HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-16TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
June 16, 2016
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Kathrin Servoss,
Cl Deborah Cipolla-Dennis
Absent: Cl Linda Lavine
Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk
Other Town Staff: Susan Brock, Town Attorney
Ray Burger, Director of Planning
Jennifer Jones, Recreation Director
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. and board members and guests
participated in the pledge of allegiance.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis asked for a moment of silence in solidarity with the folks in Orlando,
Florida, in light of the recent tragic events.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis reviewed a proposed protocol for citizens privilege and the proposed
resolution for adopting the same.
RESOLUTION #105 (2016) – ESTABLISHING A PROTOCOL FOR
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Cl Cipolla-Dennis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas, the New York State Open Meeting Law (Article 7, Public Officers Law) gives
members of the public the right to attend meetings of public bodies but does not give the public
the right to speak or otherwise participate at those meetings, except at public hearings and
under other limited circumstances, and
Whereas, New York State Town Law authorizes a town board to enact protocols, rules
and regulations regarding the conduct of public meetings and public hearings conducted by
the town board, and the New York State Committee on Open Government has agreed that a
public body can adopt reasonable rules that treat members of the public equally, and
WHEREAS, the Dryden Town Board finds it useful and informative to allow citizens the
opportunity to speak at Town Board meetings, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to create a safe and productive environment for all persons
attending and participating in Town Board meetings, and
WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens are treated fairly and equally, now therefore
be it
RESOLVED, that the Dryden Town Board hereby immediately adopts the following
Protocol for Speaking at Citizen’s Privilege:
• Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. Time may not be transferred
from one speaker to another or reserved for a later time in the same meeting.
TB 6-16-16
Page 2 of 30
• Speakers must direct their comments to the Town Board.
• The use of racial, ethnic, or homophobic slurs; lewd, obscene, threatening,
abusive, or profane language will not be tolerated. Speakers who violate this
rule, will have their time immediately revoked and will be asked to leave the
meeting.
• It is helpful, but not required, for speakers to provide their name and address.
• Written materials may be provided to the Clerk and will be incorporated into the official
record.
2nd Supv Leifer
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis will display a timer so that speakers will see how much time they
have.
TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION #106 (2016) – APPROVE MINUTES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the meeting minutes of May 12 and
May 19, 2016.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
VERIZON WIRELESS SPECIAL USE PERMIT
IRISH SETTLEMENT AND ROUTE 13 SITE
Jared Lusk, representing Verizon Wireless, said the purpose and need for this tower is
well documented in their February application. Verizon is currently expanding its 4g network
to areas that don’t yet have reliable 4g service. RF propagations were displayed showing the
need for 4g coverage in the Irish Settlement area. The application details why this site was
favored over other locations based on coverage. It was noted there is also a future site near
Sheldon Road. Supv Leifer asked if other sites considered were for towers of the same height.
Mr. Lusk said he assumed so, but would confirm that at the next meeting. The goal is to bring
reliable coverage along 1.7 miles of Route 13 and 1.8 miles along Route 366 and the other
areas depicted on the propagation map.
The tower is proposed to be sited on the former RPM property on Route 13. The
existing drive will be cleaned up and improved and utilized with some improvement to the
tower site. They propose a tower with an overall height of 170’ (including the 5’ lightning rod),
with 12 antennas at three different sectors with an equipment platform at the base to house
TB 6-16-16
Page 3 of 30
the equipment cabinets. Applicant has read the Planning Department memorandum and the
engineer’s letter.
The town’s code requires some landscaping and applicant is happy to provide
appropriate landscaping as the board wishes, keeping in mind that the site is 400’ from the
road.
There won’t be much clearing of the property necessary. There is some overgrown
scrub. No tree cutting is necessary. There is an existing transformer and other utilities there,
making it an adaptive reuse of the site.
Applicant respectfully asked that the board grant the special use permit and site plan
approval necessary for the project.
Comments from public:
Bruno Schickel, Schutt Road, said he is in favor of this. He has experienced dropped
cell coverage driving between Ithaca and Dryden. This is a perfect example of the sorts of
infrastructure Dryden has to be open to and welcome on a whole host of levels. We have to
provide infrastructure for people to prosper, work and enjoy life in Tompkins County.
Sarah Osmeloski read the following statement:
My name is Sarah Osmeloski. My husband and I have owned and lived at 2180 Dryden Rd. for
almost 30 years. Several years ago we got rid of our landline and have relied on cell phones
ever since. At our home we get 3 to 4 bars of signal, 4 G data. I have never experienced a
dropped call and the reception is clear and crisp. I see no need for an additional cell tower in
our area.
My concerns are the possible health impact the EME’s will have on our health and more
immediately the impact the proposed tower will have on my viewscape and property value.
When verizon did their VISUAL RESOURCE EVALUATION they selected 3 sites on Dryden Rd.
to demonstrate the visual impact the proposed tower would have. One site is an abandoned
Quonset, another an empty field owned by Lansing resident Mr. Pinney who is one of the few to
profit from this venture and a cemetery. They did not include an analysis of the visual impact
of the Willow Glen residences along Dryden Rd. where people actually live.
So I decided to take the liberty of making my own photos to demonstrate the visual impact.
(Picture 1)
This is a picture of my home looking in a NW direction from Dryden Rd.
(Picture 2)
This is the same picture with the proposed cell tower drawn in to the best of my ability as to
size and location. Obviously I didn’t have access to a photographic balloon thing or Photoshop.
As you can see the proposed tower is clearly visible from Dryden Rd. and will most likely cause
a significant drop in my property value.
(Picture 3)
TB 6-16-16
Page 4 of 30
This picture was taken looking NW from the back door of my barn. This magnificent view is the
best feature of my property and I cherish it.
(Picture 4)
This is the same picture with the proposed tower drawn in. The intrusion of the tower
diminishes its beauty. That’s so sad
(Picture 5)
This is a picture taken looking westward from an area that I mow and maintain for the purpose
of relaxing with and training my dog. It is peaceful and tranquil, my dog and I enjoy going there
daily. It is approximately 500’ N of Dryden Rd. and 550’ E of the proposed tower site.
(Picture 6)
This is the same picture with the cell tower drawn into it. The proposed tower will be more
visible during the winter months when the leaves are gone as there aren’t any evergreens to
help block the view of it.
As you can see construction of this tower will be a major intrusion on the viewscape of my
entire property. There is no way to hide it or to hide from it. Also there will be no place on my
property to escape the electro magnetic emissions from the tower. Both of these things I find
extremely invasive and as a property owner who purchased this land 30 years ago I find that
unacceptable. So I ask the Board to deny this special use permit. Thank you.
Joe Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, said he agrees with his wife. He is perplexed by
the term “Irish Settlement Tower” when the area is known as Willow Glen. One of the
documents he obtained said the board may reject an application because it conflicts with the
historic nature of a neighbor or district. He then quoted from an article in Living in Dryden
stating the settlement of Willow Glen dates back to 1798 when some the earliest p ioneer
families located there and went in to state the nature of the businesses in the area. There are
still some businesses there and it is a beautiful spot. This cell tower will intrude on the nature
of the area.
Reading from the Town’s telecommunications tower siting law, J Osmeloski said the
highest priority (a) for location is on existing towers or other tall structures. This is a low area.
(b) is co-location on a site with existing towers. (c) on Town-owned property in non-
residentially zoned areas of the town. (d) is in other non-residentially zoned areas of the town
and (e) is on other property in the town. This is being sited on what is the lowest in priority for
where a cell tower should be located.
In the environmental statement there is no reference to the Carousel of Love Daycare
Center which is located within 1500’ of the site.
J Osmeloski asked the board to deny the special use permit to preserve beauty of where
he lives.
R Burger said we have the engineer review and county report indicating no county-wide
impacts. After this, the board will proceed with SEQR and deliberations and pass it at the next
meeting.
The hearing was left open at 7:30 p.m. and the board will act next month.
TB 6-16-16
Page 5 of 30
J Lusk said when the project is approved Verizon will provide tower specifications and
plans to the town. Applicant was not aware there was a daycare center. Usually in completing
an EAF, something like that would auto-fill from GIS information or state records on the
system. J Lusk said that the board could add the daycare to the EAF or the applicant can
submit a new one.
The tower will be a lattice, but an exact rendering won’t be available until Verizon has
chosen a vendor. The simulation is basically what it will look like. Photos must be done from
public locations for the simulations because Verizon can’t go on private property.
Colocation is required under the town code and Verizon will make space available for
other providers for purposes of colocation.
David Moore, owner of Yellow Barn Commercial Park across the road from this site, said
he doesn’t have an issue this and agrees that infrastructure across the board needs to be in
place in the town. He also respects the Osmeloski’s concerns. He wondered about the effect of
not having the daycare listed and whether all the possibilities for location of the tower been
explored. It seems there might be other sites that might work. He is q uestioning the
investment to enhance the service of 1.7 miles along Route 13 and 1.8 miles along Route 366.
It seems a tremendous investment to improve that service and he has not experienced a
dropped call there, though he does understand that people in Etna hav e some issues. Finding
another location up Irish Settlement Road may work and he asked if the board had thoroughly
explored all possibilities. This will be visible despite being 400’ off Route 13.
