HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-2004SEPTEMBER 22, 2004
15z -1
7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
An Informational Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville was held at
the Cortlandville Fire Station, 999 NYS Route 13, Cortland, New York, with Supervisor Thorpe
presiding.
Members present: Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe
Councilman, Theodore Testa
Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell
Councilman, Ronal Rocco
Councilman, John Pilato
Deputy Town Clerk, Kristin Rocco
Absent: Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder
Others present: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Planning Board members: James Bugh,
Nick Renzi, and Eugene Waldbauer; Town Zoning Board of Appeals member, John J. Finn;
Town Code Enforcement Officer, Bruce Weber; Walt Kalina and James Trasher of Clough,
Harbour & Associates; Attorney Russell Ruthig; Attorney Carl Esler representing Lowe's;
Attorney Kelly Pronti from Harter, Secrest & Emery, LLP representing Wal-Mart; Attorney
Sarah Campell from Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP; David Yaman from David Yaman Realty;
James Yaman from Yaman Real Estate; Attorney Ted Hoffman; News Reporter Eric Mulvihill
from WXHC; Roy Susskind; David McNeil from McNeil Development; Catherine D. Smith;
Agnes M. Bierbaum; John S. Nadolski representing the J.M. Murray Center; Al Maiormo; Sarah
Derrenbacher; Donald and Charlotte Osbeck; Garry VanGorder, Executive Director of the
Cortland County Chamber of Commerce; Matt Huyck; Rosemarie A. Wright, Michael W.
Chernago, representing S.C.W.P. and Indacom Place; Lester W. Soudina; Gene Meddaugh; City
of Cortland Mayor, Tom Gallagher; John Carroll; Skip Chapman of the Cortland Standard; Dana
Hoffmann; Diane Martineau, Beverly B. and C. Ashley Ellefson; Frank Ray; Randy Walls;
Philip Walsh; Jim Mulherin; County Legislator, R. Scott Elston (District 19, Harford & Virgil);
County Legislator, Kay Breed (District 13-3, 13-4, Cortlandville); Lee Miller; Barbara Miller;
Andrea Rankin; Arnold Talentino; Dr. Arthur & Dr. Patricia Shedd; Robert Rhodes; Pam
Jenkins; Cortland County Planning Board Commissioner, Jo Schaffer; Thomas Pasquerillo;
Norm Trigabuff; Jamie Dangler; Bob Martin and his daughter Alice; Richanna Patrick; Jan
Thomsan; Jesse McMahon; Ron Powell, County Legislator, Paul Allen (District 14-5, 14-6,
Cortlandville), and News Reporter, Liz Rinaldo from the Cortland Standard.
Supervisor Thorpe called the Informational Meeting to order and asked Attorney Folmer
to explain the procedure for the meeting.
Attorney Folmer asked those people who wished to speak to utilize the podium and
microphone. He explained the procedure of the meeting and offered privilege of the floor to
those in attendance.
Andrea Rankin: Hello. My name is Andrea Rankin and for the past four years I have been
interviewing Cortland county citizens about what's good about this county and what's bad. And
here are some of the things that have been mentioned numerously ... numerous times in my
interviews and my focus groups and large surveys. Residents want a cleaner, greener
environment that, with attention paid to the quality of air, soil and water. They want the
comprehensive county plan updated to allow for smart growth. They want economic
development based and balanced with nature and not influenced by the highest bidder. They are
vehement about keeping the small town rural nature of the county. They want limited mall areas
unlike Erie Boulevard in Syracuse and Elmira Road in Ithaca. They say that the scenic beauty of
this county lends itself to numerous outdoor recreation opportunities for the entire family.
Following along similar lines of thinking, you commissioned a study by the Barrows Group on
the feasibility of raising funds for an outdoor sports facility in Cortlandville. The survey said
that people most want walking trails, playgrounds and open space.' Please consider these many
voices when deciding on the new zoning. Please keep the polo field free of commercial
development by purchasing them for recreational use. Remember Mr. Olmstead who had the
wisdom to set aside Central Park. What would New York City be without Central Park? Thank
you.
i52-z.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 2
Arnold Talentino: I'm.Arnold Talentino and I will address just about all my remarks regarding
the aquifer protection. And I have this written out so I can leave it with you afterwards. And so
I'll more or less read if you'll forgive me. I have been following efforts to protect the aquifer
since the first drafts of the Clough Harbour Wellhead Protection Plan solicited by the Town of
Cortlandville at a cost of several tens of thousands of dollars. If you adopt the current rezoning
plan approved by the Town Planning Board you will have demonstrated lack of real concern for
aquifer protection or for the money wasted on the Clough Harbour recommendations, which
were ultimately dismissed by the Town Planning Board. A zoning proposal that allows for 60%
lot coverage or more by conditional permit over a key recharge area of the aquifer, plus the
possibility of big box stores that could be dealing with toxic materials, is an unconscionable
mockery of a well-intentioned impulse to protect our water supply. Although some people
would dearly like to develop over a key B-3 area in the Town of Cortlandville, there are a small
minority that stand to make some money from it. As you know, you can't please all the people
all the time. But you can do what is best for the greatest number of people for the longest period
of time. That's it.
Supervisor Thorpe: Thank you.
Dr. Arthur Shedd: I'll read this so that I won't make too many mistakes. I'm Arthur Shedd
and my wife Patricia and I urge the Town Board not to approve the zoning modification but to
return it to the Planning Board for revision in order to protect our sole source aquifer. As long
time residents we urge you to remember that your first responsibility is to protect the health and
safety of our community. Our most precious natural resource is now under threat by the
proposed zoning which would allow a 100,000 square foot structure to be erected over its critical
recharge area. Our water and our health and safety depend upon your protection. Thank you.
Robert Rhodes: Good evening. My name is Robert Rhodes and I thank you for the opportunity
to make two points against the proposed zoning changes. My first point is perhaps subjective,
but not less important because of that. The term quality of life is well worn, but it's still useful
for trying to define and to describe how we live and how we aspire to live. I know that we can't
go back to Route 13 and 281 as they were before the ugly sprawl that even now offends the eye
and assaults the ear. But it would be unconscionable of you to compound the offense by
allowing the proposed changes that would create more unattractive buildings, increased traffic,
the probability of more accidents, more noise, and more air pollution. I am struck by the irony
that while these conditions loom as a distinct possibility, unless you say a loud no, that on the
other side of town last Saturday people were cleaning up the Tioughnioga River. And for many
months, farseeing citizens have been planning a very attractive river walk. And that for years,
others have patrolled our highways to keep them free of the kinds of trash that the proposed
changes would again, ironically allow. You are not required by law or anyone's desire to make
more money to approve the proposed changes. Enough is enough. My second concern is that if
the proposed changes are passed they will most certainly result in many more areas of
impervious surfaces than now exist over our precious, and I don't exaggerate in using the word
our precious sole source aquifer. Again and again I've heard those favoring the zoning changes
say, well look at the impervious surfaces at the Tops Plaza, several car dealerships, the existing
gas stations, the parking lots of restaurants, Price Chopper and its current neighboring
businesses, and then say nothings happened to our aquifer because of these acres of concrete and
asphalt. What are you worrying about? Now let me tell you a brief personal story. One that I'll
wager could be told by others here tonight. Perhaps even by some on the Board. Ten years ago,
in February 1994, I had triple bypass surgery for conditions that could have been personal
disaster. Indeed could have been the end of my life. It didn't have to be that way. I knew that
the lack of exercise that characterized my life and the daily eating of the wrong kinds of food
could and probably would create that life -threatening situation. But that knowledge didn't stop
me from ordering yet another double bacon cheeseburger and a double order of french fries
promising myself that this would be the last time and that tomorrow I'd stop before any real
harm was done. But of course I didn't stop. Didn't say enough is enough while there was still a
chance to prevent real harm to myself. The tipping point arrived and my relentless foolheartiness
put me in quite real danger. A situation not unknown to some may be many here tonight. I think
you can see the point of my analogy in saying there's been no harm done so far. We can allow
just one more huge parking lot and get away with it and still have a vital and healthy aquifer.
That's as rash as one more double cheeseburger for a man with a cholesterol level of 285. Your
sworn responsibility is preventive action. Not remedial, after the fact, desperate efforts to find a
cure. I implore the Town Board to reject this proposal and not jeopardize our sole source
aquifer.
15z-3
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 3
Pam Jenkins: Just a few words. My name is Pam Jenkins. The people before me spoke so
eloquently, so mostly I just want to throw in my hat with them. And to say that how
inconvenient it is for the developers that we happen to have a sole source aquifer where they
want to develop. And I sort of think that it has lead to huge advertising dollars on television
because I turn on the TV in the morning to watch the news. I'm bombarded by Wal-Mart ads.
I'd really like to find out how much they've been advertising here in the last couple of years
since they've been trying to develop over the aquifer. And I guess I just want to say I urge you
not to approve the proposed changes, because new shutters and set backs and all kinds of things
are not going to do much to protect the aquifer. And enough is enough.
