Minutes of April 3, 2002

TOWN OF DRYDEN

TOWN BOARD MEETING
April 3, 2002

Board Members Present: Supv Mark Varvayanis, Cl Stephen Stelick, Jr., Cl Deborah

Grantham, Cl Christopher Michaels

Absent: Cl Charles Hatfield

Other Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbeck, Town Clerk

Jack Bush, Highway Superintendent

Other Town Staff: Mahlon R. Perkins, Town Attorney

Henry Slater, Zoning Officer

David Putnam (TG Millers), Town Engineer

PUBLIC HEARING

SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION OF RONALD C BECK FOR

HOME BUSINESS SERVICE AT 80 EAST MALLORYVILLE ROAD

Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Board members have previously received information regarding the application and R Beck presented the Board with the floor plan and elevation of the building. Supv Varvayanis asked ZO Slater or Atty Perkins to comment on the letter received from the County. ZO Slater said that he had spoken with the applicant and his design specialist about the ability to turn trucks around in the driveway and not to have to back onto the road, and they will redesign to accommodate that request. The County also commented that the proposed business use does not appear to fit within the Town’s description of allowed uses by special permit, stating that in their experience food preparation for off-site deliver would not typically be considered a home occupation of a professional or service nature. ZO Slater stated that he was not sure what they are alluding to. Atty Perkins said that he thinks it’s a new era in County Planning involving themselves in Town affairs, and if a matter as simple as a site plan review is going to trigger their discretion to require a super majority of the board over how it accesses a County Road, the Board is free to make its own determinations about that, but really what they are saying is if the Board does not do what they say, they think that it will have a significant impact on the County road right-of-way. He said that he does not know where the requirement is that the site plan show the County right of way along North Road. A surveyor would need to make a determination as to width of the County road, unless the County has acquired it by title. He said that creates a dangerous precedent for people who have businesses along County roads. It is not the function or responsibility of the property owner to determine what the County right-of-way is. Atty Perkins suggested that the County determine what the right-of-way is and if the applicant agrees it can be incorporated in a survey, but it seems like a lot of extra work for each applicant, and really doesn’t have anything to do with the what this Board is reviewing.

ZO Slater stated the applicant will provide a revised site plan that clearly demonstrates the ability to turn around delivery trucks, etc. on site. Supv Varvayanis asked what kind of deliveries were expected and applicant replied frozen food, dairy products and bread, which would be delivered in smaller trucks, not tractor trailers.

Supv Varvayanis read a letter received from TG Miller Engineers recommending that condition #7 of the Standard Conditions of Approval (regarding drainage) be waived.

There being no further questions or comments, Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

SITE PLAN REVIEW

APPLICATION OF DONN SOPP FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AMENDMENT

TO INCLUDE LEASE OF STORE FRONT AT 11 ELLIS DRIVE

Supv Varvayanis opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Board members have previously received application material. Applicant would like to lease a portion of his building for a Subway sandwich shop. ZO Slater stated that his letter indicating that the parking lot striping was inadequate was incorrect. Board members had no questions, and the hearing was left open at 7:18 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

CDBG APPLICATION

Matt Shulman explained that this was the second public hearing regarding the possible submission of a Community Development Block Grant Application to the Governor’s Office for Small Cities. Individual municipalities are eligible to apply for up to $400,000 for one of a variety of reasons. An earlier public hearing was held January 3, 2002 discussing whether or not the Town was interested in proceeding with an application and received comments from the public and representatives from the Varna Fire Department and Varna Community Association. Since then they have been preparing an application, which is due next Friday (April 12, 2002) at 4:00 p.m. The application is for $400,000. Written commitments for match have been received from 33 people/entities for another quarter million dollars. That would allow them to totally redo Forest Home Mobile Home Park. The park was established in the 1930’s as a travel trailer park and grew over the years. There is municipal water & sewer, though no one knows where the lines are and the clay sewer pipes are failing and there have been numerous cases of sewage on the ground. The units, with one exception, are pre-HUD homes (pre 1976), and are extremely deteriorated. It is the most critically dilapidated concentration of housing in the Town and they have done studies going back to 1968 to look at this.

