Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-02PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 1 of 8 TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 2, 2021 Zoom Hybrid Present: John Kiefer, Chair, Craig Anderson, Tony Salerno, Daniel Bussmann, Joe Wilson, Linda Wagenet, Alice Green (alternate), Simon St Laurent (alternate) Absent: Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director Liaisons: Dan Lamb & Loren Sparling (Town Board), Craig Schutt (Conservation Board) Call to order 6:00 p.m. Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Jolene Lyon read and presented the attached statement and documents. Jerry Lyon provided copies of pictures that were unable to be displayed last time with notations of what they represented. J Kiefer explained that there have been three meetings where there has been a lot of comment on the issue of safety and related issues for the section of trail that goes through the light industrial park. Tonight, we are going to hear from the Rail Trail Task Force and their thoughts on the topic. He wants to be respectful of the board’s time. Jerry Lyon said this will be helpful to go along with the questions to be asked of the rail trail representatives. He described the pictures and other documents provided in the package. The town board makes decisions based on valid and reliable information brought to it, and he doesn’t believe that was done in this instance. He is not against the trail, but wants it to represent something for town residents. Not a small portion of the people. He noted that survey by Rails-To Trails Conservancy show 3% of people in suburban areas use a trail for transportation. We are rural and will not get that here. People prefer a straight line to get to work. They want the fastest way. The rail trail to Freeville is a long way out of the way. A recreational area in that section of the woods is more beneficial and less expensive. He looks forward to answers from the RTTF. He will make himself available to anyone who would like more explanation on what has been presented. Paula Parker read and presented the attached statement and documents. J Kiefer said he doesn’t doubt the sincerity of the speakers, the message is strong and good, but the agenda item was for things not on the agenda. Public comment was ended. In August during the public comment period concerns were raised about the trail going through the light industrial district. At the September meeting there were more comments, and it was pointed out that the Planning Board has nothing to do with rail trail. There are no approvals, and the board has PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 2 of 8 not been asked to give input on it. Despite knowing that, those present asked the Planning Board to consider and offer an opinion to the Town Board and the RTTF on it. The Planning Board agreed to do that and heard input. They have also invited someone from the RTTF. In October, this group came back with more information. The board has been very generous in time that was allotted for this. The Planning Board has tried to be open to the messages being brought forth. This topic was not first on the agenda tonight and it’s been made that way. The last meeting was contentious, and he received a lot of phone calls after that. People recommended curtailing public input. Other boards in the county don’t have a generous public input and he pushed back on that. He learns a lot from public input, but tonight is not helping. The Rail Trail item will be first on the agenda. He explained the presentations to this board were about safety, aesthetic, and economic impacts of the proposed trail route through the Pinckney Road light industrial district. The discussion tonight is not about the bridge or alternative route. It is about whether this is the right place for the trail. He has asked Bob Beck to address that and asked the public to not address Mr Beck. When the presentation is done, he will ask Planning Board members if anyone wants to propose a next step. Shirley Lyon presented the attached information but did not address the board. Bob Beck, Chair of the Rail Trail Task Force, gave the attached presentation, and introduced Todd Bittner who has been on the RTTF since 2016. Questions and Comments: • There is no design yet for crossing Pinckney Road or Hall Road? There is no grant funding yet for that section of the trail. Design work is as done as projects are able to be implemented. • That is a dangerous intersection. Of the 66’ of the easement for Hanson, there is 40’ on which to build a 10’ wide trail. The alignment has not yet been determined. The intersection has been looked at by a traffic engineer to start to inform what kinds of treatments would be required to get across Pinckney Road. One will be chosen from the toolkit. • If the trail was there and the concrete company came for a site plan review, the town would not allow a driveway there. If a concrete truck is trying to exit the site and there is a pedestrian at the crossing, there are visibility issues. Clearing the trail will increase the sight lines. Hanson’s driveway is 65’ wide, so they can work with them as the intersection is designed and get feedback from them. • The concrete trucks don’t come out fast. • User activated flashing lights could be used. • What is the communication between the truck exiting and the pedestrian? Visual. User activated signs would be visible to the truck driver. • Where does the toolkit described come from? NYS DOT. These are DOT approved pedestrian crossing safety features. • Who decides ultimately what kind of tool will be used? The entity responsible for the road, town, county, or state. • What is the practicality of veering the trail south toward Route 13? A better sight line. • The bigger constraint with that is the NYSEG substation. • It doesn’t seem the trucks are gathering any speed on the driveway. They are noisy. • It isn’t the job of the Planning Board to solve the problem, but to point out concerns. PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 3 of 