HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-13Ti3 4 -13 -06
TOWN OF DRPDEN
' TOWN BOARD MEETING
April 13, 2006
Present: Supv Steven Trumbull, Cl Martin Christofferson, Cl Daniel Tier
1111 Cl Stephen Stelick, Jr., Cl Mary Ann Sumner
Elected Officials: Sambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk
Jack Bush, Highway Superintendent
Other Town Staff: Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney
Henry Slater, Zoning Officer
Daniel Kwasnowski, Environmental Planner
Andrew Sciarabba, TG Miller Engineering
Jennifer Dube, Recreation Coordinator
Supv Trumbull opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the board and audience in the
pledge of allegiance. He said that Etna Fire Department was supposed to be present and had
received the questions the board had, but had not yet gotten back to the Supervisor.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW 01 - 2006
ESTABLISHING POLICY OF NOTIFICATION UPON THE
UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
Supv Trumbull opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and Town Clerk read the Notice
published in The Ithaca Journal on March 31, 2006. Atty Perkins explained that effective
December 7, 2005, the legislature amended the State Technology Law which requires all levels
of government to have in place a policy of what they will do and how they will notify people
when there has been a breach of information the local government has and that information
has been made available to outside forces. The local law defines private information, talks .�
about what a breach of the system is, and how the town will notify those people who might be t
affected. An example of the information the Town might have would be the name of a person �
and their social security number. if that is kept in digital form and the Town's system were
breached, the Town Clerk would to make notification to the appropriate individuals.
Supv Trumbull asked if there were any comments from the board or audience. There
was not and the hearing was left open.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #2 - 2006
REGULATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS,
ANTENNAE AND RELATED FACILITIES
Supv Trumbull opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. and Town Clerk read the Notice
published in The Ithaca Journal on March 31, 2006. Atty Perkins said this local law re- states
in part Local Law 2 of 1998 and Local Law 4 of 2004. It revises some of the definitions that
have been troublesome over the years and updates them and provides for the expiration of
permit if construction has been commenced. It reorganizes it in the sense that it numbers and
letters it consistently. This has been done largely in response to the study that the committee
(ZO Slater, Cl Christofferson, and Jeff Kirby) undertook and it addresses a lot of the situations
that have arisen over the years, which have sometimes caused concern or question. it is
Page I of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
basically and substantively the same, however it has been updated and restated. Jeff Kirby
said he was pleased with the outcome of the process.
There were no other comments and the hearing was left open.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #3
REPEALING LOCAL LAW #2 -1998 AND LOCAL LAW #4 -2004
(CURRENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW)
Supv Trumbull opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. and Town Clerk read the notice
published in The Ithaca Journol on March 31, 2006. There were no comments and the hearing
was left open.
Supv 'Trumbull closed the public hearing on Local Law #I at 7:16 p.m.
RESOLUTION #71 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #1 -2006 -
E8TABLISHING THE TOWN OF DRYDEN POLICY ON NOTIFICATION UPON THE
UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts Local Law No. 1 of 2006 as follows
and the Town Clerk is directed to file the same with the Secretary of State of the State of New
York:
A local law establishing the Town of Dryden policy on notification upon the unauthorized release of private
information.
PREFACE: This local law is adopted to comply with the requirements of State Technology l..aw Section 208
which became effective December, 7, 2005.
As used in this local law, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Private information" shall mean personal information in combination with any one or more of the
following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted
or encrypted with an encryption key that has also btvn acquired;
(1) social security number;
(2) driver's license number or non - driver identification card number; or
(3) account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security
code, access code, or password which would permit access to an individual's financial
account
"Private information" does not include publicly available information that is lawfully made available to the
general public from federal, state, or local government records.
(b) "Breach of
valid autho
integrity or
information
security of the system" shall mean
67,ttion of computerized data which
personal information maintained by
by an employee or agent of town for
Page 2 of 46
unauthorized acquisition or acquisition without
compromises the security, confidentiality, or
the town. Good faith acquisition of personal
the purposes of the town is not a breach of the
TB 4 -13 -06
security of t1le system, provided that the private information is ri ot used or subject to unauthorized
disclosure_
In determining whether information has been acquired, or is reasonably believed to have been
acquired, by an unauthorized person or a person without valid authorization, the [own may
consider the foI [ow ing Factors, among others:
l} indications that the infonnation is in the physical possession and ccmtn)l of an
unauthorized person, such as a lost or stolen computer or other device containing
infornratinn; or
(2) indications that tht in formal it) n has been downloaded or copied; or
(3} indications that the
information
was sued by an unauthorized person. such as fraudulent
accounts opened or
instances of
ideridly thofl
reporlcd.
(c) "Town" shaII rtican the Town o Dryden, Tornpkins Cuunty, NLw York, and any board, ljlareau,
division. committee, commission, wuncil, department, office or other entity perfornikng a
guvernrrrental or proprietary firnct.ion of the town, except judickaiy of tl�e towel.
(d) "COngumer reporting agency." shall mean any person which, for monotary fces, dues, Or on a
umperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in tlic practice ofas.ernblin OF
evaluating corisinner credit infonnation or other information can consumers For the purpose of
furnishing consumer reports to third parties, acrd which iiq s any means or facility of interstate
commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. A lkst of such consumer
reporting agencies is ct rrrpIIc d by the saute attorn ey general,
?, When the town owns or licenses computerized data that includes private information, it shah disclose any
breach of the security of the system follouring d iscovery' or not of the breach in the security of the
system to any resident caf Now York State whose privato inrormai ion was, or is reasonably believed to have
been, aicquired by a person without valid authorizatian_ The disclosure shat) be made in the most expedient
time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement. aS
provided in subdivision Lour of this local law, or any measures necessary to determine thu scope of the
breach and regtor� the reasonable uitegrity of the data systen],
3. When the town maintains computerized data that includes privatt: inFormation wlykch the town does not
OWn, the town shall notify the owner or licensee of the inrormalion of any breach of the security of the
system immediately following discovery, if the private information was, or is reasonably believed to have
been, acquired by a person without valid authorization_
4_ The notification required by ibis section way he delayed if a law enforcument ai;ency determines that such
notification impales a criminal investkgalion- The notification required bar this section shall he made after
such lavr enforccmr nt agency deternI Ile& that s11cly notii ication does not compromise such ins estigation
5. The notice required by this section shall be directly provided to the affected persons by one ()f the
Following methods;
(a) written noliGe;
(b) elacn'onic notice, provkded that the person to whom notice is required expressly consented to
receiving said notice in elcutrcmic form and a log of each such notification is kept by the town
when kt notifies aNcted persons, in such form; provided further, however, that in no case shall any
person or btrSiness require Lt person to consent to accepting said notice ul said Form as a condition
of establishing any business relationship or engaging in any transaction;
Page 3 of 46
r 4 -13 -06
(c) telephone notification, provided [hat a log of each such nol.ific-ution is kept by [he urwn when it
itod tes affected persons; or
(d) substitute no icu, which notice shall consist of all t f Lhc Following=
( I ) ewmail notico when the town has an e-mai I address for the subjoct persons;
(2) conspicuous posting of the notice on such town's web site page, if the town m rintains
onem. and
(3) nod ricat ion it) major sLaLuwidu media_
6_ RegardIQ5s ol'the method by which notice is provided, such notice shall include. conlac[ in1Ormation for the
town and the name of the person making the notification and a description of the categories of information
that were, or are reasonably believed ro have been, acquired by a person without valid authorimnon,
InelAirig specification of which of the elements of porsonaI information and private information were, or
are reasonably believed to Itave beers, so atquircd.
7. (a) In the event that any Nc%v York residents are to be notified, the town shall notify the state attorney
general, the consumer prutcction board, and the state officer of eyher socurity and critical infrastructure
coordinaLion as to the timing, content and distribution of tho notices and approximate number of affected
persons_ Such notiumi shall be made without delaying notice to ai#ec:ted New York residents.
(h) In the event that more than five thousund New York residents are to be notified at one time, the
tow,y shall also notify consumer repoa #ing agencies as to the timing, content and distribution of the
notices and approximate number of affected persons. Such notice shall be made without doIaving
notice to affected New York residents,
This local law shalt take effect Lipon III 1ing wi[h the Secretary of State_
1A Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE:
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yr;s
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
David Jacobs said he is present. because he has a soar electric systein that he
purchased and Was ready to install_ He would litre the alternative energy ordinar)ce to be
expedited so he can have the contractors install the systrm. The boars{ explained they are
trying to come up with an alternative energy ordinance and want to make slue the public has
an opportunity to comment on it_ Mr Jacobus said he would like to be grandfathered in and
that he trying is to comply with the NYSERDA rules.
O Slater said no one ever notified the zoning office that they were putting solar Niels
up until NYSERDA furiding became available, arid there is a requirement by WS'ERDA to get
approval from the local jurisdiction. Rebates cannot be obtained w7thout that approval.
Dan Kwasnowski said that the basic administrative issue: the Town has is that a
building permit iL5 required and you can't get a building permit unless you have a zoning
Page 4 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
permit. They can't figure out how to issue a zoning permit because it is not permitted in the
uses described for the zone. Atty Perkins said that solar panels have relatively little visual
impact on the neighborhood and the surrounding viewscape, while wind towers probably have
a significant impact, and it is permissible to distinguish between the twro in any legislation. Cl
Christofferson said we should look at all the options, and Atty Perkins said it would be quicker
and easier to address the solar panel issue in a relatively short time frame as opposed to the
wind tower issue.
Mr Jacobs asked whether it were possible to exempt people who purchased their
equipment "under the old laws or lack thereof' and ZO Slater replied that: people ignored the
old laws. D Kwasnowski pointed out that we regulate commercial telecommunication towers,
but not residential antennae. He suggested we collect: all the public comment then discuss it.
Keith Epstein said that he has read the renewable energy convertible systems ordinance
and thinks it is a great addition to allow people to use these systems to generate their own
electricity on their own property. Industrial systems are not allowed, and he supports the
ordinance.
Supv Trumbull closed the public hearing on the new telecommunications tower law at
7:27 p.m.
RESOLUTION #72 as ADOPT LOCAL LAW #2 -2006 -
REGULATING SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, ANTENNAE
AND RELATED FACILITIES
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
® RESOLVED, that this Towr► Board hereby adopts Local Law No. 2 of 2006 as follows
and the Town Clerk is directed to file the same with the Secretary of State of the State of New
York:
CONTENTS PACir
Section 1. PURPOSE AND LEGISLATIVE iNTENT.... ............... ............................... 6
Section2. Title .................................................................................... ............................... 6
Section3. Severability , ........................................................................ ............................... 7
Section4. Definitions.......... ............................................................... ............................... 7
Section 5. Overall Policy and Desired Goals for Special Use Permits for
Telecommunications Towers.,..,..". ............ I I I I I I I I . . . 19
Section 6. Special Use Permit Application and Other Requirements ..................1111. 10
Section 7. Location of Telecommunications Towers,,,,,,,,,, ... .,*Noma, ........................ logo&* 10
Section 8. Shared use of Telecommunications Tower(s). ............................................ 14
Section 9. Height of a Telecommunications Towers,, ..... 11111116 ......... a 0 a 4 ...................... am 15
Section 10. Visibility of a Telecommunications Tower................ .... ".......................... 15
Section 11. Security of Telecommunications Towers .................... ............................... 15
Section12. Signs► ge ........................................................................... ............................... 16
Section 13. Lot Size and Setbacks.,,,,,,,, .... .................... ........ 16
Section 14. Retention of Expert Assistance and Reimbursement by Applicant........ 16
Section l_S. Applicability of Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Towers 16
i
Page 5 of 46
'TB 4 -13 -06
Section 16. Public Hearing Required ............................................. ............................... 17
Section 17. Action on an Application for a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications
®
Tower, to .......................... s .......... I ........... .............. 17
Section 18. Re- certification and Amendment of a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tt► wer.... ........................................................ ............................... 18
Section 19. Extent and Parameters of Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower.
......................................................................................................... ............................... 19
Section
Section
Section
20,
21.
22.
Application Fee.. ........................................................... ...............................
Performance Security ................................................... ...............................
Reservation of Authority to Inspect Telecommunications Towers.........
20
20
20
Section
Section
Section
23.
24.
25.
Responsibilities of Special Use Permit Holders ....11,11111111,66 ........ 18
Liability Insurance. ...................................................... ............................... 21
Indemnification, ........................................... Error' Bookmark not defined.
Section 26. Penalties. ............... 4 ............. .................... ........................ 6 .... 22
Section 27. Default and /or Revocation. . .................. 011 .......... 23
Section 28. Removal of a Telecommunications T ower.. ............... ............................... 23
Section29. Relief ................................................. .............................11 1..........................1.24
Section 30. Conflict with Other Laws ............................................ ...............I............... 24
Section31. Effective Date......... ....................................................... ............................... 24
Section 32. Authority. ...................... ............................... 44411, ........................... 2.5
Section 1. PURPOSE AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 affirmed the Town of Dryden's authority concerning the placement,
construction and modification of telecommunications towers. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden finds that
telecommunications towers and related facilities may pose a unique hazard to the health, safety, public welfare and
environment of the 'Town of Dryden and its inhabitants. In order to insure that the placement, construction or
modification of telecommunications towers and related facilities is consistent with the Town's land use policies, the
Town is adopting a single, comprehensive telecommunications tower application and permit process. The intent of
this law is to minimize the negative impact of the telecommunications towers, establish a fair and efficient process
for review and approval of applications, assure an integrated, comprehensive review of environmental impacts of
such facilities, and protect the health, safety and welfare of Town of Dryden and its inhabitants. The Town also
recognizes that facilitating the development of wireless service technology can be an economic development asset to
the Town and of significant benefit to the Town and its inhabitants.
Section 2. Title.