The terms of this arrangement would be, and all the other commitments are contingent on the CDBG funding, that the owner of the park would invest $91,600 to replace the sewer lines and water lines, reconfigure the park, put in underground electric, move the fiber optic cables and telephone cables underground, and extend natural gas service from Varna as far as the Ithaca Town line. The cost of extending the natural gas service ($38,000) would be completely absorbed by NYSEG. The Varna Community Association has applied for a $4,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Tompkins County. A map of the mobile home park as it will be reconfigured was reviewed and discussed by the Board. The homes will be farther apart than they presently are and there will be a play area for children. Park residents will contribute labor and donated services are also being offered by the Varna Community Center, Habitat for Humanity, a forester has offered assistance with trees and planting, etc. An executive summary was distributed to board members. ZO Slater has been working with M Shulman so that the physical plan will meet the requirements of the Town of Dryden Mobile Home Park Ordinance.

M Shulman stated that if the grant is awarded, before any monies can be spent they will have to go through the environmental review process. One of the in-kind contributions is there is a planner who will do the environmental work for them. Atty Perkins said that SEQR will need to be addressed at this point because we are committing to a course of action in the future. He suggested the Board do a short form EAF for the action of applying for funding for a plan that is not yet fully developed.

David Weinstein stated that one of the concerns with the area has been how close the park is to the creek and the fact that there is a very steep bank and a lot kids go down to the creek to play. Erosion is also a concern and he wondered how much things were moved away from the creek and whether there was a plan to stabilize the bank. M Shulman said he had consulted with the Soil and Water Conservation District and they have arranged for free materials and Craig Schutt will provide technical expertise. There is no erosion problem now, but plantings will be done as a preventive measure.

D Weinstein inquired about whether the amount of impervious surface would be increased and how the runoff would be handled. M Shulman said the impervious surface may be increased slightly, and ZO Slater said drainage would be brought to the roadside ditch, not to the creek. The actual design is not yet complete.

Supv Varvayanis closed the public hearing on the CDBG application and the Sopp site plan review hearing at 7:40 p.m. and opened the Town Board meeting.

Board reviewed the short environmental assessment form for the Beck special permit application.

RESOLUTION #108 – NEG SEQR DEC – BECK SPECIAL PERMIT

Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR review for the special permit application of Ronald C. Beck to establish a home business service at 80 East Malloryville Road. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents.

2nd Cl Michaels

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

The board then discussed conditions to be attached to the approval. Standard conditions of approval, excepting #7, shall apply. ZO Slater will be provided with a revised site plan showing adequate space for truck turn around. Cl Grantham would like a condition that there be no outside storage of trash. ZO Slater and Supv Varvayanis both noted that the business is currently operated from the applicant’s home on Ferguson Road and you would never know there is a business there. Cl Michaels suggested that there be screening of any outdoor trash facilities.

RESOLUTION #108 – APPROVE BECK SPECIAL PERMIT

Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves the special permit application for a home occupation business at 80 East Malloryville Road, with the following conditions:

1. Standard Conditions of Approval, except #7, shall apply.

2. Applicant shall provide Zoning Officer with a site plan showing adequate for a truck turnaround.

3. Any outdoor waste facility shall be screened.

2nd Cl Stelick

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

The board reviewed the SEQR form in connection with the application of Don Sopp for site plan amendment to include rental of space for a Subway sandwich was reviewed.

RESOLUTION #110 – NEG SEQR DEC – SOPP/SUBWAY

Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR review for the site plan review application of Donn Sopp for a Subway sandwich shop in the existing building at 11 Ellis Drive. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents.

2nd Cl Michaels

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

ZO Slater asked that the prior conditions of approval be replaced with the current conditions. Cl Grantham suggested there be outside storage of trash, or that any dumpster be screened. Applicant said that most trash that is generated is carried off premises, but there is a spot provided for a dumpster if necessary. Condition #2 of the original approval states that any dumpster be screened. The original site plan was approved in 1996. This is an amendment to that approval. Applicant stated that hours might be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Board discussed present and previous conditions.

RESOLUTION #111 – APPROVE SOPP SITE PLAN REVIEW

Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board approves the site plan amendment application presented by Donn Sopp for the operation of a Subway sandwich shop at 11 Ellis Drive, subject to the following changes to the original conditions of 1996:

1. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

2. Standard conditions of approval of 7-12-00 shall apply.

3. The entire parking area shall be illuminated.

4. Ice cream and related sales and Subway shop sales are permitted.

5. Prior conditions 5 through 9 and 12 through 15 of the original approval shall be maintained.

2nd Cl Michaels

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

The Board reviewed and completed the SEQR form in connection with the CDBG grant application to be submitted for rehabilitation of the Forest Home Circle mobile home park. The executive summary was attached. The review is for the application only, the project itself is a separate SEQR issue.

RESOLUTION #112 – NEG SEQR DEC – CDBG GRANT APPLICATION FOR FOREST HOME CIRCLE TARGETED HOUSING REHABILITATION PROJECT

Cl Michaels offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR review for the CDBG grant application for Forest Home Circle targeted housing rehabilitation project. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents.

2nd Cl Grantham

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

RESOLUTION #112 – NEG SEQR DEC – CDBG GRANT APPLICATION

Cl Michaels offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board issue a negative declaration based on the SEQR review for the Town of Dryden’s application for Community Development Block Grant funding for 2002. This is an unlisted action and the Town of Dryden is the lead agency in uncoordinated review. The Supervisor is authorized to sign all necessary documents.

2nd Cl Grantham

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

RESOLUTION #113 – APPROVE SUBMISSION OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN’S FOREST HOME CIRCLE TARGETED HOUSING REHABILITATION PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE 2002 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES’ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden (Tompkins County) intends to apply for Community Development Bock Grant funding for 2002, and

WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden, pursuant with the regulations of the Governor’s office for Small Cities, has held two public hearings to discuss prior community development and housing rehabilitation programs and to present the contents of the proposed applications;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden apply for a single purpose Small Cities Community Development Block Grant for $400,000 for a targeted Housing Rehabilitation Program in the Forest Home Circle housing community. Using a community development approach involving inputs from the low-income park residents as well as leveraged support from multiple public, private and non-profit sector partners, the project will completely rehabilitate the extremely substandard Forest Home Circle mobile home park into a vibrant, HUD-compliant manufactured housing community, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign any and all documents necessary for submission of said application.

2nd Cl Michaels

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

CITIZENS PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Judge Christopher Clauson asked whether there had been any resolution to his previous requests regarding space and security. Cl Grantham told him that the building committee is meeting tomorrow and will discuss a call for proposals to do the design of the building, and she will bring it to the Board next Wednesday for approval. Judge Clauson asked whether the Board had received a letter from Chief Robertson of the Dryden Village Police Department. Judge Clauson is concerned with security and the safety of personnel and the public in the Town Hall and stated it is important to look into it as soon as possible. Supv Varvayanis stated the letter provides one possible supplier of security and the Town has a budget for a security officer and asked if that was insufficient. Judge Clauson stated that the person providing security now is not available during the day for Wednesday morning Court, and it is difficult to find someone for days. He noted that since the building is in the Village of Dryden it should be automatic that the Village Police Department provide court security, and suggested that the Village Board be approached. Judge Clauson also noted that there is no door for escape at the front of the room should there ever be a problem. Cl Grantham suggested he change the room around. Judge Clauson that there simply isn’t enough room since he is only allowed 12 people in the Court room, and he has invited the Board to attend pre-trials tomorrow night. Judge Valentinelli reminded the Board that he had a problem in his court where his secretary was caught in the middle of opposing parties in a civil suit. Judge Clauson asked if the Board was going to wait on a new building instead of making changes to the Court room. Supv Varvayanis asked him what he would want, and Judge Clauson suggested that a waiver be obtained from the State saying they could have more than 12 people in the room at a time. He said that the Town should advertise for security or the Village Police force should be present.

Atty Perkins said there is a crowding problem in the Court, though he has not seen anyone try to remove people when the number was over 12. He thinks the question of the waiver can be addressed by the Zoning Officer and there is a process for it. Supv Varvayanis said he would talk with the Mayor about providing Court security. Cl Grantham said she had no objections to rearranging the room for Court sessions.

Joyce Gerbasi, the Town’s representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council – There will be a public meeting on the Vital Communities project on April 11 at the DSS Building in Ithaca for comments. The EMC is recommending that Tompkins County opt in to the New York State Pesticide Neighborhood Notification Law and will be sending a resolution to that effect to Tompkins County. Cl Grantham said she would bring it up at the Town’s Conservation Advisory Council meeting.

David Weinstein, 51 Freese Road – As you all know a law suit has been brought by the Town, specifically the Highway Department, against me requiring that I move the stone wall that is on my property and has been there since well before I bought the property sixteen years ago. To move it so the Highway Department can have access to the drainage ditch that is on my property. This drainage ditch is 26 feet from the side of the road, so to have jurisdiction over the drainage ditch, the Highway Department would have to be claiming something between 70 and 80 feet of right-of-way at that point. The Highway Department has never approached me at all about any problem relating to this ditch. There has never been a complaint or an approach to where they said “We need to have access to this ditch, what can you do about it?” The Highway Department has also never done any work in this ditch at all. I have always maintained the ditch. I dig it approximately twice a year to make sure it’s clear. I’m happy to do that. I’ve always been happy to maintain the ditch, and as I said the Highway Department has never touched it.

The culvert underneath my driveway was replaced four years ago by the Highway Department and that’s the culvert that leads into this ditch. It was replaced because the pipe that had been put in by the previous Highway Supervisor was slightly smaller diameter; it was corrugated; it was put in with a bend in it, so it wasn’t letting things flow very well and material was accumulating in the pipe.

At the time that we replaced it, the suggestion was made to me that we might have to widen the ditch where the pipe exits to make sure nothing is preventing the rapid flow of water out of the pipe. At that time I inquired whether this was something the Highway Department did and was told no, I would have to do it myself. I would have to hire a private contractor to go do it. I happily did that. I went out and I have a bill from four years ago that my wife, who is wonderful about saving things, saved, to show you that I paid out of my own pocket to make sure that there was not going to be a problem. There has never been a problem since in this ditch.

So that’s the facts of the case. You can judge for yourself the merits and motivations behind the suit that’s being brought against me. And this is a suit that was a counter claim attached to the suit that’s been brought to the Town. So I guess all these things will be eventually resolved in a Court.

I’m talking to you because as a Town Board you set the tone, you’re responsible for the tone, of the way things are done in this Town. It’s one thing for the Town to defend itself against a suit that citizens are bringing against it. It’s a whole other thing for the Town to initiate a suit against a citizen without any prior attempt to resolve the situation, without ever any notification that there’s even a problem going on. So the question I have for you is, is this the way we want to conduct business in this Town? If you don’t think that’s the way, I know that the Highway Department has it’s own regulations from the State and you don’t have authority, except for budgetary authority, over things that they do, but you do set the tone of the way that we do business in this Town. And if you don’t like this as being the approach that the Town has to its citizens, you do have responsibility to try and figure out a way to change the way that we do business in this Town. So I hope you think about that.

Geoff Potter, 902 Dryden Road – I had a similar problem, it started about 20 years ago. I co-own the house at 902 Dryden Road. I’ve been told by the Town, the County and the State that once that tube hits your property line, you are responsible for that ditch. So for somebody to say that they need to come in and maintain a ditch on your property is not going to happen because I fought with the State and the Town and the County for over ten years to get a tube replaced across the yard. And we finally ended up spending $5,000 to do it just to get the water from the road to the creek.

Peggy Walbridge, Hunt Hill Road – At the last meeting one of the residents mentioned an issue about maybe having a Town policy for tree cutting and I think that given the situation in the southern part of the Town, the time is ripe for the Town Board to look at a tree policy so that work is not done beyond rights-of-way. Recently, earlier this week, the Highway Department cut a tree thinking it was on someone else’s land, wasn’t sure whose land it was on. I think that a tree cutting policy and process is the only way to try and resolve this. People are much concerned about the trees on their property and how that connects to quality of life of the neighborhood. I really hope that you will quickly work on this issue so that we can all stop snapping at each other.

The other is the issue of road policy of which I heard another citizen talk in a meeting about Ellis Hollow Road. How it really needs to be connected to planning. It can’t just be how much traffic can a road bear. So I would like the Town Board to really look at the issue of roads connected to whether it’s the planning document or separately so that again we don’t start battling each other over roads. I’m really hopeful that the Board will, I know it’s difficult to go into this area, but go ahead and really look at citizens’ rights on their own property.

Alicia Alexander – I have a paper to turn into you all but, you saw me here not long ago. I have a bed and breakfast on Hunt Hill Road. I am concerned about the cutting of trees and the trimming of trees because for me this is not just a like or dislike, this is my livelihood, and in fact my only asset, on which I need to survive for the rest of my life. I have spent hundreds of hours tending my property. The DEC has graciously given me licenses so that I can maintain what I’ve established on my property, my bushes and so forth, so the deer can’t get in my bushes and so forth. I’ve plucked zillions of gypsy moths off of my white oak which is one of the finest in the County, and I even paid to have it sprayed and it is one of the few remaining oaks on Hunt Hill after that gypsy moth infestation. My trees offer protection from dirt and noise and create atmosphere in an increasing bed and breakfast business. They are coming up all over the place and you really need to have something unique and lovely for people to want to come back to. I feel like I’ve cooperated and trimmed back my trees to where anyone can go and see that they in no way visually impair any given driver and there’s never been an accident on my hundreds of feet of roadway by my house. My feeling is that while I appreciate the Highway Department and want to support them, as a resident of Hunt Hill I would like to see my road kept nice and clear and blacktopped and the holes kept out of it. That’s where I would like to see my taxpayer money going for the Highway Department.

Robin Seeley, 332 Hurd Road – As you just heard, on Monday a tree was cut, apparently by the Highway Department, on one of the properties protected by a temporary restraining order against the Highway Department cutting of trees. The best possible spin that you could put on this incident is that the Highway Department is confused about who owns what property and cuts trees without really knowing who owns what where. So as a follow up to that, I’d like to ask the Town Board to pass a resolution tonight requesting that the Highway Department stop all tree cutting until the Town has it’s new tree cutting policy or at least until these current legal issues are settled.

Cl Grantham – Seems like that would be a good idea. Can you live with that Jack?

J Bush – No.

Cl Grantham – Why not? I think it’s an opportunity to resolve this until we can come up with a policy for how to do it, and I think that you’re part of that discussion about the policy. So why can’t it just be all suspended until those decisions are made?

J Bush – I don’t think that’s the answer.

Supv Varvayanis – Mahlon, do you have any idea when this thing may wind it’s way through the Courts?

Atty Perkins – We’d have a decision from Judge Mulvey, I would think, on the injuction before the end of the month. Whether it takes longer than that to resolve it is an open question. I think one of the things that you have to keep in mind here is that your request to Jack to stop cutting trees will be nothing more than a request. You don’t have any jurisdiction over the trees; he does. He has a statutory and a common law non-delegable duty to maintain the highways in a safe condition and that includes of removal of trees or other obstructions within the highway that he considers might pose a danger to the public. The same really can be said of any policy that you might develop. It would be advisory only. So I think its important that you keep in mind where the lines of authority begin and end here.

Supv Varvayanis – I think that’s been made clear at meetings previously.

Atty Perkins – You can certainly suggest to him that that’s what you should do, but on the other hand, there are lots of areas where there are no problems. I would guess that the majority of the roads don’t present problems where he has consent or there is no issue about whether he should be cutting or not. I don’t think you should paint this with too broad a brush.

Geofrey Wetzler – I reside at 90 Hunt Hill Road and have for about 20 years. I’d like to add to what Mr. Perkins said about responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities that Mr. Bush has is to work within the existing highway law which is at issue at this point. As a resident and taxpayer of the County I find it most objectionable that not only is money being spent by the Town Highway Department to do things which residents of a given road object to, but also now Town monies are being spent to defend an action on top of that issue. So it seems to me that the Town Highway Superintendent is working with cross purposes to the governing authority and the budgetary disposition of monies that is your responsibility.

A Alexander stated that the swath of trees taken down on Hurd Road was quite beyond what anyone could possibly conceived of as the safety of the road. They were good healthy trees. On Hunt Hill Road there are several extremely dead trees that are still standing up the road from her house. She’s wondering why the dead trees are still standing and healthy trees are being cut. It makes her nervous that you put someone in a position of authority and they choose to arbitrarily do as they choose. She said they should take down the dead ones not the live ones, and asked about the citizen who has to live with the result of this. It is their property, their major investment, and her only investment, so she does not feel this person can do as they darn well please on her property and there is no governing authority. It makes her nervous.

G Wetzler – There seems to be an awfully large change in attitude between the current Town Highway Supervisor and previous Highway Supervisors. I have trees, and this goes back to the discussions earlier about gypsy moth infestations as well as Ms Alexander’s comments about cutting down dead trees. In a previous highway administration I was approached by the Town Highway Supervisor at the time and asked if some rather large oak trees which had not survived one of the gypsy moth infestations because they were too stressed out, I was told there were branches falling in the road and could we please cut these dead trees down. Of course I had no objection whatsoever and said fine, go ahead, cut the trees down. I don’t see a problem with that. But the current policy seems to be one of having no reflection upon the desires and wishes of the residents of the Town of Dryden.

A Alexander – Or at least our hill.

G Wetzler – Ultimately, if the Town is found to be in violation and damages are assessed it will be a third cost to the taxpayers of this Town. First cutting the trees, secondly defending the lawsuit, and finally paying the damages. That’s inexcusable.

C Michaels – Could somebody identify for me the property where somebody said a tree was cut on theirs?

R Seeley – Steve Horn.

G Wetzler – Right next to a posted sign.

Cl Michaels – I’ve probably received pretty close to a hundred phone calls on trees and road issues, and this is the first time I’ve heard somebody say a tree was cut where they had not given permission for it to be cut. To me that’s actually a pretty important issue. The trees that have been cut that I’m aware of could have been cut by the individual property owners, actually one of them came and spoke on the road where most of the tree cutting occurred. He said he was strongly in favor of them being cut and specifically requested it so there was a complete synergy between the resident who owned those trees and the Highway Superintendent as to what should be done. I’m very interested in where specifically actions are being taken on a resident’s land or what they believe to be their land, where there’s ambiguities between what the highway right-of-way might be on their land, and any situation where the Highway Department might be doing something against what that resident desires. This is the first time I’ve heard it in all the discussion that’s been heard.

R Seeley – Chris, I think what’s raised the issue now is that list of work that came with the Town papers in this lawsuit that I think I faxed to you, work that is needed. In some cases the list of work that was going to be done contradicted what had been told to that property owner and had been worked out face to face with the Highway Department. In other cases, people were suddenly aware of what needed to be done and hadn’t gotten any letters, as some residents of Hurd Road had, and so I think that is raising fears all over again.

G Wetzler – I’d also like to add is that one of our concerns of course, is that once trees are cut, it’s irreparable. They can’t be easily put back. I would also like to point out that it’s my understanding and Mr. Perkins will correct me if I’m wrong, my understanding at the hearing held last Friday in State Supreme Court was that there was a general agreement that the Town’s right-of-way existed only to that area which has been continuously used and maintained for ten years. That there is in fact no set number of feet of right-of-way. Would you agree with that or disagree with that?

Atty Perkins – No, I wouldn’t agree with that, not the way you phrased it. No, I wouldn’t.

G Wetzler – How would you….

Atty Perkins – I’m not going to discuss the intricacies of the litigation in public. That’s a matter for Mr. Bush and this Board to take a position on. I think since it is a matter of controversy and litigation, that the best place to resolve that will be the forum that was chosen.

G Wetzler – Then I will add that it is my distinct impression from the conversations that I heard at the hearing that there is, in my opinion, even if not in Mr. Perkins’ opinion, in my opinion the Judge agreed that the right-of-way extends to that area which has been continuously used and maintained for the past ten years and that there is no such thing as a 49 1/2 foot right-of-way. My opinion.

