Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-23PB 9-23-21 Page 1 of 13 TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD MEETING September 23, 2021 Zoom Hybrid Meeting Present: John Kiefer, Chair, Craig Anderson, Tony Salerno, Daniel Bussmann, Joe Wilson, Alice Green (alternate), Simon St Laurent (alternate) Absent: Linda Wagenet Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Dan Lamb and Loren Sparling (Town Board) Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) Chair John Kiefer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and thanked Tony Salerno for chairing the August meeting. Public Comment Joe Osmeloski, 2180 Dryden Road, said he is passionate about the things he talks about and sometimes he is tough on people. One of the people he has been tough on is Alice Green, and he wants to say that what happened Monday night at the Rail Trail Task Force meeting was reprehensible. The meeting was zoom bombed. No one on any board should be subjected to what she went through. He referenced an email from A Green to Planning Board members regarding talking with C Anderson about personal attacks and technical points he had raised. A Green said she followed through with that, saying she was saddened by C Anderson’s email. J Osmeloski asked for a copy of the note, and she said she would provide it to him. Pat Foote, 614 Lake Road, thanked the Planning Board for talking about the safety concerns on the rail trail and what is happening near Hanson Aggregates. He lives on the trail, and he played a large role in getting the trail through the William George Agency. They as an agency took safety measures, making sure they had gates in place so when they moved equipment from one side to the other trail users would be safe. He is concerned about Hanson with trail going close there. There is ten acres of property that they own and if we put a trail through and they want to expand in the future, it may be a real problem. They moved there because of safety issues. He thanked the board for talking about it and looking at it closely because he thinks it is important. William George Agency was careful when the trail came through their property to make sure safety was taken care of. He thanked the board again for bringing it up and talking about it publicly. Craig Schutt said last month he brought up concerns about the screening around the solar arrays near the cemetery and asked if it had been followed up on. R Burger said the owners have been contacted and they are putting together an analysis of what the deficiencies are and what they will do to remedy them. He expects a report for the town board before the October meeting. D Bussmann noted that if the owner is going to implement changes, there is a short window left to plant this year. PB 9-23-21 Page 2 of 13 Coordination with Town Board Dan Lamb reported they have put out some feelers to the community about filling the current board vacancy and have not had any success yet. Planning Board members can do outreach also or make suggestions. It is good that we have alternates in the meantime. Craig Anderson said Steve Foote has had an application in for quite a while. D Lamb said we need a deadline, and they will put it in the town newsletter. They will make a good faith effort to advertise and look at who was interested in the past, including seeing if Steve Foote is still interested. The Town Board is going into budget season and will be taking into consideration the request from the Planning Board for more resources for the Planning Department. Approval of Minutes Alternates A Green and S St Laurent were given voting privileges. July 22, 2021 – C Anderson asked that the email from NYSERDA be added to the minutes. August 26, 2021 – Approval moved by T Salerno, seconded by C Anderson – all in favor Mill Creek Subdivision R Burger recapped that the Mill Creek Subdivision was approved a couple of years ago. It has 20 restrictive covenants listed on the plat, including one where any building must occur in designated area. This was done to protect the wetlands. The applicants and owners of Lot 40 would like to move the designated building envelope on the lot to another location that they have identified as a dry area they would prefer as a building site. The plat is now before the Planning Board for amendment. This is the start of the process, because the Planning Board and all the lot owners are parties to this restrictive covenant. The action for the board tonight is sketch plan approval, the first of three steps. The property owner then needs approval from all the other property owners and if that happens, then the Planning Board can approve modification of the plat. A similar process was used to amend the plat for the Blue Bird Subdivision. J Kiefer said one set of drawings was a sketch showing four different wetland delineations illustrating that their proposed modification stays away from the wetland delineations. It seems they are honoring the concept when the plat was approved to keep construction activity out of the wetlands. Questions and Comments: All other property owners would need to provide written approval? Yes. Significance of DEC approval letter? That the SWPPP amendment has been accepted by Dave Gasper, head of the stormwater program at DEC. The SWPPP accounts for a longer driveway and an impervious surface in that back corner. PB 9-23-21 Page 3 of 13 A short form EAF has been provided and the Planning Board can do a SEQR on this specific action or simply a concurrence that the original SEQR still applies. In the past the Planning Board has approved a sketch plan and the SEQR review before final plan approval. RESOLUTION #10 (2021) – APPROVE SKETCH PLAN – MILL CREEK SUBDIVISION PLAT MODIFICATION C Anderson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Planning Board hereby accepts the sketch plan presented for modification of the designated building area on Lot 40 in the Mill Creek Subdivision. 