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