8 • Has it been standard practice to get easements and then deal with intersections and crossings? Yes, along with the funding. They are just dealing with the intersection on Game Farm Road. The County required a pedestrian safety plan that will be reviewed and approved. • It would be nice to get the timing a little closer so that a trail isn’t built and then people can’t cross. • It may be possible to have the Hanson trucks stop back a little way from Pinckney Road. They would still have visibility in both directions. • Has there been any input from other businesses in the light industrial park about the trail through there? None have come to the Task Force with concerns. • The crossing at Pinckney Road is less concerning than the Route 366 crossing. DOT will be very involved. • Have there been any discussions with folks in the light industrial park about liabilities they might incur? Only regarding the easement that holds the property owner harmless from potential actions by trail users. The landowner is indemnified and has no liability. • Have the owners’ lawyers reviewed the document? There were numerous exchanges with Hanson’s corporate offices in Allentown and a rep at the Pinckney Road site. There is no role for NYSEG in the light industrial park; the trail is not on their property there. There is an agreement with NYSEG for a parcel further to the east. • Have there been discussions with Hanson regarding operations of trucks and safety issues? Not yet. They will engage them when the task force is ready to focus on that section. • There will be a hedge installed as a way to keep pedestrians on the trail at the Hanson property. The intent is to reinforce having the public stay on the trail and not venture into the business operations. • A hedge installed on a berm makes sense. If there is still a safety concern, a fence or other treatment might be considered instead. • Rail trails do go through industrial areas without hedges. • Are there plans for a parking area on Pinckney Road? There seems to be a problem at other trail crossings with people parking on the road. There is no plan for parking on Pinckney Road or Hall Woods Road. There is a fairly large parking area on Monkey Run Road. It is one of the issues that needs to be worked on more because there has not been a focus on getting easements for parking for the trail heads. No grant funds have been received for that kind of development. • No easement has been secured for the Leonardo property yet. Trail users will have to exit on Pinckney Road north or south. Swan and NYSEG easements have been secured on the other side of Pinckney Road. They are not at the building part there yet. No grant funds to construct that section have been secured yet. • Those issues to come are part of what the task force will do moving forward. • If the trail is built and the only way out of the area is north or south on Pinckney Road, will there be bike lanes, sidewalks, which direction? Where will they go? RTTF will deal with issues as they come up. • There is concern for this section and people don’t want to see a bridge to nowhere for 20 years. If the trail is not completed all the way to 366, what is the impact? The idea was to build the trail from each end to the middle. Getting across Route 13 is the biggest safety issue there. In the interim, as the middle is being constructed, you can bike onto Lower Creek Road through Etna to Freeville and then get back on the trail. It doesn’t serve all users yet. (It seems the bridge to nowhere will go somewhere this summer and be connected to other trails.) • If pedestrians get off on Hall Woods Road, how do you get them safely down Hall Road? And on to 366 and Dryden Road? There are no sidewalks on Hall Road for pedestrians to safely walk through. PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 4 of 8 This could be an interface for the Planning Board to have a role. The charge to the RTTF is the trail itself. • With respect to soil disturbance, there was no SWPPP? DEC permits or Army Corps permits for crossing creeks? They have consulted with DEC and have not needed permits. When the Cascadilla bridge work was done, there was an engineered report studied by DEC. • Depending on the area being worked on in a particular time, a permit might not be required. Anything under an acre would not trigger a permit. • If the town had purchased the property on Pinckney Road this may have been easier. • Business users in the light industrial area would sign an easement readily because they are indemnified for any harm caused to a trail user through or near their property. There would be no recourse to go after a property owner – not a good idea in an industrial development area. J Kiefer said the structure for how this project is being run by the town is that the Town Board created the Rail Trail Task Force and tasked them with putting the trail in on the railroad bed. The Planning Board has never had any role in this. A long time ago the Planning Board passed a resolution in support of the concept of developing the rail trail, but beyond that have never talked about it. In August a group of community members came to this board apparently dissatisfied with working with the RTTF. They had concerns that were not being addressed, so they came in August and September, and at their request and after discussion by board members, the Planning Board members agreed to listen and weigh in. Community members who came forward have put a lot of thought into this and brought some appropriate and correct issues that need to be resolved. More information was presented tonight. The agenda tonight was to hear from the Rail Trail Task Force and then ask board members if they wanted to make a motion for a next step for the Planning Board. J Wilson said he has studied and listened, has taken notes, and looked back at the charge to the RTTF in 2016. He understands that to say raise the issues and advise the Town Board and the public about the issues and considerations for a successful development of a trail along the abandoned Lehigh Valley