Attorney Carl Esler: Good evening. My name is Carl Esler. I am an attorney from Rochester
representing Lowe's. I think the Board is aware Lowe's has proposed to locate a new Lowe's
Home Improvement Center on what is the existing Wal-Mart site, if the Wal-Mart were to
relocate. We do have some comments and concerns about what we see in the current zoning
proposal because frankly the zoning as drawn under that proposal Lowe's would not be allowed
or able to use the site, the Wal-Mart site for a proposed center. I think our concerns address
three different areas. The first has to do with the provisions that you proposed regarding lot
coverage. The second one deals with some restriction on outside storage and sales and the third
has to do with your design guidelines and I will touch on each of those very briefly. With
respect to the lot coverage I know that the proposed ordinance in the B-3 district where this
property is located has in effect sliding scale of allowable lot coverage ranging from 50-65%.
Depending upon the aquifer protection zone in which that particular site is located in the case of
the Wal-Mart site that Lowe's would propose to use, that would be only 50% lot coverage.
While Lowe's certainly understands and agrees with and applauds the idea of aquifer protection,
we think that this sort of an arbitrary and fairly restrictive lot coverage proposal really doesn't
necessarily accomplish your objectives. I assume that the Board is aware somewhere earlier in
this process a letter was submitted by Patrick Reidy of the Cortland County Soil and Water
Conservation District, which I understand he indicated that stormwater management and aquifer
protection in this area can be very effectively handled even allowing lot coverages up to 85 and
95%. And the point I think Mr. Reidy is making is that the key in the situation is not developing
some arbitrary lot coverage number, but the key is how well designed is the stormwater
management system. And that really is the critical component. Because again in our view, and I
think it's backed up by Mr. Reidy and other experts, you can adequately design a stormwater
management system that will more than address your concerns about aquifer protection and still
allow very significant lot coverages. And if you have a bad system it doesn't matter what your
limitation is on lot coverage. It's not going to protect the aquifer. So we would think that you'd
want to focus more on that than on lot coverage numbers. One of the things that we would ask
the Board to consider, and I believe this has been submitted previously, is perhaps some sort of a
sliding scale for lot coverages based upon the lot size. For example larger lots could be allowed
a greater lot coverage percentage something perhaps in the range of 75-80%. Because when you
do that you still have a gross acreage that actually is very substantial. Where as we could
understand with smaller sites you might need to have a lesser lot coverage because you don't
have much area to deal with. Just to give you an example with the plans that Lowe's has
proposed they would still be proposing 28%2% green space on that site more than a quarter of the
lot. That in our view is more than adequate to provide all the stormwater treatment for the
aquifer protection. And again, because of the size of the lot you have that greater amount of
gross acreage that still is maintained as green space. We also understand there was originally
some discussion, I don't see it in this current proposed ordinance, so I am not sure where that is
at. But there was some discussion of allowing lot coverage up to 80% in the B-3 district where
there is an expansion of an existing building. We think that's sort of along the right track,
although we'd like to think that you could even look at that proposal a little bit more
expansively. In our viewpoint, if someone were expanding an existing building, an older
building, and you would allow up to that 80% coverage we actually think it would make even
more sense if someone was going to replace, tear down an older building and replace it with a
new, state-of-the-art structure that would comply with the design guidelines that the town is
proposed, that you'd want to encourage that and that also allowing that up to 80% lot coverage in
that instance would be a very good idea. Moving on now to the outside storage question, I think
this can be very brief. As I read the proposal in the B-3 district, the current proposal prohibits
outside storage or sales except, or the phrase is, unless necessary to the operation of the business.
From Lowe's' standpoint we certainly think that we would fall under that standard. We're
running a home improvement business. The outside display of gardening and landscaping
materials certainly to us seem to be quote unquote necessary to the operation of our business. We
would just ask the Board perhaps to make sure that that is as clear as possible as to what you
intended in that regard so that there's no issue later on when that comes up. And lastly with
15 2-�
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 4
respect to the design guidelines, Lowe's again does not oppose the concept of design guidelines
the whole architectural thing that we see the town trying to accomplish here is within the spirit of
what Lowe's is willing and interested to do and we're happy to work with the town with respect
to those to what the town is proposed with guidelines. The concerns we have however I think
are twofold. And first of all the current proposal makes the design criteria mandatory and it
basically does not give the Planning Board any flexibility or discretion in applying those design
criteria in individual circumstances. And to give you an example you can have a situation
where, with all the best intentions of the world those design criteria may create what everybody
would think is a very unreasonable and unbeneficial result. And to give you an example, this is
the specific concern that Lowe's has, the criteria as we read them would require in a B3 district
any new use to have the building at the front of the lot and parking at the rear. And while we
understand, I think some of the rational behind that in terms of perhaps creating more of a
pedestrian type feel when your looking at larger retail uses and in particularly this site that were
talking about the current Wal-Mart site that Lowe's would use, moving the building to the front
of the lot would actually, one, potentially create a safety hazard because you would now have all
the parking and customer entrances at the rear of the building in very close proximity to where
the building, excuse me, where the vehicle loading and unloading the truck loading and
unloading would have to be, and potentially create a safety hazard. And you also create a
situation where you've got that whole long and very large commercial block of buildings with
Price Chopper, Penney's, and K-Mart, which are set way back from the road and then suddenly
totally out of character of that you'd be forcing a building, a very large building, up by the front
of the road. Our thought is simply that we would request that the Board re -look at this and make
those design guidelines something that are guidelines only. And that the Planning Board would
have flexibility and discretion to be able to adjust as they saw a need in a particular instance.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Planning Board member, Nick Renzi: John, excuse me. But if I understand ... use the latest
draft of the specification of the business district dated June 24t", which happens to be ...
Attorney Esler: I believe it is yes.
Nick Renzi: ... that is called a specification. It's not called a guideline to be correct. There is
not anything in there that is a mandated item. If you look at the section on definitions a lot of it
is a recommendation. Some of it is mandated, but very little is mandated. So don't read into it
... as a mandated item.
Attorney Esler: And if we over read it or misread it I apologize. But I guess I'm suggesting
that, and I'm not the only one who I think who has read it that way, you might want to look again
at the language to make sure that its clearer which criteria you intend to be mandatory versus
which you intend to be discretionary. I guess that would be ...
Nick Renzi: I'm sorry. I didn't get your name.
Attorney Esler: Yeah, Carl Esler.
Nick Renzi: Carl.
Attorney Esler: Yeah.
Nick Renzi: If you're looking at the definition section on page 3, we tried to define as much as
we could ... what should ... where possible, may if possible... recommended.... And on page 4,
where we talk about under section ... parking should be placed at the side or rear of the lot
whenever possible. It may not be possible.
Attorney Esler: Yeah, again, and I think your a Planning Board member correct? We think you
guys are the right people to make that call and we would be happy to trust your discretion in that
regard.
Nick Renzi: ... and try not to destroy the economics of ...
Attorney Esler: Okay, great, I'm glad you ...
Nick Renzi: ... smart because a lot of the words in there ... if you go back and look at it ... with
an open mind ... you may see it's not as hard as ...
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING
PAGE 5
Attorney Esler: Thank you I appreciate that. Thank you John.
Attorney Folmer: Thanks. Yes ma'am. Kelly, not yet. Yes you.
Lee Miller: My name is Lee Miller. This isn't on is it? You know, I want to be respectful to
Mr. Esler from Lowe's, but when it comes right down to it, I don't know if you're from Syracuse
or Rochester but it's not Cortland where you're from. This is our community and this is where
we are from. And so its vitally important even though I know that you and your company have
concerns I can tell you absolutely with 100% certainty that our concerns go much, much deeper
than that and they always will because this is where we live and this is where we hope to raise
our children.... I know it's not, it's not a truth when you made the statement that protecting the
aquifer doesn't have anything to do with, and you can correct me on what you said, with the
amount of concrete coverage because it does have everything to do with that. One of the things
that we don't demand of companies when they come in here, we don't ever ask them to build
upward. And yet I lived in California for about 6 years and you do see stores out there that are
capable of building 2 stories upward. Wal-Mart might be able to simply expand the place where
it's already at. One of the big concerns that we have, and I should say another thing, that since
I've been away and I've come back to Cortland there is something that I don't like to admit but I
have to. And I think that we're about 40 years behind the times for the rest of the country.