2nd T Salerno – all in favor Scottie’s Auto Repair Shop 2171 Dryden Road Scottie’s Auto Repair Shop has a special use permit application before the Town Board next month. R Burger said Scottie’s Auto is operating under a special use permit from a couple of decades ago. It envisioned a small enterprise with 15 cars parked on the lot and it has since expanded greatly. They are coming back to amend that special use permit. They have purchased the lot to the east and intend to put a 26-lot parking area there to move the extra cars to. They will take their present two driveways and consolidate them into one. The westernmost driveway would be explicitly tied to the residence next door and there would be no connection between the private residence and the business. The parking lot on the adjacent lot would be accessed internal to their shop property with another driveway established to the new lot. This is a special use permit amendment with a fairly significant amendment to the site plan. The Town Board will take this up at a public hearing on October 21, so they are looking for recommendations from the Planning Board. J Kiefer said the property is in the mixed-use commercial district and the auto repair shop requires a special use permit. There have been some violations on the lot related to the vehicles stored there, and this is the applicant attempting to fix the problem. This would be a modification of the site and essentially clean it up. C Anderson said he drew the map for Scottie. The parking is on a separate lot. He is allowed ten parking spaces in front for an auto repair place and two spaces for every three employees (another 13- 14 spaces). There is parking for 50 cars. The thing that will be difficult is how to close out the second driveway to the house. The idea is to reduce the width to 10’ and put a chain across it. The applicant is meeting with Casella to relocate the dumpster. There was discussion about how best to restrict use of the driveway to the house. Ten feet is narrow, and people will still try to use it. There should be some mechanism to delineate that driveway entrance and separate it so that it can’t be used by customers of the business. White plastic chain was suggested with a small sign. Screening – There are some new plantings on the plan in front of the new parking area, not close to the entrance because it is wet in there. The application states 15’ juniper or eastern red cedar. 15’ may be excessive. PB 9-23-21 Page 4 of 13 The goal is to get parking just in front of the building, nothing out front closer to the road. All cars to be moved to the back. There could be a condition that autos are only to be parked in spaces shown on drawing. The plan will accommodate the number of cars currently on site. Cars that are waiting for parts will go in the long-term parking and the daily cars will be up front. J Kiefer noted that it is pretty clear in Section 901 that vehicles stored on property in the town need to be registered and inspected, and if not inspected need to be demonstrated as operable. Applicant claims the vehicles are all registered. The SUP approval should state that, and proof should be required that they are in fact registered and an inspection or statement from the owner that the vehicles operate. Recommendations to Town Board: • That there be some sort of access control for the second driveway (plastic chain, barricade, cones). • That the screening and planting plan is adequate to screen vehicles • That cars only park in spaces on the plan • That cars there now (at the time of application and/or approval) be documented as registered and operating status/inspection. 2 Pros Construction 450 Cortland Road This property is in the rural ag district, is a contractor yard that requires a special use permit. They have placed a container modified into an office along Route 13 which was not part of their site plan. They are now asking that it be included in the site plan. The zoning law does allow for outdoor displays and this is a demonstration of a product that they are selling. Zoning law will allow for outdoor displays with screening from highways. They have planted six bushes so there is a partial screening from the highway. C Anderson said he is concerned with public access. It appears the railings are not complete in the pictures. D Bussmann said this is clearly a marketing effort. How does it compare to signage regulations? • It has a banner on it. • It functions as a second sign which is allowed in the district and is under the square footage. • Display is an allowed use in the district. • Steps, railings and signate need to meet code. • Does it meet design guidelines? Outdoor display is mentioned, but there are no restrictions or guidelines on size or placement. • Commercial guidelines, rural corridor character area would apply, and it says metal sheds or buildings