HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-17 175
TOWN OF DANBY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing 7 : 15 P . M . November 17 , 1993
McCabe / Jayne
III PRESENT :
Chairperson Nancy Weitzel
P lanning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Don ~Schaaf
Eloise Greene , Joel Gagnon
ABSENT :
Ken Horst ( Excused )
O thers Present :
Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners
S ecretary - Carol Sczepanski
Applicants - Cecil & Lorraine Jayne
Members of the Public :
Robert & Linda Howe , Patricia Addy - Schaad , Don Schaad , Christine
D ecker , Ray & Joan Babbitt , Robert McBride , Douglas Makie , Sandy &
N ick McCabe , Dirk Galbraith , Frank & Catherine Darrow
Chairperson Weitzel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 16 P . M . and the
following Notice of Publication was read .
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the
P lanning Board of the Town of Danby on Wednesday , November 17 , 1993
at 7 : 15 P . M . , 1830 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York . Purpose of
h earing is to consider approval of the proposed Subdivision of
D anby Tax Parcel # 8 . - 1 - 21 . 1 , seven ( 7 ) acres total , into four ( 4 )
building lots . Site is located on Jersey Hill Road , east of
H illtop Road . Nicholas McCabe , owner , Cecil and Lorraine Jayne ,
applicants .
At such time and place all persons interested in the subject matter
t hereof will be heard concerning the same .
A regular meeting of the Planning Board will follow the public
h earing .
By Order of the Planning Board Chair
Carol W . Sczepanski , Town Clerk
P ublished : November 12 , 1993
Affidavit of Mailing was submitted for the record .
Mr . Jayne addressed the public and explained the proposal he
submitted for the subdivision of Tax Parcel # 8 . - 1 - 21 . 1 into four
( 4 ) building lots . He said his intention is to build one ( 1 ) house
at a time and to live in that house while the next one is built .
The houses will be sold after the next one is completed and expects
t hat the project will be over a period of ten ( 10 ) years .
Frank Darrow - 400 Gunderman Road asked Mr . Jane to see a sketch of
t he property showing the subdivision . Mr . Darrow said that it
IIseems that four ( 4 ) places on a piece of land that size is high
d ensity . Given the nature of the soil on that hilltop itself with
✓ espect to its ability to absorb run - off , sewage , and ground water ,
something more in the order of two and one half ( 2 - 1 / 2 ) to three
( 3 ) acres per building parcel makes more sense in terms of the
ability of the land to take what has to happen if you have a
✓ esidence there . His preference would to see two ( 2 ) or three ( 3 )
n ot four ( 4 ) parcels .
Robert B . Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - said he is a lifetime
✓ esident in the Town of Danby and built his home on Jersey Hill
Road thirty ( 30 ) years ago . . During that thirty ( 30 ) years , ten
( 10 ) homes have been built on Jersey Hill , and all of them are
single family dwelling units . This proposal suggests a strong
possibility of a multiple housing development and would be
176
2 Planning Board Minutes
Public Hearing - Janye
November 17 , 1993
completely out of character in this neighborhood at this time . He
is completely against this proposal in a low density area .
Christine Decker - 256 Jersey Hill Road - said that the soil issues
are one thing and how the ground percolates is important . Jersey
H ill Road is a very country road with large lots of two ( 2 ) to ten II
( 2 ) ' acres . Aesthetically it would look out of place to for four
( 4 ) houses on seven ( 7 ) acres along a road where each house is
surrounded by country . She is concerned that our beautiful country
road and country neighborhood will end up looking like a suburban
sprawl .
Mrs . Jayne - asked what would be acceptable to the neighborhood .
S he understands that the residents think four ( 4 ) houses would not
be acceptable .
L inda Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - said most of the housing on
J ersey Hill is on large lots . She said to place four ( 4 ) homes in
t his area on seven ( 7 ) acres is out of place in a low - density zone
and out of character with the neighborhood .
Don Schaad - 201 Jersey Hill Road - said there is not enough land
t here for four ( 4 ) houses . The drainage is very poor in that area
as it is wet even in the middle of summer .
Chairperson Weitzel said that the Planning Board will not act on
t his proposal tonight and asked members to look at the site before
t he next meeting .
E loise Green reported that she has viewed the area and thinks it
would be advisable for the other Planning Board members to do so .
