HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-17TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 1 of 31
TOWN OF DRYDEN
TOWN BOARD MEETING
March 17, 2016
Present: Supervisor Jason Leifer, Cl Daniel Lamb, Cl Linda Lavine,
Cl Deborah Cipolla-Dennis, Cl Greg Sloan
Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk
Other Town Staff: Ray Burger, Director of Planning
Jennifer Jones, Recreation Director
Rick Case, Deputy DPW Superintendent
Susan Brock, Town Attorney
Supv Leifer opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Board members and guests participated in
the pledge of allegiance.
PUBLIC HEARING
1401 DRYDEN ROAD
STORAGE SQUAD
Continuation
Ray Burger explained that after several revisions, there is a final site plan proposal.
Just this afternoon the county review letter was received and they have determined that there
is no negative intercommunity or county wide impact. Applicant Nick Huber said they made a
few changes in stormwater plan. The dry swale in front of the building was extended so they
could treat more water and the parking area was adjusted to accommodate it. The site plan
was made available for the board and public. Applicant will screen the dumpster with a fence
and there be a visual barrier between them and the neighbors. The town engineer has
reviewed the SWPPP with a few revisions and those will be conditions on the approval.
The public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. The board reviewed environmental
assessment form. N Huber said the fire chief had reviewed and approved access for fire trucks.
They will be hooking up a hydrant for fire protection. There will be no full time employees at
this point. The property will be overseen on a part-time basis. There are no plans for water or
sewer for the immediate future. If they put an office in during the second phase, they will
discuss the well and septic with the county.
In reviewing the EAF D(3) was changed to reflect that there would be no well or septic
system.
RESOLUTION #65 (2016) – NEG SEQR DEC – Construction of Self-Storage Business at
1401 Dryden Road
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves constructing three 2-story buildings on the 5.56 acre site and
operating a self-storage business at 1401 Dryden Road in Dryden, New York, Tax parcel #52.-
1-8.2, and
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 2 of 31
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 agenc y 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 Dryd en 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 Sloan
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
RESOLUTION #66 (2016) - Approving Site Plan and Granting Special Use Permit for Self-
Storage Business at 1401 Dryden Road
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. Storage Squad, LLC has applied for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a self -storage
business at 1401 Dryden Road in Dryden, New York, Tax parcel #52.-1-8.2, and
B. The proposal is to construct three 2-story buildings with 46,800 SF of building footprint on
the 5.56 acre site, and
C. An application, site plan, engineering reports, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)have been submitted and subsequently revised, with final dates as follows:
application (July 2015), site plan (March 2016), engineering reports (February 2016) and
SWPPP (March 2016) and
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 3 of 31
D. The Town Planning Department considers the application complete and in conformance
with the requirements of Town Zoning Law §501, §600, §1103 and §1201, and
E. A public hearing was held on September 17, 2015 and has been held open until it was
closed on March 17, 2016, with public comments registered in the meeting minutes and
considered by this board, and
F. The Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed (letter dated 3/17/16) this
project as required by NYS Municipal Law §239 –l, -m, and –n and has determined that it
has no negative intercommunity or countywide impacts, and
G. A Class A stream, ONT-66-12-P296-74-9A, was reportedly located on the eastern boundary
of the site, but the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation verified by its letter
dated 10/28/15 that the stream is no longer located on the parcel. No development is
proposed within 50 feet of aClass A stream located on the western boundary of the site, and
H. The SWPPP has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be substantially in
compliance, with any final issues as outlined in letter from T.G.Miller dated March 14,
2016 to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit, and
I. The Town Board has reviewed this application relative to the considerations and standards
found in Town Zoning Law §1104 for site plan review and §1202 for Special Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Board approves the site plan for 1401 Dryden Road dated March 2016,
conditioned on the following occurring prior to issuance of building permits: a) submission
of a revised site plan showing the addition of screening around the onsite dumpster,
subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, and addressing the items specified in
the letter from T.G. Miller dated March 14, 2016, under the headings “General Comments
(non-SWPPP)” and “Drawings”, subject to the approval of the Town Engineer, b) t he
applicant’s submission of a landscaping plan showing visual screening along the eastern
boundary to prevent vehicle lights from reaching the residence, satisfactory to the Director
of Planning, This screening may be accomplished in part by retaining and maintaining
existing vegetation, and c) submission of a revised SWPPP addressing the items specified in
the letter from T.G. Miller dated March 14, 2016, under the heading “SWPPP Narrative”,
subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
2. The Town Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested
Special Use Permit listed in Section 1202 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law have been met,
specifically that:
A. 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, as the project is located near the
intersection of Routes 13 and 366 in the Light Industrial/Office District and is an allowed
use in that district. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan specifically points to this area for
expanding commercial development;
B. The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural and
manmade environment. This parcel has other commercial businesses to the north and
west, and a residence to the east that will be screened from the project by vegetation. No
development will occur within 50 feet of an on -site stream, and the SWPPP will adequately
address stormwater from the parcel;
C. Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use, and accessibility
for fire, police, and emergency vehicles is adequate;
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 has been considered and found to be
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 4 of 31
negligible, based on the information and reasons in the Full Environmental Assessment
Form;
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 been incorporated into the site
plan, and additional screening conditions are being imposed through the Town Board’s site
plan approval;
F. The project complies with the requirements for site plan review and conforms to the
Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable. Guidelines for
sidewalks are waived since there are no existing nor anticipated sidewalks in this
commercial corridor to connect to. Also this project does not meet the guideline to
minimize metal facades, but the impact is mitigated by the fence and landscaping as well
as the fact that much of the façade is composed of the large entry doors to each storage
unit. To meet the guideline that dumpsters must be screened, screening will be made a
condition of this permit, and
3. The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with all other provisions of the
Town Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves a Special Use Permit for the
proposed self-storage business at 1401 Dryden Road with the Town of Dryden Standard
Conditions of Approval as amended August 14, 2008.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
N Huber introduced the person who will be his site manager and invited the board to
stop in and visit when they have completed construction.
PUBLIC HEARING
902 DRYDEN ROAD
Modern Living Townhomes
Continuation
Supv Leifer recused himself from discussion and voting because he represented the
seller when the applicant purchased the property.
Noah Demarest, of Stream Collaborative, gave a brief update on the project. There were
a few typos in the most recent project description. There was a significant reduction in units
from fourteen to ten. It should say there are eight town homes. There is a reference to the
sidewalk being dependent on TIP funding, but the developer committed to building the
sidewalks. The owners are exploring opportunities for ground mounted or remote
photovoltaics, but there is no solar on the site at this time. With the change of the unit
configuration, two of the units are now attached to the existing building. He distributed a new
rendering that shows how the existing building will match the aesthetic of the rest of the
project. The final SWPPP has been reviewed by the town engineer and has been accepted with
some conditions the applicant will work on.
R Burger stated the latest review by county planning contains a determination that
there is no negative intercommunity or countywide impacts. They originally had issue with
100 year flood plain being encroached upon but that has been remedied. This is a significant
change from their position in January.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 5 of 31
Public comment:
Bruno Schickel said he thinks this is a good project and hopes it is approved.
Todd Bittner, 533 Ringwood Road, noted that significant improvements have been
made to pull the infrastructure back from the flood plan and sensitive natural areas. It would
have been nice if they had pulled back 100%. Part of the stormwater practices remain in the
flood plain and will not be functional when they are most needed. Having stormwater be able
to be treated in high flood events is essential for such a large development.
He would hope there would be a few conditions to approval of the project. It is not clear
that the silt fence is within all of the areas that are disturbed, particularly with respect to the
small creek at the west end of the property. It looks like there is grading to be done along th at
creek bank and the silt fence doesn’t appear to capture that. He is also concerned with
disturbance to the stream bank below the outlet because is so near Fall Creek. There is also a
stone check dam that isn’t on the project’s property. Those kinds of erosion measures should
be on the project property.
Beyond this particular project he reiterated his concerns about the 100 year flood plain
and the precedence this project can have for the hamlet of Varna. He encouraged the board to
think about additional measures for flood plain protection in Varna and other sensitive creeks.
There has been an 83% increase in significant rainfall events in past 20 years in the northeast
region. We need to proactively approach how we deal with stormwater and protect the
wetlands and flood plains. He asked the board to consider flood plain protection procedures
similar to what the town of Ithaca has in place with stream bank setback ordinances. That
might be particularly important to Varna as it goes forward with development adjacent to Fall
Creek.
N Demarest said he sees what T Bittner is concerned about and believes it isn’t clearly
shown. There may be an omission or the lines may be overlapping and just not be shown. He
is happy to accept the condition of making sure that silt fence is protecting the stream.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis said she has followed this project and appreciates the way the
applicant has worked with the town, the Plantations and the community. She was initially
concerned about the floodplain and doesn’t believe we should do anything in the flood plain
and appreciates that the project was pulled back. She consulted someone that knows about
runoff and hydrology and talked about the swale and how that would perform. T Bittner is
correct that during a flood event it basically would not be performing. But as the hydrologist
pointed out, the floodplain would also be under water in a flood event and the swale wouldn’t
make much difference at all at that point. This design takes into consideration the
environmental factors. She thanked the applicant for sticking with it and continuing to work
with the town.
