that is approximately 1000 feet from the proposed new location. To approve a second tower in close proximity would be contrary to the provisions of our local law governing installation of telecommunication facilities. Applicants are required to demonstrate that it is not feasible to utilize an existing structure with a 2 to 4 mile radius. Verizon's application does not make any attempt to demonstrate that they are unable to use any existing tall structure. He said the issue with Verizon is they want to go on the tower that was approved last year and has not yet been constructed. Atty Perkins said Crown Castle is going to build a tower and Verizon has submitted a lease to Crown. They are working out the details and the question is getting Crown to build the tower in a timely manner. Crown Castle has received a building permit. Atty Perkins said Verizon has no intention of going forward with another tower if they can go on Crown's. He said if Mr. Conway wants to make the application and pay the fees and race the issue of another tower just down the road, he can do ghat, but he should give it some consideration. Mr Conway said he spoke to Mr Burgdorf this afternoon who said he is sitting on the application because he believes the Town will not allow two towers there. Mr Burgdorf indicated to Mr Conway that if he could get approval tonight they would finish the proper paperwork and come to the November meeting ready to proceed. Atty Perkins said that is contrary to the conversation he had with Mr Burgdorf this morning. Mr Conway said there are already towers along Route 13 in .a commercial area; that two towers will not be visible at the same time and the view will not be ruined for anyone. He understands from the attorney for Page I of 18 1'13 10-13-05 Verizon that they are ready to proceed, and he will cont:ant their tomorrow. ZO Slater said it ® would not be possible to consider the application at the board's November meeting because he would not have time to review the application, have it: reviewed by the consultant, and meet publication deadlines. The permit issued to Crown Castle for their tower expires June 6, 2006. Cl Christofferson said it sounds like Verizon is holding Mr Conway in limbo and using him to try and get things done, and they are trying to find the easiest sway to move forward. I•le encouraged him to be careful and let Veri7on drive the matter. Mr Conway asked if would be able to apply for a permit after Crown's current building permit expires on June 6, 2006 and Atty Perkins said Crown could file for an extension and the Town would have no recourse but to grant it, particularly if they had commenced construction. Any change in the policy would have to come from the Town board. Mr Conway will look into the situation further, Supv Trumbull said the decision on the Rushlow d /b /a Autoworks matter will be postponed until the October 27 meeting. Atty Perkins noted the board has until November 16 to make a decision. Kim Gazzo, Town Historian, said she has been approached by some Caroline/ Brookton -dale folks about getting a historical marker at the Bethel Grove School, which is in the Town of Dryden. They would like her to apply for a celebrations grant (which has been used before for historical markers) and with that grant they will purchase the marker and have a celebration with refreshments. The Town needs to authorize her to apply for the grant. RESOLUTION # 138 - AUTHORIZE CELEBRATIONS GRANT APPLICATION Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the 'IIown Supervisor to review and sign a celebrations grant application prepared by the Town Historian for a historical marker and celebration for the Bethel Grove School. 2nd Cl Hattery Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes C1 1•lattery Yes K Gazzo said she will return to the board in January with a report of her activities for the 2005 year. Robin Seeley, 332 Hurd Road, thanked the board for taking the time they have to consider the comprehensive plan. She can think of a few instances where the seizure of private property by eminent domain might be justified, but the seizure of one citizen's property so that other citizens can have recreation on it is not: what she would consider a justified use for eminent domain. She said she would like to see the board put something in writing that says they won't take ]and by erninent domain for recreation purposes or to not: adopt that part of the plan. Zorika Henderson said private property is a fundamental right in a democracy and she thinks the trails plan is radical and fairly disrespectful to property owners. Page 2 of 18 T13 10 -13 -05 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT & DPW No report.. COUNTY BRIEFING Mike Lane said the County Legislature last night, after seven long meetings, adopted what: will probably become their proposed tentative budget. It will go to their regular board meeting for any possible changes and then to public hearing on November 9. He said the budget has met the goal set by them of a 0% increase on the tax levy. They did provide for one new sheriffs deputy. He provided the board with a chart of tax levies in other counties and said that Tompkins County is about average in comparison. He said the sales tax has been up in Tompkins County and the problem for `Downs is that the split is now different because more of the retail is focused in the City of Ithaca. Prior to that most of the major retail was in the Pyramid Mall, Lansing area. More of the sales tax now goes to the city. One half of the sales tax collected in the City goes to the City and the other half goes to the County. Outside the City, half goes to the County and half is divided among the towns and villages. M Lane said this afternoon he joined Barbara Lifton in announcing the availability of state funding in the amount of $50,000 going to the Dryden and Freeville fire companies for special emergency equipment. This fund will allow them purchase things such as i_magi.ng cameras, generators, needed gas meters, and other personal safety equipment. He said he was pleased to help direct the funding toward these fire companies. 40 Martha Robertson noted the item on the Town's agenda for approving changes to the by -laws of the Recreation Partnership and said that is basically to make it easier for the partnership to reach a quorum and do business. M Robertson said she had written to NYS Department: of Transportation asking for a reduction in the speed limit on a portion of Slaterville Road in tho Town of Dryden. She has received notification that this request was granted, and she expects the signs to be installed in the near future. With respect to developing park and ride lots in Tompkins County, the Transportation Council has conducted a survey of its staff and faculty to determine commuter patterns and needs for park and ride lots. There are three areas that seemed to have the most traffic and might be conducive to a park and ride lot: Pyramid mall (where there is an existing park and ride lot), coming from the Cortland /Dryden area, and coming from the Caroline area (Route 79). She said it seems there is enough potential interest to warrant looking at the matter more closely. They will now survey downtown business employers and employees. M Robertson said she hopes there is enough interest in having a park and ride lot in the NYSE C, area and that perhaps a couple of businesses could co- locate. The survey indicated that people would like a grocery or convenient store near any park and ride lot. She said current gas prices would make these park and ride lots more attractive. The full report is on the Transportation Council website. Cl Stelick asked M Robertson whether funding was restored for the Recreation Partnership and she said funding was restored to bring the County back to full partnership, Page 3of18 '113 10-13-05 ENGINEERING Dave Putnam reported that there were bids for the Royal Road Water and Sewer District that were well under budget and he recommends the contract be awarded to RMS Gravel, a local company. RESOLUTION #139 - AWARD CONTRACT TO RMS GRAVEL Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden has received and opened eight (8) bids from contractors for necessary work in the Royal Road Water and Sewer District, and WHEREAS, the lows bid meeting requirements was submitted by RMS Gravel of Dryden, New York, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby awards the contract for work to be performed in the Royal Road Water and Sewer District to RMS Gravel, of Dryden, New York. 2,,,' Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes D Putnam provided the Supervisor writh a proposal for a map, plan and report for the Ellis Hollow Road water extension for review by the board. He also provided a report on updating the Pinckney Road Water and Sewer District map, plan and report. If the boundaries of the district do not change TG Miller can complete the report with the funds previously authorized. RESOLUTION #140 - COMPLETE MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR PINCKNEY ROAD WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Cl liattery offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors to update and complete the map, plan and report for the Pinckney Road Water and Sewer District, the cost of which will not exceed the funds previously authorized. 2nd Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes Supv Trumbull noted that the Freeville Fire Department received $15,000 of the $50,000 grant Mike Lane spoke about, and they have consequently lowered their budget Page 4 o l' 18 TB 10 -13 -05 request to the Town this year by $10,000. Cl Christofferson said the Town and the Fire is Departments have come a long way working together- the last few years and thanked the board members who have been working with the departments. RECREATION DEPARTMENT J Dube said she would like to bring the Intergenerational Bancl and Chorus in as a Town- sponsored program. This will assist diem in applying for grant monies, bring them under the Town's insurance, and will not affect the Recreation budget. They will do programs during the summer, including a concert in Dryden and one in Groton. There are currently 39 people in the program, representing 9 different communities. RESOLUTION #141 - INCORPORATE THE INTERGENERATIONAL BAND & CHORUS AS A TOWN - SPONSORED PROGRAM Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the Intergenerational Band and Chorus is now run by complete volunteers and donated funds; and WHEREAS, this program fits in to the overall goal of the Recreation Department to include non - traditional programs, and WHEREAS, the program has been a favorite among community members from all parts of the Town of Dryden, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Intergenerational Band and Chorus shall become a. program offered by the Dryden Recreation Department as a program to be offered beginning in January of 2006, and it will not change the budget requests for 2006. 2nd Supv Trumbull Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michacis Yes CI Hattery Yes J Dube explained that she needed authorization for the Supervisor to sign the contract documents to obtain the grant funds for the Kenny Van Sickle ball field on Wall Street. RESOLUTION #142 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR KENNY VANSICKLE MEMORIAL FIELD WHEREAS, a grant was received by the Town of Dryden to build Kenny VanSickle Memorial Field; and WHEREAS, the contract needs to be signed by someone in an authoritative position; and WHEREAS, five (S) originals must be sent to Fingerlakes State Park Region office to receive the grant money; Pape .5 of 18 is 113 10 -1 3 -O5 NOW, 'i'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to said contract documents to further the process. 2tt" Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote C1 Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Ci Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes J Dube reported they held a Skate Day {t: Montgomery Park last Saturday, attended by about: 25 children and parentis. There were refreshments and skaters tried out equipment. There area large number of residents interested in having a skateboard park in the Town. 1.18 children attended the last: band showcase held at the fire hall. J Dube is working on moving basketball goals to the Ellis Hollow and Varna Community Centers, and is planning to hold some programs at those centers in 2006. Cl Stelick noted there is $25,000 in the 2006 budget for work on the community centers (separate from recreation program money). ATTORNEY Atty Perkins said now that the contract has been awarded to RMS Gravel, the Supervisor needs to be authorized to sign the contract once the bidder has furnished all the required bonds, insurance, and other information that is required in the contract documents. This will save having to wait until the next town board meeting because of the time of year, etc. RESOLUTION # 143 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ROYAL ROAD WATER & SEWER DISTRICT Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign the contract with the apparent low bidder for necessary construction in the Royal Road Water & Sewer District, upon bidder furnishing required bond, etc. 211d Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes With respect to the construction of the highway garage addition, Atty Perkins said the low bidder was Conway Construction of Ithaca, Inc. and there was a problem because Mr Conway didn't have access to payment bonds or performance bonds as he said he would when he made the bond. He proposed to furnish a letter of credit in the contract amount to cover that requirement, Atty Perkins said the problem is it's a nightmare to have a letter of credit secure a performance obligation, and you get into all kinds of issues about timeliness, etc., whereas if you have a bonding company you actually have someone who is required to perform by contract. Atty Perkins suggested to Mr Conway after talking to Supv Trumbull that the Town Page 6 of 18 TB 10 -13305 really couldn't agree to that and the Town really had to have the payment bonds and performance bonds, which were part: of the bid documents and requirements. Mr Conway is in the process of applying for and getting those documents. Because the Town wants to move the project along, Mr Conway suggested that he would go ahead and also give a letter of credit to secure his obligation. They have come up with an addendum to the agreement that says that anything else to the contrary in the contract, Mr Conway is not entitled to any payment until such time as he has furnished the payment bonds and performance bonds, or the work is complete and he furnishes a letter of credit in the full amount of the contract to cover the payment bond part of it. Atty Perkins recommends that addendum to the board. Cl Michaels noted that he would abstain from voting as his firm has represented Conway in other matters. RESOLUTION # 144 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AND ADDENDUM WITH CONWAY CONSTRUCTION OF ITHACA, INC. Supv Trumbull offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is authorized, to execute on behalf of the ToN?vm of Dryden, the Contract for General Construction with Conway Construction of Ithaca, Inc. for the highway garage addition, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute, on behalf of the Town of Dryden, Addendum No. 1 to the Contract for General Construction with Conway Construction of Ithaca, Inc. 2«d Cl Christofferson Roll Call Vote Cl Cl SL Cl Cl Stelick Yes Christofferson Yes ipv Trumbull Yes Michaels Abstain H a ttery Yes Atty Perkins said the Supervisor has advised him ghat the Town has reached an agreement with the Etna Volunteer fire Department. When the Supervisor was previously authorized to sign the fire contracts, Etna was not included, so the Board needs to pass a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to sign the contract in the amount of $105,660 (for 2005). The other contract amounts were paid in increments. Cl Christofferson asked if the Town was paying expenses only, or whether money was going into the reserve funds also. Cl Stelick said the payment was for both, and reserve funds for 2006 are presently being discussed in negotiations for next year. 