Motion to Close Public Hearing :
A motion was made by Arch Dotson and seconded by Joel Gagnon to
close the public hearing at 7 : 30 P . M .
Carried Unanimously
Respectfully s bmitted
ans./
Carol W . Sczepa s i , Secretary
II
I Il
TOWN OF DANBY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Regular Meeting 7 : 30 P . M . November 17 , 1993
PRESENT :
Chairperson Nancy Weitzel
P lanning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Don Schaaf ,
Eloise Greene , Joel Gagnon
ABSENT :
K en Horst ( Excused )
Others Present :
Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners
S ecretary - Carol Sczepanski
Members of the Public :
D ouglas Makie , Dirk Galbraith , Paul Norton , Diane & Neil Sherwood ,
Kurt & Jean Samuelson , Brayton Foster , Dottie Miller , Fred Wright ,
J ackie Fenton , Daniel C . Egan , Kyle O ' Connor , Tom Niederkorn
Chairperson Weitzel called the regular meeting of the Planning
B oard to order at 7 : 36 P . M .
Approval of the October 20 , 1993 and October 28 , 1993 minutes was
postponed until the December 15 , 1993 Meeting .
Privilege of the Floor :
McCabe / Jayne Subdivision Proposal
Frank Darrow - 400 Gunderman Road - addressed the Board and
suggested that it would be helpful for the neighbors to be notified
when the McCabe / Jayne Subdivision proposal comes up again for
consideration by the Planning Board .
Chairperson Weitzel said that the Planning Board would not make a
d ecision regarding the Jayne Subdivision Proposal tonight and the
neighbors would be notified when consideration will take place .
S he asked the Planning Board members to view the site before the
December meeting .
Review of " General Site Plan , Proposed Hillview Terrace Subdivision
and Mobile Home Park Expansion "
Chairperson Weitzel asked if there was anyone in attendance who
could give an up - date on the neighborhood group and their well
water information .
Neil Sherwood - 2352 Danby Road - at present they do not have any
information .
Chairperson Weitzel asked when this information would be completed .
Neil Sherwood said that it is possible that the group would meet
with Mike Walter early next week on Monday or Tuesday .
Kurt Samuelson - South Danby Road reported that based on the
information supplied by the neighborhood group and the information
from Brayton Foster , there was not enough information for Mike
Walter to determine whether there was enough water or not . He will
need more well data and tests done .
J oel said that he is concerned that this be pursued with all
d iligence and speed and four ( 4 ) to six ( 6 ) weeks was a reasonable
t ime frame and expected the bulk of the information to be presented
at this meeting .
Brayton Foster - reported that he is the geologist that did the
pump testing for the Hardesty ' s . He would be happy to talk to Mr .
Walter and might explain to him further the water resources on
property as we understand them at present . He said it should be
Ii
178
2 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
e mphasized that nothing will happen there until we demonstrate to
Tompkins County Health Department that there is adequate water .
That is a prerequisite as far as the Hardesty proposal is
concerned . At present the water wells generate a good working
model for ground water withdrawal . The most important item to know
is that the three ( 3 ) wells are pumped daily to service the present
park and they do not influence the water wells at Mrs . Hardesty ' s
h ouse . There are locations on the property between the present
park and the Hardesty ' s or neighboring properties to drill
additional wells and still not influence the neighbors wells . It
is very unlikely that wells producing water from bedrock will
interfere or communicate with a well within four hundred ( 400 )
feet . They will have to pump test any wells that are drilled and
it is not a problem to test neighboring wells if somebody wants
t hat type of confirmation . Mr . Foster described the process for
withdrawal testing of wells and the how the testing is performed .
Doug Makie - 73 South Danby Road - Is concerned about the water
u sage at the park . He thinks that the usage of 10 , 000 gallons per
d ay will lower the water table and will dry up wells for miles
around .
Mr . Foster explained that the wells are in bedrock and not gavels
and the draw down testing on the wells would not effect neighboring
water wells . Mr . Foster said the park had been pumping a well
field of three ( 3 ) bedrock wells since the late 1970 ' s or early
1980 ' s and it has not influenced the well at her house in fifteen
( 15 ) years because the system delivering the water probably doesn ' t
e xtend that far .
D oug Macki asked if this was approved by the Planning Board to go
ahead and drill new wells , who would be responsible to provide
water to the neighbors if it did dry up their water supply . He
asked if it was the responsibility of the Town .
