The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAWHC 2023-05-03Dryden Affordable and Working Family Committee Minutes of May 3, 2023 Meeting Via Zoom Attendance: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez; Ray Burger; Miles McCarty; Chuck Geisler; Craig Anderson; Martha Robertson; Jason Leifer/Supervisor and Rick Young joined late; Paul Simonet/guest; Mike Murphy away Approval of April Minutes: done with minor changes Agenda: • T. G. Miller report regarding water and sewer capacities in the Village, Freeville, and Town. • Town Planning Board's recommendation for the Lucente North St. project. • Update from Ray on the Hanshaw Village sewer expansion • Quarry Road clearing and development? Agenda: 1. TG Miller Report Discussion: brief recap of March meeting information on Leonardo property potential for 45-50 home sites and delays in TG Miller feasibility study for Town. Martha suggested County might be interested or lead in study of NYSEG Node that synthesizes multiple studies relevant to it. Concern over TG Miller’s delay in finishing report– – a year overdue. Ray trying monthly to get finished report. Further details on the NYSEG Nodal Area: It extends 1 mile in radius from NYSEG on Rt. 13 and includes adjacent areas as well. Discussion of zoning; no restrictions at present. Ray thinks Leonardo parcels (approximately 100 acres combined) are ripe as a planned unit development (PUD). County previously tried to purchase (?) northern half for conservation but family resisted. Rail-trail divides two parcels but family has withheld easements. Chuck: changing climate conditions, flooding, and new FEMA mapping may make northern half less attractive as a development site. But southern half (roughly 50 acres with access to Rt. 13 is highly developable. Martha: should talk to the Leonardo family are about selling this half to town (??); concern that developer might purchase these parcels and slow down the Nodal plan (??). Nodal feasibility study: how much would it cost and it is $20,000 enough? Chuck: the town approved $10,000 for a CDBG Study but now INHS is it doing gratis. That saved amount combined with possible county funding (such as what Mike secured for the Village) for $10,000 is what we have to work with (see last month’s minutes). Ray thinks the county only has $15,000 to allocate, so we need to get a proposal in quickly. Who will write it? Martha thinks the county might be interested in taking the lead on the feasibility study and partner with us. Ray mention that he has reached out to Danby, which has hired ChoiceWords Consultants to help find funding sources for affordable housing, thinking we might piggyback using the same consultant. Hopes to hear more by Friday or early next week from David West, Danby planner. Martha offered to contact Co. Planning people if helpful to Ray. Varna Plan mentioned as reference point for development feasibility; costly because it was part of larger development project when done. Freeville as another reference point: Miles shared that the Syzmanski PUD is up for sale. Also granted 12 building permits for 52 Main St. (Bruno S. will build single family units). Some surprise that this passed without more review but Freeville lacks legislation. Martha summarizes three directions we might take with $10,000: 1. Mobile home data gathering & inventory for town (see last meeting discussion) 2. Partnering with Danby on expanding affordable housing opportunities 3. NYSEG Nodal village synthesis and feasibility study (e.g., 2020 Infrastructure Report, T.G. Miller Leonardo Feasibility Study, 2008 County Study of NYSEG DFA, Rt. 13 Corridor Study, DRYDEN20/45, and others). Chuck: now seems like the appropriate time to move on #3 and integrate available studies. Consistent with the Nodal Development encouragement in DRYDEN20/45 and simultaneous with town’s zoning review. Ray’s to-do list:  Press TG Miller to finish feasibility report to town  Talk to K. Borgella at Co. Planning to explore joint pursuit of NYSEG Node  Follow up with David West in Danby about cost-sharing ChoiceWords study  Reach out to John and Giselle Leonardo. (He and Scott Doyle spoke with them in the past and John has attended previous TB meeting to discuss parcel development.) 2. Lucente & North St. Craig updates committee from Planning Board perspective: a. On-going discussions about zoning, but town has no jurisdiction in village. b. PB thinks 4-6 story proposal by Lucente (3 buildings) has merit and could serve as negotiating point between Village and Lucente (e.g., more senior or affordable units). Deb Fisher (and possibly other members of Village PB) open to negotiating. c. 4 or 4 ½ stories can be made less imposing base on architectural treatments (penthouses) d. From an environmental standpoint, building up is better than building out. e. Committee encourages negotiation between Lucente and village on building height. Chuck asked Miles, who at the last meeting seemed opposed to more than three-story buildings, if he could see the logic of 4 or 5 stories in Dryden Village. Miles said it depends on how prominent these buildings are. If people don’t see them much, it may not matter (he was referring to Freeville, not Dryden). Question: what do residents in Dryden know about Lucente’s proposals? Paul: they are not very aware of the project. 800 units over the next decade will impact local schools. Is there sewer capacity for this much additional development in Dryden? North St. Development Working Group taking shape. Mike M. wants to be on it, along with Deb Fishers, 2 PB members, Ray, TC3, School District rep., and Lucente person. 3.Sewer and water Discussion (Connt’d. from last week): Craig: How could there be only 50 sewer hook ups available in the village (T.G. Miller reporting)? If accurate, can the village commit to 800 units in Lucente’s No. St. proposal? Will Lucente cost-share S & W requirements? Maple Ridge Development: 50 units planned now and 24 more possible. Discussion of well + septic costs versus several Village hook-up scenarios. Paul: developers would prefer to be annexed into village to get W&S. Could get higher density w/o annexing if just a matter of water supply and could by ½ acre logs w/septic if they had water supplied. He adds that out-of-district users are charged 25% more for water. So the ½ acre lot with septic doesn’t add to village’s sewer problem and, with water district help from village, is good option for developers. Sewer infrastructure is main driver in determining density! Ray: pipes are the cheapest and easiest part of sewer extension. Other major costs to consider/negotiate. Thinks T.G. Miller got the numbers right, having heard that the village sewage treatment plant is almost at capacity. MRB doing I&I work: Cambden Group manages plant and should be able to give accurate numbers. Village/Town boundaries: Doe town care where village line is. Jason: town tax base remains the same. Town zoning allows more density than the village does. 4.Hanshaw Rd. Sewer Extension to Hanshaw Village MHP (Cook Properties): Problem is sewer (due to H. Village septic failure), not water. Town seeking CDBG of $1 million to extend sewer north along Hanshaw Rd.; total cost much higher. Cook would cover costs from new trunk line to MHP and branch-lines within. Craig: same Hanshaw zone could be mini-Node. There are two 100-acre tracts between MHP and Rt. 13 that could be sites for affordable housing and more. Much potential. He has looked at ownership and assessed value. 5.Quarry Rd. Development? Ray says 20-acre plot being cleared is private home site for Belisario family. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm Minutes by Chuck Geisler (thanks for M.R.’s notes)