HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-27Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 1 of 13
Town of Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Members Present: Marty Moseley (Chair), David Weinstein, Joe Wilson, Marty Hatch,
Tom Hatfield
Excused: Craig Anderson, John Kiefer and Hilary Lambert
Liaison Present: Deborah Cipolla-Dennis, Town Board
Staff present: Ray Burger, Planning Director and Susan Brock, Attorney
The meeting was called to order at 7:04pm.
Review and approval of meeting minutes from April 27, 2017, May 3, 2017 and
June 22, 2017:
J. Wilson moved to approve the minutes as presented. M. Hatch responded to
statements made at the June 22nd meeting:
Martin Hatch: Comments on Town of Dryden Planning Board Minutes for June 22, 2017.
Delivered at the time of the consideration of a motion to accept the minutes of that meeting, made at the
meeting of the Planning Board on July 27, 2017.
I have the following comments concerning the June 22nd meeting of the Planning Board. I’m sorry for
being unable to be at that meeting. It was one of a handful I’ve missed in the past 10 or so years I’ve been
on this volunteer community board.
But I need to comment on and speak to one item in those planning board: it’s the passage recording the
public comments by Mr. Joe Osmeloski in the course of which Mr. Osmeloski implied that I was a liar.
I don't have a self-serving reason to make this statement other than to be sure the minutes are correct and,
at least in this situation, to defend my reputation as a volunteer member of this board who is interested
advancing the community good.
According to the PB minutes of June 22nd here under consideration, Mr. O. said “he abhors statements
that are agenda driven and patently false…Marty Hatch of the Planning Board made a statement that he
had gone on the website and either read the comments made at Neptune or all the letters received by the
town.” and that they were 60% in favor of the two Dryden solar projects and 40% against one or the other
project. Mr. O went on to say that Mr. O had "made an analysis of every single comment and letter.” and
according to his analysis, Hatch’s “statement was patently false… He was wrong.”
Indeed, during the public comment portion of a couple of these community gatherings, including the
planning board meeting of May 25th, I made a remark that, according to my reading of the public
“communications” (and by this I meant written comments and petitions delivered at the Board meeting
and sent separately to the Town offices to that point in time), the public comment on the two solar
projects was running around 60 % to 40 % in favor of the two projects as they were evolving. Here is the
representation of the relevant portion of my words in the draft minutes of May 25th: “... I’ve done a
survey of public opinion based on the communications passed on to us by the town, there is much more
support. I have not quantified it, but i think it is about 60% for the solar installations as opposed to
against…"
At the June 22nd meeting, Mr. O took issue with this, calling my statement “agenda driven” and
"patently false.” He based his assessment on some calculations that are are represented in the minutes
under consideration. His words in these PB minutes are "I analyzed every single comment and letter”.
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 2 of 13
[One correction that might be made to these minutes is in representation of Mr. O’s data, as it is, I believe,
a bit garbled, especially when we get into the percentages he calculated where he eliminates the
consideration of any opinions from those who he identifies as living outside of the Town of Dryden. You
might ask him for assistance to get his percentages in sync with the categories of for and against.]
My reading a couple of weeks ago of Mr. O’s comments in the minutes of June 22nd now under
consideration lead me to return to all of the public communications passed on to us by the Town Clerk’s
office that I had read prior to my statement of May 25th, and to make a list of the authors, in some cases a
short phrase description of the contents of their communications, and their respective opinions for or
against one or both solar installations. Here [show to those in the room] are the basic data sheets for this
effort. I tried to make sure that I had not duplicated names of members of the public who wrote several
times or who both wrote a letter and signed a petition. I also tried as much as possible to identify the
Town of Residence of the author of a comment or a signatory of a petition, but the ambiguities of place
(postal vs. town address) made that difficult. These sheets have been made available to all members of
the Planning Board and of the Town Board. I’d be happy to share them with anyone interested in them as
they are derived from the public record.
I’ve also prepared and attached a summary sheet based on the data I compiled. I have made copies of this
sheet for anyone who wishes one. This summary sheet has a variety of ways to approach the data I
compiled, but pertaining to Mr. O’s accusation that I purveyed “patently false” information in my May
25th observations, I have the following short answer :
—> There were 391 separate letter writers and petition signers on this issue.
—> The number in favor of both the community solar farms under consideration (Route 13/Pinney &
Ellis Tract) was 233;
—> The number against the Rt.13/Pinney location was103; The number against the Ellis Tract location
was 55.