Jared Lusk explained that the RF engineer identifies a search ring and names it
according to some geographical choice. The tower needs to be in the area depicted in Exhibit E
to provide the necessary coverage. Phones now operate on 3g and 4g service, but in the next
few years, all carriers will be transmitting on a 4g network and not on the 3g network. The
signal strength is the same, but the frequency is different. 3g operates on 850 megahertz and
4g operates on 2100 megahertz, so the signal distance is shorter. The towers are shorter than
they used to be and more closely spaced together.
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
4 CRICKET LANE
VORHIS SUP FOR AUTO REPAIR FACILITY
Ray Burger stated the applicants submitted a supplemental site plan that addressed a
lot of the concerns raised last month.
Applicants Ed and Amy Vorhis stated they have sent a letter to neighbors and have
purchased 10 evergreen trees for planting. They have contacted DEC to verify that they have a
100’ buffer from the wetland area and DEC does not expect a problem.
Supv Leifer asked if the business hours in their letter was what they intended. A Vorhis
said the planning department had recommended those hours. E Vorhis said he works full time
and it will be a part time hobby now. When he is retired he would like to have this business.
The intent is not to work those hours, but they want to be available. It was also recommended
to them that they have not more than five customer vehicles on the property at any time.
E Vorhis said there actually was a business at the end of Cricket Lane and there was a
sign. It was part of the Finger Lakes Art Trail. That didn’t seem to have an impact on the
neighborhood. They have a letter of support from a neighboring property owner who has never
had a problem with noise, etc.
TB 6-16-16
Page 6 of 30
Cl Lamb clarified that one neighbor out of nine supports this project. People are
concerned about a business being open seven days a week. That will be hard on the
neighbors. Applicant says they did not hear from the neighbors despite providing their cell
phone numbers. They are not opposed to a reduction of the hours and would like to be open
Saturdays, providing for friends and family.
Public Comment
Bruno Schickel said the board should keep in mind that the nature of work and
businesses is changing. Farms were getting bigger and now there are a lot of small ones.
People are working at home. If this was farm and they had a repair shop for their equipment
there wouldn’t be a problem. All these things have an impact on the neighbor s, but we have to
give as much flexibility to people as possible.
Joe Wilson, alternate Planning Board member, said this is a cul-de-sac development
with an auto shop proposed, not quite the general things Mr. S chickel described.
Bonnie Batzer, 5 Cricket Lane, lives directly across from the applicants. She has a
better view of the proposed business than even they do from their residence. It will be right in
front of her house. She submitted a letter signed by all neighbors except one (attached) and a
map of the road with the properties in orange that are not in favor. When you drive down
Cricket Lane you understand how close everyone is.
She is concerned with several things on the application. At the meeting A Vorhis said
she can’t stand the cars in the driveway now, yet she is requesting this business. There are
many discrepancies in the public record. Question 4 is marked as rural, and there is comment
in question 17 that it is a residential area. They understand residential and rural, but they are
definitely more residential than rural. Children play in the streets everyday and it is
disheartening that the applicant doesn’t acknowledge that there will be an increase in traffic
(one of the questions). Question 6 asks if the proposed action is consistent with the
predominant character of the existing landscape and they marked yes. Tow trucks, tires and
all of that will definitely affect the landscape. Question 13 asks if the proposed action is
located in a state environmental area. They brought up the wetlands. R esidents all have well
water. There are sanitation issues with battery acid, oil, antifreeze, tires, etc. Applicant
bought a tire changer and it obviously will be used, so where will the tires go?
Scott Batzer, 5 Cricket Lane, said they moved there three years ago, about the time the
applicants’ building was being put up. He’s pretty sure they knew what they wanted to do in
the future, and did not approach the neighbors then. This does impact the neighborhood.
Their garage is less than 60 yards from the front of his house. They are 157’ from the closest
neighbor. It is too close to the road and it is too much activity for the neighborhood. Applicant
says property assessments will go up, and perhaps it will for them because they will pay tax on
that building. If they go to sell their house no one will want to buy it because of the impact of
the shop on the neighborhood. It was a quiet neighborhood. This doesn’t need to be there.
A letter was received from the Kalbs via email and added to the project file:
My wife and I are jointly composing and submitting this letter as our response to the application for a Special Use
Permit (SUP) by the residents of 4 Cricket Lane, Town of Dryden, for an automobile repair business.
We believe that this type of business would negatively alter the character of the neighborhood in terms of safety,
traffic, noise, smells and visual appearance. Although our neighborhood is zoned rural residential, we strongly agree
with the statement made by the town Planning Division in Attachment A to Short Environmental Assessment Form,
Part 3, Determination of Significance, where it states, “The proposed use is not consistent with the predominant
landscape. Cricket Lane is abutted by eight single-family residences; it more resembles the 'Neighborhood
Residential' zone envisioned in the Zoning Law or the 'suburban residential zone' envisioned in the Comprehensive
TB 6-16-16
Page 7 of 30
Plan, than it does a 'Rural Residential' zone.”
We disagree with the applicant’s claim that the neighborhood i s “not quiet” (memorandum 3/9/16 to TB from D.
Sprout: SUP at 4 Cricket Ln). It definitely is a very peaceful and quiet neighborhood and has been this way since we
have lived here, over 34 years. We chose our house partly because of the quiet, dead-end street that allows the
children to play with little impact from extraneous cars, deliveries and tow trucks. Most days we are able to recognize
every car that drives down this road.
Route 38 is an extremely busy state route. Of particular concern is the fact that the Dryden school bus stop is at the
end of Cricket Lane where it meets Route 38. All the children waiting to get on or coming off the bus must enter and
exit here, close to the entrance of the proposed business, because they need to maintain a safe distance from the
highway. There are no sidewalks and the children walk in the road to get there. We have already noticed an
increase in car and delivery traffic, including large trucks, on the road. We feel these are legitimate safety concerns.
We have nothing personal against the Vorhis’ and their desire to earn income. The quiet, peaceful, de -facto
neighborhood residential area where children can still safely ride their bikes in the street is not the place, in our
opinion, for an automobile repair shop. There are vacant businesses in the town of Dryden that Mr. and Mrs. Vorhis
could pursue as options for their desired business site. We believe it would be better to use a more suitable location,
rather than altering the character of Cricket Lane with an auto repair business. Allowing this use would be “somewhat
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of directing commercial development to exiting villages, hamlets and
nodes”. (Attachment A to Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 3, Determination of Significance)
We had no knowledge that an SUP was being applied for until we received notification via post card in early May
about the town board hearing on May 19th 2016. We felt blindsided, totally uninformed, by this and have only re cently
been able to gather information and investigate this process. There are several discrepancies between the Vorhis’
application to the town board, the information they provided to the Director of Planning and their letter to the
neighbors dated 6/6/16, including number of cars, hours of operation, changes in traffic and changes in the character
of the neighbor hood. It is concerning to us that it had reached this late stage in the application process. The Vorhis’
application to the town board is dated 1/16/16.
Ensuring compliance with any SUP with restrictions puts the neighbors in the role of surveillance and reporting
violations.
As residents of the Cricket Lane neighborhood, we are also very concerned about reduced property values that could
occur with this change and potential accidental leaks and spills that could enter the ground water. The neighborhood
is all on well water.
We request that the SUP for the automotive repair business at 4 Cricket Lane not be approved.
Respectfully submitted,
David W. Kalb
Theresa M. Kalb
171 Groton Rd
Freeville, NY 13068
The board closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. and reviewed SEQR Part I (most
recently revised) for the project.
Changes made to Part I include:
#4 – Residential (suburban) use was checked in addition to Rural because it is on the
outskirts of the Village of Freeville.
#5(b) – changed from N/A to Yes.
#6 – Was changed from Yes to No.
TB 6-16-16
Page 8 of 30
#8 – There was discussion about whether there will be a substantial increase in traffic
above present levels. Cl Cipolla-Dennis noted that even an increase of five cars per day on this
road would be a substantial increase. The SEQR notebook uses a guide of an increase of 100
cars in peak hour trips would be a significant impact. R Burger said this would not be
anywhere near the threshold used by DEC. The answer was left as No.
#13 – Alluded to a wetland. In order to be accurate refer to the NYS DEC wetland as
portrayed on the DEC resource map.
#14 – Suburban should be checked as the habitat type.
The board reviewed and completed Part II:
#1 – Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or
zoning regulations? No, or small impact may occur. It is a permitted use by special use permit.
#2 – Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
No, or small impact may occur.
#3 – Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
In Part 1(#6) it was noted that the proposed action was not consistent with the predominant
character of the existing built or natural landscape. Moderate to large impact may occur.
#4 – Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that
caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? No, or small impact.
#5 – Will proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? After discussion, this was
answered No, or small impact may occur.
#6 – Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to
incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable opportunities? No, or small
impact may occur.
#7 – Will the proposed action impact existing:
a. public/private water supplies? No, or small impact.
b. Public/private wastewater treatment utilities? No, or small impact.
#8 – Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,
archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? No, or small impact.
#9 – Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g.,
wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? No, or small impact.
#10 – Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding
or drainage problems? No, or small impact.
#11 – Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human
health? No, or small impact.