are discouraged. • There is no landscaping around the building, along the sides or under the deck. • We could request more landscaping. • We had asked that their sign be a monument sign, and the one on the structure is not that. • One way to make the structure better would be to remove the banner from the sign, or mount it in a better way. PB 9-23-21 Page 5 of 13 Recommendations to Town Board: • That code enforcement officers are comfortable with the building being a publicly accessed facility. • That it meets the signage code. The Planning Board is not impressed with the current approach to the signage. • Improve landscaping on site, so you don’t see under the building/deck. Safety Concerns & Economic Impact the Proposed Rail Trail May Have on Hall Road and Pinckney Businesses J Kiefer said he is interested in what people have to say about this, but wants to make it clear that the Planning Board has had very little to do with the rail trail. Three or four years ago they passed a resolution in support of the rail trail, but since then it has not been on their agenda. The Planning Board has no approvals associated with the rail trail. He understands that people are pleased they are taking the topic up and hoping they will pass an opinion along to the Town Board. He wants it clear that the Planning Board has no decisions to make associated with the rail trail project. T Salerno said at the last meeting several members of the public asked the Planning Board to address. Dan Lamb said while the Planning Board doesn’t have a direct involvement, they can take it upon themselves to make recommendations to the Town Board. C Anderson said he spoke as an individual at the Town Board about safety concerns that he didn’t think were being addressed. J Osmeloski said some people are curious as to why the Planning Board wasn’t asked to weigh in on this when this the Planning Board’s main function is land use and obviously land use questions will come up. He thinks the Planning Board should have been involved from the beginning is curious why the Planning Board was never asked by the Town Board to weigh in. He thinks it is a mistake. J Kiefer asked if there were any business owners present who have a business in the commercial park. There were not. He asked if anyone present who lives adjacent to or are familiar with the area. There were not. Public Comment: Pat Foote said he think it is important to think hard about safety in an industrial park. We don’t want people that own land there now thinking that someday they are going to develop and find out later they can’t because of the trail. They already own the ten acres. It seems like a problem, and it seems like a viable solution to go around it. He is hoping the board will consider the safety issue. Craig Schutt said he spoke at the last Town Board meeting and brought along the Cornell Design Connect Trail Plan from 2015. In it, there are concerns about that area because it is an industrial area, and they came up with alternatives to go around it as a safer and better route. It appears that plan has been neglected, and no one has paid much attention to it. The cement company applied for a permit to build two different times and were rejected because it was not a compatible use for safety issues. Finally, they were allowed at the current location. If the trail was there first, he is sure they wouldn’t have been allowed to build because of safety. Suddenly it is ok to put a trail where the company is PB 9-23-21 Page 6 of 13 doing business. Why now put a trail where they are? It is a problem. It appears that the trail will be right next to the driveway at Hanson. Big trucks are in and out of there many times a day. They are moving right along to get up the hill to Route 13 and they can’t stop quickly. There will be pedestrians, kids, and bicyclist and it could be dangerous and needs to be looked at closer before any decisions are made. Then there is the bridge issue. If the trail went around Hanson and down along Fall Creek and crossed there, the whole bridge issue would go away. There are several things to be considered. Jolene Lyon read the attached statement. Paula Ann Parker, 50-year resident of town of Dryden, read and presented the attached statement and information regarding the economic impact on businesses in the industrial park. Shirley Lyon said she is quite familiar with construction sites, and they owned Gold Sport Cycle, so they are familiar with tractor trailer trucks delivering. She’s seen the difficulty in turning and with their blind spots they requested assistance to get out of the driveway. She has contacted Mike McAllister at Hanson and they have moved the matter to their legal arena. She talked with Duke’s safety division and they are requesting all recordings and letters and she will supply those. They have never been contacted by the RTTF concerning any safety measures. Hanson has about 80 daily trips with possible expansion. They have a road count of about 900 cars in 2015. They are concerned with visibility with their trucks waiting to exit and proximity of the rail trail. She distributed drawings of scenarios to the board and explained the line-of-sight issues. Duke is extremely upset and said it would increase their liability. Once the bridge is opened on both sides you have what he referred to as an ant path. They will exit and go up Hall Road to either go to the store or come down 