—> If we divide 233 by 391, we get 59.59.0793% in favor of both sites (round off to 60%).
—> if we divide 158 (the sum of those against one or the other site) by 391, we get 40.409207% against
one or the other site (round off to 40%).
This is all I have to say with regard to the minutes of June 22nd.
Thank you,
Martin Hatch
Attachment: SUMMARY SHEET. PUBLIC OPINION: DRYDEN COMMUNITY SOLAR
Calculated based on electronic and postal letters & 2 petitions received by Town of Dryden and
forwarded to members of governing and advisory boards of the Town of Dryden by the Office of the
Clerk of the Town of Dryden from March 14 to July 15, 2017
A considerable amount of time and effort was made to eliminate duplication of names (for example, those
who both signed petitions and wrote individual letters to the town) and to specify the “Town” location of
the home of signatories, but there may still be one or two duplications of names, and the Town of
residence for many signatories was difficult to ascertain.
I. Total number of letter writers and petition signers: 391
(233+103+55 = 391)
Number in favor of both community solar farms under consideration: 233
(Rt.13/Pinney & Ellis Tract)
Number against one or the other solar farm (total) 103+55 158
Percentage for both community solar farms:
233/391=59.590793%
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 3 of 13
Percentage against the sum of those against one or the other:
158/391=$40.409207%
Number against Rt 13/Pinney location: 103
Percentage FOR Rt 13/Pinney location: 233/(233+103) = 70%
Percentage AGAINST Rt.13/Pinney location: 103/(233+103) = 30%
Number against Ellis Tract location: 55
Percentage FOR Ellis Tract location 233/(233+55) = 81.%
Percentage AGAINST Ellis Tract location: 55/(233+55) = 19%
Statistics for those who designated T of Dryden as place of residence or, on search of databases
were found to be residents of the T of Dryden:
Number designating or found to be TofD in favor of Rt.13/Pinney: 108 = 59% FOR
Number designating or found to be TofD against Rt.13/Pinney: 76 = 41%
Number designating or found to be TofD for Ellis Tract: 108 = 68% FOR
Number designating or found to be TofD against Ellis Tract: 51 = 32%
J. Wilson abstained from voting on the minutes from May 3rd.
M. Hatch abstained from voting on the minutes from June 22nd.
The minutes from April 27, 2017, May 3, 2017 and June 22, 2017 were approved
unanimously by those not abstaining.
Public Comment regarding items not on the agenda:
Shirley Lyon: 29 Mineah Road
About seven to eight years ago, at the old Town Hall, I pleaded to watch the residency
on Mineah Road in regard to the traffic impact at the bottom of the road. Many people
have called from Kirk road concerned with vehicles entering Kirk Road. Our singular
voices we don’t feel have been heard. I am here tonight as a collective voice for Mineah
Road and Kirk Road. (She had previously distributed a handout to the Board
members). The objective and the purpose are to respond to the recent issuance of a
building permit for Pine Ridge Cottages on Mineah Road with the impact of 40 more
car on Mineah Road, possibly 80, on a half mile dead end road, where there is no
street light, no turn lane and by DOT standards, short visibility and a hazardous
intersection.
John Andersson, engineer for the Pine Ridge Cottage development, did an access
study; this is the opportunity to access Route 13 from a smaller town house road. Yes,
they can access the road. During high traffic times in the AM and PM, lines form,
sometimes, these lines, according to the DOT, can create a psychological effect of the
jumper; if forced to wait, that third or fourth car will jump and do something a
normally behaving driver entering the intersection would not do. On Mineah Road,
based on a count done this morning, we have 47 cars and that doesn’t include the
eventually returning student population. When the student population returns, that
will increase the traffic on Route 13 and Mineah Road.
When talking with the residents on Kirk Road, I was surprised. I talked to everyone
and included in the handout you will find a petition. The petition is still in progress,
some folks are on vacations. I was invited into the homes of residents in the mobile
home park on Kirk Road where 100% signed the petition and told me stories. People
on Route 366, trying to avoid the Route 366/Route 13 connection, are using Kirk
Road as a connection to Route 13 trying to beat traffic on Route 366. Not only are the
Kirk Road residents now accessing Kirk Road but we now have the impact of those
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 4 of 13
they call “hellish people that are going 60 miles an hour trying to get to their jobs and
beat 366.” We have a significant number of cars entering from Kirk Road to that
intersection.
