The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-17-2001J JANUARY 17, 2001 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT REROB, LLC TAX MAP #95.00-06-12.120 A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of t1Ye Town of CortlandvilIe at the Town Hall, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York, concerning an Aquifer Protection Permit permitting the construction of a 6,670 sq. ft. convenience store/gas station with a fast food tenant and 2-bay automatic car wash at a location southwest of Route 281 and Lime Hollow Road in the Town of Cortlandville. Members present: Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Pilato Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't., Carl Bush; Water & Sewer Sup't. Peter Alteri; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi, Rerob, LLC Attorney, Mike Shafer; Highland Tank Engineer, Dick O'Dea; Wesbro Associates representative, Wendell Brown, Petr-All Petroleum representative, Pat Hyde; Tim Buhl of Resource Associates; Century Group I, LLC. representative, Walt Peterson; Cortland County Legislature, Marian Meiczinger; Cortland Health Dept. representative, Audrey Lewis; Cortland Water Board Sup'1., Doug Withey; Cortland County Sheriff, Lee Price; Under Sheriff, James Willis; News Reporter, Chris Nolan and several town residents. Supervisor Thorpe called the Public Hearing to order. The Town Clerk read aloud the published, posted and filed legal notice. (The following Public Hearing for Rerob, LLC. is transcribed verbatim) Supervisor Thorpe: For the record this permit application has been turned down by the County Planning Board and by the Town Planning Board. On that basis then I'll ask anybody who wishes to speak for this particular proposition to do so. Attorney Mire Shafer: Mr. Thorpe, Mike Shafer, if I could address this. If you don't mind I'll remain seated. If that's okay with the Board. You're correct in the recitation of the history of this application with one addition, and thatwould be, that when the matter was presented to the County Planning Department, the professional staff reviewed the application, realized there were local issues that would have to be resolved by the local Planning Board and Town Board, made no recommendations on those issues but said if there was a positive action in the town forums, set forth a set of criteria which they felt -would be appropriate to insure the safety not only for the general public but for the safety of the aquifer. I believe the plan that has been submitted takes into account all of those particulars except the one area and that's the placement of the driveways and we certainly are amenable to change the placement of those as that would get worked out ultimately with the Department of Transportation. I know that only because the County Planning Department are the professional staff of the county who are charged with the technical requirements and have the technical expertise to review these things and make some of these determinations. We have appeared in front of the Planning Board in two prior appearances. We have appeared in front of this Board previously on a zone change and in each of the appearances we have met in one form or another the argument, two arguments really, one is that a gas station is not allowed, is not a permissible use in the Aquifer Protection Zone, and the second argument being that if it was permitted under the circumstances of this application that it would set a precedent for the town which would work to the town's detriment in the future applications. I would like to address those two issues if I could, briefly. First, the first proposition is simply inaccurate. You have a system of Aquifer Protection in the town, which contemplates certain uses, which are termed prohibited uses, but they are certainly contemplated within the context of the statute if uses that will in fact occur within the Aquifer Protection Permit upon granting of the Conditional and Special Permits that are set forth in the ordinances. In fact, there are specific references that 17-46 and 17-48 specifically to grant these special permits for quote "prohibited uses" in the aquifer protection zone. So, we are not f aced with the situation where we are here asking 1 JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 2 /3 for a variance for an Aquifer Protection Permit. We are really under the special permit rules and procedures. The second issue is that this would set some sort of precedent for the town and if a similarly situated applicant came bef ore the town that you would have to move to grant the same Aquifer Protection Permit if it was granted in this instance. Again, I don't believe that's correct I briefed that matter to the Town Attorney. I think I've presented the applicable case law on that issue. Your actions are not a precedent. setting actions. You have legislature authority when you act in these circumstances. Somebody could come in next week with the same circumstances and you don't have to grant that permit and you are not going to be subject to a challenge or criticism because of that. Supervisor Thorpe: No, we understand that Mr. Shafer. Attorney Shafer: The status of the application is that Rerob currently owns or is in control of a petroleum storage facility gas station on the corner of McLean Road and Route 281. The nuts and bolts of this application is that we would close that station where the tanks have been in place for some .... I believe, thirty some odd years and we would exchange if you wish, that location for the new location on the comer of Lime Hollow Road and Route 13. The issue as we see it is one where we certainly have a commercial goal. The applicant Here wants to develop a commercial operation and I think this Board has been cognizant of the fact that could be a good thing for the town. But we also have something to give and what we believe we have to give is that we can provide a reduction of risk to the aquifer over what currently exists in the town, and that is because of the fact that we have a station we can close that we can restrict from future uses that would not be used as a petroleum storage facility again, and we would institute a gas station that has state-of-the- art monitoring detection storage facilities that we can in fact provide something that would be a benefit in terms of reduction of risk to the Aquifer Protection in the township. We have a number of technical people who are here tonight who I would like to have briefly address the Board to discuss some of the safety issues and technical issues. I would ask them to keep their comments brief. They would include Tim Buhl, our engineer; Pat Hyde, will speak on general safety issues; Dick O'Dea, who has expertise on underground tanks and storage; Craig Williams, who would speak about piping that would be involved in this project; and Wendell Brown, who would talk about electronic monitoring and spill detection and prevention. So, if that's agreeable, I'd ask Mr. Buhl if he would address the Board. Tim Buhl: I will try to be real quick. I dropped off a letter I don't know if the Board members got it. Here's a copy of it. Supervisor Thorpe: We haven't had time to read it. Tina Buhl: I apologize for being a little verbose. I won't read it but I will try to paraphrase it if I can. The letter was in response to the Health Department's letter, which you got last week in kind of a summary of what happened at the Town Planning Board meeting last week. Basically a model was done by USGS that showed under certain conditions that we're a low aquifer and a high pumping rate for the Terrace Road well and a low pumping rate for the city's well. It looked like when they did particle tracing, some of the particles from the proposed site could in fact enter into the area of influence of the Terrace Road well right here. We looked at and said so at the Planning Board meeting that you couple all those three things together they are very unlikely. The six month period that has to occur at a 910,000 gallon pumping rate, you'd have to have drought conditions for a six month period and the City of Cortland has to pump at a reduced rate of about 2/ million gallons a day, for that same period. For all these things to happen, highly unlikely. What we said though is, basically it's a tool, that this model shows you what potentially could happen. I can't stand here before you tonight and say, "No, nothing would ever Happen at this station, at here or nothing would ever happen at the existing site if allowed to continue". What we are trying to say in this letter to you folks is take the model for what it is. It's basically a tool. We feel it unfairly slants a little bit. against the new site because in fact, I guess, the city's pumping rate and Doug is here tonight, is higher than 2.z million gallons. It's actually closer to 3% or maybe even a little more based on the actual records of pumping going on. Which means that in the long run we don't think that the scenario that set up to make the model was entirely accurate. With that in mind It's my own engineering opinion as a PE and having done this kind of work for 25 years up here. That the new site, with all the protective things you are going to hear about tonight, located JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 3 farther away, has many more advantages in terms of protection of the aquifer and your well in particular then the existing site that's right nearby and that has older outdated, well not outdated equipment but not the state-of-the-art is really what we're talking about at the new site. Councilman Rocco: Relative to both wells or just this well? Tim Buhl: Relative to both wells. Either site is not really truly in the area that influence the city's well, according to the model. But that's a model, please take it as what it is. I've got extra copies of this here if you want. Councilman Rocco: Ray, can I ask you a question? How much.... our wells, the one right out here, how much are we pumping out of this vs. Luker... Water/Sewer Sup't. Peter Alteri: Lime Hollow .... Terrace Road well ... right now we're only pumping 625 to 725.... gallons a day, thousand gallons a day. Councilman Rocco: Right out of here? Water/Sewer Sup't. Peter Alteri: Right out of here. Tien. Kuhl: The model is set up behind you. Councilman Rocco: If we wanted to reverse that, could we? Could we reverse that if we wanted or if we had to? I said could we increase Luker Road's capacity? Peter Alteri: Lime Hollow? Councilman Rocco: Lime Hollow, yes. Peter Alteri: We could run Lime Hollow instead of this well, but we like the wells run longer instead of an on and off cycle. So, that's why this is the primary running well. Councilman Rocco: I don't understand, run longer? Peter Alteri: For a longer period of time, saves on the on and off. It's less disturbing to the system because of the on and off cycles. It takes longer to fill our tanks from this well because it pumps less gallons per minute. The other well is capable of 1400 gallons a minute and we can fill it in 3 or 4 hours. We want the turn over in the tanks but we don't want that on and off. We want the system to be... Tim Buhl: You could operate on a daily basis from either well ....If you choose.... Peter Alteri: If we choose to. Tim Kuhl: For .... sake I think I want Pat. Hyde, lie can talk a little about the site itself that we're proposing. Supervisor Thorpe: Be our guest. Pat Hyde: Good evening, I'm Patrick Hyde, employed with Petr-All Petroleum for approximately twenty five years and I just wanted to point out a few of the improvements that would be made at this site that economically can't be done at the other site and or physically can't be done at the other site. I'm going to refer to this drawing on the board here. Mike Curry distributed drawings to the Board members: Pat you want to hold on for just a second, I'll hand these out. These are identical just reduced versions of what Pat is going to be talking about. Pat Hyde: Okay, just real briefly I'll just hit the highlights of the comparisons between the two sites. This new site we'll be proposing to put in double wall underground storage tanks. The existing site has single wall steel tanks. The new site we have new state-of-the- art double wall flexible piping. The other- site has single wall steel piping. The new site would have a new tank monitor system, which is a newer model then what's at the existing JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 4 /'f_ site. They both have a leak protection system but the newer model is capable of more precise measurements on how the line leaks. The new site also has containment area here for any island run-off, if somebody were to spill some gas at the island, a customer say, overfills her car or what, over here or the tanker truck that's delivering gas for some reason were to spill some gas, it would be contained within this area by the grating and concrete and the drive mat. The pump island here would be caught in the catch basin, ran through a oil -water separator and then brought out here. The new site that is impossible to draw from wherever.... slopes from the property there. Mike Shafer: The old site you mean? Patrick Hyde: The other site, yes. The old site is impossible because of the topography of the site. The other item here on these, red spots here which are the catch basins there's going to be a filtering cone in there for any ground run-off, drippings from the cars, the cars in the parking lot, and they would be in these catch basins here before they're distributed to any ground sources. 