HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-27Page 1 of 5
PB 3-27-2014
Town of Dryden
Planning Board
March 27, 2014
Members Present: Joseph Laquatra (Chairman), David Weinstein, Tom Hatfield, John
Kiefer, and Craig Anderson. Heather Maniscalco, excused.
Planning Department Members: Jane Nicholson (Planning Director) and Nick
Goldsmith (Sustainability Planner)
Town Board Members: Mary Ann Sumner (Town Supervisor)
Guests: James Skaley
The Planning Board meeting was opened at 7 PM.
Review and approval of February minutes.
D. Weinstein moved to approve the minutes as presented. C. Anderson seconded the
motion and all approved.
Comprehensive Plan review: Nick Goldsmith and Jane Nicholson
Please see attachment.
D. Weinstein asked where the Planning Board might go to get some ideas regarding
the way to improve some of the lower scoring areas. N. Goldsmith suggested starting
with the STAR program itself. He has provided a website link to the STAR program.
Supervisor Sumner suggested that maybe some of the categories are not as relevant as
others and pointed out that the STAR program is a generic program. An example was
Education. Education is the responsibility of several other entities and the Town has
very little input. And there are areas that are not included that are important for our
Town such as agriculture.
Weinstein suggested that the Planning Board start with the areas that are low scoring
and begin to assess whether they are relevant or need to be revised. The Board can
then work their way up the numbers. The Board and J. Nicholson agreed that method
will work.
Economic Marketing Analysis - D. Weinstein
D. Weinstein asked the Board to consider the information Mr. Skaley had to share.
Mr. Skaley suggested an economic analysis of the Hamlet of Varna to identify ways to
potentially increase the tax base. According to the timeline in the Varna plan,
something should be happening by now. He asked what else could we be doing for
further development of the plan and the overall value of the community. He has talked
to the Planning Director about marketing the Plan to a regional development
community for purposes of garnering interest. That suggested that there needed to be
discussion with land owners and the Town having an interest in this. He has talked to
Supervisor Sumner who suggested that he talk to Steve Lopinski (former faculty
member at Hotel School who dealt with commercial real estate options). They met and
discussed how developers perceive areas for development. The long and short of the
discussion that was emphasized over and over is what is the perceived value for a
developer at the site. Transportation, location, the relative environment, and
Page 2 of 5
PB 3-27-2014
development of soils for construction purposes all affect the developer's perceived
value. Mr. Lopinski recommended an economic analysis for a marketing plan. That
costs money.
Several years ago, Cornell students had laid out ideas for development early in the
Comprehensive Plan discussion. He thought that having graduate students from the
Cornell Johnson School, MBA program, complete a community project (part of the
requirements from the Park Foundation which supports that aspect of the School).
The students get to choose what their projects will be so Mr. Skaley has sent ideas and
support material for their review.
Mr. Skaley has talked to Jason Liefer (Town Board) who believes it is conceivable that
the Town might be able to provide a consultant. It would provide an analytical report
which would indicate the relative value that you can get out of this area.
There are problems within the community of deteriorated structures that will put off a
developer. The old gas station lot is one of the problems. It is coming up on tax rolls
this summer for foreclosure.
He was asking the Planning Board to pass a resolution to the Town Board supporting
the economic analysis of Varna to enhance the overall plan.
He suggested that the Board look at zone one in the plan. It was supposed to be the
anchor for the Varna Plan.
D. Weinstein asked to highlight some points in Mr. Skaley's comments. The Town has
spent a lot of money putting together the Varna Plan. It has won several accolades but
it is going to set on the shelf unless we get something to provide documentation to the
developers such as the economic value of building in this location. He recommended
that the Planning Board let the Town Board know that they support moving forward
with the economic analysis and having a consultant that can help us move forward to
develop the plan.
J. Laquatra asked how much the economic analysis will cost. D. Weinstein didn't
know how much it would be.
Supervisor Sumner returned to two points she didn't hear Mr. Skaley address. One of
the first things to talk about is the importance of talking to the property owners. There
is a big difference between putting together a community development plan and
spending money doing the property owners development research for free. That would
be problematic.
D. Weinstein asked why it would be problematic.
T. Hatfield said it is not legal for the town to spend public resources to benefit private
landowners. It would be the same as giving those property owners a gift.
D. Weinstein pointed out that the whole idea of creating a Varna plan was that it
would be a benefit to not only the residents of Varna but to the entire town.
T. Hatfield stated that a plan is a different part of the code, making a plan for the
future is different than marketing a couple parcels. The Town has an IDA (Industrial
Development Agency) which could do this kind of stuff as long as they don't use public
money.
Mr. Skaley asked if the IDA would be willing to take a look at this plan but as
Supervisor Sumner pointed out, the IDA is not currently operating.
J. Laquatra asked if the Varna Community Center is incorporated. If it is, then it can
look for grants.
T. Hatfield agreed with the idea of grants. The pressure is to react to a private sector
proposal for development which is apparently not sitting very well with some folks.
Page 3 of 5
PB 3-27-2014
Ultimately the private market dictates development; and that is why we put a plan in
place because it is easier to develop under certain guidelines. And we can encourage
them with lots of tools but the economy is not going that way right now.
J. Skaley disagreed and pointed out that communities redevelop all the time and
asked if there are legal road blocks? Are there mechanisms in place by which
something like this can occur for a general benefit for the community and the Town?
Rewards would be in the form of higher values and taxes for the Town. With regard to
property ownership, there is no process by which anyone is forced into doing anything
in this process. Not forcing the Town, the Town can spend public money on a lot of
things in the sense of increasing the welfare for the community.
Supervisor Sumner said that targeting these few properties are the problem. We could
do it (maybe) in terms of the Varna plan rather than looking at particular properties or
in terms of "if the plan was completed this is the possible outcome, economically and
for the community".
Mr. Skaley suggested looking at it in terms of geography not specific properties. For
example, what are the marketing opportunities in zone one?
Supervisor Sumner pointed out that value to the town is different than the value to
the developer.
C. Anderson pointed out that again you are looking at a set area with a select group of
people. Although he is totally in favor of marketing, he is not on-line for the town
paying for it, a graduate student would be a great idea.
T. Hatfield suggested going the other direction by marketing the whole town.
Supervisor Sumner pointed out that if we did market the whole town, we will highlight
certain areas.
D. Weinstein said he understands the idea of marketing the whole town or the entire
community of Varna, but this is a specific area. This is where we want the
development to happen.
Supervisor Sumner interjected that this is where the Varna community wants the
development to be but the Town has not looked at the overall plan and said this is how
we will chose where we want development.
T. Hatfield pointed out that many of the neighboring businesses (Cornell, Chamber of
Commerce, etc) would be on-line with making sure Varna develops in a way that
would benefit them. Maybe they are interested in assisting. He also recommended
talking to Steve Lucente who also has expressed interest in Varna before.
C. Anderson reminded the Board that he has suggested an economic development
plan for the town overall. If we had a broad plan, Varna would probably be one of the
priorities because the plan is already there. NYSEG would be another close one.
Mr. Skaley said that having rental units will undermine the community cohesion in
Varna. Renters don't tend to get involved in the community.
Feedback on the training session from last Monday on SEQR, Moratoria and
Local Regulations.
H. Maniscalco asked J. Laquatra to point out some of the things that she learned at
the session:
"Generally speaking, Planning Boards have a lot more discretion than we seem to
leverage. We do not need to simply adhere to the letters of the laws, we can also
employ judgment and consider decisions in the context of the Comprehensive Plan
and community character. We can ask folks to take a step back and reassess
Page 4 of 5
PB 3-27-2014
proposed ideas. The Moratorium concept is also intriguing. It helps to give planning
flexibility to the Town. She also understood the trainers to say that there is nothing
legally prohibiting conference calls or voting for planning boards. However, access to
the public must still be provided with teleconference or have some board attendees be
physically present."
D. Weinstein stated that he is sure H. Maniscalco did not mean that we don't have to
adhere to the letter of the law, what she actually meant was that there was a bit of
planning flexibility, particularly in regard to SEQR, to make sure that all the
environmental issues come to the table. And with regard to other planning issues, it is
the same. Keep your eye on the end result that you want to achieve; Courts have
tended to give the Planning Boards a lot of flexibility to get to those results.
The rezoning of Rt 366 and Upper Creek Road
C. Anderson brought it up for two reasons; first, he supports the change and second,
he wanted the Planning Board to be aware.
Supervisor Sumner apologized; she had every intention to bring the proposed rezoning
to the Planning Board. We have had an expression of interest by several businesses in
the Wernick property but many of those proposals don't fall into the existing zoning. It
is rural residential with a traditional neighborhood overlay with conservation on the
other side of the road. Wernicks was grandfathered into that area which would have
extended to the new owner if the property sold within 18 months.
J. Nicholson said that this area was grouped with other parcels in a "wide brush"
when the zoning map was created. It is apparent now that the zoning is not correct for
these parcels.
D. Weinstein asked that the area along the stream be exempt from the zoning to
preserve the natural environment. J. Nicholson pointed out that the natural
environment was such that it could not be developed.
T. Hatfield offered the following resolution to the Dryden Town Board:
The Planning Board requests that the Town Board approve the Zoning changes proposed
by the Planning Department. The change from Rural Residential and Conservation with
a Traditional Neighborhood Development Overlay to a Mixed -Use Commercial District
will encompass several parcels located along Route 366, including 39.-1-1 (the former
Wernick's property), 39.-1-3 and 39.-1-2. As the current zoning is based on Planning
Board recommendations, they request the Town Board correct the oversight which
placed these parcels in a zoning district which will hinder growth and development.
After a brief discussion, C. Anderson moved to second the motion and it was passed
unanimously.
There being no further business, T. Hatfield moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 PM.
D. Weinstein seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Page 5 of 5
PB 3-27-2014
Erin A. Bieber
Deputy Town Clerk
Town of Dryden - Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Assessment
Findings from Matrix Analysis - March 25, 2014
Attached: Results Summary, STAR Goals and Objectives
See also: Detailed Results Summary (spreadsheet), and complete Assessment Matrix (7 spreadsheets)
Assessment Process and Methodology
• Town Board directive: Evaluate "degree to which Comprehensive Plan recommendations support
sustainability goals."
• Evaluated the entire Comprehensive Plan.
o S Comp Plan sections: Population; Land Use; Open Space; Historic Resources; Recreational
Resources; Transportation; Public Infrastructure; Public Safety
■ Each section includes: Inventory & Analysis; Goals & Objectives; Plan Synthesis; and Plan
Recommendations.
• For a sustainability framework, the STAR Community Rating System Version 1.0 was used. Download STAR
at htto://www.starcommunities.org/rating-system/download.
o STAR has 7 goal areas with up to 7 objectives in each, and covers a broad spectrum of economic,
environmental, and social issues. The full text of the goals and objectives can be found on the STAR
Goals and Objectives table, attached.
• Cross-referenced STAR with Comprehensive Plan.
o For each of 44 STAR objectives, does each section of the Comprehensive Plan support it, hinder it,
or not address it?
o Scoring:
■ Supports Strongly +2; Supports Moderately +1;
■ Does Not Address 0;
■ Hinders Moderately -1; Hinders Strongly -2
Caveats
• Scoring is not perfect. It is most effective at pointing out general trends of Comprehensive Plan - what is
dealt with a lot, what is not dealt with at all.
• Mentioning one issue multiple times in the plan doesn't necessarily support it more, but it did result'in a
higher score.
• STAR does not specifically mention agriculture. This should be taken into account when reviewing results,
as this is a key economic area for the Town. (Agriculture was captured most often in the Economy and Jobs
goal area)
1
Results Interpretation
See Results Summary, attached
• Climate and Energy is by far the weakest goal area (score = 2). Many municipalities are now incorporating
chapters on Climate and/or Energy into their Comprehensive Plans.
• At the last Planning Board meeting, Economy & Jobs was a weak area. Since then, the Land Use section of
the Comprehensive Plan was evaluated, which significantly boosted the Economy score (from 1 to 7). If
Economic Development is a priority area, it could be pulled out of the Land Use section and dealt with
separately.
• Built Environment is by far the strongest goal area (score = 31). Two of the objectives in this goal area -
Compact & Complete Communities and Public Spaces - scored 7, the highest out of all objectives.
o Infill and Redevelopment is the one objective which received the Hinders classification. In all, it
scored a 2, with one Strongly Supports, two Moderately Supports, two Moderately Hinders, and
3 Does Not Address.
o In the STAR document, it states the purpose of Infill and Redevelopment as "Focus new growth
in infill areas and on redevelopment that does not require the extension of water, sewer, and
road infrastructure or facilitate sprawl." The scoring of this objective reflects the
Comprehensive Plan's somewhat mixed messages in this area.
• The Natural Systems goal also scored well (19.8), especially the Green Infrastructure (7) and Natural
Resource Protection (6) objectives. However Invasive Species was not addressed at all, and may be an
increasing concern given the level of agriculture in the Town.
Next Steps
• The Goals and Objectives section of the Comprehensive Plan was not evaluated as a whole; it was instead
assessed in pieces relating to the different Comp Plan sections (Population, Land Use, etc.).
o One interesting exercise would be to evaluate the Goals and Objectives chapter on its own, in
the same way the sections were evaluated. This would ideally be done by a few different staff
and/or Planning Board members, and the results combined.
• One way to approach the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan revisions would be to analyze the STAR
objectives and goals which scored poorly, and ask "is this STAR objective/goal important to the Town?" If
it is judged important, the STAR document may be a useful jumping off point for collecting ideas on how to
incorporate the issue into the new Comprehensive Plan.
Town mtDryden - Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Assessment -
Results Summary - March 2G,20l4
Goal Score Ranee Obiecth,eScore maneq
Low: 2(Climate Q^Energy) Low: 0(nnany)
High: 31(Built Environment) High: 7 (Compact & Complete Communities; Public Spaces; Green Infrastructure)
Average: 12 Average: 2
Ambient Noise &
Community
Compact & Complete Housing i Infill & Transportation
Public Spaces
Goal
Light
Water Systems
Communities Affordability 1: Redevelopment i Choices
Total
Greenhouse Gas
Greening the Industrial Sector Resource Efficient Resource Efficient 1 Waste
Goal
Climate Adaptation
Mitigation
I
Energy Supply Resource Efficiency Buildings Public Infrastructurei
i Minimization
Total
Business Retention Green Market
Quality Jobs & [Targeted Industry Workforce
Goal
Local Economy
& Development Development
Living Wages Development Readiness
Total
b di es
6, 0 Area: EducationA' com
Community
Educational Historic 1: Social & Cultural
Goal
Arts & Culture
Cohesion
Opporty/ Attain't Preservation Diversity
Total
Civil & Human
Civic Engagement
Environmental I Equitable Services! Poverty
Human Services
Goal
Rights
Justice & Access i Prevention &
Total
-GoalAred: 'He -SafetV,S-&- e�h' -communities to e health ',,rest jentan, sa, ep aces foe-retfdenis-andbusiness0s,,
Community Health
Emergency Prev. Food Access & 1: Natural & Safe
Goal
Active Living
Indoor Air Qualityl
& Health System
& Response Nutrition Human Hazards Communities
Total
'Protect ep
Green
Natural Resource Outdoor Air Water in the
Goal
Invasive Species
Working Lands
Infrastructure
Protection Quality Environment
Total
Town of Dryden - Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Assessment
STAR Community
Rating System Goals and Objectives - March 25, 2014
` Goal:Area:Builtlsiiviro rr�entAe ieve:iivaliil fY,:choice; and`4ccess.for.allwl ere,peo
:..;w:...:...::........1.M�
Ambient Noise &
...._.._.:...
Community Water
_..... ........
Compact & _ Housing
_ssf ....<�4�:..........._......
Infill &
_ ............_.............._...
Public Spaces
Transportation
Light
Systems
Complete Affordability
Redevelopment
Choices
Communities
Minimize and
Provide a clean and
Concentrate Construct,
Focus new growth
Create a network
Promote diverse
manage ambient
secure water
development in preserve, and
in infill areas and
of well -used and
transportation
noise and light
supply for all local
compact, human- maintain an
on redevelopment
enjoyable parks
modes, including
levels to protect
users through the
scaled, walkable adequate and
that does not
and public spaces
walking, bicycling,
public health and
management of
centers and diverse supply of
require the
that feature
and transit, that are
integrity of
potable water,
neighborhoods location -efficient
extension of water,
equitable,
safe, low-cost, and
ecological systems
wastewater,
that connect to and affordable
sewer, and road
convenient access
reduce vehicle
stormwater, and
transit, offer housing options for
infrastructure or
for residents
miles traveled
other piped
diverse uses and all residents
facilitate sprawl
throughout the
infrastructure
services, and
community
provide housing
options for families:,
of all income levels
Goal Area: Climate &Entergy Reduce climate irripacts:throttgh adaptati6n and mitigation'efforts and ricreaseresiiarce'eff'iciency. ` ...,.
Climate Adaptation
Greenhouse Gas
Greening the Industrial Sector
Resource Efficient
Resource Efficient
Waste
Mitigation
Energy Supply Resource Efficiency
Buildings
Public
Minimization
Infrastructure
Strengthen the
Achieve
Transition the local 'Minimize resource
Improve the
Minimize resource
Reduce and reuse
resilience of
greenhouse gas
energy supply for use and demand in
energy and water
use and demand in
material waste
communities to
emissions
both transportation the industrial
efficiency of the
local public
produced in the
climate change
reductions
and non-mobile sector as a means
community's
infrastructure as a
community
impacts on built,
throughout the
sources toward the to mitigate
residential,
means to mitigate
natural, economic,
community
use of renewable, greenhouse gas
commercial, and
greenhouse gas
and social systems
less carbon- emissions and
institutional
emissions and
intensive, and less conserve water
building stock
conserve water
toxic alternatives
4
:> : Gaal.Area: lct%rtort� =&. tausre`atee ciital sEred ros eri :and access to ."cikis
_ ...a.::.: <: ;,:x..............:.v :........; , .a..a .. Y.....,,..:.. �......,.:...>. ..-,. q . Y. . l� P .. �!.... _.:.- :....-.. _ .�i,..: , tY� :...d:.,..... .... , ...... _
Business Retention
Green Market
Local Economy
Quality Jobs &
Targeted Industry
Workforce
& Development
Development
Living Wages
Development
Readiness
Foster economic
Increase overall
Create an
Expand job
Increase local
Prepare the
prosperity and
market demand for
increasingly self-
opportunities that
competitiveness by workforce for
stability by
products and
reliant community
support upward
strengthening
successful
retaining and
services that
through a robust
economic mobility
networks of
employment
expanding
protect the
local economy with and provide
businesses,
through increasing
businesses with
environment
benefits shared by
sufficient wages so
suppliers, and
attainment of post-
supportfrom the
all
!thatworking
associated
secondary
business
people and their
institutions
education and
community
families can afford
improving
a decent standard
outcomes of
of living
workforce
development
programs
oa A ea E 'o`
G I r dut6t n;'Arts.&.:Community,Em powervibrartt,.e4, catecl; con r ected; and,,divers or�.ra unities
Arts & Culture
Community
Educational
Historic
Social & Cultural
Cohesion
Opportunity &
Preservation
Diversity
Attainment
Provide a broad
Ensure a cohesive,
Achieve equitable
:Preserve and reuse
Celebrate and
range of arts and
connected
attainment of a
historic structures
respect diversity
I
cultural resources
community
quality education
and sites to retain
and represent
and activities that
through adequate
for individuals
local, regional, and
diverse
encourage
venues for
from birth to
national history
perspectives in
participation and
community
adulthood
and heritage,
community
creative self-
interaction,
reinforce
decision-making
expression
community
,community
building activities
and events, and
the sharing of
information about
community issues
and services
character, and
conserve resources
5
,...,
`fiaal,Aria::iwquty&-�pavrreirtn ntErts re:equi y,:►nc us on, �rsd cress i ;oppartunitYfarall resi 'hts:
Civic Engagement
Civil & Human
Environmental
Equitable Services
Human Services
Poverty Prevention
Rights
Justice
1& Access
& Alleviation
Citizens and
Promote the full
Reduce polluted
Ensure equitable
Ensure high quality
Prevent people
residents improve
enjoyment of civil
and toxic
access to
human services
from falling into
community well-
and human rights
environments with
foundational
programs are
poverty and
being by
for all residents in
an emphasis on
community assets
available and
proactively enable
participating in
the community
alleviating
within and
utilized to
those who are
local decision-
disproportionate
between
guarantee basic
living in povertyto
making and
health hazards in
neighborhoods and
human needs so
obtain greater,
volunteering with
areas where low-
populations
that all residents
lasting economic
community
income residents
lead lives of dignity
stability and
organizations
and persons of
security
color live
Goal Aima: Health &Safety,St�engthen carnmur#ities to be h`eaJtlij+`resiliri%kand safe places`Ior<r'esits.anrl:.snesses _
...fi..,.... , .....:......
Active Living
Community Health
Emergency
Food Access &
Indoor Air Quality
Natural & Human
Safe Communities
& Health System
Prevention &
Nutrition
Hazards
Response
Enable adults and
Achieve positive
Reduce harm to
Ensure that adults
Ensure that indoor
Reduce
Prevent and reduce
kids to maintain
health outcomes
humans and
and children of all
air quality is
vulnerability to all
violent crime and
healthy, active
and minimize
property by
income levels have
healthy for all
hazards, secure
increase
lifestyles by
health risk factors
utilizing long-term
opportunitiesto
people
critical
perceptions of
integrating physical through a high
preventative and
;learn about
infrastructure, and
safety through
activity into their
quality local health
collaborative
,nutritious eating
ensure that
interagency
daily routines
system that is
approaches to
,and have physical
communities are
collaboration and
accessible and
avoid emergency
sand economic
prepared to
with residents as
responsive to
incidents and
access to fresh,
effectively respond
empowered
community needs
minimize their
healthful food and
to and recover
partners
impacts
water
from crisis
11
7
r"°""^��,�,�°'°���depends�.�^=^��
Green
Invasive Species Natural Resource /Outdoor Air Quality Water lmthe
Working Lands
Infrastructure
Protection
Environment
Design and
Prevent and Protect, enhance Ensure that
Protect and restore
Conserve and
maintain a network
manage invasive and restore natural �outdoor air quality
the biological,
maintain lands that
of green
species inorder to ecosystems and !ishealthy for a||
chemical, and
provide raw
infrastructure
restore and protect cultural landscapes, �people and
hydrological
materials inways
features that
natural ecosystems t000nfernesi|ienoe protects the
integrity ofwater
that a||ovvfor
integrate with the
and the benefits and support clean /welfare ofthe
inthe natural
sustained harvests
built environment
�
they provide xvaterand ai�food �community
environment
and preserves
to conserve
supply, and public
ecosystem
ecosystem
safety !
integrity
functions and
�
provide associated
benefits tohuman
populations
�
7
i
40w14 of DRYDFN
Memorandum
To: Town Board
From: Jane Nicholson, Interim Director of Planning
CC: Mahlon Perkins, Attorney; Town Clerk
Re: Rezoning of Parcels 39.4-1, 39.4-3, 39.-1-2
Date: March 17, 2014
The Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2012. Over the course of the past two years, it has become
evident that certain areas within the town should be classified in a different zoning district.
The Planning Department is proposing a rezoning of three parcels along SR 366 from Rural Residential and
Conservation to a Mixed -Use Commercial district. The purpose of the rezoning is to ensure the area's future allows
for its maximum potential. Through careful examination of the existing conditions in and around this area, it has
been determined that the current zoning limits the potential for a site that is prime for redevelopment and adaptive re-
use. The rezoning will result in a district that is less prohibitive yet compatible with the current uses of these sites as
well as the surrounding neighborhood.
This stretch of Route 366 is heavily traveled. With a speed limit of 55, this route experiences significant truck and
car traffic throughout the day. There are no sidewalks along this route which makes walking and biking hazardous. It
is unlikely that sidewalks would ever be considered in any future development along this corridor.
The rezoning targets three continuous parcels along Route 366. The first parcel is 24.24 acres and contains one
building. Referred to as the "Werninck's Building", this site was once home to Werninck's & Sons Furniture but has
been vacant for the past several months. The building contains approximately 66,000 square feet of office,
warehouse, and showroom space as well as approximately 100 parking spots. The western side of the property
contains Federal wetlands which limits the amount of development that could occur on this property in addition to
the already existing building. The building is in excellent condition and fit for redevelopment.
Wernnick's closed in 2013. The Planning Department has received a number of inquiries for reusing the building.
Due to the current zoning, options including retail, general office, and warehouse are prohibited. The Werninck's site
has the potential to bring in new and desired businesses to Dryden. Town residents as well as the Town Board have
expressed the desire for more economic development and new businesses. They have also expressed the desire to
protect open space and our natural resources. By adaptively reusing existing structures and sites such as the
Werninck's building, the Town is welcoming new business while protecting the integrity of the town's open space.
Current zoning:
Rural Residential and Conservation
with a Traditional Neighborhood
Development Overlay District
Proposed zoning:
Mixed -Use Commercial District