There is a DOT concern citing the short (view) distance. We have done a study of our
own yesterday and today. (See pictures attached to the handout.) The cars have to
advance past the white line to see what is coming on Route 13. We measured the time
from the moment they could see a windshield till the car passed the transit sign. It
was less than eight seconds. There is a very short visual window for a car to make the
decision and make their move.
With 40 additional cars added to Mineah Road, the 47 that are there, the Kirk Road
mobile home park cars and the Kirk Road “jumpers” coming over from 366, the
intersection is jammed.
I came to the Board seven or eight years ago because it was stressful. I was
disregarded as a single voice. What I read and have heard is that there is a possibility
of going to 80 new residents/cars. The idea is expansion.
You can ask, like DOT, why there are not more accidents. There were only two
accidents there and thus you don’t deserve a light. We get around that by turning
right off Mineah Road and using the Church parking lot to turn around if they want to
go toward Ithaca. We make their own turn lanes, illegal as they are, by utilizing the
shoulders of Route 13. We would get rear ended if we tried to turn from the proper
lane. I don’t know what the answer is. I have called DOT and asked about a light but
they responded that there have not been enough accidents or deaths at that
intersection.
I am looking to you. I have called Syracuse, it is not their responsibility. I called the
Town of Dryden, not our responsibility for Route 13. Whose responsibility is it for the
life will be lost at that intersection when another 40, if not 80, cars come down that
hill.
In the engineer’s report, by John Andersson, the minimum amount was submitted; I
think to deceive you to get his permit. That was his job. If you look at that traffic
study, I don’t know if (after the DOT even said the safety issue existed), there was even
a counter put down. You are talking to a resident that has lived on that hill for over 35
years. I am not an engineer and I don’t have a PhD but I am smart enough to know
that intersection is stressed and it is going to break. Who is going to take
responsibility? When I stood here seven years ago and asked the Planning Board to
look at this issue, it fell on deaf ears. I pray that your ears are listening tonight. I hope
you take the study, the best we could possibly do for the simple people that we are,
and take it with sincere hearts, and logical minds, understand that this is a collective
voice, begging you to relook at this application submitted to you. Whether it is clear
enough in your jobs, I understand the difficulty. My father sat on the Zoning Board of
Appeals in the Town of Dryden for over five years. I know your difficulty in making
these decisions, you are going to make someone angry, you have to look at the laws
and regulation and public opinions. What I am asking you tonight with your hearts
and your minds, can you live with knowing this intersection could very well take lives.
Take it home, see what you can do, reread the engineer’s reports and then it is in your
hands.
Joe Osmeloski - 2180 Dryden Road
My comments tonight are general; they have nothing to do with the issues that are
going on right now with regard to specific projects. I want to comment on a letter that
has been making it’s way around the internet, facebook, and on some particular
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 5 of 13
Dryden websites. I will read some of the comments and then I will make my own
comments.
“The next step is up to the Planning Board, which meets this Thursday but the Planning Board has
signaled that it will delay”. Do you guys signal when you are going to delay, do you tell the
public when you are going to delay something? On most projects, if I read the law
correctly, there is a “shot clock”. When you are given a project you have 30 days or 60
days to make a decision. It’s a “shot clock” so the statement that the Planning Board
has signaled it will delay, and I hate to say this, would be patently false. My favorite
sentence when I come before this Board seems to be “patently false” and that is a
depressing statement on the state of our Town right now. This Board is a volunteer
board and does a great job. I have never heard anyone say that this Board delays
things purposely and for someone to say that is unbelievably outrageous.
The second sentence, “they have the information they need to VOTE”. I don’t think there is
any project tonight that can be voted on. I don’t believe there is, maybe I am wrong.
The next sentence, “this unelected Board can kill the project and could even put the
Town at risk of a lawsuit”. Unelected, we know you are unelected, you are a volunteer
board. I get the impression that because you are unelected, you are unimportant. This
Board is very important to this town and you are going to be making decisions in the
future that will affect everyone in this room. The fact that you are unelected should
not mean anything but apparently to someone it does. “The risk of a lawsuit”, that is
interesting. If this Board does everything by the book, by the rules that are written
down by the Town of Dryden, then you should not be afraid of a lawsuit because you
have done everything right. If the law says a 50 foot setback and you give a 50 foot
setback, then you have abided by the law. If you give a 45 foot setback, you have not
complied with the law and opened yourselves up to a lawsuit. To even put the threat of
a lawsuit out there enhances this Board’s ability to do their job because you will know
that if you don’t comply with the law, you will open yourselves up to a lawsuit. If you
apply the law of Dryden as they are written, then this Board has absolutely nothing to
worry about and should welcome the lawsuit if they have applied the law as written. I
don’t know who wrote this letter but it is a slap in the face to this Board.