'There were no performance clauses in the contracts in previous ,years and Cl Stelick said that after talking with all the departments, the feeling is that: we take care of 2005 and proceed with 2006. The mutual aid between departments is working. Cl Michaels said the people he met in Etna are very dedicated and spend a substantial amount in the department when they are not at their full time jobs. i•lis concern is the reserve portion of the contract and he would like to have a positive discussion with them about the future of the department. $35,000 of the contract is targeted for reserves, lower than their original request. Cl Stelick and Supv Trumbull will be meeting with Etna to discuss a long- term solution. There was some discussion about: removing the reserve funds, but: it was decided to leave it in. Should Etna cease to exist as a department, its reserves would likely be divided among the other departments. Cl Stelick noted that good things are happening in Etna and there are currently five people enrolled in the EMT progrc n. Page7o1'18 TB 10 -13-05 RESOLUTION # 145 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT is WITH ETNA FIRE DEPARTMENT Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign the contract with the Etrna Fire Department for 2005 in the amount of $105,660. 2nd Cl Christofferson Roll Cal Vote Cl C1 SL Cl C1 Stelick Yes Christofferson Yes ipv Trumbull Yes Michaels Yes Hattery Yes Atly Perkins explained that in 199' and in 1998 the Town was the recipient of two $400,000 Small Cities Development Block Grants which were administered for improving housing stock in the Town of Dryden. Different recipients of those funds signed different kinds of agreements. Some of them were diminishing loan agreements and some were mortgages that call for repayment. All of them contain a provision that if you don't live on the premises or you sell the property within ten years you must payback the remaining portion. At different times over the years the Town has been faced with someone who wants to sell their property, and the position to date has been that the remaining amount due should be paid to the Town. His recommendation has been that it is free money to the recipient, it is taxpayer money, and the money that is repaid goes back into the program. Elizabeth North is now ready to sell her ® property and only has a few months left on the loan. It could be 1 to 4 payments, and she wants the Town to forgive the balance that is owed. Atty Perkins said in 1995 or 1996 she received $24,062, and has not been required to make any monthly payments, and by his calculations $205.02 a month has been forgiven for each month she has lived on the premises. She is now selling her property and would like the Town to waive any amount still owed. Atty Perkins said it may be an unconstitutional gift of public funds to her, and if the Town starts making exceptions the Board will forever be making judgment calls about; where you draw the line. He recommends (and the Board agrees) that the Board should not forgive the amount due, and make a determination about when the amount: would be forgiven, noting that if she closed in early November, she would be looking at two months of repayment. If she waits to close until the 10 years is up Ion December 26) there will no money due. The board took no action. ZONING OFFICER ZO Slater said that Kris Strickland, who works for the Zoning Office and is a Deputy Town Clerk, has become very efficient and effective in her work. He has found it very useful if Kris can give minor information to people over the phone, allowing the Zoning Officers to tend to other matters. He feels if she is giving code interpretation and advice, she needs to be certified to do that, and she has expressed an interest in becoming code certified. This would make her a valuable addition to staff' in that respect, and the cost to the Town would be about: $125.00. She will attend daytime classes in Montour Falls for a total of 124 hours. He will have to budget additional wages in the future because completion of the course should entitle her to a raise in salary. He is asking that the board authorize him to allow her to become NYS Code Certified in the beginning of 2006. The board agrees this is a good way to proceed. ® ZO Slater said on Monday he spent half a day with the US Army Corps of Engineers on the potential site of the new Town Hall. They tentatively came to an agreement that the, Town would be able to utilize the site. They will need to see a footprint of the building and how it is Page 8 of 18 "rB 10 -13 -05 placed on the propert y. LO Slater has also been to NYS DOT about the location of the road cut, 46 and he has a tentative agreement with them that if we provide more than one means of access to the town hall, that we can leave the road cut: pretty much where it is right now. He has discussed this with Pam Kingsbury of Egner Architechts, and expects that next month he will be asking for authority to move forward with wetland engineering. Atty Perkins said we have not closed on the property yet, but: ran move forward at any time. They expect to be able break ground in the Spring. ZO Slater said the Army Corps agrees that the area is a marginal wetland, but nevertheless has wetland soil and vegetation. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Supv Trumbull said the Town has hired Daniel Kwasnowski to fill the position of environmental planner. RESOLUTION # 146 - APPOINT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Supv Trumbull offered t]te following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, the interview committee interviewed qualified candidates for the posted and advertised full tirr►e position of Environmental Planner; and WHEREAS, an acceptable and qualified candidate was located, and said candidate, Daniel J. Kwasnowski, is proposed to be provisionally hired to fulfill such job requirements: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ® RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby provisionally appoints, in accordance with applicable Civil Service laws, rules and regulations, Daniel J. Kwasnowski to the position of Environmental Planner, at a salary of $45,000, with such employment to commence on October 17, 2005. 2nd Cl Hattery Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes C1 Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes C1 Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes TOWN CLERK B Hollenbeck asked the board to approve the minutes of September 15, 2045. RESOLUTION #147 - APPROVE MINUTES Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the minutes of the Town Board meeting of September 15, 2005. 21111 Supv Trumbull IS Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Pane 9 of' 18 0113 I0 -13 -05 Cl Michaels Yes ® Cl Hatter, Ycs B Hollenbeck said there will be changes in dog licensing in New York State beginning in January 2006. Owners will have the option of renewing their license for a three-year period, but in no event will the license be valid longer than the rabies vaccination is valid. 'this will present some problems for owners during the first year or so, and so owners may end up purchasing two licenses in the first year. The state is also instituting a new licensing system via a websites. DISCUSSION Supv Trumbull explained that Cornell's Transportation Resource Committee that he has recently become involved in needs a resolution rcc;ognizing the Town of Ithaca as lead agency and the Town of Dryden as an involved agency. RESOLUTION #148 - CONCURRENCE WITH DESIGNATION OF TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE REVIEW OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION- FOCUSED GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (T -GEIS) AND TEN -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGY Supv Trumbull offered the following resolution and :asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, Cornell University has submitted a report outlining a proposal for a "transportation - focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) and Ten -year Transportation impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) ", dated August 26, 2005, being undertaken by Cornell University in cooperation with the Town of Ithaca. The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TiMS will evolve in response to the feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include recornmendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Cornell University, Applicant; Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge (Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP); Martin, Alexiou, Bryson (Transportation Consultants); and WHEREAS, the proposed transportation- focused GEIS would be a generic environmental impact statement that will identify, examine and evaluate Cornell's transportation - related impacts and potential mitigations for possible projects, plus hypothetical growth scenarios, over the next decade. The GEiS is a tool available under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, commonly referred to as SEQR. Unlike an Environmental Impact Statement, a GEIS is flexible enough to explore hypothetical or alternative scenarios; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca is the logical municipality to serve as lead agency in the t -GEIS initiative. its boundaries encircle the City of Ithaca and abut most of the county's other municipalities. On an average workday, 80 percent of Cornell employees travel through the Town of Ithaca on their daily comrnute. The town has a key role in the county's overall transportation system, and is in tho process of completing its own transportation plan; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopted a resolution on September 6, 2005 proposing to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed transportation- focused GEIS and Ten -year transportation impact Mitigation ® Strategy, as described above; and Page 10 of 18 41713 10 -13 -05 WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden is an involved agency in this process; and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is requesting the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby finds that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board would be the most appropriate agency to serve as lead agency to coordinate the review of the t. GELS because, among other reasons, the TiMS involves a planning process to identify alternate growth scenarios and alternate strategies to mitigate impacts of those scenarios, the Planning Board has experience in coordinating cu-id reviewing other environmental impact statements (including the Cornell Precinct 7 GEIS), and the Planning Board is familiar with and deals on an ongoing basis with the review of Cornell University projects relating to transportation, parking, access and circulation issues; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden is an involved agency in coordinated review of the proposed transportation - focused GEIS and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy, as described above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby concurs with the designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency to coordinate the review of the proposed transportation - focused GEiS and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy, as described above. 2nd Cl Christofferson Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes C1 Hattery Yes The Town has received a copy of proposed changes in the by -laws of the Recreation Partnership for review and approval. CI Stelick explained this change affects the quorum necessary for the Partnership to conduct business and is being made because previously it was difficult to attain a quorum. He is in favor of the change. RESOLUTION #149 - RATIFY CHANGES IN RECREATION PARTNERSHIP BY -LAWS Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby ratifies and approves the changes proposed in the by-laws of the Recreation Partnership, as approved by the Recreation Partnership Board on September 17, 2005. 2nd C1 Michaels Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes Page I I of 18 Attv Perkins owner of the Ithaca improvements, etc. cost tinalvsis study explained that tf Area Wastewater Sterns 8, Wheler of those repairs. Ti3 10 -13 -05 is Town, with the Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca, part Treatment Plant. There is a five -year plan for repairs, has given an estimate of $72, 240 (not. to exceed) to do a The Town of Dryden Is share would be 2 %. RESOLUTION #ISO - APPROVE COST ANALYSIS STUDY BY STERNS & WHELER FOR ITHACA AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Cl Michaels offered the following resolution and asked for its .udoption: WHEREAS, the Special Joint Sewer Committee (SJC) has requested that a detailed cost analysis study be performed for the previously approved Wastewater Treatment Plant projects that constitute the five -year Project Plan, and W14EREAS, Stearns & Wheler, environmental consultants, have submitted a proposal to prepare a cost analysis study report of said projects, including reports on digester floating cover problems, administrative space, additives, UV disinfection, concrete plant repairs, septage and leachate facility improvements, deck water proofing and skylight leak repairs, and WHEREAS, the cost to complete said study has been estimated at $72,240, now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves a cost analysis study report of said projects, the scope of which is outlined in the proposal from Stearns & Wheler, environmental consultants, for a cost not to exceed $72,240, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is authorized to sign the letter agreement with Stearns & Wheler dated September 7, 2005, and be it: further RESOLVED, that: this approval is contingent: upon approval of the letter agreement by the other owners of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town's share of such cost shall not exceed the Town's percentage ownership interest in the IAWWTP. 