P Walbridge – This is somewhat in response to Chris’s statement. As a citizen I have to admit I am concerned about the Town doing private work for other people. I think there are liability issues and what not, and whether it’s logging for people, or whatever, I’m not sure the Town wants to, outside of where they have an easement, whether it’s with permission of somebody or not, I think that is not a good precedent for you, as you are responsible to us, to be having the Town do private work.

Supv Varvayanis asked if there were other questions or comments. Atty Perkins responded that he would like the board to convene an executive session to discuss current litigation, Seeley, et al vs. Bush and the Town of Dryden, et al vs. The County of Tompkins.

Atty Perkins asked the Board to pass a resolution authorizing the Supervisor to sign an agreement between the Town on behalf of the Monkey Run Water District and NYSEG for the dedication to the Town of the new electric line to the meter pit and in exchange for that the Town formally taking over the water lines which were always intended to be conveyed to the Town from the tank down to the hydrants, making it part of the distribution system (which it always has been). These were details which were apparently never completed in connection with an agreement that was reached thirteen years ago or so. Atty Perkins has worked with the counsel’s office for NYSEG and the agreement is now in suitable form.

RESOLUTION #114 – AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH NYSEG

Cl Michaels offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor, on behalf of the Monkey Run Water District, to execute an agreement with New York State Electric and Gas Corporation with respect to the Town formally taking over the water lines from the tank to the hydrants.

2nd Cl Grantham

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

Cl Grantham informed the Board that she did some more follow up on the aquifer study. There is a possibility that there could be state funding through the DEC to look at the Virgil Creek aquifer. She spoke with an Engineer at DEC who suggested that the Town send a letter to Phil deGaetano, Acting Director of the Division of Water, stating the Town’s local commitment. She said they probably will have some funding left over this year and they can distribute that to new projects. One of the criteria for choosing new projects is local commitment. She has provided the Supervisor with a draft letter.

RESOLUTION #115 – AUTHORIZE LETTER REGARDING AQUIFER STUDY

Cl Grantham offered the following resolution and asked that for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to send a letter to Phil deGaetano, Acting Director of the Division of Water, Department of Environmental Conservation stating the Town’s local commitment, $30,000, to an aquifer study.

2nd Cl Michaels

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

Cl Grantham has drafted comments on the draft EIS Wastewater Treatment Collection and given them to Supv Varvayanis and Cl Michaels.

Atty Perkins has provided the board with a copy of the local law which is in place for the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding meeting attendance and Cl Michaels said that he believes it makes sense to have uniformity in the boards in that regard and it provides a way to replace people who don’t attend and get effective people on the board. Atty Perkins will draft a proposed local law and distribute it the board. It will have to be introduced and a public hearing scheduled.

The Board has received copies of the Ellis Hollow Community Center Civic Center Revitalization Plan. Cl Michaels asked it was going to be related to a request for funding or support. Supv Varvayanis said they were trying to prepare a County Commercial Center Revitalization Grant Application to get some money to work on the community center. Cl Grantham said that when the Varna Community Center did this the Town Board passed a resolution in support of it and that it agrees with the Town’s master plan. Supv Varvayanis said Ellis Hollow will need that.

RESOLUTION #116 – SUPPORT ELLIS HOLLOW CIVIC CENTER REVITALIZATION PLAN

Cl Michaels offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:

RESOLVED, that this Town Board offer its support for the Ellis Hollow Civic Center Revitalization Plan dated March 26, 2002.

2nd Cl Stelick

Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes

Supv Varvayanis Yes

Cl Michaels Yes

Cl Grantham Yes

ZO Slater reminded that board that the contract with Matt Shulman expires the end of this month. The Supervisor has written requesting an extension for the Project Impact funds but has not yet received a response.

Matt Shulman advised the board that he had received notification that the Forest Home Mobile Park is out of the flood plain.

The Supervisor has received a letter from the Ellis Hollow Community Center requesting assistance in repairing the tennis courts. Supv Varvayanis and Cl Grantham said they did not know the tennis courts were open to the public, and it had been her experience that you had to go with a member in order to use them. She suggested that if the Town does help them, there should be an agreement that the courts are open to the public. Supv Varvayanis will get some more information regarding this.

On motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the board moved into executive session at 9:25 to discuss current litigation. No action was taken and the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bambi L. Hollenbeck

Town Clerk