Sarah Osmeloski - 2180 Dryden Road
In June of this year, the Town Board approved the resolution granting a SUP to
Verizon for the construction of a cell tower at 2150 Dryden Road. The SUP was
granted even though this project violates two of our telecommunication tower laws and
leaves Verizon powerless to meet a third. Of the three laws in our telecommunications
law, sections 9 b and p: The tower is a height of 170 feet, our law reads a maximum
height of 140 feet unless waived by the Board for good reason. If this tower had been
properly sited it would have been placed at the highest piece of ground at 2150 instead
of the lowest. Placing it on higher ground would have reduced it’s height to 140 feet
and thus complied with our law.
Number two, section 6 i: the collapse zone is required by our law that the tower be
designed so it should collapse or break and will fall within the boundaries of the
property on which the Tower is placed. Since Verizon is leasing 100 x 100 foot piece of
property and the tower is 170 feet high, this requirement is impossible for them to
meet. They would need at least a 200 x 200 foot square to meet this requirement.
Number three, section 6 n: maintaining visual screening. The Board met the
requirement of this law by requiring Verizon through SEQR and through its resolution
to use existing natural screening to minimize the visual impact of the tower. The
natural screening consists of 80 foot willow trees and brush that grows along a stream
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 6 of 13
adjacent to the tower location. Since Verizon did not lease this property, it is
impossible for them to control what happens to the vegetative screening.
Clearly this project was poorly planned by all parties involved. Verizon has not leased
enough land to meet the legal requirements for this project. That leaves three choices:
one, the Town should rescind its SUP, two, have the Town take on the responsibility of
complying with two and three by not allowing further construction in the area that
should have been required to have been leased by Verizon, or three, leave it to the
citizens to file an article 78 and let a court decide. I am asking this Board as it
progresses forward in the future with other projects, do your job. Enforce our laws and
comply with our plans. These laws and plans were designed and enacted by residents
of this town to protect our community. They should be enforced equally across the
board whether applied to an individual or large corporation.
M. Moseley chose to respond to all three items:
He asked Ray Burger to start looking into the Mineah road, Kirk road and Route 13
intersection, start contact with the NYS DOT and send this concern to the Town
Board. The Board agreed with that request.
D. Weinstein recommended starting a study group with the citizens to collect data to
see what is really going on there. It seems like a problem that we need to think
through a lot of solutions. As we know if there haven’t been accidents there, the DOT
might not chose to act. We need to think about other potential solutions to alleviate
this problem.
He volunteered to form a committee to work with the citizens to figure out what other
options exist. He also pointed out that the Board makes decisions based on the
information they have and unfortunately none of them were aware of this issue.
In regard to the letter Mr. Osmeloski was referring to, Mr. Moseley has not received a
letter about delaying the items although he has heard accusations of that from
individuals. The board is not trying to delay anything; in fact we have had multiple
special meetings this year to try to expedite projects and getting suggestions off to the
Town Board and to help applicants.
Shirley Lyon interjected that the Planning Department did have the information from
the DOT that the Kirk Road/Mineah Road/Route 13 intersection had a low visibility
hazard. The failure of the Planning Department to share that information was a source
of frustration for the residents of those roads. M. Hatch suggested that it would be
important for R. Burger check into the communication or lack of communication
regarding the information from the DOT.
As far as the Verizon special use permit. M. Moseley asked Ray Burger for a copy of
the permit. He has requested the document previously to review prior to making a
recommendation to the Town Board in regard to the solar project.
Planning Board responsibilities with regard to energy efficiency/fossil fuel usage
on developments with respect to SEQRA and Site Plan Review: D. Cipolla -Dennis
Ms. Cipolla - Dennis deferred to Atty Brock
This issue came up last month regarding whether questions regarding energy
efficiency and fossil fuel usage are appropriate.
In terms of SEQR, asking questions regarding energy usage and the type of systems
being installed is acceptable. The SEQR form asks for that type of information anyway.
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 7 of 13
For the determination of significance, it is a case by case decision based on the size
and location of the project.