Mr . Foster explained that would not occur because the park would
run out of water before the neighbors did .
J oel Gagnon asked how connected is the bedrock water and is it
possible to drop the level in the bedrock later .
Mr . Foster said not well connected because the recovery rate is one
( 1 ) to three ( 3 ) gallons per minute . He said pumping on this
property will not influence the neighbors ' water .
D irk Galbraith - Attorney for the neighbors - addressed Mr . Foster
and said Mr . Albern also prepared a report based in part on his
findings and report he indicated in his report that at this time
adequate water is not available from the water system for the
present twenty - six ( 26 ) mobile home park to also serve the
additional thirty - one ( 31 ) units proposed by this expansion . He
said that he thinks the scope has changed a little bit since 1992
w hen that report was prepared . He asked if that would still be
t rue today as this water system exists .
Mr . Foster said that there is probably enough water there to run it
but the Health Department is not going to allow you to operate
w ithout a margin of safety . The Health Department is going to
✓ equire capacity in excess of what they already have for additional
u nits .
Mr . Galbraith said that in Mr . Albern ' s report he refers to the
✓ eport of Mr . Foster and advises that there is not adequate water
from the present wells as they are now functioning .
r! T 7
{ 9
3 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
Mr . Foster said that one of the wells at that time was experiencing
a mechanical problem . The well was only delivering three ( 3 )
gallons per minute and one pump at one well was not operational .
He said he did a pump test to determine recovery rates at points of
water entry and made recommendations regarding work over
fracturing .
Mr . Galbraith said that Mr . Albern reached the conclusion that
t here was not adequate water to serve the proposed expansion and
asked if Mr . Foster agreed with that .
Mr . Foster said additional water needs to be developed to serve
additional units . He said that the Health Department requires the
system to be designed so that you can lose your best well and still
be able to produce the required water . The present system does not
meet that requirement . His recommendation at this point is to
develop an additional well .
Mr . Galbraith asked Mr . Foster if in his judgement that in order to
provide enough water for the proposed expansion that the Hardesty ' s
are going to have to drill more wells or to fracture the existing
wells .
Mr . Foster said that they will have to drill one ( 1 ) or more .
Mr . Galbraith asked if Mr . Foster had actually tried to spot a well
anyplace on the property .
Mr . Foster referred to an aerial map and said that he could mark a
couple of spots on the property that might be considered . There
are additional locations that he could recommend for drilling if
t hey are in conformance with septic systems present or future .
Mr . Foster said that drilling was the final conclusion . He said he
could generate models and talk about existing wells , their
behavior , their deliverability , but because I need more water I ' ve
got to demonstrate that I have got it . I can ' t go to the Health
D epartment and say that I think I ' ve got it . He said that he must
d emonstrate not only quantity but quality .
Mr . Galbraith what the draw back at this point was of going out and
d rilling a test well .
Mr . Foster said that from his perspective , if we were to start
spending a lot of money ( $ 3 , 000 - $ 4 , 000 ) to drill wells , that the
H ardesty ' s should have some assurance from the Board that if we
successfully develop the water the project will go . If we do not
find the water the whole project goes down .
S usan Beeners - said we had reported to us from some of the
n eighbors ( but no specific information ) that there are about eight
( 8 ) shallow dug wells in the immediate vicinity . It was reported
t o the Planning Board that some of them were of poor quality . She
said she is not sure on whose properties these shallow wells are
located , and asked Mr . Foster what would be the first remedial
measure that a property owner with a one - two acre property would
do who had a dug well .
Mr . Foster said dug wells are a problem because the Health
D epartment does not like to approve them . Dug wells particularly
u p - slope from this site , would have first chance at the water .
Mr . Foster answered questions from the public regarding depth of
wells in the area to bedrock , how water flows and supplies wells as
it flows through bedrock , brackish and salt water .
Susan asked if for those people with the dug wells would the first
remedial thing for those people to try was to seek water on their
properties by drilling so that they were not using dug wells .
180
4 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
Paul Norton - 2381 Danby Road - asked if we were talking about
enough water for the park as planned right now . He said he has
h eard talk about town that there was a potential of one hundred
( 100 ) plus units planned there .
Susan said that under the mobile home park zone on the SEQR form it
asks what could be developed at a maximum potential . This proposal
is for thirty - one ( 31 ) new units and five individual homes .