Part 3 – it was noted there was an attachment prepared by the Planning Department .
Supv Leifer said some the impacts can be mitigated short term and if the applicant
wants to petition for change, they can come back to the board.
TB 6-16-16
Page 9 of 30
RESOLUTION #107 (2016) – SEQR NEG DEC – OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR
FACILITY AT 4 CRICKET LANE
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves operating an automobile repair facility at 4 Cricket Lane in
Freeville, New York, Tax parcel # 28.-1-19.123, and
B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden considers this an unlisted action pursuant to
the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is the lead agency
for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with site plan
and special use permit approval by the Town, and
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
SEQRA, (i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”), Parts I
and 2, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this
proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential
relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6
NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the EAF, Part 3;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the EAF,
Parts I and 2, 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 EAF, Part 3, including the
reasons noted thereon (which reasons 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
2. 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 EAF
and determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis No
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
R Burger explained the board would now review and evaluate all documents submitted
in deliberating whether to issue a special use permit. Reference should be made to th e special
use criteria in the zoning law and because it is an automobile repair garage there is separate
section in the zoning law with respect to that. Draft resolutions have been prepared for
consideration.
TB 6-16-16
Page 10 of 30
Cl Cipolla-Dennis moved a resolution denying the site plan and special use permit
(seconded by Cl Lamb). Cl Cipolla-Dennis said while this activity may be appropriate in many
areas in a rural residential zone, in this particular area in a neighborhood on a cul-de-sac, she
doesn’t believe it is consistent with the neighborhood. People who moved there did so because
of the neighborhood and the character of the community. This would not be consistent with
that character.
Cl Lamb said this puts the board in a difficult spot. He wants to see the business work,
and likes to go to these types of shops. But it should be in a more compatible location. He
would like to see it work somewhere in the town, but this is a public process and we get a lot of
input and it is clear the neighbors are not in support of this. The board needs to balance
priorities. He would like to see business in residential areas in keeping with what neighbors
want, so he will vote against it. He asked the applicant to not give up and perhaps do this
somewhere else, but he doesn’t think this is the right spot.
Supv Leifer said he disagrees because is there are no structural changes to property.
The neighbors concern about traffic needs to be mitigated and we need to be sure that the
growth doesn’t outpace the neighborhood by putting conditions in place. This is a public road;
he used to run his business from home. The new zoning enabled more folks to do home-based
business. If this grew bigger, they wouldn’t have room in this space. If they could build a
reputation here before moving to another location it would be good. There is a precedent in
having approved these businesses in other locations in town. The limitations would be similar
to what was applied to the business on Scofield Road. Regardless of what happens with this,
there should be a “children at play sign” and a speed limit sign on the road.
Cl Servoss said she is torn and can see both sides. She knows what it’s like to do
business at home. It’s exciting and she also knows what it is like to have a repair shop next
door. It can be irritating.
RESOLUTION #108 (2016) – DENYING SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR GARAGE AT 4 CRICKET LANE
Cl Cipolla-Dennis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. Amy and Edward Vorhis have applied for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate an
automotive repair garage at 4 Cricket Lane in Freeville, New York, Tax parcel #28.-1-
19.123, and
B. The proposal is to operate an automobile repair business in an existing two -story garage
located next to their home, and
C. An application and site plan dated 1/23/16 have been submitted and presented to the
Town Board on 3/17/16, and
D. The Town Planning Department and Town Board considers the application complete and in
conformance with the requirements of Town Zoning Law §501, §600, §1201, and §1310,
and in conformance with the Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines to the
maximum extent practicable, and
E. A public hearing was held on May 19, 2016 with public comments registered in the meeti ng
minutes and considered by this board, and
F. The Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed (letter dated 5/19/16) this
project as required by NYS Municipal Law §239 –l, -m, and –n and determined that it has
no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts,
TB 6-16-16
Page 11 of 30
G. The Town Board has reviewed this application relative to the considerations and standards
found in Town Zoning Law §1104 for site plan review, §1202 for Special Use Permit, and
§1310 for automotive repair garages; and
H. Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the grant or denial of site plan approval
and a Special Use Permit for this project is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Dryden
Town Board, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the project,
has, on June 16, 2016, made a negative environmental determination of significance, after
having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts
1, 2 and 3;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board hereby finds that all of the considerations for approval of the requested
Special Use Permit listed in Section 1202 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law have not been
met, and specifically finds that:
A. (§1202.B) The proposed use is not compatible with adjoining properties and with
the natural and manmade environment. The additional noise, fumes and traffic are not
compatible with the quiet residential nature of the adjoining properties. The indu strial
nature of this business risks harm to the natural environment.
B. (§1202.D) The overall impact on the site and its surroundings considering the
environmental, social and economic impacts of traffic, noise, dust, odors, release of
harmful substances, solid waste disposal, glare, or any other nuisances is found to be
unacceptable, because there is inadequate buffering to prevent the migration of these
impacts off of the project site; and
C. (§1202.E) Restrictions and/or conditions on design of structures or operation of
the use (including hours of operation) necessary either to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding uses or to protect the natural or scenic resources of the Town have not
been incorporated into the site plan, because;
D. The proposed use is compatible with the other permitted uses in the district and
the purposes of the district set forth in the Zoning Law;
E. Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use, and
accessibility for fire, police, and emergency vehicles is adequate ;
F. The project complies with the requirements for site plan review and conforms to
the Town’s Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines to the maximum extent
practicable;
2. The Town Board, finding that the proposal does not meet the standards set forth in Zoning
Law §§1202.B, D and E, denies a Special Use Permit for the proposed automotive repair
garage at 4 Cricket Lane.
3. The Town Board denies the site plan for the proposed automotive repair garage at 4 Cricket
Lane dated 1/23/16, for the following reasons: The need for a site plan is triggered by the
need for a Special Use Permit, and the Special Use Permit has been denied.
2nd Cl Lamb
TB 6-16-16
Page 12 of 30
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Abstain
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer No
Attorney Brock will check to see whether the resolution passed or failed.
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE
David Wrisley III, 130 German Cross Road, presented the following letter:
My name is David Wrisley III and I am fortunate to live at 130 German Cross rd. The same plot of land my
Great Grandfather Frank Wrisley grew up on, and the same plot of land that my Grandfather David Wrisley
grew up on, the same plot of land my father David Wrisley grew up on and my three children should grow up
on. There is just south of 100 acres that my family has paid taxes on for almost 100 years. I am explicitly
denying any permission for the construction of an extension to the South Hill Recreation Way. The abandoned
Rail way runs parallel just shy of 600 yds of the property which is equivalent to 1800 feet. For many years I
have been under the impression this property is available for use with NYSEG and only NYSEG. We have
used this line for Hunting, Shooting, Farming (access to fields, and other trails on our property) as well as
recreation with our motorized vehicles. I believe after research, time and help from others that the idea that
NYSEG owns the land is false that they do not own the right of way.
According to an Indenture from Bergen Wrisley (Great Uncle) to David L. Wrisley (Grandfather) on January
31st of 1996, 247.87 feet travels through an existing railroad. This existing railroad was declared abandoned in
1956.
Specifically, on October 25th 1956, the railroad officially abandoned the line, Interstate Commerce
Commission docket #19118, filled book 429, pg 220. At this point per established law, full unencumbered
ownership reverted to the owners of the land, and the railroad's easement ceased to exist. (The 1962 case
Maryland and Pennsylvania RR vs. Mercantile-safe Deposit and Trust is similar and is an often cited case
where the courts clearly defined railroad easement reversion to landowners, and the supreme Court of the US
in the recent 2014 case US vs. Brandt, ruled 8-1 that railroad easements revert as long as they were legally
abandoned)
On June 21,1960 the railroad, insolvent, deeded by Quitclaim Deed all of its right-of-way and lands to
NYSEG. Since the rail bed had been legally abandoned, in our case nothing was left to transfer, and indeed
this Quitclaim does not mention our property or any right of way or easement on it.
Unfortunately for trail advocates an error was made that caused an immense amount of confusion. A survey
was done of the old cattle fences along the abandoned line and the county's assessors tax maps were drawn as
if these were property lines. (In 2007 the case Ohio ex rel. Coles vs. Granville almost the same exact mapping
issue occurred. When the case was decided the municipality went ahead and built a trail on the disputed strip
of land, but were forced by the court to remove it and pay damages to all landowners)
TB 6-16-16
Page 13 of 30
The Railroad abandonment and easement reversion law is something that NYSEG is fully aware of and the fact
that they do not hold any title to the land shown on the tax maps is something that raises a red flag. This is why
they have been so reluctant to enter in to discussions on the trail and why in the letter dated 1/30/2008 to the
Caroline Town Board they required "written approval from all adjoining landowners, even including farmers
who lease land"
This topic came up in back in 2008 and was dropped from the town of Caroline. It was proven not to be
solvent. It has now come back and I do not see why or how. One last legal example of how municipalities will
try to seize and take land without thinking about the good of the landowner and tax payer. This has nothing to
do with the "net good of the Community" (In 2002 case Preseault vs. US, in which the landowner was awarded
$1.5 million in damages and legal fees for a 1,200' trail built on the abandoned rail grade on their property)
I appreciate your willingness to read and listen, this matter is one of great emotion and importance to myself,
family, and neighbours who live along this trail. Please take into consideration the amount of crime, parking
issues, disruption to our natural woodlands, drainage and alteration to present day and past day lifestyles that
are guaranteed to occur if you so choose to try and allow this to go through.