2nd Supv Trumbull Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes With respect to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Cl Hattery distributed copies of a proposed resolution that would make a modification to the Comprehensive flan, basically a limitation of the bicycle and pedestrian paths as they were originally includes! in the draft plan. The board reviewed the proposed resolution. Cl Hattery said this revision would pare the proposed bicycle/ pedestrian paths portion back to a network being comprised of the trail between Dryden Lake and the East Hill Recreation Way, D Weinstein said that would reflect the general consensus of the Planning Board with respect: to the Ellis Hollow path, which was to be left very vague and left for future study. Zorika Henderson asked what the practical interpretation of that would be. The fact that it is still there basically means the plan is adopted like that. She said the trails plan Paae 12 of 18 1*13 10-13w05 essentially establishes two classes of town residents. Most people would continue to have frill property rights while a minority would lose theirs. She said this is not a good recipe for community harmony. Cl Michaels said we've had lots of public commentary and proposal is for reducing it, making it ambiguous, and expresses a desire in the Town to connect with other recreation sources. He doesn't see this as setting a precedent for a taking, and as a practical matter the barriers of that are very extensive. The board reviewed the full environmental assessment form and passed the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 151 - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN CONNECTION WITH ADOPTION OF TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Councilperson Michaels offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action is the adoption by t:he Town Board of the Town of Dryden of a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Dryden. The proposed Comprehensive Plan sets forth specific goals for the Town to pursue, including but not limited to: 1) protecting the quality of life; 2) providing opportunities for residents to improve their quality of life; 3) protecting the unique natural assets of the community; 4) making optimum use of public investments in infrastructure; 5) minimizing the cost; of government; and 6) encouraging inter - municipal cooperation in land use policies and provision of public services. The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends actions that would: 1) encourage higher density residential development in and around existing villages and hamlets; 2) encourage a wide variety of housing types to meet the needs of residents; 3) limit future commercial development to neighborhood and community scale retail enterprises and direct future commercial development into existing nodes including villages and hamlets; 4) provide expanded opportunity for the development of light industry, research and office enterprises; and 5) direct major development away from important agricultural lands as well as environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, riparian corridors, groundwater resources, County Unique Natural Areas and private nature preserves. The proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for limited expansions of municipal water and sever infrastructure in a manner that encourages higher density development in and around the existing villages and hamlets. it also proposes a limited number of road improvements. The Plan recommends the development of a network of neighborhood and community parks to serve existing and future neighborhoods, a system of bicycle and pedestrian paths and footpaths to connect neighborhoods and communities in the Town and partnerships with community associations. The adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan was recommended by the Town of Dryden Planning Board. a. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town B. oard of the 'Town of Dryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with its approval. Pate 13 of I R 1*13 10 -13 -05 C. On September 15, 2005, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( "SEQR "), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (the "Full EAF "), Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect: to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant: adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c), and (iii) completed the Full EAF, Part: 2; D. Based on the information and analysis above, any potentially large impact identified in the EAF is not considered significant in connection with the proposed action since such impact will be the subject. of its own complete environmental review during the subsequent application and /or approval processes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOhVED AS FOLLOWS: I. The Town Board of the Town of Dr den, based upon (i) its thorough review of the Full EAF, Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant: adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c), and (iiii) its completion of the Full EAF, Part 2, including the findings noted thereon (which findings are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance ("Negative Declaration ") in accordance Mth SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. 2. The responsible officer of the Town Beard of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the Full EAF Determination of Significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Full EAF shall be attached to and made part of this Resolution. 2^O Cl Hattery Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes Cl Hattery Yes Cl Hattery explained for the audience that the proposed resolution includes a history of the development of the comprehensive plan, including the master plan that was first enacted in 1968 and goes through the sequence of hearings that were held on the plan. It reviews the surveys that. were previously done and the reviews and comments received from agencies and individuals. He read the balance of the resolution for the public and explained the substance of the revisions is to reduce the bicycle/ pedestrian paths to the trail between Dryden Lake and the East Hill Recreation Way as a formal part of the bicycle/ pedestrian path plan. Cl Stelick asked how many miles of trails would now be included and George Frantz said it was around 13.8 miles. G Frantz noted that some of those removed are those that Page 14 of 18 TB 10 -13 -05 would have been included as part of new developments or subdivisions. Cl Hattery said those is would not be precluded from happening, but would not be part of the official plan. The board is encouraging a five- v(-,ar process for updating the plan and those could be added back in the future. Cl Stelick said it: is important to remember that it is not a comprehensive plan that enacts law; it is elected officials, and no matter what is put in the comprehensive plan, unless it is voted in to law by the elected officials, these items are all wish lists. I•Ie is very concerned about private citizens' private property and the use of eminent domain. it is elected officials that change laws and it. is very important for citizens to become involved, and they need to know a candidate's stance on eminent domain. He said he is not in favor of using eminent domain unless there is an extreme reason and he doesn't see any current or future need for that in the Town of Dryden. Cl Stelick said he is very comfortable with the changes proposed for the trails portion of the plan. He is confident that the current board and future boards will listen to the constituents of the Town of Dryden. Cl Hattery said a lot of people have labored a long time on this and he appreciates the work of the Planning Board and everyone else who has worked on the plan. The test is whether we start to do some implementation of things in the plan. He said it. is clear that this board has expressed no intention to use eminent domain for recreational purposes, and people will see that as we roll out the next phase of the Jim Schug trail. Supv Trumbull said the last comprehensive plan was never officially adopted. Dave Weinstein of the Planning Board said they feel very strongly that this plan lays out the formula for the town and takes into consideration where the vast majority of people in this town want the town to go, which involves maintaining the character of this town that causes everyone to keep wanting to live here. He said it wasn't easy to come up witli a formula that they thought would move that forward, but they think they've got one. The next step is to start thinking about how to reorient the zoning laws to take into consideration the things that the plan dictates, and start thinking about cluster development. The tools need to be put on the table so we can keep the town in its rural character, the character of a lot of open space and a good living environment for the people that want it to stay that way. George Frantz said as a point of information, the reason the trails network was in the plan and on the map was to give the planning board the leverage they need to get rights of way dedicated by possible future developers. By taking the paths off the map and out the plan, they are taking away the leverage that the planning board could have in the future to have those rights of way dedicated to the town. Atty Perkins said that could be addressed in the subdivision regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 152 (2005) - APPROVING TOWN OF DRYDEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DATED MARCH 31, 2005 Cl Hattery offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, Town 1,aw 272 -a contains the legislative authority and procedure for the development of a town comprehensive plan, and Wi•IEREAS, the Town of Dryden enacted a Master Plan in 1968, prior to adopting the Town's first zoning ordinance, and vac 15 01,18 19B 10 -1 .3-05 WHEREAS, opinion surveys of town residents have been conducted in the intervening Is years including 1990 and .1.999, which survey results were distributed to and reviewed by the planning board and town board, and WHEREAS, in 2001 the Town contracted with George R_ Frantz and Associates to review the existing master plan and assist in the development of a town comprehensive plan pursuant to Town Law 272 -a, and WHEREAS, in December, 2001 George R_ Franiz presented a "state of the town' report, and HLRL;A , by res'ol'ution thQ Town 13oard directed the planning board, in concert with George R. FYmitz and Associates, to prepare a proposed town rornprehensive plan, and HERFA , the planning board held three information sessions in various parts of the town in order to solicit resideni's comrncnts, developrn[,nt of the comprehensive plan, and suggestions and concerns in connection the WHEREAS, ox required by Town Law 272- a(6)(b) the planning board held a public hearing on a draft comprehensive plan on Vebruary 17, 2005, and WHEREAS, thereafter on May 19, 2005 thc; planning board formally rocorrmmended a proposed comprehensive plan In fhce town board, and WHEREAS, a draft Nall Environmental Assessmeni. Form and a copy of the draft Comprehensi e Plan dated March 31, 2005 were submitted to the Tompkins otznty Departmc.,nt of Planning for review and comment pursuant to Gerieral Municipal Law 239 -1 and 239 -m, and WHEREAS, by letter of June 3D, 2005 the Tompkins County ]department of Planning made certain recommendations regarding matters which the Department of Planning felt could have negative inter - community or county -wide irnpaci's, and WHERLAS, as required by Town Law 272 - a(6)(b), on July 14, 2005 the Town Board heId a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan dated March 31, 2 00 5, after having first given the notice required by law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has thoroughly reviewed and thoughtfully considered commenGS made by the public, the Tompkins County Department of Planning and written comments received frorn Deborah Gross, Town of Dryden Ens =ironmenfal Planner, JBarbara H. Caldwell, chair of the Town of Dryden Planning Board, orika. Henderson of 7 Sunny Knoll, George R. Frantz, Town of Dryden consultant to the planning board and to}{?n board, and H2RZA S, there appears to be sornfa public misundersta-liding or objection to chat part of the proposed Comprehensive Flan ufhich proposes the concept of bicycle and pedestrian patlis over or near privaile property, which proposal requires further study, review and comment, tend WHEREAS, except for the: above noted abjection there appears to be ovc�ra.11 strong puExlic support in favor of approving the proposed Corn prehen sive Plan dated March 31, 2005, and WHEREAS, the Town Board, der c2orropleting the environmental review mandated by Article 8 of the Ncw York Environmen. al Conservation Law — the State Environmental Quality Review Act °'SEAR,' adopted a resolution maki, -ig a negative determination of environmental Page J6 of is TB I0- I3 -OS significance ('Fegative Declaration') and determined that an EDVIrojimentai Impact fat:emenC would not be required, NOW, THERFFORF, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS- 1. The Town Board of the 'Town of DrydCn hereby adopts the proposed Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan dated +larch 31, 2005, except for those provisions in the chapter labeled "Transportation' under the subsection labeled "Bic f Pedestrian Paths,,' which subsection is hereby revised to read as follows follov4ing the first paragraph= "This plan myisiUnS a bicyc1c.r'pedestrian systeni, (Map 5 -2) The network would he comprised of the trail hcLween Dry&a Lake and the last ILhaca Recreation Way development of which the Town has already CrTtharked to ensure that on. Other linkages iri [he proposed network could include (if furihcr study deiennines that such a path can be constructed withuui adverse environineneal impacts) a link Lhrough Ellis FOIIoW From the vicinity of the Genuri,g Read and Ellis Hollow Community Center woe sward to connect to Lhe Ijryclen Lake- Ithaca spine in Lhe vicinity of Stevenson Road. (approx. 