Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-200716 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 5:00 P.M. TOWN BOARD MEETING The Regular 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: Supervisor, Richard Tupper Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Proud Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't. Carl Bush; Town Justice, Francis J. Casullo; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi; Paul Suits from Suit-Kote Corp.; Barbara Tupper; Representatives of C.A.P.E.: Richanna Patrick and Grace Meddaugh; Sharon Stevens for Channel 2, Access TV; News Reporter, Eric Mulvihill from WXHC; and News Reporter, Evan Geibel from the Cortland Standard. Supervisor Tupper called the meeting to order. RESOLUTION #23 AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF VOUCHERS - FEBRUARY Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman Proud VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the vouchers submitted have been audited and shall be paid as follows: General Fund A Vouchers #54 - 83 $ 26,536.78 General Fund B B6 - B 11 $ 26,105.21 Highway Fund DB D19 - D48 $ 37,966.91 Water Fund W11 - W28 $278,275.57 Sewer Fund S2 - S8 $214,551.26 Capital Projects H7 - HI $ 8,801.54 Special Grant SG7 - SG9 $ 15,609.15 Supervisor Tupper offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance. Councilman O'Donnell reported that he audited the books for the Town Justice and found everything to be in order. Councilman Rocco apprised the Board he received many phone calls in favor of and against the Wal-Mart Supercenter PUD application. Councilman Proud reported that he audited the books for the Water & Sewer Department and the Highway Department, and found everything to be in order. The monthly reports of the Town Clerk, Tax Collector, and Water & Sewer Department for the month of January 2007 were on the table for review and are filed in the Town Clerk's office. Town Clerk and Tax Collector, Karen Q. Snyder, reported that $6,512,629.36 was collected during the month of January in taxes, which equates to about 71 % of the total tax warrant. The Town Supervisor and the Cortlandville Fire Department have been paid in full. Also, a check was sent to the County Treasurer. 1 1 1 17 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 2 RESOLUTION #24 ACCEPT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOWN CLERK Motion by Councilman Proud Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Annual Report of the Town Clerk for the year 2006 is hereby accepted, and shall be received and filed. With regard to the Expansion/Renovation of the Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, Supervisor Tupper apprised the Board that PAC Security recommended the Town includes video surveillance both inside and outside the building. The Town Justice and Town Clerk notified the Supervisor they would be very pleased to have video surveillance for their own protection. PAC Security provided a proposal that would include 9 camera locations with the ability to add 7 more. The video surveillance would run 24 hours a day. Councilman Rocco questioned whether a panic button would be included in the system. Town Justice Casullo informed the Board that panic buttons would be provided. If a panic button was activated it would notify 911 that a specific office was having an emergency. The Board agreed that installing surveillance cameras would benefit the Town. The surveillance system would be in addition to the current PAC security system and fire alarm system. RESOLUTION 425 AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH PAC SECURITY TO INSTALL SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AT THE RAYMOND G. THORPE MUNICIPAL BUILDING Motion by Councilman Testa Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Supervisor to execute an agreement with PAC Security to install surveillance cameras at the Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, in an amount not to exceed $9,720.00. Supervisor Tupper commented on flooding that has occurred in the neighborhoods surrounding Lyncort Drive all the way to McLean Road. Highway Sup't. Bush suggested the Town purchase a 1.13-acre parcel from John Murdock to create a retention pond that would reduce flooding. The Board was in favor of purchasing the vacant land, and turned the matter over to Highway Sup't. Bush to pursue. Councilman Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file the Wal-Mart Petition with 2600+/- signatures in favor of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter. All voting aye, the motion was carried. Councilman Proud apprised the Board that after their last meeting he visited the Lime Hollow Nature Center's new Visitor Center on McLean Road. The Visitor Center would be opening soon and would be utilized by school children. Councilman Proud was concerned with school buses entering and exiting the center, and suggested the Board make another request to the NYSDOT to lower the speed limit on McLean Road. Councilman Rocco suggested the Board write a letter to the new Governor. He felt that municipalities should have the ability and the right to determine speed limits. Councilman Testa suggested they contact Senator Seward and Assemblywoman Lifton and ask that they visit the site and submit letters to the DOT similarly to how they assisted the Town regarding the intersection of Route 13 and McLean Road/Starr Road. E1 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 3 RESOLUTION #26 AUTHORIZE REQUEST TO REDUCE SPEED LIMIT ON MCLEAN ROAD Motion by Councilman Proud Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, a request was received from the Lime Hollow Center for Environment & Culture in March of 2006, to reduce the speed limit on McLean Road to 45 mph from Deerfield Heights to the Cortland/Tompkins County line, and WHEREAS, McLean Road is a County Road, and WHEREAS, the Town sent the request for the reduction in speed limit to the New York State Department of Transportation via the Cortland County Highway Superintendent, and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2006 the Board received and filed correspondence from NYS DOT denying the request to reduce the speed limit, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the request to reduce the speed limit on McLean Road to 45 mph from Deerfield Heights to the Cortland/Tompkins County line be resubmitted to the NYS DOT for approval, via the Cortland County Highway Superintendent for their input, as required. Attorney Folmer reported: Bond Anticipation Note: Attorney Folmer apprised the Board that he, Town Clerk Snyder and Supervisor Tupper attended a closing the previous week for the $500,000 Bond Anticipation Note for the Expansion/Renovation of the Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building. Easements for Commons Avenue: Attorney Folmer apprised the Board there was a pending land transfer for property on Commons Avenue beyond where the Town's present water and sewer lines extend. Attorney Folmer informed the Board the Town would have to obtain easements in order to extend the water and sewer lines. However, there was confusion regarding the easements the Town currently had on Commons Avenue, which Attorney Folmer would investigate. Proposed Local Law — Fire Prevention and Building Code: Attorney Folmer apprised the Board that at their next meeting he would submit the text of a proposed local law that deals with the administration of the NYS Fire Prevention and Building Code, which is a mandated proposal that must be adopted. Attorney Folmer requested the Board convene to an Executive Session at the end of the Regular Meeting to discuss the acquisition of real property. Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman O'Donnell, to receive and file correspondence from the Cortland County Planning Department dated January 12, 2007, and Resolution #07-01 from the Cortland County Planning Board dated January 17, 2007, regarding the Aquifer Protection Permit application of Suit-Kote Corporation for the Loring Crossing Facility, tax map #77.00-01-22.000. All voting aye, the motion was carried. 1.9 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 4 RESOLUTION #27 SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SUIT-KOTE CORPORATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LORING CROSSING Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, a Public Hearing shall be scheduled for February 21, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. for an Aquifer Protection Permit application submitted by Suit-Kote Corporation for the Loring Crossing Facility located on the south side of Loring Crossing, tax map #77.00-01-22.000. RESOLUTION #28 SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY HOMER CORTLAND COMMUNITY AGENCY (BROCKWAY MUSEUM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON US ROUTE 11 Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, a Public Hearing shall be scheduled for February 21, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. for an Aquifer Protection Permit application submitted by Homer Cortland Community Agency Brockway Museum) for property located on US Route 11, tax map #76.15-01-30.000, and it is further RESOLVED, the scheduled Public Hearing is contingent upon receipt of the Cortland County Planning Board's recommendations. RESOLUTION #29 AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TAX COLLECTION TO JUNE 1.2007 Motion by Councilman Proud Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign and forward a request for an extension of the tax collection program until June 1, 2007 to the Cortland County Treasurer, in compliance with Section 938 of the Real Property Tax Law. RESOLUTION #30 AUTHORIZE30-DAY EXTENSION OF THE SUPERVISOR'S ANNUAL REPORT OF 2006 Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Proud VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Supervisor is hereby authorized to request an additional 80-day extension from Audit & Control for filing the 2006 Annual Financial Report There was discussion regarding two proposed sewer projects: Starr Road Sewer Extension and Vernon Drive Trunkline. The Starr Road Sewer Extension project would be necessary to service the Cortlandville Starr Road Park & Recreation Center, and would cost $130,000.00. Eight residential properties plus the Cortlandville Starr Road Park would be served by the project. The second project, Vernon Drive Trunkline, would allow for the abandonment of an inferior sewage metering station on Route 13 (Tompkins Street) by re-routing the flow to another metering station already located at the end of Vernon Drive. The Trunkline Project would cost $150,000.00. z () FEBRUARY 07, 2007 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 5 Supervisor Tupper explained that both projects were subject to permissive referendum, as they would be paid for out of the Town's Sewer Reserve. The Board agreed to move forward with both sewer projects. RESOLUTION #31 AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $280,000 FROM THE SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO PAY FOR THE EXPENSE OF THE STARR ROAD SEWER EXTENSION AND VERNON DRIVE TRUNKLINE SEWER PROJECT Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville does hereby authorize the expenditure of $150,000 from the Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to pay for the expense of the proposed Starr Road Sewer Extension project, and the expenditure of $130,000 from the Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to pay for the expense of the proposed Vernon Drive Trunkline Sewer Project, and it is further RESOLVED, this resolution is adopted Subject to Permissive Referendum as required by law. RESOLUTION 432 AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF THE WATER BENEFIT TAX UNIT CHARGE FOR VACANT PROPERTY OWNED BY KEVIN STARK LOCATED ON BOWLING GREEN ROAD Motion by Councilman Proud Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, a request was received from Kevin Stark requesting removal of the Water Benefit Tax unit charge for the 2008 Town and County tax bill for vacant property located on Bowling Green Road, and WHEREAS, such request was reviewed by Town Assessor, David Briggs, who reported that although the vacant parcel abuts the back property line of Mr. Stark's property at 728 Bowling Green Road, the two properties could not be joined for tax purposes because the parcels are in two separate school districts, and WHEREAS, a covenant in the deed for the vacant parcel prohibits any permanent structure from being constructed, thus the parcel would not have a need for water service, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Assessor, David Briggs, is hereby authorized and directed to remove the Water Benefit Tax unit charge for parcel #95.00-12-17.000, owned by Kevin Stark, commencing with the 2008 Town and County tax bill. There was discussion regarding residential refuse services and the Report of Examination for the Town of Cortlandville — Contracting for Residential Refuse Services prepared by the Office of the State Comptroller. Supervisor Tupper commented that the refuse service would not be as economical for the Town as it would be for small villages or cities because the Town is rural. The service would also increase taxes. Councilman Rocco apprised the Board he visited the Town of Manlius and inquired about the refuse system they have in place. The Town of Manlius had to hire an additional employee to monitor the refuse service, which was an additional expense. Councilman Proud stated it was a good idea to be aware of how a refuse service would operate even though it may not be useful to the Town at this time. Councilman Proud made a motion, seconded by Councilman O'Donnell, to receive and file the Report of Examination for Residential Refuse Services from the Office of the NYS Comptroller, dated January 26, 2007. All voting aye, the motion was carried. z1 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 6 There was discussion regarding the fatal accident that occurred on the corner of NYS Route 222/Fairview Drive/Highland Road. NYS Police Sergeant Jeffrey Dorward sent a traffic report regarding the accident, and recommended that the installation of a single traffic light with yellow warning flash for NYS Route 222, and a red stop flash for Fairview Drive and Highland Road, could reduce accidents at the location. Sergeant Dorward also recommended future consideration to make the location a four way stop to eliminate high-speed collisions. Supervisor Tupper questioned whether the Town could request that a traffic light be installed at the intersection of NYS Route 222 and Fairview Drive/Highland Road. Highway Sup't. Carl Bush informed the Board they could request a traffic light just like they would request a speed limit change. Councilman Rocco thanked Sergeant Dorward for taking the time to file the report with the Town and also for his remedial suggestion. Councilman Proud made a motion, seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file the Traffic Report from NYS Police Sergeant Jeffrey Dorward dated January 28, 2007, regarding the intersection of NYS Route 222 and Fairview Drive/Highland Road. All voting aye, the motion was carried. RESOLUTION 433 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR A SINGLE TRAFFIC LIGHT WITH YELLOW WARNING FLASH FOR NYS ROUTE 222 AND A RED STOP FLASH FOR FAIRVIEW DRIVE AND HIGHLAND ROAD Motion by Councilman Proud Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, a request was received from NYS Police Sergeant Jeffrey Dorward to install a single traffic light with yellow warning flash for NYS Route 222 and a red stop flash for Fairview Drive and Highland Road, which may help reduce accidents at the intersection, and WHEREAS, the intersection of NYS Route 222 and Fairview Drive/Highland Road has a history of frequent failure to yield motor vehicle accidents (MVA), and recently a MVA on January 25, 2007 that resulted in a fatality, and WHEREAS, NYS Route 222 is a State Highway, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the request for a single traffic light with a yellow warning flash for NYS Route 222 and a red stop flash for Fairview Drive and Highland Road be submitted to the NYS DOT for approval, via the Cortland County Highway Superintendent for their input, as required. There was a brief discussion regarding a request from Highway Sup't. Bush for "No Parking" on the entire length of the east side of Fairgrounds Drive. Highway Sup't. Bush explained that the "No Parking" would not hinder access to the J.M. McDonald Sports Complex as the facility has its own parking lot, but would allow emergency vehicles and plow trucks safe access to the narrow street. RESOLUTION #34 AUTHORIZE "NO PARKING" ON THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE EAST SIDE OF FAIRGROUNDS DRIVE Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board hereby authorizes "No Parking" on the entire length of the east side of Fairgrounds Drive to allow emergency vehicles safe access to the narrow street, and it is further RESOLVED, the Highway Sup't. is hereby authorized and directed to install "No Parking" signs on the east side of Fairgrounds Drive. zz FEBRUARY 07, 2007 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 7 RESOLUTION #35 AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER 01-04, 01-05, 01-06, AND 01-07 FROM DIAMOND & THIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE EXPANSION/ RENOVATION OF THE RAYMOND G. THORPE MUNICIPAL BUILDING Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the Supervisor to execute the following change orders: 01-04 for $581.00 "Revision to aluminum windows and storefronts" 01-05 for $1,189.00 "Additional brickwork" 01-06 for $1 M7.00 "Shore up existing wood roof rafters" 01-07 for $829.00 "Add roof vents" from Diamond & Thiel Construction Company for the Expansion/Renovation of the Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building. RESOLUTION #36 AUTHORIZE HIRING PATRICIA ROMER AS AN ADDITIONAL DEPUTY TOWN CLERK Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize hiring a full time employee, Patricia Romer of 1248 Starr Road, Cortland, New York, as an additional Deputy Town Clerk for the Town Clerk's office, and it is further RESOLVED, the starting salary shall be $23,835.00. No further comments or discussion were heard. Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to recess the Regular Meeting to an Executive Session to discuss the acquisition of property. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The meeting was recessed at 5:45 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 Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman O'Donnell, to adjourn the Regular Meeting. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. WRespetfully submitte , Karen Q. Snyder, RM Town Clerk Town of Cortlandville *Note: The draft version of this meeting was submitted to the Town Board for their review on April 4, 2007. The final version of this meeting was approved as written at the Town Board meeting of May 2, 2007. 1 i 23 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 6:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAL-MART SUPERCENTER NYS ROUTE 13 TAX MAP # 105.00-01-22.211 A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the Cortlandville Fire Station, 999 NYS Route 13, Cortland, New York, concerning the application of APD Engineering, PLLC for a commercial planned unit development (PUD). The application is for the construction of two future outparcels and a Wal-Mart Supercenter consisting of a single story building containing approximately 205,000 square feet of floor area with paved parking, access driveways, utilities and stormwater facilities to support the proposed project, to be located at the corner of NYS Route 13 and Bennie Road in the Town of Cortlandville, tax map #105.00- 01-22.211, property owned by Wal-Mart Stores East, LP. Members Present: Supervisor, Richard Tupper Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Proud Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John ' Folmer; Highway Sup't Carl Bush; Deputy Town Clerk, Kristin Rocco-Petrella; Planning Board Members: Chairperson, Katherine Wickwire, Nick Renzi, and James Bugh; Attorney Kelly Pronti representing Wal-Mart, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP; Todd Markevicz, representing APD Engineering; County Legislator, Kay Breed; David Yaman; Jamie Yaman; C. Ashley Ellefson; Barbara B. Ellefson; Donna M. Fox; Earl D. Fox; Kenneth L. Henry Sr.; James & Louise DeHart; Conrad Blackwell; Angelina Gilbert; John Carroll; Marilyn DeLorenzo; Lee Brink; Bruce Gilbert; Lydian Ferro; Anna -Mae Artim; Lynne Lash; Ray Dunphy; James McKenna; Shirley & Robert Bruey; Don Colongelie; Joe McIntyre; News Reporter, Louann Lutz; Cindy Teichert; Jeannette Keenan; Beverly Sherman; Sue Downes; Janice Wood; Dottie Thornton; Roger & Melody Orlandini; Roger Thornton; S. R. (name not legible); Robert Crosby; Susan Horner; Stephen Horner Jr.; Jamie Custer; Jean Rzepka; Jim Mulherin representing Walden Oaks Homeowners Association; Ann Rice; Becca Heath; Joy Ellis; Steph George; Robert Hutchings; Barbara Tupper; Douglas and Nancy Hatch; Randy & Sandy Walls; Tina Teeter; Robin & Greg Dunham; George Ottenschot; Lisa & Ray Ruszugale; Sandi Hile; Karen Kabanuk; Belinda Burtner; Philomena & Charles Curley; Bob Martin; Maria Travis; Kevin Murray; Kenneth Wooster; Chris Goff, Rich Cherry; Barbara K. Miller; Lee Miller; Wendy Perry; Jim Baker; Tim Armstrong; Christy Stevens; Debbie Friday; Joyce Evans; Tina Hanso; Marsha Masoy; Lorelee Rennis-Rosero; Michael S. Rosero; Dorlond & Patricia Horn; Al Maiorino; Fred Carroll; Helen Harver; Linda Striss; Carol Niver; Patricia Villani; Scott Elston; Lisi Krall; Rita Rowe; Erin Farley; Tricia Roiger; Nancy & Joe Governali; Representatives of C.A.P.E.: Robert Rhodes, Jan Thomsen, Grace Meddaugh, Kay Smith, Holly Freer, Bea Busch, Jim Meyer, M. & A. Miner; Andrea Rankin, Richanna Patrick, Arnold Talentino, Charles Maxfield, Nancy Hansen, Pam Jenkins, Colleen Kattau, Jamie Dangler, Lorraine Rhouri, and Buff Wang; Evan Geibel from the Cortland Standard; News Reporter, Eric Mulvihill from WXHC; and Sharon Stevens from Channel 2, Access TV. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF CORTLAND ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- x PUD Public Hearing Wal-Mart Supercenter Town of Cortlandville, New York -------------------------x PUD Public Hearing held on February 7, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. at the Cortlandville Town Hall, Terrace Road, Cortland, New York. Zy FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD APPEARANCES For Wal-Mart: HARTER, SECREST & EMERY, LLP Attorneys at Law 1600 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, New York 14604 BY: KELLY A. PRONTI, ESQ. Court Reporter: PROCEEDING Jennifer A. Gofkowski JAG Court Reporting, Inc. 64 Main Street, Suite 217 Cortland, New York 13045 (607) 753-8088 PAGE 2 SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Can I have your attention, please? We apologize for the late start, but we had a town board meeting at 5 that just got over, so just a little bit of housekeeping. Because of the size of the crowd, there's a fire exit to the rear; there's a fire exit over here. So, in case of an emergency, please in an orderly manner... And we certainly want to welcome you all here this evening and we'll start out by having the Clerk, if she would read the public notice, please. CLERK SNYDER: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on February 7th, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at the Cortlandville Fire Station, 99 New York State Route 13, Cortland, New York to consider the following: . The application of APD Engineering, PLLC for a commercial Planned Unit Development, PUD, for the construction of two future outparcels and a Wal-Mart Supercenter consisting of a single -story building containing, approximately, 205,000 square feet of floor area with paved parking, access driveways, utilities and storm water facilities to support the proposed project to be located at the corner of Route 31 and Bennie Road in the Town of Cortlandville for the purpose of the hearing public comments on the commercial PUD application. The tax account number is 105.00-01-22.211 and the property is owned by Wal-Mart Stores East, LP. Maps, site plans, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Statement of Findings and other relevant information is on file at the Raymond G. Thorp Municipal Building and may be inspected during regular business hours. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Thank you, Karen. Just a couple of more housekeeping here. This is a Public Hearing on a zone change from an industrial zone to a PUD. Your comments need to be on why that is or is not a good idea. Comments about whether you like Wal-Mart or you dislike Wal-Mart is very, very nice, but it's not relative or relevant to this evening. This Public Hearing is strictly on whether the zoning should change from its current status as industrial to PUD and we would ask you to please -- there's a lot of people who wish to speak, so if you would keep your remarks brief and to the point, we would appreciate that. And as the evening goes on, if somebody else has already said the same comments you've said, please don't be repetitive. It's gonna be a long evening as it is, so if somebody else has already made the statement, it's not necessary for you make it. We've heard it the first time. Okay? We're going to start out with the presentation so that everybody understands exactly what the zone change is, so the ADP. MS. PRONTI: Good evening. My name is Kelly Pronti. I'm an attorney with Harter, Secrest and Emery. We are the attorneys for Wal-Mart who is proposing to a construct Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 13 and Bennie Road. I am also here tonight with Todd Markevicz from APD Engineering. Todd and ADP Engineering are the civil engineers for the project. We're first going to talk about the zoning and the land use for the proposed site. The existing zoning for the property is industrial. The project is planned to be developed as a Planned Unit Development, and retail development is a permitted use under the Zoning Code. 1 �j z5 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 3 The proposed development is permitted under the PUD zoning after referral to the County Planning Board, as well as the Town Board and after determined appropriate by the Town Board. The PUD is considered a zoning change. Requirements applicable to industrial zoning district will no longer apply once the project has been designated as a PUD. The PUD application must be reviewed by the County Planning Board. Pursuant to Section 178-58 of the Town Code, the Town Board referred the PUD application to the County Planning Board on February 14th, 2006 was a result of the SEQRA review and public comment and modifications to the site plan, the Town Board re -referred the PUD application to the Planning Board on November 1 st, 2006. The County Planning Department reviewed the application on November 15th and the County Planning Board returned the PUD application to the Town Board as a matter of local determination with any consideration from the County Planning Board contingent on the applicant satisfying eleven conditions. A detailed discussion of these eleven conditions will be discussed later in the presentation. The PUD application must also be reviewed by the Town Planning Board. Pursuant to Section 178-58 of the Town Code, the Town Board referred the PUD application to the Planning Board on February 14th, 2006. On April 11, 2006, the Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the PUD. As a result of SEQRA review and modification to the site plan, the Town Board re -referred the PUD application to the Planning Board on November 1st, 2006. The Town Planning Board reviewed the application at its meetings on December 19th, 2006, as well as on January 1 Oth, 2007. On January loth, 2007, the Planning Board made a motion for a positive recommendation on the PUD which resulted in a two -to -two vote. The Planning Board then made a second recommendation for a motion for no recommendation to the Town Board which was unanimously passed by the PUD -- excuse me, by the Planning Board. The Town Board is now required to review the PUD application. The Town Board has received responses from both the County Planning Board and the Planning Board. The Town Board is now required to hold a Public Hearing, which we're doing tonight, where the Town Board will consider comments on the PUD, as well as the preliminary plan to be adopted by the Town Board. The Public Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Town of Cortlandville newspaper on both January 24th, as well as January 25th. Within. 30 days of the Public Hearing, the Town Board is required to make a decision on the PUD application. There are certain requirements that the Applicant must comply with in order for a complete PUD application. You'll notice on the screen that the Applicant is required to submit a plan -to -scale, location and dimension of the building and uses, outline of transportation facilities, topography, drainage, utilities, delineation of uses and types and densities, a location map showing adjacent land, a narrative statement and a schedule of development end stage. The requirements set forth in one through eight were submitted to the Town Board on February 21 st, 2005. The items set forth in nine through ten were submitted to the Town Board on March 1st, 2005. An additional narrative statement was submitted to the town on May 16th, 2006. The Town Code also sets forth certain requirements that an Applicant must comply with in order to conform with the PUD designation. These requirements include that a commercial PUD is permitted in an agricultural business or industrial district. The current site is within an industrial district, and, therefore, complies with this requirement. The second requirement is that the acreage must be a minimum of 10 acres. The proposed site is, approximately, 333 acres, and, therefore, complies with this requirement. The third requirement is that a minimum of 25 percent of the gross land area must be set aside for open space. The current site plan proposes 40 percent of open space for the overall development. This percentage may change depending on whether or not a portion of development is taken in dedication for the Bennie Road extension, but clearly, it will not fall below the required 25 percent. The next requirement is the proposal for stage development must provide for an appropriate mix of uses and adequate allowance for completion of overall concepts. The project will be developed in stages. The first phase will include a Supercenter, will include associated grading, access, as well as utility and paving. In addition, any future development of the outparcels will require the Planning Board to review such applications. Furthermore, any development of the outparcels will be required to comply with the uses set forth in Section 178-60(D) of the Town Code. The outparcels cannot be used for any other uses as those set forth in the Town Code. Z6 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 4 The fifth requirement is that there must be legal purchase offers on all parcels involved in the PUD. Wal-Mart had entered in a purchase agreement to purchase the property with Homer Gutchess on February 1 Oth, 2003 and thereafter purchased the property on December 7th, 2006. There must be single ownership of the entire PUD area. Wal-Mart Stores East owns the entire area. And seven: There must be a minimum of 60 percent gross floor set aside for commercial purposes. The proposed project complies with this requirement. And the final requirement that an Applicant must comply with in order to be designated as a PUD is the vegetative screening and/or green areas must separate the PUD from adjacent residential area. The project will. maintain the existing vegetation along Otter Creek, as well as incorporate a masonry sound wall. In addition, we are proposing some buffering and landscaping to the south of the property. With that, I now turn over the remainder of the presentation to Todd Markevicz who will discuss more of the site plan specifics, as well as the three alternate site plans that have been submitted via the DEIS. MR. MARKEVICZ: Thank you, Kelly. Community needs. The community needs for the project have been set forth in the narrative statement that was submitted to the Town on March 1st, 2005, as well as the supplemental information submitted to the Town on May 16th of 2006 -- PUBLIC SPEAKER: Excuse me, could you speak