Scott VanGaasbeck, 58 Middaugh Road, Town of Caroline, said he owns land in
Caroline and Danby and the abandoned railroad line runs through his property and farm for
about 3,000 feet and he is concerned about this. About 8 year s ago this was attempted and a
lot of meetings were held in the Town of Caroline. NYSEG said would not go along with this if
they didn’t have full permission of all the landowners. The landowners own the land, not
NYSEG, which is probably why they did that. It failed and Caroline passed a resolution saying
they did not support the trail. It has come back up, and he is asking the Dryden Town board
to pass a resolution saying Dryden does not support the trail because of the ownership issues.
They have lives and this issue came up 8 years ago. A lot of time in a lot of meetings
was spent talking to Tompkins County governments about this. They feel like they’ve been
blindsided. It’s come back. People are not well -notified. It’s like harassment to try and keep
pushing this. He requested that the town consult with its attorney about the ownership issues
before dragging everyone through more time and effort. They are committed and will take legal
action against all the municipalities involved. They hope the town will use due diligence before
agreeing to participate in this, because it will expose the town to litigation.
Crystal VanGaasbeck presented the following letter and said she is here in support of
property owners in Dryden who are also against the proposed trail. They h ad to fight for the
right to keep their farm for their own private use in 2008 and to be here again today feels like
harassment. They own their land, like the other property owners along the trail, not NYSEG.
Failure of the trails committees and the town and county government officials to do thorough
research on this issue has burdened her family and others with unnecessary stress and unease
in this busy time of year. Their property is a farm on phase two of the proposed railroad
development. They have a fruit orchard, a pottery and leatherworking business, all run there
on the property. They are home all day during the week and gone all day on the weekends.
Their driveway runs along the old railroad grade and their orchard is on either side of it. Th ey
access their fields from the driveway with tractors, bulldozer, car and truck. It is also regularly
used by large dump trucks delivering woodchips used to mulch their trees. The proposed trail
limits use to only pedestrian and bicycle use. In addition, they use both organic and
conventional sprays on their farm, all of which have designated wait times for re -entry.
Allowing a public trail through their private farm is threatening to their property rights,
privacy, security, and day-to-day life and farm operations. She would not feel comfortable
TB 6-16-16
Page 14 of 30
leaving the farm unattended for the whole day while they sell at the Ithaca Farmers Market, or
even for an hour when a hydraulic line breaks on a tractor and trip for parts is necessary for
fear of vandalism and theft. In the past, one of their neighbors had a tractor stolen from his
property.
She encouraged the board to take time, like so many others have done, to look into the
legality of the proposal to impose a public trail on privately owned property. They will defend
themselves vigorously against any attempts by the county or town to seize their land. They will
seek damages and legal fees if they are forced to file suit. Last night many people attended the
Town of Caroline board meeting and 21 people spoke against the trail. Not a single person was
there in favor of it.
June 8, 2016
Dryden
Town of Caroline Board
P.O. Box 136
Slaterville Springs, NY 14881
Re: proposed trail on abandoned rail bed
Dear Board,
My name is Scott Van Gaasbeck and I live at 58 Middaugh rd. I expressly deny any permission for
construction of any trail on the old railroad bed which abuts and travels through 3,427' of my farm. I
would like to draw attention to the events of October 2008, when this matter was resolved in my, and
other landowners favor by the Town Board after a number of meetings and evidence presented. There
seems to be some lingering misunderstanding about ownership issues, or perhaps they are well
understood by trail advocates but they are trying again with a new, uninformed Board. In the interest of
preventing litigation and disharmony between the Town and landowners, I am providing you with an
overview of the ownership history and some legal cases to consider. I encourage the Town to consult its
attorney and research the matter further yourselves, not just take the trail advocates word for it, as they
have proven to be somewhat dishonest in the past.
In 1828, the Ithaca and Owego railroad was incorporated, laid track, and compensated James Bates, the
owner of the land currently owned by myself and the land of Virginia Miller, 119 Middaugh, for damages
to 12/100 acre of his property. At 1,429', this is a strip about 3.6' wide, or the width of the tracks which he
could no longer cultivate. This was recorded with the county clerk, book 64, pg 376. No tide to property
was granted to the railroad.
On October 25,1956, the railroad officially abandoned the line, Interstate Commerce Commission docket
#19118, filed book 429, pg 220. At this point, per well-established law, full unencumbered ownership
reverted to the owners of the land, and the railroad's easement ceased to exist, (the 1962 case Marytland
and Pennsylvania RR v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust is a similar and often-cited case where the
courts clearly defined railroad easement reversion to landowners, and the Supreme Court of the US in the
recent 2014 case US v. Brandt, ruled 8-1 that railroad easements revert as long as they were legally
abandoned)
On June 21,1960, the railroad, insolvent, deeded by Quitclaim Deed all of its rights-of-way and lands to
NYSEG. Since the railbed had been legally abandoned, in our case there was nothing left to transfer, and
indeed this quitclaim does not mention our property or any right of way or easement on it. The railroad
did actually own title to some other properties which were transferred to NYSEG at this time.
TB 6-16-16
Page 15 of 30
At this point an error occurred which has caused confusion and false hopes for trail advocates. A survey
was done of the old cattle fences along the abandoned line, and the county assessor's tax maps were
drawn as if these were property lines. The deed to our farm at that time clearly includes this land,
however, and only mentions a right-of-way, with no boundaries, for the railroad, (almost exactly the same
mapping error happened in the case Ohio ex rel. Coles v. Granville, which was decided in 2007, in which
the municipality went ahead and built a trail on the disputed strip of land, but were forced by the court to
remove it and pay damages to the landowners)
NYSEG is well aware of railroad abandonment and easement reversion law, and the fact that they do not
hold any title to the strip of land shown on the tax map. This is why they have been so reluctant to enter
into discussions on the trail, and it is why, in the letter dated 1/30/2008 to the Caroline Town Board, they
required written approval from all adjoining landowners (the real owners of the railroad grade), even
including farmers leasing land.
The Town's failure to obtain this permission, despite members of the Trails Committee lying outright to
the Town Board that we had all been contacted and all given verbal permission, resulted in the Board
rescinding its support for the trail in October 2008.
I have not received any communication from anyone representing the Town in the intervening 7 ½ years,
and as far as I knew the trail idea had been laid to rest forever. At this point, after the facts that came to
light in 2008 resulted in a resolution of no support by the Board, to attempt again to seize our land for a
trail would be a knowingly unlawful act by the Town.
The prospect of legally defending ourselves and our farm for a second time feels like harassment and
intimidation. It is a truly undue burden for my family. However the legal precedents are clear and
resounding, and we will defend ourselves vigorously against any attempts by the Town to take our land,
and we will seek damages and legal fees from the Town if we are forced to file suit. (I would like to draw
your attention to the 2002 case Preseault v. US, in which the landowner was awarded over $1.5 million in
damages and legal fees for a 1,200' trail built on the abandoned rail grade on their property)
I hope the Town Board will take the time to further research the legality of this trail, and drop the matter
once and for all, to save all of us time and money, and focus on projects the Town can do on land it
actually owns.
Sincerely,
Scott Van Gaasbeck
Rebecca Phillips, 72 Lackawanna Road, Brooktondale. They are at the tail end of the
proposed trail. They fought vigorously against this in 2008. Along with the legality of
ownership, there are other things to consider: the invasion of privacy, the consequences of
security and liability. Who will be liable if someone is injured? Will the homeowner have to give
up their homeowners insurance because a company won’t insure them because of the public
exposure? Environmental impact is an issue. On these trails are numerous varieties of wildlife
and hunters are there with permission of the landowners. There is target shooting all year
round. Privacy, security and liability issues are imposed and infringed. Liability is something
the town and county would have to take on themselves.
Bruno Schickel said he is in support of the trail. Dryden has created a rail trail task
force that he serves on. Their focus and charge is to create and make the trail happen from the
Village of Dryden through Freeville, Etna and Varna and to eventually connect with Ithaca at
Game Farm Road. It is a big undertaking and they have no focus beyond that.
TB 6-16-16
Page 16 of 30
This section coming from Ithaca on the South Hill Recreation Way is something he
wasn’t aware of, but the problems and concerns that homeowners and landowners are raising
are legitimate concerns. The task force will deal with these kinds of things in the future. It is
important for everyone to keep in mind that t his is larger than ourselves and one landowner. It
has to do with creating a safe environment for folks to navigate on foot or bic ycle without the
danger of being on a road. He’s sure a lot of people were addressing similar thoughts opposed
to the railroad when they first came through. The truth is, we have to make accommodations
to make progress and to accommodate the greater good of the community. The goal is to create
a trail system through Tompkins County that connects all the communities of Tompkins
County. It doesn’t just go three miles. It goes hundreds of miles winding its way through the
entire county and beyond. He is extremely supportive of it. If we step back and look at big
picture and what this can do for us, it is something to keep it in mind.