'Again that's not the case at'the' existing site. Wiih that I would like to introduce our first technical person that will address the tanks. Just to give you a quick run down on what the tank is made up, I'd like to introduce Dick O'Dea, with Highland Tank, he's their Highland Tank's engineering and technical representative. Thank you. Dick O'Dea: Good evening. This organization has chose to use our HT Titan double - wall underground tank, which is one of the newer technologies in the tank field, itis comprised of a steel inner tank, which is wrapped with a high molecular weight thermal plastic, and some samples for you. The tank is situated so we have an interstitial space, which can be armed with electronic monitoring and basically provides two complete double walls. One, which is compatible with the fuel products of all types as well as the outer side which is also rust resistant and compatible with the fuel. Supervisor Thorpe: How about the lines from the tanks to the pump island? Dick O'Dea: We have a specialist here that will talk about that, that will cover that. But they do adapt to our tank, which is mounted with the sump. Any other questions? Councilman Rocco: How long has this been in operation? Dick O'Dea: We've had that about year and a half, two years. Councilman Rocco: And the span of this? Dick O'Dea: This is a thirty-year tank. It's approved. It has a UL 58 intert.ank, UL 1746 outer. It's approved and submitted to the State of New York DEC, EPA etc. It's an approved i.ank. Councilman Rocco: These are being put in everywhere? Dick O'Dea: Yes. They're applied, this is a ribbon that's puton the tank under heat and rolled on. It's very hot, very hard, very tough. Is that it gentleman? Thank you. Councilman Rocco: Is the other station, I mean, are the other station's tanks out of compliance? Things would have to change there anyway? Dick O'Dea: No, 1 don't believe so. Mike Shafer: No, they're in current compliance with all the DEC .... Greg Williams: My name is Greg Williams. I'm gonna just kinda describe -the piping that's being used. (He passed around a sample flexible pipe with a smaller pipe inside) Actually this is the type of piping that will be used. It's a doubly contained unit that you can see which will be the primary pipe that fuel would be passing through. This other portion here is a containment vessel in the unlikely event that there was a breech in this piping, anything that resulted would be contained in this unit here. Now, in your drawing there you can see where the piping, the advantage of the piping here vs. other types of piping such as at your other location, this is a continuous piping run. There are no breaks, no Ts no Ls. The only two connections in this piping are one at the tank and one at the /-6 JANUADY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEADING PAGE 5 dispenser or the pump. At each of those locations there's a containment vessel that this unit passes through so if there were ever a breech or a leak or any of that nature and that's highly unlikely to cave. It would be contained within that sump or containment vessel. Mike Curry: Greg, could you, indicate on that larger blow up, where the containment vessels are? Greg Williams: This is a containment vessel here on the tank, accessible from the top and bolted down. This right here is a containment vessel under the dispenser. This is the piping that is described right there, passes from that containment vessel to this containment vessel. Supervisor Thorpe: What's the capacity of the containment vessel? Greg Williams: This one here is 25 gallons and this one here is, I think, 70 gallons. There is a way of monitoring that and Wendell Brown will be talking to you about that. Primarily some of the advantages of this vs. the no T's, no L's, it's non -corrosive it's not affected by frost, heaving the ground or whatever. It's .... it is flexible. As you can see out there it's one continuous flow from the dispenser to the tank. Councilman Rocco: So if there was a spill inside here, you're saying, it would stay within .... Greg Williams: It runs into one of the sumps. Councilman Rocco: It stay in this and runs .... J Greg Williams: Into a sump, another tank.... Councilman Rocco: The possibility of this cracking, I was in New York just a little while ago, they had an earthquake, pray we wouldn't have one here but, I mean if we did and this thing moved, is this going to crack? Greg Williams: It's flexible to the point where, I can't tell you to what degree it would resist an earthquake but under normal shifting conditions, frost, heaving and so on it's flexible enough to move with it. Had it seeded in a keystone, so basically you have a trench for the piping, you have a bed of keystone through it and that does have keystone so it does have a good ability to shift with the climatic changes. Attorney Shafer: Don, my understanding from discussing this with Greg earlier, is one of the reasons for the development of this system is because the majority of discharges that occur in petroleum storage facilities occur at these connections and links in metal piping. This has been designed to take advantage of a continuous run so you don't have the connections. Also to provide flexibility so you do have a malleable delivery system if you have ground disturbance, earthquake, frost, heaving, those sorts of things Greg Williams: (could not pick up Mr. Williams' statement) Councilman Rocco: Is that over engineering vs. what's required? Greg Williams: That. exceeds what's required, yes. Attorney Shafer: As you recall there was a spill at the old site approximately twelve or thirteen years ago and that discharge from a self-service metal pipe. Is that correct? Atthe existing site, yup. Those pipes were then upgraded with some additional securities to them but they certainly do not meet that type of material. Greg Williams: Are there any questions from anyone? Supervisor Thorpe: No, not at the moment.. Greg Williams: Thank you. Supervisor Thorpe: Anything else Mr. Shafer? 1 77 � I 0 JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC BEARING PAGE 6 Attorney Shafer: One additional person, Mr. Brown and then we're done. Supervisor Thorpe: All right. Mr. Brown. Wendell Brown: Good evening. I am representing Red Jacket Line Leak Systems. Once the tank is in the ground and the lines are laid, what our pro -link monitoring systems does, it will monitor the interspicious space of your tank and we have what are called, Iliquid discrimination sensors{. It will tell the difference between gasoline and or water. This in effect then would tell you if the unlikely event of a leak in the tank, if it were an external leak then it would show as water. If it were an internal leak then the inner stice would have fuel in it. Also, the lines are tested as well through the submersible, and that. is an electronic line leak as well. It is a continuous system, means it's constantly monitored, it's constantly tested and in the event of a .2 gallon per hour leak, thatis about half of that Pepsi container right there, it will shut the system down. It will not be able to pump fuel. That's very simply, this is what it does. Councilman Rocco: I don't know if- I'm so concerned about just that portion but just the tanks themselves erupting. Rupturing. Should I not be concerned? Apparently that's not what happened with the.... I know this is not your product. Wendell Brown: You'd have to address Mr. O'Dea. Councilman Testa: You have any of theses existing stations right. now working some area in this area? Wendell Brown: Yes, we do. Councilman Testa: Where would it be? Wendell Brown: Pat, would you ... Pat Hyde: The closes one to us from here would probably be .... Apalachin, Binghamton area, Windsor, Canandaigua. Three of them this year .... distance, have tanks. Councilman Testa: Any over the aquifer too? Pat Hyde: Not over them, they're over, a water table, not... Mike Curry: Apalachin, I believe, is over the aquifer. It's also within three hundred feet of a well protection.... Supervisor Thorpe: Any other questions? Councilman .Rocco: If there was a leak at one of these stations and we went through this with the TCE and the stripper station and all the expense about that. Whathappens as far as from a legal standpoint. We have a massive mess to clean up potentially polluting the aquifer. The worst case scenario here which we have to consider, who pays. Supervisor Thorpe: A big lawsuit is involved. Councilman Rocco: A big lawsuit! This is a concern, a very big concern about who pays. Does a corporation go bankrupt and deny responsibility or go away or is there insurance that's in place that we have to fall back on here while litigation takes place? Attorney Folmer: If you're asking me that, I don't know the answer. Councilman Rocco: I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out who pays before any potential .... Attorney Shafer: I couldn't tell you right off the bat what the liability coverage for the corporation is. Certainly we're not a single gas station operation. This piece of property happens to be an LLC and has a single entity concept to it. Express Marts are all over the place. We can't afford to have a spill and not take appropriate action and have any credibility left with anybody after that. To answer your question, though, I think we have in lnnk at what we. have. tnd2v v-,. what we.'re. nrnnmina to have. if we. we.re. allnwe.rl to an f �JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 7 ahead with this project. We really believe, and I think that the technology backs us up, that we would have less risk, less possibility of that catastrophic discharge then we have with the existing facility today and the existing facility is in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Same, it's in the same zone as what we're talking about. Tim Buhl: Long term low grade.... problem too other then that ....with the potential ground testing.... Attorney Shafer: One of the things we have here, the Aquifer Protection Ordinance allows both petroleum storage. If we're coming in and say "We don't want a gas station, we want to have a storage facility for petroleum products and we need a Special Permit". It's clearly a permitted use under the ordinance. So, the drafters of this ordinance had in mind that there are particular risks involved in gas stations and we all know what they are because we all fill our cars up with gas. There's spills at the pump, there're people that drive away and ten gallons of gasoline plops on the ground before someone shuts the pump off. There're people that take their can of oil and they don't get in the oil spout and the manifold and it runs clown on the ground, those are the things we are looking at.. Pat touched on it briefly, because of the configuration at. the existing site, there's a lot of things we can't do. The oil and water separators, we just don't have the logistics to do what we can do with a new site, and also, it's a heck of a lot easier to engineer these things with new construction then it is to try and go back and retro fit an old gas station. I don't want to use the word out-moded because my clients don't like me to say that. But it certainly isn't to me a state-of-the-art gas station that we have today. Supervisor Thorpe: Can I make a comment, Mr. Shafer? Attorney Shafer: Yes, absolutely. Supervisor Thorpe: It seems to me and those of you who know me, have known for years I've been screaming about the storage of petroleum products underground and I said storage tanks and supply tanks should be aboveground and properly diked and all the rest. Of it. Seems to me that all this thrashing around that you've done here is for the purpose of avoiding putting the tanks aboveground. Now, I'll ask you the question and I don't propose to be the designer here because you've got a competent designer who designed this the way you wanted it designed but why, in the name of all that's holy, don't you give up and put the.... ranks aboveground? Chicago Bridge and Iron makes perfectly lovely storage tanks called .... or Seroids they make them in a wide variety of sizes, it seems to me that could be an architectural statement if you put your tanks aboveground and they were attractive looking tanks. Now, you'll tell me of course, that well the piping which goes from the storage tank to the island has to be underground so something is being buried underground. Perfectly true, but you also can design so that every inch of that piping is available for inspection by putting in some sort of a trench. Concrete trench. You know I spent a fair amount of time in my wasted youth wandering around petroleum refineries and it turns out that in the modern petroleum refinery, very seldom will they risk burying anything underground for the very reason that I site them. Seems to be that sort. of technology is well known. Why bury the.... tanks underground? Maybe someone can answer that question, other than the aesthetic part of it? Attorney Shafer: Yes, I'm not an engineer but I deal with the DEC, all the time and I know that this is not, your position is a well stated position, but it is not a uniformly excepted position in the environmental protection field. There are positive and negatives both to aboveground and below ground storage petroleum products and again I don't profess to be the expert on this but the discussions I've had with people from the DEC they have other problems with the aboveground storage facilities that they worry just as much about as they do aboutthe below ground storage facilities. Councilman Rocco: Terrorism? Attorney Shafer: All sorts of things, they worry about, obviously, all the collisions that occur aboveground, that don't occur very frequently but we don't ever.... very frequently either, vandalism. All of the maintenance of the secondary areas that have to be protected because you're not just talking tank integrity and line integrity you're talking about all the secondary containment systems that again are also subject to disruption weather, vandalism, all of those things. So, I think the Supervisor's point is well taken but it's not a JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 8 I universally excepted thought that we should have all our bulk storage petroleum aboveground. Supervisor Thorpe: Oh, I find myself in this position frequently. .Attorney Shafer: It's not that I disagree with you. I think that if you came back and said ok, we're gonna grant you this permit but we're gonna grant it on the condition that you guys come back with a design for an aboveground storage facility, I think the applicant would take a very serious look at that. Attorney Folmer: Mike, is there a reason why, you've already considered the above ground storage route and decided that it is inappropriate. Has it been considered in connection with this project? Mike Curry: My name is Mike Curry, I'm with Whalen and Curry I was the original applicant, I'm a contractor, I build these Express Marts .... I think Pat Hyde could address that. I would like to comment on that though. Within the past year, Express Marthas removed aboveground storage tanks from their facilities in Kato because they feel very strongly that they're unsafe. Supervisor Thorpe: In what respect? Mike Curry: I really can't answer in what. respect. But, I know they have gone to the underground tank because of one of the technology they feel at the corporate decision they made they're safer with underground tanks then they are with aboveground tanks. Supervisor Thorpe: Mr. O'Donnell, you worked for Agway for sometime didn't you? Does Agway store it's petroleum products above ground or under ground. Councilman O'Donnell: Both! Supervisor Thorpe: Both. Mike Curry: Are they gas stations facilities or .... Councilman O'Donnell: No, Agway terminal's.... Supervisor Thorpe: Terminals. Councilman O'Donnell:.... got all the bells and whistles for the environment .... Supervisor Thorpe: I don't. wish to beat this thing to death, I've given my sermon and is that it? Attorney Shafer: I just have one comment to close our portion of the presentation of the Public Hearing and that is in Mr. Buhl's letter to the Board he notes that the only zone areas in the town, the only general business zoning in the town, where we or some other applicant could put up a gas station are in your Aquifer Protection Zone. So, that if what the answer of the board would be, "Gee, we can't give you a permit because this is a prohibited use in the Aquifer Protection Zone" you know, you clearly see the problem with that position. I think we feel that we need to focus on safety, we want to focus on safety, we want to focus on reduction of risk and we think that really is the focus the Board should have and where we should go with this and we have the one thing we believe we can provide that 99% of the other applicants can't provide and that is we can close down an existing commercial site, remove petroleum storage facilities and we can prevent that. land from being used for that in the future. Councilman Vesta: Mike, I've got one question. This 281 facility, how many pumps do you have there, four? Pat Hyde: No, there's two. Councilman Testa: At the new location, how many would you have? Ten? So that would be five times greater wouldn't it? Five times greater. b iANTTARY 17, 2001 PT TRT JC'. HEADING PAGE q Councilman Pilato: I have a question. The difference in the cost between underground and aboveground storage