Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2001I Z Z MAY 23, 2001 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING SCOPING SESSION REROB, LLC. A Special Town Board Meeting for a Scoping Session for Rerob, LLC. was held by the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandville at the Town Hall, 3577 Terrace Road, Cortland, New York; with Supervisor Thorpe presiding. Members present: Supervisor, Raymond Thorpe Councilman, Theodore Testa Councilman, Edwin O'Donnell Councilman, Ronal Rocco Councilman, John Pilato Town Clerk, Karen Q. Snyder Others present were: Town Attorney, John Folmer; Highway Sup't., Carl Bush; Rerob, LLC Attorney, Mike Shafer; Resource Associates representative, Tim Buhl; Whelan and Curry representative, Mike Curry; Petr-All Petroleum representative, Pat Hyde; Clough, Harbour Associates representative, Laura Cassalia; Town Planning Board member, Nick Renzi; Town Residents, Lydia Ferro and Sue Fitts. Supervisor Thorpe: The scoping session and it's our option to listen to the objections we raised to the proposal by Rerob. So, we willlisten to their presentation. Council do you have anything to say? Attorney Folmer: No, except that I would indicate that this �is not a Public Hearing. The purpose of this is for us to discuss a method by which the applicant may submit to us its formal scoping document to address the concerns that where addressed and identified when we reviewed EAF form about a week ago, two weeks ago. I think Mr. Shafer is probably prepared and ready and eager .... Councilman Testa: John, can I ask a question? Attorney Folmer: Sure. Councilman Testa: I know some people came here purposely to have an input here. Attorney Folmer: Well, we'll have a Public Hearing on this matter at some future date but that's not the purpose of this meeting. Councilman Testa: Then I misspoke but you can listen. Sue Fitts: I read in the paper that people would have a chance to speak. Councilman Testa: That's what I read, too. Supervisor Thorpe: Now, we'll have another Public Hearing, which will be adequately advertised so that.... Attorney Folmer: At which point everyone can talk. Mike? Attorney Shafer: Well, we .... I'm at your pleasure for how you want to do this. We submitted a draft scope previously. Attorney Folmer: Do you want to come up here and use the table? Supervisor Thorpe: Yes, why don't you come up and sit at the .... 1 1 Attorney Shafer: Is that all right? Is .... going to be coming? 1Z3 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 2 Supervisor Thorpe: No, he may be late. Pull up a chair so that certainly we can record this. Councilman Rocco: Actually, you need the table, 'you can have the whole table. I can sit anywhere. Attorney_ Shafer: Tim's,conung.so,he can grab that�chair: John we had, Tim was just pointing out to me, at the draft scope we had a described a proposed action. Construction or- development of a proposed new Express Mart and I think we need to add that, I guess we .noted -.in there that we would be -closing the existing facility. I didn't know if you wanted to amplify that the proposal that has come forward would be that we would close that and we would have deed restrictions so it could not reused for a petroleum storage facility in the future. Supervisor Thorpe: No, we understand that. Tim Buhl ?: It was said in our draft but not in original .... Attorney Folmer: I'm looking at what was attached, Mike, to your letter of April 25. Attorney Shafer: Yes. Attorney Folmer: In that attachment there is reference to the fact that there would be deed restricted properties commercial use other than gasoline or service station. Attorney Shafer: Right. Attorney Folmer: A week ago we did address, the Board did identify an impact on, water and you have dealt. with that in paragraph 2a of. your attachment that I'm referring to? Attorney Shafer: Right. The Board identified potential impact on surface ground water Question 5 of Part Two and under the sub -questions one would be the requirement of a discharge permit and that was indicated to be a mitigated item. I assume that in that you're discussing the.... Tim Buhl: Discharge of the .... Attorney Shafer: Drainage .... Tim Buhl: Drainage, water.... Attorney Folmer: Okay. Attorney Shafer: Then we had construction or operation causing any contamination of the water supply system. I'm assuming that's under operation as opposed to construction as technically under the construction phase it could.... Attorney Folmer: I would think probably operation would be more concern than construction although there would be some construction impact as it .... because you've got to do some digging and excavation and so on. Attorney Shafer: Right. Attorney Folmer: And in your response potential impact include the risk of contamination's to local ground water due to storage and handling of large volumes of petroleum products, erosion of sediment generated during construction and the collection and discharge of treated storm water, including the overall storm water system capacity and discharge. I think we need to talk in terms or have you talked to us in terms of preventative measures with regard to contamination of the local ground water. I think that is one of the primary concerns that I have heard. 