Peter Brown, 190 German Cross Road, said he has just more than a quarter of a mile
bordering the railroad property. He just found out today that he may actually own it. They
have an ongoing history of burglaries on German Cross Road directly attributed to access from
the abandoned railroad tracks. They have all kinds of damage due to party goers of the city
reservoir coming up through and past them and into Brooktondale trashing stuff along the
way, leaving garbage, beer bottles and stuff along the rail bed. This is documented with
numerous complaints to the State Troopers over the last 20 years. He owns a field adjoining
the railbed that has a natural gas pipeline on it (a liquid propane pipe in a fenced in area). His
understanding is that those sites are on the homeland security hit list of places to watch.
That’s why they’ve fenced them and have helicopter surveillance now. This would open legal
access to that site to anyone that wanted to do damage to it. It is 25’ to 30’ from the rail right
of way. Their driveway access and another driveway in the center of the field have both had
people parking and blocking the drive so they could access the rail bed. NYSEG installed steel
posts near the road to prevent four wheelers. Snowmobile clubs were coming from Willseyville
and tearing it up. He still has a lot of two wheelers accessing his field and destroying protected
species in the gully. He is against the trail proposal.
Janet Morgan, 940 Dryden Road, representing the Varna Community Association,
announced that they applied for a community grant from the Town and were lucky to receive
something and will put it to good use for free programs for the public. They are starting an
afterschool program at the VCA for pre-k students because there are no pre-k afterschool
programs in the Ithaca City Schools and Varna is in the district. They just hired a director for
the program and will get the program registered with the state. They also just received a grant
from the Community Foundation of Tompkins County to replace the broken heater covers in
the community center. They received the maximum grant of $5,000. They are moving ahead
at great speed. She thanked Supv Leifer for his letter of support.
Jim Skaley, 940 Dryden Road, said the discussions tonight are quite revealing about
one aspect of what the town has to deal with in these conflicts that seem to be built in to the
current Zoning Law. He suggested the Town Board ask the Planning Board to review the
town’s zoning law especially with regard to how definitions are applied. Some definitions are
directly in conflict with each other. Clarity is important.
It is interesting that cell tower spacing is becoming closer. That could be a lot of towers
in the town of Dryden. We have a countywide GIS system that could help with laying out a grid
for siting cell towers. Engineers are probably smart enough to create dual purpose 4g and 3g
transmissions that would allow a little more flexibility. The town should look at this.
With respect to the discussion about the PUD at 1061 Dryden Road, it’s not referenced
in the zoning, but if you approve a PUD concept, you are imposing a land use on an area in a
RR zone, that doesn’t currently exist or wasn’t necessarily intended.
TB 6-16-16
Page 17 of 30
Don Scutt, Palmear Road, encouraged the board to move citizens privilege back to
beginning of meeting. A lot of people have sat here for two hours and quite a few people were
irritated because of that.
With respect to taxes, he has previously asked the board to set a schedule for budget
meetings, when to vote to exceed the tax cap, and to vote on the budget before election. If the
board decides to vote to exceed 2% tax cap, please do it in the next month or so. Actions of
this board do have impact on Dryden school taxes. When you take an anti-growth posture,
you affect the tax base, and you affect what happens at school.
Joe Wilson welcomed Kathy Servoss and congratulated her on her appointment to the
board. He thanked the board for coming up with a process that lends transparency to the
selection process. He asked that board members pull their mics close so the public can hear.
He kind of agrees with what Jim Skaley said. In his perspective, it appears that we
have so many SUPs within our law, it is hard to know in many instances what can be done and
what cannot be done. He recommended a review of the zoning law with an eye to how many
SUPs can be excluded because it lends itself to a use that is not consistent with the intent of
the creation of the district, and make it clearer at the outset. He has compiled a table of
suggested changes based on the notion that what will result if a SUP is issued as inconsistent
with the initial purpose and the primary uses of the various districts .
With regard to the cell tower, though he is not opposed to people getting better cell
service, it seems to make sense to ask Verizon to give the board the full scope of the cell towers
they want to install so you can look at the full impact at one time as opposed them cherry-
picking the sites and the board ending up looking at a whole bunch of installations that you
didn’t intend and may not be necessary.
J Wilson thanked the board for using the timer. It gives everybody a lot better
opportunity to be heard and to move on through the process.
Supv Leifer commented that the Planning Board had been asked to look at special use
permits.
Bill Hilker, 277 Burns Road, said his property is part of the proposed South Hill Trail.
After extensive review of the deeds it is obvious that NYSEG has never owned that right of way
and have no rights to give it away. His deed says there is a reversionary clause based on the
discontinuance of the railroad. He hopes that this town, along with the others, not approve
anything to do with this trail. The owners will join together in a law suit. It is an infringement
on their property, not on NYSEG’s property. They used to allow people to walk on it until they
started milling around their house and entering their property uninvited. He was once pushed
over by someone who said they had a right to walk anywhere they wanted to. It is n ot all good
people that use the trail. Last year a person went through neighbors ’ property to the trail and
shortly thereafter a girl was accosted. There is no record of that, but these things happen. In
the City of Ithaca there are many instances per month of criminal activity through the existing
trail. They can’t stop it. There are no police or anyone to monitor it. It will be the same
through Dryden and Caroline. When they say the trail are safe, they are not safe. On all trails
there is a big safety issue. But the main thing is taking the property from the people who live
there.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
No report.
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
TB 6-16-16
Page 18 of 30
Jennifer Jones asked that the board appoint Monica Knight to the Dryden Recreation
and Youth Commission. With the recent loss of two members, they will not have a quorum for
their meeting next week. M Knight previously served on the Recreation Commission. Supv
Leifer said she would be an asset to the commission. There would still be three vacancies on
the commission.
RESOLUTION #109 (2016) – APPOINT MONICA KNIGHT TO RECREATION &
YOUTH COMMISSION
Cl Servoss offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby appoints Monica Knight to the Recreation &
Youth Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2018.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
J Jones explained that with the loss of a full time person, she would like to h ire another
part time person. Without additional help, they will quickly be overwhelmed with fall
programs. Supv Leifer said he has drafted a resolution. The intent is to try a reorganization of
the department and see how it works out with one full time director and two part time
assistants. The positions already exist. They will be splitting the coordinator work between
two part timers. J Jones suggested starting the new person at $10 per hour and moving the
existing assistant with two years experience and who has taken on additional responsibility to
$13. There will be a savings with the loss of the full time position and the expense of the
benefits that go along with a full time position. Cl Cipolla-Dennis said she would like to see the
town start moving toward being a certified living wage employer at budget time.
Recreation Department monthly report is attached.
RESOLUTION #110 (2016) – AUTHORIZE RECREATION DIRECTOR TO HIRE A
PART TIME RECREATION ASSISTANT
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas Recreation Department staffing currently consists of one Recreation Director
and one Recreation Assistant plus seasonal help as deemed necessary by the Recreation
Director.
Whereas the full-time position of Recreation Coordinator is currently vacant.
Whereas the Town Board does not wish to fill the vacant Recreation Coordinator
position at this time.
Whereas the Recreation Director has presented the Town Board with a plan that calls
for reorganizing the Recreation Department by employing two part time Recreation Assistants
to handle duties previously performed by the Recreation Coordinator.
Resolved that the Recreation Director is authorized to staff the Recreation Department
TB 6-16-16
Page 19 of 30
with no greater than two Recreation Assistants plus seasonal help as deemed necessary by the
Recreation Director with Town Board approval.
Resolved that the pay rate for new Recreation Assistant hires shall be $10.00 per hour.
Resolved that the current Recreation Assistant's base pay rate shall increase to $13.00
per hour based upon the increased duties and responsibilities caused by the Recreation
Department's reorganization.
Resolved that neither Recreation Assistant shall work more than 25 hours per week
without prior authorization of the Town Supervisor or the Human Resources Officer.
Resolved that neither Recreation Assistant shall work more than twenty (20) hou rs per
week for greater than eleven (11) consecutive weeks without prior authorization of the Town
Board.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Board members have the Recreation Department monthly report. J Jones reported that
6 of 8 contracts for community grants have been returned. The new summer art camp is
already full. Registrations are coming in the for the other camps. Basketball camp was
cancelled because of loss of the instructor.
Next month she will have more details on the Jim Schug fit trail proposal. She has
received grant for $3750 through the Tompkins County Legacy grant. That is more than half of
the expense of that project.
Recreation Department monthly report is attached.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1061 Dryden Road – Ray Burger explained this is a planned unit development (PUD)
that was introduced to the board last month. The board can now either refer the matter to the
Planning Board for recommendation and public hearings or refer it back to applicant for
changes, or reject the concept plan at this time. It will come back to the Town Board after the
Planning Board has made recommendations.
RESOLUTION #111 (2016) – REFER CONCEPT PLAN FOR 1061 DRYDEN ROAD
TO PLANNING BOARD
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby refers the concept plan for a planned unit
development to at 1061 Dryden Road to the Planning Board for further review.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
TB 6-16-16
Page 20 of 30
South Hill Rec Way – Supv Leifer and R Burger said they will be doing more research
on the ownership issue. There is single tax map number for the stretch in Dryden and NYSEG
is paying the taxes on it. Someone will need to look up the deeds and do some title research.