This Law may be known and cited as the Telecommunications Tower Siting Law for the Town of Dryden
(or "TTS").
Page 6 of 46
Tl3 4 -13 -06
Section 3. Severability.
A. If any word, phrase, sentence, part, Section, Subsection, or other portion of this Law or any
application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for
any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, Section, Subsection, or other portion, or the
proscribed Application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this Law, and
all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid, shall remain
in full force and effect.
B. Any special use permit issued under this law shall be comprehensive and not severable. If part of
a pennit is deemed or ruled to be invalid or unenforceable in any material respect, by a competent
authority, or is overturned by a competent authority, the permit shall be void in total, upon
election by the Town Board,
Section 4. Definitions.
For purposes of this Law, and where not inconsistent with the context of a particular Section, the defined
terms, phrases, words, abbreviations, and their derivations shall have the meaning given in this Section.
When not inconsistent with the context, words in the present tense include the future tense, words used in
the plural include words in the singular and words in the singular include the plural. The word "shall" is
always mandatory, and not merely directory.
A, "Accessory Facility or Structure" means an accessory facility or structure serving or being used in
conjunction with a Telecommunications Tower, and located on the same property or lot as the Tower,
including but not limited to utility or transmission equipment buildings or shelters, equipment
cabinets, equipment. platforms, or storage sheds.
B. "Applicant" means and
shall include any individual, partnership, limited
liability company,
corporation, estate, trust,
or other entity or the equivalent of
any of the foregoing
submitting an
Application to the Town of
Dryden for a Special Use Permit for
a Telecommunications
Tower.
C. "Application"
rtteans
the form approved
by
the Board,
together
with all
required and
other
documentation
that an
Applicant submits
in
order to
receive a
Special
Use Permit
for a
Telecommunications Tower.
D. "Antenna" means a system of electrical conductors that transmit or receive electromagnetic waves or
radio frequency signals. Such waves shall include, but not be limited to radio, television, cellular,
paging, personal Telecommunications services (PCS), and microwave "Telecommunications.
E. "Board" means the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, which is the officially designated body of
the Town to whom applications for a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower must be
made. The Board is authorized to review, analyze, evaluate and make decisions with respect to
granting or not granting, recertifying or not recertifying, or revoking special use permits for
Telecommunications Towers, The Board may at its discretion delegate or designate other boards of
the Town to accept, review, analyze, evaluate and make recommendations to the Board with respect
to the granting or not granting, recertifying or not recertifying or revoking special use permits for
Telecommunications "Towers.
F. "Break point" means the location on a Telecommunications Power at which the initial failure of a
structural element is expected to eventually occur as the wind loading increases beyond the design
value, as a means of controlling the mechanism of collapse and minimizing the size of the collapse
zone and any potential damage to the surrounding area.
Page 7 of 46
TBA 4 -13 -06
G. "Camouflaged Tower" means any Tower or supporting structure that, due to design, location, or
appearance, partially or completely hides, obscures, conceals, or otherwise disguises the presence of
the Tower and one or more Antennas or Antenna arrays affixed thereto.
H. "Collapse zone" means die area in which any portion of a `telecommunications Tower could or
would fall, collapse or plunge to the ground or into a river or other body of water. The collapse zone
shall be no less than the lateral equivalent of the distance from the Break point to the top of the
structure plus ten feet, such being not less than one -half (1f2) the height of the structure.
"Co- location" means the use of the same telecommunications
antennae for the provision of wireless services by two or more
Impracticability" or "Commercially Impracticable" shall
Special Use Permits granted hereunder as defined and applies
615,
tower or structure to carry two or more
persons or entities.J. "Commercial
have the meaning in this Law and in
under Uniform Commercial Code §2-
K. "Complete Application" means an Application that contains all information and /or data necessary to
enable the Board to evaluate the merits of the Application, and to make an informed decision with
respect to the effect and impact of the Telecommunications Tower on the Town in the context of the
permitted land use for the particular location requested.
L. "County" means Tompkins County, New York.
M. "Direct -to home satellite services" or "Direct Broadcast Service" or "DBS" means only
programming transmitted or broadcast by satellite directly to subscribers' premises without the use of
ground receiving, equipment, except at the subscribers premises or in the uplink process to the
satellite.
N. "EAF" means the Full Environmental Assessment Form approved by the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (Appendix A to 6 NYCR.R §617.20) and includes a visual EAF
Addendum (Appendix B). For an application for co- location, a short 13AF (Appendix C to NYCRR
3617.20) including a visual hAF may be substituted for the Full Environmental Assessment Form.
n. "EPA" means in the case of the State of New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation,
and in the case of the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency or any successor agency.
P. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration, or a duly designated and authorized successor
agency.
Q. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission, or a duly designated and authorized
successor agency.
R. "Free standing Tower" means a Tower that is not supported by guy wires and ground anchors or
other means of attached or external support.
S. "Height of Antenna" means, when referring to a Tower or structure, the vertical distance from the
highest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest antenna mounted on, or proposed to be
mounted on the Tower or structure.
I'. "Height of Tower or Structure" means, when referring to an existing Tower or structure, the
• vertical distance from the highest adjacent finished grade to the top of the Tower or structure.
Page 8 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
When referring to a proposed Tower or structure, it means the vertical distance from the pre-
existing grade level to the highest point of the proposed Tower or structure.
U. "NUER" means ?ion- lonizin g Electroma netic Radiation. g
V. "Person" means anv individual, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, or
other entity or the equivalent of any of the foregoing.
W. "Personal Wireless Facility"- See definition for'TCleeommUnlcations Tower'.
X. "Personal
Wireless Services"
or "PWS"
or "Personal Telecommunications Service" or "PCS"
shall have
the same meaning as
defined and
used in the 1996 Telecommunications Act:.
Y. "Site" See definition for Telecommunications Tower.
Z. "Special Use Permit" means the official document or permit by which an Applicant is allowed to
construct and use a'I'elecammunications 'l'owcr as granted, authorized or issued by the Town.
AA. "State" means the State of New York.
1313. "Telecommunications" means the
transmission
and reception
of audio, video, data, and other
information by wire, radio
frequency,
light, and
other electronic or
electromagnetic systems.
CC. "Telecommunications Tower" or "'Power" or "Site" or "Personal Wireless Facility" means a
structure or location designed, or intended to be used, or used to support Antennas. It includes Free
standing Towers, guyed Towers, monopoles, and similar structures, as well as any Camouflaged
Tower, including but not limited to a church steeple, silo, water tower, flagpole, sign or other
structure intended to mitigate the visual impact of an Antenna. It is a structure intended for
transmitting and/or receiving radio, television, cellular, paging, dispatch, PCS, microwave,
broadband, or other commercial Telecommunications.
DD. "Telecommunications Structure" means a structure used in the provision of services described in
the definition of "Felecommunications Tower'.
EE, "Temporary" means in relation to all aspects and components of this Law, something intended to, or
that does, exist for fewer than ninety (90) days.
FF. "Town" means the Town of Dryden, New York.
Section 5. Overall Policy and Desired Goals for Special Use Permits for
Telecommunications Towers.
In order to ensure that the placement, construction, and modification of Telecommunications Towers
conforms to the Town's purpose and intent of this Law, the Board creates a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower. As such, the Board adopts an overall policy with respect to a Special
Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower for the express purpose of achieving the following
goals:
I) Implementing an Application process for person(s) seeking a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower;
Page 9 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
2) Establishing a policy for examining an application for and issuing a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower that. is both fair and consistent;
3) Establishing reasonable time frames for granting or not granting a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower, or re- certifying or not re- certifying, or amending or revoking the
Special Use Permit granted under this Law.
4) Promoting and encouraging, wherever possible, the sharing and/or co- location of a
Telecommunications Tower among service providers;
5) Promoting and encouraging, wherever possible, the placement of a Telecommunications
Tower in such a manner as to cause minimal disruption to aesthetic considerations of the
land, property, buildings, and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the
same area as the requested location of such a Telecommunications Tower.
6) Promoting and encouraging the development and deployment of newer and better technology
to provide improved Telecommunications services to the residents and businesses within the
Town.
Section 6. Special Use Permit Application and Other Requirements
A. All Applicants for a Special Use Permit for it "Telecommunications Tower shall comply with the
requirements set forth in this Law.
B. (1) An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower shall be
signed on behalf of the Applicant by the person preparing the same and with knowledge
of the contents and representations made therein and attesting to the truth and
completeness of the information.
(2) The landowner, if different than the Applicant, shall also sign the Application.
(3) At the discretion of the Board, any false or misleading statement in the Application may
is subject the Applicant to denial of the Application without further consideration or
opportunity for correction.
(4) At the discretion of the Board, any information contained in the Application that is
discovered to be false after issuance of a Special Sue Permit may subject the Applicant to
revocation of such Special Use Permi(,
C. Applications not meeting the requirements herein or which are otherwise incomplete, may be
rejected by the Board.
D. The Application shall include a statement in writing:
1) that the applicant's proposed Telecommunications Tower will be maintained in a
safe manner, in compliance with all conditions of the Special Use Permit, without
exception, unless specifically granted relief by the Board in writing; as well as all
applicable and permissible local codes, ordinances, and regulations, including any
and all applicable County, State and United States laws, rules, and regulations;
2) that the construction of the Telecommunications Tower is legally permissible, including,
but not limited to the fact that the Applicant is authorized to do business in the State.
E. All applications for the construction or installation of a new 'Telecommunications 'Power shall be
accompanied by a report containing the information herein required. The report shall be signed by
a licensed professional engineer registered in the State. Where this Section calls for certification,
such certification shall be by a qualified New York State licensed Professional Engineer
isacceptable to the Town, unless otherwise noted.
Page 10 of 46
TB 4- 13 -06
F. No Telecommunications 'Power shall be installed or constructed until a site plan required under
® this law is reviewed and approved by the Board. The site plan Application shall include, in
addition to the other requirements for the Special Use Permit, the following additional
information:
I) Name and address of person preparing the report;
2) Name and address of the property owner, operator, and Applicant, to include the legal
form of the Applicant;
3) Postal address and tax map parcel number of the property;
4) Zoning District or designation in which the property is situated;
5) Size of the property stated both in square feet and lot line dimensions, and it diagram to
scale showing the location of all lot lines;
6) Location of nearest residential structure;
7) Location of nearest habitable structure;
8) Location of all structures on the property which is the subject of the Application;
9) Location, size and height of all proposed and existing antennae and all appurtenant
structures;
10) Type, size and location of all proposed and existing landscaping;
1 1) The type and design of the Telecommunications Tower, and the number, type, and size of
the Antcnna(s) proposed, and the basis for the calculations of the Telecommunications
Tower's capacity to accommodate multiple users;
12) The make, model and manufacturer of the Tower and Antenna(s);
13) A description of the proposed Tower and Antenna(s) and all related fixtures, structures,
appurtentrnces and apparatus, including height above pre - existing grade, materials, color
and lighting;
14) The frequency, modulation and class of service of radio or other transmitting equipment;
15) Transmission and maximum effective radiated power of the Antenna(s);
16) Direction of maximum lobes and associated radiation pattern of the Antenna(s);
17) Applicant's proposed Tower maintenance and inspection procedures and related system
of records;
18) Documentation that NIER levels at the proposed site are within the threshold levels
adopted by the FCC;
19) A stipulation that if the proposed Antenna(s) cause interference with existing
telecommunications devices, the Antennas) will be deactivated until such interference
can be eliminated by the Applicant.
20) A copy of the FCC license for the use of the Telecommunications Tower:
21) Certification that a topographic and geomorphologic study and analysis has been
conducted, and that taking into account the subsurface and substrata, and the proposed
drainage plan, that the site is adequate to assure the stability of the proposed
Telecommunications Tower on the proposed site, (the certifying engineer need not be
approved by the Town);
22) Propagation studies of the proposed site and all adioining proposed or in- service or
existing sites.
23) Applicant shall disclose in writing any agreement in existence prior to submission of the
Application that would limit or preclude the ability of the Applicant to share any new
Telecommunications Tower that it constructs.
G. In the case of a new Telecommunications Tower, the Applicant shall be required to submit a
report demonstrating its efforts to obtain shared use of existing Telecommunications Tower's).
Copies of written requests and responses for shared use shall be provided to the Board.
Page I I of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
Il. Certification that the Telecommunications Tower and attachments are both designed and
constructed ( "As Built ") to meet all County, State and Unitcd States structural requirements for
loads, including wind and ice loads;
1. Documentation that the Telecommunications Tower is designed with a break point that, in the
event the design wind loading is exceeded, will result in the Tower falling or collapsing within
the boundaries of the property on which the Tower is placed;
J. After construdion and prior to receiving a Certificate of Compliance, certification that the
Telecommunications Tower and related facilities have been installed with appropriate surge
protectors, and have been grounded and bonded so as to protect persons and property from
I ightning strikes.
K. The Applicant shall submit a completed Full EAF and a Visual EAF Addendum. The Board may
require submission of a more detailed visual analysis based on the results of the Visual EAF
Addendum. Applicants are encouraged to have pre - application conferences with the Town to
address the scope of the required visual assessment
L. A Visual Impact Assessment which shall at the Board's request include:
1) A "Zone of Visibility Map" which shall be provided in order to determine locations
from which the Tower may be seen.
2) Pictorial representations of "before and after" views from key viewpoints both inside
and outside of the Town, including but not limited to state highways and other major
roads; state and local parks, other public lands; historic districts; preserves and historic
sites normally open to the public; and from any other location where the site is visible to
a large number of visitors or travelers. If requested by the Applicant, the Town, acting
in consultation with its consultants or experts, will provide guidance concerning the
appropriate key sites at a pre - application conference.
3) An assessment of the visual impact of the Tower base, guy wires and accessory
buildings from abutting and adjacent properties and streets.