We're about 40 years behind making the kind of decisions that the rest of the country has been
forced to make. And there is really two reasons for this. The first reason is that we haven't had
this ballooning explosion of growth that other places have, that the big cities like LA and
Baltimore have had. They've been there. They have virtually ruined their resources and now
they're backtracking. You would not believe the environmental laws that are in place in Los
Angeles. The things that we take for granted here you cannot do in Los Angeles - what kind of
foliage you plant, how often you use your water - all this is something of vital concern. We've
never been there. We haven't destroyed our resources and are having to pull back. Thus, we
don't have this kind,of experience. And the other thing is you know we're soft. We've got an
awful lot of water here. It's never been an issue before. And yet I guarantee you that over the
next 20 years you're going to see, more and more and more, not only in the United States, but
increasingly around the world that water shortages is going to be our number one critical
concern. And as the world population reaches the 6 billion point its gonna be something that
we're gonna have to face everyday. And you remember back in the 70's when we thought, you
know, how is the world, how is the end going to come? What's it going to be? Is it gonna be
food shortages? Is it going to be, you know, pollution? What's going to be the thing that finally
gets this bourgeoning population that we have? And now I think people recognize that it's going
to be water. It's not going to be a case where we run out of ag food for this enormous
population. We're gonna run out of water first. And you're seeing this reaching critical stages
right now in places like Phoenix and LA. It's gonna soon start reaching places that have water.
And so, we have bigger concerns than whether Lowe's comes. We have bigger concerns than
whether Wal-Mart comes. This really has nothing to do with that. It's time now to do something
proactively. We need to get our water stabilized. We need to get it protected. We don't want to
be in that unenviable situation that other cities have now found themselves in. And I guarantee
you, if you follow this water problem throughout the world, you will see it increasingly be an
issue. Water is going to be the thing that gets us. It's going to be the big thing that gets us. And
the second and final thing is economics. And that's a whole different issue and it should be
considered as a different issue. But I really think it behooves the Planning Board because it's a
different issue because this really isn't about Wal-Mart. It's about our water. But if you bring it
back to Wal-Mart and do look at the economics of it, I think you really need to look at other
cities where Wal-Mart has come in. For all the amount of jobs that are created, more than the
ones that are created are actually destroyed by small businesses going out. We're gonna see half
of Main Street go. We're gonna see some of the smaller stores. We might probably see the P&C
go. You're gonna have as much unemployment from people losing their jobs as you're gonna
gain it. And the big thing about Wal-Mart is it's a huge corporation. It takes your money from
this county and it takes it out to corporate headquarters somewhere else. Small businesses keep
your money here. And so I think that and do respect to Lowe's and to everybody else. We need
to worry about our water. We need to worry about our future. We need to worry about our small
businesses. We need to worry about our ag. And every bit of land that we cover up with
concrete ruins something for our future. Thank you. (applause by the audience)
) 5z-(0
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 6
Jo Shaffer: I think I know most of you. My name is Jo Shaffer. I speak as a resident of City of
Cortland but also as a Commissioner on the City of Cortland Planning Board. So I'd like just to
read a prepared statement and then I'll leave it with you. It's very short. I'm a resident of the
City of Cortland whose access to a steady and safe water supply is greatly endangered. And if
you've read our master plan you know that it's in our master plan for the City of Cortland to deal
with you on behalf of the City and its water supply. If you ... to the proposed zoning changes on
the table this evening, I have followed this discussion with care. As these proposals lend their
way through your careful and considerate deliberation. I have been, I think, at almost every one
of the meetings within the past year to hear and to observe what's been going on. To permit
extraordinary development on the existing polo field area, such as buildings in excess of 100,000
square feet with automotive surfaces or overage in permitted lot coverage, we put the existing
access to clean and safe water in danger. The big box developer who is behind this proposed
zoning change is the same company who has been fined by the U.S., United States Justice
Department for violating the Clean Water Act in 24 sites in 9 states across this country. The fine
is the second, not the first, but the second, this company has been assessed in three years for
failing to manage storm water runoff and is the largest penalty ever assessed against the
company for this kind of infraction. This company and its contractors and I quote, "fail to
develop a plan to manage and install proper fencing and screens to prevent runoff from reaching
lakes, streams, and other bodies of water, in some cases" and I repeat this with emphasis
`.`contaminating them." This has had a significant impact on water quality in the United States.
We're not just talking Cortland, Cortland County, or the Northeast, in the United States. I urge
you not to accede to the wishes of such a proposal on behalf of a company whose past history is
one of contempt for the safety and well-being of the community they claim they plan to serve.
Corporate greed should never take precedent to the health and safety of the more important
qualities of the life in this community. I thank you for your consideration and for your time in
this matter.
Attorney Kelly Pronti: Good evening, my name is Kelly Pronti. I am an attorney with Harter
Secrest & Emery in Rochester, New York and I am here on behalf of Wal-Mart, who as
everybody knows, is looking to develop the real property on Route 31 in conjunction with the
development of a Lowe's at its existing site. We are here to voice our concerns and questions
with respectto the proposed zoning text and map amendments and the proposed design and
development specifications. Our first concern deals with the proposed zoning amendments in the
green space requirements. We are concerned with the proposed 50 to 65 lot coverage ratios
within the three business and two industrial districts. We understand the Board and the people's
concern with the aquifer and we feel that the best way to protect the aquifer would be through
engineering designs not green space ratios. As indicated in the aquifer ordinance, the best way to
protect the aquifer is through a variety of design, engineering, and maintenance plans. So we
look to the Board to not only do lot coverage but look to those issues as well. The third concern I
have is with the prohibition on outside displays. The proposed new guidelines impose a blanket
prohibition on outside storage. There is no indication of the process or standards by which an
exception could be granted. We would like clarification as to what board or town official at the
town would have this power. My next concern deals with the limit on business hours. The
proposal would limit business hours from 6 a.m. to midnight. Again, it is unclear what board or
town official at the time of the grant approvals to operate outside these prescribed hours. To
echo what Carl said we are also concerned with the proposed design specifications. Again, we
are concerned that the design specifications are too rigid, as county planning emphasizes there
should be some give and take or compromise between the town and the applicant. Upon our
review of the design specifications we found 79 mandatory requirements, 8 if possibles, and only
10 recommended or encouraged. And I know you had something different and we'll take a look
at those. And then, I guess our final concern is, we're not really certain what the need is for the
new specifications since as recently as August 23`d of last year, the town passed and approved
new design guidelines and the topics covered in the new specifications have in almost every case
been dealt with, with the old specifications. So shouldn't we take the opportunity to let those
ones work? Those are our concerns and we look to the Board to at least answer our questions.
Councilman Rocco: I have one.
Attorney Pronti: Sure.
Councilman Rocco: Does Wal-Mart at most of its locations store 18-wheeler trailers with
goods behind the, or along the side of their building basically expanding their operation for ...
fertilizer. And, so this is standard practice?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 7
Attorney Pronti: It's not a standard practice, I'm not going to say we haven't done that in the
past, but as a result of our new prototype stores we have additional storage space so there's not
really a need for the trailers anymore. So, we've taken that into account and we've expanded our
stores and our storerooms so that there's no need for the trailers. Thank you.
Attorney Folmer: Thanks. Thank you. Sir.
Philip Walsh: I just have a short statement. My name is Philip Walsh. I am a resident of
Homer. I have followed the progress of this issue since the Town Planning Board of
Cortlandville reviewed the recommendations made by the consultants Clough Harbour on land
use for the Route 13/281 corridor. I understand that the decision of the Cortlandville Town
Planning Board to pass this proposal to the Town Board was not unanimous. That suggests to
me that there is some significant concern about the impact of this proposal on the aquifer, the
local business, the traffic congestion, and other issues which other people have spoken to. In
other words, the proposal seems to pose some risk to the health and safety of the local
community. Although no one seems to know exactly how much risk, but given there is some, I
believe it is the duty of the Town Board, whose first priority is to the health and welfare of the
local community, to reject this proposal. Accepting it suggests that the interest of the developers
have taken higher priority to the interests of the community. Please send this poorly thought
proposal back for major modifications.
Attorney Folmer: Sir, could we have your name again please?
Philip Walsh: My name is Philip Walsh.
Attorney Folmer: Next. Back to here.
Unknown woman in the audience: We can't hear back here. We'd really like to hear. Maybe
it's the microphone. I'm not the only one. I'm old but ... (laughter in audience)
Attorney Folmer: Back through this side. We're not there yet. Yes sir.
Thomas Pasquerello: I think I can speak loud enough without this. I hope it doesn't start
buzzing again. I'm gonna read my comments. I'm not very good at speaking off the cuff and I
didn't have time to memorize them. So, I apologize for that. My name is Thomas Pasquerello. I
have been a resident of Cortlandville since 1991 and I'm firmly against the zoning modification
proposals under discussion tonight. And I believe that the issue is best understood in terms of the
cost and benefits of allowing Wal-Mart to build a superstore on the polo field. One benefit that's
often cited is that it would increase property tax revenues. But as others have mentioned, it
remains to be seen whether Wal-Mart will produce a net increase in property tax revenues if, as it
seems likely, it drives a number of businesses that are already paying property taxes out of
business. Another supposed benefit is that a Super Wal-Mart will create new jobs in our
community. But almost all the jobs, I believe, that would be created are slightly above minimum
wage and there doesn't seem to be a real shortage of those in Cortland County as far as I can tell.
