Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-261 TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 26, 2022 Hybrid / Zoom APPROVED: 7-28-22 Present: John Kiefer (Chair), Tony Salerno, Joe Wilson (Zoom), Diane Tessaglia-Hymes (Zoom), Craig Anderson, Linda Wagenet, Dan Bussmann (Zoom), Alice Green (Alternate) Absent: Simon St Laurent (Alternate) Staff: Ray Burger, Planning Director, (Zoom - Joy Foster, Recording Secretary) Liaisons: D. Lamb (TB), C. Schutt (CB), L. Sparling (TB) Others: 0 Chair J. Kiefer called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm Approve the minutes: of 4-28-22 Planning Board Meeting Motion: A. Green 2nd L. Wagenet All in favor, 7-yes. Planning Board discussion for up-coming SUP, Application for Auto & Trailer Sales at 129 North St., in a Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Noted that the Village line is on the West side of that lot along Rt. 13. In the Commercial Design Guidelines its considered Village. And the Guidelines for development in the Village is quite different then what you see when you drive-by. The Town Planning Department will reach out to the Village for their comments. Board thoughts: • Board would like to have the Town enforce the Design Guidelines as that area coming into the Town is not very aesthetically pleasing. • Questions on parking spaces, handicap, signage, walk-ways, trash, bike racks, narrow driveway, room for Fire-Emergency Vehicles, how will people move around the lot. • Board finds the Site-Plan Application to be incomplete, missing many details J. Kiefer moves to table this review 2nd J. Wilson 2 All in favor, 7-yes Next up: To continue the conversation about Park Outdoor Electronic Billboard Signage. Paul Simonet is not here tonight. Board members heard a few different scenarios, their discussion • Was Park Outdoor proposing to remove all the standard Billboards along Rt. 13 and replace with one Electronic Sign. • Or they were removing the 3 Billboards around the NYSEG intersection and proposing to replace with the Electronic Sign. • Or around the mid-point section by Mineah Rd. where there is another cluster of Billboards. • Or put in one electronic sign replacing like 4 or 5 standard billboards, only 1 sign not several. • The sign they are proposing doesn’t meet our Design Guidelines? • Why do we want electronic signs? It’s a way to modernize our signs and for appearance to look nicer, for public Alerts. • Who gets the revenue? Old Signs are Grandfathered in no expiration date, the landowner who leases out the space gets the revenue. • Energy use is less because they are LED • Are we talking about changing the Sign Ordinance so anyone can ask for an electronic sign? • If we change the sign ordinance should say, there needs to be a Special Review and approval and building permit, to make sure placement is in good location and not next to someone’s house. • We can’t just make a deal with one company, must be for all comers. For owners with non-compliant signs, they can come to the Town Board and seek a Special Permit for an Electronic Sign. • We would be recommending changing the sign ordinance to allow electronic signs and to list out the requirements, restrictions. • Digital billboards are very hackable would need good security, so content wasn’t imposed. Would like to know the traffic study with Electronic Signs. Dryden is a Right to Farm Community and the electronic signs look more to be inter-city, not of rural character. 3 RESOLUTION 2022 # 4 RECOMMENDING MODIFICATION OF DRYDEN’S SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BILLBOARD SIGNS TO BE REPLACED WITH ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD SIGNS WHEREAS, there are a number of billboard signs (signs) along Rt 13 in Dryden that were installed prior to the Sign Ordinance and are not compliant with the Ordinance, primarily due to size; and WHEREAS, two of the aforementioned signs must be removed and possibly relocated as part of the Rail Trail Route 13 Bridge Project; and WHEREAS, the owner of the signs approached the Town with a request to replace existing non- conforming signs with smaller, electronic signs; and WHEREAS, potential benefits of allowing replacement of existing, non-conforming signs with electronic signs include reduction in the number of signs and ability to use the signs to display public service content, WHEREAS, the purpose of this recommendation is to provide an outline for a narrowly defined modification to the Sign Ordinance to allow replacement of existing, non-conforming billboard signs with electronic signs, subject to review and approval using the town’s Special Use Permit process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommends the following criteria be included in the ordinance modification and used to evaluate SUP applications: 1. The SUP application should reduce the number of non-conforming signs. The Planning Board recommends a minimum ratio of four existing, non-conforming signs be removed to allow one electronic sign to be installed. 2. The total number of electronic signs allowed in the town should be capped, for example, at two. 3. Electronic signs should only be allowed in the town’s commercial/industrial zones. 4. The density of electronic signage should be limited, for example to no more than one sign per mile of roadway. 5. The application should include a data security plan to prevent unwanted content from being displayed on the sign. 6. The signs should be monument style with appropriate landscaping. 7. The signs should be located in areas with a minimum number of other roadway distractions such as cross traffic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that the Sign Ordinance be modified to allow existing, non-conforming billboard signs to be replaced with electronic signs. 4 Approved by a vote of 4-3 at the May 26, 2022 Planning Board Meeting 5/27/22 jak draft#1 Next topic is The Stormwater Ordinance, C. Anderson leads. ADD Stormwater as attachment Craig starts with Board viewing on screen, 233-3 Purpose • Law written in 2007, good law somethings are out of date, Town is not enforcing some of this law. • #F Reduce the need for costly maintenance and repairs to roads, embankments, ditches, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and stormwater control facilities resulting from inadequate control of soil erosion and stormwater runoff. • #F is my main focus this should call for a simple SWPPP • Now look at 233-8 Administration • #C All land development activities subject to review and approval by the Town Board or Planning Board of the Town under site plan, special permit, or subdivision regulations reviewed by such Board must be reviewed subject to the standards contained in this chapter. No approval by any such Board shall be made unless it determines that the SWPPP complies with the requirements of this chapter. • Let’s look at #233-5 Definitions • Basic SWPPP – A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that includes all requirements for erosion and sediment control but does not require post-construction water and quantity controls. • Full SWPPP – A stormwater pollution prevention plan that includes all requirements for erosion and sediment control, and post-construction water quality and quantity controls. • Simple SWPPP – A stormwater pollution prevention plan that includes an erosion and sediment control plan appropriate for small areas of disturbance. • Look at 233-6 Applicability • Question, why are we looking at Stormwater, what is or has happened to necessitate this conversation? Anderson feels and some other Boards that the Town is not enforcing these Stormwater practices on projects. • A complaint from some business owners about SWPPP is the process is an Open-Check for Engineers and there is only one Engineering Company, and they can take their time doing reviews and run up as high a bill as they want, and property owners can do nothing about that. • We should be able to have some say or overview to see that the Stormwater Laws are being enforced. We need to be aware of Stormwater when doing Site Plan reviews. Be more rigorous. 5 • Local Law not being enforced. Short staff for Town and DEC. • Stormwater Data sheet needs to be updated. Possible input from Craig, Dan on PB and the Conservation Board. Craig Schutt from the Conservation Board says the Conservation Board is just as frustrated with this issue as well. They don’t feel like the laws Dryden has are being enforced. If the Stormwater Law is enforced for the runoff, maybe ditches wouldn’t need to be as deep. CB even sent the Town Board a resolution asking for laws to be enforced, never heard back from TB. Also, the County Soil and Water has staff for site visits and suggestions, they even check on AG projects. Ray Planning Dept. updates, • Interviewing and hopefully hiring a FT position by end of June. Role to be Planner to do Site-Plan reviews and possibly move Stormwater to the new person. Dave would love to be able to spend more time with Stormwater, but this is busy time for building and permits and so just not enough time. • The Mill Creek Lot 40, we have seen a sketch and have worked things out with the Town Attorney and so applicant would need to go to the other 39 Sub-dividers and get them to sign off. Should be this summer. • Receiving a lot of calls about using homes for Short Term Rental, am happy to now have a Short-Term Rental Law, so TY for making my job easier. • The Town about 10 years ago was considering a Fill Ordinance and we may want to re-visit. Dan Lamb Town Board updates, • Hybrid Meetings are going to continue, it works well and sometimes easier for everyone to get on from home. I feel it makes for better participation. • The Comp. Plan, we are starting the hearing on June 16th at 6PM., hopefully you can attend, Sam Gordon will be there, and he will walk us through the Plan. • We did approve the amendments to the PUD for 1061 Dryden Rd. Some good discussion came up about what development should look like and affordable housing. Town voted in favor. • Good news for the Dryden Fiber/Broadband project, we needed some State Legislations to move it forward to operate and own our Municipal Fiber System. Our Assemblywomen has been great with helping with making this happen. We continue to lay conduit as you may see along the Rail Trail bed. • We got our GAP Funding from Senator Gillibrand; she flew in just to tell us we had $700,000 for the Rail Trail Pedestrian Bridge over Rt. 13. This fills the hole we had in the budget, the 2.9-million-dollar bridge will now be funded mostly by State and Federal Grant money along 6 with some money from Cornell and Tompkins Co. moving forward with minimal taxpayer money. • I’ve been in touch with DOT with regards to the crossing at Game Farm Road, because of the popularity it’s a concern. • Freeze Road Bridge it’s a frustrating issue it hasn’t fallen off our radar screen, Groton is not responding, so we may need to go back and re-think how to use the historic elements or come up with a new plan to build. It’s been a long haul. Next regular Planning Board Meeting will be July 28, 2022 Meeting adjourned 8:03 pm Respectfully submitted, Joy Foster