M. Any and all representations made to the Board, on the record, during the Application process,
whether written or verbal, shall be deemed a part of the Application and may be relied upon in
good faith by the Board,
N. The Applicant shall, in a manner approved by the Board, provide vegetative or other approved
screening around the base of the Telecommunications Tower and all accessory facilities and
structures, to minimize its visibility from adjacent property.
O. All utilities leading to and away from any Telecommunications "Power site shall be installed
underground and in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations of the Town, including
specifically, but not limited to, the National Electrical Safcty Code and the National Electrical
Code where appropriate. The Board may waive or vary the requirements of underground
installation of utilities whenever, in the opinion of the Board, such variance or waiver shall not be
detrimental to the health, safety, general welfare or environment, including the visual and scenic
characteristics of the area.
Page 12 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
P. All Telecommunications Towers and accessory facilities shall be sited so as to have the least
practical adverse visual effect on the environment and its character, and the residences in the area
of the Telecommunications Tower site.
Q. Accessory facilities shall maximize use of building materials, colors and textures designed to
blend with the natural surroundings.
R. An access road and parking will be provided to assure adequate emergency and service access.
Maximum use of existing roads, whether public or private, shall be made to the extent
practicable. Road construction shall at all times minimize ground disturbance and vegetation=
cutting. Road grades shall closely follow natural contours to assure minimal visual disturbance
and reduce soil erosion potential.
S. The Board intends to be the lead agency, pursuant to SBQRA. The Board shall conduct an
integrated, comprehensive, coordinated environmental review of the proposed project in
combination with its review of the Application under this Law.
T. The Applicant shall submit no fewer than eight (K) copies of the entire Complete Application to
the Town Board and one (1) copy to the County Planning Board. For a proposed facility on
property which abuts the Town boundary, a copy shall be submitted to the legislative body of the
immediately adjacent municipality.
U. The Applicant shall examine the feasibility of designing a proposed `telecommunications Tower
to accommodate future demand for at least two (2) additional commercial applications, e.g. future
co- locations. The scope of this examination shall be determined by the Board. The Tower shall
be structurally designed to accommodate at least two (2) additional arrays of Antennas which are
equal to or greater in both size and quantity that the installation proposed by the Applicant. This
requirement may be waived, provided that the Applicant, in writing, demonstrates that the
provisions of future shared usage of the Telecommunications Tower is not technologically
feasible, commercially impracticable or creates an unnecessary and unreasonable burden, based
upon:
1) The number ()f FCC licenses foreseeably available for the area;
2) The kind of Telecommunications Tower site and structure proposed;
3) The number of existing and potential* licenses without Telecommunications Tower
spaces /sites;
4) Available space on existing and approved Telecommunications Towers;
V. The Applicant shall provide physical space, structural capacity, and utility connections necessary
for Town -owned Antennas and equipment, as directed by the Board.
Section 7. location of Telecommunications Towers,
A. (1) Applicants for Telecommunications Towers shall locate, site and erect said Towers in
accordance with the following priorities, (a) being the highest priority and (e) being the
lowest priority.
(a) Un existing Telecommunications 'Powers or other tall structures;
(b) Co- location on a site with existing Telecommunications Towers or structures;
(c) On Town -owned property in non - residentially zoned areas of the Town;
(d) In other non - residentially zoned areas of the Town;
Page 13 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
(e) On other property in the Town.
(2) If the proposed property site is not the highest priority listed above, then a detailed
explanation must be provided as to why a site of a higher priority was not selected. The
person seeking such an exception must satisfactorily demonstrate the reason or reasons
why such a permit should be granted for the proposed site, and the hardship that would be
incurred by the Applicant if tile permit were not granted for the proposed site.
(3) An Applicant may not by -pass sites of higher priority by stating the site presented is the
only site leased or selected. The Application shall address co- location as an option and if
such option is not proposed, the applicant must demonstrate why co- location is
Commercially, or otherwise, Impracticable. Agreements between providers limiting or
prohibiting co-location, shall not be a valid basis for any claim of Commercial
Impracticability or hardship.
(4) Notwithstanding the above, the Board may approve any site located within an area in the
above list of priorities, provided that the hoard finds that the proposed site is in the best
interests of the health, safety and welfare of the Town and its inhabitants.
B. The Applicant shall
submit
a written report demonstrating the
Applicant's
review of the above
locations in order of
priority,
demonstrating the technological reason for the
site selection.
C. The Applicant shall, in writing, identify and disclose the number and locations of any additional
sites that the Applicant has, is, or will be considering, reviewing or planning for
Telecommunications Towers in the "Town, and in all municipalities adjoining the Town, for a two
. year period next following the date of the Application.
D. Notwithstanding that a potential site may be situated in an area of highest priority or highest
available priority, the Board may reject an Application for any of the following reasons:
1) Conflict with safety and safety - related codes and requirements;
2) Conflict with traffic needs or traffic laws, or definite plans for changes in traffic flow or
trafi is laws;
3) Conflict with the historic nature of a neighborhood or historical district;
4) The use or construction would be contrary to an already stated purpose of a specific
zoning or land use designation; or
5) The placement and location would create an unacceptable risk, or the probability of such,
to residents, the public, employees and agents of the Town, or employees of the service
provider or other service providers.
6) Conflicts with the provisions of this L..aw.
Section 8. Shared use of Telecommunications Tower(s).
A. Shared use of existing Telecom in tin ications Towers shall be preferred by the Town, as opposed to
the proposed construction of new Telecommunications Towers. Where such shared use is
unavailable; location of Antennas on other pre - existing structures shall be considered and
preferred. The Applicant shall submit a comprehensive report inventorying existing towers and
other appropriate structures within four (4) miles of any proposed new tower site, unless the
Applicant can show that some other distance is more reasonable, and outlining opportunities for
shared use of existing facilities and the use of other pre - existing structures as a preferred
• alternative to new construction.
Page 14 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
B. An Applicant intending
to share
use of an existing Telecommunications
Tower
or
other pre-
existing structure shall be
required
to document
the intent of the existing owner
cause shown. The Applicant
to share
use.
C. In the event of an Application to
share the use of
an existing
Telecommunications Tower that
does not increase the height of
the Telecommunications
Tower, the Board
may waive such
requirements of this Local Law as
may be for good
cause shown. The Applicant
is encouraged to
seek a pre - Application conference with the Board
to review such
a proposed
Application and
settle the issue of waivers of such
provisions which
will help to
expedite review
and the issuance
of a permit for such Applications.
The purpose of waivers shall
be to expedite
for the Applicant
and the Town the review and
issuance of a
permit for
the shared use
of an existing
Telecommunications Tower.
Section 9. Height of a Telecommunications Tower
A. The Applicant must submit documentation justifying to the Board the total height of any
Telecommunications Tower and /or Antenna and the basis therefor. Such justification shall be to
provide service within the Town, to the extent practicable, unless good cause is shown.
B. "Telecommunications Towers shall be no higher than the minimum height necessary. Unless
waived by the Board upon good cause shown, the presumed maximum height of the Tower shall
be one hundred -forty (140) feet, based on three (3) co- located antenna arrays and ambient tree
height of eighty (80) feet.
C. Telecommunications Tower less than one hundred twenty (
accommodate a future vertical extension of at least twenty
location of additional antennas for another entity.
Section 10. Visibility of a Telecommunications To
A. Telecommunications Towers shall not be artificially lighted
or as specifically approved by the Board.
20) feet in height shall be designed to
(20) feet. to support the potential co-
wer
or marked, except as required by law,
B. Telecommunications Towers shall be of a galvanized finish, or painted with a rust- preventive
paint of an appropriate color to harmonize with the surroundings as approved by the Board, and
shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of this Law.
C. In the case of applications to co- locate on existing Telecommunications Towers, if lighting is
required. Applicant shall provide a detailed plan for lighting which will be as unobtrusive and
inofTensive as is permissible under state and United States regulations, together with an artist's
rendering or other visual representation showing the effect of light emanating from the site on
neighboring habitable structures within fifteen- hundred (1,500) feet of all property lines of the
parcel on which the Telecommunications Tower is located.
Section 11. Security of Telecommunications Towers
All Telecommunications Towers and Antennas shall be located, fenced or otherwise secured in a
manner which prevents unauthorized access. Specifically:
1) All Antennas, Towers and other supporting structures, including guy wires, shall be made
inaccessible to individuals and constructed or shielded in such a manner that they cannot be
climbed or run into; and
•
Page 15 of 46
014B 4 -13 -06
2) Transmitters and Telecommunications control points must be installed such that they are
readily accessible only to persons authorized to operate or service them.
Section 12. Signage
Telecommunications Towers shall contain a sign no larger than four (4) square feet to provide
adequate notification to persons in the immediate area of the presence of an Antenna that has
transmission capabilities. The sign shall contain the name(s) of the owner(s) and operator(s) of the
Antenna(s) as well as emergency phone number(s). The sign shall be located so as to be visible from
the access point of the site. Telecommunications Towers shall also contain a sign displaying the FCC
registration number of the "Power as required by law. No other signage, including advertising shall be
permitted on any Telecommunications Tower or Antenna, unless otherwise required by law.
Section 13. Lot Size and Setbacks
A. Telecommunications `Powers and Accessory Facilities or Structures shall be set back from any
property line a distance sufficient to preserve the privacy and sanctity of any adjoining parcels.
B. 'Telecommunications Towers shall be located with a minimum setback from any property line a
distance equal to one half ('/2) the height of the Tower or the existing setback requirement of the
zoning district, whichever is greater. Further, any Accessory structure shall be located so as to
comply with the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district in which it is situated.
Section 14. Retention of Expert Assistance and Reimbursement by Applicant
• A. The Board may hire any consultant and /or expert necessmy to assist the Board in reviewing and
evaluating the Application and any requests for recertification.
B. An Applicant shall deposit with the Town funds sufficient to reimburse the Town for all
reasonable costs of consultant and expert evaluation and consultation to the Board in connection
with the review of any Application. The initial deposit shall be $7,500.00. These funds shall
accompany the filing of an Application and the Town will maintain an account for all such funds.
The Town's consultants /experts shall bill or invoice the Town no less frequently than monthly for
its services in reviewing the Application and performing its duties. If at any time during the
review process this account is depleted, additional funds must be deposited with the Town before
any further action or consideration is taken on the Application. If at the conclusion of the review
process the cost of such consultant /expert services is more than the amount deposited pursuant
hereto, the Applicant shall pay the difference to the Town prior to the issuance of any Special Use
Permit. In the event that the amount held by the Town is more than the amount paid to the
Town's consultants and experts, the difference shall be promptly refunded to the Applicant.
Section 15. Applicability of Special Use Permit to Telecommunications
Towers.
A. No person shall be permitted to site, place, build, construct or modify, or prepare any site for the
placement or use of, a Telecommunications Tower after the effective date of this Law without
having first obtained a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this Section, no Special Use Pennit shall be required for the following:
1) A Tower used or proposed to be used solely and exclusively for public safety and
• emergency services, including police, fire, ambulance, and rescue.
Page 16 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
2) A Tower used or proposed to be used solely and exclusively for such other municipal
• services as Highway Department vehicles or public school transportation vehicles.
3) A `Power used or proposed to be used solely and exclusively for private reception of radio
and television broadcast services, Direct -to -home satellite services, Citizen's Band,
Amateur (Ham) radio, and other similar private, residential communications systems
serving users on an individual property.
4) A "Power
has
been
proposed to be
found not to be
located on the property of a governmental
subject to the jurisdiction of the Town, or
agency, which facility
for which a resolution
has
been
adopted by the
Town Board to waive the Special Use Permit.
Co- location of a commercial Antenna on any of the above Towers shall require issuance of a
Special Use Permit,
B. New construction on any existing Telecommunications Tower shall comply with the
requirements of this Law.
Section 16. Public Hearing Required
A. Prior to the approval of any Application for a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications
Tower, a public hearing shall be held by the Town Board, notice of which shall be published in
the official newspaper of the Town no less than two weeks prior to the scheduled date of the
public hearing. The Applicant, at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of the public hearing,
shall provide to the Town the names and address of all landowners whose property is located
within fifteen hundred (1500) feet of any property line of the parcel on which the proposed
TeleCOmm Lill icatlons Tower is to be located. The'rown Code Enforcement Officer shall mail to
all such landowners notice of such public hearing. Such mailing shall be by first class mail at
least two (2) weeks prior to such hearing.
B. The [ Board shall schedule the public hearing referred to in Subsection (A) of this Section once it
finds the Application is complete. The Board, at any stage prior to issuing a Special Use Permit,
may require such additional information as it deems necessary.
Section 17. Action on an Application for a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower.
A. The Board will undertake a review of an Application pursuant to this law in a timely Fashion,
consistent with its responsibilities, and shall act within a reasonable period of time given the
relative complexity of the Application and the circumstances, with due regard for the public's
interest and need to be involved, and the Applicant's desire for a timely resolution.
B. The Board may refer any Application or part thereof to the Planning Board or any advisory
committee for their recommendation.
C. Except for necessary building permits, and subsequent Certificates of Compliance, no additional
permits or approvals from the Town, e.g. special permit, site plan approval or zoning approvals
under the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance, shall be required for Telecommunications 'rowers
or facilities covered by this Iraw.
Page 17 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
D. After the public hearing and after formally considering the Application, the Board may approve
and issue, or deny a Special Use Permit. It's decision shall be in writing and shall be based on
substantial evidence upon a record. The burden of proof for the grant of the permit shall always
be upon the Applicant.
E. if the Board approves the Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower, then the
Applicant shall be notified of such approval in writing within ten (10) calendar days of the
Board's action, and the Special Use Permit shall be issued within thirty (30) days after such
approval.
