HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2006209
OCTOBER 04, 2006
7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
LOCAL LAW - 2006
REVISION TO ARTICLE XVI OF THE TOWN CODE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the
Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York, regarding
the enactment of a Local Law revising the Town of Cortlandville's Stormwater Management and
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.
Members present:
Absent:
Supervisor, Richard C. Tupper
Councilman, Theodore V. Testa
Councilman, Ronal L. Rocco
Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder
Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell
Councilman, John C. Proud
Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't. Carl Bush; Planning
Board Member, Nick Renzi; Scott Smith from Clough Harbour & Associates LLP.; Patrick Reidy
from Cortland County Soil & Water Conservation; Attorney Mike Shafer, from Riehlman Shafer &
Shafer; Steve Cleason from APD Engineering; Jo Schaffer, City of Cortland Planning Commission;
Representatives of C.A.P.E.: Arnold Talentino, Jamie Dangler, Grace Meddaugh, and Ron Powell;
Susan Fitts; Jonas Rodriguez; Jim Myer; News Reporter, Eric Mulvihill from WXHC; and News
Reporter, Evan Geibel from the Cortland Standard.
Supervisor Tupper called the Public Hearing to order.
Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder read aloud the legal notice as published, posted and filed.
Supervisor Tupper offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance.
Arnold Talentino, representing C.A.P.E., stated he found a few places within proposed
revision in which the language is weak, as well as language that is contradictory. He referred the
Board to page 2, § 178-90(B)(4) and suggested the language "should be made" be changed to
"must be made."
Mr. Talentino continued by reading §1.78-90(C)(1)(2)(3) and suggested that (3) be
removed from the text, which read "Subdivisions which result in the creation of less than four
lots." He felt that the language was confusing and that it implied that (1) cannot be maintained.
Supervisor Tupper explained the terms "subdivision" and "lot" and offered an example of
a subdivision and how it related to the text that Mr. Talentino was disputing. He stated item (3)
was pertinent to the document.
Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi suggested that if Mr. Talentino read the glossary of
terms in the Town Code the language would not be confusing.
Patrick Reidy, Cortland County Soil & Water Conservation District, stated he was
involved in drafting the revised Stormwater Management Ordinance. The intent of the revised
ordinance was to make it consistent with the new State Stormwater Regulations. He explained
that one of the things included in the State's regulations was with regard to subdivisions -
particularly residential subdivisions. The State's example was a subdivision without any
proposed buildings on it, called a common plan of development, in which a stormwater plan was
required even though there was no specific plan for the property. The intent in the Town's
revised ordinance was to limit that to not any subdivision, but to a subdivision of more than three
lots. Mr. Reidy suggested that the language may need to be clarified.
Attorney Folmer read aloud comments received from Councilman Proud, as he could not
attend the meeting. With regard to §178-90(C)(1) and (3), Councilman Proud suggested the
following:
"With all of the drainage and flooding issues that are coming to our attention I
don't see the benefit to the Town of exempting development or activity of any
size from this ordinance. The larger the size of the area involved in the
OCTOBER 04, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
PAGE 2
exemption, the more strongly I hold this opinion that subdivisions of less than
four lots could become more common as the result of being exempt from the
burden of preparing a SWPPP. The potential water related issue from several
small subdivisions would be equivalent to a larger subdivision."
Mr. Talentino commented on § 178-90(E)(1)(2)(3). He noted that the various activities
listed under (E) had to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP), but did not
have to meet the performance standards for water quality and water quantity management as
described in §178-91. He stated it seemed counterproductive to prepare a SWPPP without
having to meet the performance standards.
Mr. Reidy stated there are two types of plans: a Basic Plan for erosion and sediment
control during construction; and a Full Plan, which deals with long term water quality and water
quantity. The plans come straight from the State's criteria in its model ordinance. Mr. Reidy
explained that the Basic Plan requires erosion and sediment control for agricultural construction
projects, but it does not require water quality and water quantity because Ag. falls under a
different set of guidelines set by the USDA. With regard to the Full Plan, Mr. Reidy continued
by stating it was not the State's intent to require a single-family home to hire an engineer and
spend tens of thousands of dollars for stormwater management. Erosion and sediment control
was all that was required for a single-family construction.
Mr. Talentino commented on § 1.78-91(D)(2), which states the following: "Certain types
of projects in environmentally sensitive areas, such as primary or principal aquifer protection
areas may require a more stringent SWPPP." Mr. Talentino felt the language was too weak and
suggested the word "may" be changed to "must" or "will" because the statement is in regard to
more sensitive areas.
Attorney Folmer disagreed with Mr. Talentino. He stated the language intended to say
that any particular project that submits its plan may not satisfy the requirement just because it has
submitted a minimum plan. If the particular project poses a different risk than an ordinary one,
there is the ability to require that there be a more stringent plan. The terms "certain projects" and
"may" are consistent to give discretion to those people who review the plans.
Mr. Talentino respectfully disagreed with Attorney Folmer.
Mr. Talentino continued by citing language in § 178-97 (A) and (B), regarding
performance bonds, in which he suggested the words "may" be changed to "will".
Mr. Reidy explained the intent of the language regarding whether a performance bond or
letter of credit would be required. He offered the scenario of "a developer building a large
residential subdivision on speculation, and they get halfway through the project, and they clear
50 acres of land and it's kind of a mess and they walk away." He stated this would be a
discretionary item. If the Town had a history with a developer they may be more inclined to
require a performance bond or letter of credit, which could protect the Town in the event that the
developer or landowner failed to properly operate and maintain stormwater management and
erosion and sediment control facilities. Mr. Reidy stated the Town should decide whether they
thought a performance bond should be required for every project from a Dunkin' Donuts to a 100
house subdivision.
Councilman Rocco questioned whether it would be a problem to change the language
from a performance bond being at the Board's discretion, which could be prejudicial, to a being
required.
Mr. Reidy was not sure what it meant for a developer to have to give an irrevocable letter
of credit.
Mr. Renzi stated from a legal standpoint, the word "may" doesn't preclude requesting it
and having it done — it is discretionary. Experiences with particular developers could play a part
in whether or not a performance bond was needed.
Attorney Folmer stated if a developer, who historically performed well, was not required
to obtain a performance bond and cleared 50 acres of land and walked away, the Town would not
get the bond at that point.
Jo Schaffer, from the City of Cortland Planning Commission, stated "the tighter the code
is, the easier it is for people to understand exactly what their obligations are on both sides." She
felt the Board should eliminate the descriptive terms, such as "may", "should" and "will."
Supervisor Tupper stated if the word "will" or "shall" is used, discretion has been
eliminated and cannot be waived if the Board does not believe a performance bond is necessary.
Mr. Talentino suggested that discretion could be construed as prejudicial and that
everyone should have to be required to follow the same guidelines.
Mr. Reidy commented that if an acre of land is disturbed the project would technically
fall under the stormwater ordinance. Therefore, a wide range of projects fall under the
ordinance.
�I
1
1
OCTOBER 04, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 3
z11
Attorney Folmer stated if the Board was to make the ordinance strict as Ms. Schaffer
suggested they "would have to have a vehicle to get out from under in the event that there is a
variance requested." If the Board wanted to change the words from "may" to "will" or "shall"
then they needed to discuss the criteria for a variance.
Ron Powell, representing C.A.P.E., commented that if a developer wanted to develop a
piece of property within the Town and would not post a bond to give the Town security, then the
Town should not want their business.
Attorney Folmer stated there may be an economic issue regarding the cost of the bond.
Mr. Powell stated it was up to the Town to set the requirement and determine what the
level of security would be.
Mr. Powell made comments not specific to the Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Although he lives in the City of Cortland, he stated the flooding problems have gotten out of
control as a result of the development within the Town of Cortlandville. He noted that he was
flooded seven times this year. He stated the Board needed to come up with stormwater protection
plans and ordinances that are "air tight" to mitigate downstream consequences. Mr. Powell
urged the Board to adopt the most restrictive ordinance as possible.
Councilman Rocco questioned whether the Board could change the language to read that
a performance bond would be required unless the applicant applied for an exemption from the
Board.
Attorney Folmer felt that the language was covered by using the word "may."
No further comments or discussions were heard.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to close the public
hearing. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m.
1
z 1 Z-
OCTOBER 04, 2006
7:40 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2
LOCAL LAW - 2006
REVISION TO ARTICLE XI OF THE TOWN CODE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the
Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York, regarding
the enactment of a Local Law revising the Town of Cortlandville's Planned Unit Development
Ordinance.
Members present:
Absent:
Supervisor, Richard C. Tupper
Councilman, Theodore V. Testa
Councilman, Ronal L. Rocco
Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder
Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell
Councilman, John C. Proud
Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't. Carl Bush; Planning
Board Member, Nick Renzi; Scott Smith from Clough Harbour & Associates LLP.; Patrick Reidy
from Cortland County Soil & Water Conservation; Attorney Mike Shafer, from Riehlman Shafer &
Shafer; Steve Cleason from APD Engineering; Jo Schaffer, City of Cortland Planning.Commission;
Representatives of C.A.P.E.: Arnold Talentino, Jamie Dangler, Grace Meddaugh, and Ron Powell;
Susan Fitts; Jonas Rodriguez; Jim Myer; News Reporter, Eric Mulvihill from WXHC; and News
Reporter, Evan Geibel from the Cortland Standard.
Supervisor Tupper called the Public Hearing to order.
Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder read aloud the legal notice as published, posted and filed.
Supervisor Tupper offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance.
Attorney Folmer stated there was a typographical error in the proposed Planned Unit
Development Ordinance on page 5, §178-54(D)(1), which should read 60% rather than 50%.
Jamie Dangler, representing C.A.P.E., apprised the Board they reviewed the proposed
PUD Ordinance, as did their attorney, and asked that they address the following problems. She
referenced the Town of Geneseo's PUD Ordinance, as well as. "A Guide to Planned Urban
Development" by the NYS Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. Mrs. Dangler offered
the following comments:
1. § 178-56(B), page 9 - Does not give sufficient detail to inform an applicant as to what is
required, and omits information necessary to conduct site plan review, and does not
include any submission required under SEQRA. C.A.P.E. recommends the Board review
Town of Geneseo's PUD Law, §106-58(A) thru (D), and at the very least add items 10
and 11 in the section are required for SEQRA review, which relate to a Long Form EAF
and Site Impact Traffic Analysis.
2. Expand the Town Planning Board review and findings procedure, § 178-59.
3. There should be a provision for making modifications — refer to § 106.61 of Town of
Geneseo PUD Law.
4. Simplify the language under § 178-54(B) to clarify the exact meaning of the section, as it
is very confusing, and may render the provision vulnerable to legal challenges.
Attorney Folmer and Planning Board Member Renzi agreed that the language under §178-
54(B) was confusing.
5. § 178-54(C), page 5 — Specify the size of the buffer required for a commercial PUD.
Consider specifying a minimum tract size as specified in the Industrial section (D).
6. §178-54(E), page 5 — Revise the first sentence under (1) to read "PUD design shall
provide protection and preservation...." This would replace the word "consider" with the
word "provide."
7. § 178-54(E)(3), page 6 — Specify that PUDs should not be allowed in the flood plain.
7
1
1
zi3
OCTOBER 04, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 PAGE 2
Mrs. Dangler apprised the Board she did not mention some of the more substantive
comments, but would submit them in writing.
Attorney Folmer stated he understood Mrs. Dangler's comments, but asked her to
recognize that they tried to balance the enforcement and the regulatory portion of the ordinance
"with an intent to encourage development in an appropriate and economically feasible way." He
commented that Mrs. Dangler's comments were worth consideration and would discuss them
with Patrick Reidy from SWCD and Clough Harbour & Associates.
Jo Schaffer, City of Cortland Planning Commission, made the following comments
regarding the revised PUD Ordinance:
1. Clarify light industrial vs. industrial.
2. Clarify open space vs. green space.
3. Avoid contradictory language, such as § 178-54(A)(5) and (7) regarding common
property, private ownership and single ownership.
4. Define the word "buffer."
5. Clarify confusing language in § 178-54(B)(4), page 4
6. Was pleased that signage was included under § 178-54(E)(6), page 7, but
suggested that no neon signs or backlighting signs be allowed.
7. Change language in § 178-56(A)(2), page 8, which states, "At this meeting all
interested town officials will be allowed to attend and listen to the presentation."
In an open meeting all people should be allowed and encouraged to attend.
8. Typos within the document.
9. Change language in § 178-56(B)(2)(h), page 9, to include official survey maps
rather than location maps.
10. §178-55(A)(B) — Very little difference between Residential and Commercial.
Ms. Schaffer apprised the Board she would also submit her comments in writing.
Attorney Folmer apprised Ms. Schaffer that the definition of light industrial vs. industrial
was included in the Revised Zoning Ordinance, which he would provide her with. With regard
to Ms. Schaffer's claim of confusing language in § 178-54(B)(4), page 4, he stated the language
was being construed.
Ron Powell, representing C.A.P.E., requested clarification of §178-54(A)(2) and (B)(3)
regarding the minimum percent of gross land area set aside for open space and the increases in
density allowed for certain PUDs. He questioned whether the increases were meant to be
cumulative. As an example he mentioned §178-54(B)(b)[3], page 4, which states: "Landscaping,
streetscape, pedestrianway, improvements, use of existing natural areas, new plantings: 5%
increase." Mr. Powell questioned whether it would be limited to 5% for all of the items or for
each item. If an increase of 5% was allowed for each item the allowed density on a parcel would
double, which he stated was unacceptable and contradictory. Mr. Powell also questioned the
language in § 178-54(E), which he described as "shaky."
Attorney Folmer suggested that. Mrs. Dangler, Ms. Schaffer, and Mr. Powell review the
Cortland County Planning Board recommendations if they hadn't already done so.
No further comments or discussions were heard.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to close the public
hearing. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
z 1�
OCTOBER 04, 2006
8:00 P.M.
TOWN BOARD MEETING
The Regular Town Board Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville was
held at the Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York,
with Supervisor Tupper presiding.
Members present:
Absent:
Supervisor, Richard C. Tupper
Councilman, Theodore V. Testa
Councilman, Ronal L. Rocco
Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder
Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell
Councilman, John C. Proud
Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't. Carl Bush; Planning
Board Member, Nick Renzi; Scott Smith from Clough Harbour & Associates LLP.; Patrick Reidy
from Cortland County Soil & Water Conservation; Attorney Mike Shafer, from Riehlman Shafer &
Shafer; Steve Cleason from APD Engineering; Jo Schaffer, City of Cortland Planning Commission;
Representatives of C.A.P.E.: Arnold Talentino, Jamie Dangler, Grace Meddaugh, and Ron Powell;
Susan Fitts; Jonas Rodriguez•, Jim Myer; News Reporter, Eric Mulvihill from WXHC; and News
Reporter, Evan Geibel from the Cortland Standard.
Supervisor Tupper called the meeting to order.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to approve the
Cortlandville Planning Board Minutes of May 30, 2006. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to approve the
Cortlandville Planning Board Minutes of June 27, 2006. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
The Draft Town Board Minutes of September 20, 2006 were presented to the Board for
review.
RESOLUTION #176 AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF VOUCHERS — OCTOBER
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, the vouchers submitted have been audited and shall be paid as follows:
General Fund A
Vouchers #459 - 479
$
17,034.28
General Fund B
B102 - B106
$
11,876.93
Highway Fund DB
D412 - D437
$178,748.65
Water Fund
W185 - W196
$
4,104.66
Sewer Fund
S92 - S96
$
994.96
Trust & Agency
T 10 - T 10
$
Capital Projects
H17 - H18
$
14,422.86
Special Grants
SG19 - SG27
$
33,251.76
Supervisor Tupper offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance.
Jamie Dangler, representing C.A.P.E. questioned whether the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Wal-Mart Supercenter PUD application would be posted on the
Internet.
Attorney Folmer apprised Mrs. Dangler that pursuant to the most recent revisions in
SEQRA, the FEIS is required to be posted on the DEC website when it has been determined to
be final.
1
1
Z1S
OCTOBER 04, 2006 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 2
Monthly reports of the Town Clerk and Supervisor for the month of September 2006, and
for the SPCA for the month of July 2006 were on the table for review and are filed in the Town
Clerk's Office.
RESOLUTION #177 TABLE ACTION ON LOCAL LAW - 2006
REVISION TO ARTICLE XVI OF THE TOWN CODE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby table action on the proposed Local Law of
2006, Revision to Article XVI of the Town Code, Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sediment Control, until October 18, 2006.
RESOLUTION #178 TABLE ACTION ON LOCAL LAW - 2006
REVISION TO ARTICLE XI OF THE TOWN CODE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby table action on the proposed Local Law of
2006, Revision to Article XI of the Town Code, Planned Unit Development Ordinance, until
October 18, 2006.
RESOLUTION #179 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING 2007 TENTATIVE BUDGET
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Clerk received the 2007 Tentative Budget on September 28th,
2006, and has presented it to Town Board members, in accordance with Town Law.
Supervisor Tupper reminded the Board that a Budget Workshop was scheduled for
October 16, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. at the Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building.
Attorney Folmer reported:
FEIS — Wal-Mart Supercenter PUD:
Attorney Folmer apprised the Board they were in receipt of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) submitted on behalf of Wal-Mart, prepared by the applicant as
permitted by SEQRA, and submitted to the Board. He requested the Board receive and file the
document.
Councilman Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wal-Mart Supercenter PUD application. All
voting aye, the motion was carried.
Attorney Folmer stated the next step would be for the Town's consultants, Clough
Harbour & Associates, to review the document to determine whether or not they could advise the
Board that the FEIS was complete, at which point the Board could accept the FEIS as final.
Once the FEIS is determined to be final, it would be published on the appropriate website at the
direction of the Town Board.
Z I
OCTOBER 04, 2006 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 3
Attorney Folmer requested the Board schedule a workshop for Wednesday, October 11,
2006 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the FEIS with the engineers and their findings with regard to its
completeness. The workshop would be an open meeting, however participation would be limited
to the Board and Clough Harbour & Associates. Once the document is determined to be final,
the period for public comment opens. A copy of the FEIS would be delivered to C.A.P.E., the
Cortland Standard, and WXHC.
RESOLUTION #180 SCHEDULE WORKSHOP TO REVIEW THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE WAL-
MART SUPERCENTER PUD APPLICATION FOR OCTOBER,
11.2006
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, a workshop shall be scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 9:00
a.m. to review the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Wal-Mart Supercenter
PUD application.
RESOLUTION #181 SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AQUIFER
PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
GERRY V. RUGGIERO FOR OCTOBER 18, 2006
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, a Public Hearing shall be scheduled for October 18, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. for
an Aquifer Protection Permit application submitted by Gerry V. Ruggiero for properties located
on McLean Road, tax map parcel #96.09-01-25.100 and #96.09-01-25.200.
Councilman Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file
correspondence from Village of McGraw Mayor, Jay Cobb, dated September 21, 2006, regarding
flooding in the Village. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to receive and file
correspondence from Daniel Tagliente, Chairman, Cortland County Highway Committee, dated
September 21, 2006, including an attachment from County Legislator, Danny Ross, regarding the
East Academy Street Bridge in the Village of McGraw. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
Councilman Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file
correspondence from Jaclyn Brilling, Secretary, Time Warner -Syracuse Divison, dated
September 27, 2006 regarding Temporary Operating Authority and the franchise renewal. All
voting aye, the motion was carried.
RESOLUTION #182 AUTHORIZE APPROVAL REQUEST OF JEAN FISH FOR
THE BLODGETT MILLS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize the approval request of Jean Fish,
for property located at 3350 Route 11, Blodgett Mills, Town of Cortlandville, for a 100%
deferred loan for the Blodgett Mills Community Development Housing Rehabilitation Program,
and it is further
OCTOBER 04, 2006 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 4
217
RESOLVED, the work to be completed would include exterior carpentry, interior carpentry,
siding, windows and doors, other, and roofing for a total of $22,750.00.
RESOLUTION #183 AUTHORIZE APPROVAL REQUEST OF JUDY VICKERY
FOR THE BLODGETT MILLS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Motion by Councilman Rocco
Seconded by Councilman Testa
VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED
BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize the approval request of Judy
Vickery for property located at 2279 Main Street, Blodgett Mills, Town of Cortlandville, for a
100% deferred loan for the Blodgett Mills Community Development Housing Rehabilitation
Program, and it is further
RESOLVED, the work to be completed would include windows and doors, interior carpentry,
siding, other, flooring, and electric for a total of $19,141.00.
Attorney Folmer requested the Board convene to an Executive Session to discuss a
personnel matter.
No further comments or discussion were heard.
Councilman Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman Testa, to recess the Regular
Meeting to an Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter. All voting aye, the motion was
carried.
The meeting was recessed at 8:15 p.m.
The following information was received from the Supervisor's office.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to adjourn the
Executive Session and reconvene to the Regular Meeting. All voting aye, the motion was
carried.
No action was taken.
Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to adjourn the
Regular Meeting. All voting aye, the motion was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
z? � Or)--40&4-j
Karen Q. Snyder, RMC
Town Clerk
Town of Cortlandville