And we must also consider the fact that jobs will be lost if Super Wal-Mart, as someone
mentioned, drives other businesses out of business. Most importantly perhaps we are often told
that Super Wal-Mart will bring lower prices on items ranging from produce to automotive repairs
to our community. While this might be true in the short run, as Wal-Mart uses lower prices to
drive out other businesses, what guarantee do we have that prices will stay low once Wal-Mart
dominates the market. The law of supply and demand dictates that we will see an increase in
prices if Wal-Mart dominates our market, as it cannot do in larger communities where
competitors like Target can't be forced out of business. Who is gonna compete with them here
in Cortland? We know Wal-Mart's predatory business practices are well documented. While
the advantages are not clear to me the disadvantages are. The proposed Super Wal-Mart would
bring more traffic to an already congested and dangerous traffic corridor. Studies have
consistently shown that widening roads does not reduce congestion. I know there is a proposal
to widen the roads, but in places like Los Angeles, as the one woman mentioned, when they
widen roads it doesn't reduce congestion, it brings more traffic. The traffic expands to fill the
volume in the roads. Meanwhile our tax dollars will go for paying for widening those roads and
repairing those roads as the traffic increases. So I can't see it as a net increase as is often
mentioned. The threats to the aquifer have been mentioned by several people. I'd like to echo
that. Well no single large development project is by itself a threat to our aquifer. We have to
consider the cumulative impact of any development we allow over the aquifer recharge area. If
we allow development on the scale of Super Wal-Mart to take place on that aquifer recharge
15Z-8
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 8
area, how will we ever say no to any future development? I think we must also anticipate that
service costs- police, fire - will also increase, as they do with any new development. Then there
is Wal-Mart's practice of encouraging its employees to sign up for Medicaid. benefits, you can't
blame them, but that I think will also increase our tax burdens. I think part of Medicaid costs are
borne by county governments in New York. So if that happens, won't we be paying for that? So,
I hope you'll reconsider the actions that seem to me to be taking us ever closer to a Super Wal-
Mart that we don't need at the expense of the rural lifestyle, clean water, and moderate traffic
that contribute greatly to our quality of life. Thank you.
Richard Buttny: I've heard from people that study the future.
Attorney Folmer: Can we get your name sir?
Richard Buttny: Yeah, it's Richard Buttny. In reading about people that study the future, I've
heard its said that water will be the main issue of the 21 st century. It will be comparable to how
oil has been the main commodity of the 20tt' century. So, in echoing what some other people
have said, I think we need to have the best science to look at this question. Not at engineers but
at scientists that know about water and how water works. As I understand, a member of the
Planning Board, a geologist, expressed concerns about recycling of the aquifer, flooding, and
bank erosion. I think we need the best science to make a decision or to help us inform the
decision about what to do. So in addition to the problems of drinking water, I think as other
people have said, the problems of sprawl, changing the character of Cortland from what we have
today to something that we won't like, and the increased traffic. So I think we need to put the
safety of our community and of our children over the short-term profits of a few. Thank you.
(applause by audience)
Norm Trigabuff: I'm Norm Trigabuff. You can hear me right? I wanted to go on record that
I'm against the Super Wal-Mart and I think you need to be spending more effort to protect the
aquifer and that's it. It's that simple.
Catherine Smith: I'm Catherine Smith, and I've lived in Cortland since 1951. And because I
love Cortland, I would encourage the Town Board members to reject the zoning proposal
currently on the table. Those of us who cherish our environmental heritage and appreciate the
responsibility we all share for protecting its integrity, we must oppose any relaxation in the B-3
district zoning. Allowing massive building and paving construction over our sole source aquifer
would have major negative implications for our drinking water supply. Condoning service
facilities that would spew automotive and other vehicular excretions into our air and water
supply would insult an already fragile ecosystem beyond tolerance. Decision makers have an
obligation to protect our vital assets of water and air by banning large buildings and paved
surface areas in the B-3 district, where such construction would affect adversely our aquifer. At
the very least, I support an unconditional ban on conditional permits that would expand the
limitations of 100,000 square foot buildings and 60% lot coverage in the B-3 district. I'm
confident that in your commitment to serve the needs of Cortland area residents you will
reevaluate this zoning proposal incorporating the recommendations of geophysicists, and DEC
authorities, as well as economists and employment specialists. And I thank you. (applause by
audience)
Attorney Folmer: ... Anyone else on this side of that isle that would like to speak?
Attorney Ted Hoffman: My name is Ted Hoffman and I live in Cortlandville. I'm also a
friend of Homer Gutchess who owns the polo field. I didn't come to this meeting with the
understanding that this would be a referendum on Lowe's or Wal-Mart. Skip Chapman, who is
here, wrote an editorial three or four months ago with the purpose of the proposed zoning
ordinance is not directed at Wal-Mart or Lowe's. It's for the future. It's for the next 25 years or
more. It's to properly plan the corridor and not. It's not just the one Wal-Mart issue. It seems to
me that, and I've lived here all my life, that Cortland County, that you the Board speak on behalf
of the whole County.. Because the only place there is going to be any growth in this County is in
the corridor. It's the only place there's gonna be any growth for the foreseeable future. And
unless this growth can be planned properly by you folks in the Planning Board and Zoning Board
that to permit ... then Cortland's gonna become an economic.... Which, it kind of is now. We
have one of the lowest, or highest unemployment rates in the State of New York. We have one of
the lowest per capita income counties in the State of New York. Last time I looked the, we were
about third from the ,bottom. And Dunkirk, New York was first and a couple of others. And so,
unless we plan for the growth; we're just going to stagnate. WhenJ started, when I came back
15z-q
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 9
from college years ago, there was Wickwire Brothers. Two thousand people worked there, 2500
people worked there. There was Brockway Motors. There was Smith Corona with 4000. There
was Edlund Machine Tools. There were all sorts of industries. None of them are here anymore.
Buckbee Mears is gone now. What are we gonna do? Where are we going to provide for the
citizens? Unless, you know, our kids go to college and they move away because they don't want
to stay here. How are we gonna employ them? I think we employ them by creating growth. Not
only in the corridor but any place else. But the growth in this County is not gonna be on Route
13 towards East Homer. It's not going to be in Polkville. It's gonna be in the corridor, and if its
not here, we're not going have any. So it seems to me, and I also urge, like several of you have,
urge the Board to reject the new proposals but for a different reason. We've already got zoning.
We've already got aquifer protection. I don't see why the planning of this town can't be flexible
enough to permit growth and at the same time protect the aquifer. Thank you very much.
(applause by audience)
Attorney Folmer: Thank you. Yes ma'am.
Jamie Dangler: My name is Jamie Dangler. Louder. Okay. Is that low? Is it on? Just speak
into it. Okay.
Unknown man in the audience: You have to speak louder Jaime.
Jamie Dangler: Okay. I have a letter that I will submit to you so I would just like to read it into
the record. And it's addressed to Mr. Thorpe and Town Board members. I've read the proposal
to amend the zoning regulations for the Town of Cortlandville and offer the following comments
for your consideration. First, I applaud your efforts to revise the existing zoning regulations and
understand that both aquifer protection and the desire to facilitate planned, development have
been simultaneous concerns. Unfortunately, the two are often seen as competing objectives.
The difficult task you face is to balance aquifer protection measures with the need to provide the
conditions under which commercial, industrial, and residential development can proceed in ways
that benefit the community as a whole. I ask you to consider the present needs as well as the
future implications of actions taken during your tenure as town officials. You're stewards of our
natural and economic resources and the community that spans Cortlandville, Homer, the City of
Cortland and other areas whose residents string from the same aquifer system, call upon you to
make wise decisions that take into account community level risks and benefits. I ask that you
reconsider, for example, specifications for lot coverage, particularly in the proposed B-3 district.
This district encompasses critical recharge areas of the aquifer and the lot coverage allowed
ranging from 50% to 65% may be too extensive to ensure adequate recharge to the aquifer as
well as stormwater management. It's my understanding that one of the reasons Dr. Jim Bugh
voted against the current proposal was his concern about lot coverage. Obviously his expertise
as a geologist and land planner, as well as the expertise of others from the community, who have
similar backgrounds, should be drawn upon to assess this proposal in a scientific manner. I
attended the series of Planning Board meetings at which the proposal was developed and
substantive discussion of the scientific basis for lot coverage determination was noticeably
absent. And I certainly mean no disrespect to the Planning Board members in making that
observation. I understand how complicated the task it is that you had before you. But having
observed the deliberation, at least I have serious doubts about whether the proposed lot coverage
figures were developed with reference to the particular characteristics of our aquifer system and
the terrain that lies above it. Too much impervious surface over critical areas of the aquifer will
increase the risk of groundwater contamination because that goes hand in hand with flooding. If
there is too much lot coverage, excessive rain can simply runoff the parking lots and into the
aquifer carrying parking lot contaminants, mainly petroleum based chemicals with it. And this
could render useless pollution control mechanisms, such as catch basins or vegetation planted to
absorb pollutants. And those are some of the kind of controls that most developers would
consider for aquifer protection. So I ask you to develop lot coverage restrictions with worst -case
scenarios in mind. What is the capacity of an area to contain pollutants from impervious
surfaces and prevent flooding during periods of the heaviest rainfalls, maybe you know, major
storm situations? Given the already extensive reduction of open space over critical recharge
areas of our aquifer, I think further risk reduction should be your imperative. Another concern of
mine is that the B-3 district also lists gasoline service stations and commercial garages and
automotive repair shops as "uses subject to conditional permit." And it seems to me that we
have far too many of those types of operations already along the Route 281 corridor. And given
the extensive risk they pose to the aquifer, I would ask that you really look at that carefully.