1 Z1 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 3 Attorney Shafer: I'm going to let Tim address that. I do what to preface my comments that Joan Gard (?) spoke at breakfast Rotary this morning and she talked about her duties as the quote Tank Lady in Cortland County. She said that the spills have been very few and far between in the past years and she believes that is in large part to the Health Department's vigilance on these things. But she did communicate a very telling comment, she said the concern that she has is not with facilities and equipment, it's with the human element. How people handle things. I think that was a telling comment in terms of ,how we have approached this in terms of the .... I don't think that there's any question that the technological aspect of what has been proposed meets all the requirements that people would expect to protect ground water from equipment standpoint. I suppose maybe we need to talk about, I know Mr. Renzi addressed that with representatives of the applicant at one of our meetings, in terms of how do people in the station how do they learn of problems, what can their response be, how does this get reported back from their monitoring and those sorts of things. It would be my thought that how we would mitigate each and look at those systems and put a real stress on being sure that you take as much of the human element out of this as possible with leaving some flexibility that people have to deal with situations. Supervisor Thorpe: Could you explain to me what sort of training the operators of this facility would have in respect to the safety measures that you propose. Will you have a full time technician there to make sure the monitoring equipment is functioning correctly? Attorney Shafer: No. Laura Cassalia: Some of those items you're getting to can be addressed to DAS? Tim Buhl: Yes. Laura Cassalia: You can request to have hazard spill plans developed within .... items like that will still need to address how they propose to handle that. Tim Buhl: A lot of our things too, Ray, are passive, which we will describe in the DEAS. The dispensing areas are shaped so if there was a small spill like a gallon or half a gallon that all gets contained. Whereas at the present facility and I think every other facility in Cortland County, that's not the case. They can run of .... The same thing for the off loading of our trucks, big trucks, that spill area is also contained where that is not the case in some. All these things will be discussed actually in detail. Supervisor Thorpe: Mr. Rocco? Councilman Rocco: I had one question, I'm glad you mentioned it, about the tanks, spillage. The current location has been there for about the actual amount of time that the tanks are used now, don't they have to be replaced shortly? Tim Buhl: No. Councilman Rocco: They don't. Tim Buhl: No. Councilman Rocco: How much life is left in one those? What are they good for like 20 years? 15 years? Councilman O'Donnell: Well, let me make this comment. Wasn't too many years there was a spill there and there was a leak there and they replaced tanks. That was owned by PepCo in Dryden. There was a leak there. I suspect some of those tanks where replaced I don't know if there was any more of them but it was not too many years ago so.... Councilman Rocco: I thought I read an article in the paper that said those tanks were scheduled for replacement but I could be wrong. ' MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 4 Tina Buhl: Could we let Pat Hyde address that when he gets here? We expect him in almost fifteen minutes. Attorney Shafer: That comment got raised but it was not reported by us. That was a comment that I believe, came from one of the representatives here at Soil and Water and the Health Department stating that they felt those tanks had reached the end of their useful life. I don't know what the basis of that statement was because that clearly is not the case. Councilman Testa: Excuse me, could I say something? We are not addressing McLean Road. I don't know why we are even talking about it. We're talking about this. I don't think we need to talk about that. I don't think we really need to talk about it. Councilman Rocco: That was my question. I also had one, you mentioned the human element. I don't know if you guys own the location there in Homer, the Mobil station there. I, with the Fire Department there, went to fill up my gas tank and I noticed the gas on the ground when I pulled in I figured someone was sloppy, overflow or something. It would just continue to flow over. Normally when it approaches the tank it started to fill, it stopped. Must have some kind of air lock or something. Well, this pump didn't work and would just continue to flow and flowed for every vehicle that when in there onto the ground. So, I went into the gas station, whether or not this is your gas station doesn't matter it's just the idea of the human element, and I talked to the people inside and told them you got to shut this pump down. They said absolutely not. I said what are you talking about. Somebody could be smoking, blow up. I'm talking about a large amount of continuing overflow. Some old lady filling her pump, she doesn't know it's dripping down until it's all over her shoes, car after car after car. I go inside and tell them about this and they tell me, "Well, it's not my problem. We have these guys that come around and it's their responsibility to make sure the tanks ....". I said "Look you're going to shut this pump down". I had to go to the Fire Department in Homer to get that shut down and they did. Fire Department went 'right over and shut it down. But this is the training of the people. These people had been there for years and years and showed absolute no regard what so ever for the possibility that the whole place could blow up or spill in this instance. I know that was corrected with those people. I got a phone call from the general manager, whoever it was, but this is the human element and the training we're going to have at a future facility. I don't know, I just thought I'd mention that experience. .Attorney Folmer: When your statement, Tim, is put forth you will no doubt be describing the monitoring and the testing things. Do I assume and I guess I must, that some of those are going to be indicated within the facility so that an attendant, for example if one of these is underground and it isn't functioning properly would there'd be some system by which someone inside would know that that is going haywire? Tim Buhl: Yes and it goes even beyond that. What happens if there's any problem detected by the monitor not only is it displayed and enunciated but it's a positive shut off system that basically shuts the tanks and pumps down and won't operate until a technician actually from off -site comes to the property to check everything out and only he can turn the thing back on. So, not only is it monitoring it but it's got a built in shut off feature that if there's any problem with it, it's shut down. Which is not on some of the other facilities. All that will be addressed. Councilman Rocco: So, this overflow situation would not happen? Tim Buhl: Should not happen and then if it did happen, the area is contained so it doesn't run off over the parking lot and down into the street or into the drainage system. It's an even better back up system. I was just going through the check marks that where done last time and in terms of this impact on water, the only question I had was this item.... Councilman O'Donnell: What page are you on? I z6 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SLOPING SESSION PAGE S Tim Buhl: The first one, page seven. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Up above we said it won't impact a body of water and down here we're saying it could potentially? Even though small or moderate. I just don't think, there's no body of water even remotely near the place. I just don't think our construction is likely to cause siltation into a body of water to the extent where it could show up as a plume someplace. Attorney Folmer: So, you don't.... Tim Buhl: I don't want to address that unless you guys are insistent that we have to. Attorney Folmer: Well, you would not consider the Aquifer itself then as to fall into that category? Laura Cassalia: You do need to identify those siltations from the site into a stormwater system that will eventually be discharged into some type of Aquifer. Tim Buhl: We've already done a plan addressing that. I don't know if you've guys have seen that or not. Laura Cassalia: It's still being including in the .... Tim Buhl: Yes, no problem with that. I'm not saying, but in terms of surface bodies of water it just doesn't ring true. But it will be addressed. Attorney Folmer: Okay. Laura Cassalia: The other issues you have under impact of water that doesn't appear on the draft you already submitted is items in regard to the Aquifer. Just to give you a briefing of some things that should be covered is geological setting of the Aquifer, location and description of the Aquifer, recharge areas, Aquifer plume, things along that nature in regards to Aquifer.... will be evaluated. Attorney Folmer: I thought, Tim, I had seen some material that addressed some of those issues in something I had.... Tim Buhl: We had a lot on that. Attorney Folmer: I thought there was. Laura Cassalia: I'll be assuming on the stormwater end you're going to identify how you're going to collect and treat it. Tim Buhl: That's in our, somewhere in our book.... Attorney Folmer: If that is where we are then I'd like to talk about the storage. Is this aboveground, below ground storage? Tim Buhl: Below ground. Attorney Folmer: Below ground. Is there some reason that below is better than above? Attorney Shafer: Could we get Pat Hyde to address that one when he gets here? Attorney Folmer: Sure. Tiro Buhl: I could Pat. One of them is insurance, you have the same kind of monitoring compartments whether it's above or below. There's a higher degree of risk with the aboveground in terms of physical damage due to vehicular accidents, trucks backing into things. With the interstitial monitoring they have now and with the sophisticated systems they have that shut them down the degree of risk is much less below ground. Fire safety. 1 Z 7 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 6 Attorney., Folmer: I only ask that because about two years ago we had an application here for the facility that was the, and I don't want to say a nasty word but it's the Sunoco station in Polkville, and they were asking for permission to put aboveground for a variety of concerns that they had. So, I was just thought why if they want to do an aboveground and you're going to do below is there an advantage to one and not to the other. Councilman O'Donnell: And I think they have tank truck delivery. Attorney Folmer: Yes, they have tank truck delivery out of there, too. Councilman Rocco: I saw one of these for the first time, going to Wellsley Island this past weekend. It's really very ugly. Very ugly structure, to me anyway. Attorney Folmer: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Councilman Rocco: Well, I don't find beauty.... Attorney Folmer: So, you're going to address the best that you can, the element of human error or human.... What happens if someone comes in there and there's, a vehicle pulls up and there's a fire? I don't know how you address that. Tim Buhl: .... All these things health, safety, if it's in the scoping document we create. If you're worried about animals and plant life or something, we don't have that in our stuff. That's what we're here for today as I understand is to try and figure out what you want us to .... Attorney Folmer: I'm not interested in your impact on animals or endangered species. Mike Curry (?): But with water, USGS has done the Aquifer models .... brought on by the Cortland County Planning Board. Correct? Have you done Aquifer modeling on your own? Or just taken USGS ....? Tim Buhl: We're going to use theirs. Mike Curry (?): You're going to use theirs, even though in all the documentation received that you don't like the way they present that model? Tim Buhl: There's certain aspects of the model I think that some of the assumptions they've made are accurate and if we can get them to run something more reasonable, in terms of the pumping rates of the various municipal wells, we'll do that. It's going to be up to ...:to decide if they want to pay for hydrologists to do their own model or rely on what USGS has already done. Mike Curry (?): Now the USGS, I don't know how well they take working for private people. Tim Buhl: We've been working with the County Health Department to do this and they've been running it. It's their model, it's a municipally owned model. If we do our own model lots of times they're going to argue well your model isn't the same as their model and therefore whose model is correct. Our philosophy has been let's use theirs if we can get the assumptions down correctly. We'd