Attorney Galbraith said that as he understands the process , the
Town Board is the Lead Agency on the SEQR Application and the
P lanning Board ' s function concerning the SEQR is advisory . He
asked if Planning Board would make a recommendation to the Town
B oard and the Town Board have a hearing .
Chairperson Weitzel responded that Attorney Galbraith was correct .
Attorney Galbraith said that the Town of Danby was in the minority
because we have our own SEQR Ordinance . Most Towns do not , in fact
t he City of Ithaca is the only other municipality in Tompkins
County that has their own SEQR Ordinance . We have Local Law # 2 of
1991 and what you have done is create some more restrictive
guidelines than New York State imposes under the State SEQR
O rdinance in the Environmental Conservation Law . This is a Type I
Action and under both the State criteria and the criteria for the
Town , Type I Action is the type that is most likely to require the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) , which
would involve a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance .
From what has been said here tonight , on behalf of the Sherwood ' s ,
I would ask you to consider A Positive Declaration of Environmental
Significance and a recommendation that an Environmental Impact
Statement ( EIS ) be prepared in connection with this application
because :
1 ) this is a Type I Action . He said he thinks the law is
that , he understands it , is that the majority of those cases
an Environmental Impact Statement is required .
2 ) some serious concerns have been presented that should be
explored fully .
J oel said that the Planning Board is considering this proposal as
a Type I action .
B rayton Foster responded if ground water is the only item of major
significance , would it be possible for him to address the issue of
ground water concerns as Part III to the EAF . He said you are
going to get the same information whether it is in a formal
Environmental Impact Statement or whether it is simply an addendum
to the Environmental Assessment . He explained that this would
simplify things for everyone concerned if that is the only issue .
A report can be prepared by him or by the Hardesty ' s engineer which
would satisfy the water issue and would essentially be the
information you would get in an Environmental Impact Statement .
Susan addressed the Planning Board and said that they could
consider an EIS , but we have been looking at the water issue for
awhile and the assumption has been that the water drilling tests
have been a voluntary mechanism that would occur after a re - zoning
passes if the Town Board wants to re - zone it . Her feeling is that
the Planning Board can at this time look at the specific re - zoning
action and recommendation that must be made to the Town Board ,
consider water an extremely significant impact where there will be
major consequences if it is re - zoned to get past stage one ( 1 ) .
That is where a positive declaration and an EIS would be
appropriate . She said her recommendation would be that
supplementary information could be provided by Mr . Foster that
could be framed basically on Part III . Maybe water is a potential
large impact and explain how it could be mitigated . The questions
e j
5 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
could be answered that are asked in Part III rather than getting
into the long time frames of an EIS .
Mr . Foster said that it is not an impact off site .
Susan said that it appears that there are some adequate safeguards
based on information from Mr . Foster , as an expert , that there
would not be a depletion of water supply on adjacent properties .
Chairperson Weitzel addressed the neighbors and said that the water
issue was one of the reasons the Planning Board asked for their
✓ eport and it is urgent we have that information as soon as
possible . We expected their report tonight .
Don Schaaf said that we should move ahead because we have a check
and balance . On October 28 , 1993 , Ric Dietrich reported for the
n eighborhood group and he indicated that there were ten ( 10 ) dug
w ells . He expressed concern about the resale of properties in
✓ elation to the availability of water on these properties . A
q uestion was raised by a Board member as to the expertise and
q ualifications of Mr . Walter .
N eil Sherwood said that Mr . Walter works for the Hydrological
D ivision of the GEO ( International Irrigation ) . We have a meeting
with him next week . He reported that he thinks he made a mistake
o n his well information . He has a drilled well of approximately
t hirty ( 30 ) feet and has experienced problems with the water supply
since he purchased the property . He said he thinks that water and
t he wetlands across 96B were a major concern .
Bill Farrell responded to Mr . Sherwood that he was not going to
know whether the mobile home park was going to have a good well or
if it was going to affect his water until there was approval and a
n ew well was drilled .
Chairperson Weitzel said that one of the things the Planning Board
asked for from the neighbors was information on when the wells were
drilled and how deep they were . That information was requested on
O ctober 20 , 1993 . Mr . Dietrich was to obtain this information from
t he neighbors . To date the Planning Board has not received that
information from any of the neighbors .