Cl Lamb said the applicant has hung in there through the process. This sends the right
message that we are interested in development and in working with developers that will work to
make a project go forward we can all be proud of. This will be one of the greenest buildings in
the town and is the sort of thing we want.
Cl Lavine said she really enjoyed the meetings and applicant’s responsiveness. They
have obviously done wonderful things in Ithaca and won awards for them. She expect this will
also be good.
The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 6 of 31
The board reviewed the environmental assessment form. The project will be in two
phases over two years. A few additions were made with respect to emergency services that
serve the project. The calculations with respect to impervious surface area were modified to
reflect the accurate figure before and after construction. On page 12 it was noted that the
project would not affect current fishing in Fall Creek. On page 13 local natural and parks
within five miles were noted.
RESOLUTION #67 (2016) - NEG SEQR DEC – Construction of 8 townhomes at
902 Dryden Road
Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves constructing 8 townhomes in addition to the existing duplex at
902 Dryden Road in Dryden, New York, and
B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden
is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with
site plan and special use permit approval by the Town, and
C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in per forming the lead agency function for its
independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 ofthe New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“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 thoro ugh 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 s igned EAF and determination of
significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2nd Cl Sloan
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Recused
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 7 of 31
RESOLUTION #68 (2016) – Approving Site Plan and Granting Special Use Permit for
Townhome Project at 902 Dryden Road
Cl Lamb offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. Modern Living Rentals, LLC has applied for a Site Plan and Special Use Permit (SUP) to
construct multi-family dwellings at 902 Dryden Road in Dryden, New York, Tax parcel
#56.-3-20.
B. The proposal is to construct 8 new two-story townhomes connected to and adjacent to
an existing duplex on the 1.878 acre site (net of road—total parcel is 2.1 acres).
C. An application, site plan, engineering reports, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) have been submitted and subsequently revised, with final dates as
follows: application (May 2015), site plan (March 2016), and SWPPP (March 201 6).
D. The Town Planning Department considers the application complete and in conformance
with the requirements of Town Zoning Law §701-§705, §1103 and §1201.
E. The parcel is in the Varna Hamlet Traditional District and the current zoning allows for
townhouse development at a density of 6 Dwelling Units per acre. The proposed density
is 5.3 Dwelling Units per acre (net of road).
F. A public hearing was held on August 20, 2015 and was closed on March 17, 2016, with
public comments registered in the meeting minutes and considered by this board.
G. Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed this project as required by NYS
Municipal Law §239 –l, -m, and –n and determined that this project has no negative
inter-community, or county-wide impacts (letter dated March 17, 2016).
H. Fall Creek, a Class A stream, lies just to the north of this parcel. All construction
activities are set back more than 100 feet. Storm water practices are implemented to
handle all of the additional runoff resulting from this project as documented in the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 2016. A Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Study was conducted (report by Woidt Engineering dated 11/18/2015) to
establish the location of the 100-year flood zone. An evaluation incorporated into the
SWPPP determined that the construction of the bioretention swale and infiltration basin
within the 100-year flood zone will result in a maximum rise of 0.05 feet in the water
surface elevation. This is below the limit of a one foot rise allowed in the Town Flood
Damage Prevention Law.
I. The driveway entrance into the parking lot lies within 60 feet of the intersection of
Forest Home Drive and Route 366 and vehicles turning onto Forest Home Drive present
a hazard to vehicles exiting the driveway. Structures and vegetation have been cleared
from the sight lines from this driveway. The geometry of the intersection will be
changed to slow this turning traffic.
J. The Cornell University Natural Area known as Park Park is contiguous to the project
site. Visitation may increase due to new residents at 902 Dryden. Site plans call for
fencing and educational signs to help protect Park Park as well as Fall Creek’s riparian
zone.
K. The drainage ditch along Route 366 drains into a culvert that runs across a portion of
the project site conveying the water into another ditch that runs off of the property to
the northwest. This will remain essentially unchanged except for improving some
structural features such as the outfall riprap and the addition of check dams. Storm
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 8 of 31
water generated by the new development will be directed to the vegetative swale and
infiltration area as outlined in the SWPPP. This is in addition to rain gardens
constructed around the buildings.
L. The SWPPP has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and found to be substantially in
compliance, with any final issues as outlined in letter from T.G.Miller dated March 14,
2016 to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit, and
M. Evergreen screen plantings and privacy fences will be installed along the prope rty edges
that face residential properties.
N. The Town Board has reviewed this application relative to the considerations and
standards found in Town Zoning Law §1104 for site plan review and §1202 for Special
Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
4. The Town Board approves the site plan for 902 Dryden Road dated March 2016,
conditioned on the following occurring prior to issuance of building permits: a) submission
of a maintenance plan for the sidewalk and streetscape amenities, subject to t he approval
of the Director of Planning, and b) submission of a revised SWPPP addressing the items
specified in the letter from T.G. Miller dated March 14, 2016, and addressing the proper
placement of silt fences where grading along the creek bank will occur and addressing the
checkdam that appears to be located off site, subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
5. The Town Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested
Special Use Permit listed in Section 1202 of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law have been met,
specifically that:
A. 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, for the reasons stated in the narratives
for Sections 17.a, 17.c and 18 in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form
(FEAF);
B. The proposed use is compatible with adjoining properties and with the natural and
manmade environment, for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the FEAF;
C. Parking, vehicular circulation, and infrastructure for the proposed use, and accessibility
for fire, police, and emergency vehicles is adequate;
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 has been considered and found to be
negligible, based on the information and reasons in the FEAF;
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 been incorporated into the site
plan;
F. The project complies with the requirements for site plan review, conforms to the design
guidelines and standards in Town Zoning Law Section 701 and the relevant provisions of
the Varna Design Guidelines and Landscape Standards.
6. The Town Board, finding that the applicant is in compliance with a ll other provisions of the
Town Zoning Law and other applicable ordinances, approves a Special Use Permit for the
proposed construction of townhomes at 902 Dryden Road with the Town of Dryden
Standard Conditions of Approval as amended August 14, 2008.
2nd Cl Sloan
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 9 of 31
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Recused
PUBLIC HEARING
LOCAL LAW to Amend Zoning Law
Continued
R Burger explained that this is an amendment to establish density in the rural
residential and rural agricultural districts. The initial draft has had some technical cleanup. R
Burger read it out load as amended. This fills an area where there were no density limits. This
does not apply to farmworker housing for a farm operation. The environmental assessment
form was expanded in the 18 areas in part 2 where you have to address impacts.
The board reviewed the environmental assessment form. Supv Leifer asked whether the
impact on a neighborhood’s well usage would be considered. R Burger said this would
effectively lower the density so would it would have less of an impact. Supv Leifer wants to be
sure that neighboring wells are not impacted. Data is being gathered by the Rural Water
Association so that in the future it may become part of the approval process so that residents
and developers know what water resources are available in an area.
Cl Lamb asked what prompted this amendment. R Burger stated the current zoning
law did not address multiple duplexes on a single parcel of property. This amendment provides
guidance and another option in development. You don’t have to subdivide a lot. It allows for
economies of scale in that well and septic can be shared. He isn’t sure what all neighboring
towns do. In the Town of Ithaca only one principal building per lot is allowed in residential
zones.
B Schickel asked what was meant by lowering the density. R Burger said if you were to
subdivide you may be able to get a little bit more out of the acreage. We are tracking the
subdivision process and trying to mimic it in some ways, but still with a two dwelling unit per
acre, there might be ways of doing a subdivision where you could eek out anot her 20% or so
increment. B Schickel said he is generally supportive of this and it is needed. When there was
a major rezoning, areas to build multi-family were taken away and this puts some of that back.
Rental housing tends to be the most affordable housing to be built. If you’re serious about
affordability in housing, then you have to be open and supportive of rental housing.
He has some concerns with the language. His development on Boiceville Road will have
140 rental units, most of them single family homes, on 40 acres. That’s 3 units per acre and
there is a lot of open field on part of the 40 acres. His reaction is that a maximum of two units
per acre is unnecessarily restrictive; maybe change it to three. He asked if determining how to
subdivide land to determine the maximum number of lots is based on whether public water
and sewer is available. R Burger said they need to address where sewer and water is provided.
B Schickel said there should be some flexibility if water and sewer comes to an area that
previously didn’t have it.
B Schickel said if you are restricted to ten on a lot, is there a need for a SUP at eight.
The board has the ability to make a determination whether they want something or not. They
shouldn’t restrict themselves.
There are a few areas in rural residential and rural ag that have water and sewer.
When asked whether we should make this change before we consider the amendment, or do it
in two steps, R Burger said this can stand alone and clarify a gray area in what we currently
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 10 of 31
have and enable some projects to go forward. He will draft another amendment to provide for
water and sewer coming to an area with a max deed notation.
C Bieber said he still hasn’t heard why it’s being done. It seems you’re trying to stop
the big guys from playing ball in the town of Dryden by limiting their ability to do the things
they want to do on their property. Who wants it, the planner or the community?