1.8 miles) AILhough it is represented ors Map 5 -2, no fi nal do termination as to its desirability or specific route Yllr a p;adi in El I i s Hollow has been identiFed_ Any prospective route fur sIlcn u path muss he careful Iy analyzed to ensure that wetlands fir other envirotamentally wnsitive areas are not adverseiv impacted during or after constriction_ The Town should work closoly with local rc idents and the Ellis Hollow CominLirriry +association to make a Final determination as w 1) the Peasibilicv of such a path, and 2) an appropriate aliOnment and 2P dcsiern ivr Ilie path. Other rnunic`tpalities that have &vL oped such bicyclelpedesirian path systems have found that they can provide an sittractive tfansportatiM alternative to thu autarnabile, and an attractive aincnity to residents of both exMinu and fissure neighborhoods in Llac. town, Locally in the Town of Ithaca f7te East Ithaca Recreation Wray and the So uLli H i I I Recreation Way have proven 10 be eery popular lar bath cornmu1cr and recreational purposes i'nr residents of adjoining neigliborltoodl . Because of its success a t _3 -mile extension of the East ldiaca Recreation Way that will Connect the EasLLrn Heights neighborhood off Snyder Hilf Road is scltedulecl for Coneiruction in 2002_" 2, The Comprehensive Plan as revised and hereby adopted shall be filed in tfie office of the town clerk, . A copy of the Comprehensive Plan as revised and Hereby adopi :cd and a rrrtified copy of this resolution shall be filed in the office of the Torn p1dns County Departrnvnt of Planning, .o ;i Cl Michaels Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes upv Trumbull Yes C1 Michaels Yes Cl Hattcry yes Pane 17 of 18 TB 10- 13-05 RESOLUTION #153 - APPROVE ABSTRACT #10 Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract #10, as audited, vouchers #737 through #807, totaling $259,339.36. 2n,1 Cl Christofferson Roll Call Vote Cl St:elick Yes Cl Christofferson Yes Supv Trumbull Yes Cl Michaels Yes C1 Hattery Yes On motion duly made, seconded and unrutimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi 1,.. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 18 of 18 { +y /r Appendix A IJ /7a2 State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: Mite full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencles determine, in en orderly manner, whethar a project or action may be significant, The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer_ Frequandy, there are aspects of a project that are subjective ar unmeasurable. Jt is also undanytood that those who datarmina significance may have little or rnp formal knowledge of the anvfronment pr may not be technically expert in environmental analysis_ In addition, many who have knowledge In ona particular Brea may not ba aware of the broader cancer ms affecting the question of significance, The #u11 C=AF N intended to pravido a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the d$ termination process has bleert orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to Alow fntroduotion of information to fit a prajeat Or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is rompHsad of three parts, Part I: Provides ab�eerive data and information about a given project and itssite. By identifying basic project date, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes pfarre in Parts 2 and 3, Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of pcssibla impacts that may occur from a projector action. It provides guidance as to whathar an impact is likely to bra considared srnali to moderate or whether it is a potentially -large impact. The form also identifies whethw an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Dart 3; If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potvn6allydarQe, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually Important, THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portlone of EAF ci3mplatad far this.pralact: 1E Part 1 I_'...3 Part 2 El Part 3 Upon review of the inform#rtlOn recorded on this FAF (Parts 1 and 2 end 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting inforrnatlon, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each Impact, ix is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project wIli not result in any large and important fmpacSlsl and, therefore, is one which will not have a slgrrffCcant impact on the environrnentr therefore a negative declaration will he prepared, 6_ Although the project could have a signlfir~ant effect on the envfronrnant, there will not be a sfgniffeant affect for this Uniisted Action becausa the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a GONDITIQNED negatlue declaration will be prepared_* ElC. The praiect may result in one or mire large and irrmpartant impacts that may have a si jnifioant impact on the envfronr kent, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared, "A Conditioned NagatIve Declaration is only valid for Unlfstad Aotlons Adoption OF new Comprchonsive Plan Name of Aotion . Town of Dryden Town Board Name of (,gad Agency Steven Trumbull Print or Type Name of Respoilsible Officer +n Lead Agency `Cuwn Supervisor Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from respopudble officer) Page I of 21 4 PART I - mPROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Pro'ect Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist to determining whother Iha action proposed may Cave a significant effect on the environment. P leas a complete the entire form, Parts Athrough E_ Answers irk these questions will �a considered as part of the appiica[In far approval and may b subject to farther verificati ❑n and public review: Provide any additional information you beIlove wlII be naeded [v complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expectad that G4mplation of the full EAF will be dependent on Information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or Invest[gation- If information requiring such additional work Is unavaiiabta, so indlcate and specify e sic h Instance. Name of Acton Adoption of acw Town of Dryden Cornprehensive 1'la1t Location of Actian (include Street Address, Municipality and County) The Comprehensive Plan encompasses all lands within the rfI)Wn of Dryden with the exception of the Village of Dryden and Village of Freevilte Name of Appl[cantfsponsor Town of 1lhzdon Town Board Add res3+65 East Main street - City lt Dryden State N! -Y_ Zip Code 13053 Business Telephone (607) 8444622 Name of Owner (if different} NIA Address WA City) PO - -- - - NIA - - I state N/A Business Telephona NIA Description of Action; Zip Code NIA The proposed action is the adoption of a new Compruhertsive Plan for ft Town of Dryden, The proposed Ccmiprchensive Plan sets forth speri fie goals for the Town t❑ pursue, including brit ri ot limited to; l ) protecting the quality of lift; 2) providing opportunities for residents to improve their quality of life; 3) protecting the unigf}c natural assets oflhc community; 4) making optimiAm use ofpubiic in rn vestinems in in 5) in in the cost ofgovermrnent; and 6) encouraging inter - municipal cooperation in land use policies and provision of ViAblie sravices_ The proposed Camprehansive Plan recornniends actions that would. l ) encourage higher density residcnti4t development in and around existing villagr4 and ham lets; 2) encourage a wide variety of housing rypes to moor the needs ofresidcnts; 3) lii n it futurc Comme:roiai development to neighborhood bnd cam ninnity scale retail euterpriscs and direct future commercial development into existing nudes including viltages and hamlets; 4) provide expwided Opportunity for the development nF light industry, research and office enterprises; and 5) direct major durrelopment away from important agricultural lands as well as envImumental[y sensitive areas such as sicnp'slopes, wetlands, riparian corridors, groundwater resources County Unique Natural Areas and private natural preserves. !t valls fin limited expansions of municipal water and sower infirastructure in a manner that enwuraged h19hur density development in and around the existing village and hamlets. It also proposes a limited number of mad improvemenIs, It mcommends the development of a network of neighborhood and community parks t_serve cxi�iting and future neighborhoods, a system of bii:yole and pedestrian paths and fuoLpaths to connect neighborhoods and commtwities in the Town aJrd partnerships witil communIty 2ssooiations_ Page 2 of 21 { I Please Complete Each Question--indicate N+A, if not applicable A, SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both davalopad and undeveloped areas. I. Present Land Use: aUrban L_J lnduanial ❑� Conn mercial EResfder1t[a[ {suburban) t • Aurai Jnorr -farm[ �FprgSE Iz Agriculture 00ther Edgcafjonal institutionk Public & private harks and preserves 2. Total acreage of project area' 6014?NL/- acres_ APPROX11VIATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or 8rusftifand (Non - agricultural - 6,680 acres 3e1 acres F�xestad _ 27,340 acres Sec D -I - .._,� eCres _ Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) M 17,000 acres ec D -1 acres Wetland [Freshw#lter or tidal as per Artlales 24,25 of ECLI 3,350 acres Sc acres Water Surface Area 500 acres See D-] acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or M4 235 acres tY, e D= I acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 5,450 acres _ 53445 acres Qthgr flndic4m type) (Unclassified _ 315 acres See D�I acres 3. What is predonnMant spiJ typelsf on pro(ec# aita? a, Soil drainage: OWell drained 9 "6 of site Moderately well drained 55 % of site_ Poorly drained 26 % of site h. If any vgricUltuFa! rand Js involved, how marry e0F65 of soft are cJasSifled withill soil gFOUp 1 through 4 of the NYS fend Classification Systurrm? acres (sea 1 NYCFtR 370), 4, Ara thorn bedrock outcroppings on project site? El Yes 0 No e. What is depth to bedrock 0 ro 0* (in feetf 6, Apprufmate percentage of proposed protect site with Slopes; 00 -1096 16% or greater 25 % 6. Is PFaieat suhstantioJi contiguous I� of contain a building, site, or distdct, listed s ted D the State or NatlonoJ Registers of Historic Placae? o Ytw No 7, Is. project substantially contiguous to a site Iisted on the Register of Natrona) Natural J andmtrrksf D Yes ENO 8, What Is the depth of tha water tablo? 0 ro 50+ fir, feet 9, Is site located over a primary, prfncipai, or solo rmurca agt)ifSF? Ayes El No 10, 04D hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? El yes F1 No Page 3 of 21 11 , Does project site contain any spanie8 of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ta; each 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? O.e., cii[fs, dunes, other geological formations? ElYes El No Describe: Eskers, karnes and kettle lakes from Ice Age glaciation; substantial eroded bluffs aloug Fall Creek near Varna 13. Is ttXB prpjeox S[Ta presarxtly used by the community or neighborhood as en open space or racreation area? EYes ONo if There. are approximately 10,760 arras of land in the Town of Dryden that are publicly or privaecly owned and can be considered apex spruce and rccruational lands, including + {. 8,700 acres a S Law Forcxt lands, olif -145 aores of DEC Jared and +]_1,870 acres in 16 private preserves, 14. Does the present site inclucid scanio views known to be important to the community? Yes [:]NO Thcre are numerous scenic views throughput the Town of Dryden known to be important to floe community 15. Streams within or carrtigu0us to proleet area; Named strrams include -Full Crcck, Virgil Crruek, Mill Crcet, Beaver Crock, Six -M le Crcck Casradilla Creek, Owego Creek, Gulf Creek, and Owasco Inlet a. dame of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary Fall Creek, Six -Mile Creek:& Cascadilla Creek arc tributari es to Cayuga Lake; Vtrgil Crock, ]leaver Crecic &144111 Creek are tributaries to FaJI Creek; Clwcgo Crock is tributary to Susquehanna JELivcr; t iulf Creek Is tributary to $Imon Creek ( and Cayuga Lake) Uwaxco inlet as tributary to Dwascn Lake, 16. Lakes, ponds, wetlarid areas within Of contiguous to project area: There is one mapped lake {Dryden Lake` and approximately 260' mapped ponds in the ?'own. Wetlands are laeated throughout tine 'Town. Large watland CON) aplaxes arc ]orated in the viciniCy of Mal [aryviile and MuLean1, north ofFrmvillc; in ffie vicinity ofOrydrn Lake, along Fall C mekbetween FreaviIle and Etna; in the upper reachcs afQsca {final Creek and arras north and west of Etna, b. Size tin acres]' Dryden t.akc is approximfarcJy 115 acres in size; ponds cover approximately 385 acres; wetlands cnvcr approximately 3,350 acres, Page 4 of 21 17, Is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ., n No Eyes 11 No FYes allo 18, Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑r Yos a No 19. Is the site located in or substantiall contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) 1:1 Yes No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? MYes B, Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project ifill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: N/A acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: NIA acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) o. If the project Is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. N/A % f. Number of off- street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed NIA g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: N/A )upon completion of project)? h. If residential; Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially N/A N/A Ultimately NIA NIA Multiple Family N/A N/A ai No Condominium N/A NIA I. Dimensions On feet) of largest proposed structure: N/A height; N/A width; N/A length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? NIA ft. 2. How much natural material li.e. rock, earth, etc.J will be removed from the site? N/A tonsicubic yards. 