louder, please? MR. MARKEVICZ: I'm sorry. -- the supplemental information submitted to the Town on May 16th of 2006, as well as the details discussed in the DEIS itself. The Supercenter will actually offer a variety of goods and services at low prices not previously offered at the existing Wal-Mart. Some of these items include, grocery, bakery, deli, prepared foods. As you can see, the list goes on and on. And the reason that this is important is because this variety of goods is actually offered under one roof, which we are not aware of there is another store of this type in the Cortlandville Community. And this is important because there are quite a few people with limited budgets, as well as limited transportation. Actually, looking at the census information of 2000, the Town of Cortlandville actually has a higher percentage of elderly people living in the Town than New York State. And, again, this project, basically, provides these increased shopping opportunities under one roof. And we are currently working with the Cortland transit to provide a bus stop on the property, again, for limited -transportation opportunities. The use is consistent with surrounding uses and is actually consistent with the Town Master Plan. The site itself is an extension of the existing commercial district; and, furthermore, the development will, actually, provide an enhanced view of the entrance to Cortlandville. As many of you know, the existing retail facility or plaza just, I guess, to the north of our site, it's -- the rear of the plaza actually faces -- or is one of the firs things you see coming into the town. This development will provide a much more esthetically pleasing development, including, obviously, architectural features, as well as landscaping, berming, trees, et cetera. The Statement of Intent for PUDs. The Town Code clearly identifies the intent of a PUD as set forth in Section 178-52. Basically, it states that the general intent of a PUD is to provide a degree of flexibility and land use and to encourage imagination and innovation in developments. Furthermore, the commercial intent for PUD is to promote development of business centers with adequate off- street parking, to control access points on thoroughfares, to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to develop centers of size and location compatible with market potential, to buffer adjacent residential areas, and to encourage harmonious architecture between adjacent commercial structures. The Wal-Mart project does, in fact, meet the general intent of the PUD as it allows for a give and take between the Applicant and the Town to best meet community needs. The PUD process itself has allowed for consideration and incorporation of input from various parties, including the Town Board, the Town Planning Board, County Planning Board, County staff, Town residents, Walden Oaks, Walden Place and various municipal — or various agencies, including, New York State DOT, New York State DEC, Cortland Soil and Water Conservation and, obviously, the Town engineers. The Wal-Mart project also meets the intent of a commercial PUD. If you recall, some of the things that were identified, off-street parking was the first. This project does propose adequate off-street parking. The second was controlled access points. In this case, we have two z7 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 5 controlled access points which have been designed consistent with recommendations from prepared traffic studies, as well as New York State DOT. The project also proposes internal sidewalks connecting to New York State Route 13, as well as Bennie Road and also connecting to the proposed Wal-Mart outparcels and the bus shelter. The existing market is currently supporting the Wal-Mart and will, in fact, support the additional -- or the Supercenter with the additional amenities that go along with it. The project location is an extension of the existing commercial corridor and is, again, consistent with the Town Master Plan. Again, the proposed development does provide for adequate screening and buffering from adjacent residential areas. This includes maintaining the existing vegetation along Otter Creek, as well as a proposed sound wall for properties to the east, as well as properties to the south will receive either landscaping, berming or a sound wall. And as far as the architecture is concerned, Wal-Mart has worked closely with the Town to identify what they are most looking for in a building to meet the community needs. Through the PUD process, again, there is a give and take available. The town has identified certain objectives, certain things that they felt were important. One of these is increased landscaping, green space and buffering. As I just mentioned, we have incorporated this into the Site Plan. I believe the Town Code requirement is 25 percent. We've actually shown, approximately, 40 percent on this project. We've also included quite a bit of buffering, again, for the residential properties to the east, residential properties to the south, mainly Walden Place, as well as even including buffering of Route 13 with a large earth and berm and landscape plannings. We have also rotated the building to face Bennie Road with the back of the building facing the adjacent commercial development. And this was one of the requests of the Town. We previously had gone with a plan that showed the front of the store facing Route 13. This was not something they wanted to move forward with so we have, basically, adjusted the plan to meet their recommendations. Again, we've increased the pedestrian access with the proposed sidewalks and I've also incorporated some small picnic tables, benches and areas for people to, potentially, eat at. We have -- one of the major concerns through the Town process was the TLE. We have actually eliminated the TLE on this project and -- for environmental reasons. One of the other things was the garden center. There was concern over what was being stored in the garden center, so we've actually gone and roofed the entire garden center so that no storm water can actually infiltrate or rain down upon the landscaped plantings, whatnot, that actually resides in that location. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, for clarification, TLE? MR. MARKEVICZ: Tire lube and express. Additional items: Upgrades to the building facade. Again, we've tried to work with the Town to provide for a storefront that is -- meets the communities needs, it is esthetically pleasing. And also we have worked with the Town on all of these objectives, including some site modifications and we, actually, provided for at this time three -- well, I'll say three plans. I have guess, I'll call it, one plan and two alternative plans to address additional concerns. At this point, the Town Board will determine which of these plans will be adopted as part of the PUD approval. Basically, what we're showing here is the -- I'll call it the current site plan. This site plan was not the original site plan developed. This one actually took a quite a few considerations through the DEIS/FEIS process, as well as some of the Town concerns. The major items that have changed are the elimination of the TLE; again, the roofing of the garden center; we've also revised the truck route so that all the truck traffic basically comes in off of Route 13, stays parallel with Route 13 and never comes along what I'll call the Otter Creek area. We've also, obviously, made some small parking configuration changes. We've eliminated a right -out only which was actually one of the concerns that New York State DOT had, as well as the County. We've incorporated a bus shelter. We have incorporated a sound wall, again, to better buffer the properties to the east. We've provided for screening and buffering to properties to the south with a berm and landscape plantings, relocated cross -walks. Again, sidewalks, provided those, even made changes on some of the lighting to better conform with what the Town wanted to see. Another one of the major concerns or major changes on this plan from the original plan was the revision of the storm system. The original plan had, basically, kind of a wetland area and didn't incorporate tremendous amount of water quality. In this case, we're doing a -- I'll call it a first -flush basin or sediment basin. Storm water will head into there first. It will then proceed to, basically, a sand filter FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 6 system and it will filter into the ground. So now we're providing a -- basically, a double treatment of the storm water prior to recharging the aquifer. What we've got shown on the screen is now what I'll call the first alternative plan which incorporates s the Bennie Road relocation. This plan was actually presented within the FEIS document and some of the concerns that brought this plan about were both from the Town and New York State DOT. Basically, what this plan does is take Bennie Road and, in some fashion, it will dead end at Route 13 intersection. DOT has commented that that intersection that exists today is not a good intersection and it creates quite a few problems, so they figure why not try to get rid of that problem with this application. So we have, basically, adjusted Bennie Road so that it now comes through the site and, of course, we will work with the town as far as dedicating Bennie Road to them. Along with that, there was some minor parking configuration changes. Obviously, the outparcels changed a little bit and what we had to do on this case was instead of providing an earth berm and plantings for screening to the south of Walden Place, we've had to incorporate a sound wall because we no longer have the amount of room to have a viable outparcel and the actual earth berm. And the last plan -- or I guess I'll call it, the second alternative plan is, basically, the Bennie Road relocation, but it also incorporates the change of the parking stalls. The County Planning Board brought up the fact that the parking stalls we originally proposed were 9%2 feet by 18 feet in size. And Town Code currently has those stalls at 10-by- 20's. So what we've done, again, is look at the plan and basically revise the plan to incorporate these 10-by-20 stalls. Overall, there's not many changes. Obviously, the parking configuration changes a little bit, the green space changes a little bit; there's some other small little things that have tweaked. One of the loading turn-arounds, as you can see, has been eliminated, as well, in order to maintain the green space at the 40-percent mark and also provide the amount of parking that we require. One of the things that we'll also -- I guess when I say 40 percent green space, I also want to make it known that this is 40 percent green space for the project as an overall. If the Town does, in fact, take Bennie Road as a dedication, the project would still be 40 percent green space. However, the Wal-Mart portion may vary slightly from that, would still be above 25 percent, as Kelly mentioned, but could be lowered a little bit depending on what kind of right-of-way and what goes along with that town road dedication. The Town Board, again, must adopt a preliminary site plan in connection with this PUD approval. And any one of the three plans that I've previously talked about here can be accepted, but all the three plans will incorporate the comments, the changes, the intent of the DEIS and the FEIS and Statement of Findings. That includes, traffic, utilities, grading, storm water. None of these plans have varied significantly in those aspects. Again, there are some parking configuration changes and other road relocations, but as far as the main core of those items, there will be no major changes. Again, some of the aspects that the Town must consider and must actually approve as part of this site plan would be the Bennie Road dedication, as something that the Town has interest in: The building configuration, the parking configuration, the size of the stalls, the transportation facilities and the access for the property, again, grading, utility and lighting designs, the storm water mitigation, visual and noise mitigation and all the other mitigations set forth in the SEQRA documents, as well as the Statement of Findings. And, lastly, I just wanted to, again, go through the County Planning Board conditions as part of their PUD referral that Kelly had mentioned previously. As can you see, there are eleven conditions that they had set forth. I'll just go through each one and kind of talk about it for a brief moment. The first is the Town's acceptance of the Applicant's community needs statement. Obviously, that is incumbent on the Town to accept what we've described in those narratives. The evaluation of the parking stall size. As you know, and as I have discussed, we have not only evaluated that, we've come up with an alternative that the Town mat consider for approval of the PUD. The Town's acceptance of the alternative site plan and re -layout of Bennie Road. I believe the County actually recommended that they accept the Bennie Road relocation plan. So, again, that needs to be an item. Obtaining New York State DOP requirement for the required work. Obviously, we would be doing that anyway. The Bennie Road constructed as to Town specifications. Again, that would be a requirement of the Town assuming that it was dedicated to the Town. Evaluation of the Route 215/Bennie Road intersection which we have covered. �9 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 7 Acceptance of storm water operation in the maintenance plan. Again, one of the major items is the storm water here with the aquifer and, again, that would be one of the considerations that the Town needs to look at. Acceptance of this spill prevention plan. Obtaining Health Department approval for the restaurant within the building, as well as Health Department approval for backflow prevention. Obviously, we will also be obtaining these permits as part of -- just our due diligence in the requirements as set forth by New York State. And last is the Town determination that the project avoids or minimizes the impacts as set forth in SEQRA. Again, that's basically kind of what we're here for. We have the Statement of Findings and we're looking to satisfy a plan that will, in fact, meet those needs or those items that were addressed. With -- MS. PRONTI: Can you explain we are no longer pursuing the restaurant -- MR. MARKEVICZ: Oh, yes. Kelly brings up a good point. Originally one of the items that is included in a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter would be a restaurant facility. In this case, not only has Wal-Mart dropped the TLE and roofed garden enter, but they have actually dropped the restaurant from this store. There will still be the preparation of prepared foods, but again, no restaurant would be incorporated in any of the tenant spaces. Basically, that concludes the presentation from our end. We would certainly love to hear from the Board and Public as to any additional comments they may have on the PUD application. PUBLIC SPEAKER: What does SEQRA stand for? ATTORNEY FOLMER: State Environmental Quality Review Act. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Thank you. ATTORNEY FOLMER: You're welcome. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: It's not a Q & A session. It's a Public Hearing. Please make your presentation and we'll be glad to hear. I have a list of people that have signed up. We'll take them in the in order that they signed up, please. Mr. David Yaman. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Gentlemen, as you know, I attended many Planning Board and Town Board meetings during the process of the -- of changes the zoning regulations, the zoning map. I have not been very vocal during these meetings because I have agreed with your changes and congratulate you on the end product. In addition, I have attended many meetings about the Wal-Mart Supercenter proposed for South Cortland. This process has been handled diligently on your part and I applaud your efforts. I have also recognized the efforts from the Wal-Mart representatives to conform the site plan and building specifications to your suggestions and the professional way in which they have provided detailed information relative to the environmental issues, traffic flow and esthetics. I have also listened to the public discord both for and against the presence of the facility. In 1988, I formed the partnership that acquired the then -failing Cortlandville Mall. You may recall that at that time it was an interior mall that housed only Chapel's and Kmart with the rest of the interior portion vacant. By revitalizing the facility through the conversion to a strip center and a facelift and by bringing in the existing Wal-Mart store, I was able to help create an attractive retail community that seemed to blossom to its present state without, I might add, destroying the small community atmosphere. In addition, I developed a 260-acre parcel that now compromises Wal-Mart -- or the Walden Oaks Golf Course and quality residential community of Walden Oaks. Throughout its evolution, I have heard public grumblings about increased retail presence in South Cortland causing problems with traffic, competition to downtown, environmental issues, esthetics and now anti-Walmart rhetoric about negative social impact. Retail, service and commercial oriented business neighborhoods are a critical component to a well-balanced community. At times, these businesses are a conflict with neighborhood esthetics and environmental issues but not in this case. 3 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 8 The Town of Cortlandville's new zoning regulations have been revised to maximize esthetics by creating green space, smaller signs, better setbacks and more input by the community relative to architectural and other amenities, to mention a few. Through the; revised zoning map, you have prevented a spot zoning. Probably the greatest detriment to- quality neighborhoods. In reference to the PUD, in reference to the PUD designation that Wal-Mart is requesting, there are presently two parcels located in the Town of Cortlandville with this zoning. Both are my projects. In both instances, Village Park Condominiums and Walden Oaks Community, the PUD designation allowed me the flexibility to design products that met the demand of the community while offering greater oversight by the Planning Board. With major projects of this nature, this designation is a win -win situation for the community since it allows the developer the ability to use imagination, while it forces a community veto over every aspect of the plan. In 1988, I heard from environmentalists the same objection as to the development of South Cortland that ;you have been hearing for the past couple of years. Recently I asked my engineer to review and compare water quality today to that of 1988. He reported to me that the comparative tests indicate that the water quality is the same, except for one item, a slight increase in sodium. As you ,know, Wal-Mart has agreed to use salt only under extreme conditions and even then engineers' have indicated that the filtration system being installed by Wal-Mart will handle that product. In fact, I recall Ray Thorp indicating that he would support the Supercenter if Wal-Mart stored the system they had proposed. In addition, New York DOT is now under mandate to replace salt with a non -intrusive product in critical areas of 281 after that road expansion. During the meeting I have -- during the meetings that I have attended over the past couple of years, I have been -- I have seen the same group of people saying the same thing over and over again in opposition to the new Wal-Mart facility. Clearly, this is a relatively small contingency of citizens. If you abide by the community planning theory that' all the people own all of the land, then you will make the decision that represents all of the people: To support the presence of a new Wal-Mart facility in the Town of Cortlandville. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Kay Breed. PUBLIC SPEAKER: My name is Kay Breed and I live on Gracie Road and my remarks will be extremely brief. My thoughts on the need for a PUD are that it will allow for varied uses of that land and I think that the need for a Wal-Mart Supercenter is very important for the retired people in our community. They need a place where they can do everything in one store. I think that they need a place where they can go -- where everything is under one roof and they can make one trip out instead of having to make several or to go to several different places. My mother and father retired; they need this kind of a place to save money. They don't have a lot of income. There are a lot of people in this community that don't have a lot of income. I think that's the need we have here is to see a facility that will save us money on our groceries as well as our -- all of our other supplies and I think that the competition is always good. It's not going to hurt anyone: It hasn't hurt anyone over the last 12 years, it's not going to hurt them now and I think that's what we need is more competition and that's all I have to say. I think we need it for the seniors and the people in our community. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: I appreciate comments of that nature, but please if you can keep your comments to why this zoning should be changed from industrial to a PUD. That's the purpose of the meeting. Your pro or con statements are very nice, but it doesn't help us with the zoning change. What we're dealing with this evening is a change in zoning from industrial to Planned Unit Development. The presentation gave you the points; those are the points that need to be discussed. So if you can keep your comments to that, we would appreciate it. Dave Forehand. PUBLIC SPEAKER: My name is Dave Forehand. I live at 2910 Douglas Road. As mentioned, the PUD gives a lotta' opportunity, a lotta' people are driving a long ways away to other communities spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those hundreds of thousands of dollars could be spent in this community. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Scott Elston. 31 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 9 PUBLIC SPEAKER: Thank you. Good evening. When it comes to zoning, I don't think there's any question that they go to a PUD from an industrial zone is in the best interest of the community. So I'm definitely in favor of you voting for the PUD. And this has been a long process. I would like to say, when this started, I didn't have any children and now my second one just had her third birthday, so it's probably time to move this forward and vote yes on the PUD. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Arnold Talentino. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'll be talking about the PUD primarily in regards to the engineering that's been mentioned a few times already. And I'll read from a letter that I have addressed to the Board and to Mr. Tupper. Dear Sirs: Wal-Mart's PUD application is heavily dependent upon their claim that the potential dangers to Cortland's source aquifer can be prevented by a variety of engineering measures. In that regard, I would like to remind you about Ray Thorp's statement said at least twice in my hearing to the affect that engineering cannot solve all such problems. As we all know, Mr. Thorp's statement was based upon impeccable credentials. His career as an engineer and the fact that he was an award -winning teacher of engineering during his tenure at Cornell University. I would like to add, moreover, that Ray's position is not at all uncommon. For more than 35 years, I have been a contributing member of many environmental organizations. At this time, I count six national ones and one state organization. All citizen groups. And as a result, I have been familiar with the major environmental issues facing this country for at least three and one half decades. In the context of some of those issues, the opinion held by Mr. Thorp comes up frequently. Our environment evolved over the course of hundreds of millions of years and we now are just beginning to understand the complexity of the earth's natural systems as they currently function. We now at least know enough to understand that an engineering solution to one environmental problem will frequently create another. And we don't have to be engineers or even interested in the environment to know about what happened in New Orleans. The levies were not properly built and even if they had been they probably could not have withstood the surge of water that was so tremendously augmented by the engineered canals and channels designed to improve navigation and livability in low-lying Mississippi Delta areas which would have acted as natural buffers against the waves. Cortland, too, could be engineered into catastrophe destruction of its sole source aquifer. I personally feel that if Ray Thorp were still a member of Cortlandville's Town Board the PUD application would not have progressed this far. He knew that the aquifer is a precious natural resource, that at this point in the history of development in Cortlandville must be triggered with extreme caution. In respect for lengthy service and wise concern for Cortlandville, the Board has honored Mr. Thorp by naming the Town Hall after him. That is a nice gesture but a rather common one. Better, I think, that you truly Raymond Thorp by voting in his memory to discontinue consideration of the Wal-Mart PUD project. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Jeanette Keenan. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: I was just going to say that I don't know how anyone can speak for someone that's no longer with us. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Jeanette Keenan. I live at Fall Creek Road in Freeville, New York. I work in Cortland County. My comments have already been spoken, so I'm only going it take one second of your time simply by asking the Board to please approve the PUD statement so they could move forward with this Super Wal-Mart. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Randy Walls. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Randy Walls, 721 Lime Hollow Road. One thing that hasn't been spoken about so far in dealing with a PUD is one particular community need that I see that is solely missing in this particular area of Upstate New York is jobs. We need jobs. The Supercenter would add additional jobs in addition to what doesn't happen -- what will not happen in this case which happens a lot of times in other parts of Cortland is when one business moves in they leave a blank space and then there's a brown 3Z FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 10 building and then we have to clean that up years later. It's not going to happen in this case. Lowe's is going to come in and it's more jobs. So we need jobs. It's a community need. We need jobs. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Angelina Gilbert. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Angelina Gilbert. I live on Lamont Circle in Cortlandville. Hopefully what I am going to say addresses the zoning issue. I guess I don't quite understand what that means because, in my view, if this was strictly a zoning issue it wouldn't have taken this long. And really to change something from an industrial zone that has laid empty for as long as I can recall to a PUD that would allow the community to expand and prosper seems kind of like a no-brainer, so I really don't know if that's what we're voting on here. So my remarks begin like this. I was born in Cortland. I work in Cortland and I raise my family in Cortland, so if anyone wonders if I'm concerned about the environment of Cortland, the answer is, yes, I am. Many of the members of CAPE, which are some of the people here that are actively against the Wal-Mart expansion are, you know, very highly educated, well-connected folks, many of whom I recognize their names and faces from the time that I actually attended Cortland State. So while they've prove that may be loud and they have may lot of resources at their disposal and may be articulate, but I want to point out that I don't believe they are the majority of residents of Cortland County. My husband and I are fortunate enough to have greats jobs at one of Cortland's top employers but even with that we struggle to raise our family and make ends meat. So the possibility of increasing the number of low cost services and products by having the Super Wal- Mart in town seems like a fantastic idea to us. Adding to that the additional jobs that the expansion would bring, the picture keeps getting better. So we have lower prices for working families and our retirees and everyone in the community, an increased number of jobs that the expansion of Wal-Mart could bring, the potential for additional retailer to take over the existing building, as was just mentioned which would also bring additional jobs and opportunities, increased tax revenue which we haven't discussed yet, for people who currently have to shop outside of our community -- we make our money here we spend it somewhere else, does not make sense -- and making Cortland more appealing to other businesses such as restaurant and smaller retailers that tend to spring up around the Wal-Mart developments. They all sound great and yet we still have the question of the environmental impact to get past. It seems to me that with all of these smaller businesses and developments that have populated the 281 and Route 13 corridor lately -- we have got a new Essex Steel plant. I can't even count the number of car dealerships and auto stores that collect oil and tires for supposed recycling, the proposed road expansion of 281 which will undoubtedly increase the traffic flow in the area causing numerous different kinds of pollution that, to my knowledge, have not been addressed by concerned groups of this nature, numerous other large stores, including fairly recent buildings to house Tops and Price Chopper. With all of these businesses, why was there no sill apparent concern for the environmental impact? Why didn't it take that many years to get those businesses built? It seems to me that Wal-Mart has agreed to meet all the demands for the environmental protection that we have placed upon them. They've jumped through the hoops that have been requested. So it seems to me that he have a dream partner here. A business that has done its homework on the environmental impact, a business that knows the community will be watching to make sure that they are being good neighbors and respecting our environment, a business that has the resources to preserve the environment as demanded by the community and the business that has the staying power to maintain their in the community while offering great benefits to the working families of Cortland and the surrounding area. If you go the Wal-Mart in Cortland, you come with web site that's called walmartwatch- dot-com. That web site has sections on it called Battle Mart and Battle Plans and the Site Fight. This Wal-Mart proposal is listed on that web site with addresses for contacting our own CAPE organization. Interesting enough, the site also lists any number of ways that a group who wants to fight a Wal-Mart can come up with something to find against it. It also suggested if no such a group exists, make one and try to give it a catchy name. So the Wal-Mart watch site claims its goal is to challenge Wal-Mart to become a better employer, neighbor and corporate citizen and to get Wal-Mart to respond to a wider array of concerns about its business practices. Wal-Mart has addressed our array of concerns and agreed to be all the things that Wal-Mart Watch claims it was aiming for. So it seems clear to me that declining the proposal for the Wal-Mart expansion would be more anti-Walmart than anything else. The declining of the proposal would appear that our 33 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 11 leaders essentially cave-in to allow well-connected group that would not represent the majority of residents of Cortland County. So as I said at the beginning of my statement: I was born in Cortland; I live in Cortland; I work in Cortland; I'm the average person you meet on the street in Cortland. May I now add that I vote in Cortland and I say yes to Wal-Mart. Thank you. PUBLIC SPEAKER: You have asked two times to ask people to stick to the PUD designation. I'm sorry, I would say this no matter what side you were side on. This was an exceedingly long speech. Is there any way because -- we're going to be here until one in the morning. Would you be willing to remove people if they don't speak directly to the PUD issue? PUBLIC SPEAKER: I would just like to mention that I haven't come to each and every meeting to make my voice is heard. Tonight is my night, so my voice is going to be heard. I'm the average citizen that's here. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: I do appreciate it, but I will, again, say: If you would please keep your comments to whether or not the process should be zoned industrial, as it currently is, or whether we should change the zoning to a PUD. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: We're ready to be here until 1:30. PUBLIC SPEAKER: My name is Nick Renzi. I live at 1149 Davinci Drive in Cortland. I'm a member of the Planning Board. I'm speaking for myself tonight, even though John Folmer told me I can't just do that. I am a member of the planning board here in Cortlandville. I was -- prior to my retirement, I was employed by Pall Corporation for 25 years, the last 14 years of president of Pall Trinity Micro. I'll reflect on the application in line with the 25-minute presentation made by the Wal-Mart people. The Wal-Mart PUD application should be rejected due to incompleteness based upon the following: One: Wal-Mart has not provided a preliminary development plan that meets all of the requirements of the Cortlandville code. Section 1780-56(B)(2). Two: Wal-Mart has not shown how the PUD meets community needs. Reference Cortlandville Code Section 178-56(B)(2)(1)(I). The Cortland County Planning Department in their report dated March 10, 2006 raised this issue. Three: The PUD, as presented, does not conform to the spirit of the Town Code reference 178-54(A)(3) wherein a PUD, quote, must provide for an appropriate mix of uses, end quote. Additionally, the Wal-Mart application for a PUD should not be approved since the Town Board, its lead agency, has violated the directive of 6-NYCRR-617(11)(D) which is the SEQRA manual. And that; A, failed to consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the FEIS; B, failed to weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations; C, incorrectly certified that the requirements of SEQRA have been met; and, D, incorrectly certified that the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practically. The Town Board, in adapting the Finding Statement based on the FEIS, incorrectly and contrary to SEQRA requirements, deferred resolution of mitigation measures to the Planning Board in the areas of traffic, reference, page 14 conclusion; drainage, reference page 20, item eight; and page 21 item nine; and ground water resources conclusions, item number 2 on page 24. On page 36, the Town Board requests that the Planning Board review the storm water management system in detail. That the Planning Board evaluate the appropriateness of the spill prevention control and counter-measure plan. Also, on page 36, the Planning Board has requested to evaluate the proposed snow storage areas, as well as the size of these storage areas. The actions being deferred to the Planning Board are issues that clearly relate to mitigation of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The Town Board, as lead agency, cannot defer mitigation measures to an involved agency such as this Planning Board. Moreover, the Town Board, as lead agency, cannot satisfy its obligations under part 617- 11(D) unless it considers the extent to which the identified adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated. Not having executed their responsibility, the Town Board's acceptance of the Finding Statement and the FEIS is severely flawed and unacceptable thereby making a legal decision on the PUD application impossible. 39 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 12 In the Cortlandville Town Code, in the section dealing with Planned Unit Development, specifically Section 178-52, titled "Statement of Intent," it is stated that the PUD is, quote, to provide a degree of flexibility and land use and to encourage imagination and innovation in developments. Planned Unit Developments must be consistent with the intent of this chapter and the Town of Cortlandville development plan. End quote. The reference is made to the Cortlandville Development Plan. Some of you may remember this document that was published initially in July of 1976 and revised in April of 1978. This Development Plan states on page 172, quote, finally, the development plan embodies the planning concept of new small scale communities, often referred to as Planned Unit Developments. A Planned Unit Development, PUD, is one of the newer ways to design residential neighborhoods that can provide a better living environment for the people who live there and produce more benefits for the town and the developer. The narrative continues with: In addition, this concept would encourage, to a limited extent, a mixture of land uses, such as a neighborhood shopping center, school, library and a variety of houses types, to residential living and some industrial uses. The narrative continues: The advantages of living in a Planned Unit Development are larger houses, more choices of houses, preservations of natural features, community recreation space, safe pedestrian ways and safer streets and the opportunity to live in a newly planned community. The development plan, which is 30 years old, clearly describes the Walden Oaks and Green Peek Developments. Regardless of which view one takes of the definition of the PUD the external fact is that the Cortlandville Development Plan, as referenced in the Town Code, has legal standing and must be used in a decision making process. I would urge the Town Board to use the Development Plan since not to do so violates the directive of the Cortlandville Town Code. The New York State Department of States Local Government Handbook page 162 states quote: The PUD concept, allows a combination of uses such as single and multiple family, residential, industrial and commercial on a single parcel of land. It also may allow a planned mix of building types and densities. For example, a single project might contain dwellings and several shopping facilities, office space, open areas and recreation areas. The Town Board must exercise care and diligence to detail and to weigh the facts of the PUD application carefully. A big -box store, be- it Wal-Mart, Target or even if it was a 203,000 square foot church is not a PUD in our Code or in the world of professional planning. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Andrea Rankin. PUBLIC SPEAKER: First I'd like to — my name is Andrea Rankin and I used to work for the County Health Department. First I would like to say one thing from the City of Cortland Water Department Report Card in response to Dave Yaman's statement that the water quality has not changed. In this years it says that the City of Cortland's rating is highly susceptible due to the highly permeable nature of our aquifer and the close proximity of land uses and activities to our three wells. The nitrate, chloride and sodium levels reported in this document will support the highly susceptible rating. In other words, they're all up significantly. One other comment I would like to make in terms of what Wal-Mart will bring that we do not already have in this community, I can't think of one product. Secondly, we really didn't get an answer from the Wal-Mart mem in terms of what size the parking spaces will really be. Anybody who has dings on their doors knows that 91/z-by-18 diagonally spaced or straight spaced does not make the -- PUBLIC SPEAKER: Told ya'. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Excuse me. I'm speaking you'll have your turn. The five cents you will save in a loaf of bread in Wal-Mart will be paid in Medicaid charges to the employers that -- employees at Wal-Mart that have to depend on other healthcare. And lastly, the -- it's been questioned about the length of this process. Well, you just simply need to ask DOT why it took so long to widen Route 13. It was dependent on the frailty of being located over the aquifer. My testimony is in regard to the community need for big box over a prime recharge area of our sole source aquifer. When Wal-Mart first requested zoning consideration of the polo field, I recall a conversation with a member of the Town Board about the impact Wal-Mart had on his family dairy store in another Town. Wal-Mart undercut the price of milk, drove the dairy business out 35 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 13 of business and then raised -- and then raised the price of milk. There was some assurance from this person that the majority of members on the Town Board opposed the building of Wal-Mart on the aquifer, then everything changed. There was the Public Hearing on the new zoning and a whole bunch of men in suits, you know, real estate, chamber -of -commerce types, spoke up, and their opinions seemed to bring a dramatic 180-degree turn in the Board Members' opinions of whether we should build a Wal- Mart on our aquifer or not. Suddenly CAPE's members, who have committed thousands of hours in research and thousands of dollars to hire environmental experts, found themselves on the enemies list. They were castigated as tree huggers, hippies, in other words, and other words I can't say in public. On the other hand, the William Street and South Main Street area residence blocked the building of an attractive County Office Building on the esthetics of a 170 car parking lot. Their legislators listened to them. They changed their votes and the residents got to celebrate. Democracy in action. The upshot of this is the County is now working with those residents to create long-term planning strategies. Our County Planning Department has not updated and I refer to a comprehensive plan in the County since 1978. Smith Corona -- TCE pollution happened in 1991, 1 believe. Despite remediation, the water under Smith Corona is still undrinkable in its long term planning we hope that the county takes into consideration the following history: My boss Jim Fuse [phonetic], the director the County Health Department was a water and sewer expert. When Smith Corona polluted the water, he literally ran around the Health Department with his red hair on fire. I remember vividly. The Health Department -- when the dust settled, the Health Department used this Smith Corona one million dollars in a settlement to map the flow of our aquifer. That done, Jim Fuse said, had we had this information, had we known the flow of the aquifer, we would have never allowed the development in the Cortlandville Corridor. Peter Jeffers [phonetic], former chairman of the Chemistry Department at SUNY Cortland, a friend of Jim Fuses who worked along with him on the Smith Corona problem, a water consultant who was just featured in the newspaper as a water expert, confirmed my memory on the exact things that Jim had said when I spoke to him today. In conclusion, the proposed, store does not qualify as a Planned Unit Development nor has it proven to fill a community need. The PUD law allows the Town Board to turn down this request without giving reason. Wal-Mart's PUD request is clearly, in the words of the Cortland headline, an end run around the purpose and legitimacy of Cortlandville's zoning codes. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Dr. Robert Rhodes. PUBLIC SPEAKER: My name is Robert Rhodes. I live at One Floral Avenue in the City of Cortland. First of all, I would like to read into the record a brief letter from Charlotte Angel who some of you will know. Charlotte's a member of the League of Women Voters, participated in the first public discussions of the aquifer during Jim Fuse's tenure on the Board of Health. She was also a member of the professional and business women's club. She participated in the discussions about the Smith Corona pollution. She served for many years as City Clerk for the City of Cortland. I'm sure she'd be here tonight if she could be, but she's over 90 and she's not in very good health. Nevertheless she wanted to be heard, at least briefly, on this. She dictated the letter over the phone. My wife took down her words. I typed it up and I signed it on her behalf. Dear Mr. Tupper and Town Board members, how will the Cortland Town Board be remembered? Is it short-sighted, ignorant, selfish, is it wise and courageous? You are living a legacy. A price will be paid for past and future unwise land use. We know the cost of past shortsightedness. You can do a turnaround. Prioritize care of the aquifer while you develop the necessary commerce. And copies of that letter for members of the board. I now speak on behalf of CAPE. I want to make a few remarks on the process that brought us here tonight and on a number of things that have been said by the Town Board as reported in the Cortland Standard. I'm now referring to an article that appeared in the Cortland Standard on 5, December of last year. An article by Evan Gible entitled, "CAPE Criticizes FEIS." I want to read just part of this to you. Town Board member Ron Rocco said he anticipates the Board will be ready to -- ready to issue its findings. This is on the FEIS -- ready to issue its findings prepared with the assistance of Clef Harper in the meeting Wednesday. He, Mr. Rocco, said he's not concerned about CAPE's objections. , I'm now quoting him. Some of the questions depending on what they are I'm sure the Planning Board's going to be quite heavily involved in the process if it gets to that FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 14 point, Rocco said Monday. We're going to get sued -- I'm still quoting: We're going to get sued one way or the other so we're kind of just anticipating that. CAPE has every right to object and Wal-Mart has every right to object. I'll have plenty to say when it's time to vote on this issue. And until then, I will be open minded and objective. Let me make a few comments on that statement. We're going to get sued. Mr. Rocco knows and the Board knows and Mr. Folmer knows that the Board is completely within its legal rights to say no to Wal-Mart's PUD application without giving a reason and that they need not fear a suit. Secondly, Mr. Rocco says: I'll have plenty to say. CAPE hopes that Mr. Rocco and the other board members will have a lot to say in defense of their decision. We hope, too, that something that almost never happens will happen, that all board members will engage in public discussion among themselves about their decision. Thirdly, Mr. Rocco says, I will be open minded and objective. I hope that I'm wrong about Mr. Rocco's open mindedness and objectivity, but on the basis of what he said so far, and I'll have some other quotes, I guess I'm not naive enough to think that he has not already made up his mind. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Is this about Mr. Rocco or -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are we actually doing ad homonym -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nobody interrupted the other side. Let him talk. PUBLIC SPEAKER: How's that? SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Let him finish his statement, please. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I think you have to let me finish, Folks. You may not like what you're hearing and I'm sure the Board doesn't like it, but they should hear it. Article appearing in the Cortland Standard 12 January, this year. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I read it. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Kevin Gible under the article called "Wal-Mart in Cortlandville's Boards Hands." It opens this way: Town Board members aren't tipping their hand on an upcoming vote over an application for a mixed two zoning designation for a proposed Wal-Mart center on Route 13 citing the need to remain objective until after a Public Hearing. Further on in the same article: Neither Tupper nor Rocco would say how they planned to vote and Town Board Member Ted Testa also did not want to make a prediction. Same article... I think it's pretty obvious if you go over there, that is to Wal-Mart, the place is jammed all the time. Now, that's simply not accurate. It's not jammed all the time. Rocco said. Echoing comments that Planning Board shared Kathy Wickwire had made Wednesday evening. The home improvement chain, that is Lowe's, the home improvement chain plans to construct a new building for a Lowe's store on the site of the current Wal-Mart building once the Wal-Mart superstore is constructed. It sounds like a done deal, Folks. When they have it constructed, not if they have it constructed but when. A little further: I'm quoting now, Mr. Rocco, again. I do think that it's ridiculous that this whole thing has taken as long as it has and how expensive as it is. Somebody responded in the Cortland Standard to Mr. Rocco's comment how long it's going on and told him -- and I say now if you're not willing to stick with the process beginning to end you should not have any part in the process. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I am. BOARD MEMBER: I am going to be here until 130. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'm also at the end, Ron. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: I object to a number of things you said. You cut me off. It's not that I didn't care about CAPE's objections. It's just that all of CAPE's objections had already been answered. 37 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 15 PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'm just quoting you, Ron. I'm quoting, now, from a editorial by John Carroll that appeared in the 23rd, January, 2007 paper. And I'll just quote one short section. He says: Even Town Board and Town Planning Board members have gone on public record in this paper favoring the Supercenter. Close quote. Now, if Mr. Carroll is right, that the Town Board and Town Planning Board members have gone on public record in this paper favoring the Supercenter, well, goodbye objectivity. If he's wrong, why haven't those board members done the honorable thing and said to Mr. Carol, John, you're wrong; we didn't say this at all. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: I realize I'm speaking to -- I don't know exactly new because nobody seems to be listening, but please, industrial- zone to a PUD. The last two speakers mentioned PUD once. Please, PUD industrial zone, whether you're in favor of Wal-Mart or opposed to Wal-Mart is not why we're here. We're here to whether we should change the zoning or not. Conrad Blackwell. PUBLIC SPEAKER: May name is Conrad Blackwell. I live on Groton Avenue. I don't have any comments to add to what's already been said, but I would like to urge the Board to change the zoning from industrial to PUD. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Grace Meddaugh. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I have a letter here that I'm going to read for CAPE. It's very short. A previous Public Hearing CAPE submitted a petition that contains signatures of people opposed to Wal-Mart's Supercenter PUD proposal. When the petitions were submitted to the Town, Board members glanced through them and made a statement indicating many of the signatures were from people outside Cortland County. This statement, which became part of public record, misrepresented the overall content of the petition. As a result, we would like to set the public record straight. The petitions contained 2,392 signatures. The breakdown by residents is as follows: 1609 or 67 percent are from residents in Cortlandville or the City of Cortland; 361 or 15 percent of the residents of Homer; 153 or 6 percent are from residents from other parts of Cortland County; 269, or 11 percent, are from outside Cortland County. The sum of 2,123 or 89 percent of the signatures are from Cortland County residents with an overwhelming majority residing in Cortlandville or the City of Cortland. There were 269 signatures, or 11 percent, from outside Cortland County, a substantial number of those out of the county residents were from Groton, Tully, Freeville, Dryden and McLean. Their opposition is specific because they're towns that border Cortlandville, have been identified as providing potential customers for the Supercenter. In addition, I would like to remind the board that CAPE submitted I I I tearoff statements indicating opposition to Wal-Mart proposed -- Super Wal-Mart proposal. Most of the statements had one signature, some had two, typically, a husband. and wife living at the same residents. These signed statements resulted from a mailing done to Cortlandville residents only. The statements were signed by a total of 100 and 77 Cortlandville residents who oppose the building of the Supercenter and they also vote for the Town Board. Finally, CAPE members have examined all the public files pertaining to Wal-Mart PUD proposal. Of all the letters sent to the Town Board from 2003 to 2005, the letters in opposition to the proposed proposal outnumber letters supporting two -to -one margin. In response to Wal-Mart's Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2006 letters to the Town Board in opposition to the proposal, again, outnumbered the letters in support, two -to -one margin. Now I have something I would like to say personally. I'm walking lightly but carrying a big stick. What is a PUD? It is a Planned Unit Development. One big box store and two outparcels, unknown occupants is a planned route around code or a PRAC. One question I have for everyone is: Have you thought about how close -- how close will disturbed land come to our water source? I believe the water table is 8 to 20 feet down. This is the 8 feet. When they do construction, they need to be at least 3 to 4 feet down for footers. This is 8 feet. Okay? You put in your footers, this is 4 feet right here. That's how close we're going to be to our water source. Are you going to be okay with pollution and the water soaking through the 4 feet that are left? I'm not. Please say no to the PUD and don't take a chance with our precious water supply that is FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 16 so close to the surface of the polo fields. Town Board, why even take a chance on our water becoming contaminated when Wal- Mart has already ruined the economies of towns across America and contaminated water supplies and then closed up and moved away. Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: I just want to ask the question on the petition that was signed. What was the question that people were asked when they were asked to sign your petition against -- PUBLIC SPEAKER: Were they in favor or opposed to Super Wal-Mart? PUBLIC SPEAKER: Do you want to see one? BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: I would like to know what it says. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I don't have one, but I know CAPE has one. Andrea has one. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Yeah, I do. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Philomena Curley. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Good evening. I'm here to talk about the PUD. PUD means it's a benefit to the community. My name is Philomena Curley. I live in Cortlandville so I'm part of that community. A lot has been said about the local tax benefit that will result from Wal-Mart number two, the Super Wal-Mart, yet there's has been no discussion about the 10 year tax abatement which is proposed in the Wal-Mart DEIS. This tax abatement amounts to about three-quarter million dollars using today's tax rates. I would like to ask the Town Board members, I have a question, everybody also had statements. I have a question; I'm hoping to get an answer: Can you please tell me if our property taxes will be reduced when considering the large tax grant to Wal-Mart? Thank you. I'll sit and wait for your response. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: We're not supposed to answer questions, but the Final Environmental Impact Statement states that they will not, will not, make any request for any tax abasements -- MS. PRONTI: Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: -- at all in Cortlandville. We're going to take a ten-minute break for everybody to take a little stretch, then we'll continue. (Recess taken.) PUBLIC SPEAKER: My name is Kenneth Henry. I live at Estates Motor Court up here on Tompkins Street and I'm one that is for Wal-Mart. We had a former speaker here a few -- a few minutes ago to talk about the pollution Smith Corona had. Well, if you drive by that side on 13, you'll see where it says industrial site. Is that what we want in here, another industrial site in the ground? I don't think so. I think we should have a place like Wal-Mart that give jobs to here, sales tax revenue. All these factories, bigger factory moves in there, what happens then? They get tax rebates; they get money to build a plant with. With Wal-Mart, they've got their own money. That's the way I look at it. I say, do their own thing. They got their own money. They create jobs here. Between that and Lowe's, how many jobs can they have here. Have a lot of jobs, people can be working. I'm for it 100 percent. They don't... Smith Corona is a factory. They contaminated the ground. Look at HEP and Allied Chemical up in Syracuse. They contaminated the ground. They're factories. Another thing you have never anywheres in the United States where Wal-Mart contaminated ground, have you? Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Dottie Thorton. 39 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 17 PUBLIC SPEAKER: Good evening, Ladies And Gentlemen. My name is Dottie Thorton. I live at 238 McLean Road Extension, lived there for several years, born on Tompkins Street extension, didn't make it to the hospital they told me. I guess I'm a Cortland resident, graduated Homer High with Mr. Tupper. I applaud all the work that's been done on behalf of the PUD. My points are that the variety that we could get of consumer goods at reasonable prices would be a benefit to Cortland. I would like to see that for all of us not just because we can't afford others, but because I want freedom, freedom of choice. I want to add, the competition to the market, it's never hurt before. That's the name of it. As far as Wal-Mart being a big box store and ruining the mom and pop, I understand the theory, but they started out mom and pop, and isn't expansion what it's all about? Competition, we need the competition. I prefer not to work in Ithaca. I've been forced to work there because we don't have the jobs here. I'm highly qualified, but they don't have enough jobs. Wal-Mart will hire me, I'm sure, when they get more jobs or maybe Lowe's. I'm spending my dollars in Norwich, Super Wal-Mart, I'm also spending them in the Auburn Super Wal-Mart. I prefer to spend my tax dollars here in Cortland. That's why I'm for the PUD here. Please vote in the positive. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Jim Mulherin. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I had a more lengthy discussion here on several points to make, but I'm going to shorten it because some other people in the audience have had made the same points I had. But the first point I would like to make is that we as a community can understand that your job as Town Board members and Planning Board members are a tough job to do, time consuming, difficult, sometimes very thankless, I'm sure but as a closely effected taxpayer who lives in Walden Oaks, I feel that the Board hasn't met our community needs. Much the same way as the requirements in the plant unit development application, there should be a clear indication of the community needs. At this very juncture you, as Town officials, have seemed to fail to provide that for people who have been involved with this from day one. You are our Town Board and you should have the best interest of us when reviewing and considering any project that affects the quality of this community now and in the future. When we as concerned taxpayers stand here in these public hearings which several of us have and have spent countless hours reviewing environmental impact statements, zoning regulations and other materials to express their views findings and opinions, we sure expect to be listened to and not put into a folder for others to be reviewed at somebody's leisure. A PUD application must explain how the proposed PUD will be consistent with the Town's development plans. The applications proposal is not consistent with aquifer protection aspects of the Town's development plans. The Town's June 2002 Land Use and Aquifer Protection Plan states that the future land use in this area should undergo increased levels of scrutiny before development is allowed to occur to safeguard the aquifer and its recharge areas. .In the concluding section the following statement is made: In addition, the types of development and redevelopment that occur need to limit the amount of impervious surfaces that are created in order to enhance and protect wellhead and aquifer recharge areas. In conclusion, we all know as taxpayers and community members that the Government is hard to trust and in the way of this project -- this process has been going and even with tonight and how things are being handled, it's starting to fade and I can only hope that the Town Board will listen to the few Planning Board members that have taken a great deal of time to make sure that their town is headed in the right direction by making the right decisions. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Kevin Murray. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Hi. My name is Kevin Murray. I also live in Walden Oaks. Right up front I'll say that I'm against changing the zoning. I had a letter typed and all kinds of things, but I just wanted to make a couple comments to the PUD and the need. My opinion, it's my opinion, is that we don't need a Wal-Mart Supercenter. That's my opinion. My opinion comes from the fact that I look at what we need to buy and what we have right now to buy it, where we have to buy it. We have a Price Chopper for groceries; we have a Tops for groceries; we have shoe stores downtown. We have lots of things. To have everything under one roof is a matter of, perhaps, convenience for some, but it is -- is it a necessary? In my 4.0 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 18 opinion, no, it's not a necessity. I understand one was making a point about some elderly folks, perhaps, needing to be able to shop in an area under one roof. I certainly understand that concern and I empathize. We look at the census data, 12%2 percent of our county is 65 years of age or over. It's not a majority. That's basically my point. That's it. I don't see the need and I would ask the Board just to maintain the integrity of the property. Line by line, go through the Wal- Mart information. Does it match up? Are they satisfying the criteria? If they are, make your decision based on that. If they aren't, make your decision based on. Then in the end no matter which way it goes, take a look back. Hindsight is 20/20. If this goes through, are there more jobs, are there better jobs, is the community better served, are there more taxes or are there not? Then if it indeed this does goes through and we learn that it was not a good idea, maybe another community could learn from it. On the other hand, if it was a good idea, then perhaps another community may be able to learn that point, as well. So those are my thoughts. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Charles Curley. PUBLIC SPEAKER: My name is Chuck. You can call me chuck, if you want. Chuck Curley. I live in here in the Town of Cortlandville. Moved here about three years ago from the Ithaca area. One of the first shocks that we received in becoming a citizen of Cortlandville was that our taxes were way out of line compared to surrounding communities. If you -- if you think of some nice areas in surrounding communities, you might think of Cayuga Heights. Turns out if you look at the tax rates in Cortlandville compared to Cayuga Heights, our taxes are 35 percent higher than Cayuga' Heights. If you think about Skaneateles, think, well, that's a pretty nice community; I bet their taxes are really sky high. Actually, if you look at the tax rates, their tax rates are significantly lower than ours. In fact, ours are 63-percent higher than Cayuga Heights -- or, I mean, Skaneateles. When I say 63-percent higher, I'm basing that on a figure called the tax ratio. Tax ratio of market value to dollar and property taxes paid per year. Again, it's shocking. Cortlandville, we're 63-percent higher than Skaneateles and we're 35-percent higher than Cayuga Heights. The reason I want to talk about taxes is because we have a significant tax problem here in Cortlandville. We are hearing from the. Wal-Mart circuits that there is some kind of a tax benefit in moving Wal-Mart down the road on Route 13. Actually, if you look at what the tax benefit might be, it could be one or two areas; it could be property taxes which consists of school taxes, town taxes and county taxes or it could be sales tax. So when the -- when we were being told that we have a tax benefit from a relocation of Wal-Mart, we need to really take a look at this. So, let's talk about sales tax. If you read the -- carefully, the Wal-Mart environmental statement, they conceded in their environmental statement that there's no sales tax benefit to their relocation. Why is that? Because there's no sales tax on groceries. Okay? So Wal-Mart concedes in their own statement that there's no sales tax benefit to this relocation. The next thing is property taxes. There must be somewhere, if the claim is being made, some tangible evidence that there is a benefit in property taxes to the residents of Cortlandville. So, can you,.,as board members, tell us that with the Wal-Mart relocation you'll have a reduced property tax in the future? This question was already asked once, it wasn't answered so I'm asking it, again. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: Are you talking about the combination of the county, the Town -- PUBLIC SPEAKER: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: -- the Town, the fire? PUBLIC SPEAKER: No. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: Just the Town. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Town, county and school taxes. Those are the three components that make up our property taxes. I'm asking you if there's a tax benefit. If you believe that there's a tax benefit to the relocation of Wal-Mart, then can you tell me that these -- any of those three taxes will be reduced in the coming years as a result of the Wal-Mart relocation? That's the 11 91 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 19 question. Will our taxes be reduced in the future because of the Wal-Mart relocation? Can you say yes or no or do you... Would you like to not answer that? BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: I don't know. PUBLIC SPEAKER: You don't know. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: I don't know. All I know is -- PUBLIC SPEAKER: Then you know that there's no significant tax benefits to that -- BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: No, that's your assumption. PUBLIC SPEAKER: You tell me you don't know so you don't know there's a significant tax benefit to the Wal-Mart relocation. If you don't know, then you can't tell me -- there's no tax benefit if -- you don't know if there's a tax benefit if you don't know, right? SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Are you in favor of the PUD or opposed to it? PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'm actually opposed to it for the following reason: Absolutely opposed to it because it brings absolutely no benefit to the local community, nothing. Nothing. I heard -- I heard the Wal-Mart attorneys talk for 31 minutes, and in that 31 minutes, they could not mention one tangible benefit to the community other than we would be proud to have a Wal-Mart store be the gateway to the southern entrance to our community. Now, that got applause from the Wal-Mart employees, but I think if you surveyed the community you might have a different response. So I am absolutely against it because there are no tax benefits, no sales tax, no property tax benefits. If you can't reduce the taxes, then you can't say that there's a tax benefit. Now, the question is: Do you have -- the next question that the -- I heard several times tonight, the reason we need another Wal-Mart or to move the Wal-Mart is because we have a shortage of grocery stores in Cortland in this area. Yes, I heard one person say we're losing $100,000 a year because people are going out of the community to shop for groceries. Now, my question to you: Do you have any demographic data, does the Board have any demographic data that supports that statement? BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: We didn't make that statement. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I know you didn't, but -- in reviewing that statement, you have to make a decision based on the arguments that are being presented to you. Do you have any demographic data that supports the allegation that we have a shortage of grocery stores in Cortland? BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: No, but... This is -- SUPERVISOR TUPPER: This is not a question and answer. We're here to listen to you. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but that question will be asked either now or later. The question about the economic analysis, terms of taxes, if there is an assertion being made there are tax benefits to the relocation of Wal-Mart, then that is eventually going to have to be substantiated. So you can either do an economic analysis now or do one later. Okay. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: Well, the school district stands to gain the most, rather large amount and then the County tends to gain the next amount. PUBLIC SPEAKER: That's right. BOARD MEMBER ROCCO: Then the Town. The Town's amount would be probably the neighborhood of $24,000, whereas the school districts about 400,000. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Actually, I thought of economic analysis based on Wal-Mart's figures and it shows that the project doesn't break even on a tax basis until year six, so for the first five years, there will be actually negative tax benefit to the Wal-Mart relocation and I shared that with you. I sent that tax data to you several months ago. I also sent to the people -- all Wal- 9z FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 20 Mart attorneys. No one responded to that so I would like to submit that, again, to you an ask you to take a take a stronger look at it this time. I also would, like to offer the services of an economist if you are interested in looking at tax situation in more detail. On an unbiased basis. If you have an interest in that, I can help you with that. In summary, J would like to say that I am definitely against the PUD because it does not provide any benefit to the community whatsoever, no tangible benefit. The whole underlying purpose of the PUD is to provide a service or benefit to the community. That's the whole emphasis of a PUD. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: John Caroll. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Good evening, board members. Good evening board members, Mr. Folmer, Karen Snyder, our clerk, fellow citizens. I will not talk about the aquifer. I will not talk about taxes. The title of my points tonight are PUD. I would like to offer -- before I start on my commentary, I have a few documents which I would like to pass to the Clerk here for the Board. The Wal-Mart Planned Unit Development -- the Eagles Club has submitted a petition and I would like to offer that to the board tonight. Twenty-six members have signed. In addition to the -- that document, on Monday evening, the supporters of the Wal-Mart group, prior to the meeting, a young man came in, introduced himself as being from SUNY. Well, he couldn't stay. He said, would you please present my letter to the board? I'm doing that now. I've created some copies because I think it's important that all of you board members get a chance to view this. He's put some very deep, deep thought into this whole process and he's very much in favor of the PUD. When I last stood before you, I complimented Mr. Renzi on the kind comments he had personally made to me about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. He said, Wal-Mart has done a good job. Considering Mr. Renzi's writings and the position he has taken in the past, I was to say the least caught off guard. Nevertheless', if one can give a compliment, the least they can say is thank you and I did to Mr. Renzi. PUBLIC SPEAKER: You're welcome, John. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Well, low and behold, Mr. Renzi has done it again. Allow me to quote from the minutes of the Planning Board of January 10th. Mr. Renzi said the following about the Wal-Mart PUD application: Wal-Mart has done a good job. From the Cortland Standard dated February 11 Mr. Renzi stated throughout the state environmental review process, Wal-Mart has done a good job in preparing its application. Ah, but to be fair to Mr. Renzi after each of these statements, he dropped a caveat and that was, he believes it to be incomplete. Gentlemen, what we are referring to here is the final impact statement contained in one of these very large volumes of which there's three. Contained with one of these volumes is a section on the PUD. This is what Mr. Renzi believes to be incomplete. Notice that he said "believes," not "is." Well, let's take a look at the same view from the Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed in reference to the PUD. The SEQRA findings statement was signed by Mr. Tupper and distributed to some further 16 interested parties. I have not counted Mrs. Pronti because she is counsel for Wal-Mart. So there we have some 16 people that viewed this document and not one, as of yesterday, has come forth and put it into writing to the Board, has said that the — has said that it is incomplete. I'll take those odds, 16-to-1, in any New York minute. Moving on, I would like to draw the Board's attention to Mrs. Mindy Zoglin's [phonetic] letter of January 4th to the Town Planning Board. In that letter she makes a variety of comments about the PUD stating that they're not complete. In point one of Mrs. Zoglin's letter she addresses the Board with a sneering remark that meaning of P in PUD should mean planned and not piecemeal. Now, Webster's describes piecemeal as gradually a one piece at a time. Well, had Mrs. Zoglin come to Cortland and done her homework she would quickly find out that the only other PUD in Cortlandville, Walden q3 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 21 Oaks, was and still is today being built in piecemeal fashion. Hence, a precedent has been established and piecemeal is an accepted means of development. In point two, Mrs. Zoglin claims Wal-Mart has presented stage development versus stage planning. The Town has been presented a plan that clearly defines the outparcel placement. There is no requirement in the Code that requires the name of the business in the outparcels. To end, the scenario is no different in Wal-Mart oaks -- I'm sorry, Walden Oaks. Maybe one day. Walden Oaks said they will build homes throughout the PUD. They are not required to name the future documents occupants of each home. Wal-Mart has repeatedly stated, outparcels are for business except for a residence -- a restaurant. The Town Planning Board at a latter date will determine if those businesses are suitable for the PUD. Once again, Mrs. Zoglin should have reviewed how Walden Oaks was developed. Time does not permit me to go through the balance of her letter, but considering the first two points, I would say that her letter is best put in a dustbin. Finally, I draw the Board's attention to page 9 of the SEQRA findings statement under the heading "Conclusions" which in part reads: All of the planned uses of the proposed Supercenter are permitted in a commercial PUD. And a commercial PUD is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed project is substantially in compliance with the Town's design and development guidelines, even though they are not applied to this project. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Town's Land and Use Aquifer Protection Plan for New York State Route 281 and 13 Corridor area for commercial uses. Gentlemen, these statements, which you have acknowledged and Mr. Tupper has signed off on, recognize Wal-Mart's application for this change to PUD zoning, and in view of your very positive statements, I would ask that you provide a unanimous positive vote for the PUD application. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Pam Jenkins. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Town Board members, my name is Pam Jenkins. I've lived in Cortlandville for many years and tonight I'm going to read into the record a letter from Jamie Dangler who couldn't be here. It's on behalf of CAPE. Mr. Tupper and Town Board Members, CAPE urges the Cortlandville Town Board to disapprove the Wal-Mart PUD application for the following reasons: According to the Town Code, a Planned Unit Development must provide for an appropriate mix of uses and adequate allowance for completion of overall concepts. Wal-Mart appears to provide for a staged development but fails to address whether they will be an appropriate mix of uses and adequate allowance for completion of overall concepts as required by the Town Code, 78-54(A)(3). Must means that there is no discretion to waive this requirement that there be an appropriate mix of uses. The PUD application is premature if this requirement is not met. It is not met because there are no specific plans for the use of the outparcels. How can one big box store with outparcels that have no identified occupants constitute a mixture of uses? This requirement of the Town Code has been substantially overlooked by the PUD application. In addition, as mentioned in our attorney's April 3, 2006 letter, the Town has violated its own procedures by considering this application because there must be legal purchase offers on all parcels involved in the PUD prior to submission for primary approval. Where are the legal purchase offers from the occupants of parcels involved in the PUD proposal? The Town has an obligation to produce them for the public to review before any further consideration is given to this PUD application. The PUD application is to include a schedule of development of the remaining PUD land, 178-56 (13)(2)(J). This schedule submitted by Wal-Mart expressed in a February 21, 2005 letter from ADP Engineering says the following: The Wal-Mart Supercenter would commence construction upon receipt of all necessary approvals. The remaining two outparcels would come back before the Boards for approval once final uses were identified. Although no actual time lines are known for the development of the outparcels, we believe that they would occur within a few years of commencement of the Wal- Mart project. This is not a schedule. In fact, it acknowledges that Wal-Mart does not even have an actual time line. There was no schedule of development of the -- for the remaining PUD land. The complete absence of a plan reveals the Applicant's inconsistency with the concept of Planned Unit Development. This inconsistency was pointed out by the Late Raymond Thorp, FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 22 Former Town supervisor, on September 2, 2004 in his letter to Ms. Kathy Wickwire, chair of the Planning Board. Mr. Thorp wrote the following: A great deal of discussion occurred at the Town Board meeting of September 1, 2004 in respect to the Wal-Mart request to consider the Supercenter or PUD. We would request that the Planning Board consider very carefully whether or not this request clearly fits the definition of a PUD under our code. On a purely personal note, I recall that -- discussion of the PUD concept way back in 1967 when we were developing the precursor to the current code. At that time, it was fairly clear that the PUD concept involved a zone with a planned mixture of commercial, residential, light industrial uses and open space for recreation. End of quote. Number three: A PUD application must include a narrative statement explaining how the proposed puddle meet community needs. 