Gary Maybee said he was denied permit for third house on 2.5 acres in 2006 on Irish
Settlement Road. He built two rentals on individual road frontage lots (about 325’). He owns
all the property behind those two lots. They were going to add another 100’ in depth to the
property. They put in a driveway to service the three houses and well and septic to service
three houses and they turned down for the third building permit. He wants to see the town
make it easier to build homes in this community and not put so many regulations on it. Our
children have to leave the state because they can’t afford to live here anymore.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis explained the town board is working with the Planning Board now to
do exactly that, reviewing the zoning law and making changes to make things easier for
developers. This is one of those changes. She encouraged him to contact her if there are
specific things he would like the board to look at.
B Schickel said he believes this change would allow Mr Maybee to now build. This is
definitely a move in the right direction.
Supv Leifer closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Board members have reviewed the environmental assessment form and Supv Leifer
dispensed with its reading.
RESOLUTION #69 (2016) - NEG SEQR DEC - Zoning Law Amendment to Add Density
Regulations for the Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural, Neighborhood Residential, and
Conservation Districts and Specify the Review Required
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS,
A. The proposed action involves amending the Town of Dryden Zoning Law to add density
regulations for the Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural, Neighborhood Residential, and
Conservation Districts and specify the review required.
B. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden elected to treat adoption of the proposed local law as
"Type I" pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and is
the lead agency for the purposes of environmental review in connection with adoption of the
local law by the Town.
C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its
independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of SEQRA,
(i) thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF"), Parts I and 2, and any
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 11 of 31
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 signi ficant
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 Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
RESOLUTION #70 (2016) - Adopting Local Law No. of 2016 to Amend the Town of Dryden
Zoning Law to Add Density Regulations for the Rural Residential. Rural Agricultural.
Neighborhood Residential, and Conservation Districts and Specify the Review Required
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Town has the authority to adopt the local law referred to above
(hereafter “the Local Law”) pursuant to Article 9, §1 of the New York State Constitution and §10
of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden Zoning Law (“the Zoning Law”) currently does not
include density regulations for the Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural, Neighborhood
Residential and Conservation Districts; requires a special use permit and site plan review for
multi-family dwellings in the Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural and Mixed Commercial
Districts; and does not specify review requirements for more than one two -family or single-
family dwelling on a lot in any district; and
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 12 of 31
WHEREAS, the Local Law is enacted to protect and promote the health, safety and
general welfare of present and future residents of the Town of Dryden. Regulation of density in
the above- referenced districts is necessary to preserve the character of these districts,
pursuant to the goals set forth in the Town of Dryden Comprehensive Plan adopted December
8, 2005. Site plan review of plans to construct more than one single- or two-family dwelling on
a lot and a Special Use Permit for larger developments consisting of more than four single- or
two-family dwellings on a lot is necessary to achieve the same goals; and
WHEREAS, the Local Law was drafted by the Planning Department, with input and
advice of the Attorneys for the Town, and was reviewed by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on January 21, 2016, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden
reviewed and discussed the proposed local law and adopted a resolution for a public hearing to
be held by said Town Board on February 18, 2016 at 7:05 p.m. to hear all interested parties on
the Local Law; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was duly advertised in the Ithaca Journal, and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on said date and time at the Town Hall of
the Town of Dryden and all parties in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on
behalf of or in opposition to said proposed local law, or any part thereof, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board elected to treat adoption of the proposed local law as “Type
1" pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, for which the Town Board of the Town of
Dryden, acting as lead agency in an environmental review with respect to the adoption of this
local law, made a negative determination of environmental significance on March 17, 2016,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts
1, 2 and 3 prepared by the Town’s Planning staff; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that the addition of density regulations in the Rural
Residential, Rural Agricultural, Neighborhood Residential, and Conservation Districts, and the
review required by the Local Law further the health and welfare of the community and are in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby adopts Local Law #1 of
2016 entitled “A Local Law to Amend the Town of Dryden Zoning Law to Add Density
Regulations for the Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural, Neighborhood Residential, and
Conservation Districts and Specify the Review Required ”, and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file said local law
with the Secretary of State as required by law.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 13 of 31
Supv Leifer Yes
PINCKNEY ROAD PROPERTY PURCHASE
Supv Leifer explained that in January the board passed two resolutions numbered #40
and #41 to purchase property on Pinckney Road. One of the resolutions was to authorize the
purchase. The second was to authorize the use of funds from the recreation reserve. A board
member now wants to propose a resolution to rescind those previous resolutions. No public
hearing is required on that. He understands a lot of people present want to speak to the issue
and he would like to give about 15 or 20 minutes for folks to speak to that. If the motion is put
forward and seconded then it can be discussed. He asked the speakers keep it to about two
minutes. Unless the prior resolutions are rescinded, there is no need to have a public hearing
on the new amended resolution. He will take public comment first, then move to board
discussion. What is being proposed would effectively take away the need for the permissive
referendum to occur.
Cl Sloan said he isn’t sure that people understand that the authorization to purchase
was never subject to a permissive referendum. The petition that was circulated certainly was
not clear on that point. The petition basically was suggesting that the purchase was subject to
referendum and that was never the case. Basically, if we wish to proceed with purchase as we
currently propose, then we would have to go through with the proposal to use money from the
recreation reserve to make the purchase. Using funds from the recreation reserve is subject to
a permissive referendum. Even though the petition was not clear, and perhaps it is possible
that the petition could be legally challenged, he thinks the best thing to do going forward is
accept the fact that people signing the petition intended to oppose the use of funds from the
recreation reserve.
Supv Leifer said it could be that people simply wanted to put it to a vote since purchase
of the property using reserve funds made it subject to a permissive referendum. Everyone that
signed that may not actually be opposed to the purchase. They may have simply thought it
was a good idea to vote on it.
Cl Lavine moved to rescind Resolutions #40 and #41 adopted on January 21, 2016, and
Cl Sloan seconded the motion.
G Maybee said he is upset about spending taxpayer dollars on property to take off the
tax rolls. We have enough forever wild land. We have the Park Preserve, Hammond Hill, Yellow
Barn, Dryden Lake. How many more pieces of land should come off the tax rolls? Taxes are
outrageous and our children can’t live here. This is not a give me state. Taxpayers don’t have
bottomless pockets. He is retired and can’t afford the taxes. Finger Lakes Land Trust is buying
up land and taking it off the tax rolls. Everyone else’s taxes are going through the roof. When
does it stop? Can you look the children in the face knowing they won’t be able to afford to live
in this community because of board action? When does it stop?
B Schickel said he feels similarly. His family farm on Ferguson Road is 225 acres. He
just received the preliminary reassessment. They increased the assessment on the land by
58%, $272,000 additional value. That represents about $8,500 additional tax. He spoke with
Lloyd Kimmich, a neighboring farmer, and he was the apoplectic over his reassessment. He
spoke with Dennis Mix and it was the same. Every landowner and farmer is going berserk this
week.
The town is spending between $500,000 and $700,000 more each year than they are
bringing in. That deficit is being filled by town savings. Now you’re talking about taking
$70,000 and buying a piece of land that happens to come on market. It is not a priority, and
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 14 of 31
you need to get priorities straight. 352 people in this town signed that petition saying they
want to vote on this. And now Linda is trying to thwart their ability and chance to have their
voice heard. It is shameful.
B Schickel said he supports this motion to rescind the previous resolutions. But if
you’re going to put a motion on the table saying now you’re going to increase the deficit from
$700,000 to $770,000 and go ahead and buy it, then shame on you. You need to start saying
no to spending and look at what are really necessary priorities.
B Schickel said he attended the meeting on rails to trails last night. He supports that
and will work hard to make that happen, but if you are going to try to achieve that by buying
land, there is no way to keep the public in support of it. You have got to kill this thing.
Judy Pierpont, 111 Pleasant Hollow Road, said she thinks providing this kind of
recreational environment for everybody is important. The rail trail goes by this piece of
property. The town should do things that are healthy and benefit everybody. That’s a good
way to be spending money. Tax problems are real and the state has deprived municipalities of
money that used to come from the state and piled on the requirements that towns have to
meet. The town should still be doing the kinds of things that towns do. She is most concerned
that the town completes this purchase. It was voted on and was a town priority and hopes it
can be done in a timely fashion. If a referendum could interfere with a timely purchase, she
thinks we should take the necessary funds from general funds. The town has committed after
a long process to buy this property and it is not in contention. The closing is set for June 1
and trying to insert a referendum is a possible interference. She sees it as inserting
uncertainty on the town’s ability to follow through on its commitment to acquire this property.
Given the uncertainty, she thinks the town should buy the property from available funds and
do the permissive referendum later to move rec funds to another reserve fund.
Joe Wilson, Hunt Hill Road, said he has spoken before in favor of the acquisition. He
mentioned that the Conservation Board and Planning Board also encouraged the town to
acquire additional open space. With respect to the referendum, he thinks the comments that
indicate that regardless of technicalities, people signed the petition to say that they wanted to
have their say directly on this particular priority. That should be done. Let people speak
through the referendum on whether or not they support the notion of spending this particular
money on this particular property. It will be an act of good faith as well as an opportunity for
everyone to speak their mind directly. He hopes the board goes in that direction.