D. Cipolla-Dennis had further asked for clarification about specific types of things that
the Planning Board could or could not require in regard to construction. Under the NY
Energy Law, there is a section that states municipalities may adopted a local energy
conservation code that is more stringent than the NYS energy conservation code. Some
of the things D. Cipolla-Dennis asked about might be appropriately answered if the
Town Board adopted a local energy conservation code which the Planning Board could
then verify the applicant is compliant. D. Cipolla-Dennis will be following up on that
potential.
J. Wilson - In the Zoning law, section 1103, subsection B, #15 of the Site Plan
checklist: “Location, design, and construction materials of all energy distribution
facilities, including electrical, gas and solar energy”.
Atty Brock said it would depend on what “energy distribution facilities”. She doesn’t
think it matters because SEQR has to be done on a site plan, you can ask for that
information from applicants.
J. Wilson further supported the Board’s ability to ask about energy usage by pointing
out #28 of the Site Plan checklist: “Other elements integral to the proposed
development as considered necessary by the Board”.
Atty Brock asked if there was a dispute regarding whether the Board can ask about
energy usage. T. Hatfield explained that another Board member, C. Anderson, has
been very interested in this out of concern that the Board might appear to be trying to
dictate what kind of energy a developer can use. That would be an overstep on the
part of the Board. T. Hatfield verified that information can be asked to determine
significance, it is another thing to appear to say that the board would only approve a
project if they chose to use heat pumps (for example). Mr. Anderson has, in the past,
suggested looking into incentivizing developer to use a heat pump, if that is the
preferred energy consumption in the Town.
Atty Brock indicated that she has never looked into whether Towns can do incentivized
zoning for things like this. There are NYS laws that say the Town can do incentives for
things like affordable housing.
R. Burger reminded the Board that in the Varna plan there is a green development
incentive which could be expanded to the rest of the Town.
T. Hatfield suggested the State LEED program as a potential model. A concern is a
developer coming before the Board with a project designed with one form of energy
usage only to find that the Board wants them to use something else.
D. Weinstein stated that when the Board asks for information via the site plan
checklist, the goal is to produce a project that conforms to the way this Board thinks
the planning and development should go and we have vocalized that energy
conservation is a priority. That suggests the Board has the ability to recommend (not
demand) an energy usage that we prefer.
J. Wilson pointed out that one time we raised the energy usage question was in the
context of the PUD so the Planning Board could advise the Town Board. A Town Board
member had already asked the developer to look into heat pumps. In addition, we
make recommendations typically and recommending that something be included is
different than requiring.
Atty Brock replied that the Board has much more latitude with a PUD. The Town
Board has a lot of discretion with a PUD and can make certain demands since it is a
rezoning. The Planning Board will be well served if the Town Board can come up with
laws (like an energy conservation code) that the Planning Board can then apply. In
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 8 of 13
terms of SEQR, a positive declaration of impact, energy use would be looked at. The
NYS DEC has some guidance on what to look at in terms of energy use. Where you are
in the application review and what kind of project it is (context) will help determine the
Board’s ability to make certain recommendations.
M. Moseley added that the Environmental Conservation Code is enforced by the code
enforcement department, not the Planning Board. If there was a guideline that we
could have integrated in, that is where it would be more beneficial to this Board rather
than a more restrictive local standard.
M. Hatch stated we need to have the guidelines, just like the residential and
commercial design guidelines. He requested M. Moseley work on that document.
802 Dryden Road Sketch Plan Review: Adam Fishel (Marathon Engineering), Charlie
O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals), Wayne Woodworth (CNY Rentals) and Gretchen
Bavard
Adam Fishel
- The proposal is for 42 units on three acres.
- There are currently four access drives which will be cut down to one.
- The run-off will continue to drain naturally toward Dryden Road. They are
proposing a few bio-retention areas and two stormwater retention basins along
Dryden Road.
- They have been in contact with NYS DOT who responded that they are ok with the
driveway location and have asked for more on stormwater. In essence, they did not
say no and are willing to work with Modern Living Rentals.
- As far as landscaping, they are only providing biorentition plantings and perimeter
plantings to address stormwater considerations.
- They have received some information feedback which has led them to change the
roofline of the two buildings closest to Dryden Road. They have changed the plans to
create a double gable and created “bump outs” along the façade so it doesn’t look
like a single linear building. The color of the buildings will be basic and will blend
with the other buildings in the community.
- They have talked about visibility from the arboretum but you can't see beyond the
maintenance buildings and the buffer that already exists.