line that would go through Etna and Freeville and connect to the Jim Schug trail and go through Varna. The Planning Board, on a split vote, voted for hearing more and coming to a collective conclusion. The issue to him was, has the RTTF regarding the light industrial area where so many issues have been raised, been diligent in trying to raise the issues, to advise the Town Board of what those issues were? They have taken on the additional task of suggesting resolutions for them. Has that been done diligently and competently? It strikes him after hearing about the negotiations, seeing what has been developed to date, and how the RTTF went about it, that they have indeed been diligent, competent, have listened to wider range of opinion than just themselves, and consulted experts. He doesn’t see a role for the Planning Board going forward. The issues have been addressed for the light industrial area in a reasonable way. People can disagree, and clearly there is some disagreement. In terms of Planning Board intervening or somehow involving itself going forward in the arena they have been asked to look at, he doesn’t see a place for the Planning Board. He suggested a resolution to that effect that the Planning Board has no further role with regard to the light industrial area. L Wagenet would second that resolution. Discussion: C Anderson recommends that the Planning Board at least be consulted on the crossings at Route 366, Pinckney Road, and Route 13 from land use perspective and suggested that the Planning Board at least hear what is going on. J Wilson suggested that could be a separate resolution. PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 5 of 8 It was noted that a preliminary design for the Route 13 crossing has been prepared by Erdman Anthony. A Green is glad this conversation occurred and doesn’t think there is role for the Planning Board in relation to the questions concerning the light industrial park. Planning issues involving transportation infrastructure to and from the trail are legitimate planning issues and she doesn’t want to lose sight of that. It isn’t the charge of the RTTF to deal with those and they are typical Planning Board questions. T Salerno said some members have spent a lot of time reviewing information brought to the board and done research on their own. He agrees that he doesn’t see a role for Planning Board. The RTTF has heard the concerns raised in this process. The Town Board has heard these things and making these notes and information available to them is the appropriate place for them to be. The RTTF was created to be the lead in creating this trail. There is a gap here. They were tasked with building the trail. It is kind of out of their scope to worry about what happens to people once they leave the trail and head up Hall Road or down Pinckney Road or leave the trail anywhere to go elsewhere. That is the scope of what they were tasked to look at. That is where the Planning Board comes in, where the Village Planning Board comes in, and where others come in to look at how people get to and from the trail. S St Laurent said we have let ourselves be drawn into a site plan review that is not in our jurisdiction and it is time to stop. D Bussmann said he agrees it was right to listen to this presentation to get a level of confidence that concerns are being addressed. It may not be what everyone wants, but a lot of the issues that are being presented can be resolved with best practices. Other that the concerns of traffic off site, he doesn’t think it is necessary for the Planning Board to weight in. J Kiefer activated S St Laurent as a voting member for tonight. RESOLUTION #11 (2021) – NO ROLE FOR PLANNING BOARD REGARDING TRAIL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK AT PINCKNEY ROAD RESOLVED, that the Planning Board has no further reason to be involved or intervene in the issues of safety, aesthetics, and economic impacts with regard to the Dryden Rail Trail routing through the Pinckney Road light industrial district. Motion by J Wilson, 2nd L Wagenet In favor – J Kiefer, J Wilson, L Wagenet, D Bussmann, T Salerno, S St Laurent Opposed – C Anderson C Anderson said it would be wise to have communication between boards and encourages that dialogue, specifically with respect to safety concerns and planning for crossings at Pinckney Road, Route 366, and Route 13. T Salerno said he does have concerns regarding how people get to and from the trail. Looking at property uses around the trail is certainly within the purview of the Planning Board. He’d like to see some involvement in thinking about how the rail trail intersects with zoning and other things around it. PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 6 of 8 J Kiefer suggested making this an agenda item. A Green is on the RTTF and if something of interest comes up and the board feels it is important to look at, the RTTF could be invited back to address the board. Tim Woods, Conservation Board member, said he just conducted a 3.5-month investigation on the question of due diligence and legal issues on the trail and there are significant impediments to the connectivity of the trail. Are we ever going to get a trail that connects Etna to Freeville? His position is that because of four major impediments the town will never get connectivity. He would like to get his information out to board members. He was told he could send it to the town clerk with instruction to share it with particular boards. J Kiefer said the public has brought forward concerns that need to be addressed in an honest respectful, straight forward way and he hopes that happens. They have put a lot of careful thought into it and hopes that they can work it out. The Planning Board doesn’t bring much value to the conversation and have chosen not to. He encouraged open dialogue with the RTTF and thanked everyone for their testimony. A Green thanked the presenters and the Rail Trail Task Force for the 6 years of work they have done on behalf of the town. Approval of Minutes J Kiefer said after the last minutes he received many