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed ayes a No • l N/A a. If yes, for what Intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? El Yes El No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? a Yes F1 No 4. How many acres of vegetation {trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. Page 5 of 21 d 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years oldl or other locally- important vegetation be removed by this project? ® ❑ Yes F No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: N/A months, (including demolition) 7. If multi - phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number) b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1: N/A month N/A year, (including demolition) c. Approximate completion date of final phase: N/A month N/A year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑ Yes ❑ No B. Will blasting occur during construction? ❑ Yes ❑ No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N/A ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project N/A t 1._Will project.require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, explain: 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes El No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount N/A b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged N/A 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑ Yes a No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? no No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑ Yes a No a. If yes, what is the amount per month? NIA tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If yes, give name N/A location N/A d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Oyes Page 6 of 21 S No e. If yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes F±]No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N/A tons /month, b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? NIA years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes No 19, Wq project routinely produce odors {more than one hour per dayl? ❑Yes 0 No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Oyes ONo 21, Will project result in an increase in energy use? ❑ Yes a No If yes, indicate typeisi 22. If water supply is from welts, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons /minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day NIA gallons /day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? a Yes ® No If yes, explain: Plan preparation has been funded by the Town of Dryden. Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: 0 w Village Town, o n, age Boar d Yes ❑ No City, Town, Village Planning Board Fn Yes City, Town Zoning Board ❑ Yes Type Town Board Acccpt/forward to Town No Board F No Submittal Date April 2005 lanuwy 2005 City County Health Department ❑ Yes ❑ No GML Sect. 239 Review April 2005 Other Local Agencies El Yes 1:1 tJo Other Regional Agencies ❑ Yes No State Agencies ❑ Yes No Federal Agencies ❑ Yes o No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ElYes ❑ No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑ Zoning amendment ❑ Zoning variance 51 New /revision of master plan ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site plan ❑ Special use permit ❑ Resource management plan ❑ Other Page 8 of 21 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? The Town of Dryden is currently divided into R -B, R -B 1, R=C and R -D coning districts 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the present zoning? See D -2 in Sect. I) - Informational Details 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? See D -3 in Sect. D - Informational Details 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? See D4 in Sect. D - Informational Details 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? 1:1 Yes S No 'I'he proposed plan calls for substantial changes in existing adopted local land use policies. 7. What are the predominant land usels) and zoning classifications within a A mile radius of proposed action? Sec D -5 in Sect. D - Informational Details 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining /surrounding land uses with a '/. mile? I Yes ONO 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NIA a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A Page 9 of 21 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Yes No The implementation of the Plan recommendations for future investments in municipal water and sewer will likely require formaton of new sewer or water districts 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection? El Yes ❑ No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? 1:1 Yes a No See D-6 in Sect. D - Informational Details 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? E Yes D No a, If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. Eyes 11 No See D -7 id Sect. D - Informational Details D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant /Sponsor Name Date Signature Title If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Page 10 of 21 .1 Enviroamental Assessm"t for 'l OW11 of Dryden Comprehensive Flan Section D — Informational Details D -1 _ Question A -2 Although thf, Camprehen %ive, Plans does not propose any specitsc development activity it does anticipate the conversion of land from the meadow or brush land, forest and agricuituraI categories listed in A -2 to the roads, buildings and other paved surfaces categories, Sucti variables as fk actual amount and density of foturo residential development and the amount of new commercial and indus; r at development make it difficult to predict the magnitude of conversion of land in each of the meadow or brushland, forest and agricultural categories listed is -2. The amount of land that could potentially be converted to saris, buildings and other paved surfaces categories can be estimated based on certain assumptions as shown ire the following table. Based on the above analysis the amount of acreage converted to roads, buildings and other paved surfaces under the proposed Comprehensive Plan is expected to be approximatkly 400 acres. This compares to up to 56 0 acres of Iarnd being converted to roads, buildings and other paved surfaces absent adoption of the proposed Plan as outlined in the response to Qu4wlon C -3 below. P o tenti a] ar nount of Assumptions Land Converted to �rV1�1�5 1lr�aCES 1,800 new dwellings will be built in the next 2 decades, with average lot coverage with buildings and other impervious 186 ac. surfaces of4,500 s _ tt, per dellin In the future Industrial/Research/Office: areas, total lot coverage by itupervious surfaces would be limited to 709/o and 240 acres of addition land would be devela ed_ 168 ac. In the future Commercial areas total lot coverage by impervious surfaces would be limited to 70% and all of the additional 55 acres new land allocated to eommercial uses would be develo ed 39 ac. Total Amount of Land Converted 393 ac. Based on the above analysis the amount of acreage converted to roads, buildings and other paved surfaces under the proposed Comprehensive Plan is expected to be approximatkly 400 acres. This compares to up to 56 0 acres of Iarnd being converted to roads, buildings and other paved surfaces absent adoption of the proposed Plan as outlined in the response to Qu4wlon C -3 below. ., 0 D -2. Question C -3 There are an estimated 40,260 acres of land in the Town of Dryden that at completion of this plan could be considered available for development. This number excludes lands that are considered permanent open space such as State Forest and public or private preserves, wetland areas and water bodies. The estimated maximum potential development potential of this approximately 40,260 acres of undeveloped lands within the Town, under current zoning is: 1. Between 35,730 and 46,450 new homes based on net densities of between I and 13 dwellings per acre, with adjustments for park and open space dedications and new road rights of way. 2. Approximately 400 acres of new industrial development, based on the current proportion of industrial to overall land use in the Town. 3. Approximately 160 acres of new commercial development, based on the current proportion of commercial to overall land use in the Town. D -3. Question C -4 The proposed Comprehensive Plan does not recommend any specific zoning districts. It does however identify areas where certain types and intensities of land uses are recommended. They are: 1. Suburban Residential areas, which would cover approximately 2,650 acres of land and which are intended to accommodate a variety of housing types ranging from single- family detached homes to multi- family developments at an overall density of up to 4 dwellings per acre. 2. Hamlet areas, which would cover approximately 526 acres and encompass the three hamlets of Etna, Mclean and Varna, are intended to accommodate a mix of residential and small scale commercial development characteristic of hamlets and villages. Much of the land within the proposed Hamlet areas is already developed, however there are opportunities for infill development as well as redevelopment within these communities. 3. Rural Residential areas, which would cover approximately 2,270 acres of land, are intended to accommodate low density rural residential development, at a density of 1 dwelling for every two acres of land. 4. Retail Commercial areas, which would cover approximately 260 acres of land in the Town, including the villages, are intended to accommodate neighborhood scale retail enterprises in a number of nodes. Of the 260 acres envisioned by the Plan, approximately 205 acres are already developed, and 55 acres allocated for expansion of retail c_ ommercial floor area. The individual commercial nodes are sized to preclude the development of regionally oriented retail development. 5. Industry/Office/Research areas arc proposed for approximately 925 acres in the Town. Of this acreage approximately 685 acres are already developed. This land use category is intended to accommodate light industrial, research and development enterprises and corporate office development. 6. Institutional areas are intended to accommodate the existing educational, religious and governmental institutions in the "Town. Zoning for such areas may be specifically designed for such land uses, or these uses may be permitted uses, with appropriate oversight, in future residential or other zoning districts. 7. Agricultural areas, which are intended to promote the continued presence of agriculture in the Town of Dryden, would cover approximately 16,000 acres of land. In these areas zoning that acknowledges the nature of contemporary agriculture and accommodates the variety of agriculture- related business enterprises is proposed. In addition the Plan recommends the establishment of a purchase of development rights (PDR) program to permanently protect important agricultural lands. 8. Conservation/Open Space areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan are intended to protect the significant scenic and environmentally sensitive areas of the Town from intensive development. These areas encompass approximately 37,550 acres of land on the proposed Future Land Use Map, and would restrict development to very low - w . density residential (I dwelling; per 10 acres) and low intensity outdoor recreational activities. The goal of the Plan is to channel major development away from such areas. D4. Question C -5 The estimated maximum potential development potential of this approximately 40,260 acres of undeveloped lands within the 'Town, under the development densities proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan, is: I . Approximately 25,600 new homes based on net densities of between 0.1 dwellings per acre in the Conservation areas and average of 4 dwellings per acre in the Suburban and Hamlet areas, with adjustments for park and open space dedications and new road rights of way. 2. Approximately 168 acres of new industrial, research or office development, based on the allocation of a total of 240 acres of undeveloped land for such uses,•and a maximum cap of 70% lot coverage by impervious surfaces for such development. 3. Approximately 39 acres of new commercial development, based on the allocation of a total of 55 acres of undeveloped land for such uses, and a maximum cap of 70% lot coverage by impervious surfaces for such development. D -5. (Question C-7 Outside the village and hamlet areas land use in the Town of Dryden is predominantly rural in character. The predominant land uses in the Town of Dryden are open space uses such as active and inactive agricultural, woodland, brush and meadow land and wetland areas. These uses account for some 90% of the land area in the Town of Dryden. Residential land uses Y. account frrr approximately 7% of the Town's land area; Industrial uses for approximately 1410 and cominereial approximately 0.3% of the land area, Zoning in the Town of Dryden is prfdominantly residential, with some commercial and industrial development permitted, Dw6. Question tion Cm 1 The C6rripre hensive Plan is designed to aecoromodate future growth and development but does not mconamend actions or policies designed to stimulate additional growth and development, lts adoption and its implementation are themselves not expected to induce any increases in de Inds on ccmtmututy services above and beyond those that would be generated absent the plan, Many of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, if adopted, are designed to reduce the costs of providing community services iri the coming years, Although the Town of Dryden and agencies and organizations that serve the Town my at this time not have the service capacity necessary to efficiently and adequately serve anticipated f4ftm populations, it sloes provide a framewotk within wb 1ch the community can grow in a manner that enhances the ability of local government and other service providers to make the most efficient uF'e of existing resources, and minimize the need to invest in new resources_ D -7. Question _12 The Cumprehensive Plan is designed to accommodate future growth and development but does not ijc= rnmend actions ter policies designed to stimulate additional growth and development. Its adoption and its UUP1=5ntat1 on are themselves not expected to induce any increases iu traffic above and beyond those that would be generated absent the plan. The proposals to direct denser residential development to an area west of>~reeviIle, west of Etna and west and south of Dryden viiiage outlined in the Comprehensiye Flan howaver are expected to result tin significant increases in traffic on West Dryden road, Etna road and Han&haw Road, as well as Ferga� son and lush Settlenxent Roads. The following table shows the potential increases in traffic on these roads. The potential increases iu traffic for each road are given for each of four scenarios: population growth and development in the Town is just 33% the anticipated growth over 20 years; 50% of anticipated growth; 754 of anticipated growth and ] 00°/0 of anticipated graw#h_ r 7I{ L i.A T Roads W 1th Projected Significant Potential Inc: reases iri 'Im fic* 33°/ Growth 50% Growth 75% Growth 1069) 0rowth Proposed Suburban Affectcd Roads Leval" 1Level'* Level"" l:evel** Residential Area Areas S'Ut'' of Dryden NO settlement villa a Fe uson 1 255 11900 2,854 3P800 