If this was done previously, we need to see that work.
Route 366 Force Main Study – There is a problem in Varna where a force main that
brings sewage up the hill from the Forest Home Drive intersection needs work. TG Miller has
proposed a contract to guide this project through the bidding process in the fall and
construction over the winter.
RESOLUTION #112 (2016) – APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM TG MILLER
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its approval:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the proposal for engineering and
surveying services for the Route 366 Force Main Improvements from TG Miller Engineers dated
May 3, 2016, for an amount not to exceed $27,500 and authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign
the same.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Red Mill Road Bridge Plan Approval – Tompkins County Highway has asked for
approval of their draft work plan. Highway Superintendent Rick Young has reviewed this and
agrees it should be approved.
RESOLUTION #113 (2016) – APPROVE PLAN FOR RED MILL ROAD AND
MALLORYVILLE ROAD BRIDGES
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the concept plan submitted by
Tompkins County Highway for replacement of Red Mill Road Bridge and repair of Malloryville
Road Bridge and the Town Supervisor is authorized to execute the same.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Zoning Amendment – R Burger explained that this amendment was originally
introduced in April and then sent to the Planning Board review. They sent it back to the Town
Board without any changes. The board scheduled the public hearing on this matter for July
21, 2016 at 7:05 p.m.
The text of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Law is as follows:
TB 6-16-16
Page 21 of 30
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING LAW TO ADD DENSITY REGULATIONS
FOR THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 606 of the Zoning Law is hereby amended to read as follows (text amendments are
underlined):
Section 606: Density in the Rural Residential and Rural Agricultural districts:
Single-, Two-, and Multi-Family dwellings are permitted subject to a maximum allowable density
of 2 Dwelling Units per acre with a maximum of 10 Dwelling Units per lot if the lot does not have
both public water and public sewer facilities. If the lot has both public water and public sewer
facilities, then the maximum density is 6 Dwelling Units per acre and 30 Dwelling Units per lot.
Subject to the foregoing limits the maximum number of Dwellings that can be built on a lot is
equal to the maximum number of conforming lots that could be created if the lot were subdivided
in accordance with the Town’s Subdivision Law, as calculated by the Town Planning Director.
This determination by the Town Planning Director of the maximum number of Dwellings shall be
recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office and cross-referenced to the deed of the lot in
question and the maximum number of Dwellings for said lot shall not increase even if said lot is
thereafter subdivided. Upon the property owner’s request, the Town Planning Director shall
record a revised determination of the maximum number of conforming lots and Dwellings if, after
the original determination is recorded, both public water and public sewer facilities become
available to a lot, or zoning amendments are made that affect the maximum number of
conforming lots.
The following review is required:
These provisions shall not apply to farm worker housing on lots on which a Farm Operation is
conducted.
SECTION 2. This local law shall take effect upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State.
SECTION 3. The provisions of this local law are severable. If any court of competent jurisdiction decides
that any section, clause, sentence, part or provision of this local law is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any of the remaining sections clauses, sentences,
parts, or provisions of the Local Law.
SECTION 4. This local law shall supersede or repeal any prior inconsistent Local Law.
Planning Department monthly report is attached.
1401 Dryden Road, Storage Squad – Work has started on the site and they anticipate a
ceremonial groundbreaking the first week of July.
Number of Dwellings on a lot Review required
1 Single- or Two-Family
Dwelling
No SPR or SUP required
2-4 Single or Two-Family
Dwellings
SPR (Site Plan Review)
All others SUP
TB 6-16-16
Page 22 of 30
902 Dryden Road, Modern Living Townhomes – They are in weekly contact with the
Planning Department and working on their plans. They will be breaking ground by end of
summer and are contemplating a one year construction instead of a span of two years.
There will be a meeting on June 30 at 6:30 pm at the Dryden fire station centered
around community solar. There will be presentations from Renovus and a couple of other
companies as well as Chris Denton. This is a good information session for the town’s boards
and commissions and any landowners or interested public.
Tiny Timbers – They are working on some civil engineering work before submitting their
formal preliminary plat. Supv Leifer said he received a call from someone concerned about
trailer storage occurring on the site. R Burger will look into that.
COUNTY BRIEFING
Mike Lane reported that TC3 needs a new roof, a 3.5 million dollar project that was not
anticipated. Recent wind storms revealed the rubberized fabric was delaminating from the
underlay. NYS will pay half the expense and the remainder will be divided between the
counties (Tompkins 2/3 and Cortland 1/3). Tompkins County will probably have to bond for it
and will proceed with that.
Airport Day is on Sunday. Breakfast will be served by the East Hill Flying Club and
there will be a 5k run on the runway. There will be exhibits and such all day. The airport is
important to the county. The airport manager, Mike Hall, is working on ideas for generating
more ridership and revenue for the airport. They are trying to get more connection to major
hubs. This is one of the few airports using almost no taxpayer money.
Martha Robertson agreed with Don Scutt and suggested the board perhaps move
public hearings to the agenda setting meetings. It isn’t good for decision making to have the
meetings go so late.
The Pine Tree Road bridge has come down and that will be a big construction area
through the summer. The detours are getting tough because one detour leads to another and
you can get trapped around town. Progress is being made and it should be finished this year.
Energy and Economic Development Task Force report (available on the TCAD website)
will be presented at the County Legislature meeting on Tuesday night. There are eight
recommendations and one of them is to figure out what to do next. Staff at TCAD and County
Planning will sort through the recommendations and find a best plan for where the initiative
might be. This is the right time to be doing that for the 2017 budget.
The Public Safety Committee meeting had a report on the consolidation study for law
enforcement. The first step is a $50,000 grant to study the issue of consolidation (Villages of
Dryden, Groton, and Cayuga Heights, Ithaca Police Department and County Sheriffs
Department are a part of this). They reviewed a draft of the RFP for consultants, made
comments, and that will probably go to the legislature on July 5 for public input.
Supv Leifer said he had a call from a resident on the situation with Pine Tree Road
saying that going from Game Farm to 366 was troublesome. He asked if there was talk of
getting temporary stop lights. It is a problem and there needs to be something done. M
Robertson will reinforce that request.
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
TB 6-16-16
Page 23 of 30
Conservation Board has recommended approval of fitness stations on the Jim Schug
Trail.
RESOLUTION #114 (2016) – APPROVE FITNESS STATIONS ON SCHUG TRAIL
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas it would be beneficial for the health and well-being of a sizeable portion of our
citizens to have fitness stations installed along the Jim Schug trail, and
Whereas, Mr. Kyle Hollenbeck is willing to install these stations at approved locations
along the trail at no cost to the Town of Dryden and is willing to fund-raise himself for
private sponsorship to cover the cost of installation, and
Whereas, these stations can be installed with minimal impact to the local environment,
and
Whereas, Mr. Hollenbeck has received assurances from the Dryden Department of Public
Works that DPW is willing to provide the minimal maintenance the equipment will need
and is willing to work around the equipment as it maintains the trail,
Be it Resolved, that the Dryden Conservation Board recommends to the Dryden Town
Board that it allow Mr. Hollenbeck to install a predetermined number of fitness stations
along the Jim Schug trail.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
OLD BUSINESS
Dryden Lake MOU – Supv Leifer said a new Memorandum of Understanding is being
prepared, taking into consideration the village wells and improvements made by the Town to
the park. The smoking issue will not be part of it, but the town can post rules.
NEW BUSINESS
Dog Control Officer appointment – Supv Leifer explained that Thelma Hefner has
applied through Civil Service and the application was approved. This would be a second DCO
for the town. The salary paid to her will come from the amount budgeted for Mr Leonard for
the remainder of year and the salary for 2017 will be dealt with in the next budget season.
RESOLUTION #115 (2016) – APPOINT DOG CONTROL OFFICER
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby appoints Thelma Hefner to serve as Dog
Control Officer.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
TB 6-16-16
Page 24 of 30
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Bob Beck reported there is continued enthusiasm at the trail meetings and they are
moving forward. He will serve as Chair of the Task Force and Bruno Schickel as Vice Chair. He
asked that information on the Rail Trail Task Force be put on the town’s website and their
meetings noticed along with other board and commission meetings. Meetings are held the 3rd
Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the PDW building. There will be a special meeting
next Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.
Committee Assignments
Supervisor appointment of board members to committees was reviewed and
reassignments were made. Assignments are as follows:
Deputy Supervisor ------------------------------------------------- Cl Daniel Lamb
Finance & Grants Committee ----------------------------------- Cl Cipolla-Dennis, Cl Servoss
Assessment Review Committee----------------------------------- (done for this year)
Emergency Services Committee--------------------------------- Supv Leifer, Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Human Resources Committee----------------------------------- Cl Cipolla-Dennis, Cl Servoss
Infrastructure Committee (inc Highway/DPW liaison)------ Supv Leifer
Representative to Planning Board------------------------------ Cl Cipolla-Dennis, Supv Leifer
Representative to Zoning Board of Appeals ------------------- Supv Leifer
Representative to Conservation Board------------------------- Cl Lamb, Cl Servoss
Representative to Ag Advisory Committee--------------------- Supv Leifer, Cl Lamb
Representative to Recreation & Youth Commission---------- Cl Lamb, Cl Servoss
Representative to Rail Trail Task Force------------------------ Cl Lamb, Cl Servoss
Liaison to Village of Freeville------------------------------------- Cl Lamb
Liaison to Village of Dryden------------------------------------- Supv Leifer
Liaison to TC3----------------------------------------------------- Cl Lamb
Supv Leifer noted he would like the Emergency Services Committee to meet with the fire
companies about the budget process. He would also like hold a separate budget meeting with
the fire department budget officers so they can answer questions from board members and the
public, and do it prior to the public hearing on the budget (perhaps in September).