phone calls on two topics. One was concern about the sort of environment on the Planning Board and the possibility of it impairing recruitment for the board. He shared that Tom Hatfield had told him that the sign of a good board is one that is able to have good, fierce debates on topics and then go out later and have a beer. It is his intent to have a strong set of arguments on topics and for board members to state their piece, members of the public express their view and then make the decisions that the board is asked to make. The other concern was how to engage the public. Some people think we need to cut back on input, and he pushed back on that. The public engagement processes on the board’s agenda were there when he became involved. The meeting opens with comment from the public, then as we move into the agenda and talk about specific projects, there is also an opportunity for the public to weigh in. It has worked out well for us. The Planning Board can decide how to have to public input. The Open Meetings Law requires that the public be able to witness what the board does, but does not provide that the public can participate. He asked board members whether they wanted to have a discussion on public engagement in the future. Until then, meetings will continue in the current format. At the request of C Anderson, an inaccurate sentence was removed, and on motion of J Wilson, seconded by T Salerno, the minutes were unanimously approved. Coordination with Town Board Dan Lamb was asked if he anticipates any zoning changes regarding dispensaries wanting to move into the town and how the Town Board is viewing the topic of legalized recreational marijuana. He responded that the Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act allows communities to opt out of having dispensaries in their communities if they act before the end of the year. That does not prevent anyone PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 7 of 8 from using, consuming, or possessing marijuana in the town. If you don’t opt out, you are privy to the sales tax revenue. In this case, marijuana is taxed at a rate that would allow 4% sales tax to stay in the county. Of that, the town would get 75%, a good deal for our municipality. There is no interest on the Town Board to opt out and do not plan to do so by the end of the month. With respect to what happens next, the legislation sets up an office of cannabis management. They will promulgate advisories to the municipalities on zoning and regulations that go out to those interested in being licensed. There are 11 different types of licenses that businesses can apply for to participate in the retail, growing, or processing opportunity. The state sees this as a growth industry. Projections are 350 million dollars in tax revenue annually. That will be spread out among the various municipalities that participate. The advice from Tompkins County is that we can’t do anything until we get more direction from the state. No one will have the ability to sell, grow, or process marijuana in the next year. We will have plenty of time to adjust our zoning law and decide where this sort of thing can go. We can regulate the hours of operation and other aspects. We are not under the gun to get out in front of this. There will be no surprises or taking advantage of the town or trying to find a loophole to get in here right now. We don’t have to act right away. The town will take up rezoning once the comp plan is adopted because we’ll want to adjust our zoning law. We may have more guidance from the state on how to adjust for this new industry at that time. If the town doesn’t feel there is enough time, the board can pass a moratorium until it is ready. Licenses won’t be available for at least a year. Planning Department Update Ray Burger reported that last month the Town Board approved the amendment for the special use permit for Scotties Auto. They have an adjoining lot where they will be able to put in 14 parking spaces behind the building, giving them a total of 37 spaces. The recommendations made by the Planning Board were put in as conditions of the SUP. The Town Board also approved a special use permit for Knickerbocker Bed Frame Company at 17 Hall Road and the Planning Board recommendation was put in as a condition of the SUP approval. Most of the stretch code does apply to new construction, but pieces of it apply to remodeling. Once we know what the plan is (no application has been received yet), we’ll know more about what portions apply. Town Code Enforcements Officers are charged with enforcing the stretch code and have had training in that regard. Alternations is in the law, and that is unique for the building code. In LEED alterations include changing the surface of a wall. A member asked how alterations will be interpreted. It has an impact. R Burger said he is relying on the town’s Code Enforcement Officers to apply the code. It is a lot of new stuff and they have been attending trainings, both in commercial and residential. C Anderson asked if Knickerbocker would have to update their exterior lighting. That would be site plan review and in the purview of the Planning Board. It looks like they would have to have a minimum of two charging stations. R Burger will try to get a response from the Code Enforcement Officers. He expects a building permit application by the end of year and will have engineered plans to make these judgment calls on. There was some discussion about whether the HVAC system will be electric or natural gas. That is unknown currently. Knickerbocker did answer the four areas of concern for Tompkins County energy as part of their application. PB 12-2-21 D R A F T Page 8 of 8 The next steering committee meeting for the comp plan will be January 12. RESOLUTION #12 (2021) – RECOMMEND J KIEFER FOR CHAIR FOR 2022 RESOLVED, that the Town of Dryden Planning Board hereby recommends the appointment of John Kiefer as Chair for the 2022 calendar year. Moved by C Anderson, 2nd by A Green All in favor The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bambi L. Avery