F. If the
Board denies the
Special
Use Permit for a Telecommunications
Tower, then
the Applicant
shall
be notified of such
denial
in writing within ten (10) calendar days
of the Board's
action.
G. The Town's decision on an Application for a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications
Tower shall be supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record.
Section 18. Re- certification and Amendment of a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower.
A. At any time between twelve (12) months and sir (6) months prior to the first five (5) year
anniversary date after the effective date of the permit and all subsequent fifth anniversaries of the
original Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower, the holder of a Special Use Permit
for such Tower shall submit a written request for recertification. In the written request for re-
certification, the holder of such Special Use Pennit shall provide the following:
1) The name of the holder of the Special Use Permit for the Telecommunications Tower.
2) If applicable, the number or title of the Special Use Pennit;
3) The date of the original granting of the Special Use Permit;
4) Whether the `i'elecommunicat.ions Tower has been moved, re- located, rebuilt, repaired, or
otherwise modified since the issuance of the Special Use Permit;
5) if the Telecommunications `rower has been moved, re- located, rebuilt, repaired; or
otherwise modified, then whether the Board approved such action, and under what terms
and conditions, and whether those terms and conditions were complied with and abided
by;
6) Any requests for waivers or relief of any kind whatsoever from the requirements of this
Law and any requirements for a Special Use Permit;
7) That the Telecommunications Tower is in compliance with the Special Use Permit and
compliance with all applicable codes, laws, rules and regulations;
8) A copy of the documentation of NIER levels for the site, and
9) A copy of the inspection and maintenance records for the Tower.
13. If, afler such review, the Board detennines that the Telecommunications `tower is in compliance
with the Special Use Permit and all applicable codes, laws and rules, then the Board shall issue a
recertification Special Use Permit for the Telecommunications Tower, which may include new
provisions or conditions that are mutually agreed upon, or required by codes, law or regulation.
C. if the Board does not complete its review, as required by Subsection (B) above, prior to the
anniversary date of the Special Use Pennit, then the Applicant shall receive an extension of the
Special Use Pennit for six (6) months, in order for the Board to complete its review.
Page 18 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
D. If the holder of a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower does not submit a request
for recertification of such Special Use Permit within the times required by Subsection A above,
then such Special Use Permit and any authorization thereof shall cease to exist on the date of the
fifth anniversary of the original granting of the Special Use Permit, or subsequent fifth
anniversaries, unless the holder of the Special Use Permit adequately demonstrates to the Board
that extenuating circumstances prevented a timely recertification request. If the Board finds
extenuating circumstances, then the holder of the Special Use Permit may submit a late re-
certification request.
E. The holder of a Special Use Permit may submit a written request for amendment of the Special
Use Permit for the purpose of modifying its existing Antenna installation on a
Telecommunications Tower, as may be necessary to improve coverage, capacity, deployment of
new technology, or other upgraded service. This includes, but is not limited to:
l) Replacement of one or more of the existing Antennas and /or accessory equipment with a
different model, type, or operating frequency;
2) Change in the quantity of Antennas and /or accessory equipment;
3) Change in power level, orientation, or radiation pattern.
F. In the written request for amendment, the holder of a Special Use Permit shall provide all of the
information listed in subsection A above, as well as specific information and supporting
documentation for the proposed modification.
G. Requests for amendment of a Special Use Permit may be submitted no more than once annually
for that permit.
• H. The Board will undertake a review of a request for amendment, and shall endeavor to act on such
request within ninety (90) days of receiving sufficient information to perform such review.
Section 19. Extent and Parameters of Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower.
The extent and parameters of it Special Use Permit for a 'Telecommunications `Power shall be as
follows:
1) Special Use Permits shall be non - exclusive;
2) Special
Use Permits
shall not be assignable
or
trarisferable without the express written
consent:
of the Board,
and such consent shall not
be
unreasonably
withheld;
3) Special Use Permits may be revoked, canceled, or terminated for a violation of the conditions
and provisions of the Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower, or for a material
violation of this Law.
4) Special Use Permits may be revoked, canceled, or terminated in the event the required NIER
certifications are not submitted annually.
5) If the holder of a Special Use Permit fails to construct the proposed 'Telecommunications
Tower or the proposed co- location Antennas on an existing Tower within twelve (12) months
after the effective date of the Special Use Permit, then such permit and any authorization
Page 19 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
thereof shall expire on the first anniversary of the effective date, unless an extension is
granted by the Board.
® (i Any request shall be submitted not less than ninety (90) days in advance of the above
expiration date, along with justification for the request.
Section 20. Application Fee.
A. At the time that a person submits an Application for a Special Use Permit for a new
Telecommunications Tower, such person shall pay an application fee of $5,000 to the 'town of
Dryden. If the Application is for a Special Use Pennit for co- locating on an existing
Telecommunications Tower, the fee shall be $1,000.
13. No Application fee is required in order to re- certify a Special Use Permit for a
Telecommunications Tower, unless there has been a modification of the Telecommunications
Tower since the date of the issuance of the existing Special Use Pennit. In the case of any such
modification, the fees provided in subsection A shall apply.
Section 21. Performance Security
The Applicant and the owner of record of any proposed `I' elecommunications 'Power property site
shall be jointly required to execute and file with the 'town it bond, or other form of security
acceptable to the Town as to type of security and the form and manner of execution, in an amount and
with such sureties as are deemed sufficient by the Board to assure the faithful performance of the
terns and conditions of any Special Use Permit issued pursuant to this Law. The full amount of the
bond or security shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the Special Use Permit
• and/or until the removal of the Telecommunications Tower and any necessary site restoration is
completed. Thu failure to pay any annual premium for the renewal of any such security shall be a
violation of the provisions of the Special Use Permit and shall entitle the Board to revolve the Special
Use Permit after prior written notice to the Applicant and holder of the pert-nit.
Section 22. Reservation of Authority to Inspect Telecommunications Towers
A. In order to verify that the holder of a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower and
any and all lessees, renters, and/or licensees of a Telecommunications Tower place and construct
such facilities, including Towers and Antennas, in accordance with all applicable technical,
safety, fire, building, and zoning codes, laws, ordinances and regulations and other applicable
requirements, the ]'Own may inspect all facets of said permit holder's, renter's, lessee's or
licensee's placement, construction, modification and maintenance of such facilities, including, but
not limited to, 'Powers. Antennas and buildings or other structures constructed or located on the
permitted site.
B. The Town shall pay for costs associated with such an inspection, except for those circumstances
occasioned by said holder's, lessee's or licensee's refusal to provide necessary information, or
necessary access to such facilities, including Towers, Antennas; and appurtenant or associated
facilities, or refusal to otherwise cooperate with the Town with respect to an inspection, or if
violations of this Law are found to exist, in which case the holder, lessee or licensee shall
reimburse the Town for the costs of such inspection.
C. Payment of such costs shall be made to the Town within thirty (30) days from the date of the
invoice or other demand for reimbursement. in the event that the finding(s) of violations) is/are
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Law, said reimbursement payment
•
Page 20 of 46
'rR 4 -13 -06
must still
be paid to the Toy +n and the
reimbursement shall be held
in an account established by
the Town
specifically for this purpose,
pending the final decision on
appeal.
Section 23. Responsibilities of Special Use Permit Holders.
A. The holder of the Special Use Permit for a telecommunications Tower shall construct, maintain,
repair, modify, or restore the permitted "Power in strict compliance with all current technical,
safety and safety- related codes adopted by the Town, County, State, or United States, including
but not limited to the most recent editions of the National Safety Code and the National
Electronic Code, the rules and regulations of the FAA and the f CC, as well as accepted industry
practices and recommended practices of the National Association of Tower Erectors. The codes
referred to include, but are not limited to construction; building, electrical, fire, safety, heal(h, and
land use.
B. The holder of the Special Use Permit granted under this Law shall obtain, at its own expense, all
permits and licenses required by any other applicable law, rule, regulation, or code, and must
maintain the same, in full force and effect, for as long as required by the Town or other
governmental entity or agency having jurisdiction over the Applicant.
C. The holder of the Special Use Permit shall periodically inspect and at all times maintain the
permitted Tower in compliance with this Law and all conditions of the Special Sue Permit,
including but not limited to items of structural integrity, corrosion protection, visual appearance,
lighting, RF emissions, security, and grounding.
D. The holder
of
the
Special
Sue Permit shall annually provide documentation to the Town
that
NIER levels
at
the
site are within the threshold levels adopted by the FCC.
Section 24. Liability Insurance.
A. A holder of a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower shall secure and at all times
maintain insurance coverage for the duration of the Special Use Permit in amounts as set forth
below:
1) Commercial General Liability:
2) Automobile Coverage:
3) Workers Compensation and disability
$1,000,000 per occurrence /$2,000,000
aggregate;
$1,000,000 per occurrence12,000,000
aggregate;
statutory amounts.
B. When the Town is the owner, lessor or otherwise has a legal insurable interest in the site of the
Tower, the Commercial General Liability insurance policy shall specifically include the Town
and its officers and employees as additional insureds.
C. The insurance policies shall be issued by an agent or representative of an insurance company
licensed to do business in the State.
D. The insurance policies shall contain an endorsement obligating the insurance company to furnish
the Town with at least thirty (30) days written notice in advance of the cancellation of the
insurance.
Page 21 of 46
TB 4-13-06
E. Renewal or replacement policies or certificates shall be delivered to the Town at least fifteen (15)
days before the expiration of the insurance which such policies are to renew or re place.
P. Before construction or other work on a site or on a Telecommunications 'rower is initiated, but in
no case later than fifteen (15) days after the issuance of the Special Use Permit, the holder of the
Special Use Permit shall deliver to the Town certificates of insurance representing the required
coverage and amounts.
Section 25. Indemnification.
When the Town is the owner, lessor or otherwise has a legal insurable interest in the site of the
Tower, the Special Use Permit issued pursuant to this Law shall contain a provisi
Law on with respect to
indemnification. Such provision shall require the holder of the Special Use Permit, to the extent
permitted by the law, to at all times defend, indemnity, protect, save, hold harmless, and exempt the
Town, its officers, and employees, from any and all penalties, damage, or charges and including, but
not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees and fees of consultants and expert witnesses arising out of
anv claims, suits, demands, causes of action, or award of damages, whether compensatory or punitive,
or expenses arising therefrom, either at law or in equity, which might arise out of, or are, caused by,
the construction, erection, modification, location, products performance, operation, maintenance,
repair, installation, replacement, removal, or restoration of a Telecommunications Tower within the
Town.
Section 26. Penalties,
A. A violation of this Law or any provisions, term or condition of a Special Use Permit issued
pursuant to this Law is an offense and upon conviction thereof the holder of the Special Use
Permit shall pay to the Town a penalty as set forth in this Section.
•
B. Each day that a violation exists beyond one (1) week following written notification by the Town
of such violation shall constitute a separate violation, subject to a separate penalty without the
requirement of further notification of violation.
C. For situations where there is an imminent threat to the health or safety of the public, or the
employees of any user or occupant of the Telecommunications Tower, there shall be no
requirement for written notification by the "Town to the holder of the Special Use Permit. In such
situations verbal notification, delivered personally or by telephone, shall be deemed sufficient
notice.
D. Amounts of Penalty:
1) For violation of any safety- related requirement, S 1,000 per day per occurrence;
2) For failure to maintain the permitted site in a safe condition and as required, $1000 per
day per occurrence;
3) For construction or beginning construction, including site preparation without a Special
Use Permit or undertaking any change or modification in or to a Telecommunications
Tower without a Special Use Permit, $ 1,000 per day per occurrence;
4) For failure to pay to the Town any moneys owed for any reason, $200 per day per
occurrence;
•
Page 22 of 46
T13 4-13-06
5) For failure to comply with any applicable Town, County, State or United States laws,
ordinances, rules, regulations or requirements, $1,000 per day per occurrence.
E. In addition to any p _ penalty provided for herein the Town may also seek injunctive relief in a court
of competent jurisdiction to prevent the continued violation of this Law.
Section 27. Default and /or Revocation.
A. If a Telecommunications Tower or Telecommunications structure is repaired, rebuilt, placed,
moved, re- located, modified or maintained in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of
this Law or the Special Use Permit, then the Board shall notify the holder of the Special Use
Permit in writing of such violation. Such notice shall specify the nature of the violation or non-
compliance and that the violations must be corrected within seven (7) days of the date of the
postmark of the Notice, or the date of personal service of the Notice, whichever is earlier.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Subsection or any other Section of this Law, if
the violation causes, creates or presents an imminent danger or threat to the health or safety of
lives or property, the Board may, in its sole discretion, order the violation remedied within
twenty -four (24) hours.
B. If within the period set forth in (A) above the Telecommunications Tower or
Telecommunications structure is not brought into compliance with the provisions of this Law, or
the Special Use Permit, or substantial steps are not taken in order to bring the
Telecommunications Tower or Telecoinm Lill ICations structure into compliance, then the Board
may, after a public hearing upon notice to the holder of the Special Use Permit, revoke such
Special Use Permit and shall notify the holder of the Special Use Permit within forty-eight (48)
hours of such action,
• Section 28. Removal of a Telecommunications Tower.
A. Under the following circumstances, the Board may determine that the health, safety, and welfare
interests of the Town warrant and require the removal of a Telecommunications Tower:
1) a Telecommunications Tower with a permit has been abandoned (i.e. not used as a
Telecommunications Tower) for a period exceeding ninety consecutive (90) days or for a
total of one hundred- eighty (180) days in any three hundred -sixty five (365) day period,
except for periods caused by force majeur or Acts of God;
2) a permitted Telecommunications Tower falls into such a state of disrepair that it creates a
health or safety hazard;
3) a Telecommunications Tower has been located, constructed, or modified without first
obtaining the required Special Use Permit, or any other necessary authorization,
B. If the Board makes a detennination as noted in subsection A above, then the Board shall notify, in
writing within forty -eight (48) hours of such determination, the holder of the Special Use Permit
that said Telecommunications Tower is to be removed. In the event that no Special Use Permit
was issued for the Tower, such notification shall be provided to the property owner of record. The
Board may approve a Temporary_ Use Agreement/Permit, to enable the sale of the 'tower prior to
its removal.