David Keifer, Kimberly Drive, said he is local runner and bicyclist. He uses the roads
and trails extensively and appreciates their existence. He is a strong believer in exercise. His
property backs up to the Jim Schug trail. He can see how much that trail is used by walkers,
runners, and bicyclists from dawn to dusk. It is a popular place in all seasons. In the winter
people are out there on their skiis. He strongly supports any expansion of the trail system in
Dryden. If the acquisition of the Pinckney Road is instrumental in this expansion, then he
supports the purchase. He recently read a book by Margaret Webb. The author makes a very
strong case for people remaining vigorously active as they age, and that will help improve their
health as they age. As the population ages, the trail system should expand so that citizens of
Dryden have an outlet for getting out and exercising . He supports the acquisition of the
property.
Bruce Drowne, 9 Lee Road, said he and his family use the trail and it is a great asset.
It seems that there are few people from Ellis Hollow or the western part of the town Dryden
that drive here to use the trail. He doubts that many people from the village of Dryden or Ellis
Hollow will go to Pinckney Road to ride or walk. When the Jim Schug trail was developed there
was money available. We’re broke. Please don’t spend any more money that we don’t have.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 15 of 31
Adam Angst, 50 Hickory Road, read a statement from Buzz Lavine who couldn’t be
here. This land offering is an especially good fit for the town for all the reasons outlined many
times before, including the facts that it would (a) expand the utility of our already well-
appreciated Campbell meadow parcel abutting it and (b) expand the utility of the bike/hike
trail proposed there. Plus it’s an unusual opportunity to promote some our most important
recreation goals. In addition, it would help promote more visits to the town and because it is
adjacent to our Campbell meadow, it would accomplish this with very minimal extra town
expenditure in the future. In short, is a unique opportunity for the town. However, to take
advantage of this special opportunity we can’t afford to be sidetracked by ef forts to delay the
purchase. I say this because real estate deals in general have their own habit of finding extra
roadblocks and delays. I know this from many years of experience in local real estate
brokerage in addition to my own purchase and sale of many real estate properties here in the
county. It is often difficult enough to have all parties prepared to close on the agreed -upon
date. For a special opportunity purchase such as this, it would be foolhardy to increase the
possibility of such a delay. In my mind that is what the proposed referendum would do. Even
if the referendum ended up supporting the purchase with recreation funds and accomplished
that without excessive delay, the mere uncertainty of the referendum process could end up
encouraging the seller to find a way to back out of the purchase agreement and proceed with
another buyer’s offer instead. If we see this purchase as a special opportunity, it makes little
sense to take risks. There is nothing undemocratic about using the town’s non-recreation
funds for this purchase. If by any chance board members feel it would be better to have used
specifically recreation funds, a referendum could still be arranged for the purpose of
transferring such funds to cover an equivalent dollar amount of lost opportunity for spending
from some other account. Such a referendum at that point would not put the purchase at risk.
I see the currently planned referendum as intended to specifically put the purchase at risk by
introducing uncertainty and delay beyond the comfort of the seller. In my opinion it would be
foolhardy to accept that unnecessary risk.
Joanne Cipolla-Dennis, 964 W Dryden Road, said she is in support of the purchase of
the property. She owns 30 acres and uses it as a recreational piece of property. People who
rent property don’t have that available to them. When we talk about affordable housing to
accommodate the housing crisis here, we also have make accommodation for recreation for
those people and have them have someplace to walk their dogs. She has 30 acres, but drives
from Dryden to Ithaca to use the dog park they have there. She w ould happily pay to have a
dog park in Dryden. She has used Schug Trail many times, but it is not the same thing.
Having recreation is a draw to Dryden. Since it is not affordable to live in Ithaca any more,
people are going to be looking to Freeville, Varna and Dryden, and we could accommodate them
by making it a more wonderful place to live. She supports the purchase.
Tanya Angst, 50 Hickory Road, said she has lived in Dryden most of her life and hopes
to retire here. A key part of retiring here for her will be staying fit. She is an avid cyclist and
runner and believes that trail proposed will be used by her and her friends that she cycles
with. She understands this property will provide access to the trail. She knows from the bike
routes that are well known to cyclists in the area that that access point will give them a way to
come into the trail at a key juncture. Their trips to Toads and downtown Dryden and the
Schug trail will definitely be increased. She thinks it was good that the board began to think
about how to make the trail work best with what we have and what we need.
Nancy Munckenbeck, 832 Ringwood Road, said she hopes the town does purchase
property because it is good for control of the streamside and it is part of the development of the
rail trail. She assumes it will be a slow development because she despises eminent domain.
She is concerned with what is happening with reserve funds. She said that reserve funds in
the bank are not earning interest. If you purchase the property, it is an appreciable asset.
Because she realizes nothing is forever, and understands that we are looking at it as something
for recreation, it is possible in the future to divide the property, keeping the streamside and the
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 16 of 31
trail, and selling the rest at some future time. She said she also believes in ground up things
and believes the public should have statements. She is in support of a public referendum on
use of funds because it is democracy and people should have a say. She hopes that people can
think about lots of different aspects of this.
Steve Foote, 288 Gulf Hill, said after opening assessment notices this morning, moving
more land to the untaxed parcel side doesn’t seem to add up. We are blessed with much more
than other towns around seem to have for recreation such as this at this time (State, county
and local). We are also blessed with huge taxes. When you get a town-wide pushback, it’s
time step up to the plate, listen, ask the questions, review it and come back later. Don’t push
it through.
Nancy Miller, Midline Road, said she is in favor of the town purchasing this property
and adding to the recreation. She understands that recreation funds are available for this
purpose. She also understands that if the referendum takes place and things get delayed,
there might be an issue with getting all the ducks in line before the closing date. She is in
favor of rescinding and redoing this and taking the money initially from the surplus fund and
then later going back and doing the referendum, if that’s possible and legal, to take from the
recreation reserve to replenish. She is in favor of creating more open space. There can be
other ways that you can develop it in Dryden and this is not one of them.
Nancy Kleinrock, Sunnyslope Rd, said she and her husband purchased land in the
Town of Dryden and built a home here a few years ago. The principal reason they moved here
was because of existing open space and recreational opportunities. A very significant
component was the town board’s interest and openness in expanding on those opportunities.
She wants to see the purchase done in the most expedient way and then resolve the
surrounding issues in the manner necessary.
Holly Ryan said she has lived in the town for 40 years. Mr Schickel hit the nail on the
head. It’s taxpayers’ money. It’s not the board’s money. It should go to vote. But we have
plenty of parks already that you can go by any time of day and there is no one there. Who has
time for all this recreation when we have to work 60 hours a work to afford the taxes that keep
going up. I think when you bought this place (the town hall property) there was supposed to
be several acres that were supposed to be walking trails and such. Did that ever transpire?
How much do we need? It’s not extra money, even if it’s a fund. It’s taxpayer money. There’s
no such thing as extra money just sitting in a reserve waiting to be spent. Even if the land was
purchased, it still has to be maintained, mowed, care for. It’s ongoing. It’s a waste. It needs to
go to vote.
Margie Malepe, Gulf Hill Road, said she supports what Bruno said. It’s clear there are
a handful of people in this room that are in favor of purchasing this property . It is also clear
that there are 352 people in the town that are either opposed to it or would like to see a vote.
The tax situation in Dryden is unacceptable. While some here can afford it, there are many
more than cannot continue to afford increases in double digits annually. People are moving
out of the district. She knows enrollment in the school district is going down. That’s an
indication that we aren’t having children, or people are moving away, or maybe a combination
of both. The people wanted to vote on spending this money. She’s not so sure it matters what
budget line it comes from, but it matters that they wanted to vote on spending this money. She
doesn’t know why we wouldn’t give them that opportunity. Rushing into anything because we
are afraid we won’t make a closing date would be foolish at best.
Chris Bieber, Beam Hill Road, asked whether any board members have walked the
property and if so, whether they really thought it was worth $70,000. He doesn’t think so. He
doesn’t think it should be purchased. This smells bad. They want it real bad for what?
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 17 of 31
Fred Stock said he has lived in the village of Dryden for about 27 years. He is totally
opposed to this purchase. He is an avid fly fisherman and fishes Fall Creek. He is also an avid
cyclist and is still opposed to this purchase. The town needs to get its financial act together.
We have plenty of state, county and village parks and lots of places to go and trails. Utilize
them to the fullest. When you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it.
Harley Bieber, Crystal Drive, said we’re running a deficit. Until such time as the board
can show us how we get a surplus, we need to spend our money more wisely.
Supv Leifer said the resolution on the floor proposes to rescind the January resolutions
approving the purchase and where the money will come from. That will nullify the election that
we should otherwise be planning right now. Then if this resolution passes, we would open a
public hearing on a new resolution to purchase the property with funding to come from surplus
funds in the town wide A fund.
Cl Sloan said he supports the resolution on the floor because he thinks there is a great
deal of confusion about what is subject to permissive referendum and what is not. The petition
was questioning whether we could take fund out of the recreation reserve to make the
purchase. It was not a question of whether we could make the purchase. That decision has
already been made. He respects the fact that people are concerned about the budget. The
board is too and talks about it pretty much every meeting. The k ey thing as he sees it is that
there is a petition signed by three hundred people. He would subtract the questionable
signatures, but there is still enough signatures to count. Those are people basically saying
they don’t want the money taken from the recreation reserve. Some people are saying if we
wish to proceed with taking that from the rec reserve, then we have to vote on that in a
referendum. He has lived and voted in nine states. He has never seen a state that is so
election happy as this one. It is the duty of every citizen to vote in every election. It is amazing
how many elections there are in Dryden. It costs money. It takes time. We can listen to the
petitioners. We can accept the fact that 300 people have stated their opposition to taking
money out of the rec reserve and we can concede the point. That’s what he intends to do. It is
important to understand what is subject to a permissive referendum and what is not.
