Chambana Sun

Village of Ogden Village Board Met March 10.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

I: CALL TO ORDER: (7:00 P.M.)

Board Members Present                     Board Members Absent

Gay H. Lenhard, Supervisor               Aaron Baker, Councilman 

Thomas J. Cole, Councilman

Malcolm E. Perry, Councilman

Michael T. Zale, Councilman

Others Present

Noelle Burley, Town Clerk                   John Freel

Dan Wolf, Highway Superintendent    Dan Visca

Daniel Schum, Town Attorney             Chief Mears

Chris Burley                                        Kim Visca

John Sciarabba                                  Patrick Smith

Steve Toms                                        James Butera

Carol Nellis-Ewell

Micah Clark

Karen Smith

Val Visca

Virginia Spielman

Elaine Kuvaleski

Joe Baretta

Sara Trapani

Rob Trapani

Kimberly Wake

Doug Case

Bob Hengenius

Elizabeth Lyda

Frank & Karen Rakoski

Michelle Marra

Peter Marra

Anthony Lewis

Purpose of the Meeting

To audit claims, act on monthly reports and remittances, and to transact such other business which may legally come before said meeting.

7:00 PM – Public Hearing: Application from Land-Re Company LLC to rezone land from SC Senior Citizens Housing District to Multiple Family Residential.

Supervisor Lenhard: Good evening. Unfortunately, Aaron Baker is unable to be here this evening. However, he asked me to give the town condolences to Spencerport Fire District Commissioner, David Resch. Longtime Ogden business owner, a lot of people knew him. I think we should have a moment of silence in his honor.

I am going to turn this meeting over to the Town Clerk and let her read the legal notice for tonight’s public hearing.

Noelle Burley, Town Clerk: Read the Legal Notice.

John Sciarabba: I am with Landtech and I am representing Land Re Company, LLC. Members of the company are here, Dan and Val Visca. You may recognize them, they are long term business owners in the Town of Ogden. They own and maintain existing townhomes and apartments on Big Ridge and Union Street and have developed this

Parkview Center property. I know there are some new faces on the Town Board so I just wanted to recap quickly. Parkview Center was approximately a 50 acre parcel of land located on Union and Big Ride Road. In 2006, that property was rezoned into two different entities. One, the eastern portion that we are talking about tonight was zoned to Senior and the other part was zoned to Commercial. Both properties are approximately 25 acres in size. After that rezoning process and overall preliminary approval was granted for full build out of this Senior section. The plans I have that was approved, reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and is poised for development in that fashion. Also, as the Board is aware, a lot of other construction has happened with the dialysis building and other entities on Parkview Center. It is a very active site, I am hoping that more opportunities come for development in the area but over recent years the project that the Visca’s did in the Village on Big Ridge Road was a two story apartment project. They did a two story townhomes project on Union Street but there has always been the question, “Can you add more single story buildings?” So yes, they want to do more of that. That is why we are here tonight to say we want to do a project that is not the same project that we did almost 20 years ago. We want to look at something different. The market has changed, people have changed. They are still marketing they feel about 70% of this project will be for seniors. We are not looking to negate seniors; they are very good clients but the world has changed. People don’t buy houses until they are 40 anymore. Even young people don’t want to mow the lawn, so our proposal right now is a very unique thing. Our proposal now is to create a duplex and we have also 7 units of quads, single story, two car garage, 1,400 sq. ft. units with a basement. This sounds like a senior unit but also someone who is 25 years old who is single or a handicap person. When you have a project of this scale with this amount of money you just don’t want it to fail. If we limit the market just to seniors this project could languish and that is what they felt. They want to create a quiet community that all the external stuff like cutting the lawns will be done by them. We are requesting a dedicated road and normal features to that end. Basically, we are proposing 84 units total. We have 7 quad units; those are four in each building and the balance are duplexes. They are setback 40 ft. off the road so you could park two cars in the driveway if needed without backing into the road. We have plenty of open space. We reserved room for a storm water management pond. The plan you see before you is a concept plan showing out intent. We have to actually throw away the pre-approved plans we did back in 07’ and redo everything to this layout. So basically update our storm water management plan, work with the Town Engineer again and go back to the drawing board so to say. We are willing to do that. Our firm we know what the elements are out there, they have historically been an issue on this site. Mr. Widger was actively involved with this. The storm water actually wants to go north toward Union Street and he said no because there is too much impact over there, we want water to go back towards the treatment plant and we accomplished that in that past as we will continue to do so. Sanitary sewer and drainage were an issue. Although the treatment plant in the Village went offline, the elevation of the wet well and tank did not allow this land to be gravity fed so the Visca’s at their own cost put a lift station in on the commercial property and this facility will drain to that lift station. Another issue that comes up is traffic study. We have had at least three traffic studies completed during the course of this project. The County is aware of this, we will dust off the traffic studies that were done during that approval. If there are upgrades that need to be made the County will make us aware of that. This project is slated for seniors, not labeled as senior and I think the numbers will pan out that this will not negatively impact the traffic on Big Ridge Road. The other elements that we are aware of and the fact that the Visca’s are local people, screening the neighbors. The people on Big Ridge Road are not used to having a development behind them. We want to make sure that as the site plan moves forward that we have a detailed landscaping plan to buffer and berm the neighbors to the south. We do have access to Big Ridge Road, that is going to be a new thing for them and we want to make sure that we don’t negatively impact them. Those kind of details will be worked out eventually with the Planning Board and we hope that the Town Board sees fit to rezone us to Multi-Family so we could move forward in that direction and go to the Planning Board and work on updating our plans. I can answer any questions you have at this point.

