Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2007FEBRUARY 08, 2007 C110Ur �9 0 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 LOCAL LAW OF 2007 REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the Cortlandville Fire Station located at 999 NYS Route 13, Cortland, New. York, regarding the enactment of a Local Law revising the Zoning Code of the Town of Cortlandville. Members present: Supervisor, Richard Tupper Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal L. Rocco Councilman, John Proud Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi; Les Sandman; Peter O'Connell; Mary Miner; Dick Benchley; Matthew Vitale; Bob Martin; John Mackey; Richard Buttny; Tom Pasquarello; Julia Ganson; David Milleth; David Yaman; Representatives of C.A.P.E.: Jan Thomsen, Robert Rhodes, Grace Meddaugh, Richanna Patrick, Arnold Talentino, Andrea Rankin, Colleen Kattau, Mecke Nagel, Sharon Stevans, Channel 2, Access TV; News Reporter, Evan Geibel from the Cortland Standard. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: I would ask the Clerk if she would please read the notice. TOWN CLERK, KAREN Q. SNYDER: Please take notice that a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville on February 8, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the afternoon of said day at the Cortlandville Fire Station located at 999 Route 13 Cortland, New York, regarding the enactment of a Local Law revising the Zoning Code of the Town of Cortlandville. The proposed Local Law provides, in part, as follows: 1. Eliminates present zoning districts as follows: Business, Industrial and Business Transitional and replaces them with the following: B-1 Neighborhood Business District B-2 Highway Commercial District B-3 Planned Commercial Business District I-1 Light Industrial Office, Business Park District J-2 General Industrial District 2. Defines uses in each district. 3. Specifies lot coverages for Well Head Zones as follows: Zone 1-a 50% Zone 1-b 60% Zone 2 70% Outside Well Head Zones 70% Existing Lots under 3 acres, regardless of 80% location (With special permit) Lots under 3 acres created after enactment 65% in Zones 1 a and 1 b, 70% in Zone 2 and outside wellhead zones 4. Prescribes bulk regulation to be consistent with text 5. Provides for maximum square footage for separate commercial, retail, professional or business use at 175,000 square feet in B-3 District. 6. Specifies green space requirements for existing, replaced and newly constructed buildings. 7. Adds necessary definitions. The Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Local Law will be examined at said hearing. This is by order of the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, which was dated December 6, 2006. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Thank you Karen. The Town Attorney has one correction that he'd like to make before we get started. rX FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 2 ATTORNEY FOLMER: I don't think it's a correction, but I want to call your attention on page two... starts talking about... septic systems... and all the rules and regulations administered by the Cortland County Health Department. ... Says shall not be less than two acres in area. The State of New York has recently revised this requirement as to the location of the septic and the well systems and because of that, the Cortland County Health Department ... to comply with the new state mandate. That requires that that last portion of that paragraph, it now reads shall not be less than two acres requires a larger lot and requires, according to the health department, 2.4 acres and I think you know that required... that change in this text because it is one mandated by the state and implemented by the health department. If this ordinance did not add 2.4 acres, the owner of a two acre lot, for example, could get permission to build under this ordinance, but would be unable to get a permit from the health department for it's individual water and septic system. So that one change to require a larger lot, the 2.4 as opposed to 2, 1 think we are gonna have to change in this text. Other than that, I think you're gonna hear about that later. But that one I think we are almost mandated to make. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Thank you John. Robert Rhodes. ROBERT RHODES: I'm Robert Rhodes and I live at 1 Floral Ave. And I'm speaking on behalf of CAPE and I thank you for the opportunity to speak. Given that there are so few people here tonight and I think most of those here are members of CAPE, I am not going to read my remarks but I will make copies of them available and the board members will also have a copy. First let me say that CAPE acknowledges the efforts made to add a better ordinance than the one proposed a year ago and we thank you for that. Then let me say that closer attention to some of the language in the proposal would result in an even better ordinance. And it is my intention to suggest a number of ways this can be achieved. I know that some, perhaps many, would say that I am nitpicking and everyone knows what that means. Well let me remind you that if you are not careful, our language can come back and haunt us. Words have meaning and they therefore have consequences. Even punctuation can change our intended meaning. Now for my remarks, which I'm going to give you in just a moment, I offer as my sole credential on this ... over fifty years as a teacher of English, and I have considerable respect for the way language is used. I'll just read the opening paragraph of this and then I will distribute. Dear Mr. Tupper and Town Board Members. Citizens for Aquifer Protection and Employment respectfully offers the following comments on the proposed zoning ordinance Chapter 178 Zoning. We've consulted with our attorney, Mindy Zoghlin of