be happy with it. Supervisor Thorpe: Is it safe to say that despite all the modeling that's been done there's been no experimental verification of any of these models by way of dye injection or isotope injection or anything else? So, that all the modeling that's done is purely speculative is it not? Tim Buhl: That's correct as far as I know. Councilman Rocco: Did they do any of this during Smith Corona when they had the problem with PCP because I think they used dyes that wasn't part of the.... MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 7 Tim Buhl: They didn't have the model then. They developed it since that spill. It sort of bore out of what physically happened. The same thing with the other Exxon station spill occurred, the big one. At the old Russ Knecht site. It showed that facility shouldn't have impacted Cortlandville's well and didn't. Attorney Folmer: Okay. Do you want to move on to transportation? Anything else f olks bef ore we go on? Do you want to move on to transportation? Attorney Shafer: John before we leave this, Pat Hyde is here should we discuss Attorney Folmer: Mr. Hyde, apparently there's been some question raised as to the life use or the life expectancy of the tanks at the present location. Any idea what that would be? Pat Hyde: The present location has had compressed current put onto the tanks. We test them and they should keep going as far as we're concerned. Laura Cassalia: Does that .... the 1998 regulations? Pat Hyde: Yes. Supervisor Thorpe: The proposed tanks, I understand, are double walled. What are the, what's the material of construction of the tanks? Pat Hyde: Metal with a plastic cover over that. Supervisor Thorpe: External? External. Pat Hyde: The internal is steel with a .... Supervisor Thorpe: What kind of steel? What sort of steel? Mild steel, stainless, what? Pat Hyde: Mild steel. Attorney Folmer:.... Pat Hyde: That's the piping ... . Councilman Rocco: Is the coating a really hard coating .... (Unable to clearly hear conversation between Councilman Rocco and Pat Hyde ) ) Unknown: .... the tank is brought in ....manufactured at the plant and shipped to ....received on the site, inspected by the truck driver and the installing company to make sure the vacuum is still there. Make sure of the integrity of both the inner tank and the outer cover. Councilman Rocco: So, there's your person and the manufacture's person to make sure that's there still a vacuum? Unknown: Correct. Pat Hyde: Before the tanks are taken off the truck the vacuum's checked. If there's no vacuum we don't take them off the truck. Attorney Shafer: Pat there was one question that was raised about the training of employees. Question raised about the training of employees at the facility. Pat Hyde: Yes, that's done on site so they see the .... where they are and then there's a weekly test they have to do on the tank monitoring system, test the audible alarm. We also have them do a check of the line leak and the .... over and above that which is monitored monthly out of our corporate office. 1.Z9 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SLOPING SESSION PAGE 8 Tim Buhl: Ray also asked if there was some kind of enunciator panel or something that shows any problem areas in the system. I answered I thought there was and that also there was some kind of a positive shut off that developed a problem with either heat detected or pumps not working properly, the whole thing is shut down until a technician came on site. Pat Hyde: You're close. They don't have a display. A print out tape can be recorded and saved and looked at. But the enunciator enunciates, or makes a sound buzz repeat whatever, when there is an alarm, prints out on the tape, which would be your display and that's what we check once a week just to make sure that enunciator is working. So that if somebody doesn't look at the tape, the enunciator is going to bring our attention to it, brings them over to look at the tape. Naturally a line leak the, and there's also, a thing that detects a point one -gallon an hour leak in the product lines dispensing system. It automatically shuts down till a certified technician, which in this case is Cortland Pump & Equipment, that comes out and actually sees if this is truly a problem or if it's just a malfunction in the system, which could be just something I need checked out without the product tank shut down. That's not a real common occurrence though but again nothing can be fired up until we verify the system's integrity is tight .... Attorney Folmer: When the enunciator makes it sound whatever it is, bell, buzzer whistle, does it automatically generate this tape? Pat Hyde: Yes. Attorney Folmer: So, if I'm an employee and I'm standing there and the thing goes off I can't just ignore it. The tape is going to come out. Pat Hyde: Correct. Attorney Folmer: I can ignore looking at the tape but I can't ignore the production of the tape itself. Pat Hyde: There's actually three things. There's the enunciator that you could try to avoid that, the tape, the third problem is our business of sales of gasoline are shut off at the outside gas main and they have to call their supervisor, have the supervisor notify maintenance. So, there's actually three things that have to totally ignore. Councilman Rocco: Will this shut off a whole island or one tank or one pumping station? Pat Hyde: The whole product, all the .... There's two product lines you have your Regular and your Super. If you got some problems with your Regular it shuts the whole system down. That motor in the tank or submersible pump will not function to push any product out to any one of those dispensing tanks. Councilman Rocco: For the entire station? Pat Hyde: Entire station. Supervisor Thorpe: Mr. Hyde, as long as we're talking about these tanks, I presume that you computed the life of the steel part of the tank, saves a quarter inch. You know what the corrosion rate is or gasoline, which has some amount of water in it and other additives. The thing that I like to speculate on a little bit, we don't know what's going to be put into the gasoline in