While it certainly is reasonable to allow existing operations of this type to remain, I think it
would be prudent to prevent any new operations of that kind that utilize gasoline, oil, etcetera for
15z-10
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 10
being located over critical recharge areas of the aquifer. So, I offer these particular comments,
again, with respect to understanding the complicated task that you have before you. And I hope
that your process of consideration will continue. I also have a letter from someone who couldn't
be here so I am going to submit both.
Attorney Folmer: Thanks Jaime. Anyone else over here? In the back ... the gentleman ... yes.
Bob Martin: My name is Bob Martin and I've lived in the Town of Cortlandville since 1981. 1
had no intention of speaking tonight, but it's been a very interesting process to hear both sides, I
guess. Unfortunately, Lowe's and Wal-Mart really isn't equally represented, but they don't live
here, we do. Okay? Coverage of acreage 100% is what I am for. 100% green space. Trees.
What's wrong with that? What's wrong with keeping the polo field a polo field? How many
people have driven by there at times to see the polo horses there and playing? I think it's
certainly neat to see. Why can't we keep that as a park? Jobs. Yes we do need jobs. Economic
development is important. Planning for the future is important. And it's great that our Town
Board and Planning Board is working on that and doing that. I understand that down by
Monarch Machine Tools there is a proposed development for an industrial park. More of an
industrial park, I shouldn't say park. Industrial, its one word, it should say campus. They are
talking about having a campus like environment there. With green spaces and trails that maybe
link in with Lime Hollow Nature Center and preserve the Chicago Bog. Water is an important
resource and a very valuable asset for our future, for all of us. I have gray hair. And a lot of
other people do here too. I think it's great that a lot of the old people are here out speaking for
future generations. We have Alice with us tonight. She's 8 years old. She may live in
Cortlandville the rest of her life. Lets hope we have water, and a good environment, and jobs,
and education and everything that makes life worthwhile, including green spaces. Thank you.
(applause from audience).
Andrea Rankin: Jean Alexander has asked me to deliver this tonight. My name is Jean
Alexander and I have spent a month in rehab at Walden Place, the senior facility on Bennie
Road. I vigorously oppose any building on the polo fields in the backyard of that facility. Your
revised zoning code says that in the B-3 district you would, in quotes, "want well planned well
designed commercial uses and parking areas that serve the motor republic and which are
generally compatible with each other and with in which are not detrimental to adjoining uses or
the orderly flow of onside or offside pedestrian or vehicular traffic" end quote. I can think of
nothing more incompatible with Walden place than building a huge store with 1000 parking
spaces in its backyard. I can think of nothing more detrimental to the residents of Walden Place
than having traffic flow on both sides of its building 24 hours a day. Remember, as the
population ages, we will need more not fewer Walden Places in Cortland. Thank you, Jean
Alexander. And then I have another shut in. Ruth Runberg says: To the Town Board, the
pristine land over the polo fields could have been developed by hundreds of different businesses
over the years but thankfully it was not. Now we understand why it never was. Why it never
should be. Cortland understands the sanctity of its aquifer and huge economic importance of
clean, pure water. We have the right to clean water and we call on you to protect it. We have
learned the dangers to our good water when Smith Corona's chemicals polluted land in the same
vicinity that we are concerned with now despite mediation that water ... (flip audio tape to side
B) ... aquifer's recharge area. Conditional permits once approved opened the door to further
dangers and unsound economic development that could harm our water, our rural beauty, and our
small town lifestyle. We demonstrated the environmental dangers to our water supply when we
fought the low level radioactive waste dump in Cortland County. Recall that we took our state
and federal governments to court, to the U.S Supreme Court, and we won on this issue. Think
about our concerted efforts in the past to protect our land and water, and think about our
children's future and please put the environment first. (applause by audience)
Richanna Patrick: I didn't expect to speak either, but I am going to. What worries me ... I am
Richanna Patrick. I live on Atkins Ave. I've been here my whole life except for college.
Cortland has enough stores. I feel like we're struggling to support the ones we have. Through
the last 49 years of my life, I've seen a lot of stores come and go. If Wal-Mart comes in with this
super store, it's not gonna be supported by the influx of Ithacans anymore. I work at Cornell. I
know all the people that come here. They're gonna have their own Wal-Mart and their own
Lowe's and everything of their own. So we're gonna see less traffic from them and we're gonna
have to support these stores. And, if they have groceries too, I watched the population of Tops
go down when Price Chopper came in at this end of town. And when Wal-Mart came in, you
watched K-Mart trying to hang on. Now if we get a Super Wal-Mart, I fear either Tops or Price
Chopper is gonna go. K-Mart, that might be the nail in their coffin. And then, you know, there
1
1
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 11
you have all those management, they're gone. It's going to be all Wal-Mart management and
whatever cashiers they have, and produce. And as far as the aquifer goes, why can't that be a
sports field or get an industrial person to chip in for the park? This is our water. Other than our
air, what's more important? I mean you cannot replace water. And if I can remember something
my dad told me, Richard Patrick, he said, never gamble with what you can't afford to lose. Can
we afford to lose this aquifer? You can't ship in other water from other places. You cannot
replace this. So, think when you gamble. And it is a gamble. Wal-Mart says they can handle it.
They can do this and that with the run off. Is that a guarantee in 200 years, in 100 years? Are
we gonna be sure and are we gonna be sorry? When you put your names on that vote, remember
your grandchildren are gonna look at this vote and say who are these people? What were they
thinking of when they allowed this place to build on the aquifer? This is our water. We have
nothing else. That's all. (applause by audience)
Attorney Sarah Campbell: Good evening, my name is Sarah Campbell. I am an attorney with
Hinman, Howard & Kattell in Binghamton, New York. My client is not Wal-Mart. My client
owns property on Bennie Road in the town, the former Smith Corona building, and the 17 acres
adjacent to it. In the most recent draft of the proposed zoning changes that I have reviewed. My
client's property is proposed to be changed from its current industrial classification to B-2,
highway commercial district. I also received from the town a copy of, I guess its called points to
consider in reviewing the zoning regulations, which addresses perhaps a reconsideration of that
designation. I have written correspondence to the town, as has the IDA in connection with this
issue. To rezone this property, which currently has 40,000 square feet of manufacturing space
and 27,000 square feet of office space, to the B-2 classification removes the possibility for
industrial or manufacturing opportunities at the location. I know that the IDA, and I know the
IDA has conveyed this to you, is in the process of talking with several small manufacturing
companies that are interested in this property, and also, I believe, property on Luker Road, as it
relates to the benefits that they would gain in the Empire Zone, which I also understand is
contained or surrounds this property. You have a decision to make on behalf of my client and I
know that you're considering this change, and we appreciate it very much. We'd ask you to
continue leaving the property industrial. It is one of the few remaining industrial areas in the
town and there are certainly many industrial activities. And industrial, in your zoning
regulations it doesn't mean smokestacks, it means high-tech, it means pharmaceutical. It can
mean a lot of different things. Most things that are contained entirely within a building with no
fumes/odors or really outside evidence of its inside use whatsoever. And there certainly are
many of those type activities that would not be inconsistent with both your efforts to protect the
aquifer and the Wellhead Protection legislation. And, we'd ask you to consider making that
change. Thank you.
Attorney Folmer: Yes ma'am.
Unknown woman in the audience: ... If those businesses that already exist are grand -fathered
in? Correct?
Attorney Folmer: I believe so.
Unknown woman in the audience: Okay, now, is it possible for those grand -fathered
businesses to be able to ... to do some changes with approval, without you know affecting, you
know, and then still be able to not allow any more development?
Attorney Folmer: Lets ask Mr. Weber that question.
Bruce Weber, Town Code Enforcement Officer: If I understand the question, you're asking -
are existing businesses allowed to expand under the new regulations?
Unknown woman in the audience: Yes.
Bruce Weber, CEO: Okay. They are. There are limitations on how much they could expand.
There is a maximum threshold right now of 80% lot coverage for existing buildings. ... That's
the proposal.
Attorney Folmer: Is a permit required then ... Bruce?