Charlie O’Connor
- In an attempt to attract more families, first floor master bedrooms have been added
to some of the units. A hip roof was added for visual appeal and to accommodate the
removal of a bedroom to the first floor.
- They are willing to commit to air source heat pumps, which they have installed at
the 902 Dryden Road, if they can get the density they are proposing.
- They are trying to create more green space for tenant recreation, a play area and a
fenced in dog area.
- They are working with Cornell Real Estate to try to accommodate their needs.
- They are proposing a trail to connect to the Plantations from this development.
To: Dryden Planning Board July 25, 2017
From: David Weinstein
Re: Conversation with Charlie O’Conner about plans for 802 Dryden Rd.
Dear Colleagues:
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 9 of 13
In an effort to make our discussions tomorrow night regarding the sketch plan for 802 Dryden Rd.
proceed as smoothly as possible, I had a phone conversation with Charlie O’Conner and his engineer,
Adam Fishel, today and went over a list of issues and questions that have come up and asked for
clarification. This memo outlines the items of mutual understanding we reached in that phone
conversation. Any additional clarification that board members need on any of these items can be
requested in our sketch conference tomorrow night.
1. Cornell Botanic Garden personnel have been concerned about too much rainfall water being moved
away from the north (back, away from Rt 366) side of the property without allowing this water to
percolate into the cracks in the bedrock and feed the seepage areas on the north-facing slope of their
natural area north of this parcel and along Forest Home Drive. These seeps are necessary for the special
plant communities that grow there. When the cell tower was built just to the west of this development
parcel, the movement of water away from the north side of the property led to some seeps drying up and
the death of a number of trees on the north slope. They would like to avoid this.
Mr. O’Conner explained that the rainwater from the north-facing roof of the back building was going to
be deposited to the north of that building and therefore allowed to seep. The rainwater from other roofs
would be deposited in shallow grass swales that then led to the detention area in the center of the parking
lot. While this water was traveling through these swales, it would have time to infiltrate into the bedrock
cracks.
The requirements of DEC for storm water runoff structures is that the bottom of any retention area
remains 3 feet above the bedrock, which limits the ability to make larger rain garden retention areas to the
east and west of this back building that might allow more infiltration. The town’s engineer, T.G. Miller,
could wave this requirement if it was felt necessary to achieve more infiltration area.
Most of the surface water on the southern side of the property is already appropriately draining to the
south, and eventually into the retention areas located on the south side of the proposed development, and
then into the ditch beside Rt 366.
2. There is agreement from both NY DOT and from Cornell that an entrance to this development
directly from Rt 366 approximately midway along the Rt 366 frontage is best.
3. The developer and Cornell are in agreement to have fencing (vinyl coated chain-link, 6 feet high)
along the west side, located on Cornell Botanic Garden property, and along the north side of your
property. The developer has agreed that he will be responsible for maintaining this fence.
4. There will be nominal lighting on back side of the buildings of the development, only where
absolutely necessary, all downward directed.
5. Cornell is in agreement that the existing trees, which will be retained, will mostly obscure the
buildings from the Cornell Botanic Garden properties to the west and to the north of this property,
particularly in the summer when it is most crucial for the visitors there. The developer will provide two-
dimensional drawings from these perspectives to verify the effectiveness of this vegetation screening.
6. The developer willing to pay for a paved walkway to the Cornell Botanic Garden arboretum,
cutting from the Game Farm road intersection to the Arboretum road, on the map below. He understands
this path would be a definite boon for the residents of the development to be able to easily go off of Rt
366 on to the Arboretum road and can be advertised that as an amenity. The Botanic Garden agrees this
is a good idea and will welcome construction of this path with the developer’s funds.
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 10 of 13
7. All the buildings will be two story, and townhouses within a building will be delineated from each
other by a 3-foot stepped variation in setback. This will avoid the look of an imposing monolithic wall
when seen from the Rt 366 side.
8. The developer believes that the current plan positions the buildings on the optimal locations on the
site. There was some consideration of moving the entire set of structures southward, reducing the 60-foot
setback from Rt 366 to the south-most buildings. This would require decreasing the size of the large
water retention areas near Rt 366. It would allow the increase in size of the recreation area on the
northeast portion of the development beyond its current 3000 to 4000 square feet.
However, the developer feels that moving the buildings closer to Rt 366 would greatly increase the road
noise that the renters in the front building would hear, greatly reducing the attractiveness of those
townhouses, since Rt 366 is quite a busy road.