the future in terms of additives. So, when you say that the useful life of this tank is twenty-five, thirty years whatever it is, we really don't know do we because we don't know what is going to go into those tanks in the future. Pat Hyde: That's a true statement but on the same token they're guaranteed for thirty years. They're guaranteeing them for thirty years they're going to last longer then that especially if you keep up the maintenance on them. 130 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 9 Supervisor Thorpe: You don't have any internal inspection of the tanks at any time do you? Pat Hyde: The interstitial is the guard against that. If the inner tank should leak it goes to the sensor that we have in the interstitial space and that again that comes out onto the panel and sounds the enunciator and you have to have someone come in and figure out whether it was a breech in the interior tank or visa versa if there's a breech in the outer tank that let ground water into that board. Chances of both those rupturing, there isn't any percentage chance. Supervisor Thorpe: Maybe small but not zero. Chances of it rupturing. Pat Hyde: Both of them rupturing, I'd say that's zero. Supervisor Thorpe: That's a pretty wild statement to make. Sue Fitts: I do have something to say. I go to the Mobil Express Mart .... most of the time when I go the employees are smoking outside the door. That seems pretty dangerous in a gas station. Most people know not to do that but apparently the employees don't know how to do that. What kind of training system do you already have in place and how do you expect it's to be any better? Do you really expect that somebody that doesn't know enough not to smoke is going to be able to monitor this system, this complicated system, if they can't even figure out that. I mean that's a concern of mine since I live near there. The water has already been polluted and they're near the main floor of the Aquifer. Attorney Folmer: Ray, I would suggest that may well be a concern that could be addressed at a Public Hearing, which of course this is not. Let's move on to transportation, Mike. In the draft document that we prepared the other day we identified that there would be an affect on present patterns of movement and major traffic problems and you will address that in your statement? Are you going to take into account, Tim and I don't know how you're going to do it, are you going to take into account whatever is going to happen to Route 13? Mike Curry ?: We're going to need to do a traffic study for intersections below the site. The same with Lime Hollow Road intersection, site access points, up to McLean Road where you have single line lanes typically is probably the corridor where there going to need to do a traffic study. Attorney Shafer: Why the McLean Road? Mike Curry: Isn't that the next .... Isn't that the next .... Attorney Folmer: No. Mike Curry: Which one's the next? Tompkins? Councilman Rocco: Route 13. Mike Curry: Is that Tompkins though, also? Supervisor Thorpe: Yes, Route 13. Mike Curry: So Tompkins sorry, my fault. Attorney Folmer: Across from the A&W. You've got the next one north. Mike Curry: Yes that's the next one north. Attorney Folmer: and Bennie Road is the next one south. Mike Curry: Correct. F--J 1 r_� 131 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 10 Tim Buhl: We had in the DEIS discussing traffic impacts but in terms of doing an overall traffic study it is not required to do one for this facility. We hope to have a letter to that shortly. We already have a letter that says by default that they're not going to require one. I just don't see the need when you're looking at the current traffic signals at both intersections right now the driveway or Lime Hollow. The DOT has taken a stance that they're not going to require one. Councilman Testa: But with 120 spaces, Tim, that you got for parking there and how many bays do you have? Mike Curry: How many bays? How many what? Councilman Testa: How many pumps? Mike Curry: Gas pumps? Councilman Testa: Fourteen? Mike Curry: Twenty. Councilman Testa: Twenty something? Twenty. Is that counting diesel? Mike Curry: Yes. Councilman Testa: Go ahead. James Thrasher: In the long form you said that the anticipated trips per hour is vehicles trips per hour. According to the IDE.... Tim Buhl: Yes, I read that. It was my fault because I was looking at the change in the existing facility to the new, facility and that's not correct. Your information is correct. James Thrasher: And just from our traffic engineer's point at the vacant parking lot your now putting a gas station with a fast food restaurant inside, a two lane car wash, twenty pumps, you're going to have an effect on traffic at that intersection and Lime Hollow intersection. Also, the stoplight coming out across Price Chopper Wal Mart. Tim Buhl: I still have to go back to DOT and they looked at the signals there. If there were no signals there or we were a big new site and created a new signal, I would fully agree. But one of the reasons this site was chosen was because of the existing signals there over the driveway and at Lime Hollow Road. While we will address the issue of traffic in our DIS and talk about trips on a ration rate use of the facility we'll show that everything can be done according to what the current signals can handle. Laura Cassalia: Does the DOT have a current model.... suitable for you to go in there? Tim Buhl: The DOT is not requiring we do anything. Laura Cassalia: But you said they're making a decision that you don't have to do one. Tim Buhl: They made the decision. Laura Cassalia: Right. How are they basing, what are they basing it on? Tim Buhl: You'd have to ask the DOT that. They don't think this is a significant enough project to warrant it. Tom Cory(?) told me that personally, himself. They have more concerns about what's going to happen behind this facility with the rest of the Smith Corona property. And then if they are other businesses to come in behind or if Smith Corona's developed later on then they're saying "we want to see 13Z MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 11 something else". But for this action right here we're talking about today they don't have any real concern about. Attorney Folmer: Because the land, because the facility in back of this is now vacant and unused is that how.... Tim Buhl: No, they're saying because this facility doesn't generate enough traffic over and beyond what the current level of service is to warrant a separate traffic study. They have more concerns about the vacant land behind and the old Smith Corona building and if that's ever developed and other uses start happening. Attorney Folmer: That's what I mean. Tim Buhl: Then they want to see something happen. Then they're going to want to see something. Attorney Folmer: Because at this point with that sitting there empty and not being utilized there isn't enough .... Tim Buhl: They look at what it use to be there in terms of Smith Corona, 2200 cars in there. They're looking at it from that perspective and what the use we're generating, what we're going to generate here isn't significant compared to what it was in the past and what typically reaches their threshold to be a problem. Attorney Shafer: The shift changes were several thousands. Attorney Folmer: Oh, I know. Have they even at all considered, as they redo this road and it becomes 281 North and South, have they done anything at all about the traffic light pattern as it goes up because one of the things I see when I try to turn left, I think, on 281 from these places on Route 13 it's just impossible to do at certain times of the clay. But they don't seem to think that's going to be a problem? Tim Buhl: That's why they're talking about redoing the whole corridor. That section down there was four lanes I think it's going to be five or six now. We would have to address it in our document that what .... In terms of a separate and distinct level of service study the DOT is not requiring it and I don't see a need for it here. Laura Cassalia: I'm still going to suggest getting me any information from the DOT because they're obviously making their decision based on some numbers that they have to determine a level of service and it's not going to change .... Tim Buhl: That's what we do as part of the document. We definitely get in touch with them. My first order of business is try to get the license .... Laura Cassalia: Well, I mean something more than a letter.... Tim Buhl: No. From the DEIS, yes. First order is to get the letter about them not requiring it and secondly when we do this obviously we put their information in it. It's cheaper for us to use theirs then generate one ourselves. Attorney Folmer: Let's go on to noise and odor. You going to address those as part of your statement? Tim Buhl: I haven't planned on it. I was kind of perplexed by it. Attorney Shafer: We were wondering what the ambient noise level, what the thought was in terns of a change in the ambient noise level out there right now. Have you gone out there and stood on that corner? Attorney Folmer: Very quiet. Attorney Shafer: Yes. 133 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SC®PING SESSION PAGE 12 Attorney Folmer: But we don't have a gas station and a fast food restaurant and a Attorney Shafer: It's not very quiet. Stand there at 20 minutes to six in the evening and it's quite noisy, actually, because Route 13 is packed with traffic. And Lime Hollow Road. Attorney Folmer: But can you address in your statement then, your proposal, or your thoughts with regard to operating noise and the odors, I think is one of the things. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour a day). Mike Curry: If a fast food restaurant, cooking you're going to have odors. Noise, if you have a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru you're going to have the drive- thru are there going to be squawkings? There's an apartment place right across the road. Tim Buhl: The key is ambience though, when you're talking across the street is Ponderosa. Mike Curry: The determination of what the ambient level is and what the impasse is, that's the purpose of the .... Tim Buhl: If we were a new facility in a non-commercial zone that was generating restaurant odors or maybe didn't have a restaurant across the street or two -tenths of a mile down the street, I don't see how we're going to stick out as a sore thumb when you got all this other things going on in the area. We're going to be generating less odors than Ponderosa. Supervisor Thorpe: Well, how about the displacement of air from gasoline tanks when the pumps are running. Councilman Testa: What about the diesel? Supervisor Thorpe: And there's no way of recovering that saturated air with gasoline, is there? Not in New York State we don't have that type of pump. Councilman Testa: Still have 80 cars coming per hour, they said? Mike Curry: 200 something. Councilman Testa: 200 something. Mike Curry: At the peak hours. Councilman Testa: It's got to have some kind of smell. You can talk about food all you want but I guess it's the diesel.... Councilman Rocco: Do you expect a lot of trucks? Mike Curry: No. Councilman Testa: Why you got them there then? Tim Buhl: Pardon. Councilman Testa: Why do you have the diesel? Tim Buhl: The diesel is for pick-up trucks and automobiles and.... Councilman Testa: How many diesel areas do you have, four? Tim Buhl: No, one. It's a combination kero-diesel pump. It's got two fueling stations. J-3,1 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 13 Attorney Folmer: I assume that when you get talking about public health you're going to be talking again about the containment process, the warning systems and the discharge and the bowl pattern to avoid having collective fuel. I assume that would fall as part of the earlier conversation that we had and the public health would be addressed in that regard. If you're talking about growth and character of the community, I guess there's two things that we talked about here. First of all, it would cause a change in the density of land use and we indicated in our document that there is no way that can be mitigated. I assume that is probably accurate, don't you? Once you build this there it's going to .... Attorney Shafer: Put up a house it changes the density .... Attorney Folmer: Exactly. Attorney Shafer: Put up a house in a residential district, put up a building in a commercial district, put a warehouse in commercial district by.... Attorney Folmer: By definition you've done that. Attorney Shafer: Absolutely. Attorney Folmer: And there's no way to avoid it. What about any .... Attorney Shafer: The.... Attorney Folmer: Go ahead. Attorney Shafer: No. Attorney Folmer: You sure? All right. Additional Community Services we cliscussed. Are you going to address that? Precedent for future projects. Attorney Shafer: Well, we weren't really sure what you're thoughts were about precedent for future projects. Attorney Folmer: Well, I have no idea what the professionals, I know what mine is and I'm not a professional in this area at all but I'm not interested in seeing the area from this point south or this point north becoming gas station alley. If this would be permitted how would we say no to the gentleman who wants to come in across the street, assuming there is such a person. Attorney Shafer: Assuming you're only going to say no if there's a determination that it's a believable permissible use, so what precedent would that be setting? If you're setting a precedent that you're administering your zoning laws in accord with acceptable jurist prudential standards and that would be the only precedent now. We've talked about the issue of that degree that the Board at one point in time on the issue of what legal precedent is derived by this and I think that answer is clear there's no legal precedent. Attorney Folmer: But what about a planning precedent, Mike? Attorney Shafer: Planning precedent? Well, at the Planning Board. Yes, we feel there are got right now a commercial district in town, petroleum storage facility for retail sales of ga that whole zone, is in your Aquifer.... End of side one of the tape. that's one of the issues we discussed planning issues here because you've that's the only place you can put a ;olive products and all of those sites, Attorney Shafer: I can see the point that you're saying that we realize or recognize that we have to address these issues when we get an application for petroleum storage facility with retail sales because by definition the only ones we going to get are going to be in the Aquifer Protection Zone. 1 1 1 135 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SLOPING SESSION PAGE 14 Attorney Folmer: So, then from a planning perspective you are left perhaps with the idea that whoever wins the race? Attorney Shafer: No, from a planning perspective you as a legislative board which is a completely different issue then what we're here for yet you certainly have a responsibility, from a planning standpoint to look at your overall development in the community and decide what you want to do but you don't get to do it on the back of the individual applicant. We fit within the existing zoning scheme for the town right now. So, when you're saying what precedent does this set from a planning standpoint, it doesn't set any. Those precedents have already been set, .... Attorney Folmer: Agreed. Attorney Shafer: legislatively they've been set. Attorney Folmer: I agree. Attorney Shafer: So, if you're saying what should we do as a legislative board in the future. I've made a lot of suggestions to the Planning Board that they ought to come back to the Town Board with some suggestions for some changes I don't know if they'll ever do that or if they're done that already. But this specific permitting procedure has no precedential value here, from my perspective, from a planning standpoint or from.... standpoint. Attorney Folmer: Let me ask you this, hypothetically. Let's assume for a minute that, and this is an assumption that I'm just making for the purpose of arguing or the discussion, let's assume that this permit were granted and the facility constructed and now X comes along and wants to build a similar facility down the road. What would you do if you were representing that person, Mike, and I said to you or we did, we're not going to grant this because you are now making a concentration, this is added concentration that we think is inappropriate and not proper nor is it healthy. What would you say to me under those circumstances? Attorney Shafer: Under the current code? Attorney Folmer: Without any changes in the code. Attorney Shafer: You are going to have to look at those applications and if they meet the necessary requirements under your Zoning ordinance and the Aquifer Protection application process and they adequately address the issues that are raised, environmental issues that would be raised under those circumstances, you have to grant those permits. John, that's the issue we've been talking about since day one on this thing. This is not us coming and asking for a variance. This is us coming and asking for a permit under the legislative set-up, the regulatory set-up, that this Board has put in place. Attorney Folmer: Understand that and I'm asking you whether or not you would believe that it would be possible for this Board or the Planning Board in a review of an application for this permit, a similar permit in the future, to say at this point be it environmental impacts may not be adequately addressed because of a saturation of this kind of activity within this area. Attorney Shafer: You're making an argument that there would be some increase risk because of a cumulative nature of the number of sites. Attorney Folmer: Exactly. As usual you have stated it better than I could. Attorney Shafer: From a hypothetical standpoint I suppose at some point, yes, you could get to that point and you could say.... Attorney Folmer: Enough is enough. 