Bruce Weber: Yes, typically for any industrial business use a conditional permit or site plan
approval and ... a permit is required.
isz-1 Z_
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING
PAGE 12
Unknown woman in the audience: So there's some type of...
Bruce Weber, CEO: Absolutely
Attorney Folmer: Yes ma'am. Jan.
Jan Thomson: ... I love Cortland and I love Cortlandville. And I have enjoyed it being rural
like, not urban, and not overrun. Now, I am going to say something here and you can shoot me.
I'm wondering how many people are from out of town for Wal-Mart are here. You don't have to
raise your hands but I know there is quite a few. And then there is the rest of us. We are trying
to keep our community real and safe. You guys, you have our trust and I hope you don't let us
down. I really hope this. I respect you. I am not trying to talk down to you. But I have a
feeling in the pit of 'my stomach that just makes me ill when I see what is starting to happen
around in Homer, Cortland, and Cortlandville. I see all these shiny new cars. I can go to the
Wal-Mart in Ithaca and Syracuse. I mean I live on the main street in Homer. You know we can
maybe just invite the bottle companies, the water companies to come in if this happens, if our
water goes. And water is important and quality of life is important. Yes, business is important
and jobs are important. I can't do it but maybe I would help work on it. Maybe we need a
committee really working about this job business locally with local people. So we don't have to
bring someone or someone doesn't prey on us. It's like the little bird that has fallen out of our
nest. I know I'm being over dramatic. I am over feeling. I've lived this way since I started
driving around and looking and realizing what is happening, and what that would lead to. What
it would start. Walden Place is a beautiful place. I can understand the people that have the
lovely big homes back there, and the golf course, are furious. I have to think, we all have to
think or we can lose it. And we really could lose it easily. I've watched other communities, and
they lose it. They are losing, I call it real American, real caring. And thank you very much for
letting me speak. I didn't write it down. (applause from audience)
Jesse McMahon: Besides this little girl here, I think I might be the youngest one here. I
actually grew up in Baldwinsville, New York. I don't know how many of you are familiar with
that area. If you are familiar with it, you know the Route 31 and Clay area. I actually just
recently, this year, moved to Cortland. I bought a house, and I live here now. I am a resident. I
go to SUNY Cortland, and I am a geology major. So I am also aware of the aquifer problem. I
study it, that's what I do. In my lifetime, all 20 years of it, I have seen that entire Route 31 area
of Clay be completely taken over by stores like Wal-Mart and Target. There are so many there
now, I can't even name them. And that's within the few years that I have come to Cortland. The
three years that I have been here. It is unbelievable to me that I can see this area changing. And
I just feel that now that I've moved to Cortland that may happen here too. And I moved here. I
am a resident here. I don't want that to happen here. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight, and I
just I can't even believe that this is being considered. So, I just wanted to make my voice clear.
And I'm the younger one. I am the generation you guys are talking about that, you know, is
going to be here in a few years when this all happens. So, that's all. Thank you. (applause by
audience)
Attorney Folmer: Miss, can we have your name?
Jesse McMahon: Oh, Jesse McMahon.
Attorney Folmer: John.
John Carroll: Good evening members of the Board. I had planned a speech and written it all
out, but having heard so many of the other speakers tonight, I knew that I'd have to do some
adlibbing. Simply because I thought the meeting was to be strictly on zoning issues. And
probably more than Half of the speakers came up here and talked about social issues. So allow
me to just touch upon a few points. I'll ad-lib, then I'll go into my points that I have here and I'll
give you copies of them. A couple of corrections need to be made. Mr. Renzi and Mr.
O'Donnell have both been to seminars that I've been to on the water, on the aquifer. I also have
gone to another one, which was very similar, which was put on by the League of Women Voters.
Same speakers, same subject matter. In those three seminars, we learned that the aquifer area is
10 square miles. With a little bit of mathematics, you can quickly tell that the area that we're
taking about, where we wanna put big box stores, or there is an attempt being made to put big
box stores. That whole area is less than '/2 of 1 % of the whole aquifer. Now if you put in the
greenspace that is allocated to it, it comes down to about 3/10 of 1% of the whole aquifer. Now
this information is not, I didn't get this information myself, I had to get it from the United States
1
1
1
SZ-13
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 13
Geological survey man in Ithaca, New York. So it's not my words. So my point is that, why are
we saying that this small area, less than 3/10 of the whole aquifer, is a critical, critical, recharge
area? I take great dispute with that. I will admit that yes, rainwater goes in. But we also know
that we are only looking at rainwater, which is about 1/3 of the recharge area. Sorry, 1/3 of the
recharge component. So consequently, the aquifer is fed by roughly 60% more from
underground streams etcetera. It's not just rainwater. I think that covers a couple of the points
that I heard tonight that I just wanted to clarify, and then I'll go into my written speech. My
name is John Carroll. I am a resident of Virgil. I am pro -business and a member of the Cortland
Citizens for a Strong Economy. As it stands, some of the zoning regulations seem to center upon
hauling, sorry halting, any so called big box stores. It is those zoning regulations upon which I
wish to comment. Let's first visit the greenspace requirements. These restrictions, which can be
set as high as 50% seem, simply seem to zero in on any firm attempting to develop in our
community. Open land space is at a premium on the 13/281 corridor, and is fast becoming
limited and at a premium. Imposing such high greenspace requirements will serve to diminish
land values and make the reasonable use of owners land very difficult. Mitigation of any
potential hydrocarbon pollution and aquifer regeneration can be successfully handled through
well -proven means. Setting arbitrary limits on the size of businesses again serves to thwart
business and certainly restricting the size limits tends to, when we restrict the size limits it tends
to increase traffic. Allow me to quote, according to the International Transport Engineer's 7tn
Addition, which is the Bible for traffic engineers, large discount retailers will generate less traffic
than an equal amount of retail square footage made up of several stores. In other words, if you
take four 50 square foot, sorry, 50,000 square foot buildings will create more traffic than one big
box store. Finally, I think a lady mentioned here earlier that we should throw out all of the
zoning that's currently being proposed. I think that's illogical. The taxpayers of this town have
paid a huge sum to get this zoning put in place. We need to continue with the zoning and modify
it so that it meets the needs of businesses. The sum, which they have put in over $140,000 have
gone into this. People are not going to throw the zoning ordinance out that they're trying to work
on. They have got too much time, effort, and money invested. Thank you for you time.
(applause by audience)
Ron Powell: Ron Powell. I live in Cortland. Just to get back to zoning for a minute. Somebody
just handed me this article, which I thought was kind of interesting. Sherman's army didn't ... of
the American south being pillaged daily by the big box store advance. Here in South Carolina's
upcountry, the march of Wal-Mart's, Targets, and the rest are laying wasted 33 acres a day.
Interesting, it is just about the size of the proposed Wal-Mart development here in Cortlandville.
Hills that nurtured peach trees for generations are buried under yet another Lowe's Home
Improvement Center. A new subdivision obliterates all memory of what was a beloved vista.
Longtime residents in the Greenville/Spartanburg area talk of houses popping up from nowhere,
as though they were foreign invaders. They despair at bulldozers turning prime farmland into
big box landscapes, and at the traffic congestion that follows the creeping ugliness. What was an
8-minute drive to church, now takes 20. The people know there is a problem, but while
Americans and other sprawl prone regions may share these concerns and acts, southerners are
paralyzed by their conservative ideology. Zoning is a bad word around these parts. When
alarmed citizens bring up land use, planning developers speak about the government bureaucrats
stomping on property rights. Besides, a new Costco means lower property taxes. And it goes on
and on. But I do have a question for the Board. So far, the only environmental impact statement
I've seen on this Wal-Mart issue, and lets not fool around here this is about Wal-Mart, has been
produced, bought, and paid for by Wal-Mart. And it has some interesting features to it. Such as
the fact that, the Town of Cortlandville will not see a positive return on local property taxes for
23 years. Money will be going out of the Town of Cortlandville for the first 8 years and it will
take another 15 years to get back to a zero balance. So I guess my question is, does the Town of
Cortlandville plan to pay for a independent environmental impact statement prepared by an
independent body of consultants and answerable to the people and not to the corporations?
Thank you. (applause by audience)
Attorney Folmer: ... or I'm going to suggest that we close. Sir. ... And the answer to the
question regarding the SEQR environmental review, is yes we will have to conduct our own
environmental review in such fashion as we deem appropriate.
Scott Elston, Cortland County Legislator: Good evening. Scott Elston. I think I have to get
some qualifiers in here to make sure I am qualified to speak tonight. I am a lifelong resident. I
do have a child that is two months, or two years old, and one that is seven months old. I am a
Legislator. I am a Cortland County Legislator. I am also a degreed engineer and I believe my
cholesterol is over 300. But, you know I still like the double cheeseburgers. But I just wanna
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 14
ask the Board to make sure that when they review this that they use some critical thinking skills,
and avoid the rhetoric. Look at the facts. Look at the area in question and promote business
growth in Cortland County. You're blessed with a North/South corridor through our county
that's prime for development. I am for aquifer protection. I believe it all can be managed
properly with the right plans. There is huge debate whether 25,000 square foot stores are better
than 100,000 square foot stores, and I think you need to sort that out. I certainly wouldn't
suggest another auto parts store in town, because if you, which I didn't see anybody at those
meetings opposing those. So, it kinds of befuddles me because when I go out in front of their
parking lots, that seems to be where all the cars that go that leak oil. So I think we should be,
you know, looking at regulating that before your worried about a store that's going to draw
people from outside the county with vehicles that can actually get here. This isn't supposed to be
about Wal-Mart, but I have to say, I travel outside this county to shop at Wal-Mart. I like their
stores, and I feel you're depriving the citizens of this county by not allowing big box store
development. People talk about wages and personal development through working at Wal-Mart.
My story is I worked at Wegman's for many years. And I worked at Wegman's for, I think, eight
years. Four years full-time and four years part-time. And that's how I got my engineering
degree. It was a great start. You have manufacturers in this town that pay less starting wages
than Wal-Mart does. So it's just not a factual argument. We just approved giving Essex Steal,
glad they are here, glad they're expanding. The state just gave them $400,000 to create eleven
jobs. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me. I drove by that site and I love seeing the horses
out there but I don't own it. So it's not up to me to say that I wanna see horses there and guys,
you know, knocking balls around. It is definitely within the character of that area to allow a big
box store. And again I just implore you to use your critical thinking skills and look at the facts
and not just the innuendo and opinion. Thank you. (applause by audience)
Attorney Folmer: Paul.
Paul Allen, Cortland County Legislator: Hi my name is Paul Allen. I am a Cortland County
Legislator. I represent 1/3 of the Town of Cortlandville. And I'd like to just...
Unknown woman in the audience: ... speak up.
Paul Allen: I'd like to just thank the town officials for the amount of thought and energy that
they've put into ...
Unknown woman in the audience: We can't hear. You're going to have to speak up.
Paul Allen: All right. I would like to thank the Town Board and the town officials for the
amount of energy that they've put into their investigation on this and the whole process I think
has been, you know, very exciting to watch. But I am coming here tonight to speak, I guess, for
a particular segment, I guess that I have a concern for as we move forward with this issue. And
it's not the big boxes. It's the individuals who have been the engine for sustainable economic
development over a long period of time and who will, in my mind, continue to do so as we move
forward. And I believe that it is important to recognize the things that are done in small and
midsize companies to continue to create this economic growth that doesn't pick up and leave.
And I am concerned that while the premise that's, in terms of protecting the aquifer is an
extremely important issue, and I am happy and pleased that we have a Town Board that's given
it such thought. But at the same time, I am nervous that there is a movement that's going to
ultimately have the greatest adverse effect on some business folks who have invested a great deal
of their time, and their money, and their talents into providing for the economic well-being of our
community. And so I would, I certainly hope that as the process draws near to the end that those
interests are not lost.
Dick Renzi: Paul, question. What are you alluding to? That the protection of the aquifer is
something that would be detrimental to the ...
Paul Allen: No not at all, I mean as an example, and I mean a lot of people I think are, you
know, turning this primarily into a Wal-Mart issue. And I'm not a Wal-Mart lover. I don't
particularly have any special attraction to big box stores even. But I will say that if the zoning
laws are such that are going to allow companies that have already invested in property and would
like to expand or to take property that they already own and build on it that they are, you know
they're handicapped, to say the least, if they're not allowed to do so. You know Wal-Mart, and
I've made it clear on a numerous of occasions that I would personally much rather see Wal-Mart,
and I know that there's no interest, but I would rather see them move further south down the 13
1
1
1
15z- ►5
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 15
corridor. You know, I mean, but that may very well not be a reality. The fact of the matter is as
it pertains to the proposed zoning my fear is that it is going to limit the ability for existing
businesses to grow and expand. That's my concern.
Attorney Folmer: Before we go, I'd like to ask, is there anyone on this side of the table that
would like to ask a question or make any comments?
Supervisor Thorpe: Yeah I'd like to make a comment. It's not very often that I get to have the
opportunity to give a lawyer some advice. But there are two attorneys here. Both of whom have
spoken. One in respect to Lowe's and the other one in respect to Wal-Mart. What I heard from
both of them was that by engineering you can take care of all these problems with the aquifer.
Now I have been a practicing engineer for 60 years and the advice I would have you give to your
clients is that you can't solve all problems by proper engineering. There are some problems,
which simply cannot be solved by engineers. So you might carry that back to your clients.
(applause by audience)
Attorney Folmer: One last person, from McGraw.
Barbara Miller: Right. You heard from the youth, now you'll hear from the old age. I
certainly did not expect to stand up here. I do not get up in front of people and talk. I work with
little kids in school. I can talk in front of them. But I would just.... I don't envy you, the job
that you have. But we've got Wal-Mart and big businesses on one side who tell you that, you
know, they can take care of everything. Our water supply is going to be fine. But we have
another group over here who is not entirely sure of that. And I don't think there's anyway that
you can be entirely sure. It is not foolproof. And if it's not, if there's even a tiny, tiny chance
that our water will be contaminated, you can't let it happen. I'm sure that we would never have
let Smith Corona cause the problems that they caused if we had known about it. And I don't see
where it's going to matter if you create trillions of jobs. If you create jobs for everybody in this
area, maybe two jobs because there are so many jobs available and you have contaminated the
water and we don't have good drinking water. What are you going to do? Well yes we can go to
Wal-Mart and buy bottled water. But, you know, what are you going to do? Okay so you buy
bottled water, but what about - that's gonna get expensive - are you gonna buy bottled water to
wash your baby in? What about your clothes? Do you want to wash them in contaminated
water? Please think about our water supply. It's very, very important. I think it is certainly the
most important asset we have. We worry about what do we do if we run out of gas? Well, you
know, one day we're going to run out of gas. But people are going to come up with something
else to use, but there is no substitute for water. Thank you. (applause by audience)
Lee Miller: Can I just make one more quick comment in response?
Attorney Folmer: Sure ...
Lee Miller: I'm sorry but I'll make it very quick. But something came up during the talking
and I wanted to say something. Sometimes this has been presented as though it's the water
environmental people versus the business people. I have heard some comments in here and
that's not necessarily the case. I am very much pro -business. I am very much pro -small
business. And one of the things that I think we ought to resent very, very much is these big box
companies coming in here taking our money and taking it out. And there are people in this
county who have spent their entire lifetimes and their entire fortunes building up small
businesses to stand a big chance of losing everything. How fair is that? That's a terrible thing.
And as you legislators look at how we're going to develop this economy here in Cortland
County. For about 20 or 30, 40 years maybe, every time a big business goes out, we're left
reacting. We have been reactionary. We grab at a business. We grab at another business,
because we're desperate. And I think at some point we need to come up with a plan where we're
not in a position of being desperate and just grabbing something in. And so we've been trying to
push different kinds of development in the county trying to get the idea to catch on. If you
bring in big box, the first thing that's out is Ag, cause you certainly can't grow a field, you can't
have livestock on concrete. It doesn't work. You've driven out Ag. Every time another good
piece of Ag land comes in, and we've lost what 80% of our Ag land since I've got out of high
school. Not Good. Tourism. They say that you'll come from all over the place. People will
come from all over to go to the big box stores. When was the last time you planned a trip to
Columbia, South Carolina cause there's four Wal-Mart's there? That's where I'm going on
vacation for that very reason. Low class tourism may come in. Good tourism, the kind of
tourism that brings in big money into a county isn't going to come in. The more of these box
15 z-((o
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 16
places you come, people are going to avoid that. They are going to head to other places for
vacation. Eco-tourism is the thing now. Going to a place with a whole, you know, two-mile
chain of big box stores is not going to be the tourist draw. When we make economic decisions in
the county, some decisions will cause other decisions not to be able to be made. Every time you
develop something into heavy industry or this kind of thing, you opt out of other decisions that
you could make. And as it so happens, tourism is the number one industry in New York State. It
comes even before Ag, and Ag is number two. So let's start thinking in the interest of tourism.
What can we do to try to economically develop our county that doesn't preclude everything else?
You make one decision and barn every other decision can't be made now. Forestry is a really
great one. We ought to start it. You know, but forestry, it protects our water. The whole time
the trees are growing your water is kept in tight. Forestry is one of those beautiful double
industries because you can promote all sorts of recreational, and camping, and outdoor facilities.
Look at Maine. They're rolling in money. And the final thing I want to say is, is that we had
this problem before when we were talking about Suit-Kote. We had a big Suit-Kote battle as you
all remember me from a couple years ago. One of our big beefs about Suit-Kote is, it's in
Polkville on an area where the aquifer is up close to the surface and it's a petroleum
manufacturing plant. That's illegal. It only got to be in there because of, of yes, a variance.