Supervisor Lenhard: Is there anyone who would like to speak or ask questions? 

Virginia Spielman: Is this going to be on Spencerport Electric?

John Sciarabba: Yes.

Virginia Spielman: With the electric bills that we all just received last month that is not a very good thought for the rest of us. That is a big concern for us is putting that many more houses on Spencerport Electric. Because I have owned a house in the Village for over 30 years and I never had an electric bill like I had last month. To add this many more homes to Spencerport Electric is a concern I have. Another question I have is there any exit to Route 259 or is Big Ridge Road the only out?

John Sciarabba: There are three roads that have access to the site, Big Ridge, Land Re Way and Union Street. It will *inaudible*

Councilman Zale: I have a few questions if you don’t mind. In regards to what was just brought up regarding Spencerport Electric, 84 units is what is being proposed here. I have to be honest, what I recall and what I feel like I remember is, clearly tonight we are only considering is changing from Senior to Multi-Family but this is an entirely new plan. Is that correct?

John Sciarabba: Yes.

Councilman Zale: How many units were proposed in the original plan? John Sciarabba: There were 78 units with a clubhouse.

Councilman Zale: So it is slightly more but what was the original plan for electric in the original plan?

John Sciarabba: It will always remain the same. It will always be on Village electric.

Councilman Zale: So this is 8 units shy of what the other plan would have cooked up. The other question I have, you mentioned doing a couple traffic studies. What, if anything, were the findings for adding 84 units?

John Sciarabba: The plan was approved by the DOT so the configuration of the road that we show, one of the unique features of our access on Big Ridge Road is we had a median, so it is a split access. It is done mostly for aesthetics but also it gives more flexibility in that area. We did not have to do any other traffic features, we did not have to add any signage, there was no reduction in the speed limit required at this level. I know we are all familiar with another application that recently went to the Board. There is a trip and it is 100 trips per peak hour and this was obviously under that but again we can dust off those studies when we go to the Planning Board.

Dan Schum, Town Attorney: Just to address this, anyone who owns land who wants power has to take power from the franchise that has that district’s boundaries so it is not that this developer is choosing the Village Electric, their property happens to be within the district. They couldn’t get it from RG&E if they wanted to. It is a function of where the property is not who is furnishing the power. I do understand what you are saying, the more people that use Village Electric potentially that goes into your purchase power adjustment.

Elaine Kovaleski: This plan shows not being on Union, am I correct? So, what is the rest of the property going to be used for?

John Sciarabba: The property that was slated to be east of this project is zoned Commercial. So, business commercial we wanted a couple unit buildings for like a dentist office or a bank. There was a large plaza that was proposed there back in 06’. I think all these ideas were part of the master plan as well but that land has not sold because there is no one that wants to build those kinds of structures.

Elaine Kovaleski: So the people working on this project don’t own that land? John Sciarabba: No, we do.

Elaine Kovaleski: Ok so you do own it but it is zoned for Commercial? I did not realize that, interesting. Ok, thank you.

Supervisor Lenhard: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Kimberly Wake: I just have a question and maybe this can’t be answered tonight or maybe it is not even a factor but if this were to be Multi-Family housing and families were there with children would they be going to the Terry Taylor school? Would it have an impact on the school numbers? You probably can’t answer tonight but I wanted to bring it up. Terry Taylor is a pretty small school and my kids go there.

John Sciarabba: I don’t know if I am the person who can answer that question. Our market on this is still going to be mainly seniors.

Michelle Marra: I am one of the owners of Barefoot Landing, the plaza on 259 next to Pineway Ponds park. I just wanted to understand the entrance to 259 would be only attached to the commercial piece which has not been developed, that would all come off of Big Ridge Road?

John Sciarabba: Yes.

Michelle Marra: Got it, thank you.

Frank Rakoski: Just couple questions I guess or comments. One is these are single story units you said, right? Are they going to be sold or rented? I didn’t catch that.

John Sciarabba: We have individual lots that will be sold eventually. For a period of time, *inaudible*

Frank Rakoski: Right, because I thought I heard you say the residents would maintain the lawns and everything. So it is because they are going to buy them.

John Sciarabba: There will be an HOA. And that goes to the Board *inaudible* plan is to create an environment *inaudible*

Frank Rakoski: Ok, thank you. Are there going to be any variances needed, on the setbacks or garages or anything.

John Sciarabba: We are not proposing any at this time. Some things do come up when we get into design. The planning you see before you meets code for the townhouses.

Frank Rakoski: Ok, you mentioned the traffic. In previous discussions on projects in this area there has been a lot of concern about the traffic from BOCES and this. Given that these are not strictly senior units it would seem there could be more traffic than if they were strictly senior. Is that correct?

John Sciarabba: Yes.

Frank Rakoski: Ok, thank you.

Supervisor Lenhard: Is there anyone else who would like to speak? If not, we will close the public hearing.

II: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

Resolution #95-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Cole

Seconded by Councilman Perry

BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Regular Meetings of February 10, 2021, there being no errors or omissions, stand approved as submitted.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Introduced by Councilman Cole

Seconded by Councilman Zale

BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Regular Meetings of February 24, 2021, there being no errors or omissions, stand approved as submitted.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Abstain: Perry

III: PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR:

Supervisor Lenhard: Is there anyone who would like to talk to the Town Board? 7

Micah Clark: I would first just like to say thank you to the Board. I was here for the meeting two weeks ago and there was a workshop discussion about COVID protocols in the Town Offices and I just thought what you guys did was great. I mean the concern about following safety protocols and keeping people safe while simultaneously really trying to find ways to allow people into the offices to see the people they need to see. Kudos to you guys for working through that and coming up with a good solution. Seems like you guys really care and take everything into account so I really appreciate that. Tonight, my issue is about the canal. The Canal Corporation has an Earth and Embankment Integrity project which I am guessing you have heard about before. Does that sound familiar.

Supervisor Lenhard: Not to me, but I can’t hear you very well.

Micah Clark: Is this better?

Supervisor Lenhard: Yes.

Micah Clark: Yes, that is better. So, the Canal Corporation in 2017 initiated a project called the Earth and Embankment Integrity program. There has been a lot of discussion in the last four years since then. Are you familiar with it?

Dan Schum, Town Attorney: This is the issue, when they started cutting trees and they did it because the roots were causing a problem with the banks.

Micah Clark: So that is the project. Like I said, it started in 2017 and in 2018 there was litigation from a collection of towns on the eastside and it has been on hold for the last couple of years. I first just have a question. I am just wondering if anyone on the Board or if Supervisor Lenhard engaged with the Canal Corporation earlier in the first two years as far as the planning for that or having any input.

Dan Schum, Town Attorney: I can address that when the eastside towns decided that the Canal Corporation was moving way too fast and without a lot of public hearings and public comment I was directed to engage the attorneys on the eastside to make sure that if they needed our help on the westside that we were in support of making sure that it was done in a proper fashion with public input and the opportunity to be heard. I think that is what happened and that is why we are here in 2021. The project has not moved forward very much since then. That was the extent of our engagement.

Councilman Zale: I was engaged as a County Legislature because we had several e mails from constituents that live along that pathway that were upset that the trees were being cleared from right in front of or in their backyard. Clearly if there is an issue then the state needs to take care of it. I understand that people like the view outside their homes but that was something that came to us. I actually remember coming to this body or the previous body and addressing it as well. That was something they put a moratorium on but this is the first I am hearing of it since.

Micah Clark: I have an update. I am pleased to hear what you said to Attorney Schum. I think we are going to be on the same page on this. I am not one of those property owners I live right along the canal. My entire backyard is the raise embankment. I moved there partially because it is very nice. The project is back. It has been on moratorium for the last couple of years. The Canal Corporation was required to do a SEQR analysis of the project and they are coming to the close of that process. They’ve put out their scoping document. The timeline is really quick and they’ve been given two months to have their final findings published to be able to proceed so it is pretty quick. As you say, it is being approached as a safety issue. That is great. Like I said, I live right next to the canal. I want to be safe. So, to the extent that there are legitimate safety concerns to be addressed, that is important. That has been a contentious issue as to what degree is the amount of work that they started doing actually required. That is why there has been this long drawn out process. Some areas have been clear cut already. Mostly in Brockport and Holley. I am of the opinion and I know that there are a lot of people that agree with me that that was a travesty. The effect was not good. A lot of people are upset, it was overkill for what needed to be done. At this point they still have open grievances with the Canal Corporation thought because even when they came back after having cut the trees and had a discussion they said ok, we are going to work with you on landscaping, we are going to plant some allowable screening and that hasn’t been done. It has been a couple of years and it is my understanding that they still have not followed through on that. I am not part of that constituency so it is not directly my problem but my concern is that as the project continues through here we may end up in a similar situation where even if we have a good dialog about the right way to conduct this project we might be left holding the bag with a clear cut embankment and promises not followed through on. I live near Manitou and it is more open to the east. I am to the westside and a lot of people come to that pull around off of Manitou to access the trail. They come west because it is pretty, shady, the benefits to having the trees near or on the trail are a huge benefit to the community. It is not just all about aesthetics though, there are safety concerns on the other side of this. So, it is not just about the stability or water leaking from the embankment. There are potential safety concerns from doing a complete clear cut. Number one, if they clear all of the vegetation off the slopes that is going to increase runoff significantly. I have had a consultation at my property with the Monroe County Soil & Water Conservation District. They say I should be concerned about that. I have a retention pond there, it is all embankment. That’s a concern. Also, if you clear out all of the native vegetation invasive species can come in. There are references all through the draft scoping document about this concerning herbicide to control unwanted growth. That is also a concern because that stuff is going to run downhill too. Like I said, I have a pond, my dog swims in that pond. My neighbor, his kids swim in his pond. It is a big concern for us that the poison to the extent it will be present needs to be managed properly. Another concern is this is going to be expensive. Not only to clear cut everything or to the extent it is going to happen but then it is going to be an ongoing maintenance program with mowing and spreading the poisons and all this stuff. We are going to pay for that with tax dollars or however we are going to pay for it we are going to pay for it. To the extent that that could be minimized is good for our pocketbooks. Like I said, this just came back. It is on a fast timeline. The Canal Corporation has not been good through the past several years about hitting their milestones and sticking with their projected timeline. As published now, they’ve got a public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact statement in the next few weeks with public hearings in early April and then final findings published in early May. So I wanted to bring this up because I think this is going to move fast and it is important for direct stakeholders like me who live right next to the canal but also for community leaders like all of you to know that this is happening to be aware of the swiftness of it and when the opportunities are made available, as we do expect they will be for public input like hearings that we make sure our voices are heard. We are not going to stop this project. I don’t think we completely want to. There is maintenance that needs to be done but exactly as you said I think we need to do our part to try and hold their feet to the fire a little bit and make sure that it is done right and that our safety concerns are addressed. That was my piece for tonight. Thank you for listening, I will keep you posted on this as we move forward.