366. He said they have been operating safely, but unfortunately some of the customers that pick up equipment are not the best drivers with their trailers. Sending bikes and curious kids would through there would definitely increase their liability. When Lyons sold land to 84 Lumber, they sent a scout out who for 30 days looked into road trips, zoning, and other things. She doesn’t know if someone in the future looking at that industrial section would say they want to relocate there because it drives up their liability. There are three representatives of these companies that are not happy. They have requested all recordings. They mentioned something called attractive nuisance. Under New York State law, for children 17 and under, if you put up no trespassing signs and they still go by and get in construction sites, the owner is liable. It doesn’t work with children. The only way to mitigate it is to fence in all their equipment and hire more people. This will impact the economics of the industrial zone. She was told as soon as they receive the information from her, he will be writing a letter to the Town Board, cc-ing the Planning Department, with his displeasure about what is going on. Different individuals in the legal department referred to negligence, ordinary negligence, and gross negligence. They are wondering if the board is totally aware of what is going on. She doesn’t know who would want to move there when we are taking a part of business land with eminent domain and now we’re driving up their liability and increasing their safety problems. They were also a little upset because they (in the industrial area) were never surveyed or contacted for their input by anyone. Mike McAllister said that about a year ago someone stopped in and talked about the PB 9-23-21 Page 7 of 13 trail, but never talked about any problems. They thought it had gone away and they had no idea what was going on in the township. Jerry Lyon said they owned Gold Sport Cycle for 43 years and were very careful with who test drove motorcycles. They knew their customers well. One thing they did when they test drove the bikes was find out where they were going and told them where not to go. They were told not to go on the section of Pinckney Road where Saunders (now Hanson) is because of the stuff on the road. The road became slippery. They never had a customer who had a failure on a test drive. Two months ago he got angry with the Rail Trail people after hearing how much work they’ve done. He has little confidence in the work done by the Rail Trail Task Force; it is not complete. Safety was a main concern in their business, and they had no failures. It baffles him why the Town Board did not ask the Planning Board to look at the safety issues on these roads, especially Pinckney Road. When they first opened, they had customers from Etna that would test drive motorcycles and come to their shop using along Fall Creek to Pinckney Road. There was a trail by the creek in the later 70’s. Who is in charge of safety? That is one of your responsibilities and for the most part the Planning Board does a good job. But if you haven’t been asked to look at the safety issues, where are we? Where does the liability fall? For safety on motorcycles, like bicycles, people need to be aware of their surroundings. He and his wife bicycle the Schug Trail and they have been passed by bicyclists that went across, never stopped and hardly look both ways. If that happens on Pinckney Road with the concrete trucks and large amount of traffic, the road conditions from the crap on the tires of the concrete trucks…. He hopes the board will consider looking at this because he has no faith that the rail trail people have looked at anything to do with safety. Did they look at the important stuff first? He doubts it. He hopes the Planning Board would consider taking a harder look at this for the liability that could be on the table for people’s lives that could be harmed by this. He never lost a customer because they had a problem in their service shop. Their customers were their family, and he thinks the board should take a hard look at the safety issues on this rail trail. Planning Board member comments: A Green said as a volunteer on the Rail Trail Task Force for the last 5.5 years, she has worked with team of folks who are dedicated, and they are all volunteers. It’s really quite possible that they need help from the public to look at all of the aspects of safety across the entire 10.5 miles of the trail. There are more than twenty crossings across the entire trail. She appreciates the incredible amount of work that has done been by the public who have spoken to examine this question to keep our citizens safe, to keep our businesses in good shape. They certainly don’t want to do anything that would harm business and certainly don’t want to do anything that would endanger users of the trail. The issues raised are real and important. Some who came to the RTTF meeting Monday night had a chance to hear from John Lampman, a Dryden resident, who is a 30-year highway traffic engineer. He has helped them with some safety plans for crossings, most recently on the crossing at Game Farm. On Monday night he explained the results of his site visit at Pinckney Rd and made some recommendations for mitigations, some of which were already included in the agreement that was made with Hanson Aggregates: a vegetative