S usan said that request was followed up with a meeting on October
28 , 1993 and a communication of October 29 , 1993 with a request for
t he outside consultant to follow up with information on the
availability of water , possible impacts , problems on neighboring
wells , and what may be some of the possible solutions for improving
t he water supply either irrespective of the park development or if
t he park was developed .
N eil Sherwood said that the neighborhood group has a scheduled a
t entative meeting next week with Phil Zariello of the United States
G eological Survey .
Joel said that there are other issues that we could look at . If
there are other concerns among the neighbors that we have not heard
- - they should be voiced if they are to be addressed in the
e nvironmental assessment .
J ean Samuelson - 83 S . Danby Road - said she would like more
information on the septic system , what impact that might have , and
o n the wetlands . She would like to know if the DEC must give
approval before the project is approved .
J ackie Fenton - 740 Comfort Road - Would like to know more about
t he septic system and if it would effect the wetlands . She assumes
t here are regulations on how close development can be to a wetland
area .
82
6 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
Tom Niederkorn - reported that these concerns need to be dealt with
but we need to move on . Whatever these concerns are they are going
t o have to be dealt with all over again by the Town Board . It is
e ssential for the Hardesty ' s to know a date that a recommendation
w ill be made and when the proposal can go to the Town Board . This
h as been going on for two ( 2 ) years . He asked the Planning Board
t o please make a time table and stick with it . The septic system
is something that must be dealt with by the Health Department . The
d evelopment will have no impact on the wetlands any more than there
is right now .
D iscussion followed regarding other developments in the area who
may use large quantities of water .
Attorney Galbraith - said that he is familiar with the Yellow Barns
d evelopment in Dryden . There are seventy - five ( 75 ) homes operating
o n four ( 4 ) wells in a similar configuration as has been proposed
here . This system has been out of compliance with the health
department forever .
Mr . Foster said that the out of compliance is the health
d epartments mandated capacity . That is an existing system whereas
t his system must be up and running with the ability to take the
best well off the line and still be able to carry the load before
you operate . Yellow Barn is one of the few places that water is
produced from bedrock wells on a twenty - four ( 24 ) hour basis .
Attorney Galbraith - said that there are deed restrictions .
E loise Greene - asked what is required before the Board can move
forward on this proposal .
S usan said that what is required is that the Planning Board finish
✓ eviewing the SEQR Part II / III and the text that is attached .
O nce you have completed the material you will have a hearing at
which time you will make a recommendation to the Town Board .
E loise Greene suggested that we try to proceed with this because it
is going to require more time with another public hearing at which
t ime this information may come out further . We will be able to
make modifications as to what was completed with Parts II and III .
J oel asked what were the requirements for public hearing .
S usan said the Planning Board will have a public hearing to
consider recommendation to the Town Board on the General Site Plan
and what accompanies it - - recommendation on whether they should
approve , or approve with modifications , or disapprove . Before
t hat you are attaching what is the environmental impact of the
general SEQR . You are to hold a hearing once you have a completed
application and a completed EAF . You recommend approval ,
disapproval or approval with modifications of the General Site
P lan . That is referred to the Town Board and they will decide
whether to accept and adopt that General Site Plan along with the
accompanying data . You are trying to look at this whole action as
a re - zoning plan and make a recommendation to the Board .
H er feeling relating to water is that the essential thing that the
applicants have done since the beginning has been to recommend a
✓ easonable number of draw down tests after the re - zoning process
h as been ruled . Her understanding is that would be voluntary
before a final site plan approval .
J oel said his concern is there is nothing in place to indicate what
h appens if a linkage is found or what kind of magnitude there would
h ave to be before it wuld be a consequence .
S usan said the drawdown tests proposed are an integral measure . If
t he draw down tests would show effect , then no final site plan
1 .8 .3
7 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
approval or building permits would be issued and the final site
plan would be dead in the water .
Attorney Galbraith - said that is exactly why we cannot have
conditional Negative Declaration on a Type I Action . We can only
h ave that on a Type II Action which is presumably a lesser impact .
W hat is being described here is Conditional Negative Declaration
you can ' t do it under the law . The reason why you can ' t do it is
what you just said here .
S usan asked Attorney Galbraith that if this has been volunteered
from the beginning for a re - zoning application and is not being
imposed , then why would it be a conditional negative declaration ?
O r why would you be looking at it conditionally . Isn ' t it just the
same thing essentially as part of the proposal .
J oel said , you are saying that it is part of the proposal . They
propose to do it as part of the process .
