Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-27Planning Board August 27, 2015 Dryden Planning Board August 27, 2015 Members Present: Joe Laquatra (Chair), Tom Hatfield, David Weinstein, Martin Mosley, Craig Anderson, Marty Hatch, and John Kiefer (excused). Town Hall Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Craig Schutt, Conservation Board and Greg Sloan, Town Board The meeting was called to order at 7:03PM Review and Approval of minutes from July 23, 2015: D. Weinstein moved to approve the minutes, C. Anderson seconded the motion which was passed unanimously. R. Burger: 902 Dryden Road The Public Hearing was opened at the last Town Board meeting. Five citizens attended the meeting to comment on the proposed project. The issues expressed include the project’s location in relation to the natural areas, an increase in the population, and neighbors’ concerns regarding the increased noise, traffic, emissions, and transient population. Todd Bittner from Cornell Plantations, is strongly against it because of the natural area in the rear of the property. He believes the density is far too great for that area. There was also a pile of debris in the back area, some of which is on Cornell property. - another concern is the location of Park Park which is a short distance away from the site. There is concern that the students will cut their own paths to the park and hold parties there. D. Weinstein, a resident of Varna, believes that the zoning for that particular district (which includes 902 Dryden Road) does not reflect the goals that were mentioned earlier on (in the discussion regarding the Varna Plan) for that district. They wanted this area to be a traditional district; directed toward the mixed use district. The intention was to have more homes resembling the homes/buildings that are already there. As the plan stands, it allows a certain density, which Mr. Weinstein feels is too great. One question from the community revolves around the need for 4 bedroom units that are destined to be student housing. There are 3 units that will have four bedrooms and the rest will be a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units. R. Burger is curious about the disconnect within the community that just approved a plan but are against this project. The development is consistent with the Varna Plan. Mr. Burger has planned a meeting with the Varna community on October 6th. It will be a general open house meeting to provide an update on the transportation project but he will be available for further discussion. C. Anderson suggested that the Planning Board members attend the meeting on the 6th to increase communication. Planning Board August 27, 2015 The public hearing (via the Town Board) is still open. The Town Board does not feel they have all the information needed and Mr. Burger stated that some parts of the application have not been received by the Planning Department. D. Weinstein and G. Sloan (Town Board) both feel that putting the driveway onto route 366 will be far safer than the proposed entrance onto Forest Home Drive. G. Sloan also noted that the vegetation proposed will create an even greater danger as it potentially blocks the line of sight. C. Anderson suggested that perhaps the road could be adjusted to come to a “T” rather than maintaining the gradual turn that allows cars to whip around that corner (route 366 and Forest Home Drive). The consensus was that the State would not do much about the road until there was an actual accident. The developer has cut back on the number of parking spaces and plans to offer an incentive to renters who do not have vehicles or are willing to use alternative transportation methods. Suggestions from the Planning Board include: - Shifting some of the buildings a few feet back will permit greater visibility - Changing the plans to put the entrance/exit on route 366 although the Planning Board has stressed the idea of minimizing road cuts - Limit the amount of vegetation that are cutting into sight lines There has been some feedback from Varna; five residents attended the last Town Board meeting. Home Occupation, Finger Lakes Spine and Body Works, 145 Main St., Freeville A Chiropractor wants to move her business to her home. The Board expressed some concerns about whether that site is within the Village of Freeville and therefore out of Dryden’s jurisdiction. ((later research indicates this is in the Town of Dryden). It appears to be a simple SUP with few concerns. Self Storage, The Storage Squad, 1401 Dryden Road This project is directly across from an existing self-storage. The applicants want to offer storage services for college students. The applicant will transport and store student furniture, clothes, etc. during school breaks. Planning Board concerns revolved around the number of road cuts in that section of route 13/366 and the aesthetic aspects of the project. The SWPP has not been generated yet but that might be a challenge based on the terrain. Hoag-Harvey Property – Pinckney Road The property has been listed with a broker. The