barrier that would make clear the pathways of the rail trail versus the driveway, cutting some vegetation in certain places, adding stop signs, adding flashing lights. In his professional, a local resident who knows it very well, it was not a particularly dangerous intersection with the mitigations he was professionally recommending. Hanson Aggregates gave an easement for the rail trail several years ago and it has been PB 9-23-21 Page 8 of 13 filed in the courthouse. They had the opportunity to put the rail trail easement agreement that the town provided through their legal department and consider the implications of the trail coming through and they approved it. She thinks that one of the reasons that it was approved was that the town already has an easement for utilities along that trail. To answer the question of what if they wished to develop along that corridor sometime in the future, the town has the utility easements and those preclude development. No property owner in the entire length of the 10.5 miles of the trail, the property was conveyed from the Lehigh Valley Road, has been able to develop those particular parts of the corridor. She wants to assure people that safety is important; that they have contacted experts. She would recommend that if town Planning Board decides to weigh in, that they make a site visit. She thinks it is important to look at the entire 66’ corridor that Hanson provided an easement for, and then look at the mitigations recommended by the highway professional. She would welcome recommendations to make it safer. In terms of impact on the businesses there, there probably was an oversight on not contacting all the businesses there. As volunteers their emphasis was really on getting in touch with those folks that were directly impacted by the trail and could provide them with easements. But as we move forward, it makes sense for the rail trail to have further conversations with folks there. There are a couple of businesses (the climbing wall, the batting box) there that are recreation related businesses. These old rail trails historically go through industrial corridors (that’s how the railroads operated) so there are precedents for rail trails being created near industrial areas. In many places it is an advantage. Folks that might want to come to the climbing wall, would be able to commute on a bicycle. Folks that might be working in the business that replaces VanGuard Press, would have a built-in recreation corridor for lunch break recreation. So it’s a recreational trail, a multi-use trail and a commuting trail. In many communities, proximity to a light industrial area of a trail is an advantage for developers. She won’t deny that there will need to be some coordination and real attention to the safety issues there, but she thinks the vision of the town for the last two decades has been to follow the old railroad corridor and develop to the advantage of the new transportation way that it will create. They also talked about the alternative route at the RTTF meeting, and will make public the RTTF’s assessment of the feasibility of the alternate route that has been presented. In a systematic way the members of the task force have spelled out why they did not pursue that alternative early in the history of the trail. Their hope is that they can create a safe trail, taking into consideration many of the issues that have been made. They want the industrial park area to be enhanced as a result of having this new multi-use trail as a resource for our town. An audience member said that his understanding was that Saunders gave the easement prior to Hanson’s purchase. The easement as signed by Hanson Aggregates in 2018 was produced. C Anderson said he believes there are safety concerns. Hall Road has no sidewalks, no bike paths; it is a narrow street shaped like a question mark. There are a lot of bends, a lot of blind spots for someone walking or biking on the road. People will exit on Hall Woods Road and jump on Hall Road to go to the Plantation Inn if they rebuild or go to the gas station for water. It will happen and he doesn’t know how to mitigate that. The same with Pinckney Road. If you look at the concrete plant, it is dangerous there. Up until now he hadn’t heard anyone on the RTTF say it is a problem. A Green is the first to acknowledge there is a problem and he thanked her for that. There is an economic loss to PB 9-23-21 Page 9 of 13 Hanson. He understands they have ten acres of property that they want to expand on. What will the Town Board do when they come for a special permit to expand the business? He recalled when someone on Cricket Lane wanted to open a full-time auto mechanic shop and they were turned down because of safety concerns. They were dealing with 20 cars a day and 2 trucks. Now we’re dealing with 80 trucks and 1000 cars. There are safety concerns and economic concerns. People have invested in Dryden in that industrial area, and we are not looking out for them. That’s an issue. Someone will say your insurance is going up and the next person might say you might have to put in a sidewalk or help us pay for a sidewalk. He thinks the Planning Board should look into it. We owe it to the town to do that. D Bussmann said that the attractive nuisance law does impact businesses. It is really important if the trail goes through the area that those concerns are mitigated; that it balances with reducing