178-56(B)2-something. There has been no evidence presented to support the conclusion that a Super Wal-Mart will meet community needs. Wal-Mart's only statement with regard to community needs is that a Supercenter offers convenience of shopping for goods and services under one roof. In March 10, 2006 -- in its March 10, 2006 analysis of the PUD application, the County Planning Department identifies this as an inadequate indicator for community needs assessment. According to the County Planning Department, consideration of the PUD application should be contingent upon the Applicant providing further information as to how the proposed PUD will meet community needs beyond the convenience of shopping for goods and services not commonly found under one roof as is required by the PUD request. Furthermore, there is strong support for the conclusion that a Super Wal-Mart will be detrimental to the community and will, therefore, not meet community needs. Wal-Mart estimates that the Supercenter will generate 100 to 150 temporary construction jobs and, approximately, 400 jobs with a majority being full time. This information is misleading for several reasons. Since Wal-Mart already employs many people in the community, the net impact on employment is the relevant number to be considered. Although Wal-Mart has pointed out that employees in good standing with the company will be relocated to the new store, it is important to be clear about net employment changes. Net employment will also be affected by the number of businesses that are adversely affected by the increased competition from Wal-Mart. For example, if the increased competition results in a downsizing of a number of grocery stores, automotive centers, vision centers, etcetera, and if many of these businesses pay benefits and living wage to their employees, it isn't clear that the net employment affects will be positive even if the number of people in the community who have jobs stays the same. To the extent that Wal-Mart does not provide adequate benefits to its employees and to the extent that public assistance must be provided to those employees in the form of tax credits and tax deductions for low income families, housing assistance, healthcare costs and energy assistance, any benefit from increases in total wages paid might be offset by the cost to the community in the form of these various subsidies. This is especially important given the literature on the cost to taxpayers from Wal-Mart. And then there are many references about that to support the negative impact on a hosting community. It is not clear that the economic impact of the entrance of a Wal-Mart has been found to be positive for the local economy as Wal-Mart claims in its DEIS. The information provided by Wal-Mart is in no way convincing on this issue. The DEIS lists many issues -- areas where there will be a positive economic impact but does not attempt to identify, much less quantify, areas of negative impact. The DEIS sites several studies that have been undertaken to ascertain the economic impact of Wal-Mart but does not identify or discuss any of the possible negative impacts that may have been cited in these studies. The DEIS indicates that the adverse effects will depend on the response and market strategy developed by existing retailers. Indeed we are led to believe that existing businesses will survive by either trying to find specialties to stay in business where there are no disadvantages because of the economies of scale or they will capitalize on the expansion of economic activity that is complimentary to Wal-Mart in order to survive the increased competition. There is no evidence to support these assumptions. Wal-Mart further underestimates further socioeconomic impacts because it does not take into accounts the fact that local businesses tend to spend their profits in the community but Wal- Mart does not. What are the multiplier affects of this difference? Will community needs be met by the potential traffic problems the Supercenter will create? Considerable questions about Wal-Mart's traffic projections were raised in comments submitted by the County Planning Department and others. In addition, there is no comprehensive plan for development of the outparcels -- no. y5 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 23 In addition because there is no comprehensive plan for development of the outparcels, there is no way to fully address the traffic impacts. Finally, and most importantly, the possibility that a Super Wal-Mart will cause contamination or degradation of our aquifer casts serious doubt on the assumption that community needs will be met by this project. The extensive amount of impervious surface would consequent risks for flooding and contaminated parking lot runoff run counter to our over -arching community need to keep our drinking water safe and to prevent existing homes and businesses from the ravages of flooding. Number 4: A PUD application must explain how the proposed PUD will be consistent with Town development plans. A Super Wal-Mart is not consistent with the aquifer protection aspects of the Town's development plans. In reference to planning area 7, which encompasses the polo field, Chapter 4 of the Town's June 2002 Land Use and Aquifer Protection Plan, states that: Future land use in this area should undergo increased levels of scrutiny before development is allowed to occur to safeguard the aquifer and its recharge areas. In the concluding section, the following statement is made: In addition, the types of development and redevelopment that occur need to limit the amount of impervious surfaces that are created in order to enhance and protect wellhead and aquifer recharge areas. For all these reasons cited above, we urge the Town Board to disapprove Wal-Mart's PUD application. And then we also include a letter from April 3 to the Cortlandville Town and Board by Mindy Zoglin. And a letter... March 4, 2004 to the Cortlandville Clerk's Office and a letter to Mr. Folmer from Mike Berilsky [phonetic] on flooding. And then I'm also going to submit a letter by Bob Martin opposing the PUD application for many of the reasons I just read in the letter from CAPE, including increased risk of ground water pollution, increased risk of flooding, increased traffic problems, loss of existing businesses, and we urge you to disapprove of the Wal-Mart PUD application. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Mary Miner. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Mary Miner. I live in Cortlandville. A criterion for granting approval o f a Planned Urban Development is that the PUD meet community need. The proposed PUD on the Route 13 polo field site does not meet any community need. The Cortland area already has sufficient supermarkets with several of them being discount markets. It does not need additional food stores. The Cortland area already has a Wal-Mart. It does not need a different building to sell the same merchandise. The Cortland area does not need the risk of increased flooding. The Cortland area does not need to have its drinking water, i.e. the aquifer, potentially if not probably contaminated. Please do not grant approval to this un-needed PUD. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Lisa [sic] Krall. PUBLIC SPEAKER: It's Lisi. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Lisi. I'm sorry. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I have kind of a loud voice, so... I just want to refer to one aspect of the community needs with the PUD and that is the employment aspect. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Introduce yourself. PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'm Lisi Krall. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Yeah? And? PUBLIC SPEAKER: And I'm a -- a resident of Cortland and an economics professor. FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 24 A PUD is supposed to meet community needs. In this spirit, it is important for this body to fully consider the affect of Wal-Mart on employment because employment is, arguably, one component of community need. Wal-Mart has consistently argued that it contributes positively to employment in communities where it locates, but it is important to understand that there's evidence to the contrary. This evidence is briefly discussed in what follows: It is provided by non -interested parties; that is, parties not commissioned by Wal-Mart nor by citizens groups against Wal-Mart. In particular, I would like to refer you to the study; "The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets," and I have the copy of the study I'll leave with you undertaken by David Neumark, Junfu Zhang and Stephen Ciccarella is at Cornell. This study was published in January of 2007 as an IZA discussion paper. IZA is the Institute for the Study of Labor located in Bonn, Germany. The authors argue persuasively against the claim that Wal-Mart has positive effects on employment in communities where it locates. The analysis provided in this study distinguishes itself from others in the following way: It explicitly considers the strategic decision that Wal-Mart makes in the location and timing of its store openings in its assessment of the employment affects of Wal-Mart. More specifically, the authors demonstrate that there is a bias in the location and the timing of the opening of Wal-Mart stores in that these openings occur where the projected growth and retail is strong. In this sense, the more important question to ask is what the growth in retail employment would have looked like without Wal-Mart. The authors are unequivocal in their conclusion on this point. They state that the findings of their study, quote, deny claims as well as recent research findings suggesting that Wal-Mart store openings lead to increased retail employment. On average, Wal-Mart store openings reduce retail employment by about 2.7 percent implying that each Wal-Mart employee replaces about 1.4 employees in the rest of the retail sector. In this sense, the location of Wal-Mart in a community actually leads to a reduction in job growth over what would have occurred without Wal-Mart. Thus, even if retail employment increases when a Wal-Mart locates in an area, one cannot conclude that Wal-Mart has not had a negative effect on retail employment growth. The growth rate of retail employment would be diminished by the presence of Wal-Mart even though total retail employment may still increase according to this study, and I you I should take a look at it. It's a very well put together study that takes advantage of the full range of econometric analysis. In conclusion, there seems to be ample evidence that communities should be cautious and skeptical when claims of retail employment growth are used as an argument in favor of Wal- Mart. The Super Wal-Mart proposal does not meet the community need requirement of the Town's PUD Regulations because it will not provide any goods and services that aren't already available in the community. Furthermore, it will be detrimental to the needs of the community by causing a net loss of jobs in the retail sector. This happens -- has happened in scores of communities around the US and in other nations. There is no basis for arguing that this will not happen in Cortland. And so I'm going to leave you with a copy of this study and my statement and I do have to just add that it actually is quite amazing to me that Wal-Mart would apply for a PUD when one of the specifications of a PUD is encourage imagination and innovation in development. Unless the definitions of imagination and innovation have changed, I don't understand it. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Colleen Kattou. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Hi. My name is Colleen Kattou and I live in the City of Cortland. Hello, Everybody. The proposed PUD under discussion today is unacceptable and I urge you to reject the application. Our community already has an excess of the same goods and services that the PUD purports to provide. The application is therefore redundant and it's probably about as redundant as my speech is going to be. Any planned development anywhere must meet community needs. It's up to our community to collectively determine what those needs are. Our community needs to preserve, in a responsible way, our sole source aquifer and our water supply as a whole and assure 100 percent its safety now and for the future. Indeed access to clean, pure water itself is much more than a need. It is a right. Our aquifer is already being compromised by rapid and unbridled development as impervious 147 FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 25 surfaces increasingly cover vast tracts of sensitive areas and as petroleum products and other poisons and salts continue to penetrate into our water supply. The proposed PUD is environmentally unsound in that it further puts our water supply at risk by creating the very real possibility of impeding ground water drainage, increasing risk of flooding, as has been mentioned before many times, and preventing decent traffic flow in the area. It is wholly against our needs, rights and interests to allow development on top of the most sensitive areas of our aquifer. For any incorporation to even propose such a plan in that spot in particular is immoral and irresponsible in my opinion. This community needs to create opportunities for meaningful work to support local economies, to create a distinctive identity for itself, to preserve its unique landscape and natural beauty. We need to support downtown and family -run businesses and other small shop owners who are committed to the longevity of the community and whose profits stay in the community. We need to genuinely increase the number of good jobs in Cortland, not shift them from one business to another as this plan would most likely do. We need to diversify goods, services and shopping opportunities, not replicate ad nauseam what already exists. We need also to take leadership locally on global environmental issues and start working on alternatives to incorporate globalization. How we choose to develop our precious resources is testimony to the kind of visionary leadership that we need. I know that we have the ability and the desire and the power to create a community that strives to meet its own needs and that does not depend on others, such as developers, to determine those needs for us. So gracias. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Maxine Nagel. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Good evening, members of the board and fellow residents. My name is Maxine Nagel and I live in Cortland. The PUD should address community interests and needs and what would be in our interest. What I propose in the court of imagination has been raised is what Cortlandville needs is a commons. In fact, a Walden Pond. We need recreational park where people with disabilities could ride on calves and sit along side the pond. We know that wetlands are good because of the complex diversity that helps to remove nitrates and return nitrogen to the atmosphere and allow and sunlight to relive and break down some of the pollutants. Furthermore, we need bike paths and walking paths alongside of the hill connecting to the Fingerlakes walking trails and Lime Hollow. We need places designed for picnics and festivals. I imagine Shakespeare In The Park, summer season. We need native trees, such as pines, planted to shield Walden Pond from traffic on Route 13 and to protect the area from storm runoff and floods. We also envision an expansion of the Walden Oaks senior citizens center, adding transitional aged homes featuring energy efficient housing and vegetable garden. Many of the residents could be a part of creating this area. Vegetable gardens could be designed to give citizens of the complex another hobby and the produce could be used in the actual food preparation at the senior complex or a sort of farmers market that could also be located at Walden Pond. This green and natural scenario would create an attractive gateway to Cortland. It would create a memorable, positive and visual uniqueness for our area. This vision called Walden Pond is in the common interest. We think that Wal-Mart's vision in their PUD application are not. So I support the PUD for Walden Pond. Thank you for listening to my modest... SUPERVISOR TUPPER: That comes to the end of our list. I certainly want to thank all of you for attending this evening. We appreciate your comments and we will take them under advisement. Thank you. (Proceeding concluded at 8:36 p.m.) FEBRUARY 07, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - WAL-MART PUD PAGE 26 CERTIFICATION I, JENNIFER A. GOFKOWSKI, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I attended the foregoing proceedings, to the best of my ability took stenographic notes of the same and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of same and the whole thereof. JENNIFER A. GOFKOWSKI Respectfully submitted, laren. Q . Snyder, RMC Y Town Clerk Town of Cortlandville 1