West Dryden Area west of Freeville Hanshakv 630 950 1 425 1 90G Area west of];trio Etna, Hailshaw 17050 1 540 21385 3 180 * Number of WditionaI v£hicles per day added ro existing traffic. ** Percentage of the total anticipated 1.800 dwellings Thal may be.buiiC over the next [wo decades, in the f otvrl of Drydrn, i_e_ 33%= 604 n£w dwellings; 50 = 400 new dweJIinUs0 75 %= 1,350 new dwellings added to the existin g housing stock in the Town of Dryde n, The projected increases in nffic on the above roads are not expected to require any substantial investment in upgrading the impacted roads, beyond possible improvements at intersections. Implementation of g7owth management tools such as -increased setbacks for residential development along these roads and limits on curb cuts will mitigate potential significant adverse impacts on anticipated future residential development along these roadq. In addition to the above roads, NYS Rte, 13, especially in the wastern portions of the Town, is also expected to sec a significant increase in traffic over the next 20 years. Traffic on Rte. 13 in the vicinity of the N'Y EO complex and Rte.366 intersection may increase between 3,560 vehicles per day (33 °l scenario) and 10,785 vehicles per day ( 100% scenario). Tbese projected volurnes represent increases ofbetween 22% and 65% over the current volurat 0 approximately 16,450 vehicles per day, The potential increases in traffic on Rte. 13 if the proposed Cornprehensivc Plan is adopted and implemented over the next 20 years may be substantial. They aru smaller than what could be expected, }lower, in the absence o the Plan. The recommendations for Hamlet areas and the creation of Suburban Residential areas west of Etna and Fre evil IQ are intended in part to reduce potential traffic increase on Rte. 13 by; encouraging use of public transit and shifting major new residential development into areas where alternatives to Rte, 13 are available to drivers. This increase in traffic on Rte. 13 has critical implications for the hamlet of Varna. The desired scenario for the f€�ture is that' this additional traffic continues west and south on Rte, 13 and not utilize Rxe, 366 through Varna. The proposed reconfiguration of Rte_ 366 through Varna from highway to street and redoction of speed limits from 45 mph to 30 mph ire and adjacent to the hamlet outlined in the Comprehensive Plan are key irnplemeatation measures to reduce the potential traffic increases through Varna. F l PART 2 =PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Ras pon si biJ ity of Lead Agency Generai Information 4Reab Carefully) ! Iry completing the farm the reviewer should be guided by the question= Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert erivironmental' analyst_ The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of Impacts and wherever possible the Threshold of magniiude that world trigger a responso in corumn 2. The examples are generally applicabla throughout the State and for most situations, But_ for any speoific project or site othef examples andlor lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Pctenti A Large Impact responSer thus requiring evaluation in Part 3_ I The impacts of each project, on each site, in each tocaiity, will vary. Therafare, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance, They do nct constitute an exhaustive fist of impacts and thresholds to answer each question_ The number of examples per question does not indicate the irnportance of each question. E In ide nil fying impacts, cans id or long term, short term and cumulative effects_ Instructions (Read carefully) a_ Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2, Answer Yes if there will be any impact_ h. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers_ G. If answering Yes to a Question than check the approprlate box {column 1 or 2 }to Indicate the potential size of the impact, if impact threshold equals or exceeds any exampfe provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1, d, Identifying that an Impact will be potentialiy iargis {column 2} does not mean that it is also necessadly sign Meant. Any •.large impact muse be evaluated ire PART 2 90 delermino significance. identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that ft be looked at further. e_ if reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3, f. If a potentially large Impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by Oange(s) in the project to a srnaII to moderate impact, also check ?he Yes box in column 3_ A No response indicates that such a reduction is clot possible. This muss be explained in Part 3, 1 2 3 Small to Potenliai Can Impact Se Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change I'm pact on Land 1. Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site? NO � YES r7 Exam pies that would apply to ccIumn 2 Any oonsirucuon on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot ® Yes No. rise per 100 fool of length)r a where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% Cc! nstruetion on land where the depth to the water table � � � Yes No is Jess than 3 feet. Construatlan a peveld parking area for 1,000 or mare El F-1 Yes ONO veh!dee_ Coas�Lructfon on land where bedrock is exposer! or El � � Yes QNo genefarly within 3 feat of existing around suTf2ce, Construction that will oonlinue far more than 1 year or ® yes EINo involve mare than one phase ors tage. Vxcavation for mining purposes that would remove Yes No more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rocfc or seal) per year. page 11 ^f 21 } Construction or oupansion of a santary landfill. Construction in a designated Moodway. tl5a}F impacts: 2, Will ttrere be an effect to any uniqu$ or unusual land forms found on the site? ,A i,a„ cliffs, dtrues, (jeoiogical formations, etc.) 00 EYES Specific land forms= Impact an Water s. will Proposed Action afract any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envilronmentai Coaservatfon Law, EC L} N O YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body, Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of m2ledal frorn channoI of a protected stream. Extension of utllity distribution facilities through a protected water body- Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland, Othar impacts; 4, Will Proposed Action affect any non - protected existing or now body of kwatao ffN0 ElYE Examples that would apply to column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or mare than a 10 acre increase or decrease- Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. CA her impacts: °agu 12 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can impact Ike Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 [7 ©Yes Q No O N o Its�. It ❑ Ye-5 © LJ Oyes ENo E] []Y" E] N o Q [Dyes 11 No 0 0 El Yes C No ^� 7 [1 Yes D No El 0 Dyes EI Na 0 [ Yea 0 No Yes N 0 h Dyes No 1 2 3 Small tQ Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by impatl fnlQact Project C hang 5. WIll Proposed Action affect surface or grounclwat�lr quality or quan% NO 1 1=5 Exampies thatvrould appiy to (Munn 2 Proposed Action will require a discharge permit_ ❑ ❑ Yea ❑ NO Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No have approval to serve proposed (profect) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greaser ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ N❑ than 45 gailons per minute pumping capacity_ Canslruction or operation causing any contamination of a water � ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No supply system, Proposed Jsctfon will adversely affect groundvatgr, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No �Liqufd effluent will be conveyed off the site to faciliti which ❑ ❑ Ely,, ❑ Na presently do not exist or have inad€rquate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excoss of 20,000 gallons ❑ ❑ Yes ©No per day_ I�'1 Proposed Action will Iikoly cause siltation or athor discharrge into ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No an existl ng body of %grater to th a exteAt that there wil I he ion obviovs visual contrast to n2tural conditions, Proposed Acfion will require the storaga of petroleum or ❑ Q Yes ❑ No chemical products g rester than 11100 gallons. Proposed Action wfll allow residential uses in aroas without ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No water andior sewer services, Proposed ,fiction locates commercial and;or Industrial usos � ❑ ❑ Yss ❑ Na %vhf0 may require new or expansion of exlsting %waste treatment andiar storage facililles, Other Impacts: ❑ ❑ � ❑ No Page 13 cf 21 .1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Mcderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 6, Will Proposed Action alter drainage now or patterns, or surface water runoff? 'PO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water flows ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 17 No Proposed Action will allow development in a designated ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No floodway. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO _ M IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will Progased Action affect air quality? NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 11 No given hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ONO of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the amount of land ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N committed to industrial use. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: © ❑ Dyes ONO IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Pro osed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ffN O ❑ YES Examples that evoutd apply to column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or ® © ❑Yes ONO Federal list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 ., Remover of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habital_ Acalication of pasticide fir herbicidE more than twice a year, other than far agricultural purposes_ Other irnpacts: 9, Will Pro posed Action substantially affect non - threatened a non - endareg ed species? [ZNO D YES Exampies that would apply to column 2 Proposed Actlon would substantially inierfere with any resident or migratory fish, sholifish or wild IIfe species. Proposed Action requires tha removal of more than 10 acres a mature forest {over 100 years of age} or other iocarly I mo❑rtaar vegetation. Other impacts' IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Y0 Wi 11 Pruaosed Action affect agricuIturaE I a n d rosources7 'PINO D YES 1 2 3 Smali to Potential Can Impact Be Moderato Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change F1 Yes No Yes No D D Dyes ONo 11 D El Yee F71 No D D Ej Yes []NO El D Dyes ONg Examprea that wauid apply to column 2 The Proposed AGtipn woUid sever, Crass or limit access to � © Dyes D Ng agricultural Eand (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vine yardr orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of Cl 0 Yes No agricultural land. Tice Proposed Aciian wou16 irreversibly convert more than 10 Yes No acres of agricultural land or, it located in an Agricultural District, more than 15 acres of agricultural land. Page 15 of 21 0 The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping): or create a need for such measures (a, g, cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11, Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) 1ZNO YES 1 Small to Moderate Impact CJ 2 3 Potential Can Impact Be Large Mitigated by Impact Project Change El ❑ Yes ❑ N o El ❑ Yes ❑ N o Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different r ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man -made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes [IN a aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No significant screening of scanic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: ❑ © ❑ Yes []No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehista c or paleontological importance? J NO [:] YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future opens aces or recreational opportunities? NO F aces 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes El No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established puroNO t to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(8 )? ❑YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designatlon of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? ❑ © ❑ Yes ❑ No Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 N resource? Proposed Action will result In a reduction in the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No resource? Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No resource? Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No Page 17 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ]z NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ❑ No goods, Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? [aNO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ZINO ❑YES ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 13 No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day): ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No noise screen. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No Page 18 of 21 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? Will 1:1 YES Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes' in any form ( i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. «Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Or COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Pr9posed Action affect the character of the existing community? NO El YES 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes . ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 11 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ® ❑Yes ❑No project Is located is likely to grow by more than 5 %, The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No goals. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use, ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ® ❑ QYes []No structures or areas of historic importance to the community, Development will create a demand for additional community ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No services (e.g. schocls, police and fire, etc,) Page 19 of 21 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 0 No projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 20, Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? 