risk to a certain degree for Hanson. They have an existing condition right now where it is still valid, but a lot less likely that it could be a problem. If you have young teenagers and kids, the situation was summed up really well because that’s what they do. If you can’t mitigate that as well as the traffic concerns, it is probably not a good location. He appreciates that the RTTF did consult a traffic engineer. A lot of times they can solve issues. J Kiefer said he understands there are mitigation measures proposed. S St Laurent said this is kind of in his neighborhood and he has spent a fair amount of time at Campbell meadow. His family rides Lower Creek Road and Pinckney Road at least once a week and frequently more often. He has lived for 21 years in the zone where the concrete trucks are most dangerous. He lives on Route 366 where they are roaring by with often too much speed, and no one really seems to care about that. He has seen concrete trucks on Pinckney Road, and they are battling the hill, but they aren’t moving that fast. They really can’t. There is a stop sign at 13 anyway and while they are supposed to stop there, they usually do. He’s up for a better plan, but has yet to see one. It doesn’t sound like going under the bridge, especially with a detour along 13 is a great plan for a variety of reasons. Listening to this, he is delighted that people are growing in their concern about diesel exhaust and particles, but again, that is his life on 366 and people seem oblivious to that, so he isn’t sure why it suddenly matters in this location. He is extra puzzled that people don’t think a sign will keep people away from a concrete plant, which is a kind of obvious dangerous zone, but at the same time they think a sign will keep people from taking a massive shortcut across Route 13. He doesn’t think the Planning Board needs to be consulted here. He doesn’t find the concerns particularly convincing. He thinks they are addressable and that they are extremely selective concerns. He is not impressed. J Wilson – The Planning Board as a whole has not been involved in this. Most members are not as informed as the rail trail group or the concerned citizens about the details of the issues at hand and which may have been faced by the rail trail group. He has no prejudgment on any of this. He thanked the group that presented today, except that the personal attacks on honesty and integrity and competence were not used as reasons for the Planning Board to be involved. He commended those addressing issues rather than personalities. Safety, economic impact, and tonight’s health concerns are all complex issues. They are not easily decided in 45 minutes of listening to one another tonight or when the issue of the Planning Board’s involvement was raised about a month ago. He doesn’t see them being resolved tonight. We haven’t heard the rail trail group respond to various issues raised here. He would like to hear about their thinking, research, rationale, and what experts they may have involved on these issues that have now been raised. Or they may say they didn’t think of something, or in that precise way. He thinks the Planning Board, before it weighs in, needs to find out what kind of process, effort, research, and PB 9-23-21 Page 10 of 13 knowledge has been accumulated by the rail trail group over its five-year operation before deciding to weigh in. He thinks the Planning Board is being asked to update the comp plan to change the proposed route of the rail trail. That is a considerable undertaking. If the Planning Board is going to recommend to Town Board to change the proposed route, it needs to be folded into the comp plan update process. For all those reasons he doesn’t think the board can collectively make a reasonable or competent or well-informed decision on the merits of the concerns raised. He thinks this board should first hear from the rail trail group as to what they have done on the face of the issues raised. He is not familiar with the area in question and would want to see that. He thinks all Planning Board members should be invited to do that and see it together. Then he would be willing to say whether the Planning Board has something new and constructive to offer to what has been raised by either the people who have raised the concerns or the rail trail group who have done the work they have done. T Salerno said when you look at it all, and because they are working on the comp plan update and he has looked at the 2005 comp plan, the route that has been proposed for this trail has been reviewed by Planning Boards in the past. The plan had this route in it, and the light industrial park was there. A lot of this came up at the last meeting and he appreciates the things that were brought up and it made him think about some things. Since then, he has been looking at the Rails to Trails Conservancy information and how other municipalities deal with these rail trails and where they run. He is finding that a lot of the trails go through industrial areas because that is where the railbeds were. There is one in Lysander that goes right across the driveway of a concrete facility, a completely grade level trail intersection, and he could see what they did to mitigate that crossing. He looked at the ways the trails cross busy streets and how they mitigate traffic issues and all those things. He doesn’t have a great concern about the route of