Because of a variance they're in there. What we said at the time and when we still stand by it
today, maybe we ought to start changing our laws here so that when companies come in, we
make them responsible for any spills. You know, we bring Wal-Mart in or we bring anything. It
doesn't matter what store it is. It doesn't matter what big box. It doesn't matter what industry,
and they ruin it, we may have a billion dollar cleanup. We may have a billion dollar shipping in.
A lot of big cities ship in water all the time. Are we going to do that? So maybe part of the new
plan that we ought to do, is when new companies come in, lets hold them financially responsible.
You know, there's not even anything on the books to force Suit-Kot. When they finally clean
up, when they are finally done and the last bit of asphalt is taken from the ground, there's no
cleanup. They could leave; they could leave with all the buildings rusting in place. And we
don't have anything to force them to clean up and leave us a pristine environment again. So I
think maybe it's time as we consider these different things, and add one more burden to you
guys, lets talk about cleanup. Lets talk about from now on everybody coming in to be able to
clean up the messes that they make. And yes it's true we did allow K-Mart, Wal-Mart, they're
already in here. And people say well no one objected then. We were Ag then. I don't think
anybody could have foreseen that we started this monstrous ball rolling out of control. Every
time you let something in, it pushes the envelope that much further and it's gonna get worse and
worse and worse and worse. And now we do know what we didn't know 20 years ago. Thank
you, I'm leaving. (applause by audience)
Nick Renzi: Thanks John. I think we heard too much about Wal-Mart tonight contrary to what
you warned the group for. My name is Nick Renzi. I am on the Cortlandville Planning Board
and I'm proud to be on that board. I've been here since 1972. I was with Pall Corporation for 25
years. The last 14 years, as President of the division here and our divisions in Puerto Rico, and
the Senior Vice President at the corporate level. Water is extremely important to Pall
Corporation. It's so important that we don't even use the Cortlandville water supply. We have
our own wells and our own pumping system because we don't use chlorinated water in a lot of
the filter production that we go through. Water is extremely important. It was extremely
important to the Cortlandville Planning Board subcommittee that first drafted the proposed
zoning modifications. Walt Kalina and James Trasher of Clough Harbour were part of that
committee as was Bruce Weber and Kathy Wickwire, and other members of the board. And we
did not have any preconceived prejudice to say we don't want big boxes here. Big boxes were
part of the agenda. And we said in that subcommittee lets put the big boxes on the southern part
of Cortlandville on Route 13 at the town line. Less of a threat to the aquifer recharge area, if not
a threat at all. A place that would be, we felt, convenient. Although it's a mile down the road
from Cortlandville Crossing, still we would have this Super Center. So, it was never on our
agenda to exclude Wal-Mart. It was never on our agenda to make it difficult for businesses to
flourish and develop here. I'm a businessperson. Running a hundred and twenty, at the time I
retired from Pall Trinity, was a hundred and twenty three million dollar a year business. Very
important to this community. Very important to Pall Corporation. So I've got a business
orientation. The subcommittee, although wanted the big boxes to be in the southern part of the
town, that changed when the Planning Board got together and discussed it. And there were two
votes, three votes to move it to the polo field area, two votes against it. I was one vote against it
and Jim Bugh was .the other vote against it. So, although there are parts of the zoning
modification proposal that I support, the one part that's really important, the B-3 area being over
that polo field area, I don't support that. And when we finally made the decision to make or not
make a recommendation to the Town Board, I said I would recommend, to the Town Board, not
)57-17
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 17
to approve this zoning modification. I am very proud of the work we did. I think there is a lot of
good work in there. That one part of it is not good. And then there was other information that
Jim Bugh brought up that again was voted against rediscussion by a three to two vote. Three
saying lets not rediscuss it. Jim and I saying we ought to rediscuss it. It had to do with lot
coverage. There was also a lot of discussion at the Planning Board about inconvenience. It
would be inconvenient to have the Super Center down on the southern part of Route 13. People
would have to get in their cars and drive down one mile. Well, I don't think convenience, or, lack
there of, is a consideration, or something worthy of consideration by the Planning Board. The
health, safety, well-being of the community people is what's important. Not convenience. Not
comments that make it look nice like the Fayetteville Mall, as was stated by one of the Planning
Board people. That's not the issue. The issue is, what's best for the community without
thwarting the development of industry and businesses. So that was critical. And that's why I
voted against making a yes recommendation to the Town Board. Although I speak as a member
of the Planning Board, a member of the community, I am also a professional engineer in New
York State. I am not an aquifer protection expert by any means. But I would personally urge the
Town Board to really take a good hard look at this proposal because, although there are parts of
it that are very good and I'm proud of all the work we did, I think it was all done in a very
democratic way. The vote was three to two to recommend it. I didn't go for it but that's a
democratic action. But I would recommend to the Board that they reconsider this proposal.
There are parts of it that will be destructive to this community. Thank you. (applause by
audience)
Randy Walls: ... I would like to briefly describe some of those items. A lot of which have
already been talked about. My name is Randy Walls and I live on Lime Hollow. And it doesn't
matter how long I've lived here, doesn't matter if I have kids in the school. I pay taxes. I'm a
taxpayer and I'm a consumer. I'm pro -business. I'm pro -development. And I appreciate the
efforts of the CAPE Organization and their overwhelming desire to protect the aquifer, as I'm
sure everybody here is. And I wasn't going to speak on anything but a couple of things that Mr.
Renzi touched on, I really have to take exception to, and I'll get to those in a second. But we talk
about big business and you talk about damage to the community, if we locked up every major
corporation in this country, in this world, that has been allegedly violated a rule, a law, or
damaged some community, you couldn't put gas in your car. You couldn't eat a hamburger.
McDonald's put beef fat in the French fries. But did that stop us from going? Did we shut down
McDonalds'? No we didn't. You talk about agriculture being pushed out by business. If we
look in Preble today, what's the biggest problem in Preble? Nitrates. Brought by who?
Business. No. By farming.
Unknown man in the audience: Farming is a business.
Randy Walls: It's a business. You are correct. It is a business. It is a business. But it's not a
retail business that we're talking about with the box store. A box store that does nothing more
than receive goods and turn around and send those goods out. It's not a construction company.
It's not a steel company that's going right down the street that's going to have a larger footprint.
It's gonna leave something. It has to. It is an industrial commodity. It's going to leave a
footprint. You talk nationally about what companies do. Let's talk locally. Let's talk about this
Wal-Mart store, just like we would any other business. What has this Wal-Mart store been for
this community? How many people have they employed in the ten years they've been here?
How many donations have they made? What contributions have they made to this community?
I say a lot. I say a lot. Who are we to stop a business, who's abiding by the law, their efforts to
expand their business? How many here own a pc? How many here have a computer? You're
going to lock Windows off your computer because Bill Gates has 90% of the market?
Unknown woman and man in the audience: I have a Mac.
Randy Walls: You have a Mac. And that's your right to have a Mac. It should be my right to
shop where I want to shop. Not to be limited in my choice as a consumer to buy my product at
wherever. Sure I can and I want to shop at a Super Center because I support that Super Center.
Another issue, wait a minute, you all had your turn to speak. I was very quiet, didn't say
anything. How many dark stores do we have or buildings in the town of Cortland or
Cortlandville? How many times has somebody come in here, raped this community through tax
relief, never paid the bill, and then left with an empty building? This Wal-Mart situation does
exactly the opposite. They've already got a company lined up to take over that location. When
has that ever happened in Cortland? What did Rubbermaid do? Empty building. How many
times has that happened in this community? Mr. Renzi just said that he came into this process not
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 INFORMATIONAL MEETING PAGE 18
after Wal-Mart. Well, I believe it was in May of last year, you wrote an article to the Cortland
Standard and while it might have appeared neutral it ... (Switched tape) .... gave all the Board
members an article that was anti Wal-Mart. I fail to see the objectivity in that, in what you said
tonight compared to what your process has been in the past.
Nick Renzi: ... positives and negatives ...
Randy Walls: But you can't stand up here and say that you're not against Wal-Mart when
history has already proven that you've done exactly that.
Nick Renzi: ... distorted by you ...
John Folmer: I think now we have figured out that the idea that we weren't going to be talking
about Wal-Mart and we were going to be talking about the zoning. Now we have gotten to the
point where we're not only talking about Wal-Mart but we're getting to a point where we're
talking about who did what to whom and that doesn't make any sense at all. (applause) So ...
and I'm going to declare that this meeting is over, with my thanks to all of you for coming. The
Town Board with meet on the 6th of October to discuss how they want to proceed from this point
forward. Thank you again.
Audience: Thank you. (applause)
The Informational Meeting was closed at 8:49 p.m.
Respe tfully submitted,
Karen Q. Snyder
Town Clerk
Town of Cortlandville
77
NOTE: The Public Informational Meeting was not required to be transcribed, but was done so at
the request of Town Attorney, John Folmer.