9. The developer is committed to installing heat pumps to provide the heating (and air conditioning) as
was done in 902 Dryden Road. The developer indicated that this feature was somewhat dependent on his
ability to have 42 units in the development, if he is granted both the redevelopment bonus and the LEED
energy bonus. The additional 6 units would give him the financial flexibility to afford to install these
units, which make the heating systems somewhat more expensive. He will provide the board with a
checklist of the energy features he will be using that could be used to qualify the development for the
LEED bonus. He will identify which items are on the official LEED 2009 list that he cannot get credit
for, and which items are on his implementation list that provide an equivalent energy reduction but are
were not given credit on the LEED 2009 list because they are technologies that have been developed or
refined in the subsequent 8 years.
* referenced map is attached.
J. Kiefer has emailed information regarding this project which was read into the record
as follows:
802 Dryden Rd: I don’t think having stormwater basins in the front yard is consistent with the character
of the hamlet. The basins appear to by 5.5’ deep compared to the grade at the building. Front yards in
the hamlet are relatively flat lawns with shade trees, etc.
C. Anderson has emailed information regarding this project which was read into the
record as follows:
802 Dryden Rd. recommendations
Bus stop and a turn lane, could be the same.
Bike racks, bike storage?
Sidewalks
Pocket Park
The south elevations design and the size of the two buildings on Dryden Rd don't seem to blend in
with the community? Adding some design details to the fronts may help with this.
Make the ends of each building a single story to help soften their size
Roofs over doors
Reverse gables
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 11 of 13
T. Hatfield suggested using the southwest corner for a recreation area with some
sidewalks. It would be a good spot for people walking by to rest. C. O’Connor was
against the idea because of the proximity to Dryden Road and because the natural
slope is from north to south which makes the logical place for the stormwater basins
in front of the buildings along Dryden Road.
- The Board discussed the set-backs and whether pushing them back was the best
idea. Most of the homes in Varna are placed closer to the road but the Board agreed
the set-back and stormwater retention was reasonable.
- There is a formal bus stop at the southwest corner of the Game Farm Road/Dryden
Road intersection which is within 300+ feet of the project. Currently the bus simply
pulls off onto the shoulder. Does TCAT see a need to have something more? Will the
connector trail to the maintenance buildings parking lot be sufficient for the safety
of the tenants? Mr. O’Connor will continue to talk to TCAT.
- The back side of the buildings will have sconces to light the back deck areas. There
are two decorative 14 feet tall (from the bottom of the sconce) light fixtures in the
parking lot. The buildings will block the light from other properties and the lights
will have a finial to shield the light from going up.
- The photometric plan is included.
- M. Moseley told them they need to put lighting on the exterior of the buildings per
NYS Residential Code.
- The garbage and recycling will be contained in the NW corner with an enclosure of
masonry block and a wooden stockade fence type gate.
- M. Moseley asked if they have contacted the Fire Chief yet. There is a truck turning
template included in the plan and they have a six inch water line that loops in the
parking lot and a hydrant will be added. The drawing has been submitted to the
Varna fire department but we have not heard back yet.
- M. Moseley stated he agreed with the recommendation of more plantings in the front
of the project.
- M. Moseley asked if anyone (the highway superintendant) has signed off on the
connection from the main line to the lateral addition. There probably needs to be an
inspection to verify the connection is appropriate, that the boot has been placed
appropriately and the depths are adequate.
- The engineer has included a trip generation letter which along with the engineers
report and site development plans have been submitted to the DOT. The DOT has
responded that a traffic study will not be required for this project. A copy of that
report will be added to the record.
- The applicant will need a stormwater maintenance agreement with the Town.
- The initial SWPPP review letter was sent to TG Miller yesterday.
- The project has been sent for 239 review with the County. They have one
recommendation concerning the heating system and they will be providing an
analysis.
- M. Moseley asked if the Town of Ithaca has been notified/consulted regarding their
239 nn.
The Green Development Bonus and LEED bonus: Gretchen Barvard
- See attached LEED worksheet
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 12 of 13
- R. Burger recommended a verification process by next month of the 40 points for
LEED are legitimate and to start looking into the prerequisites. That will give the
Board confidence when looking at the Green Neighborhood Development Bonus. R.
Burger will verify the information is accurate.
- Per Article three of the Town’s Zoning Law, Definitions, Redevelopment is defined as
“The planning, development, design, clearance, construction, or rehabilitation of
existing property improvements, regardless of whether a change in the Principal or
Accessory Use occurs.” A density bonus can be granted per section 707 of the
Zoning law.