Town is still moving forward with attempting to purchase the property despite the fact that it is publically available now. It was appraised at $57,000, assessed at $48,000, 15 acres. Planning Board August 27, 2015 Zoning The Town lawyers have reviewed the zoning law and determined that there is a “gap” in the definitions which the Asbury Road project has brought to view. Zoning and the comprehensive plan both encourage cluster housing. The issue with the project on Asbury Road is the fact that they have a cluster development that consumes the land upon which the project is being built. That leaves the green, open space that the clustering should have generated, to be filled by the neighboring farm fields which are not owned by the same entity. The project does however meet the standards and requirements for building in that area and the project was verbally approved by the former planning director. Right now, the project needs only to have administrative approval. The Town lawyers have suggested redefining “multi-family dwelling”. The Planning Board had two opposing views: – one is the fact that the open green space is not owned by the same person which means that the green space could eventually be sold for more development thereby eliminating the green space. - The other is the fact this is the first cluster development proposal in Dryden and by micromanaging it, the Town could lose development; other developers might avoid Dryden. M. Moseley pointed out that with the proposed changes to the definition of Multi- family dwelling, a person with elderly parents might have to go for a SUP just to add a retirement home on their property. Instead, he suggested a density requirement per parcel rather than attempting to make sure all other possibilities are defined. That will force the maintenance of green space by preventing the further subdivision of a lot that has reached its density. It will allow a builder latitude to build up to that density and if they wish to add more, they will need a SUP. Mr. Sloan asked how much review the Planning Board had given to the 902 Dryden Road project. It was not much, the applicant presented the plan to the Planning Board but the Planning Board does not have the authorization to engage in a true review. The major area of concern for the Planning Board at the time (given their limited permitting authority in the project) was access for fire trucks. G. Sloan indicated that he would be interested in having some of these projects going before the Planning Board for a SPR before the project gets to the Town Board for a SUP. That would give the Town Board feedback and will allow more oversight in the application process. One suggestion was that Multi-Family dwellings will be permitted a certain density that will allow them to get an administrative permit. A higher density will require a SUP (or SPR) and send it to the Planning Board rather than the Town Board. For the Planning Board August 27, 2015 future, the density will have to be maintained. Currently the density is one unit per acre. However, if a person has 100 acres and wants to put up 100 homes, is there any oversight other than the Tompkins County Health Department? The suggestion was that whatever triggers are in place for Subdivision need to be applied in such a way as to require oversight (SUP or SPR); even in the case of a person who does not want to subdivide. A suggestion was to change the zoning to set a maximum density or 15 units, for example. There is a level of frustration among the Planning Board members that the Health Department is holding this project. The Planning Board wants to bring the project back to Dryden and let the PB and TB review it. R. Burger is going to write up a proposal and send it around. Resolution regarding the infrastructure: The issue arose around the West Dryden Pipeline. The town has an ordinance that lets the Town review the Telecommunications Towers. The West Dryden Pipeline was the impetus but it is pointing to the future…. what happens if fiber optics wants to come through Dryden… who reviews that? At this time, the Town does not have jurisdiction to look at these types of projects. Can or should the Town have that jurisdiction? How can the Town ensure the viability of large infrastructure projects? How can the Town address the concerns of citizens? Is there a permit from the highway for work done along the roads? The Planning Board is interested in looking into what does exist in the Town and what might be missing. Miscellaneous information: M. Moseley is putting together a training/learning session scheduled for October 7th from 4-8 PM regarding comprehensive planning, revising zoning and special use permits. The County is putting together SEQR training in Ulysses scheduled for October 29th. Arthur Weaver will be presenting information regarding wind power before the Town Board meeting (6-7 PM) of September 20th. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37PM. Respectfully Submitted, Erin A. Bieber Deputy Town Clerk Planning Board August 27, 2015