0 N ID YES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of *I mpact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 Part 3 = EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2= 1, Briefly describe the impact, 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is Important To.answer the question of importance, consider. I The probability of the impact occurring I The duration of the impact 1 Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value ! Whether the impact can or will be controlled 1 The regional consequence of the impact Its potential divergence from local needs and goals I Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact, Page 21 of 21 Barbara H Caldwell 1624 Ellis Hollow Road ithaca, New York 14850 -9689 07-72-769 bcaldwel@twcnv.rr.com .July 22, 2045 Town Board Town of Dryden 165 E. Main Street Dryden, IVY 13053 Gentlemen: "' r I T- -" Last night the Dryden Planning Board discussed the recommendations of the Tompkins County Planning Department regarding Dryden's proposed! Comprehensive Plan. We have same substantial concerns with most of their recommendations and urge You not to make those recommendations part of your approval of the Plan. Specifically: 1, Their recommendation not to have rezoning a key component of hamlet derrelooment We struggled a long time to find the right mechanisms which would both allow and encourage greater density and mixed use in our hamlets while still retaining the qualities of life, the sense of " "neighborhood" which each hamlet has. Detailed design standards are important and should be an element of plan implementation, but rezoning in these hamlets is an important tool to have in place, Such proposed zoning changes would put the burden on the applicant to clearly show how the proposed change would fit into the character of the complex mix which makes up each hamlet. 2. to "regu1 red _cgnc„„nt��th derr� i2me at" WhFle this is a -- technique which has worked in rapidly growing communities, adjacent to highly urbanized areas, where one or more major developers pegs the costs involved, and hopefully recaptures his outlay through rapid sales of properties developed at a greater density, this is not the case in the Town of Dryden. Our past growth patterns and our anticipated growth do not reflect this pattern. We also have not seen, nor do we expect to see developers willing and able to undertake such a requirement. Instead, we see such a process /requirement as stifling development. . Their recommendation to extend the [route 13 corridor overlay zone from Route 366 to the Cortland County Iiine and that development In the corridor be gioverned by a plan to be formulated by Tompkins Co. and NYS DOT First, while Dryden certainly would consider any plan developed by Tompkins County and NYS DOT, such a plan may or may not be in the best interests of the Town of Dryden. To have a requirement that "development in this overlay area should be governed by the recommendations of the corridor plan " is unreasonable, and are apparent usurpation of authority, Further, we feel that our intent regarding our proposed overlay zone, may have been misinterpreted by the TDPD. We proposed this for a very specific area in transition, both to minimize impact on Route 13 and to minimize the impact of Route 13 on those using the lands near the highway. Proposed developments would exit onto existing side roads as would the few nodes of commercial or other non�residentlal use. Bet -backs from the highway in the overlay zone would be greater than usually required, curb cuts would be minimized where passible, etc. We feel that such techniques would minimize the impact on Route 13 while retaining Town of Dryden "s oontrol over its vision of its future, 4. Their recommendation that the be considered for conservation gnation The northwest corner of the Town as spelled out in their letter is not prime agriculture land. There are many environmental factors which make it a tossup between "conservation PP and " ° agriculture ". We can see designating it as "conservation" when zoning changes are made, and altering the reap in future updates of the comprehensive plan but do not see this as a physical change needed in the plan at this time. Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board, f Barbara H Caldwell 1624 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca, New York 14850 -9689 6074724769 bca Idwel(ZD,twc ny. rr. com July 22,4 2005 Town Board Town of Dryden 165 E. Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Gentlemen: Last night the Dryden Planning Board discussed the recommendations of the Tompkins County Planning Department regarding Dryden's proposed Comprehensive Plan. We have some substantial concerns with most of their recommendations and urge you not to make those recommendations part of your approval of the Plan. - Specifically: 11 iendation i i of hamlet development_ We struggled a long time to find the right mechanisms which would both allow and encourage greater density and mixed use in our hamlets while still retaining the qualities of life, the sense of "neighborhood" which each hamlet has. Detailed design standards are important and should be an element of plan implementation, but rezoning in these hamlets is an important tool to have in place. Such proposed zoning changes would put the burden on the applicant to clearly show how the proposed change would fit into the character of the complex mix which makes up each hamlet. 2. Their recommendation to encourage pre�ervicing utilities! "required concurrently with development" While this is a technique which has worked in rapidly growing communities, adjacent ® to highly urbanized areas, where one or more major developers pays the costs involved, and hopefully recaptures his outlay through rapid sales of properties developed at a greater density, this is not the case in the Town of Dryden, Our past growth patterns and our anticipated growth do not reflect this pattern. We also have not seen, nor do we expect to see developers willing and able to undertake such a requirement. Instead, we see such a process/requirement as stifling development. 3. To the E zone from F o ute 366 to the Cortland Cou nly line and that development in the corridor be governed by a plan to be formulated by Tompkins Co. and NYS DOT First, while Dryden certainly would consider any plan developed by Tompkins County and NYS DOT, such a plan may or may not be in the best interests of the Town of Dryden, To have a requirement that "development ire this overlay area should be governed by the recommendations of the corridor plan" is unreasonable, and an apparent usurpation of authority. Further, we feel that our intent regarding our proposed overlay zone, may have been misinterpreted by the T PD. We proposed this for a very specific area In transition, both to F"171r1Imize impact on Route 13 and to minimize the impact of Route 13 on those using the lands near the highway, Proposed developments would exit onto existing side roads as would the few nodes of commercial or -other none residential use. Set -backs from the highway in the overlay zone would be greater than usually required, curb cuts would be minimized where possible, etc, We feel that such techniques would minimize the impact on Route 13 while retaining Town of Drydn's control over its vision of its future. 4. Their recommendation that the northwest section of th oe consiaerea far conservation des anation The north est comer of the Town as spelled out in their letter is not prune agriculture land. There are many environmental factors which make it a toss -up between "conservation PP and LLagriculture 3P I We can see designating it as "conservation" when zoning changes are made, and altering the neap in future updates of the comprehensive plan but do riot see this as a physical change needed In the plan at this time. Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board, Ila, Barbara H Caldwell 1624 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca, New York 14850 -9689 607 - 2724769 bcaldweK twcny.rr.com July 22, 2005 Town Board Town of Dryden 165 E. Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Gentlemen: Last night the Dryden Planning Board discussed the recommendations of the Tompkins County Planning Department regarding Dryden's proposed Comprehensive Plan. We have some substantial concerns with most of their recommendations and urge you not to make those recommendations part of your approval of the Plan. - Specifically: I. Their of hamlet development We struggled a long time to find the right mechanisms which would both allow and encourage greater density and mixed use in our hamlets while still retaining the qualities of life, the sense of "neighborhood" which each hamlet has. Detailed design standards are important and should be an element of plan implementation, but rezoning in these hamlets is an important tool to have in place. Such proposed zoning changes would put the burden on the applicant to clearly show how the proposed change would fit into the character of the complex mix which makes up each hamlet. 2. The "reaui �a While this is a technique which has worked' in rapidly growing communities, adjacent to highly urbanized areas, where one or more major developers pays the costs involved, and hopefully recaptures his outlay through rapid sales of properties developed at a greater density, this is not the case in the Town of Dryden. Our past growth patterns and our anticipated growth do not reflect this pattern. We also have not seen, nor do we expect to see developers willing and able to undertake such a requirement. Instead, we see such a process/requirement as stifling development. 3. Their recommendation to extend the Route 13 corridor overlay gone from Route 366 to the Cortland County line and that development in the corridor be governed by a plan to be formulated by Tompkins Co. and NYS DOT First, while Dryden certainly would consider any plan developed by Tompkins County and NYS DOT, such a plan may or may not be in the best interests of the Town of Dryden. To have a requirement that "development in this overlay area should be governed by the recommendations of the corridor plan" is unreasonable, and an apparent usurpation of authority. Further, we feel that our intent regarding our proposed overlay zone, may have been misinterpreted by the TCPD. We proposed this for a very specific area in transition, both to minimize impact on Route 13 and to minimize the impact of Route 13 on those using the lands near the highway. Proposed developments would exit onto existing side roads as would the few nodes of commercial or -other non - residential use. Set -backs from the highway in the overlay zone would be greater than usually required, curb cuts would be minimized where possible, etc. We feel that such techniques would minimize the impact on Route 13 while retaining Town of Dryden's control over its vision of its future. 4. Their recommendation that the northwest section of the Town be considered for conservation designation The northwest corner of the Town as spelled out in their letter is not prime agriculture land. There are many environmental factors which make it a toss -up between "conservation" and "agriculture ". We can see designating it as "conservation" when zoning changes are made, and altering the map in future updates of the comprehensive plan but do not see this as a physical change needed in the plan at this time. Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board, / i J/11,� a 640 Barbara H Caldwell �? 1624 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca, New York 14850 -9689 607472 -5769 - bcaldwel(ctwcny.rr.com July 22, 2005 Town Board Town of Dryden 165 E. Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Gentlemen: Last night the Dryden Planning Board discussed the recommendations of the Tompkins County Planning Department regarding Dryden's proposed Comprehensive Plan. We have some substantial concerns with most of their recommendations and urge you not to make those recommendations part of your approval of the Plan. Specifically: 1. Their recommendation not to have rezonina a kev component of hamlet development We struggled a long time to find the right mechanisms which would both allow and encourage greater density and mixed use in our hamlets while still retaining the qualities of life, the sense of "neighborhood" which each hamlet has. Detailed design standards are important and should be an element of plan implementation, but rezoning in these hamlets is an important tool to have in place. Such proposed zoning changes would put the burden on the applicant to clearly show how the proposed change would fit into the character of the complex mix which makes up each hamlet. 2. Their L-q!j While this is a technique which has worked in rapidly growing communities, adjacent to highly urbanized areas, where one or more major developers pays the costs involved, and hopefully recaptures his outlay through rapid v /A sales of properties developed at a greater density, this is not the case in the Town of Dryden. Our past growth patterns and our anticipated growth do not reflect this pattern. We also have not seen, nor do we expect to see developers willing and able to undertake such a requirement. Instead, we see such a process/requirement as stifling development. 3. Their recommendation to extend the Route 13 corridor overlay zone from Route 366 to the Cortland County line and that development in the corridor be governed by a plan to be formulated by Tompkins Co. and NYS DOT First, while Dryden certainly would consider any plan developed by Tompkins County and NYS DOT, such a plan may or may not be in the best interests of the Town of Dryden. To have a requirement that "development in this overlay area should be governed by the recommendations of the corridor plan is unreasonable, and an apparent usurpation of authority. Further, we feel that our intent regarding our proposed overlay zone, may have been misinterpreted by the TCPD. We proposed this for a very specific area in transition, both to minimize impact on Route 13 and to minimize the impact of Route 13 on those using the lands near the highway. Proposed developments would exit onto existing side roads as would the few nodes of commercial or mother non - residential use. Set -backs from the highway in the overlay zone would be greater than usually required, curb cuts would be minimized where possible, etc. We feel that such techniques would minimize the impact on Route 13 while retaining Town of Dryden's control over its vision of its future. 4. Their_ recommendation that the northwest section of the Town be considered for conservation design, n The northwest corner of the Town as spelled out in their letter is not prime agriculture land. There are many environmental factors which make it a toss -up between "conservation and "agriculture". We can see designating it as "conservation when zoning changes are made, and attering the map in future updates of the comprehensive plan but do not see this as a physical change needed in the plan at this time. Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board, lltkrtl �� George R_ Franfz & Associafcs . 604 Cliff Sfreef Itiaca$ NY . 14850 -2014 .190Qicr ?�;il2fli'jCCailE'Ci Honorable Steven Trumbull, Supervisor r - 1 Town of Dryden 65 East Main Street Dryden, New York 13053 August 4, 2005 Dear Mr. Trumbull: I have reviewed the G.M.L. Sect. 2394 and —m letter from County Planning Commissioner Edward Marx dated June 30, 2005 with the comments and recommendations regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan, I. With regard to the suggestion that the plan's recommendations regarding zoning in the ®hamlets be revised, the language in the draft plan that recommends case by case re- zonings to higher density within hamlet areas recognizes that the respective cores of Varna and Etna are already relatively densely developed. It would thus be an appropriate approach for the Town of Dryden to: a) Create in a future new zoning ordinance one or more "hamlet" zoning districts that acknowledge the existing denser, village -like pattern of development within the hamlets; b) Provide the opportunity for increasing density within the two hamlets by having in a future zoning ordinance one or more districts that would permit denser development; c) Have in a future zoning ordinance specific criteria and design standards for such development that ensure they will conform to the existing community character; and d) Evaluate proposals for such development on a case by case, parcel by parcel basis as recommended in the draft plan. This approach recognizes, too, the fact that much of the future development within the hamlet areas will likely be in the form of re- development or in -Fill development on relative small parcels of land. Combined with the recommended densities in the areas adjacent to the hamlets this approach is expected to substantially further the stated objective to encourage higher density development in and adjacent to existing centers of population, and reduce the potential for sprawl. A major factor in the recommended course of action has been the concerns that have been repeatedly raised by residents of Varna and Etna regarding how increased densities would impact ® their communities. One possible course of action would be for the Town of Dryden to engage George R. Frantz Associates . 604 [liii Street . Ithaca, NY 14350 -2014 ��0� e�b-9i:� e- :T:ai G� �•'.an�r'(_i;�iH�[�nn2(�,:Jm residents of the two communities in the developing more detailed hamlet plans and an exploration of the various zoning options available to the town to promote more compact development within the hamlets while protecting community character and the quality of life of residents. 2. The Department of Planning's concerns with regard to the recommended approach to the extension of municipal water and sewer services in my opinion are unfounded. The draft plan states in Chapter 5 that extensions of municipal water and sewer service to limited areas of the Town ... will be necessary in order to provide the foundation for denser residential development in and around existing centers of population. " and "such extensions should,,. encourage in -fill development within existing built -up areas. " (p.77 -78 of 3/31/05 version) The document also recommends a substantial investment by the Town of Dryden, especially in the vicinity of Etna, in order to encourage denser development in that area of the town. Moreover as shown on Map 24, E isting band Use, there appears to be a sufficient amount of existing development in Etna and the areas between that community and the existing water and sewer service area in the Hall Road vicinity to warrant an extension of service now or in the near future. ® 36 The application of the proposed Rte.13 highway corridor overlay concept to that section of the highway between the village of Dryden and the Cortland County line is neither necessary nor compatible with the draft plan's clearly stated objectives regarding the protection of its best agricultural lands and controlling sprawl. The Planning Board in developing the corridor overlay concept recogniaxd that the character of land use along Rte.13 west of Dryden village differs substantially from the character of land use along the highway north and east of the village. To the west of the village the corridor is marked by a large amount of residential and commercial strip development. Between Dryden and the Cortland County line the highway passes through the center of the Town's major agricultural area and has to date experienced. relatively little development. This segment of Rte. 13 also carries significantly lower levels of traffic (30% - 50% less) than the segment west of the village. The draft plan recommends that the areas north and east of the village continue to be dedicated to agricultural use. To this end it contains numerous recommended courses of action, including a substantial investment in the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands, that are designed to ensure the continued viability of agriculture and discourage intensive non- agricultural development. To inject into this area the opportunity for relatively intense residential, commercial and institutional land uses as envisioned for the proposed Rte.13 corridor overlay west of the village would be extremely counter - productive. For the Town of Dryden to incorporate into the draft plan a statement that land use within the proposed highway corridor overlay be governed by the corridor management plan that the Go.orge P,. Frantz & Associates . 604 Cliff Street Ithaca, ►VY . 14850 -2014 115,07,r ,r LS.5m9 IF a -Malt: cjeWdj9S1 @ZLvUlf VOL Onil ";t.AOM Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council is about to begin work on appears to be premature. It also may be that such a statement would be redundant, as the highway corridor overlay concept in the draft plan already incorporates most if not all of the concepts .found in a typical highway corridor management plan. These include highway access management tools such as minimum distances between curb cuts, shared driveways and use of existing side roads access points wherever possible, and deep setbacks from the highway right -of- -way. Furthermore I do not believe that the draft comprehensive plan contains any language that would preclude the Town of 'Dryden from adopting as an amendment to the comprehensive plan a corridor management once it is completed by the State and ITCTC. 4. A mix of agriculture and woodland currently dominates the area bounded by Sheldon Road, Bone Plain Road and Peruville Road. The entire area is located within the County Agricultural District. Earlier iterations of Map 5 -1, Future Lund Use Plan, placed the area in the Conservation/Open Space category. After receiving input from members of the farm community and reviewing the County Agricultural District status of the area the Planning Board changed the recommended designation of this area and several hundred acres to the east to the Agricultural designation. By its nature a proposed future land use map acts as a relatively broad -brush guide and macro - level policy statement. The primary regulatory mechanism for iamplementing the future land use vision would be the zoning map. In practice an area on a future land use map designated for one particular land use could in reality be zoned several different ways to accommodate specific land uses or environmental conditions on specific parcels of land. The designation of the area in question as Agricultural in the draft comprehensive plan thus by no mean preclude the Town in the future placing portions in a future agricultural zoning district, and portions in a future conservation /open space zoning district. The Department of Planning also makes several other comments regarding the draft plan, which I would also like to address. I. Discussions with the Villages of Dryden and Freeville to coordinate planning of water and sewer infrastructure are considered to be a given in the draft plan. The Planning Board in its deliberations has recognized that almost all the envisioned investment in such infrastructure would entail some sort of cooperative effort between the Town of Dryden and these municipalities as well as the Town's partners in the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and Bolton Point and has noted such in the draft plan. . 2. The recommended density in the agricultural areas of the Town of Dryden is the result of ® extensive discussions and analysis on the part of the Planning Board and input from the farm K George R. Frantz & Assor.iafes . 604 Cliff Sireef . Ifhaca. NY 14850 -2014 iO4JJf __C .!11 ° -T311: GeoPlCn~J@(!jniyLlJ%CQ: %i0'i community. Early versions of the plan in fact called for a substantial reduction in development densities in agricultural areas. While such reductions in development potential could be beneficial in terms of managing future growth, there is also evidence that they could have a substantial adverse impact on farmland values and the ability of local farmers to borrow for operating and capital expenditures. As a result there could be an increased risk of farms failing economically, more pressure on farmers to subdivide and sell lots for residential development and further erosion of agricultural land resources. In light of this, and in light of the fact that a major source of farmland loss in the Town of Dryden has been abandonment of use for agriculture due to economic factors, not development, the Planning Board has opted to recommend actions that focus on enhancing the economic viability of the Town's agricultural community instead of recommending a more regulatory. oriented approach. included in this incentive approach is an ambitious purchase of development rights to permanently protect the Town's agricultural land resources. 3. The draft plan clearly states in many places that a primary objective is to ensure that a high percentage of future development occurs in and adjacent to the existing villages and hamlets: The recommended densities and envisioned land uses in those areas, the proposed investments in municipal water and sewer infrastructure, as well as future park and recreation facilities directly support this objective. 4. The recommended Agricultural Reserve is outlined on page 52. (3/31/05 draft) The Planning Board in making this recommendation has attempted to balance the desirability, from a land use planning standpoint, of encouraging denser development adjacent to the Village of Dryden, with the desire of the farm families in that area to continue farming and, further, the contribution to the rural character of the Town that agriculture in that area makes. The draft plan appears to be clear in its recommendation that the area be treated in the same. manner as lands within the areas of the Town designated as Agriculture on ;tilap 5 -1, Future Land Use Plan- so long as it continues to be actively farmed. By default implementation of this recommendation would likely defer future investment in municipal water and sewer infrastructure in the proposed Agricultural Reserve. This would be due to both anticipated lack of development and the financial barriers posed by the likely continued presence of the County Agricultural District and the protections from benefit assessments it affords participating farmland owners. The new comprehensive plan is the result of over four years of intensive discussion and analysis by the Planning Board. In addition it_reflects a very open and democratic process through which a tremendous amount of public input has been incorporated into the recommendations. The Planning Board has balanced many different and often times conflicting interests, goals and objectives as it worked to complete the document. 4 George R, Frantz & AssoCiafes . 604 Miff ^�ireet . Ith4ca, NY . 14650 -2014 !�a'1 !CC -q_! c-'icli GEC��vf1��CCf ct "ii ;;:mothfi P.:l COr^i As is generally the case where the development of a comprehensive plan involves intensive grassroots participation, this process may have produced a draft plan that may fall short of the ideal in terms of municipal planning theory. Nonetheless it is a plan that sets out a clear vision for the future of the Town of Dryden and proposes a number of innovative, leading -edge approaches to land use planning growth management not found in other municipal comprehensive plans. The reservations expressed by the Tompkins County Department of Planning notwithstanding 1 believe that the Planning Board has produced a clear, comprehensive, environmentally and fiscally sound blueprint for guiding growth and development in the Town of Dryden in the coming years. I believe that it is ready for adoption by the Town Board, and that its implementation in the coming years will protect the unique character of the Town of Dryden and the high quality of life its residents enjoy as the community continues to grow. If you have any questions regarding the above matters please feel free to contact me at 256 -9310. Very ( truly yours, George R Frantz Principal xe: Barbara Caldwell, Planning Board Chair .Henry Slater, Planning & Zoning 5 Town 0 nrvden Town Board Meeting October 13, 2005 Name - tPlease Print; O t�1� rJV✓ f4- �j S Address D9 0e v�l �� Cis --h�A s r 6 % S6 ��Ke 30 Z t " ek Jo `I D P 10 -13 -05 SPEAKER SIGN IN SHEET If you wish to address the Board under citizens privilege of the floor please sign in below. Speakers will be limited to a maximum of three minutes. Please provide the Clerk with a written summary oil your statement. Name Address 30 ;7 tad DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING Thursday, October 13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. l) Call Meeting to Order 2) Pledge of Allegiance 3) Roll Call 4) Public Hearings 5) Agenda Item a) Proposed Telecommunication b) Time Warner Contract c) Autoworks d) Town Historian 6) Citizens Privilege Tower, 1465 Dryden Rd 7) Town I°Iighway Superintendent/Department of Public Works 8) County Briefing 9) Engineering 10) Recreation Department 11) Attorney a) Approve Etna Fire Contract b) FrUD Loan of E. North 12) Zoning Officer a) Discuss K. Strickland becoming Code Officer Certified 13) Environmental Planner 14) Town Clerk a) Approve September Minutes Presenter J Conway R Strong G Rushlow K Gazzo J Bush County Repr. D Putnam J. Staton M Perkins H Slater B Hollenbeck 15) Discussion a) ,Adopt Comprehensive Plan b) Resolution for Cornell's °Transportation Resource Committee c) Resolution to accept changes in by -laws of Recreation Partnership d) Resolution for Professional Services Agreement between SJC owners & Stearns & Wheeler, LLC • 16) Approve Abstract # 10 17) Future Agenda Items 18) Executive Session -if necessary