C. The holder of the Special use Permit, or its successors or assigns, shall dismantle and remove
• such Telecommunications Tower, and all associated structures and facilities, from the site and
Page 23 of 46
1f13 4 -13 -06
restore the site to as close to its original condition as is possible, such restoration being limited
only by physical or commercial impracticability, within ninety (90) days of receipt of written
® notice from the Board. However, if the owner of the property upon which the
Telecommunications Tower is located wishes to retain any access roadway to the Tower site, the
owner may do so with the approval of the Board.
D. If a Telecommunications Tower is not removed or substantial progress has not been made to
remove the Telecommunications Tower within ninety (90) days after the permit holder has
received notice, then the Board may order officials, representatives or contractors of the Town to
remove the Telecommunications Tower at the sole expense of the landowner and permit holder.
F. If the Town removes, or causes to be removed, a Telecommunications Tower, and the owner of
the Telecommunications Tower does not claim the property and remove it from the site to a
lawful location within ten (10) days, then the "town may take steps to declare the
Telecommunications Tower abandoned, and sell it and its components.
F. Notwithstanding anything in this Section to the contrary, the Board may approve a Temporary
Use Agreement/Perrnit for the Telecommunications Tower, for no more ninety (90) days, during
which time a suitable plan for removal, conversion, or re- location of the Telecommunications
Tower shall be developed by the holder of the permit, subject to the approval of the Board, and an
agreement to such plan shall be executed by the holder of the permit and the Town. If such a plan
is not developed, approved and executed within the ninety (90) day time period, then the Town
may take possession of and dispose of the Telecommunications Tower in the manner provided in
this Section.
Section 29. Relief
Any Applicant desiring relief or exemption from any aspect or requirement of this Law may request
such from the Board at a pre- Application conference, provided that the specific request for the relief or
exemption is contained in the original Application for a Special Use Permit, or in the case of an
existing or previously granted Special Use Permit in a request for modification of a
Telecommunications Tower and /or facilities. Such relief may he temporary or permanent, partial or
complete, at the sole discretion of the Board. However, the burden of proving the need for the
requested relief or exemption is solely on the Applicant to prove to the satisfaction of the Board. The
Applicant shall bear all costs of the Board or the Town in considering the request and the relief shall
not be transferable to a new or different holder of the permit or owner of the "Power or facilities
without the specific written permission of the Board, and such permission shall not be unreasonably
withheld. No such relief or exemption shall be approved unless the Applicant demonstrates by clear
and convincing evidence that, if granted, the relief or exemption will have no significant affect on the
health, safety and welfare of the "town, its residents and other service providers.
Section 30. Conflict with Other Laws
Where this Law differs or conflicts with other laws, rules and regulations, unless the right to do so is
preempted or prohibited by county, state or United States laws, rules or regulations, the more
restrictive or protective of the Town and the public shall apply.
Section 31. Effective Date.
This Law shall be effective immediately upon tiling the same with the New York Secretary of State
and shall apply to all applications pending or filed after the effective date.
•
Page 24 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
Section 32. Authority.
This Local Law is enacted pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law. This Local Law shall
supersede the provisions of Town law to the extent it is inconsistent with the same, and to the extent
permitted by the New York State Constitution, the Municipal Home Rule Law, or any other
applicable statute.
2nd Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
Supv Trumbull closed the public hearing on proposed local law number 3 at 7:28 p.m.
REESOLUTION #73 - ADOPT LOCAL LAW #3 -2006 -
REPEALING LOCAL NO. 2-1998 AND LOCAL LAW NO. 4 -2004
Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
A local law repealing Local Law No. 2 of the year 1998, and Local Law No. 4 of the year 2004_
Local Law No. 2 of the year 1998 (a local law regulating the siting of telecommunications towers, antennae
and related facilities) as amended by Local Law No. 4 of the year 2004 (a local law amending local law No,
qqw 2 of the year 1998, known as the Telecommunications Tower Siting Law for the Town of Dryden) is
hereby repealed.
2. Local Law No. 4 of the year 2004 (a local law amending local law No. 2 of the year 1998, known as the
Telecommunications Tower Siting Law for the Town of Dryden) is hereby repealed.
2tzd Cl Tier
Roll Call Vote Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
BITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION OF
CAYUGA RADIO GROUP, 1751 HANSHAW RD
Supv
Trumbull opened the
public
hearing at 7:30 p.m. and Town Clerk read the notice
published in
The Ithaca Journal on
March
24, 2006,
Joe Westbrook, architect for the project, and Susan Johnston, general manager of
Cayuga Radio Group, were present. J Westbrook distributed photographs of the current
building and displayed the proposed site design. He said the objectives of the site plan are to
relieve current overcrowding in the building because over the past 12 years they have grown
from 2 radio stations to 4 and increased staff from 23 to 26 with the potential to hire 2 or 3
Page 25 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
more people in the next three to five years. Most of the growth has already occurred and the
current facility is far too small. Their program office (140 square feet) currently has three
• people working in it. The studios were built ten years ago and with the changes in technology
and sound isolation, they want to create new studios that provide a better facility for
broadcast. The objectives are to relieve the current crowding, accommodate for planned staff
increase and increase ease of ingress and egress. He pointed out where the additions to the
building were planned and explained the change to be made at the entrance. The drainage
Swale was explained and reviewed. five parking spaces were added. They believe the
improvements benefit the business and have a low impact on the site.
GO Slater said the Zoning Board of Appeals had approved an area variance for parking
relief for the applicant last Tuesday. (He also noted the Town should revisit its off street
parking regulations.)
A Sciarabba said TG Miller's recommends the Board waive Standard Condition of
Approval #7, having to do with stormwater runoff.
Supv Trumbull closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Mike lane said he hoped the Board would approve the application for this business in
the Town as they provide a real service to the people in Tompkins County and we need to do
what we can so they can continue to grow their business here. The board agrees with that
statement and Cl Stelick told the applicant we appreciate them staying in the Town of Dryden.
RESOLUTION #74 - APPROVE CAYUGA RADIO GROUP SITE PLAN
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approve the site plan application submitted
by Cayuga Radio Group for a 1125 square foot expansion of their facility at 1751 Hanshaw
Road, subject to Standard Conditions of Approval (7- 2000), expecting #7, and further subject
to conditions previously imposed on the applicant: by the Town of Dryden.
2nci Cl Tier
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION OF
VERIZON WIRELESS TO CO- LOCATE ON AN EXISTING
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 1387 DRYDEN RD
Supv
Trumbull opened the
public
hearing at 7:40 p.m. and Town Clerk read the notice
published in
The Ithaca Journal
on
March
25, 2006.
Robert Burgdorf, Esq., representing Verizon Wireless, said the applicant would like to
extend the Crown Atlantic tower at 1387 Dryden Road from 80' to 120' to provide adequate
wireless telephone service through Verizon's license to the greater Dryden area. The project
consists of adding an extension to the existing pole, attaching antennas, and running cabling
down to a new 12'x 30' equipment shelter. The shelter will be on a concrete pad.
Page 26 of 46
'f B 4 -13 -06
Mr Burgdorf said Verizon has been trying to get service to this cell for about two years.
They were waiting for Crown to put up the tower so Verizon could co- locate on it and that tower
has finally been constructed.
Verizon's application has been reviewed by the Town's consultant and any concerns
have been addressed. The conditions recommended by the consultant do not present a
problem for the applicant. Jeff Kirby, consultant, said this is a very straight forward
application. They are co- locating on an existing tower that is known to be a dead spot for
Verizon. The location is suitable and the application is very complete, and there are a few
minor items he wanted to see addressed. With respect to more coverage for the rural areas of
the town, J Kirby explained that the focus of Verizon's coverage is the Route 13 corridor and
the Village of Dryden, with coverage reducing as you reach the fringes of the Town before you
overlap into another area. Mr Burgdorf said they have plans to eventually service everywhere,
with a seamless ability to use the phone wherever they have a License (essentially across the
country), but in the current build schedule, which goes out about two years, there is no plan
for those areas. The board reviewed the propagation study for the project.
Atty Perkins and J Kirby have discussed the sufficiency of the existing removal bond
and believe that will be sufficient.
Supv Trumbull closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and the board reviewed the long
environmental assessment form and completed Part It,
RESOLUTION #75 - NEG SEQR DEC - VERIZON WIRELESS CO- LOCATION
1387 DRYDEN ROAD
. Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of Verizon Wireless
to co- locate on an existing telecommunications tower located at 1387 Dryden Road. Applicant
proposes to raise the height of the tower from 84' to 125', attach an antenna array and
construct a 12' x 30' equipment shelter at the base of the tower.
8. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town
of Dryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in
connection with special permit approval by the 'Town.
C. 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 Lava - the State Environmental Quality Review Act
"(SEQR), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form (the "Long EAF"),
Part I, (noting changes from the original application in parts B7, 138, B 16, B23 and C21 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 determi.ne if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the
Long EAF, Part 11;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
Page 27 of 46
TB 4- 1;3 -06
1, The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the
Long 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 §617.7(c), and
(iii) its completion of the Long EAF, Part 11, 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 with SEQR for the above
referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not
be required, and
21 The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby
authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance,
confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Long EAF and
determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2«l' C1 Christofferson
Roll Call Vote Cl Christofferson Abstain
Cl 'Pier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
RESOLUTION #76 - APPROVE VERIZON WIRELESS SITE PLAN
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the site plan application of Verizon
Wireless to co- locate on the existing telecommunications tower at 1387 Dryden Road, raising
the height of the tower to 125, attaching the appropriate antennae array, and erecting an
equipment shelter as described in their application, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall submit the details of the proposed antenna mounts, and the
manufacturer's drawings of the proposed equipment shelter with its building permit
application.
2. Applicant shall submit clarification of the point -to -point link that is enabled by the
proposed dish antenna.
3. Applicant shall submit a copy of its site lease agreement with Crown Atlantic.
2nd Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
CAYUGA PRESS OF ITHACA, INC.
SHIFT OF OPERATIONS TO CITY OF CORTLAND EMPIRE ZONE
Supv Trumbull opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m
vihl;oHPa{ ;., -rye Min on April S, 20061
Page 28 of 46
and Town Clerk read the notice
TB 4 -13 -06
Karen Niday, Empire Zone Director for Cortland County and Economic Development
Specialist, said the Empire Zone Program requires this hearing when you have a company that
moves from a location that is not in an Empire Zone into an Empire Zone. The company needs
to come before the community they are moving out of to explain the process and ensure that it
is not happening solely for the Empire Zone Program, or if that were to be the case, that the
Town is agreeable. She said in this case, the move is not for the Empire Zone program. The
Schugs found a building and then came to them because it happened to be in the Empire
Zone. In order to process the application and the company to receive the Empire Zone benefits,
New York State requires a resolution from the Town Board the company is moving from.
K Niday said that in a lot of instances the town the company is moving from is at a loss
because they are losing jobs and that is a problem. In this case, although the company is
moving, they are moving so close to the Town that: the Town is not actually losing jobs.
Residents that currently work for Cayuga Press can continue to work for them, but will have a
little longer drive. They do intend to keep all their current employees. She also understands
that there is a company interested in the property they are vacating.
The board has been given a sample of the resolution that the State requires.
Peter Schug, President of Cayuga Press, read a statement to the board:
"It is with great sadness that Cayuga Press has to move from its home in Dryden. Our families
have lived in Dryden for almost thirty years and will continue to do so_ Cayuga Press has been at 1779
Hanshaw Road for 39 years, The success of our company necessitates more manufacturing room to
meet our customer's needs and remain competitive in our industry.
In 1986 we purchased a building at 1650 Hanshaw Road to house our offices and mailing
operations. We built a 2,000 square foot building on our 1779 Hanshaw Road property to house
materials. We added an 8,000 square foot addition to our existing manufacturing building in 1997. At our
current location, we are out of options for expansion. We are surrounded by NY State right of way, on Rt.
13, the NY State Armory and a sewer line.
We have been looking for the last five years for an existing building to suit our needs. Nothing
has become available in Dryden, buildings this size are very limited. Due to no existing building options,
two years ago we had plans drawn up for a 50,000 square foot building, We hoped could fit on our 1650
Hanshaw Road location. It would fit, but it would leave little room for expansion.
We received the construction cost estimate of $2.1 -2.5 million dollars,
Another consideration with this location is that there is no water or sewer service. Upon checking
with the town concerning the possibility of an added water district, it appeared unlikely it could happen in
the near future. We were told we could pay for this ourselves if needed. The cost to do this was
approximately $1 millions dollars. Thus putting a building at 1650 (land we owned) would cost about $3
million dollars. Unfortunately this is not an option due to the costs.
Last year we became so crowded I discussed options with Henry Slater who was very helpful.
Unfortunately, all the existing buildings he knew of were not suitable for our needs. This has forced us to
look outside of Dryden. We have looked as far as Northern Pennsylvania and South of Syracuse as well
as other towns in Tompkins County.
An affordable opportunity has arisen that suits our current requirements and projected expansion
needs into the future. A building in Cortland, NY is close to our customer base and close enough that
most, if not all, or current employees will continue to work with us at Cayuga Press. Retaining our skilled
Page 29 of 46
TB 4 -13-06
people is very important to us. The thought that many of those we work with losing there job due to
relocation is also disturbing to us.
We will continue to own the properties in Dryden. We are planning to rent them to businesses
that will contribute sales tax dollars to our community.
We respectfully request approval of our move to Cortland, NY from the Town Board. Your
approval will help us to qualify for a Empire Zone, which has little benefit with the move, but offers
benefits as we grow and add jobs. We would like you to vote on this tonight as our need for larger space
is very pressing.
Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter & Barney Schug, Cayuga Press of Ithaca, Inc.
1650 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, NY 14850"
P Schug said they are sad to have to do this, but: they just don't have options in this
area. Unfortunately because of that, they respectfully request that t:he Town allow them to
make this and hopefully the Empire Zone benefits down the road will help their business in the
future. The building they are purchasing is the Impact Sports building, situate on nine acres,
70,000 square feet. The business currently occupies about 35,000 square feet.
Cl Christofferson inquired about the HUD loan Cayuga Press currently has with the
Town of Dryden. P Schug said the business had received HUD funds to help pay for a piece of
equipment and created the necessary jobs under the terms of that loan. They are checking
into what their options are if they move from the Town. Atty Perkins said the loan documents
• would speak for themselves with respect to that matter.
Atty Perkins said the proposed resolution presented to the board attempts to comply
with the statutory mandate should the board find there are extraordinary circumstances that
warrant the relocation. The resolution talks about physical problems and attempts to relocate
in the Town of Dryden, which P Schug has addressed. It is up to the board to determine
whether the record will indicate the board can support a finding of extraordinary
circumstances. CI Christofferson clarified that they could act on the resolution because the
HUD issue will be resolved by the documents.
Mike Hattery said both he and Martha Robertson both serve on the Tompkins County
iDA. He has spoke with Mike Stamm, Executive Director of the IDA, who indicated that the
Schugs had made a really good faith effort to find another location in Tompkins County
because they wanted to stay here. He feels assured that they made a good faith effort to stay.
Martha Robertson asked what the specific benefits of the Empire Zone will be. Karen
Niday said that with Empire Zone programs the credits are calculated in a different manner,
but by taking the base employment: and going back 4 years, tax credits are determined by the
increase in employment. Cayuga Press estimates that a few years down the road they will have
a 10% credit for things such as property tax. The Investment Tax credit that every business in
New York State is allowed is a larger percentage for businesses in an Empire Zone. There is a
sales tax exemption, but they must increase their employment. It will be good for ten years
and they will be exempt from the State portion of the sales tax on purchases that are taxable to
them. The savings could grow, but K Niday said they are required to build on their base
employment numbers. There is also help with utilities for businesses in the Empire Zone so
that helps with the cost of the project:.
Page 30 of 46
7*13 4 -13 -06
Mike Lane said he assumed the Town Board did not have a lot: of advance notice of this
move, and wondered what efforts the Town might be considering to try and keep this employer
in the Town. He said he understood it would be expensive to provide water and sewer services,
and asked if the Town was planning to approach the State economic development people or
other people to try to get a grant to extend the sewer line so they could build on their own
property.
Cl Christofferson said this business is ready to move, and it wasn't just the water and
sewer, it is expensive for them to add on. They have an option that is better than adding on for
a couple of reasons, not just water and sewer. He would like to keep them in the Town, but by
the time they investigate it all it could take six months to year. They are trying to make a good
business decision.
M Lane said the Board is making a decision that will affect the Town of Dryden,
employment in the Town of Dryden, and the people of the Town for decades to come, and to say
you can't take a little bit of time to make a decision about that, he thinks is a little unusual.
We are talking about exchanging good paying jobs with lots of benefits for possible commercial
jobs, which are generally low paying, and that is not a good trade for the Town.
P Schug said he approached a previous board about trying to put water and sewer in
their location and at the time there was no interest in doing that. The cost of running the
sewer line themselves was prohibitive, as well as the cost of adding on to their building. It was
$3,000,000 for the project two years ago, and a recent: estimate for constructing a building
approximately the same size and specifications as the one they are going to purchase and the
cost: was almost $5,000,000 at today's prices. So even if the Town Board said they could run
the water and sewer in the next few months, the cost of constructing a building is so
prohibitive now that he didn't know if it would make a difference.
• M Lane said he didn't want the Town to make a snap decision.
M Hattery said there is no exchange of jobs because the employment base will stay the
same. The folks they currently have working for them will stay. P Schug confirmed that with
the possible exception of one employee who commutes from Horseheads and is unsure whether
she wants to add to her daily commute. For most people it is an extra 10 or 15- minute drive.
M bane said he thinks it is an exchange of jobs, and M Hattery said it is an expansion.
M Lane said it is not: an expansion in the Town of Dryden or Tompkins County,
Barney Schug noted that the Mailboxes portion of their company will be expanding in
the building and increasing the number of jobs. That will increase the number of
manufacturing jobs in the existing facility. They were previously unable to grow because they
were out of space, and because they will be able to expand into the Cayuga Press office space,
they will be able to add more employees (probably 4 or 5 people) at the 1650 Hanshaw road
location.
Cayuga Press intends to maintain their buildings in the Town of Dryden and lease them
out in addition to maintaining and expanding the Mailboxes business.
P Schug said space has become critical in the last year and they would like to move as
soon as possible. Cl Stelick asked if the board could hold off on its decision for a month in
order to do some checking; that he would hate to lose the company. P Schug said that would
be okay, but it won't hold up what they are doing, other than the Empire zone aspect of it.
They need to make the move whether the Empire Zone benefits are attached to it or not He
• doesn't feel like they have a choice and wishes there was something in Dryden.
Page 31 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
0 They are purchasing the new building for approximately $1,000,000 and they estimate
approximately $300,000 to renovate it to suit their needs. The estimate for building a
comparable building on land they currently own was almost $5,000,000.
Cl Christofferson said Cayuga Press needs to make a business decision and asked what
the board could possibly gain by waiting a month. They have already checked things out and
the Town will not build any sewer lines a month, and the only thing this w-ill do is stop them
from getting some benefits by not approving the resolution. He will wait a month, but: he
doesn't see any options and believes we will be in the same situation in a month. P Schug
reiterated they will have to push forward with the move and it would be unfortunate if the
board chose not to do it. Cl Stelick said he would like to see what there is available. P Schug
said they have investigated options for five years and there are no options in the Town of
Dryden and costs of skyrocketed.
K Niday said for the sales tax piece it is important that the resolution be passed this
month, and will delay things by at least a month, and more likely two months because of
meeting dates. Cl Sumner asked when they found the Cortland site and they said within the
last month and a half. Cl Tier said he was concerned about the effect of waiting a month as far
as benefits to the company.
Supv Trumbull closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. After further discussion, the
board decided to act on the resolution.
RESOLUTION #77 - CAYUGA PRESS SHIFT OF OPERATION
INTO AN EMPIRE ZONE
CI Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, Cayuga Press of Ithaca, In., a commercial printer in the Town of Dryden from
1977 to 2006, and
Whereas Cayuga Press of Ithaca, Inc., employed 68 people during the I'll quarter of
2006, and
Whereas, physical problems prevented Cayuga Press of Ithaca, Inc., from remaining at
1650 & 1779 Hanshaw Rd, Ithaca, beyond 2006, and
Whereas, Cayuga Press of Ithaca, Inc. attempted to relocate in the Town of Dryden in
2006 but could find no comparable space, and
Whereas, the Town Board has heard public comments that extraordinary
circumstances existed to warrant the relocation of Cayuga Press of Ithaca, Inc. to a site in the
Cortland Empire Zone, located in the City of Cortland,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby
RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden consents to the relocation of Cayuga Press of
Ithaca, Inc. from the Town of Dryden to the Cortland Empire Zone.
21,d Cl Tier
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Page 32 of 46
Cl Stelick
Cl Sumner
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT & DPW
Yes
Yes
0F8 4 -13-06
Highway Superintendent Jl�ck Bush said the state bid for the lawn tractor that was
approved earlier in the year is out and the discount that has been given in the past has been
lowered. The anticipated cost was $7,500 and the actual cost will be $7,830.42. He asked that
Resolution #38 of this year be amended to reflect that.
RESOLUTION #78 - AMEND RESOLUTION FOR PURCHASE OF
GARDEN TRACTOR
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby amends Resolution #38 of this year as
follows:
Amend the paragraph for "Purchase off state bid of one 2006 new and unused lawn
tractor with 54" mower deck" to reflect a cost of $7,830.42.
2ncl Cl Sumner
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
J Bush has provided the board with a copy of the agreement to spend town highway
funds, made between the Highway Superintendent and the Town Board. This annual
agreement is a list of the roads where work is proposed for the coming year, what is to be done
and the estimated cost of that work. He said there could be some changes, and if so, there will
be an amendment to the agreement.
Cl Sumner said that last year the board had asked for a report at the end of the season
about how much of the work was actually done, and that would be useful to have. J Bush said
that last year two things were not done. Herman Road was postponed because of the activity of
RMS Gravel. The Village of Freeville will be reconstructing Fall Creek Road from the Village
line, and because they will be routing traffic on Herman Road, the Village will put a new top on
that road after the construction is complete.
�-
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the Agreement to Spend Town
Highway Funds ( §284 Agreement) for 2006.
2114 Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
Page 33 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
COUNTY BRIEFING
Martha Robertson said that the Town of Ithaca had also passed a resolution in support
of a lower speed limit on Game Farm Road.
Tompkins County Planning Department will be holding areas on the Natural Features
Focus Area Project. Meetings will be held at the Lansing Town Hall on May 2 at 7:00 p.m.,
Tompkins County Library on May 22 at 7:00 p.m., and McLean Fire I•lall on May 23 at 7:00
p.m.
Better Housing is doing an education
meeting at Houtz Hall on May 9 at 6:00 p.m.
Hall. She noted for people of median income
in the County. CI Christofferson said that sc
payments.
initiative for the community and will be holding a
and May 26 at 6:00 p.m. at the Dryden Town
or below, there is not enough affordable housing
metimes property taxes are more than mortgage
The IDA committee has been reviewing the density policy together with the City of
Ithaca and Tompkins County Planning. They want to have density benefits for all nodes in the
County because the goal of the County Comprehensive Plan is nodal development so there is
development where there is infrastructure. They want to encourage other municipalities to
also have a density policy and incentives for development in the areas identified for nodal
development..
ENGINEERING
Andy Sciarabba said the committee appointed to review the benefit assessment formula
• for special districts had met and decided to keep the benefit formula as 50% based on
assessment, 35% based on acreage and 15% based on units. Using that benefit formula TG
Millers was able to revise the interim report for the Ellis Hollow Road Water District. None of
the service areas were changed from the original report. The range for the three options would
be between $1370 and $1550 per year, and A Sciarabba explained the differences. These
figures are all over the Comptroller's threshold. He said the expanded option if probably the
best one to look at because you have a larger area and the cost to a typical user goes down.
Arthur Berkey, 1205 Ellis Hollow, said he has several requests and questions. He said
he would appreciate receiving a copy of the feasibility study and the calculations of per unit
costs. He asked how the board plans to proceed to obtain public input and whom the residents
should contact with questions and concerns.
Atty Perkins said if the board is satisfied with the interim report, they can ask the
engineers to complete the final Map, Plan and Report. Once that has been filed the board will
adopt an order calling a public hearing, which requires notice to all of the affected property
owners as well as publication and posting. That is the point at which it is appropriate for the
people to ask the questions, so that: at one time the engineers and the board can hear all the
concerns and questions and respond to theca. When finally the board is in a position to
answer a series of questions all in the affirmative that are set forth in Town Law, the board will
adopt a resolution creating the district, and that is subject to a permissive referendum. He
said the board should look at the interim report and if it is satisfactory and appears to be
feasible to go ahead from a cost perspective, ask for the final Map, Plan and Report. He
further explained that if the costs are above those recommended, you have to get permission
from the Comptroller. That happens after the public hearing and the board votes to establish
the district.
Page 34 of 46
014E 4 -13 -06
A Berkey said he hoped the board didn't think that holding one public hearing would
provide adequate opportunity for people to come because not everyone can be there, and asked
• the board to consider a number of things, such as a mailing and information sheet for input.
He also said that he had visited about 75 residences collecting signatures for his petition and
had not gone into the "expanded area." He is concerned the people in that area may not want
the water and the district may be voted down because of that.
A Berkey asked if there would be vote if there were no petition filed
for permissive
referendum and Atty Perkins said the board
is not required
to have a vote
unless a petition was
filed
again serving as the
that met the statutory requirements. A
Berkey said he
would like to see a vote either way.
Martha Robertson noted that she had gotten a call from a property owner in the
expanded area that was upset because they did not need water. She suggested any public
hearing be held at the Ellis Hollow Community Center. The Varna Community Center is also a
possibility.
A Sciarabba has provided the board with the final reports for the Pinckney Road Sewer
and Pinckney Road Water Districts. The benefit formula was revised using the new definition
of units. He noted there is a NYSEG substation in the district that gets no benefit from water
or sewer and Atty Perkins had advised them to take that portion of the assessment attributed
to the substation out to fairly assess the NYSEG portion. Using the new formula and dropping
the NYSEG valuation increased the cost to a typical user to $3,315 for water and $2,100 for the
sewer. This is a commercial/ industrial zone.
Cl Sumner asked if it was necessary to reduce NYSEG's assessment and Atty Perkins
said there was a recent Court of Appeals case where NY Telephone Company sued the Town of
Long Island because the Town had included in its benefit assessment formula the telephone
• lines which they are separately assessed for. The Court of Appeals said because there is no
benefit to the lines, it is irrational to use that: type of formula (the part that obviously does not
derive a benefit must be removed). He noted that part of NYSEG's assessment was left in, but
towers, lines, substations, etc. will be argued that there is no way they derive a benefit. He will
look at that issue further.
Jennifer Dube said
an egg hunt
was held
on Sunday
with approximately 250 in
attendance. She thanked
Cl Stelick for
again serving as the
Easter Bunny.
The Recreation Partnership will be holding a municipal leaders meeting to update them
and she will announce that date when it has been set.
The board has previously been provided with a proposed agreement with Dryden
Kiwanis and a resolution authorizing the Supervisor sign the same.
RESOLUTION #80 - AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH KIWANIS CLUB OF DRYDEN
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden Recreation Department and the Kiwanis Club of Dryden
work together to administer the Kiwanis Club youth softball and baseball programs for all
youth in the Town of Dryden, and
WHEREAS, the Recreation Department has provided the Town Board with a proposed
Agreement with regard to the 2006 youth softball and baseball programs,
•
Page 35 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute
on behalf of the Town of Dryden, the 2006 Agreement with the K.iwanis Club of Dryden.
21111 Supv Trumbull
Roll Call Vote Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
Atty Perkins has revised the resolution adopting fundraising guidelines for the
Recreation Department and after discussion the Board added Dryden Lacrosse to the
guidelines.
RESOLUTION #81 - ADOPT FUND RAISING GUIDELINES
CI Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, various recreation programs which raised funds to support their respective
programs have deposited such funds in separate bank accounts at The First National Bank of
Dryden, and
WHEREAS, in some instances program volunteers have disbursed funds from these bank
accounts with no program approval process in place, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden, through its Recreation Department, can facilitate the
disbursement of such funds by assuring that the disbursement of program funds raised by
program participants is made in a manner approved by such programs,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1)
The policy guidelines attached hereto are hereby
adopted as
guidelines
for the
disbursement of recreation program funds
deposited with the Town
of Dryden,
and
2) Funds held by the Town of Dryden are to be treated as a line item in the Recreation
Department budget.
2nd Cl Tier
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
CI Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
TOWN OF DRYDEN RECREATION DEPARTMENT PROGRAM
FUNDRAISING GUIDELINES
1. All fundraising efforts will be carried out by the individual programs. The Recreation
Coordinator will assist program fundraising coordinators in the placement of product
orders and the receiving of orders, however the actual payment: for and selling of
products for fundraising will be done by individual program participants.
Page 36 of 46
T13 4 -13 -06
2. Generally, a program fundraising committee will be made up of program coaches, a
program fundraising coordinator, parents of program participants, and the Recreation
Coordinator. The parent representative from each team must be notified of meetings
when fundraising decisions are to be made. The fundraising coordinator must be a
program participant's parent, coach or assistant coach with the program team and will
assist in placing orders, distributing products for sale and distributing other
fundraising materials.
3. The adult softball program fundraising committee will be made up of a chair, vice chair
and secretary, as well as an umpire representative and two player representatives. Each
member of the committee will serve a two -yeas term.
4. The Recreation Coordinator will complete and submit vouchers as needed for the
disbursement of fundraising funds received from programs after approval from the
program fundraising committee.
5. Each program fundraising committee will decide issues concerning fundraising and
approve the disbursement of fundraising funds by the Recreation Coordinator.
Currently, there are three program accounts for fundraising funds:
a. Friends of Dryden Youth Football &, Cheerleading
b. Adult Softball Fun League
c. Dryden Lacrosse
These accounts will be treated as line items in the Recreation Department budget.
Funds received from fundraising efforts will be deposited into a local depository and will
be accounted for on their respective lines in the budget. No disbursement can be made
without the program fundraising committee's approval.
0 6. Any program participant, parent or coach may request to see how the funds were
disbursed.
Cl Christofferson said having someone other than a parent to hold the fundraising
monies for these organizations is a nice benefit. Atty Perkins said as long as the program
understands that these are the guidelines and this is what they'll be subject to, it will be foie.
J Dube said she had met with Supv Trumbull and Mayor Taylor about: the possibility of
putting the skateboard park in Montgomery Park and along with that she would like to
revitalize Montgomery Park. She has spoken with the United States Tennis Association and
they have grants available. The skateboard park would only take up part of the tennis courts
so there could also be other activities going on. They will hold a skateboard park
demonstration at Montgomery Park on April 29 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and she invited
the board to attend. She also encouraged them to look at the skateboard park in Groton,
which could be a portable park, but they choose to leave the pieces in place. The Ackleys hope
that the entire project will be funded by donations from the area, and the park will be named in
their son's honor. They will try and have a public hearing at the May Village Board meeting for
Village residents and J Dube has sent a mailing to them inviting them to the event on
Saturday.
ATTORNEY
Atty
Perkins said he
has two matters
for executive session involving litigation and
expects the
board
will
want
to take
action on
one of them.
The board has received a proposed amendment to the Town's Electrical Code having to
• do with electrical inspectors. This was introduced by the board and the public hearing was set
Page 37 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
for May I I, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall, 65 East Main Street, Dryden, New York. The
text follows:
• Proposed Local Law 2006
A local law establishing qualifications for electrical inspectors
1. Section 4 - Electrical Inspector of local law No. 3 of the year 1981 - the Electrical Code of the Town of
Dryden - is hereby amended by labeling the existing paragraph as (A) and by adding new subparagraphs
(B) and (C) to read as follows:
(13) A qualified Electrical inspector means a person who:
(1) Has passed the New York State Civil Service Examination and is currently eligible for
appointment as an electrical inspector according to the rules of the Civil Service Commission,
or
(2)
Has been certified
as
a Residential Electrical
Inspector (for single or two
family residential
home construction)
by
the international Association of Electrical Inspectors,
or
(3) Has been certified as a Master Electrical Inspector for all other types of construction by the
international Association of Electrical Inspectors, or
(4) Has been recognized as a journeyman electrician by the international Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers for a period of at least five years.
(C) A person not meeting the qualifications of subparagraph (B) above may petition the town board
for appointment as an Electrical Inspector by reason of his education, training, work experience or
employment as an electrician, or as an electrical inspector.
2.
This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
ZONING OFFICER
ZO Slater has sent the board correspondence on March 23, 2006, regarding hiring
Tricia Strickland, tech prep student, to fill the position of Kelly Ashworth who will be leaving
after graduation in June. He said this is Kris Strickland's daughter; he has checked with
personnel and there is nothing precluding hiring her. She was highly recommended by the
Village of Dryden where she worked last summer and by Linda Bruno, business teacher at the
high school. She was interviewed and her references were checked. Hiring rate will be
minimum wage. Tricia is will be a senior at Dryden High in the fall and plans to attend TC3
after graduation in June 2007. ZO Slater said this program is a good opportunity to get young
people involved in local government. ZO Slater said there would be an overlap with the two
students of about a month. Board has no problem with this hire.
The Town Hall project is moving along and they expect to have final construction
documents by the end of the month and the utilities and associated site development
documents in a similar time frame. Atty Perkins said when the plans are ready the board will
need to hold a public information meeting, decide how it will be paid for (out of which funds
and how much), and the board will have to adopt some resolutions that will be adopted subject
to a permissive referendum, so there will be a thirty day period. CI Sumner said there was a
plan last month for public information meetings for the remainder of the site and asked if there
should be similar meetings for the Town Hall project. Atty Perkins said that was advisable. ZO
Slater said all potential issues have been resolved favorably for the site.
Page 38 of 46
T13 4- 13-06
Cl Christofferson said he and Cl Stelick are working with the architect to finalize
details, but he would like feedback from the board on some things. They need to figure out the
relationship between the engineer and the architect. 2O Slater asked if the board were willing
to have special meetings if necessary to keep things moving, and they indicated they were. He
hopes to be ready to break ground this summer, and when he has a complete package to take
to the public he'll be in touch with the board. D Kwasnowski said they will have a committee
meeting on the 25t1k and he hopes that after that meeting they will have a better idea of when
they can have a public information meeting. Cl Christofferson said he'd like to do it as quickly
as possible. D Kwasnowski said he thinks they have the NYSERDA benefits worked out and we
should be in good shape for that.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
D Kwasnowski introduced Stan Marcus who currently serves on the Conservation
Board and has agreed to serve on the Environmental Management Council.
RESOLUTION #82 - APPOINT STANLEY MARCUS TO TOMPKINS COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Supv Trumbull offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby appoints Stanley Marcus as its representative
on the Tompkins County Environmental Council.
2nd Cl Sumner
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
D Kwasnowski explained that the Stormwater Coalition (prior to the time he became
involved) had decided to ask municipalities for a modest sum of money, and they will pool that
money to create training programs for contractors and other builders and anyone else affected
by stormwater regulations. In order to do that they have to be more organized than an ad hoc
coalition. They have prepared an agreement that outlines what they intend to do. The board
has not had an opportunity to review the agreement yet, and it must also be reviewed by each
municipality's attorney. The board will address it: next month.
D Kwasnowski said that a consultant has been picked by the County and the
Transportation Council for the Route 13/366 Corridor Study. They will look at how that might
be rezoned and they will do a build -out scenario with graphics. That will take a few months to
complete and there will probably be several public meetings.
The proposed stormwat:er ordinance has gone through the Planning Board and the
Conservation Board with some recommendations. It is based on the State template. They will
continue to work on it and D Kwasnowski noted there is lots of time, and it may work to our
advantage to wait.
With respect to the Renewal Energy Ordinance, D Kwasnowski said he put considerable
work into this document, and borrowed language from other ordinances. He said he was asked
to draft this after the Town was faced with Cornell's proposed wind farm. There has been an
Page 39 ot'46
'rB 4 -13 -06
application for a residential windmill that was denied because there is no provision in our
ordinance for it. The applicant took the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals and that
resulted in a letter from the ZBA Attorney to ZO Slater basically saying the Town needed to
make a decision on what to do with this.
D Kwasnowski said windmills have been on the landscape for a long time with some in
the Town of Dryden. Collecting energy from the wind is not new technology. What are new are
the NYSERDA grants available. It is a considerable investment that residents want to make on
their property. There are also tax breaks available. He said he supports wind power as far as
energy sources go and it is pretty low impact. A residential wind turbine basically converts
energy that is on site.
The basic issues are noise from operation, aesthetic impact on the landscape, radio
signal interference if they are in the wrong place, bird and bat are the only animals affected
(industrial size only), and the fall zone. There is also the FAA if in a fly zone. The other issue is
public impression. D Kwasnowski says this proposed ordinance addresses these issues and is
consistent with the laws we have to date, for example the town's telecommunications tower
siting law.
He said the Town's decision tonight is does it want to go forward %vith an ordinance, ban
them outright or have a moratorium. It will be reviewed by the Conservation Board and
Planning Board. The Conservation Board reviewed it Tuesday and it received a lot of
discussion and mixed reviews. He said both Ally Perkins' and Ally Marcus' letters basically
said either regulate them or ban them altogether. There are a lot. of things to work on and D
Kwasnowski asked the board if they wanted to proceed.
Cl Christofferson asked Ally Perkins about his suggestion for a moratorium and Ally
Perkins said the advantage of having a moratorium is that it sends a clear message of "not
now ", we are studying the issue about whether to regulate, and if we decide to regulate, what
regulations we'll have. Cl Christofferson said he'd like to learn more about it. Ally Perkins has
some information he %vill copy for the board.
C1 Sumner suggested the ordinance could be written to limit the noise, and Ally Perkins
said someone would then need to go measure it if there was a complaint.
Carol Schmook, 3$1 Pelt Pleasant Rd, said they are trying to work with Renovus Energy
to put up a windmill. She has given ZO Slater some studies on noise levels of residential
windmills that indicate that once you are 50' away from the windmill there is no noise. He also
has some studies on impact on birds that indicate almost no impact. She said NYSERDA has
very strict regulations on fall zone. Their site would be in the middle of the property in a
wooded area, and they have signed letters from almost all their neighbors in support of the
project. They like the idea of being able to have clean, renewable power. She said with global
warming, the environment, acid rain, and the situation with gas and oil prices, it will cost them
a fair amount of money and will take them 10 to 1S years to make that money back, but it is
something they can do. She asked the board to move on this matter as soon as possible and
noted there is no need for a moratorium because at this point they are not allowed. Until the
ordinance is passed, no one can have a windmill here.
D Jacobs said he supports the windmills, but would like to separate the solar panels
from that since he already has his system waiting to be installed. D Kwasnowski said it was
his intent to have the ordinance so that a new ordinance would not have to be created
whenever new technology came along, but with solar, generally speaking, people put a small
panel on their roof, but they could be mounted on a 100' pole. ZO Slater said when he spoke
to the Department of State they said they should be regulated the same, not selectively looked
• at.
Page 40 of 46
'rB 4 -13 -06
Cl Christofferson said this is the first opportunity the board has had to really discuss
this and hear from residents. The board has to be prudent in looking at this and making good
decisions for all residents. He said he didn't think it would take a long time to wrap it up, but
he wants to give people time. D Kwasnowski said he expected to be able to do it in June or
July.
The Board asked that this be reviewed by the Conservation Board and Planning Board
and present their comments. Barbara Caldwell said she would have it on the Planning Board
agenda for next week. Atty Perkins suggested the Conservation Board and Planning Board ask
for public comment. He also said it is premature to be talking about the necessary form of it;
that there is more work to be done before you get to the form of it. B Caldwell said if D
Kwasnowski can get an email out to the Planning Board members, they can at least give it
some preliminary discussion at their next meeting, but she is not sure they will be able to
make recommendations, though she is sure they will be able to make some decision by the
May meeting.
Dan Roy of Renovus Energy, Inc., the company that will install the Schmook windmill,
said they have a few of the same unit installed around the area (Harford, Moravia, Enfield) and
invited anyone to visit those sites.
TOWN CLERK
Town Clerk Bambi Hollenbeck asked the board to approve last month's minutes.
RESOLUTION 083 - APPROVE MINTUES
Cl Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the minutes of the March 9, 2006
Town Board meeting.
2nd Supv Trumbull
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
B Hollenbeck reported that tax collection March 31 , 2006, and provided the board with
a statement: of the amounts collected and outstanding and disbursements. She noted that
although the unpaids were returned to the County two months earlier, the dollar amount of
unpaids remain pretty much the same, however the Town collected about $4,000 less in
penalties.
DISCUSSION
The board considered a resolution to change the appointment of the Recreation
Coordinator from provisional to permanent because Jennifer Dube passed the civil service
exam. Lisa Stelick congratulated J Dube on the appointment and thanked her for the
enormous amount of hours she devotes to the position for the town and community.
RESOLUTION #84 - RECREATION COORDINATOR APPOINTMENT
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Page 41 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden established the position of Recreation Coordinator in
accordance with applicable New York State laws and the Civil Service Rules for Tompkins
County; and
WHEREAS, said position is established in the competitive class pursuant to Section 44
of the Civil Service Law and the Civil Service Rules for Tompkins County, which requires the
individual occupying the position to pass a civil service exam; and
WHEREAS, Jennifer Dube took and passed the required exam for this position;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that this Town Board does hereby appoint, in accordance with applicable
Civil Service laws, rules and regulations, Jennifer Dube to permanent competitive class status
in the title of Recreation Coordinator.
2nd Cl Stelick
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
RESOLUTION #85 - APPROVE BUDGET MODIFICATION
Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the following budget modification:
The sum of $519.38 from A1990.4 (contingency) to A1010.4 Town Board Contractual, for town
board member attendance at the annual NYS Association of Towns meeting.
2nd C1 Sumncr
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
C1 Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
The Board discussed TC3's request that the Town of Dryden assume responsibility for
issuing the building permits and providing code reviews and construction inspections at $37
per hour up to a maximum of $8,000.
Atty Perkins said the Town has a contract with the Village of Dryden which provides for
the same kinds of services at a different rate, and if the Town were going to perform this servic=e
for TC3 they should charge the same rate. He also asked whether this had been discussed
with the Town's insurance carrier and noted that the Town is not responsible for TC3 as far as
issuing permits and performing inspections. The Town enjoys qualified immunity from
lawsuits when performing a statutory duty and this would not be a statutory duty, but a
contractual duty. So if something were to go wrong with an inspection, etc., the Town would
have some exposure and could be liable. He said if the Board were considering doing this, they
should consult the insurance carrier and then have an agreement with the college regarding
responsibilities.
Page 42 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
ZO Slater said that the Town certainly has no responsibility to perform this service, but
TC3 had requested the Town do it because apparently the County doesn't have sufficient staff
available to do the work and that resulted in the request. He had explained to Dean Ross that
it was up to the board. ZO Slater said he doesn't want to cause a potential financial burden.
Supv Trumbull mentioned that TC3 is going to pay $34,000 for two manholes for the Cortland
Road Sewer District. Cl Stetick proposed that the hourly rate charged be the same as charged
to the Village of Dryden, and that the board leave the decision to the Supervisor, based on
approval by the insurance carrier and the Town Attorney.
Martha Robertson said she is on the Health and Human Services Committee and people
from Bolton Point had met with them to talk about user fees. Cornell and City of Ithaca are
also subject to the same fees. She explained there was a big increase in fees from one year to
the next with very little notice. She had suggested that there be some negotiation on the first
year of those fees, but the people from Bolton Point were not interested in discussing it. That
option may still be available if Bolton Point were interested. The County did have legal advice
regarding the fees that were set and they looked at: how other counties determine their fees.
She said it seems that what they've done is legal, the City Attorney and Cornell Attorney have
determined it is legal. There are different ways in which to set fees. The County changed the
way of calculating the fees, and if the Bolton Point fees were going to be changed, they'd have
to also change the Cornell and City fees, and if they lowered fees for the big users, they'd have
to raise the fees for small users because the Health Department has to recoup a certain
amount. Their overall fee schedule had been lower than the State was suggesting.
Supv Trumbull said they had met once a month for two years and now they've decided
to make a resolution and now all of a sudden they are getting the reasons why. They have not
had that explanation. M Robertson said her understanding was that staff had dealt with it up
until this point, because she was chair of that committee for a few years and it never came to
the committee until two months ago. She was confused about why it didn't come to them
before it got to this point, but had been going on at the staff level. Supv Trumbull said they
were going to talk about it in executive session.
Cl Stelick asked whether the County was charging what the State was telling them to or
charging more. M Robertson said they were charging at the level the State recommended. Now
every system user gets charged a flat fee of $100 and on top of that there is a per person served
charge. She said it is a judgment call how you choose to distribute the costs. She said the
fees cover 20% of the costs and that is the level the State recommends they use. The County
had been covering 16 %. She said she would have liked to do something different to transition
in the first year, but the idea didn't get any response.
Cl Christofferson said he has had a couple of residents call him who said they have
been told by Time Warner that they can't receive cable service because the Town doesn't have a
contract with Time Warner, and they are beyond the per home requirement. He said the Town
should look into providing wireless service to residents. Cl Sumner and Cl Christofferson will
meet to discuss the areas that not served and possible resolutions.
Cl Stelick and Cl Sumner have had a meeting with John Bailey regarding the Town's
insurance coverage and the possibility of going with NYMIR. They will meet again after they
have more information.
With respect to the Dryden -Freeville Trail, D Kwasnowski reported that Barton &
Loguidice will move ahead and send the final design report to NYS DOT.
The Board discussed the Beam Hill Radio Tower Lease the town currently has with
Dryden Central School District, Neptune Hose Company and Cornell Teaching and Research
Center. The tower is used by the Town Highway Department, Village of Dryden, Dryden School
Page 43 of 46
T13 4 -13 -06
bus garage, and Cornell. Neptune has not paid its $150 annual fee the past few years. Atty
Perkins said the reason the agreement was originally set up this way was because the Town
can't make a gift of the use of town property to a private entity like the Fire Department or
Cornell, and that's why the nominal amount came up. It is a long -term lease; was subject to a
permissive referendum. The rates haven't been raised and it was intended simply to be a
nominal amount, at that time deemed to be a fair and reasonable consideration for the space.
J Bush said his department keeps the site maintained, and it is his understanding that Cornell
is to maintain the tower, which currently is in need of repair. He believes this is something
that needs to be addressed.
Atty Perkins said as long as you address the fire department's use of the tower, even if it
is in the fire protection contract, it could be part of the consideration that they don't pay. The
board would need to determine that the fair and accurate consideration for the use of the
property is expressed in the contract; it can be adjusted that way (for providing fire protection
they get to use the tower).
The board's position is that the fire department should pay what is due and they will
address the matter in the contract next year.
Jeff Kirby said if there is an issue with failure to maintain the structure, the Town could
send their qualified consultant to make an inspection and write a report to be forwarded to
Cornell with a directive to repair it.
The board discussed a voucher submitted for programs at the Ellis Hollow Community
Center by the center. There was $25,000 in the budget that was for improvements and /or
repairs at community centers. Cl Stelick said that was not really his intent, and further
explained that he felt this was within the realm of the intent to open the center to all town
residents, and that the long -range goal is to have specific line items in the recreation budget for
each of the community centers. Cl Christofferson said he thought the money was intended for
capital improvements or major improvements, not program funds. It was noted that not only
members of the center attended the March madness activities. After further discussion, the
board agreed the voucher was to be paid. J Dube noted there would be an additional related
voucher in the amount of $250. Cl Sumner said they need to designate a specific amount of
money for programs for the community centers. Cl Christofferson asked J Dube to look at her
budget and let the board know how much she needs.
Cl Stelick said he will be
meeting with representatives of
the
Ellis Hollow Community
Center and Thoma Development
to see what opportunities there
are
for the center.
D Kwasnowski said that he will do a stormwater presentation at the May meeting and
asked to do it earlier in meeting than his regular slot.
RESOLUTION #86 - APPROVE ABSTRACT #4
Cl Christofferson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract #4, as audited, vouchers
#222 through #314, totaling $275,894.83.
2^d Tier
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
Page 44 of 46
TB 4 -13 -06
On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the board moved into executive
session at 11:20 p.m. to discuss matters of litigation. The board moved back into regular
session at 11.50 p.m. and passed the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #87 - AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST TOMPIGNS COUNTY REGARDING FEES CHARGED FOR REGULATORY
SERVICES
Supv Trumbull offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the town of Dryden, together with the towns of Ithaca and Lansing, and the
villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing by Agreement of Intermunicipal Cooperation have
formed the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (the "Commission "); and
WHEREAS, the Commission is charged fees I y Tompkins County (the "County ") for
regulatory services provided by the County's Health Department to assure water quality and
the Commission's compliance with applicable wager quality and processing laws and
regulations; and
WHEREAS, until 2003 the annual fee charged for such services was $600; and
WHEREAS, the County unilaterally, without consultation with the Commission,
increased the fee charged in 2004 to $6730 and again in 2005 to $7920, or more than 13 times
the amount charged in 2003; and
WHEREAS, other smaller water system operators pay fees as little as $120 per year;
Is and
WHEREAS, the Commission has been advised that regulatory fees charged by a County
need to bear some correlation to the cost of the regulating activities; and
WHEREAS, the County has stated that formula for calculating its fee structure is not
based upon the cost to the County of providing the services to each class of water system
operator, but rather upon the number of customers served by each water system operator; and
WHEREAS, the County's own materials indicated that the cost of providing regulatory
services to the Commission is not anywhere near 66 times greater than the cost of providing
the service for a small operator, yet the fee charged the Commission is 66 times more than the
fee charged smaller operators; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has met with County officials and the County Health
Department Board and expressed its concern with the fee structure and the illegality and
unfairness of the structure, and requested a change in the fees; and
WHEREAS, the County has, to date, refused to rectify the inequities and illegalities of
the fees being charged and does not show any evidence that it will, in the future, reduce the
inequities in its fee structure; and
WHEREAS, to date the Commission has refused to pay the charges assessed against: it;
and
WHEREAS, if no action is taken by the Commission, the unpaid charges will continue
to accumulate and the Commission's ability to challenge such charges may become time
• barred; and
Page 45 of 46
"113 4 -13-06
WHEREAS, because of the County's refusal to entertain changes to its fee structure, it
appears the only way for the Commission to rectify the situation is to seek a judicial
determination by a court as to the legality of the charges assessed by the County; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has authorized the Commission's attorneys to commence a
legal proceeding against the County for relief from the County's fee structure; and
WHEREAS, if the fee structure is not altered, the Town of Dryden customers will,
through expense deductions in the Commission's budget, be required to pay a proportionate
share of such improper regulatory fees;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden
concurs with the Commission's decision to commence of a legal action or proceeding
seeking alteration of the County's fee structure for regulatory services performed by the
County Health Department for the Commission and authorizes the commencement of
such a legal action or proceeding; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden join in the lawsuit as a petitioner - plaintiff and
authorizes the firm of Barney, Grossman, Dubow & Marcus to represent such
municipality in such action or proceeding; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Supervisor and Clerk to take such
further actions, and to sign on behalf of the Town of Dryden, any affidavits, pleadings,
or other documents deemed by either of them to be necessary or desirable to prosecute
such lawsuit and to effectuate the intent of the foregoing resolutions.
2nd Cl Tier
Roll Call Vote
Cl Christofferson Yes
Cl Tier Yes
Supv Trumbull Yes
Cl Stelick Yes
Cl Sumner Yes
On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:52 p. in.
Respectfully submitted,
1)G5,' A��'1 LG•,t�c
Bambi L. Hollenbeck
Town Clerk
Page 46 of 46
DRYDE�N TOWN BOARD MEETING
Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
1) Call Meeting to Order
2) Pledge of Allegiance
3) Roll Call
4) Public Hearings
7 :00 p.m. Local Law Establishing the Town of Dryden Policy on Notification Upon the
Unauthorized Release of Private Information
7:10 p.m. Local Law Regulating Sites of Telecommunications Tower, Antennae, and
Related Facilities
7:20 p.m. Local Law Repealing Law No. 2 of 1998 and Local Law No. 4 of 2004 (the
Town's current telecommunication law)
7:30 p.m. Site Plan Review Modification Hearing — Expand Existing Broadcast Studio
Cayuga Radio Group —1751 Hanshaw Rd
7 :45 p.m. Special Use Permit — Expand Existing Telecommunication Tower
Vcrizon Wireless, Telecommunication Carrier — 1387 Dryden Rd
8:00 p.m. Cayuga Press Moving to Cortland
5) Agenda Item
a) Etna Fire Department
6) Citizens Privilege
7) Town Highway Superintendent/Department of Public Works
a) Agreement to spend Town Highway Funds
8) . County Briefing
9) Engineering
10) recreation Department
a) Resolution Kiwanis Contract
b) Resolution Fundraising Account Setup
c) Skateboard Park Update
1 1) Attorney
12) Zoning Officer
a) Approval of Tech Prep Candidate
b) 'Down Hall Project
13) Environmental Planner
a) Renewable Energy Ordinance
b) Stormwater Ordinance
c) ISP Bandwidth Conversion & Increase Request
d) GI.S Intern
Continued on back
Presenter
J Bush
County Repr,
D Putnam
I Dube
N1 Perkins
H Slater
D Kwasnowski
14) Town Clerk B Hollenbeck
a) Approve iV9arch minutes go
15) Discussion
a) Resolution to change appointment of Recreation Coordinator from Provisional to Permanent
b) Resolution to approve budget modification
c) Bolton Point's Health Department fees Resolution
d) TO Agreement Ior "Zoning Department Services
e) Planning Board'Member Replacement
f) Cortland Road Sewer Contract
g) Time Warner Contract
h) Etna Contract
i) NYMIR Insurance
j) Dryden 'frail
k) Beam Hill Radio Tower Lease
16) Approve Abstract # 4
17) Future Agenda Items
18) Executive Session = if necessary