- The Board agreed that the Redevelopment Bonus seems logical but the official
approval will need to wait until the project’s final approval.
- The public hearing for a full site plan review will be scheduled for the August
meeting.
Infrastructure local law (Working within the Town Rights of Ways):
- J. Wilson and M. Hatch have sent their comments to the Chair who is working with
Counsel to determine what the legal parameters.
Based on the Town Board completing the SEQR finding of significance, discuss
the path forward as to recommendations for the site plan approval of the 2150
Dryden Road and Ellis Tract Community Solar Projects and subdivision approval.
- review the applications (specific to site plan review) for both solar installations and
forward recommendations to the Town Board
- Subdivision of 2150 Dryden Road
- sketch plan review of subdivision of 2150 Dryden road - review of drawing C103
- Preliminary plat review - requires submittal of the plat 21 days prior to the
meeting and a mandatory public hearing
- Final plat approval - requires submittal of the final plat 21 days prior to the
meeting and a mandatory public hearing
Future Meetings:
August 2nd - the Planning Board will review the solar applications to provide
recommendations to the Town Board in relation to the site plan review. They will also
do a sketch plan review for the 2150 Dryden road subdivision.
The meeting will be held at the Dryden Department of Public Works building starting
at 6PM.
August 24th - the Planning Board will engage in the preliminary subdivision plat review
pending the submission of the preliminary plat by August 3rd. The meeting will be held
at the Dryden Town Hall starting at 6PM.
September 28th - the Planning Board will engage in the final subdivision plat review
pending the submittal of a final plat by September 7th. The meeting will be held at the
Dryden Town Hall starting at 7PM.
The Board discussed the order of business at the August 24th meeting. It was
determined that the preliminary plat will be considered prior to the 802 Dryden Road
site plan review.
M. Moseley requested counsel attend the upcoming three meetings.
Dryden Planning Board
July 27, 2017
Page 13 of 13
Planning Board recommendation of moratorium on solar: Town Board has
requested that more specific items be identified as to what should be amended
in the existing local law.
- The Town has requested that the Planning Board be more specific in regard to the
moratorium; they would like specific items. Due to the late time, the Board
determined to move this discussion to the next meeting.
- M. Moseley read notes from J. Kiefer into the record:
- Moratorium: I voted in favor of the moratorium one reason. I think the Town needs to explore ways
to reassure farm land owners that they will not be penalized by losing the agricultural assessment on
land they convert to a solar farm. I’m not concerned about the Ellis Tract projects because of Cornell's
tax status. I favor the Ellis Tract projects. But, given the amount of angst over the 2150 project, the
Town should do everything possible to remove disincentives for property owners to convert their less-
productive lands to solar.
- M. Hatch asked that the Planning Department look into Mr. Kiefer’s concerns
regarding the ag assessment.
Town of Groton 239 – 838 Peruville Road
The Dryden Planning Board was asked to comment on a proposed project in Groton,
per GML 239-nn. The Planning Board thanked the Groton Board for their courtesy but
they do not have any concerns. M. Moseley will contact the Groton Board.
Rezoning north of Freeville along Route 38- charge from the Town Board to
analyze and advance recommendation: Deborah Cipolla-Dennis
- There was a good turn out at the meeting.
- Once the citizens understood the difference between rural residential and
neighborhood residential (including the SUP process), the citizens agreed the
process is working the way it should. They were encouraged to send emails to the
Planning Board or Department if they have any input on the use table which will be
reviewed by the Planning Board at a future date.
Concern regarding conflicts:
Atty Brock expressed concern regarding whether there is conflict with Ms. Brock
advising both the Town Board and the Planning Board. Ms. Brock stated that there is
no conflict. And for clarification, Ms. Brock and Ms. Geldenhuys have no connection
between their practices.
If there appears that there might be a conflict between the Planning Board and Town
Board, Atty Brock would back out of the entire situation.
Atty Brock requested a few minutes after the meeting to address some issues in an
attorney-client meeting.
There being no further regular business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Erin A. Bieber
Deputy Town Clerk
Proposed
paths
for
entering
Cornell
Botanic
Garden
arboretum
from
802
Proposed
802
development
North-‐facing
slope
of
Cornell
Botanic
Gardens
natural
area
with
wet
seepage
areas.
Approximate
location
of
cell
tower
Rt.
366
Game
Farm
Road