Cl Lavine said people have suggested that democracy and the violating of that
democratic spirit and process is a major issue here. This referendum never was about
whether or not to buy the land. It was about the source of the funds. That is simply an
artifact of the state law that said if you take money out of capital reserve fun ds it may incur a
permissive referendum. We always had the alternative route of being able to take the money
from surplus funds or bonding, all legitimate processes that would not have incurred that
referendum. So the referendum was not about buying the land. That is a done deal. As a
board we all agree and so probably the vast majority of people who voted for us as democratic
citizens of Dryden that this is the kind of place that we want to live in.
Why was it democratic? The Recreation Commission looked into it and agreed to the
value of it, though they wished only to take out half the amount of value. It is not $70,000. It
is $50,000 because the County saw this as an important enough purchase to put in $15,000.
The Recreation Commission agreed that it was a valuable part of their mission as recreation
and that they would be happy to pay for part of it. Indeed, that money, $250,000 as a capital
reserve, which we could question today given the nature of the economy and thinking about
how that gets used, was put there for this kind of purpose exactly. And that is why Dan and
Jason feel passionately that that’s where it has to come from. That is one body of citizens
among us who spend an enormous amount of time thinking about these issues and the health
and wellness of the people of Dryden who agreed that it was valuable.
The Conservation Board, another group that spends inordinate amounts of time
thinking about the wellness of the people of Dryden, investigated it thoroughly and approved it.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 18 of 31
The Planning Board members gave us advice and suggested how important the possibility of
this is. There was a lot of democracy involved in all of those committees. And the C ounty
Legislature approved it as part of our overall democracy and voted to contribute 20% of the
cost. Additionally the people of Dryden elected this board to make decisions that support the
integrity and positive growth in the town of Dryden.
Indeed, when people talk about the downside of assessments going up, you have to
remember that that’s the good news as well as the bad news. Those assessments are going up
largely because people want to live in Dryden. Dryden will indeed continue to be a very
desirable place to expand into from the greater Ithaca community.
We had two routes that we could have used initially to buy the land. One was surplus
funds of which we have a considerable amount, though obviously not more than we need. The
other was the recreation capital reserve fund. Because we risk losing the property enti rely by
the delay of a referendum, she personally would have argued for using the surplus funds to
begin with, but that’s water over the dam. We are fortunate that the s ellers have great public
spirit as did the Campbells in donating the land on the opposite shore, Campbell Meadow. The
sellers have agreed to an extension until June 1. That date continues to be problematic for
time in closing a real estate transaction as Buzz Lavine said in his statement .
We now have before us the option of rescinding the original resolutions and doing it by
the second route, the surplus funds. Her research yields the following facts. The law gives the
board the right to rescind a motion, rendering the petition null. There is a very good reason for
that. Sometimes people would want to sensibly rescind a motion because it costs a lot of
money to run a referendum. So if there was something trivial the board in any town could
easily say it’s just not worth spending thousands of dollars to vote on this now, let’s try t o
revisit it and figure out what we’re doing. That is one of the reasons we should indeed rescind
the motion. It will cost us thousands of dollars to run this referendum in the required window
of time because there is no other election going on that this could be added on to. As a board
we have no reason to fear we would lose in such a referendum. All previous elections indicate
that the sympathies of Dryden voters are with this acquisition despite the number of
signatures on the petition.
Another reason to rescind is to avoid a nasty and potentially expensive lawsuit
regarding the petitions. There are irregularities in the petitions that are legally actionable.
Bambi will attest to the fact that we have a sworn affidavit from a Dryden citizen testif ying that
the petition she signed was not witnessed by the person who swore under oath and penalty of
law that he had witnessed the entire page of signatures. Indeed, Bambi can further attest that
fully five pages of those petitions were similarly falsely sworn. And said petitions were simply
left in a beauty parlor where people could sign them unsupervised, counter to the law of New
York State. The town has the right to take this issue to the Supreme Court to investigate and
invalidate the relevant petitions. Indeed, the person whose signature appears on those five
pages is also responsible for ten additional pages of those signatures. This could, in itself,
render the petitions void. But to press that case in the Supreme Court would have required
hundreds of dollars of town money in court costs and legal fees. It would also reflect poorly on
the town of Dryden to drag us through the mud in Supreme Court. In addition, a person who
falsely witnesses a petition is guilty of a criminal offense of significant moral importance that
can be pursued by the district attorney.
In my opinion, rescinding this motion avoids the potential criminal and civil violations
by voiding the substance of the petitions. This would be a very humane and simple way to end
this tainted event and would in addition again save us thousands of dollars. It would end the
threat of criminal charges stemming from the corrupt petitions. There are more important
things to do with all of our times than to run around carrying out a re ferendum, wasting tax
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 19 of 31
money, gas money getting to the polls, turning out voters, when we could be hanging out with
family or contributing to the community.
While preparing my statement, I noted the sad loss of Patricia Ackley. There are so
many problems we cannot avoid – personal, national, international. Why would we create a
divisive controversy that can be avoided? And it will create divisiveness. Those are my reasons
for rescinding. It saves us money in many ways totaling thousands of dollars, avoi ds a possible
ugly lawsuit regarding faulty petitions, and permits the purchase to go through by the second
means, surplus funds, such that we do not risk losing the property.
The arguments that have been raised for not rescinding can be summarized as the
democratic process which I believe I have addressed above, and the tainted nature and dollar
costs of the referendum make it wise to abandon that piece of the democratic process. Also,
the fact is that we had the right to buy it by other funds, so that was clearly an alternate
democratic route that still is available to us without threat of referendum.
Finally, people have argued that the proper source of funds was the capital reserve fund
and indeed it was. That was the mission of that dedicated fu nd. However, we absolutely risk
the loss of the property if we let this referendum play out in time. That is probably the wish of
the people who have stood up tonight and say “Do not buy it. It is smelly. It is useless. It is
arrogant of us to have done it.” That is their wish, but it is not the wishes of the Town of
Dryden and the elected representatives of the Town of Dryden who have carefully looked into
this property and yes, walked through it, and found that it is a unique opportunity to
supplement what we have. Personally I own a beautiful property on a lake. I own a hundred
acres of woods. But everybody should have access to nature.
Cl Lamb apologized for how confusing this process is for people. He came to this
project in January and a lot of the work had already been done. He trusts the views of the
Conservation Board and recognizes that the County supports this project as well as Planning
Board, and the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Many people see the value of this property. He has
been there, spent a lot of time at Campbell Meadow and the viewshed is very nice. It’s good to
have.
Cl Lamb stated he doesn’t necessarily think this is the most important thing the board
will grapple with this year. He doesn’t think this is as important as investing in the trail. The
trail takes priority. This property enhances the trail, but is not necessary for the trail to go
forward.
What bothers him about going back and rescinding the resolution is that the board
knew what it was doing in January and knew that this was a possibility. The public gathered
signatures and that the democratic process. The cure for democracy is more democracy. He
disagrees with Cl Sloan about voting. He wishes we had more voting and that more people
voted. He is okay with taking the temperature of the residents of Dryden and finding out how
people feel on this. It’s his impression that there is ample support for purchasing this
property, but if he hears otherwise, he has an open mind.
Cl Lamb said his concern with how the project is handled is how we buy it. The budget
is a big problem and we need to fix it. He teaches public policy and has been involved in
government for about 20 years. It is important to get the budget right. He knows how
important this looks to people who think we are spending unwisely. We are taking this from a
dedicated fund that was set up by a Republican who served on this board to preserve land or
build up properties for recreational purposes. That is the only thing this fund can be used for.
And this fund is subject to permissive referendum and that is fine. He thinks we should put
this to a vote. We are not spending from our sur plus on this. We know we have a surplus in
this town and we know we are using it right now to balance the budget. That’s not a good way
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 20 of 31
to govern and not a good way to do this in the future. We need to fix the budget gap. We
cannot have a persistent budget gap and we are going to address this. We are going to ask the
town of Dryden for a little shared sacrifice later in the year as the Supervisor puts forth his
plan to balance the budget. We aren’t going to take money from the surplus. We are going to
take it from the dedicated funds that are for this particular purpose.
With respect to taking property off the tax roll, remember that earlier tonight we added
value to the tax base. We need to be growing as a community and looking strategically to grow
the tax base in this town. We are trying to move projects forward like we did tonight, and will
look for more opportunities. That’s the mindset of this board. When you talk about the high
taxes in the town, you need to remember that the town portion is about a tenth of what you
pay in taxes. Where he lives near McLean, he spends more on the fire district tax than on his
town tax. That needs to be kept in perspective. There are areas that we spend too much in
taxes, but town government is not a large part of the tax bill. The town is trying to do things
efficiently.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis said she has really grappled with this decision and has listened to a
lot of people. She’s received a lot of phone calls and emails which she appreciates. She’s
listened to everyone who spoke tonight. She has to agree with Cl Lamb that the democratic
process is very important. Democracy is sometimes messy. We all get a chance to have our
say and that’s important. She supports purchase of this property. She also agrees that as we
create affordable housing and increase density, which is needed. Keeping climate change in
mind is important. As we increase density we need to preserve green space and create public
recreational areas for people to access and enjoy. She supports the purchase of this property
and thinks it needs to come from the rec reserve fund as was discussed in January. Surplus
funds should not be spent on anything we don’t have to because we n eed to mend the budget
gap. A referendum will take some time and cost a little bit of money. We will do it in the most
efficient way possible. She does support the referendum.
Supv Leifer said he supports the referendum. He supported in the fall of 2015 when
this purchase was first discussed. He always said the funds for this should only come the from
rec reserve fund because that money is specifically dedicated to projects like this. We don’t
have any other fund in the town specifically dedicated for this kind of thing. There isn’t one for
farmland protection and we probably should that.
Having been the supervisor for two and half months now the things he thinks about are
serious future obligations in infrastructure over the next four years. Bridges (Red Mill and
Malloryville) need repair and will need to be paid for next year. Freese Road and Dodge Road
bridges need repair. Dodge Road alone will cost over $100,000. The surplus in the Townwide
A fund will be needed for those projects. When we have money set aside that can’t be used to
fund the bridge repairs, already dedicated in a reserve fund, that’s where this should come
from. If it’s subject to a vote, it’s subject a vote. He loves elections. If we win, we win, and if
we don’t, we don’t. The trail project between Varna and Freeville will continue and we’ll figure
out a different way to do it. There’s nothing wrong with scheduling a vote. People who care
about how we spend that recreation fund will have an opportunity to voice their opinion.
The board did discuss this in January and did get advice from our attorney that an
alternate path did exist to spend this money out of the town-wide A fund instead of using the
rec reserve. Had that decision been made in January, we wouldn’t be doing this today. But
everybody on this board voted yes to use the rec reserve fund. If he wasn’t sitting on the board,
he would have been at the podium scolding everyone sitting here about trying to rip a lawful
election away from the people just because I didn’t like the fact that some folks had the nerve
to go out and carry a petition. Maybe some of those pages , if we fought it, would turn out to
not be valid, but the law also said there was a certain time to file objections. They weren’t filed
in time. The fact is that is a valid petition and the law is the law. We are going to have an
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 21 of 31
election. We need to choose the day, word the question and we do a paper ballot election for
probably less that $2,000. Let’s do the right thing morally and fiscally here.
Cl Lavine said it seems it’s a red herring to suggest there is a solid wall between where
those fund come from. It would be a little bit like saying you have three bank accounts or
checking accounts because you have the right as a people to move that money when you need
the next bridge or the next tractor. You have a right to move that money to another dedicated
capital cause such as the bridge or the tractor. You have to weigh the risk of losing this
unique property against the ambiguity of where that money is coming from immediately
although it can easily be replaced in the future in a timely manner when the referendum can
be scheduled to coincide with another election and thereby be cost free and will not hold up the
purchase of this unique land.
RESOLUTION #71 (2016) - RESCINDING THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:
RESOLUTION #40 OF 2016 ADOPTED ON JANUARY 21, 2016 AUTHORIZING PURCHASE
OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC PARK AND
PROVIDING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PUBLIC
AND
RESOLUTION #41 OF 2016 ADOPTED ON JANUARY 21, 2016 AUTHORIZING USE OF
FUNDS FROM THE TOWN OF DRYDEN RECREATION CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO
PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC PARK
AND PROVIDING RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PUBLIC
Cl Lavine offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, held on January 21,
2016, the Town Board adopted the following resolutions:
Resolution #40 of 2016, which authorizes the Town to purchase an approximately 15 -
acre parcel of vacant land located on Pinckney Road and bordering on Fall Creek in the Town
of Dryden, which parcel is currently designated as Town of Dryden tax parcel number 44.-1-
2.323 and is currently owned by Jean Hoag (“the Hoag-Harvey Parcel”), for the sum of $62,700,
plus payment of the seller’s closing costs in an amount not to exceed $7,100, and the Town’s
closing costs not to exceed $2,000. The resolution further approves the use of the Hoag-Harvey
Parcel as a public park and to provide recreational opportunities to the public; and
Resolution #41 of 2016, which authorizes the Town to make the following expenditures
from the Town of Dryden Recreation Capital Reserve Fund: A sum not to exceed $62,700, plus
payment of the seller’s closing costs in an amount not to exceed $7,100, plus property tax and
recording charges in an amount not to exceed $2,000, to purchase the Hoag-Harvey Parcel, for
the purposes of establishing a public park and providing recreational opportunities to the
public. The resolution further provides that any and all funds received by the Town of Dryden
from the County of Tompkins towards the purchase and protection of the Hoag -Harvey Parcel
will be deposited into the Town of Dryden Recreation Capital Reserve Fund; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Town Law section 220, the expenditure of town funds to
establish public parks or playgrounds, acquire the necessary lands therefor, and equip the
same with suitable buildings, structures and apparatus is subject to permissive referendum
unless the purchase is funded in whole from monies appropriated from surplus funds, and
pursuant to General Municipal Law section 6-c, the use of funds from a capital reserve fund
are subject to permissive referendum; and
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 22 of 31
WHEREAS, a petition protesting against resolution #40 of 2016 and requesting that it
be submitted to the qualified electors of the town for their approval or disapproval, was filed in
the office of the Town Clerk on February 19, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Town has sufficient monies from surplus funds to fund the purchase;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to avoid the expense and delay of a permissive
referendum; and
WHEREAS, the Purchase and Sale Agreement as described in Resolutions #40 and #41
of 2016 has a target closing date of December 15, 2015, and the Town Board wants to avoid
jeopardizing the purchase of this property; and
WHEREAS, the Hoag-Harvey parcel is for sale at a reasonable price and is in an ideal
location for a public park, and
WHEREAS, the preservation of the Hoag-Harvey Parcel as a park, which residents can
enjoy for recreational purposes, including, but not limited to hiking, enjoyment of the natural
beauty of the property, and public access to Fall Creek, one of the natural wonders in the
Town, promotes the health and welfare of residents of the Town, and adds to the desirability of
living in the Town of Dryden; and
WHEREAS, funding the purchase from the Town of Dryden Recreation Reserve Fund
falls within the purposes for which the fund was established, but such expenditure is subject
to a permissive referendum; and
WHEREAS, while the Town Board is confident that there is substantial support for the
purchase among the voters of the Town of Dryden, such a referendum would result in a
substantial delay, far beyond the target closing date in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Town would incur a substantial cost for the special election required for
the referendum; and
WHEREAS, an affidavit filed with the Town Clerk based alleges possible fraud in the
means by which the petitions were collected, in that a person who verified under oath that he
witnessed each signature was not present when the petition was signed; and such deficiencies
in the petition may result in potentially costly litigation in regard to the petition; and
WHEREAS, the focus and priority of the Town Board is to pro ceed with the purchase, of
the Hoag-Harvey parcel in whole from monies appropriated from surplus funds, as provided in
Town Law section 220; and
WHEREAS, in order to do so, the Town Board needs to rescind Resolutions #40 and #41
of 2016 and adopt a new resolution authorizing the purchase of the Hoag-Harvey parcel with
surplus funds as provided in Town Law section 220; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has the authority pursuant to Town Law section 93 to
rescind or repeal any act or resolution of the town board at any time, and, if the resolution so
repealed is one that is subject to a permissive referendum and a petition is filed thereupon, no
further proceedings shall be had thereunder and no referendum shall be held; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby rescinds resolution #40
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 23 of 31
of 2016, effective immediately; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby rescinds resolu tion #41
of 2016, effective immediately.
2nd Cl Sloan
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Lavine Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis No
Cl Lamb No
Supv Leifer No
Cl Lavine left the meeting.
TOWNCLERK
RESOLUTION #72 (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 February
11, 2016 and February 18, 2016.
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
CITIZENS PRIVILEGE
Bruno Schickel said he appreciates the comments regarding having a vote on the
referendum. He has a lot of respect for that. He agrees that the rec reserve was set up for
recreational infrastructure. He feels the board may be taking their eye off the prize. There was
a meeting last night about taking the trail from Agway in the Village of Dryden to Game Farm
Road. It is a very laudable goal, and it will take some money. He really thinks this property is
not critical to that process. You should just let this go. Approach the owner and try to get an
easement. That would take care of it. You don’t need the land. If you build the trail and you
don’t get this property, no one is going to miss it. He encouraged the board to let this go.
Joanne Cipolla-Dennis said she supports the resolution being brought forward tonight
opposing the Trans Pacific Participation. TPP is a very dangerous deal for the entire country.
We are land rich and water rich in this area and corporations form outside our borders will be
looking to capture that water and to use our land. A foreign entity that has run out of water
purchased thirteen thousand acres in California to grow alfalfa to send back to their country.
If the TPP was already in order we would be subject to paying the legal fees of that corporation
to stand in their way and we would lose. That’s what the TPP will do fo r us. Opposing it like
the County legislature has done would secure our ban on fracking, which is the most
important part of living in Dryden for her. And it is another reason why people are moving here
for protection. She hopes the board will pass it with a unanimous vote.
Judy Pierpont has a copy of the TPP resolution and a sign on list for names and
addresses of people in Dryden if they want to sign on and don’t want to speak to it.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 24 of 31
HIGHWAY/DPW
Rick Case, Deputy DPW Superintendent, said the said the relative ease of this winter
has enable the highway department and DPW this past month to service equipment in
preparation for the construction season. The window and insulation project at the garage
continues as weather allows. They have done several pipe installations and shoulder
reinforcement projects have been completed. They have done right of way clear ing on Mott
Road, Cady Lane and Hart Road. They continue daily operation of Yellow Barn Water District.
Board members have a quote from Cortland Pump for replacement of the fuel tracking
system. They’ve had several problems tracking and billing each month. The cost of the system
is $11,756.36 and is the same system as used by the school bus garage. Cortland Pump is
local so service would be readily available. The funds are in the equipment budget. He was
asked about scrap or resale value and stated they may or may not be able to market it.
RESOLUTION #73 (2016) - TO PURCHASE FUEL TRACKING SYSTEM
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
Whereas the Town Highway Department tracks fuel dispensed from the storage tank by
vehicle; and
Whereas the Town also dispenses fuel to Village of Freeville, W.B. Strong, Neptune Hose
Co, Dryden Ambulance Co; and
Whereas the current GasBoy system is approximately 25 years old, uses an antiquated
DOS operating system; and
Whereas NYSDEC demands accurate accounting of amount of fuel deposited in the
tank and amount of fuel dispensed to ass ure no fuel is leaking into the ground ; and
Whereas the current system is not operating with such precision,
Be it hereby resolved, that the Highway Superintendent be authorized to purchase an
updated fuel system from Cortland Pump and Equipment, Inc. w ith a cost not to exceed
$12,000.
2nd Cl Lamb
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Jennifer Jones reported that the community grant application process will close on
April 1. The DRYC will review those applications and she will bring their recommendations to
board. Contracts should be sent out by June 1. The spring egg hunt, a free community event,
is coming up the Saturday morning before Easter at Montgomery Park. There will be a pickle
ball tournament at the high school this Sunday beginning at 10:00 a.m.
A community group has formed the Dryden Space Committee and will hold their first
event on April 2 from 3 to 6 pm at the fire hall. This is a free event with prizes and snacks and
will be informational about the committee, and its mission and goals.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 25 of 31
The Montgomery Park Revitalization group is planning a community build for a
playground, hopefully in October. There is a facebook page and website on this group and its
activities.
Cl Lamb commented that the Rec Department’s spring guide made the front page of the
Dryden Courier and there were nice comments on the programs and trips.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
R Burger has provided the board with a written report.
The Planning Board has a subdivision review coming up on a development/subdivision
at the corner at Freese and Dryden Road. It’s called Tiny Timbers and is smaller home
development. It will receive a full site plan review at a special Planning Board meeting on April
27.
ISO rating – this is a rating used by insurance underwriters. They did have a lower
score as a result of the NY codes being antiquated. That will be revised this spring and NY will
adopt the 2015 code and will result in a better rating. They’ve agreed to not the publish rating
until after the change takes place.
Amy & Ed Vorhis explained they would like to open a repair garage on their property on
Cricket Lane. They have a garage that was built a few years ago and is away from their house.
This are expecting this to be a low key/part time business for Mr Vorhis. There would be no
employees. They are asking for a waiver of the ten parking spaces required for an auto repair
shop. There is space for at least seven, but they don’t believe they need them and they woul d
have to cut down trees and they don’t want to do there. There is a lot of brush and trees
surrounding their property and that makes the garage less visible. There will be no signs and
no tow trucks coming in the middle of the night. They both work full time so this would be
very part time. They asked to be placed on the May agenda. Supv Leifer asked them to work
with R Burger and D Sprout in the meantime. The hearing was scheduled for the May
business meeting at 7:00 p.m.
COUNTY BRIEFING
Martha Robertson – The Pine Tree Road trail upgrade between East Hill Plaza and 366
will be moving forward. This will be connecting the East Hill Recreation Way and upgrading
the bridge over Pine Tree Road. There will be a safe place to walk from Maple Avenue to 366.
Final bids came in higher than expected, but everyone is committed. The town of Ithaca,
Cornell, State and Feds all have money in this project and the County’s portion is 19% of the
entire project. It will create a nice connection out to Game Farm Road and headed toward
Cornell. Cornell is planning a housing development there and there will be more development
in that neighborhood so it’s really important . The project will start and hopefully finish this
summer.
The county has been working for a number of years on the Energy Road M ap. It’s been
an intense, research oriented project to try and identify several different scenarios by which
they could meet their greenhouse gas emission goal of reducing by at least 80% based on the
2008 emissions by 2050. Yesterday the Planning and Energy Committee heard a report that
they are ready to bring it to the public in final form. There are three scenarios that will work
and all require a lot of work and investment and choices by people. There will be a
presentation at the legislature meeting on April 5 at 5:30 p.m. The full report and summary
are on the planning department website.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 26 of 31
This past meeting the legislature approved a project to enter a contract with Gravity
Renewables for remote net metering with a 2 megawatt hydro plant in Waterloo. The county
will get two-thirds of its electricity from this hydro plant. The 20 year contract with an
additional 5 year option will give them price stability. They expect it will save money over time
and give company the assurance they can invest in upgrading this hydro plant, which was
built exactly 100 years ago. Recent changes in state law allowed this to happen. The county’s
contract enables this investment to happen so that an old service will be put back into service
again for renewable power.
Mike Lane reported that the county has passed last piece (negative declaration of
environmental significance) for the Red Mill Road bridge upgrade. That means this project will
move forward and the town will need to pay its share. It seems to be a popular project in that
area and was not without some controversy at the legislature, but it came to a 12-2 vote.
Comments were made that bridges needed to prioritized. M Lane commented that the bridge is
well over 100 years old. Also in that money/project will be reinforcing the bridge at Malloryville
to make it last longer.
The county has been talking with state legislators about a package of items being
pushed by the Association of Counties. In particular is the need to help community colleges
with aid on reimbursement levels which are currently at the 2008 rates. The Association of
Community Colleges has asked for $285 FTE increase. The Assembly bill came up with $100
and the Senate bill is only $50. This isn’t nearly enough. TC3 has been dealing with a decline
in enrollment and they hope that’s leveled off.
It’s late in the budget process, but board members could talk with Assembly and S enate
representatives. Barbara Lifton has said there is a lot of money to be spent, including bank
settlement money and additional income tax and other revenue. M Lane will share a copy of
the resolution passed by the County for town board consideration. He added there was
nothing in the budget for mandate relief. 74% of county taxes go for state mandates.
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
Planning Board – Cl Cipolla-Dennis has emailed a report to board members.
Conservation Board – No report. Supv Leifer said he had received a call from Barbara
Lifton’s office about the status of negotiations with the Game Farm. Bob Beck wo uld also like
to be involved those discussions. Supv Leifer will keep B Beck advised.
Recreation & Youth Commission – Covered by J Jones.
Ag Committee – D Lamb reported there was a meeting on March 1 to gather input on
the Ag Plan but no farmers showed up. The committee is doing more outreach prior to the
March 29 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
TPP Resolution – Cl Cipolla-Dennis has previously distributed to board members and
they have reviewed a proposed resolution calling on Congress to reject the Trans -Pacific
Partnership Agreement.
Joe Wilson said the wording of the resolution is comprehensive and he agrees with it
all. He wanted to highlight the notion that these so-called trade tribunals (four highly paid
lawyers sitting in a room with no public scrutiny) would undo the laws that residents pass to
protect their health and safety. Similarly, we’ve lived through NAFTA and other agreements
where we see our manufacturing going oversees and our middle class and blue collar class
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 27 of 31
wages go down. The TPP is bad. These things are not totally ignored. The town’s resolution
regarding the Cayuga Power Plan a few years ago, was noted in a footnote in the decision that
said the PSC is not going to make rate payers pay to keep the Cayuga Power Plant going.
He also commented on the Energy Road Map. He looks forward to that, but pointed out
that the thrust of the Energy Road Map is to move away from natural gas. In particular, the
West Dryden pipeline if used to full capacity will by estimation totally explode any opportunity
the county would have to meet its greenhouse gas emission goals. The board has time and
should take the time to make sure that our local laws address every facet of public heath, air
pollution and the like that could be affected by the West Dryden pipeline and have our own
local law ducks in a row so that this pipeline gets the most appropriate and rigorous scrutiny
that the town can give through its application of its laws and SEQR.
Nancy Miller, Midline Road, said she supports a resolution opposing TPP. It is
important for individuals to let our congressman and senators know that we are against it. It
is really powerful when a local government makes it and sends it on to our elected
representatives. It’s important that Dryden do this again as a leader in grassroots and in
making our statements known and heard around the world.
Cl Cipolla-Dennis said that towns in New York have shown that home rule law is
paramount and that was confirmed by Courts. Not just the fracking ban, but other home rule
types of things that could be challenged under this agreement.
RESOLUTION #74 (2016) – CALLING UPON CONGRESS TO REJECT THE TRANS-
PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP) AGREEMENT
Cl Cipolla-Dennis offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
WHEREAS, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a new trade agreement that has been
negotiated among the United States and 12 Pacific Rim countries by the U.S. Trade
Representative (an office in the Executive branch) in secret, without consultation with our
elected officials but in consultation with many transnational corporations that will benefit from
its rules, and
WHEREAS, fast-track legislation has passed Congress and now the TPP Agreement
cannot be amended by Congress but only, after a ninety -day period, can be voted up or down,
and
WHEREAS, since the text of the TPP has now been made public, citizen concerns have
grown about this and similar trade policies, and
WHEREAS, U.S. trade deals for the past 25 years have incorporated rules that skew
benefits to economic elites; resulting in working families suffering economic hardships and
local economic security being undermined, and
WHEREAS, the offshoring of manufacturing increases global air and sea transport
thereby adding to the carbon footprint of imported goods and increasing greenhouse gas
emissions, leading to further global warming resulting in more extreme weather events which
require more municipal services thus increasing taxpayer burden, and
WHEREAS, the 1994 North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement and most subsequent U.S.
trade deals include special legal rights for foreign investors, known as “inve stor-to-state dispute
settlement” or ISDS, that allow foreign firms to bypass state and federal courts to challenge
state and local laws, regulations, and administrative, and judicial decisions in secret
international tribunals, and
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 28 of 31
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2015, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that
included repeal of the “COOL” (country-of-origin labeling) law that required meat to be so
labeled-a law that had been in place since the 2008 Farm Bill, that had previously been
challenged many times by Mexico and Canada under NAFTA and for which the World Trade
Organization tribunals threatened to impose billions of dollars in sanctions on the United
States, which prompted Congress to delete the law, and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, TransCanada announced that it is challenging
President Obama’s decision to deny the Keystone XL oil pipeline its border-crossing permit by
filing a petition under NAFTA for violating four NAFTA clauses and asking that the United
States be required to pay approximate $3 billion TransCanada says it has already invested in
the pipeline and also an additional $15 billion of lost future earnings, and
WHEREAS, New York State’s fracking ban, Tompkins County’s microbead -free waters
law, and Dryden’s local fracking ban could be similarly challenged, and
WHEREAS, given the enactment of fast track trade negotiating authority, states,
localities, and their citizens have no opportunity to correct shortcomings of the now -public TPP
text and Congress cannot follow normal Congressional procedure that permits full hearings
and amendments but can only vote the agreement as presented up or down, and
WHEREAS, the TPP would restrict governments’ prerogative to negotiate or mandate
lower pharmaceutical prices resulting in higher taxpayer costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and
veterans/military health programs, and
WHEREAS, the TPP would have direct, potentially undesirable consequences for our
town, its residents, its local businesses, and its ecological systems on which all life depends,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dryden Town Board calls upon our federal elected officials -
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and Congressman Tom Reed - to
oppose the TPP Agreement.
2nd Supv Leifer
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
Budget Modifications – Supv Leifer provided board members with a list of year end
budget mods for 2015 and reviewed them with the board. There was a question and discussion
about the budget mod for escrow. There will be a new procedure in place to make sure that
expenses will be accurately recorded in the future and no expenditure will be made unless
there are funds to cover it. There was a question about transfers from fund balance in special
districts to cover expenses. Supv Leifer explained that this is not a normal occurrence. The
last budget simply didn’t allocate enough money for the expenses. That won’t happen again,
but there is enough fund balance to cover the expenses. He doesn’t want to rely on fund
balance in the special districts because the infrastructure is expensive.
Supv Leifer added there is a possibility of a mid-year adjustment or assessment for the
Yellow Barn Water District because of the amount of repairs they’ve had recently, plus the fact
that the principal payments will need to be included. The fund balance in that account is too
low in the event of an emergency. Once the year is closed out and we’ve received the last of the
funds from the Yellow Barn Water Company, he will evaluate that. There is a pay ment due in
September on the bond and we’ll be spending money on the new readers and software so that
we don’t have the non-reporting issues any longer.
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 29 of 31
RESOLUTION #75 (2016) – APPROVE BUDGET MODIFICATIONS
Supv Leifer offered the following resolution an d asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the following budget modifications
for the 2015 fiscal year:
AMOUNT
FROM
TO
A 346.04 A7110.411 TRAILS A8020.401 PLANNING CONT
B 3969.39 B1990.4 CONTINGENCY B8010.430 ESCROW
1003.21
B8020.411 PLANNING BD TRAINING B8010.430 ESCROW
4972.60
DA 88.63 DA5120.110 BRIDGES PERS SERV OT DA5148.110 OTHER GOV PERS SERV OT
SS2 508.97 SS2-8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR SS2-8110.4 ADMIN CONTR
115.97
SS2-8120.1 SAN SEW PERS SERV DPW SS2-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
6988.49
SS2-8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR
SS2-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
7.13
SS2-9030.8 SOC SEC
SS2-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
1.66
SS2-9089.8 MEDICARE
SS2-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
10419.12
SS2-599 FUND BALANCE
SS2-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
17532.37
SS3 46.62 SS3-8110.4 ADMIN CONTR SS3-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
160.83
SS3-8120.1 SAN SEW PERS SERV DPW SS3-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
4019.89
SS3-8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR
SS3-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
9.99
SS3-9030.8 SOC SEC
SS3-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
2.84
SS3-9089.8 MEDICARE
SS3-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
20393.04
SS3-599 FUND BALANCE
SS3-8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
24633.21
SS4 664.42 SS4-8110.4 ADMIN CONTR SS4-8120.1 SAN SEW PERS SERV DPW
9100.42
SS4-8120.2 CAP IMPR
SS4 - 8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
41.33
SS4-8120.2 CAP IMPR
SS4 - 9030.8 SOC SEC
9.18 SS4-8120.2 CAP IMPR SS4 - 9089.8 MEDICARE
AMOUNT
FROM
TO
SS5 1210.57 SS5-8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR SS5 - 8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 30 of 31
SS6 169.97 SS6-8120.1 SAN SEW PERS SERV DPW SS6 - 8110.4 ADMIN CONTR
635.50
SS6-599 FUND BALANCE
SS6 - 8110.4 ADMIN CONTR
805.47
10.93
SS6-9030.8 SOC SEC
SS6 - 8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR
2.11
SS6-9089.8 MEDICARE
SS6 - 8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR
7.06
SS6-599 FUND BALANCE
SS6 - 8120.4 SAN SEW CONTR
20.10
1267.62 SS6-599 FUND BALANCE SS6 - 8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
SS7 460.63 SS7-8120.2 CAP IMPR SS7 - 8130.4 TRTMT/DISP CONTR
SW1 474.09 SW1-8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR SW1-8340.1 TRANS/DIST PERS SERV DPW
1554.45
SW1-8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR
SW1 - 8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR
27.45
SW1-8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR
SW1 - 9030.8 SOC SEC
5.93 SW1-8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR SW1 - 9089.8 MEDICARE
SW2 1636.58 SW2-8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR SW2 - 8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR
SW3 403.27 SW3-8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR SW3 - 8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV DPW
25.00
SW3-8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR
SW3 - 9030.8 SOC SEC
5.36 SW3-8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR SW3 - 9089.8 MEDICARE
AMOUNT
FROM
TO
SW4 156.20 SW4-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW4 - 8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV DPW
65.09
SW4-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW4 - 8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR
5371.98
SW4-8320.4 SOURCE OF SUPP CONTR SW4 - 8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR
438.36
SW4-599 FUND BALANCE
SW4 - 8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR
5875.43
9.70
SW4-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW4 - 9030.8 SOC SEC
2.51 SW4-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW4 - 9089.8 MEDICARE
TB 3-17-16
D R A F T
Page 31 of 31
SW5 169.57 SW5-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW5-8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV CONTR
795.86
SW5-9710.7 SERIAL BOND INTEREST SW5-8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV CONTR
1211.14
SW5-599 FUND BALANCE
SW5-8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV CONTR
2176.57
6692.00
SW5-9710.6 SERIAL BOND PRINCIPAL SW5 - 8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR
1009.60
SW5-9710.7 SERIAL BOND INTEREST SW5 - 8320.4 SOURCE SUPP CONTR
7701.60
17153.81
SW5-599 FUND BALANCE
SW5 - 8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR
134.68
SW5-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW5 - 9030.8 SOC SEC
31.75 SW5-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW5 - 9089.8 MEDICARE
SW7 4118.23 SW7-8310.4 WATER ADMIN CONTR SW7 - 8340.4 TRANS/DISTR CONTR
528.10
SW7-8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV DPW SW7 - 9030.8 SOC SEC
112.25 SW7-8340.1 TRANS/DISTR PERS SERV DPW SW7 - 9089.8 MEDICARE
2nd Cl Cipolla-Dennis
Roll Call Vote Cl Sloan Yes
Cl Cipolla-Dennis Yes
Cl Lamb Yes
Supv Leifer Yes
There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried,
the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bambi L. Avery
Town Clerk