Bansbach, Zoghlin & Wahl about the proposed ordinance... frequent vagueness and ambiguity and language, we believe that the comments below point to problems that are significant with regard to its enforcement. I then go on... section on failure to use define terms; inconsistent and confusing language; the meaning of community aesthetics; reference to consultation with others; and several different subtopics that are inconsistent or vague or simply don't make very much sense. At the end of that, these remarks say supporting the spirit of the Town Board's wish to present the best ordinance possible we suggest the following additional changes and access. There are something like twenty short and small comments that are made. I'm going to give copies to members of the Board. Anyone else up to say eight or nine people who'd like a copy.... And again gentleman I implore you don't just slop this off and say that this.... Language matters. Be very, very careful how you read this. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Mary Miner MARY MINER: Mary Miner, Cortlandville. While I am appreciative of the careful consideration you're giving to some lot coverage concerns, I urge you to be diligent in not allowing unnecessary and unwise coverage. Flooding and drinking water contamination are serious threats/problems in Cortland and Cortlandville with impervious ground cover, buildings or pavement being a major contributing factor. Regarding a related zoning issue, I am perplexed, suspicious and fearful regarding the building size entitlement being raised from 15,000 square feet to 175,000 square feet. What possible justification could there be for such an increase? What possible reason? Why would the Town Board not want control over such a huge building project? Is this to provide an easier route for future commercial and industrial development to bypass the Town Board and public 5-1 FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 3 review? Is this to provide an alternative route for Super Wal-Mart to build over our aquifer should the PUD fail to obtain approval? As I stated, I am perplexed, suspicious and fearful. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Peter O'Connell. PETER O'CONNELL: Let me put my glasses on. Hi, I'm Pete O'Connell. I live at 3718 West Road, which is directly across from the Country Inns and Suites. Nearly five years ago the seven property owners, our neighbors, petitioned the Zoning Board for a change from residential to commercial. We've seen the entire neighborhood in that area change from a quiet residential area with barn and horses across the way to the hotel and possible future development next to the hotel. Due to the hotel, there's been increased traffic and it will continue to increase. The petition was tabled five years ago due to the work on this zoning change that is now hopefully coming to pass and the 281 corridor planning project. Our petition still has not been permanently addressed. It was addressed once and then reversed And although our taxes have increased 50% the value of the property has not due to the uncertainty of this zoning and of course the expansion of the highway. I believe the proposed ordinance is fair to our small property owners that are going to be hopefully rezoned into business. The lot coverage is fair for those small number of small parcels that exist. I urge its adoption, substantially, as written. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Bob Martin BOB MARTIN: Hi, my name is Bob Martin. I'm a twenty-five year resident of the Town of Cortlandville. Dear Mr. Tupper and Town Board Members. An area that should be looked at and revised in the zoning ordinance is the section on PUDs. I do not feel that the current section is adequate. The intent of the Town of Cortlandville on applications of the PUD is not clear. The following may be helpful in rewriting the section on PUDs. Definition: Planned Unit Development, PUD, zoning permissions permit large lots to be developed in a more flexible manner than allowed by the underlined zoning. Court ordinances may allow the developers to mix land uses such as residential and commercial on a large parcel and to develop that parcel at greater densities and of more design flexibility than otherwise allow by the underlining zoning district. PUD provisions often require developers to compensate for the impacts of their projects by setting aside significant and usable open space providing infrastructure needed to service the development or offering other community facilities and services. PUD ordinances typically leave the underlying zoning in place and offer the alternate to land owners to develop the site in accordance to the PUD provisions. A developing community that anticipates receiving a rezoning or site plan application for developing of a large shopping mall or a discount warehouse could use a mixed use PUD ordinance to negotiate significant design and use changes in the development. Instead of ending up with another faceless, commercial strip, the community may use it's PUD provisions to provide the leverage, consensus, and process necessary to encourage the development of a commercial project with a neighborhood feel reinforced by the addition of some residential uses, community facilities, attractive landscaping and building design. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. If the PUD section cannot be revised at this time, I urge you to do so in the near future to avoid future misapplications of PUD like the Wal- Mart Supercenter discussed last night. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Pam Jenkins. PUBLIC SPEAKER: She's not here. She's picking up her daughter right now.... SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Nick Renzi. NICK RENZI: Thank you Dick. And I know we're here for a public hearing and I really shouldn't try to answer Bob Martin, so all I'd say, is Bob, it's on the agenda. The PUD revision is on the agenda. This speech is gonna sound a little self-serving since I've worked on this project for the last five years and in a way I initiated it, so don't misunderatand what I'm saying here. The proposed zoning ordinance modification is one of the positive results of the Route 281/13 corridor study, which I initiated on June 11, 2001. I share Pete O'Connell's frustration. The Zoning Ordinance has been in development since December 15, 2003 when the first draft was produced. And since that time there have been discussions at meetings of the Cortlandville 5z FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 4 Planning Board, the Cortlandville Town Board, and reviewed by the County Planning Board. The proposal is the subject of tonight's meeting is a document that has benefited by the review of our boards and the public. Although the proposed revision may not meet everyone's priorities, it is far and away a very significant step towards protecting the environment while still allowing rural managed development. The proposal probably stands alone in terms of introducing the concept of lot coverage while addressing wellhead protection into three business and two industrial zoning districts. At the same time, the proposal addresses the need to not burden existing small lot owners from being able to make economical development happen. Issues such as lot coverage requirements reflecting on the proximity of properties for the Cortlandville wellheads has been addressed by allowing slightly more lot coverage for impervious services. The further away the property is from the wellheads. The allowance of higher lot coverages for lots under three acres has been addressed and some relaxation has been introduced into the proposal being discussed tonight. I believe the proposed zoning ordinance is a good example of collaborative effort that addresses the priorities of economic development and the need to protect the aquifer. I endorse this proposed ordinance, but I would suggest that the Town Board incorporate the following changes, which reflect current county requirements while others are corrections to unnecessary burdens and requirements. On page 2, item b, which John accurately stated earlier, the 2.4 acres - it's a county change and that is going to be incorporated. Item 2 on page 2, item C-4, the existing statement should be preceded with the following statement. ...This was a point that was made by Dan Dineen in his coordinated review and it was a very good one. The statement should be modified with this prefacing statement to that sentence: Properties that currently exceed the allowed coverages for their wellhead zones require that ... and then the sentence as it stands continues. There's no point in having somebody whose got only 20% coverage, if he's gonna modify the building that he's got to increase the coverage. He's already got more coverage than is required, so that's why the prefacing statement. The third item at the top of page 11, item B, floor area, I would suggest that we change, the change shall not exceed 175,000 square feet, to shall not exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area without a conditional permit. This phraseology of the need. for a conditional permit existed in the previous versions of the zoning proposal going back to April 21, 2004. Walt Kalina, who's a professional planner as a consultant through the town worked with us on this zoning modification proposal and his initial version of this had that phraseology in there. This original language does not prevent larger buildings, but does allow review by the Town Boards. This is an important change, which ensures well -managed growth. I hold this as an important correction to the existing language. I'd like to thank the members of the Cortlandville Board who took the time to understand this important Zoning proposal and a special thanks to Dan Dineen of County Planning for his thoroughness and his professionalism and all of his constructive comments and suggestions. This little speech was given to the Town Board members earlier and they've had a chance to look at it and they will do what they feel is appropriate to do. In the meantime, I went back and looked at this conditional permit issue and I have another brief statement to make here. And this is a supplemental statement. 175,000 square foot area limit is being proposed for the B-3 business district. The original language was that businesses in the B-3 district, "shall not exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area without the issuance of a conditional permit." The 100,000 square foot language was Clough Harbour's recommendation and had the Cortlandville Planning Board's endorsement. These two different statements prompted me to look at the existing code language. The existing code goes back to 1985 so it's been with us a long time. The Cortlandville Code for the two current business districts currently, and since 1985, has required site plan approval for indoor retail sales of less than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area and uses subject to conditional permit with a retail sales over 15,000 square feet. Large retail establishments have not been prevented from building in Cortlandville under the existing code language as evidenced by Tops, Price Chopper, Staples, Wal-Mart and all the rest of them. The question then is why the need for the 175,000 square foot limit? The "100,000 square foot without the issuance of a conditional permit" language is in line with the conditional permit language in the existing code. It's worked and yet large businesses have not been prevented from being built. Since the existing code language of requiring a conditional permit has