the trail as it is proposed. He agrees there are safety issues and that there are things that need to be done to be sure it is safe for all. Something needs to be looked at for the way the trail meets Hanson’s driveway and the road and the way the trail crosses. Through the last weeks he has looked at few hundred miles of trails around the country, and he appreciates the insurance information because he thinks there are legitimate concerns there. He also doesn’t have an issue with the Town Board not asking the Planning Board for input because that is what they have the rail trail committee for. The Town Board made the decision to put that in the hands of that committee. Some members of the Planning Board have been a part of Rail Trail Task Force at various times. As a member, he is happy to look at this if the Planning Board decides that they should put forth some recommendations to the Town Board. But he is not upset that Town Board did not ask them. If he wants to know what is going on with the rail trail, he reads their minutes and is on their mailing list. He is familiar with the area of concern and did visit the site and looked at where the trail will go along the edge of the industrial park and how it goes in the middle when you get near Hanson. He likes the idea of a site visit. He appreciates the efforts of the Rail Trail Task Force. Yes, there are safety concerns and if the decision is to make recommendations, that is okay. He noted we are already seeing a mix of recreational use in that light industrial area. Is that an issue? He doesn’t know. He also looked at Duke’s property and it is already fenced in. S Lyon said the trailering of equipment in and out of that area that is a concern. T Salerno noted it is already a mix of uses. PB 9-23-21 Page 11 of 13 He appreciates the input and if the public wants the Planning Board to look at it, he doesn’t have a problem with that, but doesn’t think it is the role of the Planning Board to second guess the RTTF or the Town Board. They can pass on the concerns the public has. Jerry Lyon said it seems we are missing something. The RTTF has done a lot of work and a lot of people are focused on the bridge and a lot of people are focused on the safety. He is probably one of the few people who knows what is down along Fall Creek to the Route 13 bridge where there is already an underpass. It is beautiful there. Look at the advantages for the community of what that has to offer. How can we alleviate this safety issue? How can we alleviate this enormous expense of the bridge? He is not saying it may not someday be needed, but who is going to use it? How is our community going to be able to use it and get the value out of this? A lot of people don’t know what has been done, and he’s heard about how much work has been done, and he’s sure it has. But do we know how people want to use this? Look at the educational opportunity for kids. The last time he was there he saw two big herons. The educational ability of having it closer to the stream and more visually pleasant compared to going through the industrial park… He still wants to know who is going to use it. What are the advantages of this rail trail going through the industrial park to the proposed pedestrian bridge? We need to slow down and look at what is the advantage for the residents of Dryden. It seems to him that the RTTF has been operating in a bit of a bubble. When you look at what the good is for the community, he thinks we should step back and take Joe’s suggestion that we take a look at this and what advantages are for more people to be able to use it, and make it an opportunity for more people in the community, not just a handful of people that will ride their bicycles back and forth. He questions how much of that they will do. He tends to look at the financials of things like this. Maybe someday that bridge will be needed, but he doesn’t believe it has been looked at strongly enough. They could have been looking at the bigger group of people that could take advantage of putting the rail trail along the stream. J Kiefer said while the Planning Board has not specifically been asked to comment on the trail, it has come up from time to time. We’ve had a few new businesses move into the industrial area. As part of the site plan approval the board asked them if they would have an easement go by their property. He never heard anyone say there was a problem with a business going into the industrial park. C Anderson noted one business was not required to put a sidewalk out front if they gave the town an easement. J Kiefer said there was no concern that it reduced the value of the property or other issues. His point is that this hasn’t come up to the board in work they’ve done where the trail has been mentioned. He said he walks on the trail just about every day and he sees situations like we are talking about in other places. The trail goes through the Village of Dryden and there is a car repair place and a sewer plant there. The examples talked about here are not unique. They exist all along the trail. He does think the concrete plant entrance concern is convincing. It needs a well thought through plan. Kids may come off the trail and look for ways to get to the convenient store. That is a legitimate point and an important one. The question tonight is do we see a role for the Planning Board. He is not upset that Town Board chose to use the RTTF