Cl Lamb will now serve as the Town’s representative to the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the board moved to closed
session at 10:33 p.m. to seek the advice of counsel. The board moved back to open session at
10:51 p.m.
The board has received legal advice concerning a moratorium on certain public utility
installations and made the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #116 (2016) – INTRODUCE LOCAL LAW – MORATORIUM ON PUBLIC
UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby introduces the following proposed local law
and sets the public hearing on the same for July 21, 2016, at 7:30 p.m.
TB 6-16-16
Page 25 of 30
TOWN OF DRYDEN
LOCAL LAW NO. _ OF THE YEAR 2016
A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY
INSTALLATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Dryden as follows:
Section 1. Findings and Purpose. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden finds:
A. The Town of Dryden Zoning Law provisions related to public utilities include Section 501,
which allows public utilities in five specified zoning districts, provided that the Town Board issues a
special use permit. Section 501 further provides that public utilities are not permitted in the
Neighborhood Residential zoning district. Section 702 allows public utilities as a principal use in the
three Varna zoning districts, provided that the Town Board issues a special use permit. Section 900.E
states that public utility facilities (including electric, gas, telephone and television cable) and their
necessary appurtenances are allowed uses in all zones by special use permit. Section 1201.B(2) requires
site plan review whenever a special use permit is required.
B. Section 501’s prohibition on public utilities in the Neighborhood Residential zone is
inconsistent with Section 900.E’s statement that public utilities are allowed uses in all zones.
C. In addition to this inconsistency, the Zoning Law’s broad definition of “public utility” in
Article III creates a question as to whether Sections 502 and 900 require special use permits and site plans
only for larger public utility distribution and transmission facilities, or also for smaller facilities such as
individual lot connections.
D. Town of Dryden Zoning Law Article XIII, Standards and Requirements for Certain Uses,
lists certain uses that are subject to standards and requirements that are tailored for the specified uses.
These standards and requirements are in addition to those imposed by other Zoning Law provisions, and
they help to avoid or minimize the impacts of those uses. Public utilities currently are not included in the
uses that are subject to Article XIII’s additional standards and requirements.
E. The Town Board wishes to: review the Zoning Law’s public utility definition and provisions
to eliminate inconsistencies; clarify the applicability of requirements; and determine whether to add
standards and requirements relating to public utility infrastructure and otherwise further the objectives of
the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan.
F. The Town Board will be considering the following Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan
goals, among others, to determine whether Zoning Law amendments are needed to help assure that public
utility projects are consistent with such goals: protect and advance the quality of life of residents; protect
the unique natural assets of the Town; and make optimum use of existing and future investments in public
services and infrastructure.
G. While telecommunications facilities are included in the Zoning Law’s definition of public
utility, telecommunications facilities are separately regulated under the Town’s Telecommunications
Tower Siting Law. This latter law contains extensive provisions pertaining to special use permits and site
plans for telecommunications towers. The Telecommunications Tower Siting Law states that the Town
TB 6-16-16
Page 26 of 30
Board adopts an overall policy with respect to special use permits for telecommunications towers for the
express purpose of achieving a number of goals. These goals include the promotion of the placement of
telecommunications towers in a manner that causes minimal disruption to aesthetic considerations of the
land, property, buildings, and other facilities in the tower area. Given the existing extensive regulations in
the Telecommunications Tower Siting Law, the Town Board does not anticipate that its review and study
will encompass that law.
H. It is anticipated that the Town Board’s review, study and consideration of the issues described
above can be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the effective date of this local law, and
that legislation, if needed, can be drafted and properly adopted within that timeframe.
I. The Town Board is concerned that any new legislation would be subverted if public utility
infrastructure projects that disturb a significant amount of land (one or more acres, which is also the
threshold that triggers the need for a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) or exceed forty (40)
feet in height (which is the highest allowable building height in the Town) were to be entertained and
possibly approved before the Town Board considers legislation to address these issues.
J. Accordingly, to address these issues, and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is
the intention of the Town Board to prevent the consideration and approval of certain public utility projects
during the limited time the Town needs to complete its study, review and consideration of zoning
revisions, and to adopt subsequent legislation.
Section 2. Prohibited Actions. For a period of one hundred eighty (180) days from the effective
date of this local law, the Town Board hereby declares a moratorium prohibiting each of the following
actions in the Town, regardless of the submittal or receipt of any application prior to the effective date of
this local law, unless permitted under Section 3 hereunder:
A. Acceptance, consideration, preliminary approval or final approval by the Town of Dryden
Town Board of any site plan or special use permit for new or modified public utility infrastructure
(including, without limitation, pipelines, pipes, mains, and conduits), that involves an area of land
disturbance associated with the public utility infrastructure of one or more acres, or that is proposed to
exceed forty (40) feet in height.
B. Acceptance, consideration, preliminary approval or final approval by the Town of Dryden
Zoning Board of Appeals of any application for variance in connection with any activity prohibited
hereunder.
C. The issuance of building permits by a Town of Dryden Code Enforcement Officer in
connection with any activity prohibited hereunder.
D. The issuance of any permit by the Town of Dryden for highway utility work in connection
with any activity prohibited hereunder.
Section 3. Exemptions.
The following actions are exempt from the above-described moratorium to the extent set forth
herein:
A. Any site plan, special use permit, variance, building permit or highway work permit in
connection with a telecommunications tower or telecommunications structure, as those terms are defined
in the Telecommunications Tower Siting Law for the Town of Dryden.
TB 6-16-16
Page 27 of 30
B. Any site plan or special use permit that has received conditional final approval from the Town
Board, Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the effective date of this local law, and time
extensions of such pre-existing approvals, shall be exempt from the above-described moratorium.
C. The Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals may continue to consider and review any
proposal or appeal otherwise prohibited hereunder, and make determinations under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) regarding such proposals and appeals, subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1. The applicant has submitted a valid application as of the effective date of this local
law.
2. The applicant assumes the sole risk of pecuniary or other loss, including without
limitation the costs of technical and legal consultation and the costs of preparation of any
submittals, reports or information required by the Town Board or Zoning Board of Appeals
pursuant to the Town of Dryden Zoning Law, SEQRA or other applicable laws or regulations,
arising out of such continued consideration and review during the pendency of this moratorium.
3. Applications processed under this subsection 3(C) will, unless otherwise stated herein,
be determined by the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Dryden and the Town
of Dryden Zoning Law in effect at the time of such determinations, and not as of the date of this
local law.
4. Applicants are hereby informed that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is
considering changes to such Zoning Law which may address or affect the issues raised by their
applications, and which may alter the determinations thereon by the Town Board or Zoning
Board of Appeals, as applicable, from those which might have occurred in the absence of such
changes.
5. The Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals shall not issue any preliminary or final
approval of any application subject to the moratorium during its term.
Section 4. Waivers.
A. Any property owner may appeal to the Town Board for a waiver of the above prohibitions,
and the Town Board shall have the power on good cause shown to grant such relief, or so much relief as
said Board may determine to be necessary and appropriate. In determining the suitability of a waiver
under this section, the Town Board shall consider the following factors:
1. Unnecessary hardship to the petitioner, which hardship is substantially greater than
any harm to the general public welfare that would result from the granting of the waiver (for the
purposes of this local law, unnecessary hardship shall not be the mere delay in receiving an
approval, the granting of which is otherwise stayed, during the period imposed by this local law);
and
2. The project’s harmony (or lack thereof) with the existing character of the community
as a whole and the area of the community in which the property is located; and
TB 6-16-16
Page 28 of 30
3. Whether the application for which the relief is requested is consistent with any interim
data, recommendations, or conclusions which may be drawn at the time of the public hearing
from the aforementioned review and study; and
4. Whether the application for which the relief is requested is consistent with proposed
new or amended laws, ordinances or regulations, if and as such may exist at the time of the public
hearing.
B. Waiver procedure. Such petition shall be the subject of a public hearing before the Town
Board. Upon submittal of a written petition to the Town Clerk by the property owner seeking a waiver of
this moratorium in a form to be provided by the Town Clerk, and supported by such documentation as the
applicant deems relevant, the Town Board shall, within forty (40) days of receipt of such petition, conduct
a public hearing on said petition upon five (5) days public notification in the official newspaper of the
Town. At said public hearing, the property owner and other parties wishing to present evidence on the
proposed waiver shall have an opportunity to be heard. The Town Board shall, within forty (40) days of
the close of the public hearing, render its decision in writing, either granting or denying the petition for a
waiver from the strict requirements of the moratorium.
C. It shall be within the discretion of the Town Board to grant in whole or in part, grant with
conditions, or deny, the petition for relief from the terms of this moratorium. Any subsequent
consideration and approval by the Town Board or Zoning Board of Appeals, or subsequent permit
issuance by the appropriate Town official, must comply with the Town of Dryden Zoning Law provisions
in effect at the time of such approval or issuance, including any applicable provisions which the Town
Board may adopt pursuant to the aforementioned review and study.
Section 5. Statement of Authority and Supersession.
A. The Town Board adopts this local law pursuant to authority in the New York State
Constitution, Article IX, Section 2; section 10 of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law; section 10 of
the Statute of Local Governments; the relevant provisions of the Town Law of the State of New York; the
Zoning Law and other laws of the Town of Dryden; and the general police power vested with the Town of
Dryden to promote the health, safety and welfare of all residents and property owners in the Town.
B. During the time that this law is in effect, it shall take precedence over and shall be considered
controlling over contrary laws, ordinances and provisions. It is the intent of the Town Board, pursuant to
authority under section 10, subdivision 1(ii)(d)(3), and section 22 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, to
supersede inconsistent provisions of the New York State Town Law and the Town of Dryden Zoning
Law.
1. In particular, it is the intent of the Town Board, pursuant to authority under sections
10 and 22 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, to supersede inconsistent provisions of the New
York State Town Law and the Town of Dryden Zoning Law relating to time limits in connection
with zoning and planning determinations. Without limitation, the instant local law hereby
supersedes the following provisions of the Town Law of New York State:
a. Subdivisions 7 and 8 of section 267-a, relating to time limits for Zoning Board
of Appeals hearings and decisions, respectively
b. Section 267-b, relating to the hearing of appeals for variances by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
TB 6-16-16
Page 29 of 30
c. Subdivision 8 of section 274-a, relating to time limits for hearings and
determinations on site plan applications
d. Subdivision 6 of section 274-b, relating to time limits for hearings and
determinations on application for special use permits
2. For the duration of this moratorium, the Town Board also intends to supersede, and
the instant local law hereby supersedes, all provisions of the Town of Dryden laws which impose
time limits on applications for approvals and permits subject to the instant moratorium, including
without limitation Town of Dryden Zoning Law Article XI relating to hearings and
determinations on site plan applications; Town of Dryden Zoning Law Article XII relating to
hearings and determinations on special use permit applications; Town of Dryden Zoning Law
Article XIV relating to Zoning Board of Appeals hearings and determinations, Section 4(f) of
Town of Dryden Local Law #1—2007 relating to issuance of building permits, and the laws and
regulations of the Town of Dryden relating to issuance of highway work permits.
3. For the duration of this moratorium, the Town Board also intends to supersede, and
the instant local law hereby supersedes, section 262 of the Town Law of New York State to the
extent that the provisions of said section are inconsistent with any provision herein.
Section 6. Fines, Penalties and Other Remedies. Any person or entity that develops, constructs
or establishes any project or structure in violation of this local law shall be subject to the fines, penalties
and other remedies set forth in Section 268 of the Town Law of the State of New York and/or Article
XVIII of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law. Among other enforcement actions, the proper authorities of
the Town may institute any appropriate action or proceeding to enjoin, prevent, restrain, correct or abate
such violation of this local law.
Section 7. Term. This local law shall be in effect for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days
from its effective date, provided, however, that the Fines, Penalties and Other Remedies section shall
remain in full force and effect after such date for the purpose of prosecuting any violation which occurred
during the effective period of this local law.
Section 8. Validity. In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of
invalidity.
Section 9. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the New
York Secretary of State.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Servoss Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
TB 6-16-16
Page 30 of 30
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk
June 2016
Recreation Director Report
Community Grants:
o The community grant award letters and contracts have been mailed out to
community organizations. Some have already been returned!
o The DRYC will be monitoring each program this year by attending funded events
and/or programs.
Summer Programming:
o Summer camp programming is starting in two short
weeks. Kicking off the summer will be our new art camp
which is already full!
o Registrations for all other programs are going well with
more coming in each day. Unfortunately our summer
basketball camp was cancelled due to the loss of a staff
member.
o Summer softball teams are also running with teams at the U17, U14 and U18 levels.
o Our popular co-ed softball league is in full swing with great weather so far. We have a
total of 5 teams this year. We have assigned a contracted coordinator for this
program to help with the short staffing in the office.
o Our two great summer concerts will be starting soon at the Ellis Hollow Community
Center and the Dryden VFW. (July 12th & 13the is the first week)
Fall Programming:
o Fall programming registration is now open for programs such as soccer, football,
cheerleading, cross country, and karate.
Other News:
o GRANT AWARD- $3,750 towards the Jim Schug Fit Trail Project. I submitted an
application a few months ago through the Tompkins County Legacy Grant and we
were awarded half the funds for this project. Kyle and I will have a detailed
presentation for the board in July.
o I have continued to work closely with the Montgomery Park committee to assist with
planning the rehab project on the courts.
o As part of the department’s goal to reach the community on more levels, the Jack
and I have attended Dairy Day and will also be setting up at the Dryden Lake Festival
with prizes, bounce house, and information table for summer and fall programs.
o I also visited Freeville Elementary School this month with the Southworth Library
Director to promote summer programs.
o The department Accident Report form has gone through a much needed update to
include more details about incidents and contact information.
o Staff Development Training: Jack and I attended a recent training with the T.C.
Youth Services Department called “Project-Based Youth Leadership”. I will also be
attending another session this month for “Marketing & Branding Your Program”.
These trainings are free!
1
Memorandum
Date: June 14, 2016
To: Town Board
From: Ray Burger, Planning Director
Subject: Planning Department Update
SUP for 4 Cricket Lane -Repair Shop: The hearing remains open. A revised site plan was submitted that
addresses many of neighbor’s concerns and stipulated to some operational constraints.
SUP for Verizon Tower: Verizon completed their application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to place a
telecommunications tower near Route 13 and Irish Settlement Road. The public hearing will open on
June 16. Tompkins County Planning Department and Emergency Services and the Town’s engineering
consultants have reviewed the proposal and have found no problems. There is another Verizon tower
proposal in the Town of Groton that is within 500 feet of the Dryden town line. This is being reviewed
by the planning board.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 1061 Dryden Road: The Concept Plan was presented at the May
19 meeting. The applicant awaits a board resolution to either refer to planning board, refer to applicant
for changes or reject. The issue of sewer capacity was researched by the Town Engineer who found that
there was a limit of 252-315 more hookups in the Varna Sewer District based on the Town’s agreement
with the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Rental Units at Mineah Road and Route 13: There is a proposal to build 20 single family homes on a 9
acre lot in the Mixed Use Commercial District. Building single family homes is allowed as of right in this
district with a maximum density of 4 dwelling units/acre. However, their initial plans call for more
parking than is allowed by the Town’s zoning so they will be applying to the planning board for approval.
Zoning Law amendment concerning density in RR and RA districts when sewer and water are present:
This amendment was introduced in April but the Planning Board requested more time to review before
the Town Board takes action. Upon review the planning board now refers the original amendment
without change. A public hearing should be scheduled for July.
South Hill Recreation Way: The present trail extends about 2 miles up the Six Mile Creek drainage from
the City of Ithaca. Extending it another 2 miles to Banks Road is now being discussed by the towns of
Ithaca, Dryden, Caroline and Danby through which the trail runs. NYSEG purportedly owns the right-of-
way and is receptive to opening up this rail-trail that is already used informally. Contact with adjacent
landowners has begun. The Town Board could conduct a public hearing to gather information.
Hazardous structure on Morris Road: A collapsed single-family structure is a potential threat to anyone
within the fall zone of the still standing chimney. A Notice of Violation was mailed to the owner and if he
fails to respond to that Notice, the matter shall be turned over to the Court. In the event that the owner
2
is unwilling or unable to remedy the situation the Town may need to raze and dispose of this unsafe
structure.
Variances: The Zoning Board of Appeals met for the first time in a year and granted two area variances
for minor encroachments into front yard setbacks.
Expanding gravel operation: RMS Gravel has applied to the DEC to expand their extraction zone,
increasing the depth by 25 feet. The Town raised concerns over impact to the water table and research
found that there will be no negative impact to the aquifer.
Poets Landing: Phase II of this project in the Village of Dryden is now applying for building permits and is
scheduled to break ground by the end of August.
Planning Department activity for TOWN
Building permits: 18 (includes 4 new single family homes, one commercial building)
-May 2016
Zoning permits: 1
Special Use Permit Reviews: 1
Site Plan Reviews: 0
Fire safety inspections: 7
Building inspections: 91
New businesses: 0
Subdivisions: 0
Violation notices: 1
Complaints: 3 (property maintenance)
Fire calls: 0
Training hours: 0
Planning Department activity for VILLAGE
Building permits: 6
- May 2016
Zoning permits: 5
Special Use Permit reviews: 0
Site Plan Reviews: 0
Variance reviews: 0
Fire safety inspections: 0
Building inspections: 4
New businesses: 0
Subdivisions: 0
Violation notices: 5
Complaints: 5 (property maintenance)
Fire calls: 0