Supervisor Lenhard: Where are the people going to be? The people you have to meet with. Dan Schum, Town Attorney: I am very surprised that the Town has not gotten a notice of the comment period or anything. We have a canal that runs through our town. It is not like we are out at the lake somewhere or down in Rush.

Micah Clark: Right and here I am announcing it.

Councilman Zale: This is the first I am hearing of it since a few years ago. Micah Clark: That is a huge part of the problem.

Dan Schum, Town Attorney: Typically in a scoping they are directed to give notice to all potentially impacted agencies and municipalities and to my knowledge the Town of Ogden has not received one piece of paper.

Micah Clark: So I am actually relatively new, I go way back with Rochester but I am new to the westside. I am new to my property, I moved in 2019. So I missed the first round of this drama. That has been my understanding of everything that I have learned about it. They didn’t do the SEQR so they didn’t follow the law there but to the extent that they have followed the law just the requirements of who to notify.

Dan Schum, Town Attorney: There is something called the Environmental Register where a lot of these state wide legal notices are published and if you don’t know even that it exists you are not going to see the notice, much less be able to comment on it.

Micah Clark: That is how this has gone right? It has been quick and not well publicized, not well discuss, etc. I want to make sure we are on it and I am going to be continuing to ask for your help with this. I appreciate the open ears and attitude that I have got. This is going to be moving quickly.

Councilman Zale: Micah, offline let’s chat because I want to put you in contact with our Assemblymen and see what can be done at the state level as well.

Micah Clark: I have sent him a constituent message but I would love to have another opportunity.

Councilman Zale: Lets skip that and go directly to the source.

Micah Clark: I appreciate that, so I will reach out to you in the next few days. Thank you everyone.

Bob Hengenius: Micah and I have been in communication over the last few days regarding this because I didn’t know anything about this. I attended the original meetings out in Brighton back in 2017 and spoke to the engineers and the project team. At that time it was truly clear cut is what they wanted to do. As Micah said, what they have done in Brockport has not been remediated. They do have a website if anyone is interested where you can look up the schedule and other important information relevant to that. It is on canals.ny.gov but it is a concern. They need to get our input into this project because after the towns came together the last time to halt things it was important that they had the input. I have seen areas of the canal that are truly at risk because the canal path is very narrow. The basin of the ground next to the canal is probably 15-20 feet below the bottom grade of the canal so there is a problem there, obviously you would have serious flooding. Those would be the areas I think they would focus on. I just wanted to be sure you were aware there is an issue. Thank you.

Karen Smith: I don’t live on the canal but certainly enjoy it. I did read through their proposal. I am used to reading other regulatory documents for other reasons so it was really something you had to pay attention and look at other regulatory documents they were referring to in order to come up with a plan. It seems in the documentation like they attempted to look to DEC and other regulations to come up with some type of mitigation or concern for each of the areas that needed to be considered. The plan itself wasn’t concrete, which I can understand on one had because you don’t know what you’re going to run into or see when you’re doing this work but it would be nice to hear a little more concretely what their plans are around tree removal and things like that. A lot of friends of mine worked on the canal for their entire career so I understand the need to maintain it as a resource and have it be safe. I think in this day and age, the concerns that are there around the environment both from a pesticide perspective and maintaining trees for environmental purposes and for public use, just be the least disruptive as possible. It just doesn’t seem like there is a lot of transparency with the last minute plans and hearings. Things are not very clear. I just think whatever is decided just from some of the comments that Micah made it would be good to have some kind of monitoring for what they are doing. Thank you.

Supervisor Lenhard: Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Carol Nellis-Ewell: As my friends here have said, communication is not always up front by the Canal Corp. Recently the Village was advised that the Canal Corp might shorten the hours of the canal businesses and also the season, plus the thought of changing the name. The Mayor of Spencerport was prompt in contacting Senator Ortt and Assemblyman Jensen who wrote letters and advocated to have things the way they were. We will not have shortened hours, we will not have a shortened season. Nor will we have a name change. The more people put voices to the reps, the better off we are. There is some confusion too and some overlap. I was at the Brockport meeting years ago about the clear cutting and that was somewhat after the fact as well although the Canal Corp did bring in some folks that were going to give us information but then with the pending litigation from the eastside, things kind of cooled. The other complication is that the New York Power Authority is now involved with the Canal Corporation. There is a different entity to talk to. I urge you and second what they said about contacting our legislatures and they are very receptive. Thank you for listening.

Supervisor Lenhard: I am glad this is being brought up. Thank you. Anything else? If not we will move on.

IV: REPORTS AND REMITTANCES FROM TOWN OFFICERS: Resolution #96-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Cole

Seconded by Councilman Perry

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reports and Remittances from

Town Officers in detail for the month of February 2021, showing receipts and disbursements as submitted by the Town Clerk and the Finance Director, be accepted as read, monies and fees to be acknowledged by the Supervisor and copies of the same filed with the Town Clerk.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

V. TOWN AUDITS:

Resolution #97-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Cole

Seconded by Councilman Zale

BE IT RESOLVED, that the General Fund, Part-Town Fund,

Highway Fund, Trust & Agency Fund, Drainage Fund, Sewer District Funds, and Lighting District Funds and being vouchered and submitted for audit, chargeable to the respective funds be approved:

General Fund $ 34,402.17

Part-Town Fund 9,578.55

Highway Fund 24,886.13

Drainage Fund 9,543.00

Sewer Funds 277.07

Lighting Funds 9,380.56

TOTAL $ 88,067.48

Prepaid Expenses (02/25/2021– 03/09/2021):

General Fund $ 51,296.76

Part-Town Fund 7,396.16

Highway Fund 26,068.03

Trust & Agency 78,854.59

TOTAL $ 163,615.54

GRAND TOTAL ALL CLAIMS: $ 251,683.02

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

VI. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AND FILED:

None

VII. REPORTS FROM TOWN OFFICERS:

Gay H. Lenhard, Supervisor

No report.

Aaron N. Baker, Councilman

Absent

Thomas J. Cole, Councilman

No report.

Malcolm E. Perry, Councilman

No report.

Michael T. Zale, Councilman

1. We had a very productive and successful meeting last meeting about the Police Reform and Reinvention Act and I just wanted to take a second and thank everyone that was involved. I gave up quite a bit of time to be a part of this to learn a lot about what the Town of Ogden does as well as the Police Department and ways that we can continue to be aware and make improvements in the environment of awareness globally but mostly in the events that has transpired recently. I am very grateful to our Police Department that we have done such a great job. This committee did a very thorough job, asked some really tough questions and the great thing about asking tough questions is when there are really good, thoughtful answers. There are always things was can improve upon which are in this document. I hope everyone here had a chance to look at this. I think it is very well executed so I just wanted to give credit to everyone involved. Thank you.

Daniel Wolf, Highway Superintendent

1. The doors and the roof we will discuss in work session. 2. I gave some paperwork to Dan Schum about our comp spread system. 3. It is a pleasure to announce my appointment of Deputy Highway

Superintendent, Doug Case. Doug is a longtime resident of Ogden. He has worked with Ogden Highway Department 22 years ago, he is in our Special Police, has great management skills. I think he is a great asset to our Highway Department. I look forward to working with him on April 5th.

Noelle M. Burley, Town Clerk

1. We are still busy collecting taxes. We have been busy with passports. Everyone is getting antsy to want to travel. We are coming into marriage season as well so that is picking up too.

2. We are working on a few projects with Mr. Schum and we will talk about it more in work session.

Daniel G. Schum, Town Attorney

1. I want to echo what our Councilman said concerning the Police Reform plan and the Public Health Emergency plan. Both of those plans were tasked to the Police Department. They have come through with some

great documents. There was a lot of community input. Those departments and the town should be commended for that.

2. There is a resolution tonight to hold a public hearing for a proposed amendment to the code relating to signs.

3. We had a rezoning hearing this meeting and I would like to talk to the Board in work session tonight about two items. One being an issue that Patrick Smith and I have discussed in the last couple weeks and it has to do with the fact that a lot of the facilities that are collecting solar power in some instances not able to sell them that power at the right times to actually profit so they are more inclined to create a storage facility. Those storage facilities can be big and dangerous, they are also not presently regulated that I know of. I did talk to the Sweden attorney who is working on this as well and I think the town should take a look at that issue for solar facilities in the town. We have other commercial and industrial facilities that either have solar power or are expecting to have solar power and the issue of storage is something the Board should look at.

4. Under work session I would like to talk to the Board about our present Facebook policy and how we are going to move forward with that.

VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

None

IX. NEW BUSINESS

Resolution #98-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Cole

Seconded by Councilman Zale

WHEREAS, pursuant to Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order #203, all communities which have police departments, are required to establish a written Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative Plan so as to identify the needs of the community, establish new policies and practices addressing evidence-based strategies, as well as, identifying future reform strategies involving community policing; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Ogden Police Department with the guidance and direction from Chief Mears has, over a period of months, addressed the need for such police reform and reinvention and did develop a final plan in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order; and

WHEREAS, such reform plan has been the subject of public review and comment; and

WHEREAS, each member of the Town Board has reviewed such reform plan and recommends that the same be adopted and submitted to the State of New York in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Board of the Town of Ogden, Monroe County, New York, as follows:

SECTION I: By the adoption of this Resolution, the Town Board of the Town of Ogden does hereby adopt the Town of Ogden Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative Plan, dated March, 2021, and does direct that the Town Clerk and the Chief of the Police Department keep the same on file for public inspection and review at all times during normal business hours.

Section II: That a copy of this Plan, as adopted, shall be submitted to the State of New York, Director of the Division of the Budget, State Capital Building, Albany, NY 12210.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Resolution #99-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Perry

Seconded by Councilman Cole

WHEREAS, as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, it has become apparent at all levels of State Government that all governmental agencies, including the Town of Ogden, must establish a Public Health Emergency Operations Plan so that in the event of any future public health emergency or crisis that the Town of Ogden, along with all other governmental agencies, shall have a written plan in place for the continuation of operations of the Town of Ogden during such public health emergency or crisis; and

WHEREAS, the State of New York did adopt Legislation requiring all municipalities, including the Town of Ogden, to establish such Public Health Emergency Operations Plan; and

WHEREAS, through the efforts of the Office of the Personnel Director with input from all other involved departments with the Town of Ogden, a Public Health Emergency Continuation of Operations Plan has been formulated and circulated for review and comment; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Town Board of the Town of Ogden formally adopt the Continuation of Operations Plan for the Town of Ogden;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Board of the Town of Ogden, Monroe County, New York, as follows:

SECTION I: That by the adoption of this Resolution, the Town Board of the Town of Ogden does hereby adopt the Continuation of Operations Plan dated March, 2021 as the Continuation of Operations Plan for the Town of Ogden, and the same shall be distributed to all departments within the Town of Ogden for implementation in the event of any future public health emergency.

SECTION II: That a copy of this Continuation of Operations Plan for the Town of Ogden be directed to and filed with the Monroe County Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Resolution #100-3.10.21

INTRODUCTORY LOCAL LAW # 1-2021

Introduced by Councilman Perry

Seconded by Councilman Cole

WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of amending Chapter 224 of the Ogden Code relating to the regulation of Temporary Signs as they relate to political campaigns and elections; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Board to hold and conduct a Public Hearing to consider the enactment of a Local Law to effect this change in the existing Town Code;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Board of the Town of Ogden, Monroe County, New York, as follows:

SECTION I: That the Town Board of the Town of Ogden shall hold and conduct a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on the 24th day of March, 2021, at the Ogden Community Center, 269 Ogden Center Road, Spencerport, NY to consider the enactment of Introductory Local Law # 1-2021, amending Chapter 224 (Signs) of the Town of Ogden to read and provide as follows:

§224-9(E)

Signs which support the election of any individual or which recommend the manner of voting on a particular matter shall be considered to be temporary signs. Two such signs may be placed or erected per 100 feet of road frontage, but not to exceed four signs on any single tax parcel.

No such sign shall exceed 16 square feet in total sign area, inclusive of two sided signs, shall be ground mounted, shall be placed no closer than 10 feet to any lot line, shall not project more than 6 feet in height above grade, and shall not be placed in any public rights-of-way or be placed so as to obstruct or impair the vision of motorists. Such signs may be placed or erected on any lot not earlier than 30 days prior to the actual date established by the Federal, State, County or Municipal governmental agency conducting such primary, general or special election, and shall be removed within one (1) week after such election date. The owner of the property shall consent to the erection of any such temporary sign and shall be responsible for its removal. Neither board approval nor the obtaining any permit shall be required.

At which hearing all interested persons shall be heard concerning the subject matter thereof.

SECTION II: That the Town Clerk shall give due Legal Notice of such Public Hearing as required by Law.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Resolution #101-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Zale

Seconded by Councilman Cole

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Town Law, the Town has the right and authority to dispose of items of personal property no longer needed for public purpose; and

WHEREAS, Dan Wolf, Highway Superintendent, determined that certain items of electronic equipment are no longer functioning and needed by the Town and he wishes to dispose of the same;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Board of the Town of Ogden, Monroe County, New York, as follows:

SECTION I: That the Highway Superintendent is authorized to dispose of certain items of electronic waste by delivering the same to Sunnking for proper disposal.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Resolution #102-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Zale

Seconded by Councilman Cole

WHEREAS, Rick Blodgett has submitted his intent to retire as the Foreman of Roads, and

WHEREAS, this retirement will be effective March 31, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

SECTION I: That the Town Board of the Town of Ogden does hereby accept, with regret, the retirement of Rick Blodgett effective March 31, 2021.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Resolution #103-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Zale

Seconded by Councilman Cole

RESOLVED, that the Ogden Town Board accepts a memo from Highway Superintendent, Dan Wolf, on March 10th, 2021 appointing Douglas Case as his Deputy Superintendent of Highways effective April 5, 2021 at a rate of $38.10 per hour.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

Resolution #104-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Zale

Seconded by Councilman Cole

BE IT RESOLVED, that upon the review and

recommendation by the Highway Superintendent and by the Director of

Finance, the following amount shall be appropriated from the Highway Fund Capital/Repair Reserve for unforeseen necessary roof and door repairs:

Highway Fund Capital Reserve (3.3.876) amount to be appropriated: $55,000.00

Furthermore, the corresponding budget adjustment to adjust the budget for the use of the above reserve monies is presented as follows:

Amount to be Appropriated	To (From) Account	Account Description	Explanation for Appropriation
$25,000.00	003.5110.4600.0000	Contractual Expenditures	Appropriation of capital reserve monies for unforeseen roof repairs ($25,000) and door repairs ($30,000)
$30,000.00	003.5110.4600.0000	Contractual Expenditures

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

X. ADJOURNMENT

Resolution #105-3.10.21

Introduced by Councilman Cole

Seconded by Councilman Zale

RESOLVED, that the Regular Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ogden be and hereby is adjourned to Work Session at 7:53 p.m., at which time the public was invited to attend, and hereby is adjourned at 8:44 p.m.

Vote of the Board:

Ayes: Cole, Lenhard, Perry, Zale

Nays: None

Absent: Baker

https://ecode360.com/documents/OG0089/public/598714137.pdf