Attorney Galbraith - said the thing you are saying that ' s correct
is that it is not a mitigating measure . If it was a mitigating
measure , then it would be a conditional negative declaration such
as , you do it because we think that this will mitigate the
environmental impact . What you are saying is well you volunteered
t o do it now do it and see what happens , which is contrary to Local
L aw No . 2 and the State regulations .
J oel said that his point is that whether or not you made it a
condition it is not a mitigating measure in any event because the
outcome doesn ' t change anything .
Attorney Galbraith - " on that , I ' m now agreeing with you . "
E loise Greene asked if that would be the health department decision
t oo . So it is not really pertinent ?
Arch said it was pertinent but not conclusive .
D iscussion followed regarding whether the health department would
approve the project if a linkage was found between the new wells
and the existing wells and the neighboring wells .
J oel said that he has seen nothing from the health department that
said if there was an indication from drawdown tests there is a
linkage , that it would necessarily result in not approving the
water source for the mobile park expansion .
Mr . Foster said that wells can communicate and still deliver
adequate water .
Fred Wright - 2350 Danby Road - represents his mother and in 1963
an eighty ( 80 ) ft . deep well was drilled for the barn that produced
enough water at that time . In 1966 a twenty ( 20 ) ft . deep well was
drilled for the house and there have been problems with salt in the
water . At times it is necessary to watch water usage as both wells
are low on water .
Chairperson Weitzel said that the Planning Board requested that the
n eighbors supply the Planning Board with the information on their
individual water supply for tonights meeting .
B rayton Foster said that the problems reported tonight seem to be
t he usual gamut of water well problems with dug wells or perhaps
wells that were not drilled deep enough to wells that have
e ncountered marginal water supplies . Some wells last forever some
n eed repair work . ' They don ' t come with guarantees . He thinks
t here is help available to solve some of the problems .
84
• 8 Planning Board Minutes
November 17 , 1993
J oel said that as a member of the Planning Board he is hearing the
n eighbors saying that they have marginal water and the concern has
been raised early on that this marginal water might be adversely
affected by the demand that would be created by doubling the usage
at the mobile home park . Is it possible to address the
n eighborhood concern about the adequacy of the water with a backup
willingness , to extend the water that is developed at the Mobile
H ome Park to the neighbor with the problem .
Arch Dotson said only if the deterioration of their water was
caused by the Mobile Home Park .
Chairperson Weitzel said that some of these problems they have now
t hey need to look into .
D iscussion followed regarding the responsibility of individual
property owners to supply their own water .
B ill Farrell said if your well doesn ' t work you need to drill
another one .
Susan said that there are options for property owners if they could
n ot get adequate water on their properties .
Review of SEQR - Part II / III and attachments :
Item No . 5 Groundwater Impact
Susan said that more information is to be submitted by both parties
at the next meeting . ( Residents and applicant . )
Chairperson Weitzel said if there is not new information submitted
t he Planning Board will proceed with what we have .
Item No . 10 - Impact on Agricultural Land Resources
1 ) Text - Page 3 of Text - after groups I & II , but among the
• best soils in Danby which has mostly II - V ) .
2 ) No . 14C - Other Impacts - Transportation ( 3rd paragraph )
delete the word " road " insert " cul - de - sac " .
3 ) 18 - B - Municipal Budget - discussed - approved as is .
4 ) 18 - F - yes - small to moderate
5 ) Text on pg . 10 - discussed - no change
Susan asked the Planing Board members to carefully check the text
attached to Part II / III and the attachments . Any additions ,
corrections , or suggestions should be submitted at the next
meeting .
Public Hearing - Hillview Terrace Mobile Home Park Expansion and
Subdivision Proposal
A motion was made by Joel Gagnon and Seconded by Arch Dotson to
schedule a public hearing to be held on Wednesday , December 15 ,
1993 , 7 : 30 P . M . at the Town Hall , 1830 Danby Road . Purpose of the
hearing is to consider recommendation to the Town Board with
respect to a request for Site Plan Approval of a General Site Plan
for the Hillview Terrace Mobile Home Park Planned Development and
Cluster Subdivision Proposal .
Carried Unanimously
Motion to Adjourn :
On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 15 P . M .
RdMt(I/C ectfullynsubmitted
2 a G� /'
i
Carol W . Scze ski , Secretary
MEMMEMMEMMEMMEMEMML