Trustees Pondering Culverts, ‘Heroes’ Banners, Sign Law

By KRISTIAN CONNOLLY
COOPERSTOWN

The two most-discussed topics at the Cooperstown Village Board of Trustees meeting on Monday, August 26 had trustees looking both low and high across the village landscape.

On the one hand was an issue related to amending a Special Use Permit in order to allow the construction of dwellings over a stream and culvert on a private property in the village. On the other hand was whether to pursue a request made by interested parties to update village law in order to allow signs to be hung from utility poles in the village.

While neither matter was ultimately decided by the trustees on Monday, both will be the subject of future board meetings and/or public hearings, beginning with the next meeting on Monday, September 23.

With regard to the proposed construction project over the stream, a request has been made by the owners of 28 Railroad Avenue—The Railroad Inn—to add three two-story dwelling units to the property. The proposed site for the new construction is over Willow Brook and a culvert on the property. A site assessment by local engineering firm Hermann Engineering made several recommendations, including for foundation construction to protect the culvert in the future; pre-construction replacement of the existing culvert due to its current condition; and for the village to have an easement for future maintenance access.

A public hearing on the subject opened and closed without comment, setting the clock at 62 days for the trustees to reach a decision. The trustees then held a lengthy discussion, primarily focused on three questions: ownership of the culvert; where the responsibility lies, or should lie, for maintenance of the culvert; and whether a water course located on private property in the village is something for which the village can claim ultimate rights and paramount interest to control it.

A forthcoming study from the Army Corps of Engineers will help to clarify whether it is advisable for the project to proceed in its proposed location (i.e., to build structures over a stream and culvert), but in the meantime, the trustees agreed—after agreeing to disagree for now on who exactly has ownership and responsibility for the culvert—to bring the issue to the village Planning Board and also discuss the project again, with the village attorney in attendance, at September 23 board meeting.

Also slated to be on the agenda on September 23 is the second big topic discussed this past Monday: banners on utility poles in the village.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Joan Parillo, Tim Weir, Stewart Wayman and Doug Walker each addressed the trustees to support having “Hometown Heroes” banners adorn utility poles on certain streets in the village as a way to honor local veterans. As seen in various communities, “Hometown Heroes” banners honor servicemen and servicewomen, usually with a photo, name, service dates and other relevant biographical information.

Led by Parillo, the mechanism being pursued by supporters of the “Hometown Heroes” banners program is to change the village’s sign law, which currently prohibits signs to be placed on utility poles. Such a step by the village would not guarantee that signs would be placed on poles, since that is ultimately the decision of NYSEG, the owners of the poles. But current village law is written to prohibit such a practice at all.

If the village were to update its law, it could not be done in a way to make it exclusive to any one group or interest, a fact that seemed paramount in the thinking of the multiple trustees Monday night. And there would be many questions and decisions to be made, with public input, about the construction of an updated sign law—e.g., guidelines, restrictions, timelines, and other stipulations for potential displays—before any law would take effect.

For example, one aspect of Parillo’s request that would generally need to be part of any amended law is where signs would be permitted to hang in the village. Parillo’s request is that the banners be displayed on four village streets: Chestnut Street, Lake Street, Pine Boulevard and the part of Glen Avenue that is in the village’s control.

The trustees, as a body, mostly remained at the macro level of the current law and what it would entail to amend it, and the board did not take a position on the subject matter of the proposed signs. But there was some counterpoint provided to the public support for this specific effort, most notably by Trustee Joe Membrino. Reading a prepared statement, Membrino addressed the many ways that the village already honors veterans year-round, in both one-off events at certain times of the year, and in permanent displays throughout the village. Membrino also questioned the use of village resources for the benefit of a private enterprise.

Additionally, one of Membrino’s practical concerns, both in terms of this particular effort and in allowing additional signage in general, is that the village sign law was developed with aesthetic and public safety considerations in mind, and even still residents and visitors are asked to pay attention to a great deal of signage on village streets. Adding more opportunities for signage, and having peoples’ eyes drawn upward—especially in the summers busy with pedestrians and drivers—is not ideal for public safety, said Membrino, who encouraged his fellow trustees to reject the proposal.

In closing out this topic Monday, the trustees held two votes: one was on a motion made by Dr. Richard Sternberg to table the discussion in order to provide more time for exploration of the issue before holding a public hearing. That motion was defeated, 5-2, with Membrino and Sternberg casting the votes in favor of more time before a public hearing.

The second vote was whether to hold a public hearing on the subject at the next Board of Trustees meeting, on September 23. This motion included an amendment to the village’s sign law to allow for signage on utility poles; at the street locations outlined above; and with stipulations regarding matters such as duration, size, and maintenance, upkeep, and storage.

Following questions by Sternberg, Membrino, and Hanna Bergene about whether this matter should first be addressed by the Village Planning Board, the motion passed, 5-2, with Membrino and Sternberg voting against holding the public hearing on September 23.

Other brief items of note from Monday:

—New trustee Audrey Porsche was officially sworn in to her new role. Porsche was appointed by Mayor Ellen Tillapaugh to fill the vacancy created when former trustee Sydney Sheehan departed for a PhD program. Tillapaugh made the appointment in July, and it was subject to board approval.

—Jeanne Dewey opened the public comments portion of the meeting to update the status of a proposed new dog park in the area. The proposed location is at the end of the village parking lot at the south end of town (Blue Lot), on property owned by the school district but for which the village has an easement for use. According to Dewey, and later the trustees, two outstanding matters to be discussed are with regard to insurance questions for the location, which is technically outside of the village and in the Town of Otsego, and a school board request to have another survey done of the property. The village hopes to send its attorney, Martin Tillapaugh, to meet with the school board to discuss the survey the village already has in hand.

—Trustee George Fasanelli led the board in commending both the Cooperstown Fire Department and other area responders for their work at the First Baptist Church of Cooperstown parsonage in late July. According to the First Baptist Church website, the fire occurred on July 30. The church is currently working through the insurance process, while a GoFundMe account has been established by an outside party to assist pastor Mike Coles, who lost most of his belongings in the fire.