The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAWHC 2023-07-05Dryden Affordable and Working Family Committee Minutes of July 5, 2023, Meeting Via Zoom Attendance: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez; Ray Burger; Craig Anderson; Martha Robertson; Chuck Geisler Agenda: Review 2005 Wetland Delineation document from Ray by Syracuse consultants June minutes approved Topic: Town Hall Lands: 1. Town Hall Lands origination: Ray shared screen of 2005 wetland report maps (?). The 2005 report does not evaluate the wetland on Cornelius’ acres. His land north of town land comprises 46 acres. He donated 23 acres of this plus narrow strip along eastern border to town without conditions. (Craig will around a brief 2005 history of Town Hall Land acquisition: Living in Dryden: Information Meeting on Town Hall land purchase ) 2. Roads: Three main access options to Cornelius land discussed: 1) narrow eastern strip (crosses wetland in SE corner); 2) Neptune Rd. extension (crosses major wetlands); and 3) area west of new town hall going north and west (several options). Note: a 4th option comes south from Lee Rd. at 2 points (discouraged by the Village because of the traffic it would add to Lee Rd and due to Fire Apparatus rules). Later in meeting, Craig points to 5th option entering from HW329 on south and running north between highway and livestock facilities. Rick Young says large trucks use this corridor so not ideal. But it saves driving to the Town Hall and then (were route #3 chosen) winding back to the playing field zone—rather round-about). Note: Agreement with Cornelius says “build access road to town standards.” Ray says this could be gravel and meet town’s present road standard. Martha: once the road corridor is decided, everything else is semi-determined by it, so we have to get it right. 3. Different buffers (legal proximity of development to wetlands). The 2012 Army corps map requires only one foot buffer. The DEC map requires 100 feet to build. Tompkins County Unique Wildlife Area (UNA) layer wants a 50-foot buffer. Craig: building can occur in UNA’s (county doesn’t have land use regulation authority). 4. Update wetland delineations: Planning Board asked TB for new wetlands delineation (request to Jason who may task Ray to do it) before further planning/development is done. As much as a third of the total 77 town land acres may be wetlands; delineations will clarify this. Jason and Ray need to talk. How long might new delineations take? Timeline uncertain, according to Ray. Agencies may be busy. But USCS or our own contractor might act sooner. Martha: must all agencies must weigh in? Ray thinks so as they have ultimate permitting authority. Note that these delineations are speculative at this point and done at 10,000’ level. Key: yellow = UNA; green = DEC; red = Corp of Engineers (circa 2012) 5. Other factors to consider: >Craig: Some drainage ditching remains in hay field in center of 23 acres given to town; could be a problem for ball fields. >Ray: Wetland mitigation options (like PEM 1B done by school district) could expand usable land, but this adds expense for new land acquisition and wetland filling. >Ray and Craig: Flatness required for playing fields. Some of the town land is level and usable for ball fields, but to northeast slope increases and would require considerable earth moving (so better for housing). 6. Housing footprints: Martha: how might permitting affect intended use and mix of playing fields and housing? Ray: not sure. Fields need 250 X 300’ plus parking. Housing: can be fitted onto smaller, irregular, sloping lands (even 20 X 30’). 7. Economics of ballfields compared to housing land uses? Martha: housing increases land values and tax base but requires infrastructure and access roads. Leonardo points out that playing fields can have both rental and commercial value. Multi-use thinking has economic logic; Craig agrees. He previously aired idea that, if needed, town could sell sloping land to developer for housing and use proceeds to buy flat land for playing fields. That said, he thinks 3 to 4 ball fields could fit in central zone of town land, subject to slope, final wetland delineation, and other considerations. 8. Highway Dept. stance? May want some additional space to the north of its building. That might diminish playing fields and/or housing options and affect access road thinking (see above, #2). 9. Comprehensive approach needed: Martha: with so many variables at play, hiring a consultant to develop and compare options is imperative. After the new delineations are finished (as requested by PB), what’s possible and optimal? Chuck: NEPA process is a time-honored way to scope and then compare alternatives. All agree on mixed-use desirability and this could go in many directions. Jason seems committed to ball fields. This is attractive but may underestimate some factors (Highway Dept. storage wishes, off-road parking, roadways, housing, slope, drainage ditches and streams, new FEMA floodplains, conservation requirements, community garden needs, etc.). Leonardo: No official action has been taken on 2012-13 maps. Just conceptual for now. 10. Cornelius’ Decision Power: Chuck: where does the town stand with Cornelius? Ray: agreement with him is recorded on the town land donation and includes building a road to his land. Cornelius prefers Neptune access, but it’s least likely (see current wetland delineation map). Ray notes that town has other on-going negotiations with him, including a 1-mile stretch of the Rail Trail where town needs easement. Craig and Leonardo: best to invite Jason to August meeting rather than sending him list of questions. Could send him draft minutes from this meeting as well. 11. Planning Board position? Craig says PB knew nothing about Cornelius donations until two months ago. Hence the request to Jason for new delineation and development implications. Chuck: Should we have a joint meeting with the PB and Jason? Craig: PB might want to wait for the wetland delineations before further action. But Craig feels it’s appropriate to have the housing committee push for multiple-use approach to the land (e.g., 20 acres of housing plus a ballfields and parking). Our DRYDEN2045 Plan urges high-density housing development where water and sewer exist, e.g., affordable housing for first-time home buyers and senior housing. ACTIONS: Ray will talk with Jason and reach out to Soil and Water Conservation District and DEC to review wetlands (or consider hiring engineering firm to act sooner). Agencies (or consultant) then reports back with new delineations, buffers, and relevant permitting issues. Need information on what wetland mitigation costs would be, if resorted to. Topic: North Street Committee (Craig is chair): Village still has sewer capacity limits to consider in light of Ezra Village. Lucente proposal puts pressure on existing sewer facilities. Sewer demands on town lands are smaller; Mike Murphy likely to be supportive of whatever the town does. Village is focused on sidewalks and coordinating with town. TC3 has chosen not to build student path down north side of Lee Road. Topic: Mobile Home Follow-Up: Chuck doesn’t want important MH questions from last meeting (see June Minutes) forgotten. These include MH park inspections, licensing fee questions, parking, recreational space, and sewer extension to Hanshaw Village. Also, what’s the status of CDBG grant application information by Thoma or other consultant on MHP upgrades? Ray: Town doing this with INHS. Topic: Zoning Law Ray: Town has RFP out for consultants to redo current zoning law (initial interviews and scoping scheduled for September or October). Craig: the town’s MH law isn’t bad. Needs some updating. Resolution from our committee to town board passed last month to include mobile home regulations in the zoning law—currently it’s separate and neglected. As the PB has said, it needs to be more “front and center.” Craig: Our committee could develop its own suggestions for mobile home, zoning and regulation, and other housing as well. Planning Board would welcome this. It is the committee of the whole here, supervising the rewrite of the zoning law. Adjourned at 6:40 pm Minutes by C. Geisler, corrections welcome.