facility? Attorney Shafer: Pat, did you hear that? The difference in cost between the underground as opposed to aboveground storage facility. Councilman Pilato: Yeah, if you were to put all the bells and whistles on an aboveground what's the difference in cost? Pat Hyde: I would say probably it's close to the same cost. If I could just address the question put out why we prefer underground tanks. One of the issues is fire. Ever have a car fire or something or run away truck or something. With an aboveground tanks they truly are aboveground, they're there. Most municipalities we dealt with.... Again, we prefer to go underground. Approximately ten years ago there was a large push to get the tanks out of the ground but now they have some of these areas that they've run across, vandalism, and other things. So, between fire, vandalism, aesthetics, takes up more room we chose to put them underground to control them. Supervisor Thorpe: Thank you. Councilman Pilato: I have one more question. So, you've got two pumps as opposed to one. Attorney Shafer: Ten pumps. Councilman Pilato: So, then I presume logically, then you'll have five tunes as much gas stored underneath. Attorney Shafer: No, it doesn't. Pat Hyde: The new, the existing site has 24,000 gallons the new site will have 48,000. Councilman Testa: Say that again! Pat Hyde: The new will have 48,000 the old site has 24,000. Councilman Testa: This is not related to it but up in Preble, would you say they're going to put ten up there if that ever gets approved? Attorney Shafer: A lot more then ten. Councilman Testa: A lot more then ten? This would remind me a little bit of it. Attorney Shafer: Oh no, there're just no comparisons between these two developments. Councilman Testa: No, ten times more business. Yeah, but you got a lot more going on there too. Supervisor Thorpe: Is that it? Attorney Shafer: That's it, thank you. Supervisor Thorpe: Mr. Withey, I gather you have more then a nodding interest in this whole thing. Doug Withey: Somewhat. Supervisor Thorpe: Would you like to comment? Doug Withey: Well, I'm commenting for Doug Withey. I want to make that clear. We know the effects of being reactive to a chemical spill, TCE. I think most of you have been here and relate to the costs, law suits that come out of it and the amount of time that it takes to resolve that stuff. It takes years, very expensive. The local water consumer, if it's a water related incident and we're right over the sole source aquifer, .... the only source of water we have. Water consumer is going to foot that bill until things resolved. It impacts JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 10 07 l everyone, if it happens. Councilman Rocco: Couldn't you have a tanker lose a hose and dumps its load right on Wal-Mart, at Wal-Mart? That could happen too. Doug Withey: Anything could happen. I mean it's Murphy's Law. Not just in petroleum, I mean anything can happen. I would say in relationship to the number of pumps, being five times as many but the storage is only twice as much, there's probably going to be more tanker travel. I'm just summizing that, I don't know if that's true or not.. There's a lot of things to be concerned about. We as water professionals were very encouraged with the fact that the Aquifer Permit process was in place. A lot of work went into that and it's there for a reason. Things do change however. Technology is better, this system is high-tech. But again, you're talking our sole source aquifer. The water for 40,000 people. Supervisor Thorpe: Mr. Renzi. Nick Renzi: My comments, Ray, are as a member of the Cortlandville Planning Board, citizen of Coi-tlandville and licensed Professional Engineer in New York State. Everything that, in my opinion, my associates have described here is state-of-the-art, probably a lot of it is required not they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They're good professional people, they'd probably do it if they didn't have to do it, but a lot of it has to be done. The question is really, you have 2 % acres of gas station, there are twenty pumps not ten, places where cars can pull up put gas in them. There're 120 parking spots in that design and it's really not a matter of being anti -business it's a matter of being pro -water. We only have one shot at the aquifer. Gas stations are not as precious as that. I wasn't at the last Planning Board meeting since I was out of town, but I understand there was a presentation by the Board of Health representatives and they recommended against giving approval to this. The Planning Board recommended against this. The County Planning Board also recommended against this. I don't think we ought to do it. My feeling is we shouldn't do it. My feeling also is we should do some homework and maybe work with the New York State Planning Federation and plan the future for the rest of 281 and Route 13 as what we wantto do because it's turned into gasoline alley. Between used car lots, new car lots and gas stations. If there's any chance of eves- getting any ambience in this area it's almost gone. I don't have anything against the used car lots and new car lots and all that, but we really have to have a plan, a master- plan as to -what we want to do, preserve the aquifer, preserve the environment, preserve the look of the area. I think enough learned people have recommended from a technical base and Tim makes a point, maybe it's worse case scenario that. the Board of Health is looking at but worse case scenarios happen. Worse case scenario is a guy whose gassing up his car and he has a lapse of memory and he's got his cell phone and blows up the station, which has happened. Gas stations have been blown up because of some idiot using a cell phone next to a gas tank. With all the people coming in and out of there, a lot of them aren't rocket scientists. I think you're courting with a disaster. In light of the fact that you've got crush proof hoses, you've got leak detection systems, _you've got double wall tanks, you've got corrosion system tanks. All of these things are saying there is potentially a problem and then try to address it all and it's got all the safeties in there. But it is a dangerous situation. It does put the aquifer in jeopardy. It's not the right thing to do. Supervisor Thorpe: This is a Public Hearing and now is your opportunity to speak either for or against this. Councilman Rocco: Ray, what if someone comes in next week and wants to put in a similar type thing to this side of Monarch Machine Tools? Supervisor Thorpe: Well, we go through the same procedure that we're going through now, really. Councilman Rocco: I'm asking about Nick's suggestion. Can you keep gasoline from being stored or whatever within this aquifer area and could we as a Board ban gas stations? Supervisor Thorpe: You're the legislature authority. You can do whatever you want to do. JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING Councilman Rocco: I don't know that to be the case. I don't know. PAGE 11 Attorney Folmer: Well, I think you could if you choose to do that. I think the current posture of the ordinance, however, is as Mr. Shafer has discussed it and that. is that there maybe uses which .... to deal with the application with the ordinance that you're working with and so what your suggesting is, I suppose, theoretically possible. Councilman Rocco: I'm not suggesting that. I want to know.... Attorney Folmer: What you're asking, can you do it? I suppose, it's theoretically possible. Attorney Shafer: Could I just kinda.... Mr. Renzi's comments. I don't disagree with some of the things Nick has said about the planning for the corridor. I live in Cortland. I'm very concerned about the 281 project. Some of my comments for the Planning Board had to do with specifically with planning issues, not necessarily Aquifer Protection but planning issues, and I agree we need to look at these things, however, just as John has pointed out we don't get to look at them by saying "we need a plan, so this application will be denied because we don't have a plan in place". That's not fair to the applicant and it's not authorized under your ordinance. Supervisor Thorpe: No, I don't think that was Mr. Renzi's intent. Attorney Shafer: No, I understand. But that would be the practical consequence of saying we don't have a master plan in place so we need to slow down in what we're doing. Now, I also take issue with the fact that Nick has put forth a statement that "all of the learned people who have looked at this". I agree that we have learned people on our Planning Board and on our County Planning Board but technical people that have looked at this, the only I've heard has been John Helgren. He was very clear that the model that he presented last week was not one that had been reproduced in the historical record of what had happened here in the Town of Cortlandville for city water use, town water use and or ground water conditions. It just had not happened. So what he really was telling the Planning Board is thatyou can do a computer model that will show that a discharge at this proposed facility could have an impact or six month flow period on the Terrace well site. That was really all he said that you can put together a model that would show that but he did not say that those conditions had ever existed. In fact he said they probably never have existed because it was on the basis of the city pumping 2.5 million and my understanding from Mr. Withey is that they've been pumping on the average about 3.5 million gallons of water. So, that we don't have that bottom number for the city, and the statements tonight were that the maximum usage has not averaged 950,000 gallons per day over six months period. So, the technical information of that report have not addressed the issues of what is going to be the safest method of design of petroleum storage facility over the aquifer, except what we have presented on behalf of the applicant. Councilman Rocco: Explain this chess game of the gas stations. They have one now that's fully operational and approved. If they wanted to expand that and acquire land if they could, they could establish almost the exact same thing in an area right close to our well, closer- to our well than the other location because it couldn't, the application couldn't be denied. Is that true? .Attorney Shafer: .... 178-44, you're right. That's a prior non -conforming use that can be expanded or enlarged or enhanced so long as it doesn't present a greater risk. Councilman Rocco: So, if they wanted to, in fact do this and they were denied putting it where they want to on a larger area, they could in fact expand this one down here because it's already an approved use, if they could acquire additional property. So, the issue is do you want it here or do you wantit there. Possibly! Possibly! Councilman O'Donnell: Where would it be better off? Councilman Rocco: Possibly? I mean, I'm not saying, I don't know. I have no knowledge of this. 1 1 1 Councilman Pilato: That's not the issue at all! JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 12 Supervisor Thorpe: The issue is the aquifer. Councilman Testa: The water! The water is the issue, Ron. Councilman Rocco: No, no, you don't understand what I'm saying! Councilman Pilato: I understand what you're saying! Councilman Rocco: I guess I'm not being very clear. They could expand then operation at this little gas station here if they could acquire more land, to expand the current use. Councilman Testa: Would that not be up again, heir. Folmer? Attorney Folmer: I'm not sure they could do that if they were going to utilize a different land acquisition. I think if they could build this facility on their present land, that's a permitted use, could not be questioned. Whether or not they would out and buy, I'm trying to think what adjoins this property .... Councilman Testa: Friendly's! Attorney Folmer: Yeah, they went out to buy Friendly's and expanded into that area, I think that's a different question, and I don't think, in my opinion, the theory that all we're doing is swapping one non -conforming use in effectfor another and when I say non- conforming I'm talking about Aquifer Protection Permit Regulations not Zoning. The theory that I can swap one non -conforming aquifer use for another and you still only have one. To my of way of thinking, is not consistent with the ordinance and is not good policy and I don't think it's the law. Councilman Testa: Mr. Thorpe, I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Attorney Folmer: I'm not sure you've got everybody here that wants to ... . Supervisor Thorpe: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this? Sir. Walt Peterson: My name is Walt. Peterson, I represent Rudco Properties, we're the owners of the Cortlandville Crossing Mall located across the street.. I've only been associated with Cortland here for, I guess about, thirty months since we purchased that piece of property. Since we've purchase the property I have to commend everybody here in town that we've worked with in order to do our expansion and bring other businesses into town which open in another- couple of weeks. It would be a little different scenario over at. the facility we bought.. Price Chopper will be open over there, as you know, in a few weeks. We buy and develop shopping centers throughout the United States. We had one thing that's similar in state to what you people are going through here and it was in Marathon Florida, which is clown on the Keys. It was a shopping center down there we purchased, it was a gas station on the corner, which had problems and we got involved in this and the gas station was roughly fitted with exactly the same equipment that these tank and hose people came up with here. This was down on the Coral Reef base that the whole Marathon strip, down there on the Keys, is based and it worked out okay. I'm not saying, one way or the other. The technology in regards to what can be done here, in my opinion, if you could get the technology since you have one station over an aquifer that is not of this technology nor could it be done that way, if you could get another one that could be done that way, I think we'd all be further ahead. We have other developments that we're gonna be doing across the street which hopefully will be into the Planning Board, will be some news announcements on it probably within the next few weeks and we're part of this community and I think one thing that. Nick said here, that is very appropriate, is I think there has to be a long term planning on what's being done on this particular corridor. Supervisor Thorpe: Thank you. Anyone else before I ask for a motion to close the Public Hearing? Attorney Shafer: I have just one last comment if I may. Supervisor Thorpe: Make it brief, please, Mr. Shafer. q JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING PAGE 13 Attorney Shafer: Very brief. I think Mr. Rocco's point is very well taken. You can't say just "it's the water". You have an ordinance, you have a structure of permitting and you can't. just say "it's the water so we're not going to have gas stations built on the Aquifer Zone" because you guys have set up, not you I'm sorry, the enactors of the ordinance have set up a system for how we come as an applicant. The issue is what do we need to do from a safety stand point to insure we don't present a risk to the aquifer and I agree with Mr. Folmer, this is, maybe I was the first one to use swap I don't think I was I think someone else was, it's not the right word. What we're doing is we are eliminating a known risk. We're taking that component of known risk and eliminating it and clearly there is another risk that is being substituted for that in your protection district, and what I'm saying is I think the correct way for this Board to look atit to tell LIs what we need to do. Maybe we need to go to a formal environmental impact statement and analyze each of these issues. Tell us what we need to do to build this in a safe and protected manner for your Aquifer Protection Zone. Thank you. Supervisor Thorpe: Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the Public Hearing? Attorney Folmer: If you're gonna close I want to make one comment so the record is complete. If I understand the action of the C.ount_v Planning Board, Mr. Shafer referred to the fact that the staff of the County Planning Board recommended that this permit request for all of these items Zoning, Aquifer Protection Special Permit, Conditional Permit, Site Plan review, be returned to the town for local determination. But, I think it is important that you notice, that you are aware of the fact that that was the staff's recommendation to the County Planning Board. The County Planning Board's recommendation, however, clearly is recommending denial of the applications. I only bring that to your attention because that has an effect upon the vote that you must take if you are going to act contrary to the recommendation of the County Planning Board. So, earlier on I don't think it was, I think the record needs to be clear. That the staff said that.... for local determination but the Board itself said we recommend, absolutely, that this be denied and said forth it's reasons. Supervisor Thorpe: Was there a second to the motion to close the Public Hearing? All in favor? Carried. No further comments or discussions were heard. Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman O'Donnell, to close the Public Hearing. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The Public Hearing was closed at 5:50 p.m. 1 JANUARY 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING NO.2 5:51 P.M. Rl .r 1 AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT CENTURY GROUP I, LLC. TAX MAP #95.20-01-03.111 A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the Town Hall, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York, concerning an Aquifer Protection Permit permitting the construction of a temporary storage bin for salt required for parking lot de-icing at Cortlandville Crossing in the Town of Cortlandville. Members present: Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Pilato Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't., Carl Bush; Water & Sewer Sup't. Peter Alteri; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi; Rerob, LLC Attorney, Mike Shafer; Highland Tank Engineer, Dick O'Dea; Wesbro Associates representative, Wendell Brown; Petr-All Petroleum representative, Pat Hyde; Tim Buhl of Resource Associates; Century Group I, LLC. representative, Walt Peterson; Cortland County Legislature, Marian Meiczinger; Cortland Health Dept. representative, Audrey Lewis; Cortland Water Board Sup't., Doug Withey; Cortland County Sheriff, Lee Price; Under Sheriff, James Willis; News Reporter, Chris Nolan and several town residents. Supervisor Thorpe called the Public Hearing to order. The Town Clerk read aloud the published, posted and filed legal notice. Supervisor Thorpe offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance. Walt Peterson, representative for Century Group I, LLC., explained the use of salt. and sodium chloride on the parking lot surface and calcium chloride on the sidewalks for ice melting purposes at the Cortlandville Crossings Mall. At the present these materials are in piles and are being covered by tarps. This is an inefficient method. As the piles get. wet the salt becomes difficult to use. Century Group I, LLC. is asking for a shed to cover the salt to it keep dry. Mr. Peterson also explained the drainage system used since 1972 runs underground across the front of Wal-Mart. It goes into the retention basin and eventually leeches out into the creek. Tim Murdock, employed by Rudco Properties to plow the parking lot at Cortlandville Crossing, explained the proposed salt shed they would like to build would hold 20 to 30 tons of salt. Approximately a ton of salt is spread at each application. Attorney Folmer asked Planning Board member, Nick Renzi, regarding the fact that the County Planning Board recommended approval with two conditions and the Town Planning Board recommended approval with no conditions. Mr. Renzi stated the two areas of concern with the County Planning Board were run-off and a negative declaration under SEQRA. Code Enforcement Officer, Bruce Weber, had stated a water -tight building was planned. The Town Planning Board then voted to recommend approval. No further comments or discussions were heard. Councilman Rocco made a motion, seconded by Councilman Pilat.o, to close the Public Hearing. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:03 p.m. JANUARY 17, 2001 6:03 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PAGE GREEN ROAD A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the Town Hall, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York, concerning the installation of approximately 1,600 feet of sewer main near the intersection of Page Green Road and Saunders Road in the Town of Cortlandville. Members present: Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, Jolm Pilato Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder - Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup'L. Carl Bush; Water & Sewer Sup't. Peter Alteri; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi; Rerob, LLC Attorney, Mike Shafer; Highland Tank Engineer, Dick O'Dea; Wesbro Associates representative, Wendell Brown; Petr-All Petroleum representative, Pat Hyde; Tim Buhl of Resource Associates; Century Group I, LLC. representative, Walt Peterson; Cortland County Legislature, Marian Meiczinger; Cortland Health Dept. representative, Audrey Lewis; Cortland Water Board SupI, Doug Withey; Cortland County Sheriff, Lee Price; Under Sheriff, James Willis; News Reporter, Chris Nolan and several town residents. Supervisor Thorpe called the Public Hearing to order. Town Attorney Folmer presented a synopsis of the published, posted and filed five page legal notice. He explained that on December 6, 2000 the Board adopted an order calling a Public Hearing to discuss the funding for the construction of an eight -inch sewer main near the intersection of Page Green Road and Saunders Road. This is to be conducted under Article 12-C of Town Law at the cost of approximately $150,000 to be paid for by bonds to be levied on the district involved. By prior action of this Board we have town wide improvement districts as opposed to smaller areas. The purpose of this Public Hearing is to hear if anyone has any questions of comments about the construction of that. sewer main. Supervisor Thorpe offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance. Doug Withey, Cortland Water Board Sup't., commented the city will be -relocating water mains on Page Green Road and offered the city to work closely with Town Engineer, Hayne Smith, to hopefully utilize the same easements. Attorney Folmer stated conversations have been held with the city. The town and the city will be working together. No further comments or discussions were heard. Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman O'Donnell, to close the Public Hearing. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:05 p.m. 1 JANUARY 17, 2001 6:05 P.M. R i PUBLIC HEARING NO. 4 SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CRESTWOOD COURT . A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the Town Hall, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York, concerning the installation of approximately 1,152 feet of collector line approximately 1,142 feet of sewer main along sewer laterals in the Town of Cortlandville. Members present: along Crestwood Court, installation of NYS Route 281 and the replacement of Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Pilat.o Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't., Carl Bush; Water & Sewer Sup't. Peter Alteri; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi; Rerob, LLC Attorney, Mike Shafer; Highland Tank Engineer, Dick O'Dea; Wesbro Associates representative, Wendell Brown; Petr-All Petroleum representative, Pat Hyde; Tim Buhl of Resource Associates; Century Group I, LLC. representative, Wait Peterson; Cortland County Legislature, Marian Meiczinger; Cortland Health Dept. representative, Audrey Lewis; Cortland Water Board Sup't., Doug Withey; Cortland County Sheriff, Lee Price; Under Sheriff, James Willis; News Reporter, Chris Nolan and several town residents. Supervisor Thorpe called the Public Hearing to order. Town Attorney Folmer presented a synopsis of the published, posted and filed five page legal notice. He explained that on December 6, 2000 a Public Hearing was scheduled for this time to discuss the construction of 1,152 feet of eight -inch collector lines along Crestwood Court and 1,142 feet of eight -inch sewer main along NYS Route 281 and the replacementof sewer laterals in accordance with the plans that are on file in the Town Clerk's office being generated by the Town Engineer. The cost of this project is $216,000 to be paid for by serial bonds to be issued to the town. The cost will be spread over the improved benefitted area, since the town has town wide improvement districts, that will be spread over all of those parcels that can and will be improved by the use of sewer and water systems. Councilman Rocco inquired if this meant everyone in the town will be paying for this project. Supervisor Thorpe stated everyone will contribute within the sewer district. Elliot Mason of Crestwood Court, expressed some concern not for the project itself but with the associated construction, mainly the widening of the street. Supervisor Thorpe stated that will be discussed later in the meeting. The hearing is just discussing the proposed sewer project. Councilman Rocco asked if the general consensus of Crestwood Court is in favor of the sewer. Mr. Mason indicated that it is. Supervisor Thorpe asked if anyone was not in favor of the sewer project, No further comments or discussions were heard. Councilman Testa made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rocco, to close the Public Hearing. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:09 p.m. JAN TARY 17, 2001 6.Q9 P. TV. TOWN BOARD MEETING The Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville was held at the Town Hall, 3577 Ten -race Road, Cortland, New York, with Supervisor Thorpe presiding. Members present: Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Pilato Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't., Carl Bush; Water & Sewer Sup't. Peter- Alteri; Planning Board Member, Nick Renzi; Rerob, LLC Attorney, Mike Shafer; Highland Tank Engineer, Dick O'Dea; Wesbro Associates representative, Wendell Brown; Petr-All Petroleum representative, Pat Hyde; Tim Buhl of Resource Associates; Century Group I, LLC. representative, Walt Peterson; Cortland County Legislature, Marian Meiczinger; Cortland Health Dept. representative, Audrey Lewis; Cortland Water Board Sup't., Doug Withey; Cortland County Sheriff, Lee Price; Under Sheriff, James Willis; News Reporter, Chris Nolan and several town residents. Supervisor Thorpe called the meeting to order following four Public Hearings. Councilman Rocco made a motion seconded by Councilman Pilato, to receive and file the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of November 28, 2000. All voting aye, the motion was carried. RESOLUTION #20 AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF VOUCHERS-JANUARY Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Pilato VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the vouchers submitted have been audited and shall be paid as follows: General Fund A Vouchers #1 - 47 $46,229.67 General Fund B 1 - 07 $29,713.55 Highway Fund DB 1 - 24 $67,187.09 Water Fund 1 - 24 $71,582.26 Sewer- Fund 1 - 11 $82,766.41 Capital Projects 1 - 02 $ 4,026.20 Supervisor Thorpe offered privilege of the floor to those in attendance. Councilman Testa asked that Rerob, LLC.'s and Century Group I, LLC. Aquifer Protection Permits and the two Sewer Improvement Projects be considered first in the meeting. Attorney Shafer inquired if there is any additional technical information, regarding Rerob, LLC.'s Aquifer Protection Permit, the Board feels would be appropriate or if Rerob has not brought forward information concerning if what could be done is being done. Attorney Folmer stated that his concern is with the fact that there is information the Board has not seen before tonight's meeting. He questioned if the Board should take some time to review that information in case there is something they would like Attorney Shafer to provide before voting on this Aquifer Protection Permit. Councilman Testa requested the Board vote on the permit tonight. He praised the new technology butfeltit could be voted on tonight.. 1 I JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PACE 2 1 1 Supervisor Thorpe reminded the Board due to the past history of this request it needs to have a four to one vote to pass. Councilman Rocco expressed concern that Rerob, LLC. may want to expand their present location to include this project. Attorney Folmer explained a site review would be needed and a review function by the town would be necessary. (The following review of Rerob, LLC. Short Environmental Assessment for is transcribed verbatim) Attorney Folmer: You need to answer some questions. The question is under all of these is this action going to result in any adverse effect associated with the following: Air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Attorney Folmer: What areas do you want to identify? Supervisor Thorpe: Water quality. Councilman O'Donnell: Traffic Patterns. Attorney Folmer: Okay. Any others. Councilman Rocco: Potential spills, drips. Attorney Folmer: Anything else? Let's go to the next one. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Board: No Councilman Testa: Natural.... Neighborhood character. Attorney Folmer: Natural or cultural resources. Supervisor Thorpe: There's not much of a resource out there. Attorney Folmer: I think, I'm not part of the Board, I always thought water was a natural resource. Supervisor Thorpe: All right, if you. want to extend it to that. Attorney Folmer: My personal favorite, vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Gas stations are not species. The Board indicated: None. Attorney Folmer: None, okay. Community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Supervisor Thorpe: No. Attorney Folmer: Okay. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induces by the proposed action? Councilman Rocco: Yes, that's the idea..... a lot of business. Attorney Folmer: Adverse effect. 3 b JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 3 Councilman Rocco: You could look on both sides of the issue. Could be bad, you know like traffic- .... noise, potential for spill. Councilman Testa: Traffic and noise I would say. Attorney Folmer: So in other words what you're doing is you're repeating the concerns you mentioned in the first question. The Board indicated: Right. Councilman Rocco: If you own a business, traffic is good. Attorney Folmer: Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in the previous questions? Not identified previously. Any other impact that you can think of? Supervisor Thorpe: No. Attorney Folmer: Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy? If yes, explain briefly and they mean briefly. Councilman Rocco: Is there anybody that is coming to this besides the principles that build it or objecting to it besides the water department? Attorney Folmer: Mr. Renzi. Not the water department.. Doug. Councilman Rocco: Right. Attorney Folmer: Well, concern has been expressed regarding the effect of this construction on the aquifer itself. That's a brief statement, I think, of what you gentlemen are saying. Councilman Rocco: It's not like overwhelming like we get. People come in here don't want sewers or want sewers. They come in throngs and we don't have that here. People from Pheasant Run, sorry. Attorney Folmer: Now, I've become a worshipper of part three of these. For every adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Let's start with the first one. Water quality. You consider- that to be a large adverse effect, a substantial, large, important or otherwise, large. The Board indicated: Large. Attorney Folmer: What about the traffic pattern? Councilman Testa: I'd say it's large with the expansion and all this other going on. The Board indicated: Large. Attorney Folmer: What about spill? Substantial, large, important. Councilman O'Donnell: I would be concerned with that.. Say that's very large. Attorney Folmer: Substantial, large, important. Supervisor Thorpe: Important. Councilman Rocco: Important. Could be real or imagined. No more so than any other gas station of that size. The Board indicated: Large, important. Attorney Folmer: All right, now on part three you are required to indicate whether or not you feel that the impact that you identified as large has been mitigated by any of the materials that have been presented to you and if so to what extent. JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING Supervisor Thorpe: Simple answer to that one is no. PAGE 4 1311 Councilman Rocco: Hard to argue with a chemist who spent half his life in the oil industry. Attorney Folmer: Let me refine that answer for you. You've been provided with a significant number of technological developments which are gonna be included in the construction of this facility. To the extent that you have measuring, monitoring, and a safety valve for the shutting off of this system. Those methods of technology have all worked together to mitigate some of these concerns, have they not? Whether or not they have mitigated them to the point where you have eliminated those concerns is, I think, yet another question. So, you have been presented with technology that makes substantial effort to mitigation, whether or not you have mitigated them to the point of elimination is another issue. That fair? Councilman Rocco: Nothing is a hundred percent guaranteed, except for treasury.... Attorney Folmer: So, you now have your mitigation. Would you agree the mitigation has reduced your concerns significantly? Supervisor Thorpe: No. Board Indicated: No. Attorney Folmer: No? Are you prepared then to issue a negative declaration with regard to these concerns? Supervisor Thorpe: No. Hoard Indicated: No. Attorney Folmer: Somebody what to make a motion to dispose of this SEQRA process one way or the other? Councilman Testa: I make a motion to reject it. Attorney Folmer: I think the proper format is to make a motion, maybe, to issue a negative declaration and then vote on it. Councilman Testa: All right, I make a motion to.... exactly what you said there. Councilman O'Donnell: I'll second it. Supervisor Thorpe: Now remember .... Attorney Folmer: Yes, Mike. Attorney Shafer: Wasn't there just a.... I thought you lust took a vote for a positive impact. Attorney Folmer: I think we have to decide.... the County Planning Board had said we should issue.... we could approve this in their opinion if a negative declaration were issued. So I think the question is we've now done this, we've identified the mitigation that has taken place. Now, the question is are we going to issue that negative declaration and the answer comes in the form of a motion to issue and then just because you make it you have to vote for it. But procedurally, I think you have to make it in that fashion. The young lady disagrees with me but the young lady has been disagreeing with me for years. Sarah Campbell: If I might just for the record. Attorney Folmer: Of course. JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 5 �� Sarah Campbell: My name is Sarah Campbell, I'm an Environmental Attorney.... Corporate Council for Rerob. It's my understanding that the procedure that sends one or more potentially adverse environmental impacts, having facts identified and followed by a large, that the next step would be to issue a positive declaration and move to an impact statement. Attorney Folmer: That's fine. If you wantto do it that way, if you wantto get.... . Supervisor Thorpe: Well, let's not get involved in a procedural tangle, here. If we .... Attorney Folmer: If council would think that she wants to go to an EAF we would be glad to poll for the EAF. Attorney Shafer: What you're asking though everyone, as I understood it, everyone on the Board felt that there was at least. some large impact that had not been mitigated. What if you take this vote and you get a vote that says we issue a negative declaration? Supervisor Thorpe: No, we want a vote that says we will not issue a negative declaration. Attorney Folmer: You have a motion to issue a negative declaration. If that motion is defeated, the following motion is to issue a positive .... Attorney Shafer: What if the motion cancels .... when you just polled your members.... Attorney Folmer: You watch. Attorney Shafer: Okay. Negative.... Attorney Shafer: Negative.... Supervisor Thorpe: All right, to review it then, a motion has been made and seconded.... Councilman Rocco: You sure you want to think about this for a while? Supervisor Thorpe: A motion has been made and seconded to issue a negative declaration in this matter. IT first call for the aye votes. Now the nay votes. Councilman Testa: We're gonna reject this! No, I'm one of them. Supervisor Thorpe: Ed? John? All right, it's four negative votes. Councilman Testa: How about you? Are you going to vote on this too? Supervisor Thorpe: No, it's a majority. I don't have to. RESOLUTION #21 DECLARE A NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT SUBMITTED BY REROB, LLC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NYS ROUTE 13 AND LIME HOLLOW ROAD Motion by Councilman Testa Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell Councilman Testa Nay Councilman O'Donnell Nay Councilman Rocco Nay Councilman Pilato Nay VOTES: ALL NAY DENIED WHEREAS, an Aquifer Protection Permit application was submitted by Rerob, LLC., property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of NYS Route 13 and Lime Hollow Road permitting the construction of a 6,670 sq. ft. convenience store/gas station with a f ast f ood tenant and 2-bay automatic car wash, tax map #95.00-06-12.120 and 1 JANUARY 17,2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 6 WHEREAS, the Town Board as Lead Agent, duly reviewed and completed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board, as Lead Agent, does hereby declare the proposed project of Rerob, LLC., shall have a significant environmental impact. Attorney Folmer: All right now, you're gonna make a motion to issue a positive declaration and go to a full EAF. Councilman Testa: We're gonna what now? Attorney Folmer: You're gonna issue a positive declaration under SEQRA and ask for the submission of a full Environmental Assessment Form. Councilman O'Donnell: I'll move that. Supervisor Thorpe: Is there a second? Councilman Rocco: Second. Supervisor Thorpe: All in favor then of that particular 'motion? (The Board indicated aye) In opposition? (No response from the Board) Carried. RESOLUTION #22 DECLARE POSITIVE IMPACT FOR AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT SUBMITTED BY REROB, LLC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NYS ROUTE 13 AND LIME HOLLOW ROAD AND REQUIRE A LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, an Aquifer Protection Permit application was submitted by Rerob, LLC., property located at the southwest corner of NYS Route 13 and Lime Hollow Road permitting the construction of a 6,670 sq. ft. convenience store/gas station with a fast food tenant and 2-bay automatic car wash, tax map #95.00-06-12.120, and WHEREAS, the Town Board as Lead Age nt, duly reviewed and completed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, per Resolution #21 of 2001, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board, as Lead Agent, does hereby declare a positive impact for the Aquifer Protection Permit submitted by Rerob,LLC., and it is further RESOLVED, a Long Environmental Assessment Form is required be completed and submitted. Councilman Rocco: So they're gonna scope this whole thing and come up with more C� information which we could possibly reject. Councilman O'Donnell: One of things I'd like to see is and we haven't seen it here at all is the unloading facility. There's an 8,000 gallon tanker out there with hoses. I see them out I there all the while at other places. I'd like to see what's there to catch spills and dribbles and leaky pipes because I know it happens. Supervisor Thorpe: Mr. Testa has called for an up and down vote Councilman Testa: Do we need to do that now, John? Attorney Folmer: No. Councilman Testa: That was it, so .... Attorney Folmer: Mike? JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING Councilman Testa: Mike? Do we need to do that now? PAGE 7 Sarah Campbell: You can't. Attorney Folmer: You can't because you've taken your ... you've issued your positive declaration .... (end of that tape, next tape picks up with Councilman Testa) Councilman Testa: I misunderstood you and I think these Board members are feeling the same way we are. We're gonna vote up or clown on this. If we don't vote on that either way .... Are we rejecting this? I don't want these guys to come back here again and say there's something in here that we don't like. I want to give them a yes or no answer right . now on it, John. Am I confused on this? Attorney Folmer: Yes. Councilman Testa: All right, tell me. I want to vote on this, right this matter tonight to reject this proposal. I'm not interested in this area at all, what so ever. Councilman Rocco: You can't. Councilman Testa: What do you mean? Why can't I? Councilman Rocco: They have a right to do a full Environmental Impact. Is that right? Attorney Folmer: That's right, Supervisor Thorpe: You can accept the full Environmental Impact Statement and still reject it. Attorney Folmer: I think what the concern here is, is a very practical one. I don't think this project is going to get approved by a vote required under the General Municipal Law. I don't think it is and that's flat out what I think and as Mr. Rocco just said to me, I don't want to see these people spending a lot of money to prepare an environmental impact ... . Councilman Testa: Neither do I. Attorney Folmer: .... and come back here with it only to find out that it's going to be rej ected. Attorney Shafer: Yes, but we have the entitlement .... .Attorney Folmer: To do that. Attorney Shafer: .... to establish the record because you have an ordinance that provides that this is a permissible use for a special permit and you can't just say "I don't want to hear what the environmental concerns are" and turn us down. If we come in and establish thatwe have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate and in fact. have mitigated the expressed SEQRA findings tonight. Yeah, if we don't get our permit then there's a next logical step and that is that you guys are not ultimately the end decision. There's a court that will review that. We don't want to go there. We hope that we don't go there. But you've got the system, you've got the ordinance that provides for this review and provides for this method of determination and we've made a good faith effort to provide the information to address the issue, to reduce the potential damage to the environment. You can't just say the answer's no because that's not appropriate under your ordinance and it's not the ordinance we devised, it's the ordinance that we have to operate under. Attorney Folmer: And Ted the problem with your scenario is this. The applicant has the right and entitlement to pursue his/it's application as far as they choose to pursue it. The fact that they may think, as they sit here today, that they have a very tough battle uphill to convince you people to grant this permit does not obviate the fact that they have a right to pursue that. Because when it's all said and done whatever decision you make, whether it's made by.... in favor of this application and Mr. Renzi and Doug and whoever bring an article 78 preceding to challenge that determination or whether you reject it and the applicant brings an article 78 preceding to challenge that on the basis that you have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Even thouo-h practicality might say to you, I want to be J i1vLTARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE. 8 �� nice and tell them don't waste your money, I'm not gonna do this, you don't have that right. They have the right to make the application and make you do the job that the ordinance requires you to do. Is that a fair statement? .Attorney Shafer: It is a fair- statement and an additional point to it and that is that a Board member should not take the position that "I don't want to hear the potential mitigation of the environmental factors" that's not an appropriate SEQRA review. .Attorney Folmer: That's true. Councilman Rocco: You have to have an open mind. Councilman Testa: But hike, I had an open mind. I had a very open mind but we're dealing with 30 something thousand people and it's the water issue. You've got good technology here. I'm trying to tell you as a Board member that how arm I going to change my mind when my number one priority is water? That's all I'm telling you. You do what you feel is right. .attorney Shafer: I know you do and I know you have a good faith position on this thing but I have to advise my client to work within the confines of your ordinance. Councilman Testa: All right, Mike. You're tight. Supervisor Thorpe: That's it then. .Attorney Shafer: Thank you. We'd like to have the tapes of the meeting preserved, we'd like to get a copy of that. Town Clerk, Karen Snyder: You want a copy of....? Attorney Shafer: Yes. Attorney Folmer: I'll talk to you about a scoping session. Attorney Shafer: About timing and okay, thank you. Attorney Folmer: Because I think there's a couple things we need to deal with. We need to deal with the length of time it's going to take you to put together what you want. We don't want to schedule it too soon so you're not ready, we don't want to schedule it too late because we don't want to hold you up any more than we have to. Attorney Shafer: Very good. Thank you all for your time. Attorney Folmer: Thanks for your advice counselor. Councilman Pilato stated he audited the books f or the Town Clerk/Tax Collector and found all to be in order. Councilman Pilato departed at 6:35 p.m. Supervisor Thorpe stated next on the agenda is the Aquifer Protection Permit for Century Croup I, LLC. He also reminded the Board the meeting on February 7, 2001 would be at 5:00 p.m. RESOLUTION #23 DECLARE NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR AQUIFER. PROTECTION PERMIT #1 OF 2001 CENTURY GROUP I, LLC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT CORTLANDVILLE CROSSING Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, an Aquifer Protection Permit application was submitted by Century Croup I, LLC., property located the C.ortlandville Crossing permitting the construction of a temporary storage bin for salt required for parking lot de -long, tax map #95.20-01-03.111 and JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 9 WHEREAS, the Town Board as Lead Agent, duly reviewed and completed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town. Board, as Lead Agent, does hereby declare the proposed project of Century Group I, LLC., Aquifer Protection Permit #1 of 2001, shall have no significant environmental impact. RESOLUTION #24 AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN SEQRA APPLICATION OF AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT #1 OF 2001 Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the SEQRA application relating to Aquifer Protection Permit #1 of 2001, submitted by Century Group I, LLC. RESOLUTION #25 APPROVE AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT #1 OF 2001 FOR CENTURY GROUP I, LLC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT CORTLANDVILLE CROSSING Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, the Cortland County Planning Department and the Town Planning Board have reviewed and recommended approval of this Aquifer Permit Protection application, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was duly held by this Town Board, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby approve Aquifer Protection Permit #1 of 2001, submitted by Century Group I, LLC., for property located at Cortlandville Crossing permitting the construction of a temporary storage bin for salt required for parking lot de-icing, tax map #95.20-01-03.111, and it is further RESOLVED, the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the permit. Councilman Testa made a motion seconded by Councilman Rocco, to receive and file a petition signed by Crestwood Court residents. All voting aye, the motion was carried. The petition was in regards to renovations proposed for their street due to proposed Sewer Improvement Project for Crestwood. Court. Supervisor Thorpe opened a discussion regarding Crestwood Court. Councilman O'Donnell suggested Highway Sup't., Carl Bush's written answers to the concerns of the residents of Crestwood C.ourt's be read. Attorney Folmer read aloud the requests from the residents of Crestwood Court referring to the widening of Crestwood Court regarding the proposed sewer improvement project. Attorney Folmer then read Highway Sup't., Bush's response to these concerns. In this response Highway Sup't., Bush explained town roads in the Town Highway Law are specified at 28 feet wide, the current width is 20 feet. Crestwood Court was deeded and is owned by the town. There are no plans for curbs to be installed. He will look into the possibility of closing Crestwood Court to Route 281 and opening it up to Madison Street. Supervisor Thorpe offered privilege of the floor to David Berger. David Berger of 4004 Crestwood Court stated Crestwood Court has been the same size for 40 years. The town snowplow turns around at the end of street sometimes three times a day without a problem. Norbert Lerner of 3995 Crestwood Court stated that their street is like a country road. They like it that way and would like it to remain. JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 10 3-7 Highway Sup't., Carl Bush, explained the highway trucks can not make that turn around at the end of Crestwood Court. Either they get into the island in the circle or into someone's yard. James Ball of 3988 Crestwood Court inquired if the island within the circle could be made smaller instead of widening the road and taking property away from the residents and possibly damaging roots of matured trees. Highway Sup't. Bush explained the town might get into some minor roots but he slid notbelieve it would not kill the tree. He also explained they would only be widening the road by f our feet on each side. Presently the smallest snowplow is being used and it can not maneuver around the end of the road. Supervisor Thorpe stated any compromise would violate the Town Highway Law. Attorney Folmer stated the residents must realize that if the road is not widened to 28 feet it will be in violation of Section 223 of Town Highway Law. If an accident occurs the resident as well as the town could be sued. He understands the residents wishing their road to remain as it is, but the residents need to be aware making this road narrower then Highway specifications would be in violation of the law. Supervisor Thorpe stated the town could be sued regarding Highway Law if an accident were to occur. Councilman O'Donnell sited the example of the Bennett Street Bridge in the Village of McGraw. The residents wanted the old bridge to remain but the County would not build a road that did not meet specifications for- fear of lawsuits. They closed the bridge. A discussion was held regarding the possibility of a road between Madison Street and Crestwood Court. The discussion returned to the width of the street. Highway Sup't., Bush stated he did not want to wittingly put the town in a position for a lawsuit. It was decided to postpone a decision for the Board to investigate the area, meet with neighbors and Highway Sup't., Bush. Attorney Folmer will read over the deed to the road. The Board will decide at the February 21" meeting at 5:00 p.m. Highway Sup't., Bush stated he would measure off the street with the residents. The Town Board took a break from 7:13 p.m. to 7:1 5 p.m. Supervisor Thorpe offered privilege of the floor to Lydia Ferro. Lydia Ferro of 710 McLean Road, read from a prepared statement stating she was representing the McLean Road Neighborhood Preservation Coalition. She explained that. they have asked for the support of County Legislators Marian Meiczinger and Gary Thomas. Legislator Thomas was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mrs. Ferro went on to thank the support of Cortland Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Lee Price, Under Sheriff James Willis and Sergeant. Brian Thayers. Mrs. Ferro explained the many dangers the residents are concerned with clue to the speed on McLean Road. The Sheriff's Department has been very cooperative patrolling the area. She stated the NYS DOT is only concerned with the flow of traffic while the residents are concerned with the quality of life and the clanger to travelers. The McLean Road Neighborhood Preservation Coalition is requesting the forming of a technical advisory committee. The purpose of this committee would be to gather information in the area of McLean Road from Route 281 to the county line so specific data can be gathered and presented through proper channels. They are requesting the committee consist of two Town Board members, County Sheriff Price, NY S Police, County Legislators Meiczinger and Thomas, County Highway Sup't., Joseph Eggleston, and two residents. Mrs. Ferro named the various people [lie Coalition informed of their petition to reduce the speed on McLean Road including Assemblyman Martin Luster and Senator James Seward. The Coalition feels McLean Road has become an interstate connection to and from Route 81 and that their requests for a speed reduction have been ignored. They believe this technical advisory committee could examine the problems and then with the cooperation of the Town Board act on this information. They feel this issue concerns not just the residents but also other travelers. Mrs. Ferro went on to state different accidents that have occurred on McLean Road. Supervisor Thorpe stated the Board recognizes the problems with McLean Road and is as frustrated as the residents are. Numerous letters have been written and forms filled out in an effort to pressure the State to reduce the speed, as they are the only ones that can change the speed limit. The Board is unsure what else can be done. County Legislator, Marion Alleiczinger, expressed that this is an unhealthy problem. 3 S JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 11 The Sheriff's department has been very helpful but as soon as the Sheriffs leave, motorist increase their speed. When the construction begins on Route 281 traffic will increase on McLean Road, Stupke Road, Fairview Drive, and Route 222 in an effort to avoid the construction. Attorney Folmer explained the only thing the Board can do is ask the State for a speed reduction. The request is endorsed by County Highway Sup't., Joseph Eggleston, which he has done. The request is then forwarded to the State Department of Transportation for their decision. The State has consistently refused to reduce the speed. Under Sheriff, James Willis spoke of using a portable radar- trailer that can monitor speeds and displays "your speed is". When an officer cannot be there, the trailer can be left. Also, the new trailer keeps track of everyone's speed so the busiest time of the day can be identified and what the speeds were. Attorney Folmer asked Mrs. Ferro if Mr. Stevens from the State Department of Transportation indicate if there was any information that could be given to them that would convince the State to lower the speed limit. Mrs. Ferro stated no. Mr. Stevens stated Cortlandville roads can only be changed according to State guidelines and McLean Road is a beautiful road. When Mrs. Ferro asked Mr. Stevens if consideration could be given to environmental impact, Mr. Stevens stated no consideration is necessary. Councilman O'Donnell gave Mrs. Ferro an article from the Ithaca Journal referring to a survey being conducted concerning truck traffic in Tompkins County. The article specifically referred to the Town of Freeville and explained where to get a survey. A discussion followed regarding other possible solutions and various attempts tried to resolve this issue. Legislator Meiczinger stated she understood the Board could not do anything to change the situation but inquired if there were any suggestions or direction that could be taken. Councilman O'Donnell recommended they follow up on the survey from Tompkins County. Attorney Folmer stated he would .contact Andy Jewett who works in administration in Albany, to see if he would know who could be contacted to assist with this situation. The only thing to be done at this point is to keep patrolling the area. Brian Ayers from the Sheriff's Department stated he is patrolling the area as often as he can. The Board thanked Mrs. Ferro for coming. Councilman O'Donnell apprised the Board he audited the books for the Highway and Water & Sewer Department and found all in order. Councilman O'Donnell also stated the Village of McGraw has requested he attend an upcoming village meeting. The recreation committee has received a $ 15,000 gift. They are considering installing an in -ground swimming pool. Councilman O'Donnell will keep the Board informed. RESOLUTION #26 ACCEPT ANNUAL REPORT OF WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell VOTES: ALL AYE .ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Annual Report of the Water and Sewer Department for the year 2000 is hereby accepted, and shall be received and filed. Councilman O'Donnell made a motion seconded by Councilman Rocco to receive and file the first quarter Water and Sewer report for 2001. All voting aye, the motion was carried. Monthly reports for the Town Clerk, Justice and SPCA for December 2000, are on the table for review and filed in the Town Clerk's office. 1 1 JANIARY 17,200.11 O- 1 MEETING PAGE RESOLUTION #27 ACCEPT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOWN CLERK Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the Annual Report of the Town Clerk for the year 2000 is hereby accepted, and shall be received and filed. Councilman O'Donnell made a motion seconded by Councilman Rocco to receive and file correspondence from the Cortland County Health Department regarding Rerob, LLC.'s proposed project on Route 13 and Lime Hollow Road. All voting aye, the motion was carried. Attorney Fohmer apprised the Board since the Public Hearings for Page Green Road and Crestwood Court were held, the Bonding resolutions need to be adopted. Also, the Order for the Page Green Water Improvement Project is ready to adopt. RESOLUTION #28 BOND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE, NEW YORK, ADOPTED JANUARY 17, 2001, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PAGE GREEN ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TOWN OUTSIDE OF VILLAGES, WHICH AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE BENEFTTTED AREA, AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York (herein called "Town Board" and "Town" respectively), proposes to construct sewer improvements in the Town, consisting of the construction of improvements on and around Page Green Road in the Town, consisting of the installation of approximately 1,600 feet of 8-inch sewer main near the intersection of Page Green Road and Saunders Road, in accordance with said plans now on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Cortlandville (the "Sewer Improvement"), including buildings, land or rights in land, original furnishings, equipment, machinery and apparatus required therefor, and all ancillary work thereto, at the estimated maximum cost of $150,000, all within the unincorporated area of the Town outside of any villages, which area has been determined to be the benefitted area (herein referred to as the "Benefitted Area"), pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, in accordance with such map, plan and report; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has given due consideration to the impact that the Sewer Improvement may have on the environment and, on the basis of such consideration, the Town Board has found that no substantial adverse environmental impact will be caused by the Sewer Improvement; and WHEREAS, the 'Town Board and the Town have complied in every respect with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding environmental matters, including compliance with the New York Environmental Quality Review Act, comprising Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and, in connection therewith, a duly executed negative declaration and/or other applicable documentation has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the construction of such Sewer Improvement is $150,000, which is planned to be financed by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within the Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by said Sewer Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which the Sewer Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the costs of principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; and 6 JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 13 WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined to proceed with the construction of such Sewer Improvement and adopted an order on December 6, 2000, reciting a description of the improvements proposed, a description of the proposed benefitted area, the estimated maximum amount proposed to be expended for the Sewer Improvement, the proposed method of apportioning the costs of the Sewer Improvement, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection and specifying January 17, 2001, at 5:00 o'clock p.m. (Prevailing Time) as the time when, and the Town Hall, in the Town, as the place where, the Town Board would meet to consider the construction of such Sewer Improvement and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, and for such other action on the part of the Town in relation thereto as may be required by law; and WHEREAS, certified copies of such order were duly published and posted pursuant to the provisions of Article 12-C of the Town Law; and a public hearing to consider the construction of the proposed Sewer Improvement was duly held by the Town Board on this 17' day of January, 2001, commencing at 5:00 o'clock p.m. (Prevailing Time) at the Town Hall, in the Town, at which all interested persons desiring to be heard were heard, including those in favor of, and those opposed to, the construction of said Sewer Improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, upon the evidence adduced at such public hearing; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York, as follows: Section 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) the notice of public hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient: (b) all the property in the proposed Benefitted Area is benefitted by the Sewer Improvement and all the property benefitted by the Sewer Improvement is included in the proposed Benefitted Area; and (c) it is in the public interest to construct the Sewer Improvement, described in the recitals hereof, within the Benefitted Area, at the estimated maximum cost of $150,000. Section 2. The construction of the Sewer Improvement within the Benefitted Area is hereby approved, as hereinabove described, and such facilities are hereby authorized to be constructed, as set forth in said Order Calling Public Hearing, within the Benefitted Area, in the Town, situate wholly outside of any incorporated village, and said Benefitted Area is more particularly bounded and described as follows: All lots or parcels of the Town of Cortlandville outside of Villages, capable of being serviced by the "Sewer Article 12-C" Sewer Improvements heretofore and hereafter provided, are lots or parcels benefitted by the proposed sewer improvements. Section 3. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements is $150,000 which is planned to be financed by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within the Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by such Sewer Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which such Sewer Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the costs of principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable. Section 4. The $150,000 estimated expense of such Sewer Improvement does not exceed one -tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of the Town outside of villages, and the permission of the Comptroller of the State of New York is therefore not required in order to finance the cost of said Sewer Improvement, in the Town, as herein described, pursuant to the provisions of said Town Law. JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 14 Section 5. This resolution is subject to permissive referendum and the Town Clerk of the Town is hereby authorized and directed within ten (10) days after the adoption of said resolution, to cause to be published at least once in the "Cortland Standard" a newspaper published in the city of Cortland, New York, and hereby designated as the official newspaper of the Town for such publication, and posted on the sign board of the Town, a Notice which shall set forth an abstract of said foregoing resolution which shall be in substantially the following form: Please take notice that on January 17, 2001, the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York, adopted a resolution entitled: "RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE, NEW YORK, ADOPTED JANUARY 17, 2001, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEWER IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TOWN OUTSIDE OF VILLAGES, WHICH AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE BENEFITTED AREA, AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH." an abstract of such resolution, concisely stating the purpose and effect thereof, being as follows: FIRST: RECITING the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York (herein called "Town Board" and "Town" respectively), has hereto duly caused the preparation of a general, map, plan, and report for the construction of sewer improvements in the Town, consisting of the construction of improvements on and around Page Green Road in the Town, including the installation of approximately 1,600 feet of 8-inch sewer main near the intersection of Page Green Road and Saunders Road, in accordance with said plans now on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Cortlandville (the "Sewer Improvement"), including buildings, land or rights in land, original furnishings, equipment, machinery and apparatus required therefor, and all ancillary work thereto, at the estimated maximum cost of $150,000, all within the area of the Town outside of any villages, which area has been determined to be the benefitted area (herein referred to as the "Benefitted Area"), pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, in accordance with such map, plan and report: that and Order was adopted on December 6, 2000, reciting a description of the proposed sewer improvements, the boundaries of the benefitted area, the maximum amount proposed to be expended therefor, the proposed method of apportioning the costs of such improvement, the proposed method of financing, the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection, and specifying the time and place of a Public Hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same; that copies of such Order have been duly published and posted, that all environmental laws and regulations have been complied with, and that such hearing has been duly held of January 17, 2001, at the time and place specified; and SECOND: RESOLVING AND DETERMINING that (a) the Notice of hearing was published and posted as required by Law, and is otherwise sufficient, (b) all the property in the proposed Benefitted Area is benefitted by the Sewer Improvement and all the property benefitted by the Sewer Improvement is included in the proposed Benefitted Area; and (c) it is in the public interest to construct the Sewer Improvement, within the Benefitted Area, at the estimated maximum cost of $150,000; and THIRD: FURTHER RESOLVING AND DETERMINING the construction of the Sewer Improvement within the Benefitted Area is hereby approved, as hereinabove described, and authorizing such facilities to be constructed within the Benefitted Area, DESIGNATING the Benefitted Area in the Town, and DESCRIBING the Benefitted Area; and FOURTH: RESOLVING that the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements is $150,000 which is planned to be financed, by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within the Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by such Sewer Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which such Sewer Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the costs of principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; and :TAINUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PACTE 15 " rah FIFTH: STATING the $150,000 estimated expense of such Sewer Improvement does not exceed one -tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of the Town outside of villages, and the permission of the Comptroller of the State of New York is therefore not required in order to finance the cost of said Sewer Improvement, in the Town, as herein described; and SIXTH: STATING that this resolution is subject to permissive referendum. RESOLUTION #29 BOND RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE, NEW YORK, ADOPTED JANUARY 17, 2001, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CRESTWOOD COURT/GROTON AVENUE/NYS ROUTE 281 SEWER IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TOWN OUTSIDE OF VILLAGES, WHICH AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE BENEFITTED AREA, AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York (herein called "Town Board" and "Town" respectively), proposes to construct improvements along Crestwood Court, Groton Avenue and New York State Route 281 in the Town, consisting of the construction of a new sewage flow metering station, installation of approximately 1,152 feet of 8-inch collector line along Crestwood Court, installation of approximately 1,142 feet of 8-inch sewer main along New York State Route 281, and the replacement of sewer laterals, in accordance with said plans now on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Corllandville (the "Sewer Improvement"), including buildings, land or rights in land, original furnishings, equipment, machinery and apparatus required therefor, and all ancillary work thereto, at the estimated maximum cost of $216,000, all within the area of the Town outside of any villages, which area has been determined to be the benefitted area (herein referred to as the "Benefitted Area"), pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, in accordance with such map, plan and report; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has given due consideration to the impact that the Sewer Improvement may have on the environment and, on the basis of such consideration, the Town Board has found that no substantial adverse environmental impact will be caused by the Sewer Improvement; and WHEREAS, the Town Board and the Town have complied in every respect with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding environmental matters, including compliance with the New York Environmental Quality Review Act, comprising Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and, in connection therewith, a duly executed negative declaration and/or other applicable documentation has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the construction of such Sewer Improvement is $216,000, which is planned to be financed by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within the Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by said Sewer Improvement, so much upon and from each shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which the Sewer Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the costs of principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined to proceed with the constn ction of such Sewer Improvement and adopted an order on December 6, 2000, reciting a description of the improvements proposed, a description of the proposed benefitted area, the estimated maximum amount proposed to be expended for the Sewer Improvement, the proposed method of apportioning the costs of the Sewer Improvement, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection and specifying January 17, 2001, at 5:00 o'clock p.m. (Prevailing Time) as the time when and the Town Hall, in the Town, as JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 16 yj the place where, the Town Board would meet to consider the construction of such Sewer Improvement and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same, and for such other action on the part of the Town in relation thereto as may be required by law; and WHEREAS, certified copies of such order were duly published and posted pursuant to the provisions of Article 12-C of the Town Law; and a public hearing to consider the construction of the proposed Sewer Improvement was duly held by the Town Board on this 17°i day of January, 2001, commencing at 5:00 o'clock p.m. (Prevailing Time) at the Town Hall, in the Town, at which all interested persons desiring to be heard were heard, including those in favor of, and those opposed to, the construction of said Sewer Improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, upon the evidence adduced at such public hearing; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York, as follows: Section 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) the notice of public hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient: (b) all the property in the proposed Benefitted .Area is benefitted by the Sewer Improvement and all the property benefitted by the Sewer Improvement is included in the proposed Benefitted Area; and (c) it is in the public interest to construct the Sewer Improvement, described in the recitals hereof, within the Benefitted Area, at the estimated maximum cost of $216,000. Section 2. The construction of the Sewer Improvement within the Benefitted Area is hereby approved, as hereinabove described, and such facilities are hereby authorized to be constructed, as set forth in said Order Calling Public Hearing, within the Benefitted Area, in the Town, situate wholly outside of any incorporated village, and said Benefitted Area is more particularly bounded and described as follows: All lots or parcels of the Town of Cortlandville outside of Villages, capable of being serviced by the "Sewer Article 12-C" Sewer Improvements heretofore and hereafter provided, are lots or parcels benefitted by the proposed sewer improvements. Section 3. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements is $216,000 which is planned to be financed, by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within the Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by such Sewer Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which such Sewer Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the costs of principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable. Section 4. The $216,000 estimated expense of such Sewer Improvement does not exceed one -tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of the Town outside of villages, and the permission of the Comptroller of the State of New York is therefore not required in order to finance the cost of said Sewer Improvement, in the Town, as herein described, pursuant to the provisions of said Town Law. Section 5. This resolution is subject to permissive referendum and the Town Clerk of the Town is hereby authorized and directed within ten (10) days after the adoption of said resolution, to cause to be published at least once in the "Cortland Standard" a newspaper published in the city of Cortland, New York, and hereby designated as the official newspaper of the Town for such publication, and posted on the sign board of the Town, a Notice which shall set forth an abstract of said foregoing resolution which shall be in substantially the following form: )44 JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 17 Please take notice that on January 17, 2001, the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York, adopted a resolution entitled: "RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF CORTLANDVILLE, NEW YORK, ADOPTED JANUARY 17, 2001, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEWER IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE AREA OF THE TOWN OUTSIDE OF VILLAGES, WHICH AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE THE BENEFITTED AREA, AND MAKING OTHER DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH." an abstract of such resolution, concisely stating the purpose and effect thereof, being as follows: FIRST: RECITING the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville, in the County of Cortland, New York (herein called "Town Board" and "Town" respectively), has hereto duly caused the preparation of a general, map, plan, and report for the construction of improvements along Crestwood Court, Groton Avenue and New York State Route 281 in the Town, consisting of the construction of a new sewage flow metering station, installation of approximately 1,152 feet of 8-inch collector line along Crestwood Court, installation of approximately 1,142 feet of 8-inch sewer main along New York State 281, and the replacement of sewer laterals, in accordance with said plans now on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Cortlandville (the "Sewer Improvement"), including buildings, land or rights in land, original furnishings, equipment, machinery and apparatus required therefor, and all ancillary work thereto, at the estimated maximum cost of $216,000, all within the area of the Town outside of any villages, which area has been determined to be the benefitted area (herein referred to as the "Benefitted Area"), pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, in accordance with such map, plan and report; that and Order was adopted on December 6, 2000, reciting a description of the proposed sewer improvements, the boundaries of the benefitted area, the maximum amount proposed to be expended therefo, the proposed method of apportioning the costs of such improvement, the proposed method of financing, the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection, and specifying the time and place of a Public Hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same; that copies of such Order have been duly published and posted, that all environmental laws and regulations have been complied with, and that such hearing has been duly held of January 17, 2001, at the time and place specified; and SECOND: RESOLVING AND DETERMINING that (a) the Notice of hearing was published and posted as required by Law, and is otherwise sufficient, (b) all the property in the proposed Benefitted Area is benefitted by the Sewer Improvement and all the property benefitted by the Sewer Improvement is included in the proposed Benefitted Area; and (c) it is in the public interest to construct the Sewer Improvement, within the Benefitted Area, at the estimated maximum cost of $216,000; and THIRD: FURTHER RESOLVING AND DETERMINING the construction of the Sewer Improvement within the Benefitted Area is hereby approved, as hereinabove described, and authorizing such facilities to be constructed within the Benefitted Area, DESIGNATING the Benefitted Area in the Town, and DESCRIBING the Benefitted Area: and FOURTH: RESOLVING that the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements is $216,000 which is planned to be financed by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within the Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by such Sewer Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which such Sewer Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the costs of principal of and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; and FIFTH: STATING the $216,000 estimated expense of such Sewer Improvement does not exceed one -tenth of one per centum of the full valuation of the taxable real property in the area of the Town outside of villages, and the permission of the Comptroller of the State of New York is therefore not required in order to finance the cost of said Sewer Improvement, in the Town, as herein described; and SIXTH: STATING that this resolution is subject to permissive referendum. JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 18 "ice RESOLUTION 0 DECLARE NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR., ROAD WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT-2001 AND AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN SEQRA Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE, ADOPTED WHEREAS, an order was presented for adoption of Page Green Road Water Improvement Project - 2001, and WHEREAS, as Lead Agent, the Town Board duly- reviewed and completed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby declare the proposed Page Green Road Water Improvement Project -2001 shall have no significant environmental impact, and it is further RESOLVED, the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the SEQRA form for said project. RESOLUTION #31 ADOPT THE ORDER "PAGE GREEN ROAD WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - 2001" PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW ARTICLE 12-C AND SET DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 7.2001 Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville (herein called "Town Board" and "Town," respectively), in the County of Cortland, New York, has caused the Town Engineer, a competent engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York, to prepare a general plan, report and map for the proposed construction of improvements on and around Page Green Road in the Town, consisting of the installation of watermain, where necessary, in accordance with said plan now on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Cort.landville (the "Water Improvement"), including buildings, land or rights in land, original furnishings, equipment, machinery and apparatus required therefor, and all ancillary work thereto, all within the unincorporated areas of the Town outside of any villages, pursuant to Article 12-C of the Town Law, and which plan, report and map has been heretofore duly filed in the office of the Town Clerk for public examination; and WHEREAS, the Water Improvement will.. benefit the entire Benefitted Area (the "Benefitted Area"), said area having been designated as the Benefitted area pursuant to the Town Law; and WHEREAS, the Benefitted Area is more particularly bounded and described as follows: Entire area of the Town outside of any Villages. WHEREAS, the Town Board has given due consideration to the impact that the Water Improvement may have on the environment and, on the basis of such consideration, the Town Board has found that no substantial adverse environmental impact will be caused by the Water Improvement; and WHEREAS, the Town Board and the Town have complied in every respect with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding environmental matters, including compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, comprising Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and, in connection therewith, a duly executed negative declaration and/or other applicable documentation has been properly filed in the Office of the Town Clerk; and J.&NUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 19 WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the construction of such Water Improvement is estimated to be $75,000, which is planned to be financed by the issuance of serial bonds of the Town and the levy and collection of special assessments from the several lots and parcels of land within such Benefitted Area which the Town Board shall determine to be especially benefitted by said Water Improvement, so much upon and from each as shall be in just proportion to the amount of benefit which the Water Improvement shall confer upon the same, to pay the principal and interest on said bonds as the same shall become due and payable; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville meet and hold a public hearing at the Town Hall on the 7th day of February, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. (Prevailing Time) to consider the construction of such Water Improvement, at which place and time all persons interested in the subject thereof may be heard concerning the same, and for such other action on the part of the Town Board with relation thereto as may be required by law; and be it FURTHER ORDERED, that the Town Clerk publish at least once in the "Cortland Standard," a newspaper having a general circulation in the Town of Cortlandville, and hereby designated as the official newspaper of the Town for such publication, and post conspicuously on the bulletin board in the office of the Town Clerk, a copy of this Order, certified by the Town Clerk, the first publication and said posting to be not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) days before the day designated herein for said public hearing as aforesaid. Councilman ,O'Donnell made a motion seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file the Town's municipal code from NYS Racing and Wagering Board for Bingo. All voting aye, the motion was carried. Attorney Folmer stated a lot of work was done by Town Clerk Snyder to accomplish the town receiving this municipal code. This code is required before Bingo can be held in the town. Town Clerk Snyder apprised the Board that it has come to her attention that three property owners on NYS Route 215 had a sewer benefit tax levied onto their 2001 Town and County tax bill, no sewer lines are available to these properties. Mrs. Snyder requested the Board refund this tax to these property owners once their tax bill is paid. Councilman O'Donnell stated this error needs to be corrected. RESOLUTION #32AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF THE SEWER BENEFIT TAX CHARGE FOR THREE PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED ON NYS ROUTE 215 AND ISSUE A REFUND Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, a request was made by three property owners to refund the sewer benefit tax levied on their 2001Town & County tax bill for their properties located on Route 215, ,and WHEREAS, sewer lines are not available to these properties and a sewer benefit tax should not have been levied, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby authorize the refund of the sewer benefit tax charged to the following parcels: 96.11-01-01.211 Alfonso Leopardi 3665 NYS Route 215 $172.35 %.11-01-01.212 Willard Short 3661 NYS Route 215 $ 89.92 96.11-01-01.220 Patrick Gilmore 3651 NYS Route 215 $ 89.92 RESOLVED, a refund shall be issued when the 2001 Town & County tax bill is paid, and it is further RESOLVED, the Town Assessor, David Briggs is hereby authorized and directed to remove the sewer benefit tax charges for properties listed above commencing with the 2002 Town & County tax bill. 1 JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 20 /, 7 Councilman O'Donnell made a motion seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file correspondence from Town Attorney, John Folmer to Tim Buhl of Resource Associates regarding William McDermott's Subdivision — Water Booster Station. All voting aye, the motion was carried. Tim Buhl of Resource Associates explained to the Board the past agreement with Mr. McDermott as the town was to split the difference of the delta costs between the pump station suggested by the Health Department and the pump station recommended by Town Engineer, Hayne Smith. A discussion was held between Mr. Buhl and the Board concerning the water booster station and the original time frame Mr. McDermott was to complete construction. Also discussed was the installation of sewers in this area and the effect this would have on the need for construction of the pump station. Water/Sewer Sup't. Alteri recommended from an operational and maintenance standpoint, if feasible, sewer mains be installed instead of a water booster station, based on the experience of sewer mains currently in operation. The sewers are easier to maintain and less expensive for the town. Sewer mains would be preferable to a water booster station and would eliminate the town's participation. Attorney Folmer explained the original plan was discussed but not finalized. He recommended a decision be made concerning what is to be done and the length of time it should be completed by or the town's obligation will be terminated. Mr. Buhl will forward a letter to Attorney Folmer outlying the work to be done and the time frame it is to be completed by Mr. McDermott. Supervisor Thorpe read aloud a letter of resignation from Town Historian, Alice Blatchley. The Board decided a plaque should be presented to Mrs. Blatchley at a Board meeting to recognize her many years of service as Town Historian. Councilman O'Donnell and Town Clerk Snyder will work together to accomplish this for Mrs. Blatchley. RESOLUTION #33 ACCEPT RESIGNATION FOR RETIREMENT FROM ALICE BLATCHLEY AS TOWN HISTORIAN EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1. 2001 Motion by Councilman Rocco Seconded by Councilman Testa VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED BE IT RESOLVED, the notice of resignation for retirement of Alice Blatchley as Town Historian, is hereby accepted, with deep regret, to be effective February 1, 2001, and shall be received and filed. Supervisor Thorpe recommended appointing Valerie Schmidt to fill the remainder of Mrs. Blatchley's appointment. RESOLUTION #34 APPOINT VALERIE SCHMIDT TOWN HISTORIAN EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1. 2001 Motion by Councilman Testa Seconded by Councilman O'Donnell VOTES: ALL AYE ADOPTED WHEREAS, a vacancy shall occur as Town Historian, due to the retirement of Alice Blatchley, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board does hereby appoint Valerie Schmidt, 13 Hicks Hill Road, McGraw, NY, as Town Historian, effective February 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001, the remainder of the Town Historian's appointment. Councilman Testa made a motion seconded by Councilman O'Donnell, to receive and file correspondence from Cortland County Highway Superintendent, Joseph Eggleston regarding the proposed fence for Cortland County Airport. All voting aye, the motion was carried. 4 3", JANUARY 17, 2001 TOWN BOARD MEETING PAGE 21 Councilman Rocco read Sup't. Eggleston's letter a loud and was disappointed with the County's decision not to hold a Public Hearing for residents to voice their concerns. Supervisor Thorpe read aloud a job performance appreciation from resident George Oliver of Louise Drive. Mr. Oliver praised the Water/Sewer and Highway Department for their- excellent service. RESOLUTION #35 AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TAX COLLECTION TO JUNE 1 2001 Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco 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, 2001 to the Cortland County Treasurer, in compliance with Section 938 of the Real Property Tax Law. RESOLUTION #36 ACCEPT CONVEYANCE OF DEED FROM P&T HILLSIDE ASSOCIATES FOR PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF BLUE CREEK ROAD AND NYS ROUTE 281 Motion by Councilman O'Donnell Seconded by Councilman Rocco The following Resolution was ADOPTED by Roll Call Vote: Supervisor Thorpe Aye Councilman O'Donnell Aye Councilman Rocco Aye Councilman Testa Abstain Councilman Pilato Absent WHEREAS, per Resolution #248 of 2000 the Board approved the purchase of property from P&T Hillside Associates to align Blue Creek Road with Fisher Avenue at Route 281, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the Board does hereby accept the conveyance of deed from P&T Associates for property on Blue Creek Road, tax map #76.18-01-09.000. Councilman O'Donnell made a motion seconded by Councilman Testa, to receive and file a letter from Water and Sewer Sup't., Peter Alteri stating Jeff Maclean has successfully completed his first three months in the Water and Sewer department and has been an asset to the department. All voting aye, the motion was carried. 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 8:00 p.m. Res 7ectfully submitted, aren Q. Snyder Town Clerk Town of Cortlandville 1 1 1