1- 3 6 MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SLOPING SESSION PAGE 15 Attorney Shafer: Yes, enough is enough. From an aesthetic standpoint I suppose I could say right now, that I think enough is enough with Applebee's and places such as that being built and video stores on this commercial strip in Cortlandville. Is that an appropriate determination for this Board to make in a permitting situation? Absolutely not. Attorney Folmer: May not be. Attorney Shafer: If you guys want to do planning. Change your plan. Don't take a particular applicant and say we're going to make our planning decisions and take it out of your hide. Attorney Folmer: I understand. That's not what I'm suggesting. Attorney Shafer: I know. I know. Attorney Folmer: I'm suggesting the cumulative effect. Attorney Shafer: Now.... Councilman Testa: You know, Mr. Shafer, wait a minute. You make this sound like it's a country club or something that you're putting over here. You're talking about Applebee's, you're putting up a f ood place and you guys are putting up twenty bays of gas station. How can you weight this evenly? Attorney Shafer: Every resident in the Town of Cortlandville, I would say probably pretty close to within one percent of total accuracy, drives an automobile and they fill their car up with gasoline someplace every day. The Town of Cortlandville cannot tell either its residents or other people who happen to pass through the Town of Cortlandville or property owners in the Town of Cortlandville that "you cannot build a gas station in the Town of Cortlandville because we're just not going to let you tinder our regulatory scheme". I can tell you one thing that will not pass muster when this case lands in front of a judge if that's where we go on this thing. Ted, you and I have had a difference of opinion about this issue but this issue .... Councilman Testa: But you're effecting thirty thousand people or forty thousand people. Attorney Shafer: But a gas station is a perfectly legitimate commercial development and it's something we can say we don't like gas stations in our back yard and I live in a residential neighborhood in the city, yes, and I prefer not to have a gas station built on the corner of Port Watson Street where I live. But I'll tell you what, there are places in the City of Cortland where you can erect a gas station. You have set up a regulatory system in the Town of Cortlandville, which allows the development of a gas station. Supervisor Thorpe: Irrespective of the danger to the Aquifer. Attorney Shafer: No, we have never taken that position! Attorney Folmer: No. Attorney Shafer: Absolutely not! Attorney Folmer: No. Attorney Shafer: We have to identify and that's the whole purpose of this action tonight.... Supervisor Thorpe: Of course. Of course. MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SLOPING SESSION PAGE 16 Attorney Shafer: To identify what those risks are, take the advise of the consultants, take your advise, put our own input we may go to outside sources as well to determine can we mitigate those risks to a reasonable degree. You said okay that's an outrageous statement. It probably is. There's probably is some tenth or hundredth or thousandth of a percentage risk that you could have a double puncture at the same time. Supervisor Thorpe: Precisely the point. Attorney Shafer: Yes. Supervisor Thorpe: Precisely the point! Attorney Shafer: Yes. Absolutely. Councilman Rocco: We don't want our fives.... Attorney Shafer: And thousands of a percent of risk. Anybody that smokes, anybody that drives a car, anybody that sends their kid down the street without a bicycle helmet on, that's not how we order to direct our lives. So, that's not the discussion we should have in this context. The discussion is the risk that we identify, how do we mitigate them within what everybody agrees is a reasonable degree of practicality and certainty. We can't eliminate risk, Mr. Thorpe you know that.... Supervisor Thorpe: No. Attorney Shafer: We can't tell you we're going to build a gas station and it's never going to leak and nobody is ever going to spill gasoline. Supervisor Thorpe: There is a risk is the issue. Attorney Folmer: Pure and simple that is the issue. SEQRA does not require that conditions be mitigated to zero tolerance. Attorney Shafer: Because you can't do it. Attorney Folmer: No. It's impossible. Councilman O'Donnell: What really bothers me is we've worked our tail off here for quite a few years to come up with an Aquifer Protection law, rule whatever. Nancy Jarvis and those people worked with us and now we're sitting here trying to figure out ways to poke holes in the damn thing. I don't think that is right. Sue Fitts: We ought to be able to protect the Aquifer because I'm a resident, I'm a tax payer, and I expect this Board to protect our Aquifer which is our sole source Aquifer and you have the right to say no. Mike Curry: Actually we are protecting the Aquifer that's what we're doing here today and what's written in the ordinance makes the applicant do more to demonstrate and to mitigate that if it's over the Aquifer we're going to go beyond what's typically done in the industry and you're going to have that presented to you and you already have had that presented to you to a certain extent. Sue Fitts: Not with every business wouldn't present so much of a risk. This is a risky business. They can say no to a risky business without any problem, I hope. Attorney Folmer: I wish I was as certain of that as you are. Sue Fitts: From what I understand that law was written so you have the power to say no. This is not based on, this is a risky thing for the Aquifer we might allow another type of business but we're not necessarily ever going to allow a gas station. .... set a precedent so I hope everybody here thinks about it. MAY 23, 2001 REROB, LLC. SCOPING SESSION PAGE 17 Supervisor Thorpe: Is that it? Attorney Folmer: That's the list of things we're identifying. Councilman Testa: Laura, you got any questions? Laura Cassalia: No, that's all. You'll be getting, or the town, a revised draft. Attorney Folmer: Very good. Thank you. Supervisor Thorpe: Thank you. Attorney Shafer: Thank you. The Special Town Board Meeting for a Scoping Session for Rerob, LLC was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Zaren ectfully Submitted, Q. Snyder der Town Clerk Town of Cortlandville 1 1