served us well, it should be maintained for the B-3 district and the 175,000 square foot limit language be abandoned. The most important feature of the proposed ordinance would ... that I would suggest that the Town Board incorporate the following changes. I'm on the wrong page, sorry about that. Okay. The most important feature of the proposed code is a definition of lot coverage for the properties in the various zoning districts and wellhead areas. These requirements, coupled 53 FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 5 with the existing code language for floor area is practical, proven to be pro -development, and environmentally sound. The proposed ordinance with a minor, but important language change, would be the best product available to us. With regard to lot coverage, in the New York State Stormwater Management Manual, they reference a work by a couple of PhD's who talked about lot coverages. And when you get into it it, they are the gurus of lot coverage. They reference all kinds of documents. The lot coverages that we're proposing here are in line with what they are suggesting. In fact ours are just a tad tighter because we've got a little bit different situation with the aquifer situation that we have here in town. But, I think technically we've got a very good sound proposed ordinance. A couple of minor changes would be great. And I would recommend, respectfully, that the Town Board could make this an issue ... an agenda item in the next meeting, come to terms with it, and if necessary have another public hearing. We can get this thing done and over with. We've got two big priorities one is the PUD revision and the other one is wellhead ordinance, and I'd like to have those be unencumbered by this thing hanging over us. Thank you Dick. Thank you Board members. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Arnold Talentino. ARNOLD TALENTINO: I can't really improve on anything that Nick has just said and so therefore I'll save you all the pain of sitting here any longer than you want to. I, of course, endorse it and I particularly endorse what Robert Rhodes has said. So thank you very much and here's to short meeting. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Andrea Rankin. ANDREA RANKIN: Thank you. First I want to thank all of you for your patience in listening these past two nights. And I wanted to just make some brief remarks. If you err in your final zoning calculations related to lot coverage, err on the side of the conservative. Allow more green space not less. You can always add buildings but you can't take them away. I say this because Binghamton has experienced three 100-year storms in the past two years. Obviously, well a 100--year storm, as you might understand, is of such great magnitude that they would expect only once every 100 years. Obviously, Binghamton has a major problem. And the people in FEMA trailers that were put there in June `06 had water at their doorsteps in November `06 during another great flood. I was caught in that flood in November. Roads were washed out completely. Traffic at 81 was backed up 4 or 5 miles. It took me 5 hours to get home, and I had to drive over rushing water and landslides of rocks and mud. We've had our flooding problems here in the County as well. The Yaman Kennedy Park flood several years ago. 281 and Otter Creek most recently. Many homeowners suffered much damage from that flooding. The recent Federal report on cold climate change and February's college community round table climate change discussion with an economist, a hydrologist, and a meteorologist affirm the following changes. We will, in the future, have more rain because of climate change. We will have more flooding and our weather will be more erratic. Therefore, we need less impervious services, not more. This is a beautiful county, we just received a half a million dollars to make more arts and music come to Cortland. According to the BDC we have one of the fastest growing counties in the state, certainly in central New York. For the first time in several decades, the number of 21 to 34 year olds living in Cortland has increased. Because of telecommuting, young entrepreneurs with high-tech skills are moving here to enjoy the natural beauty of our hills and forests, the culture, the historical buildings of our cities and the more gentle pace of life in Cortland. Please take my concerns about the quality of life in Cortland County into consideration by finalizing.... SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Richard Buttny. RICHARD BUTTNY: I'll pass also. What's been said.... SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Tom Pasquarello. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Not present... 54 FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 6 PUBLIC SPEAKER: ...He was here. He said he'd have to leave relatively soon... SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Did anybody else sign in -in the back? That came in late? TOWN CLERK SNYDER: Yes, Jamie did. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Do you have the list? TOWN CLERK SNYDER: It's still back on the table. Are you the last person? JAMIE DANGLER: I think there's one other... TOWN CLERK SNYDER: Okay. JAMIE DANGLER: Mr. Tupper and Town Board members I offer these comments on behalf of Citizens for Aquifer Protection and Employment. And first I'd like to say that we commend the Board on its efforts to address concerns raised about lot coverage in general and lot coverage on small lots, lots of 3 acres or less in particular. The current zoning amendment proposal reveals an attempt to balance aquifer protection with a desire to encourage and support economic development. We do, however, urge you to reconsider a few specific provisions in the proposed amendments in order to address aquifer protection and flooding concerns. We also urge you to make a positive declaration of environmental significance for this action. And I'll explain the reason for that in a minute. First of all I'd like to say a few things about lot coverage and flooding, just to expand a little bit on some of the points that have been made already. We strongly recommend that you change the proposed percent allowable maximum lot coverage for wellhead protection zone 1-b from 60% to 50%. The 50% maximum lot coverage for this particular zone was recommended by geologist and Town Planning Board member James Bugh. According to Dr. Bugh, it was also recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation District hydrologist. In a March 2004 letter to the Town Board, Dr. Bugh sited a SUNY Binghamton study that demonstrated the potential for flooding because of increased pavement. In his view, and I quote from that letter, "there is an upper limit to development that can go over the aquifer and still allow for adequate recharge not to mention the possibility of contamination." Based on his analysis of the relevance of the Binghamton study to the Route 13/281 corridor, he concluded that because of quote, "increased run off from the increase in paved area, as the discharge in the streams increases, these streams will down cut and widen at the expense of adjacent property. Gullies will form on the landscape and eventually undercut foundations as well. This flooding and undercutting will impact Otter creek from the polo grounds to the waterworks including but not limited to the current Wal-Mart Store, the Racker Center, Cort-Lanes and the Country Inn and Suites." And I have his letter attached. In addition to our concerns about lot coverage in that particular zone, zone 1-b, we're concerned about the potential flooding impacts of allowing 70% lot coverage in wellhead protection zone two and in areas outside the wellhead zone, the last two of the four zones. The Town must fully assess the potential impact of this amount of coverage in the affected areas. It is also necessary to assess the impact of allowing parcels of 3 acres or less created by subdivision or other method after the affected date of the ordinance to have as much as 65% coverage in zones 1-a and 1-b, again higher that would be allowed. And 70% in zone 2 and outside wellhead zones. In addition to Dr. Bugh's recommendation for limitations on lot coverage, we also ask that you consider comments submitted by Michael Barylski of the DEC. His comments were submitted on the Wal-Mart draft environmental impact statement, but they raise issues related to flooding more generally. This letter, too, raises general concerns about flooding. Mr. Barylski notes that quote, "the berm on the property of the proposed Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Price Chopper, and new Wal-Mart, where it's proposed, has effectively separated Otter Creek from it's flood plane. As residential development pressures continue, in the water head upstream of the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, one might expect that the magnitude of certain statistical flooding events will only increase." He then refers to the DEC's January 3, 2006 letter to the Town Supervisor, which stated that quote, "Otter Creek, should have a detailed study of it's entire length within the community." The study was supposed to take place in 2006. Has such a study been done? Is the Town fully informed about the potential for future flooding? So we ask how you can justify 60% lot coverage in wellhead protection zone 1-b when hydrologists familiar with the local conditions have raised serious questions about its potential to exacerbate flooding problems. 55 FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 7 The next area that I'd like to comment on are the dimensional requirements, which have already been mentioned by a number of people. We don't understand the basis for allowing, without any qualification, 175,000 square feet in floor area in the business district. As has already been pointed out, the existing town code has a 15,000 square foot guideline in areas that correspond to the proposed B-3 district and many projects of much higher square footage have been able to be developed in the community. So we believe that the environmental impact of this change needs to be assessed before you consider adopting such an unqualified allowance with no further Town Planning Board review. Finally, I'd like to make some comments about the State Environmental Quality Review Act requirements for making a determination of environmental significance. And I'll point out that we did submit a letter - our attorney actually submitted a letter to John Folmer on April 13, of 2006 which layed out her assessment of the SEQRA requirements for the zoning amendment. The proposed rezoning amendments constitute a type one action under SEQRA. I know that you know that. The adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district affecting 25 acres or more of the district is a type one action. The changes proposed in the amendments to the Town Zoning Ordinance clearly exceed this threshold. A type one action carries a presumption that it is more likely to result in at least one significant adverse environmental impact. While an environmental impact statement is not a per say requirement for all type one actions, neither can an agency turn a blind eye to those impacts, which meet the relatively low threshold for requiring an environmental impact statement. In order to require .preparation of an EIS the lead agency must find that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse impact. We believe that provisions related to dimensional requirements, the 175,000 square foot floor issue, and lot coverage in the proposed amendment have the potential for significant adverse impact. As a result, a positive declaration of environmental impact is necessary. First, just a little more explanation. With respect to dimensional requirements, we submit that increasing allowable floor space in the B-3 district from 15,000 square feet to 175,000 square feet has the potential to result in at least one significant adverse environmental impact. For example the Town should consider whether the soils in this area have the weight bearing capacity to support structures that are so large. That's just one example of the kind of question that would need to be addressed in an environmental impact statement. With regard to lot coverage, the Land Use and Aquifer Protection Plan explicitly calls for a decrease in allowable lot coverage. That's stated in more than one place. It is not clear that the proposed amendments will result in such a decrease. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to take a hard look at this potential impact and consider changing the proposed percent allowable maximum lot coverage for wellhead protection zone 1-b from 60% to 50%. We also ask you to assess the impact of allowing 70% lot coverage in wellhead protection zone 2 and in areas outside wellhead zones. Similarly, it's necessary to access the impact of allowing parcels of 3 acres or less created by subdivision or other method after the effective date of the ordinance to have as much as 65% coverage in zones I and b and 70% in zone 2 and outside wellhead zones. How much land area could be subject this amount of coverage, and would there be adverse impact? And again, I want to make it clear, I'm not addressing this to the position of lot coverage for existing lots of 3 acres or less that seems a very reasonable thing. So the question I'm raising is for new lots that may be created, have you assessed the impact of a 70% lot coverage? For example, how many land areas might fall under that? Okay, so I want to make that clear. The Town as Lead Agency cannot disregard all potential impacts of such development in it's environmental review. For these reasons, the Town Board must make a positive determination of environmental significance and prepare either an environmental impact statement or a generic environmental impact statement. We respectfully submit these comments in an attempt to assist the Town Board members in developing a zoning ordinance that is enforceable and maximizes protection of the aquifer. And again, in closing, I think generally this new proposal captures much of what certainly the Board has set out to do. Going back to the corridor study, there's just a few other things, that we would ask you to. look a little bit- more deeply into in terms of the long term impact of what could happen down the road. Thank you. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: Mecke Nagel. MECKE NAGEL: Good Evening, my name is Mecke Nagel from Cortland and I'm presenting this letter jointly with Colleen Kattau also from Cortland. Tonight you're entertaining a public hearing on the zoning ordinance. You are concerned, as we all are, with potential and real flooding issues. The great flood of 2005 comes to mind and perhaps that didn't affect Cortlandville, but it surely did concern us in the City of 5(0 FEBRUARY 08, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PAGE 8 Cortland, so we appreciate that your are proposing a near 50% lot coverage in wellhead protection zone la. You have listened to your environmental engineers and concerned community members such as CAPE that lot coverage will impact drainage. We have heard a story that in Japan, if you build a house or a big department store building you will have to set land aside to build a temple in order to appease the nature spirits that were displaced by the building project. Well we have a bit of appeasing to do if we allow for giant structures, such as 175,000 square feet and 70% lot coverage. It sounds like the vision for Cortlandville is to buy into model of big box malls. The curious thing though is that big malls, Carousel Mall not withstanding, are on a decline and in fact Americans are starting to go back to the olden days of shopping in boutiques. So all over the country, big malls are emptying out of businesses and little shops and small malls like the Cortland mall, Main Street mall are cropping up. Perhaps the saga of the vast track of empty halls in the Riverside Plaza is a case in point of that old school of building big. Now here's another modest proposal for you. You got it yesterday. Hundreds of cities around the nation have joined a network of tree cities USA. Why not create an ordinance that requires builders to set aside a sizeable landscape buffer area, say 50%, for green space filled with trees, flowers and hedges. Developers and tenants of commercial buildings will feel inspired to take ownership and pride in environmental conservation at the same time of providing valuable jobs. The workers can take part in cleanups and plantings as volunteers have done all over the country. That would go along way in mitigating flooding, in preserving a country feel and improving the quality of life of Cortlandville. And soon you the Board, will want to turn to the tree commission for help in applying for tree city USA status and federal grants for reforestation. Couldn't it just be the case that combining prudent development with environmental wisdom would benefit all? Thank you for the.... Here you go. SUPERVISOR TUPPER: We appreciate all you coming tonight and with that comment, we will close the public hearing. Thank you. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Q. Snyder, RMC Town Clerk Town of Cortlandville *Note: This meeting was submitted to the Town Board for their review on March 21, 2007 and was approved as written at the Town Board meeting of May 2, 2007. Ll 1