and not use the Planning Board. He thinks the RTTF has thought about a lot and welcomes input. The topics tonight are new things to talk about. They are legitimate, important things but it is not clear to him they are Planning Board things to talk about. He will leave that to the board and if they want to visit the site or ask experts to come in and talk to the board. He asked for responses. PB 9-23-21 Page 12 of 13 A Green said she has always valued the input of the Planning Board. The more eyes on the safety issues the better. Someone from the RTTF can talk about the safety mitigation measures that have been discussed here or a rail trail meeting can be the venue. And Planning Board members can give input at RTTF meetings. She is neutral. C Anderson thinks the Planning Board should look into it more. He has been trying to get some questions answered and would like to invite someone from the RTTF to come to a meeting. D Bussmann would have appreciated the Town Board asking for Planning Board input. He would like to hear directly from the RTTF about what steps have been taken and the thought process. Yes, add it to the Planning Board agenda. Joe Wilson would like to hear about the RTTF’s process of addressing the issues, whether they see new issues raised by public input and if so, how they will address them. He would like it added to the agenda. He does not think there was any reason for the Town Board to ask for Planning Board input when they have the RTTF. S St Laurent does not see a need to ask the RTTF to a meeting. Safety concerns are relevant to the Planning Board, but how many boards do you want to tie up with this conservation? He has already proposed some board time for discussion of future trails and said that we should have consultation from a variety of boards. The RTTF was formed for a reason, and it was not to put more work on the Planning Board’s plate. T Salerno commented that is good that things were discussed here and is not sure if we have more to do than summarize the concerns and pass them on to the RTTF and Town Board. The Planning Board could come up with resolution that says certain things should be addressed in the plan, but he doesn’t believe this board should come up with a resolution that supports one plan or another. If people want to keep talking about it, he is willing to do that and pass along findings to the Town Board and RTTF. Yes, at least one more meeting to address questions others on the board might have. J Kiefer said knowing how busy the board is, he would say no to more discussion of it. They’ve heard interesting things and there are other folks to think about this. Based on comments from board members, there will be another session a month from now to hear from experts on the topic and then decide if this is something the board feels compelled to follow up on with a resolution to the Town Board. C Anderson suggested that members forward any questions they have in advance of the meeting. J Kiefer will collect requests for items members want to hear about. T Salerno suggested that the RTTF review the Planning Board minutes. J Osmeloski asked that the public get as much notice as possible on who presenters will be so that people can prepare questions. Comp plan update – J Kiefer said he and R Burger have their biweekly meeting with the consultant on Tuesday and there is a zoom meeting with this group on Wednesday, September 29, at 6:00 p.m. PB 9-23-21 Page 13 of 13 1279 Dryden Road – R Burger reported that R Wawak (who made a presentation to this board in the spring) is ready to bring a revised site plan back to the board in October or November. This is a multi-family project requiring a special use permit and the Planning Board will provide recommendations to the Town Board. It was suggested that sidewalks might be appropriate, but ditches on the site may make that difficult. Stretch Code – C Anderson asked for an update. R Burger reported it was adopted as a local law effective September 1. They have recognized that the ventilation requirement in the stretch code is in conflict with the uniform code, so the code enforcement officers are following the uniform code. The local law was filed with the Secretary of State and the Code Council. We have a local law that is in effect, stretch code is in effect in the town and the ventilation requirements are not being enforced because of the conflict. There is a study going on right now to see if there are other conflicts. When a list of conflicts has been prepared, R Burger is hoping that we can move forward with a clean adoption, including a public hearing, of the stretch code minus any sections that were in conflict. Hopshire - C Anderson asked if it was too late to ask Hopshire to consider a new site plan. They use the parking lot across the street, and he suggested there might be a sidewalk from the new parking lot being constructed to a point where people would cross Route 13 to access the parking lot at Covenant Love. • The primary reason for expanding the parking lot was to not have cars park on Route 13 or people walking along Route 13. • There will be events where even the additional parking will not be enough. • There is an approved site plan in place to act on. • Someone could ask if they would consider this suggestion. • DOT would have to be involved because of crossing the drainage ditch. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery