No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAWHC 2024-12-04 att AWHC 2024-12-04 Page 1 of 6 AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE December 04, 2024 Virtual (via Zoom) Present: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez (Town Board), Christina Dravis (Town Board), Michael Murphy (Village of Dryden), Charles Geisler, Martha Robertson Absent: Miles McCarty (Village of Freeville), Craig Anderson (Planning Board) Staff: Ray Burger (Director of Planning), Gina Cassidy (Planning Department), Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) Guest: Jeremy Thomas (Cornell University) The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. Review and Acceptance of Minutes from November 06, 2024 C Geisler and M Robertson suggested edits to the minutes via email, most of which were incorporated by L Sparling into a second draft. A vote on acceptance of these minutes will be conducted next month. Discussion of Zoning Report R Burger introduced the topic by stating that Nan Stolzenburg’s zoning audit is currently being reviewed by the Planning Board. They will probably soon issue a formal request for input from the Town’s various boards in the hope of responses by their January meeting , so that they can begin working on the next phase of the zoning rewrite with N Stolzenburg (or other consultant, if contracted) in the spring. (C Geisler and M Robertson advocated that the Town retain N Stolzenburg for the spring, given her expertise and her familiarity with the issues.) In reviewing the document entitled “Highlights of Subdivision and Zoning Audit Prepared by Community Planning & Environmental Associates” (attached), M Robertson acknowledged that there are a number of items that do not pertain to the Housing Committee. What things might the Committee want to highlight, support, and advocate to have done? Under the heading of “Highlights of Audit and Recommendations Related to Subdivision Law,” Committee members voiced their support of the following: 3. Consider authorizing Planning Board to review and approve minor subdivisions. Similarly, under the heading of “Highlights of Audit and Recommendations Related to Zoning Law,” Committee members voiced their support of the following: 18. Consider authorizing Planning Board to review and approve all special use permits instead of the Town Board. In both instances, it was reasoned that Planning Board members have more background and expertise in matters dealing with zoning, planning, and development, and sometimes have been longer serving. C Geisler inquired of R Burger if there were times when it made sense for the Town Board to administer special use permits (SUPs) rather than the Planning Board, despite its expertise. R Burger explained that the Town Board does seek the recommendation of the Planning Board on some matters, and so does utilize the Planning Board’s expertise. There is at least one case every year, though, when, during the SUP process, negotiations go on with an applicant about how to adapt their application to better fit the neighborhood, and the Town Board is perfectly positioned to do this. The Planning Board basically does not have this discretion, as it has to follow a rule book to evaluate an AWHC 2024-12-04 Page 2 of 6 application. This distinction is the argument for keeping SUPs at the Town Board level, but such a scenario is very infrequent. It would be interesting to explore a way of crafting the allowed uses chart and its associated language to allow the Town Board to get these once-a- year elevations at the request of either the applicant or Planning Board. Committee members amended N Stolzenburg’s aforementioned recommendations to state that any SUP application could be elevated to the level of the Town Board at the request of the applicant or the Planning Board. Returning to the heading of “Highlights of Audit and Recommendations Related to Subdivision Law,” Committee members questioned the following: 6. Update submission requirements to provide all existing environmental conditions, the NYS Ag Data Statement, and other information so the reviewing Board has all the information needed to efficiently review and approve the application. M Robertson wondered if requiring all information at the outset could actually be a barrier for an applicant, considering they would have to undertake a whole environmental review and other additional work before they had any indication from the Planning Board that their application is going to be favorable. Would such requirements hinder an applicant’s project from getting started? R Burger was unsure of what prompted N Stolzenburg to offer this particular recommendation. The staged approach currently used by the Town is more efficient for an applicant. If there are a few different paths towards an outcome, an applicant can initially seek direction from the Planning Board and later return with the full details regarding the desired path forward. Discussion ensued among the Committee members. Comments included: • An applicant can currently provide all materials upfront, but there is a cost to doing this. • Rocco Lucente wanted to know ahead of time if the Village was somewhat favorable to his Ezra Village project before investing money on engineering. • I don’t want to make things tough for applicants. • Applicants’ resources of time and money should be protected, as well as the Planning Board’s resources, mainly of time. Respect should be given to both sides. • More complete applications are great but should be balanced against other factors. • The Planning Board is attuned to this topic, and our focus should be on housing. Continuing under the heading of “Highlights of Audit and Recommendations Related to Zoning Law,” Committee members voiced their support of the following: 5. Re-evaluate lot size and density requirements by district. 6. Re-evaluate lot coverage by district. M Robertson would like to make denser development more possible. She supported the audit report’s (attached) recommendation for a reduction in lot frontage requirements (p. 12, Article VI – Area and Bulk Regulations, recommendation 3), as well as its statement that “… lot coverage should either be eliminated or allowed to be much higher … (p. 12, Article VI – Area and Bulk Regulations, recommendation 4). She suggested that the Committee provide an overall statement in favor of increased density and more efficient use of the land, if not a statement that explicitly articulates density as a goal. She drew attention to the section of the Audit Report dealing with “Parks, Open Spaces and Natural Features” (p. 7, Article IX, recommendation 5), stating that the language seems to prioritize environmental benefits over residential development. She would rather see a real purpose statement that says that a big part of the zoning update is to support additional AWHC 2024-12-04 Page 3 of 6 housing development through density and more efficient approval processes. It should be clear that prioritizing housing is important. L Vargas-Mendez thought that N Stolzenburg struck the right balance between conservation and where housing density should be highlighted. There is very definitive support for increasing density. With regard to the districts where the Town is strategically looking to develop houses, N Stolzenburg repeatedly comes back to the Comprehensive Plan. C Geisler read this as an underscoring of the importance of the nodal areas that are prominently addressed in the Dryden 2045 update. A lot of the points that N Stolzenburg makes underpin the densification of these nodal areas, and in some cases their expansion, but not at the expense of open spaces and protected areas. He advocated for housing within the nodes, noting that they currently seem to be low density, which is negatively affecting affordable housing. M Murphy added that we want housing, but we don’t want sprawl. We don’t want farms to be deterred by the building of one house. He suggested that a standard be instituted outside the nodes in favor of concentrated developments of 10-12 houses minimum (rather than house after house after house on either side of a roadway) to reduce sprawl. Density allotments as they pertain to rural developments were then reviewed (p. 14, Article VI – Area and Bulk Regulations, recommendations 7f and 7h). G Cassidy read this to mean that either urban development or rural development is desired, not suburban development. R Burger felt that N Stolzenburg supports the conservation subdivision concept, promoting lower density for conservation areas; he assumed this would not apply to neighborhood residential, as that is the densest district that Dryden has. He does not have the same level of concern about this as does N Stolzenburg. He explained that the Town has used cluster subdivisions at a fairly high density within the conservation district, and it does not seem inappropriate. A good deal of the parcel has been placed in true conservation, and the development is clustered up tight to the road, and that seems like the perfect balance. In areas within the conservation district that are without sewer and water, one acre minimum lot size is pretty much the current density. C Geisler wondered if there were any bonuses for developers to densify housing within the developable portion of a conservation district’s cluster subdivision, to which was given an answer of no. The bonus to the developer is the lower infrastructure costs and the fact that the driveway and service lines are closer to the road. M Murphy thought it best that density be kept no smaller than one acre in these subdivisions but supports the overall concept of cluster subdivisions to reduce sprawl. Neither M Robertson nor M Murphy sees the advantage of having one house per three acres in the NR and C districts. We get a lot less (yet more expensive) housing that is not on public land. Such a density takes up more space and more farmland, which is counter to what the Committee wants. R Burger qualified the discussion by stating that density bonuses currently only apply in Varna because Varna has the infrastructure for it. They do not apply in the neighborhood residential and conservation districts. Committee members were made aware of N Stolzenburg’s recommendation in the audit report: Use of density bonuses are a great way to promote the kind of development desired in the Town. Offering density bonuses for provision of affordable housing, open space, recreational amenities, EV charging stations, and others AWHC 2024-12-04 Page 4 of 6 should be integrated and allowed in all areas of Town to address Town needs (p. 14). From this, M Robertson offered that the Committee recommend that density bonuses be extended to any location in the Town that has water/sewer infrastructure. In answer to a question about whether it is the municipality’s responsibility to provide areas with water and sewer, R Burger stated that it is the developer’s responsibility to find their way to an existing line. Committee members decided to continue their conversation about the audit report next month. M Robertson volunteered to put together a document based on her notes from today’s meeting for Committee members to consider at their January meeting. M Robertson brought up that, in Boston where they have worse housing shortages than us, half a duplex can be purchased. This could accommodate people who only have the capital to buy half a duplex or who may not want to be landlords. If our zoning allowed for that kind of arrangement, that would be a different option for more affordable homeownership. R Burger thought that a legal instrument would be necessary to bifurcate the ownership of a lot (condo- type arrangement) and those are not made easy in New York State. It is something worth promoting, but the difficulty lies in how far we can promote it. Meeting with Jeremy Thomas Jeremy Thomas (Associate Vice President for Asset Management, Cornell University) joined the meeting. Introductions were made by Committee members, and J Thomas introduced himself functionally as the head of real estate for Cornell. His teams manage the global real estate interests of the university, including sales, acquisitions, leases, licenses, and easements. His office contains an asset management division, which manages Cornell’s income-producing properties (e.g., East Hill Plaza and Cornell Business & Technology Park), as well as its residential properties. Another of his office’s divisions handles ground lease relationships, whereby Cornell owns the land, but all improvements are owned, managed, financed, and developed by another party (e.g., Maplewood). J Thomas disclosed that he is also board president for INHS and has been a part of the Community Housing Development Fund for a long time. J Thomas imparted that Cornell is moving forward with Phase II of its Maplewood development. Cornell’s approach has been to find gaps or shortages in the market that serve its students, and graduate and professional student housing has been a significant gap. Cornell is probably around 2,000 beds short in this regard, meaning that members of this population are living further and further away from campus. His office is trying to find solutions that are close to the university, focusing on the East Hill area. Maplewood I is 872 beds and devoted to graduate and professional students (with the option of turning to other populations if unable to fill the units with graduate and professional students.) It is intentionally kept under market, so rents are less than comparable properties in Ithaca. It has been enormously successful, filling up by April of every year, with a waitlist of 100-150 people. Maplewood II is currently before the Town of Ithaca. The project as it stands will provide 800 additional beds in the form of apartments for maximum density. If approved, construction will commence in May 2025, with an opening slated for 2027-2028. J Thomas communicated that Cornell has also made the strategic decision to continue to improve its Business & Technology Park, but not by expanding its footprint. Parcels that had been set aside for a potential expansion of the Park have been or are in the process of being AWHC 2024-12-04 Page 5 of 6 sold to developers who will add housing to the market. One such parcel, located behind the Ithaca Swim Club and Arleo Eye Associates in the Village of Lansing, is under an agreement of sale to a developer who is intending to build single family rental housing, for which there is a big gap in the market. This is great for families who are new to the housing market or want a single family home but just can’t afford one (but would be willing to rent). Another parcel, near TST BOCES, is under an agreement of sale with a developer who wants to do a mix of affordable and market-rate housing there. These two projects have hit some roadblocks around sewer infrastructure in the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing, however, but that is being worked out. Cornell also owns a 90.69 acre parcel of land located in Dryden (tax parcel #42.-1-30), on Hanshaw Rd across from 84 Lumber, and they would love to sell it to someone who wants to build housing there. Some of the difficulties with that site center around its topography, the presence of wetlands, and bringing infrastructure throughout the site. J Thomas sensed that, with it being harder to develop in the City of Ithaca due to increasing land values, developers are looking to places like Dryden as the direction to go. R Burger addressed the status of infrastructure expansion near that parcel (infrastructure currently exists on Hanshaw Rd south of Rte 13), stating that the effort to extend sewer to Hanshaw Village had been abandoned by the owner ; however, because they are still under a consent order from the DEC, they may have to re-engage. Committee members felt that the development of this parcel is worth further discussion. C Geisler returned to the topic of ground leases and the creative solutions that Cornell has employed in that regard. He proposed a collaboration between Cornell and local units of government to create a model mobile home community (on Cornell land abutting Hillside Acres in Varna) that works for affordable housing (akin to a ground leasing community land trust). Currently, most of the public solutions to affordable housing either are established in marginal areas or wind up leading to gentrification. He was surprised to discover the number of Cornell employees who were low-income, choosing to live in other counties due to high housing expenses here. There are compelling reasons why Cornell could benefit in having happier employees and we could benefit by having affordable housing, if we build a model manufactured home community on Cornell leasehold land close to campus. J Thomas noted that housing for Cornell staff and faculty has been an ongoing conversation within the University. This and childcare are a few things that end up being barriers of entry when trying to attract a workforce, so it is beginning to bubble up as an issue, but no specific solution has coalesced yet. Regarding ground lease agreements, Cornell has taken a 100-200 year outlook with regard to places where it may want or need to grow. If the University needs to expand, it has land available such that it does not get hemmed in. (There is a way to get the land back if they need it.) This presently applies to the single family homes on ground leases at Game Farm Rd and Cornell Heights. Addressing mobile home parks, J Thomas offered a few different options to structure a community that was affordable. If there is a parcel that the University owns as a part of its long-term perspective for which there is not a current use, and if it is willing to cede control of that parcel for a couple of decades, Cornell is more than willing to explore options for its use. He was apprehensive, however, in that he did not want to have a mobile home community in place and there come a time when the University has a need for that land in the future. Although Cornell would legally be able to regain control of the land, people have made their homes there and that is where the difficulty lies. So we need to evaluate our potential need for that parcel against dedicating it to a use, even for a short-term period of time. AWHC 2024-12-04 Page 6 of 6 Given these many factors and knowing all the work that the Committee has done, J Thomas suggested that it might be helpful for Committee members to answer the question of what parcels does Cornell own that Dryden is interested in having something happen on. Answering the question of how long Cornell’s leases are in Cayuga Heights and on Turkey Hill, J Thomas responded that they currently vary between 50 and 99 years, but Cornell is moving to standardizing new and renegotiated leases to all be 99 years. Cornell could buy back any improvements to its land (at fair market value) on seven years’ notice. He also noted that the community land trust model allows for control over an escalation in housing costs, whether rental or for-sale properties. It is a way to maintain affordability. Committee members thought that any Cornell-owned land around Varna would be very attractive to initiate such a model. An aside on Cornell’s projects in and around East Hill Plaza ensued. Plans for an enormous development have not proceeded, so Cornell decided to invest in the assets already there (e.g., roof rehabilitation and façade modernization) and enhance the Plaza as a retail and destination center. In the parcels around this, Cornell hopes to deliver additional housing for graduate and professional students, as well as faculty and staff who want to live in apartments. J Thomas returned to the subject of Cornell-owned parcels of interest to Dryden, asking R Burger and G Cassidy to provide a list of Dryden’s main nodes and those Cornell parcels that Committee members feel are best positioned for development. Committee members voiced their interest in Varna, the NYSEG intersection, and the Hanshaw Rd area discussed earlier. Committee members thanked J Thomas for his time and the information he provided. Briefly reflecting on the meeting, R Burger stated that Turkey Hill, Varna, and Hanshaw Rd are the areas within reach due to their proximity to water and sewer. Responding to a question on CDBG, he related that CDBG is geared towards those who cannot afford it, so Cornell entering may not help an application. He proposed the possibility of bifurcating the project, whereby the lines going directly to the mobile home park could be funded by the $1 million from CDBG and the lines internal to the 90-acre Cornell parcel could be funded by Cornell. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk September 21, 2024 Highlights of Subdivision and Zoning Audit Prepared by Community Planning & Environmental Associates. Highlights of Audit and Recommendations Related to Subdivision Law 1. Update subdivision policy statements and definitions. 2. Incorporate the residential design guidelines into subdivision design standards and expand. 3. Consider authorizing Planning Board to review and approve minor subdivisions. 4. Update escrow account rules so Boards have funding to retain any professional help needed during review. 5. Update the conservation subdivision section to clearly outline design and layout rules as well as open space expectations. Coordinate with zoning to make this a mandatory technique for major subdivisions. 6. Update submission requirements to provide all existing environmental conditions, the NYS Ag Data Statement, and other information so the reviewing Board has all the information needed to efficiently review and approve the application. 7. Update lot line adjustment language to list required submissions. 8. Incorporate review of building envelopes in subdivisions. Highlights of Audit and Recommendations Related to Zoning Law 1. Update zoning policy statements and definitions. There is much to be done to improve definitions. 2. Ensure that the zoning map is updated with district changes and addition of PUDs. 3. Update the Allowable Use Charts for ease of use and clarity. Use SPR as the code for uses that need site plan review. Carefully review and consider removing some intensive uses that don’t seem consistent with the more rural/agricultural areas in town. In the MC district and Varna, make most of the uses as requiring SPR instead of SUP. 4. Consider removing Large Scale Retail as an allowed use or district in the zoning. 5. Re-evaluate lot size and density requirements by district. 6. Re-evaluate lot coverage by district. 7. Housing related: Allow two -family homes in all districts; allow for accessory dwelling units in all districts with development standards as a permitted use; add a category of three and four units as a separate type of multifamily dwelling and allow with a modified site plan review; remove the site plan review requirement for upper floor apartments; allow for individual manufactured homes in all locations where single family homes are allowed provided they have a permanent foundation. Also use inclusionary zoning to increase availability of affordable units and incentivize density to gain additional affordable units, especially in PUDs. Rescind the Mobile Home Regulations (Chapter 183) and replace with a section in the zoning related to manufactured home communities. Require conservation designs in the RR, RA and C districts for such communities. 8. Consider establishing a stream corridor overlay district for Fall Creek and other regulated streams. 9. Rethink minimum lot frontages – they are too large. 10. Expand use of bonuses – give a variety of bonuses for a variety of amenities. Bonuses could be density, square footage of commercial space, extra height, or use of a modified site plan review when all standards are met and when they have chosen design from a palette of approved designs. Amenities could be for open space, affordable housing, senior housing, September 21, 2024 Highlights of Subdivision and Zoning Audit Prepared by Community Planning & Environmental Associates. EV charging stations, use of renewable energy sources, connections to trails, etc. This section however must be written to follow Town Law 261b. 11. Integrate commercial design guidelines into specific design standards into zoning and offer a palette of designs that could be chosen and when used, able to streamline the review process. 12. Work to right size parking lots. 13. Reduce allowable sign sizes. 14. Enhance landscape standards for buffering and streetscape improvements. 15. Incorporate Dark Sky International lighting standards. 16. Update PUD section to clearly outline Town performance expectations. This is a rezoning and there should be substantial benefits for the Town to do so…those expectations should be articulated. 17. Update site plan review section so that all the required procedures are in the local law. Add modified site plan review options. Update submissions so that all needed environmental information is provided early on. 18. Update the special use permit section so that all the required procedures are in the local law. Update submissions so that all needed environmental information is provided early on. Consider authorizing Planning Board to review and approval all special use permits instead of the Town Board. Add in more detailed special use permit criteria. 19. Set standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and make it easy for these to be provided as an important component of addressing housing including removing the owner occupied requirement. At the same time, remove ability to make these short term rentals so that they stay available for long-term rentals. 20. Allow for use of tiny houses. 21. Consider solar capacity analysis and identify if there are locations in town not desirable for solar facilities. Expand the setback area. Update landscaping requirements. Consider use of a solar overlay district. 22. Fully update the ZBA chapter to include all procedures, and all area and use variance criteria that must be followed from Town Law 267, and 267 a-c. I do not feel this section adequately addresses the needs of the ZBA. 23. Illustrate your zoning law, add in a palette of design options (including those from the existing residential and commercial guidelines, and use Reader Aid boxes to help explain certain requirements in lay-man’s terms. 24. Change front setback to be measured from the centerline of the road. 25. Build in flexibility for front line setbacks so that new buildings can be placed at the same build-to line as neighboring buildings. 26. Build in more environmentally and agriculturally-friendly purposes and direction. 27. Consider use of form-based code for Varna and nodal development areas. Integration of your residential and commercial design guidelines into the zoning as standards also brings the code closer to a form based, or at least hybrid approach which is appropriate in other areas of Town. 1 This report is the culmination of Phase 1 of the Dryden Zoning Update project. The project was initiated after adoption of the Town’s updated Comprehensive Plan and is the first step in working to identify and increase consistency between the Comprehensive Plan (and other plans) and land use regulations in the Town. The overall goals of the project (Phase 1 and later, Phase 2) are to: A. Preserve the rural character of Dryden by protecting its open spaces, natural areas, and farmlands. B. Create a regulatory environment that supports more diversity in housing types and land uses and removes requirements that needlessly drive up the cost and complexity of desired development as defined in the 2005 Plan and Dryden2045. C. Ensure each restriction, allowance and requirement in the Zoning and Subdivision Laws, Design Guidelines and other land use ordinances serve a desired and meaningful purpose, are easily understood, and have clear criteria for enforcement. D. Ensure Dryden’s land use ordinances are consistent with NYS statutes. Community Planning & Environmental Associates was retained by the Town to complete Phase 1 of the project – which is to understand and evaluate the current land use regulations in Dryden and offer recommendations as to how to meet the above goals. To complete this, CP&EA toured the Town, met with the Planning Board, interviewed various Town Committee and staff, and reviewed all plans, guidelines, maps, and local land use-related laws. This Audit is the result of that work and includes the following deliverables: • Identification of code elements that need work to bring them in line with Dryden’s comprehensive planning goals and with contemporary best practices for clarity and compliance with other applicable laws including zoning, subdivision, design guidelines, mobile homes. • Identification of problem areas and opportunities for improvement of the above codes and guidelines. • Specific recommendations for use (or not) of form-based code options. • Definition of problems and opportunities and how they should be addressed. This Report is organized into the following sections: Section by Section Audit of Subdivision Law (Chapter 240) ......................................................................... 2 Section by Section Audit of Zoning Regulations ........................................................................................... 8 General - Other Suggested Zoning Updates............................................................................................... 23 Considerations for Addressing Housing .................................................................................................... 25 Comments on Mobile Home Regulations (Chapter 183) ............................................................................ 27 Comments on Possible Use of Form Based Codes in Dryden ..................................................................... 28 Comments on Consistency with Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................. 28 2 Section by Section Audit of Subdivision Law (Chapter 240) 240-2.1. Purpose: Purpose statements are very important elements of a local law. This section sets the policy foundation for why these land use regulations exist. Subdivision regulations control the splitting of land, and these regulations must be consistent with local zoning laws. Both must be consistent with a community’s comprehensive plan as that is the document that establishes broad policy objectives. Dryden’s subdivision’s purpose statement, while adequate, does not convey the nuances or the detailed land use policies articulated in the Plan. Recommendation: Update the subdivision policy section to be more detailed and inclusive of policy direction from the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan’s vision (page 36) along with guiding principles (page 37) and topic goal statements in subsequent chapters should be emulated in the purpose statements of the subdivision law. 240-4.1 (A). Conformance with Town design guidelines: It is excellent that the Town has the design guidelines (both commercial and residential). And those design guidelines offer design direction that is consistent with the Town’s comprehensive Plan and are good examples. The guidelines, however, are just that – guidelines. Without further defining subdivision and lot layout design expectations, meeting the rural, open space, agricultural and environmental goals of the Town are not easily identified or as likely to be followed. Further, the design guidelines are not an appendix to the subdivision law like they are to the zoning law and therefore may not be as easily accessible to either applicant or Planning Board. Guidelines, rather than design performance expectations means they may or may not be met and leaves it to the applicant and Planning Board to decide what design guideline applies, where, and what is ‘to the maximum extent practicable.’ Although ‘to the maximum extent practicable’ allows for flexibility, it also means that the Town’s performance expectations related to new subdivisions are not clearly articulated. While the goal should not be to over-regulate with development standards, land use regulations including subdivision should ensure that the land use goals of the Town are met and that those expectations are conveyed clearly, simply, and in a way that treats all applicants equitably. The bottom line is that the residential design guidelines should have more ‘teeth’ and be incorporated into subdivision as standards. The Town can build options into the design standards as well so that applicants have choices of acceptable designs. To do this, the design standards can include a ’pallet of design options’ – all of which would be acceptable to the Town. (This recommendations holds for the commercial design guidelines as well). While the design guideline document is excellent and contains recommended strategies that will help the Town maintain its rural character and protect the environment, it is not written as a regulatory document. One would have to read a lot and consider what applies to them and what does not. As a guideline it can leave the applicant not knowing what the Town will actually want and approve, and leaves the Planning Board with trying to figure out what applies, should it apply, how to apply it, etc. I understand that waivers are fairly common and that means design expectations are not always met. We want to allow for creativity and flexibility but at the same time ensure that the Town conveys its policies via clear ‘rules’ that work to attain Town goals and that are clear and easy to follow. The guidelines offer ideas and examples of many best practices, but it is my recommendation that those best practices be implemented into the regulations as standards. Recommendation: Consider amending the subdivision regulations to include specific design principles and rural design standards for subdivisions that are conveyed in the Guidelines. I believe the Town will attain more of its goals by including the principals mentioned in the Guideline document if they are included within the subdivision law and written as performance expectations. For Example, pages 10-12 of the guidelines articulate the importance of ensuring public health and safety, protecting the scenic character of rural corridors, protecting agricultural resources, designing with nature, and Zoning and subdivision rules that are vague and not clearly spelled out are what causes uncertainty for developers. Regulations that clearly details expectations such as design standards that have mechanisms for choice but that meet community expectations set the rules up front. That removes uncertainty and, in the end, should result in more efficient approval processes. 3 recognizing neighborhood context. Those are the subdivision design principles that should be further articulated in the subdivision law. This will aid in ensuring subdivisions meet the purposes of the law (and Town). Pages 12-21 are directed mainly to major subdivisions and should be incorporated into the Conservation Subdivision section of the zoning. Pages 17-19 articulate specific landscape features that should be shown on submitted subdivision plats – and could be incorporated into the submission section of the Law (Article X). See additional comments below for additional details on subdivision design. 240-5.1 (B) Jurisdiction. This section authorizes the Planning Board to review major subdivisions and only certain minor subdivisions. In Dryden, the process of approving a minor subdivision is mainly administrative and carried out by the Planning Director according to Article VIII of the subdivision law. I understand that the objectives of this type of approval process is to help make it easier for less consequential subdivisions to move forward and to not bog down the Planning Board’s agenda. However, this is a much more unusual way to approve minor subdivisions: Most communities authorize the Planning Board to approve all subdivisions, including minor and major. The NYS Town law is not clear about the ability to authorize anyone other than planning boards to do subdivisions. Some town boards hold that authority for themselves, but to authorize a staff member to conduct the review, SEQR, and approve minor subdivisions is not common (I know of only one other place that does it that way and they are in the process of changing it.) To its credit, the subdivision law recognizes the need for SEQR for minor subdivisions, which is a requirement. However, State law also requires that an application be deemed complete, that a public hearing on a subdivision be held for each subdivision application, and that specific filing requirements in the Town and at the County are met. The State law specifically outlines requirements for deeming an application complete, timeframes that must be met, and filing. Dryden’s subdivision law does reflect the requirements for SEQR for a minor subdivision, but it does not indicate any of the completeness, hearing (and public notifications), and filing rules after approval is given. Recommendation: I advise the Town to evaluate the full legal implications of having a staff person approve minor subdivisions as currently exist instead of the Planning Board. If that ultimately is legal and remains the approach Dryden desires to maintain, I advise that the subdivision law be updated to include all the procedural steps required by NYS Town Law 276, 277 and 278 including deeming an application complete and filing after approval and working with the Town attorney to address the lack of hearings. This should include a definition of ‘completeness’ as this triggers the required timelines for subdivision. (A subdivision plat application is considered complete when, after all submission requirements are met, the lead agency has filed, pursuant to SEQRA, either: a negative declaration or a notice of completion of the draft environ mental impact statement (DEIS). An additional recommendation is to reconsider 240-8.2 (E) (3) (b) which says that if the Planning Department determines that a potentially large impact may result, the Planning Board becomes the lead agency for purposes of SEQR and the application would be treated as a Major Subdivision by the Planning Board. This approach causes a potentially large impactful minor subdivision to be considered a major subdivision. There is no guidance beyond the normal SEQR about what would be considered a potentially large impact. If a ‘potentially large impact’ becomes a major subdivision, then that should be reflected in your definitions of major subdivision. As an alternative, the ‘potentially large impact’ could be the trigger that sends the minor application to the Planning Board to be reviewed as a subdivision using Article VIII procedures for a minor. 240-6.1. Definitions Recommendation: The following definitions of terms would be beneficial to include in the Subdivision Law (* indicates the word is used in the law but not currently defined): Buffer* Building Envelope* Community Character Complete Application Comprehensive Plan Conventional Subdivision Driveway* Escrow Floodplain/Flood zone Primary and Secondary Conservation Area (related to a conservation subdivision, see below) Right-of-Way* Steep Slope* 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Wetland* 240-7.1 and 7.2. Major Subdivisions. Recommendations: (A) (4) This section authorizes establishment of escrow for engineers and attorneys. I recommend this list be expanded to enable the Town to use escrow for other professionals as may be needed. During these projects, the following professionals are often used that may not be engineers: hydrogeologist, landscape architect, architect, planner, biologist/ecologist, and photosimulation/viewshed expert. The escrow should be able to support any kind of expertise the reviewing board feels is necessary. Broaden the use of escrow funds so that this mechanism is easily used to fund comprehensive review of projects. This should correlate to language in LL2 of 2000 and be available for zoning too. (C) (1) and (D) (1): These are very important sections that references the process for approving a major subdivision is per Town Law 277 (5). While that is an accurate statement, simply referring to those requirements means that both applicants and the Planning Board must refer to another law in another location. It means the town does not have an easily accessible ‘one stop shop’ with all the procedural steps easily found and detailed in the local law. I recommend that an update to the subdivision law be made to include the actual procedures to be followed in the local law rather than just referencing the State Town Law. I also recommend that this section include filing requirements for a major subdivision, and requirements for sending neighbors within 250’ a notice for hearing when a major subdivision is proposed. . 240-8.2 Minor Subdivision Procedure Recommendations: 1. Please see notes above related to whether minor subdivisions should remain as an administrative task or changed so the Planning Board is authorized to review and approve minor subdivisions. However, this section also establishes that minor subdivisions in the Conservation District shall require a Full EAF (FEAF) to be submitted with the application. This adds to my concern that minor subdivisions are approved administratively - An FEAF is used for “those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted actions". FEAF’s are also used for Type I actions where “...the fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an EIS." So, this goes back to the question – should subdivisions that require a FEAF be administratively reviewed and permitted, or should the Planning Board do them? And if these go to the Planning Board and are treated as a major subdivision, then the definition in the law should reflect that. 2. I recommend a section be added that outlines filing requirements for a minor subdivision. Article IX – Conservation Subdivision. It is excellent that the Town has established the ability to use conservation subdivisions in Dryden. It is a technique that could have much benefit. Improvements could be made though. Current wording does not have strong language promoting rural character/ag/environmental conservation or an agriculturally friendly tone. This is one of the best techniques that allows for both full density development and conservation, and I believe should be one of the hallmark techniques in Dryden to be used. I think improvements can be made to make it more effective and that reflect the conservation goals of the town as follows: Recommendations: 1. 240-9.1. Conservation Subdivisions are currently allowed at the option of the subdivider. Most places that allow for conservation subdivisions via a voluntary process find that the method is hardly ever used. Mandatory use or heavily incentivized programs enhance implementation of this important technique. 5 Long-term, coordinated planning of conservation subdivisions can result in connected, preserved open spaces conducive to more trails and pathways as well as minimizing fragmentation of farmland. The technique fits perfectly to further the goals of the town to protect open spaces, environmental quality, farmland, and rural character. I recommend that the conservation subdivision technique be made mandatory for all major subdivisions and certain other kinds of housing developments that are not subdivisions but can be designed using the same methodology such as manufactured home developments, tiny home/cottage developments, or others. As an alternative, it could remain optional in some districts, but mandatory in others such as conservation and rural/ag. 2. Remember that the conservation subdivision technique is ‘density neutral’ – meaning that whatever density of new units is allowed under the zoning district, are allowed in the subdivision. That means that the developer does not lose any density through use of this design technique. And it is just that – a lot layout technique that results in careful siting of the building envelopes and protection of open space. A conservation subdivision puts more emphasis on site analysis and placement of building envelopes than concentrating on where lot lines are placed. 3. Specific standards that could optimize subdivisions to meet Town goals include: a. Add a minimum lot size if individual septic systems are to be used that meet Tompkins County health department rules. When sewer/package plants are included, lot sizes could be much smaller. Conservation subdivisions thus have the benefit of allowing for smaller, hopefully more affordable lots. Lot sizes are really only important to meet septic system rules. b. Include the 4-step process for designing a conservation subdivision (identify environmental features, locate building envelopes, add in driveways, roads, and trails to connect these, and add in lot lines). c. Dryden already has the mapping, information, and tools to identify those unique natural areas and environmental features that should be protected in future preserved conservation subdivision open spaces. Preserved open space is usually required to be 50% of the parcel. d. Note that the lot lines are the least important feature of a Conservation Subdivision, and the method allows for a variety of lot sizes with few restrictions on frontage, width, or even setbacks – which are determined at the time of subdivision. This gives a great deal of flexibility for all. Conservation Subdivisions may result in a clustered subdivision, or they may result in units strategically placed to have physical and visual access of the preserved open space. e. Amend this section to include more detail to effectively design a conservation subdivision. Most of the site analysis and design standards are detailed in the Town’s Design Guidelines for Residential Uses. That section of the Design Guidelines should be incorporated into this Article and made as a required procedural step (as most conservation subdivision regulations do). f. More detail needs to be given beyond a broad statement that lots shall be arranged that protects land of conservation value and open space. Most conservation subdivision regulations detail the specific environmental features that should be included as primary and secondary features to be included in the open space and offer more detail on how the open space should be identified and protected. Current Dryden regulations do not include these critical details. g. Current regulations correctly treat a conservation subdivision via the major subdivision process (that includes primary plat and final plat). This should remain. h. Definitions should include primary and secondary conservation areas that go hand in hand with identifying open spaces to be preserved. Primary conservation areas should include the Unique Natural Areas identified by Tompkins County as well as other important environmental features highlighted in the Town’s natural resource inventory. i. The amendment could include a variation of the conservation subdivision technique for hamlets or more dense areas that result in a more clustered, traditional neighborhood design for major subdivisions within Varna or in other focus areas, and open space suited towards a traditional development pattern. j. The amount of open space to be preserved should be at least 50% of the lot. Remember, that preservation of this amount of open space does not influence the number of units that are eligible to be built. The preserved lands could be environmentally sensitive areas, important viewsheds, or 6 even farmlands. (Note there are some terrific conservation subdivisions that have been built around agricultural themes that would fit in great in Dryden). k. I can provide many good models that more effectively outline the steps for a conservation subdivision. I recommend, however, that the key to this is to make it mandatory for large subdivisions (or housing developments) with 50% of the parcel preserved as open space. 4. See zoning comments below related to density bonuses – in order to meet densification and housing goals of the Town, density bonuses could be offered for conservation subdivisions when specific features are included (such as two-family homes, ADUs, smaller three and four-family homes when designed in a single family architecture, etc. 240-10.1. Article X. Documents Recommendations 1. (B) (4) currently lists the need to have certain environmental features included on the sketch plan. However, it uses the terms “significant physical features’ and ‘significant, natural or cultural features” but these terms are not defined. Either add definitions for these terms or consider using the ‘constrained lands’ term - which is already defined. 2. If the site analysis procedures from the Design Guidelines are added in (see above recommendation), then a sub-section should be added here referencing the site analysis as something that would be part of the sketch phase. 3. Add to the required submittals for preliminary plat 1) identification if the parcel to be developed is in a NYS Agricultural District, and 2) an agricultural data statement is required if it is in or within a farm operation in a NYS Agricultural District, and an Environmental Assessment Form Part 1. These are all requirements from NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. 4. When a subdivision occurs in or adjacent to a NYS Agricultural District, consider requiring the final plat to include a plat note that recites the ag disclosure notice. This language helps educate future lot landowners that they are buying land within or near agricultural operations. NYS AML requires the Ag Disclosure Notice to be given to buyers from real estate agents, but I recommend it also be included on the plat note for all future buyers to see on their lot layout. This is considered a farm – friendly method. Article IX Design Standards. Recommendations 1. As above, I recommend that the design guidelines be included as design standards in this Section. This will ensure better application of the important principles you have already laid out as a Town. Many of the smart growth and climate smart principles can also be useful in improving subdivision design and could be incorporated into design standards. 2. There is nothing in your design standards to provide amenities such as sidewalks, pathways, bike storage and pathways, lighting, street trees, and other streetscape elements. Sidewalks are critical for most subdivisions, especially those in Varna and any new focused node. Clustered subdivisions in more rural areas can concentrate on providing pathways and connections to other trails or even to sidewalk systems in other locations. All new streets should have street trees planted with native tree species. Lighting should be as minimal as possible to reduce light pollution, use LED lights, and should all be designed using Dark Sky lighting standards. Given the desire in the Town for additional modes of transportation, bike paths, and pathway connections should be given more emphasis in subdivision designs layout. 3. All drainage, grading, and infrastructure plans should ensure protection of surface water quality, reduction of stormwater runoff, use of LID/GI (Low Impact Development or Green Infrastructure designs), and ensure that all streams crossed by new culverts have the ‘right size’ so that fish passage is not impeded. 7 4. 240-11.4 indicates that all lots shall have access to a public street. Yet, private roads are defined and allowed in conservation subdivisions, as well as via Article XIII. I recommend that this be amended to allow for access to private or public streets. 5. 240-11.5 – Parks, Open Spaces and Natural Features. This section is ‘bare bones’ and in my opinion, and does not convey the importance of agriculture, open spaces, or the many important environmental features in Dryden. I recommend that this be further expanded – especially subsection (C). That subsection says that the Planning Board shall, wherever possible, encourage the preservation of all natural features which will enhance residential development. I do not believe that this statement is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and community goals to protect those features not just to enhance residential development, but for the environment. This is a section that could use improvements to better match the environmental vision and goals of the Town. Article XII Common Driveways Recommendations 1. This section should include a reference to State rules that require filing with the NYS Attorney General whenever any common property is proposed. 2. There is also no mention of NYS 280-a regulations related to Open Development Areas – those parcels that currently do not have access to a road. There should at least be a reference to this for the Planning Board to use. Article XIV – Lot Line Adjustments Recommendation: 1. It is unclear to me what documents a lot line adjustment needs. Lot Line Adjustment definition should include a statement that these are not considered subdivisions. Current language does not appear to treat these as a minor subdivision, so Article X (Documents) does not apply. So, what does need to be provided as part of a submission? Don’t lot line adjustments require a survey? Also, there are filing requirements for a lot line adjustment that should be coordinated with those set by Tompkins County. Other Recommendations Related to Subdivision 1. It is recommended that all subdivisions (minor and major, but not lot line adjustments) give more attention in the subdivision process to review and placement of building envelopes. While this is a critical feature to be included in the Conservation Subdivision process, it holds many advantages in other subdivisions as well. Subdivisions that evaluate where a proposed building envelope may be placed offer opportunities for ensuring that environmental features are taken into consideration when actual building on those new lots takes place. It allows for better planning for stormwater/erosion/runoff, and helps the Town determine proper placement of driveway cuts. When proposed building envelopes(to include house site, driveway, septic area) are reviewed and approved as part of the subdivision, it further adds assurances that future lot owners know what was approved when seeking a building permit. I strongly recommend that use of building envelopes become a regular part of subdivision review and approval. 2. Coordinate definitions between subdivision and zoning and make sure terms used in both laws have the same definition. 3. Include references to the Town’s Chapter 233 Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation and NYS DEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements and procedures to be sure that all stormwater designs are properly considered in the subdivision review and applicants know when such plans (and what type of plan) are required. The Town’s Chapter 233 use of ‘common plan of development or sale’ and its definition relates to subdivisions (but does not specifically use the term subdivision). It should be very clear as part of the subdivision whether SWPPP of some level are required. 8 Section by Section Audit of Zoning Regulations 270-2.1. Purpose. The foundation given in this purpose statement is not uncommon, but as detailed above for the Subdivision law, it does not fully articulate the goals of the Town. Recommendation: Update the purpose statement to be more robustly consistent with the language used in the Comprehensive Plan. The purposes should mirror and more fully articulate the values and goals the community hopes to attain via these land use regulations. Article III – Terminology Recommendations: 1. The Dryden Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan included an audit of the zoning in relation to enhancing the farm-friendliness of the zoning law. Those recommendations remain relevant. As such, consider adding to or revising terms used in this Article to enhance farm-friendliness (see also the Town’s Ag Plan)1: o Agritourism (new) o Commercial Horse Boarding Operation (revise) o Farm Market (new) o Timber Operation (revise) o Horticultural nursery (new) o Farm Worker Housing (new) o Agriculture (replace Agricultural Use) o Farm Operation (revise – to meet NYS AML definition) o Active Agricultural Lands (new) o NYS Agricultural District (revise) o Agricultural Business (revise) o Agricultural Data Statement (revise) o On-Farm Solar Facility (revise) o On-Farm Food Processing Facility (revise) o Food Processing Facility (revise) o Farm or Roadside Stand (revise) 2. Include each of the above ag-related uses in the Use Table as a permitted (not site plan review) in the Rural/Ag District or in any future ag-focused zoning district. Except for hamlets, Varna, and new nodes as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, these agricultural uses should also be permitted uses, or in some limited cases, a modified site plan review may be appropriate (see below). In no locations where the NYS Agricultural District also exists, should these agricultural uses be required to obtain a special use permit from the Town. 3. Other definition updates could include: o Bed and Breakfast (why is there a difference between B&B Establishment and B&B Home?) o Buffer Strip (This refers to a landscaped screening. However, the term ‘buffer’ is also used to convey space between two uses and may not always be landscaped – in some cases, topography or existing vegetation address the screening need. I believe this is too narrow of a definition). o Building Line – this seems very confusing. o Campground – doesn’t include the newest form of camping that the Town may want to address: Glamping. o Comprehensive Plan – update without date references. o Dwelling vs Dwelling unit – is confusing and redundant o Family – this is an old (and as per NYS law) illegal use of the term family. – It should not include related individuals by blood, marriage or adoption. o Floodplain – needs tie to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of 1987 1 Dryden’s Agricultural Advisory Committee submitted several updated definitions for ag-related terms. See attachment 1. 9 o Green Space – Remove dimensions as a definition is not the place for setting rules o Invasive species – this 1998 list is very likely outdated. o Manufactured home- see below o Multifamily – there is redundancy o PUD – to reflect that it includes both residential and commercial o Restaurant – why is ‘bar’ not included in this definition? This seems limiting. o Service Business – offer examples or other language to offer more specificity as to what these are o Solar – we often have issues with determining what is part of a solar system or not. Some solar developers make the case that only the panels and electrical equipment is part of it. I recommend you add the other components that are part of the functioning of the facility including fencing, access roads, landscaping, stormwater management areas, etc. o Setback – the law refers setback definition to ‘yard.’ But I think there is a difference. The setback is a distance that establishes a yard, and the setback is measured from a boundary of some sort. o There are other definitions that are missing. Consider adding these terms that are either used, or should be used as they relate to concepts in your comprehensive plan: Accessory use and accessory structure Adaptive reuse Affordable housing Animal hospital Best management practices Building envelope Building footprint Change of use Clearing/grading Community character Compatible in scale Complete application Conservation Subdivision (should be the same as in subdivision) Convenience Store (used in the context of a gas station) Customary use Density Disturbance Drive-in or Drive-Through Driveway Easement EV Charging Station Flood/floodplain Glamping Glare Highway Line Junk Manufactured home/Mobile (see below) Mixed use Nonconforming structure Overlay Plat – preliminary and final PODS Principal use Recreational Vehicle (RV) Recreational Cabin (see also Glamping) Sensitive Environmental Feature (see also constrained lands used in the subdivision law) Sign, temporary Special event venue/wedding venue Steep Slope Storage Stream/Watercourse Vernal Pool Wetland 4. Make sure that definitions do not include regulations – actual standards, dimensions, or other requirement should be in supplemental or special use permit sections. 5. Of importance is the definition for setback and/or highway line. This was one of the most common requests to be made regarding the zoning: There is confusion as to where front setbacks are measured from. I recommend that it be from the centerline of the highway, not edge of road or edge of right of way, which change over time and are often unknown. A centerline measurement is more easily determined. 270-4.1. Districts and 270-4.2 Zoning Map. It is always good to have purpose statements for each of the zoning districts. These add considerably to the understanding of what each district is supposed to accomplish. I note, however, that if the Town were to implement the land use concepts from the Comprehensive Plan the names and 10 purposes of the districts would change significantly. See below for other comments related to the Plans’ proposed land use concepts. 270-4.3 Boundary Determinations. Subsection D discusses what happens when one parcel covers two zoning districts. I do not understand why the Varna districts are exempted from this rule. I could not find anything in the Varna zoning district that says otherwise. Recommendations: I recommend this be applied to all districts. I further suggest that extending the least restrictive rules into the more restrictive portion for 100’ is a large distance. I would suggest no more than 30’. Perhaps the Town could do a GIS analysis that looks at how many and where parcels are that overlap two districts. When updating the zoning district map, such boundaries should be matched to parcel lines to avoid this situation. I would rather see changes in district lines than split parcels into two different ones – it becomes very difficult to plan and manage. 270-5.1 Restrictions. I recommend that both this section and the Allowable Use Groups Chart be amended to include a statement that any use not included on the Allowable Use Groups Chart shall be considered prohibited. Uses not included would need a use variance in order to be considered. 270-5.2. Allowable Use Groups Chart. Through both my own review, and from comments from those groups and individuals that I interviewed for this project, the Allowable Use Groups Chart was a major feature of the zoning law that could be updated to better meet the goals of the Town. Recommendations: 1. Sub-section C establishes building size limitations for certain uses and in certain districts. I recommend moving these dimensional requirements to Article VI (Area and Bulk Regulations) so that all dimensional requirements are in one place. Additional observations of this sub-section are: a. The language sets a specific square footage limitation, but then adds “without a variance.” My perspective is that dimensional requirements are meant to be requirements and only in the circumstances where the ZBA determines that an area variance meets the required area variance tests established for the ZBA, is the dimension allowed to be altered. It is a given that applicants can seek an area variance, but by adding that the building size can’t be bigger than 5,000 sf unless there is a variance implies (in my opinion) that the 5,000 sf limit is flexible. If a 5,000 sf limit in the CV, RA and RR districts is important, then this is what the dimension is. b. This sub-section also allows for ‘big-box stores’ at 45,000 sf for an individual structure or 90,000 retail shopping center. These very large retail operations do not seem to be consistent with the land use concept map or the goals and strategies established in the Plan. I would suggest that this be re- evaluated to determine if there is a place in Dryden for such retail operations. 2. This section refers to business group uses, and community group uses, but the Use Table itself does not have any definitions as to what those are or subsection labels that show which uses are attached to which group use. That is important since it is necessary to know what a business or community group is because those uses require site plan review. 3. Making a clear distinction in the use table as to what requires a site plan review and what does not may be better made simply by using the acronym “SPR” it identify those uses more easily than “P.” I would update the table to clearly identify those uses which require SPR. 4. There were many comments about so many uses requiring special use permits. Note that uses that require special use permits ARE permitted uses – but are ones that have certain aspects that may make them more difficult to fit in and be harmonious with the neighborhood or district (see definition). I believe the requirements for a special use permit for certain non-ag and non-residential projects in the 11 NR, RR, RA and CV districts as you have it make sense. Some uses such as campgrounds, day care centers, salvage and junk yards, and especially large scale development are more intensive uses that may not easily fit with residential and agricultural uses. Consider not allowing these use here. Except for the following, I recommend that the SUP designation for uses in the NR, RR, Ra, and CV districts remain as is: a. Agriculture-related enterprise. (Depending on whether this is on a farm and part of a farm operation in the RA district), I would recommend that on-farm ag-related enterprises should be P (no site plan review). Off-farm, the SPR or perhaps, Modified Site Plan Review is appropriate. b. Do you really want to allow auto salvage and junkyards in your CV district or even in the RA district even with an SUP? These seem like uses not consistent with those districts. c. There are several uses that I do not believe are consistent with the purposes of the RR district as detailed in the zoning. The future land use map proposed in the Plan does a much better job of identifying farm areas and residential areas that would offer more direction. As far as current zoning goes, I question whether, even with an SUP, the following uses are consistent with the RR district: campground, restaurant, retreat or conference center, professional office (unless part of a home occupation), or service business (unless part of a home occupation). Note that business building size restrictions to 5,000 sf building seems reasonable. d. Large Scale Retail is allowed in RR with a SUP. It is not defined, but there is a large scale retain development district as a floating zone. Is this what it refers to? Regardless, it is my recommendation that neither Large Scale Retail nor a Large Scale Retail District be allowed in the RR district. Given that other “retail uses” (shown on the Use Table) are not allowed in the RR, why is a large scale retail? 5. The Mixed Use (MC) and Light Industrial/Office districts are designed for commercial uses and as such, it is unclear why so many uses require a special use permit. Recommendations: I would put more emphasis on site plan review (SPR) as a critical process here. SPR should be required for all new uses within those districts, and for projects that result in a change of use/adaptive reuse but only when exterior conditions change such as additions, changes to facades, changes to parking lots or ingress/egress, or signs. Buildings that are being re-occupied for a new use when none of those changes occur do not normally need site plan review in commercial districts provided the use is an allowed one. Signs do need to be reviewed in all cases but could be done administratively when not associated with another review. All other uses in those districts should require site plan review. The following SUP uses listed in the Use Table could be changed to Site Plan only in the MC and LI Districts: a. Ag-related enterprise b. Automotive repair c. Automotive sales d. Automotive towing service e. Drive through facility f. Self-storage Some uses, however, are such that a SUP remains important to go along with a Site Plan. Uses where a SUP may be appropriate to keep as the review process in those districts include automotive salvage and junkyard, car wash (due to water requirements), gasoline station (due to intensity of use, underground tanks and potential for pollution), industry manufacturing, kennel, retail shopping centers/plazas, warehouse. Consideration should be given to removing large scale retail (as above, this is recommended to be removed from all areas). 12 For commercial districts such as MC 2 that allow for both a mix of commercial uses and residential uses, the question of what needs a special use permit becomes important. Currently your zoning requires SUP for all the residential uses allowed (senior care, manufactured home parks, home occupations, upper floor apartments, and multifamily dwellings. I don’t understand the rationale behind requiring a SUP if the Town wants to promote a mix of commercial and residential. Again, site plan review is critical for all those, but if the goal becomes to allow for a commercial/residential mix, I do not think a SUP is warranted. With that said, however, having supplemental development standards for those specific uses would be very important to address siting, design, density, parking etc. 6. Note that the Use Table requires a Special Use Permit for religious institutions across all districts. This may not be consistent with federal RLUIPA. This stands for “The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.” Among other things, this federal law protects religious institutions from unduly burdensome or discriminatory land use regulations. Requiring site plan review for such institutions is generally acceptable but requiring a special use permit is usually not. Recommendation: Evaluate this with your Town Attorney and consider requiring site plan review only for religious uses. Article VI – Area and Bulk Regulations Recommendations: I offer the following comments and recommendations regarding the Area and Bulk Table: 1. For clarity and efficiency, combine 270-6.6 (density in MC zone, 270-6.7 (density in RR and RA districts) and 270-6.8 (Density in NR and C districts) into one table. These could also be added to the main table at 270-6.1 so that they are all together. 2. Allowing for small (10,000 sf) lots in areas having public water and sewer facilities is appropriate but this doesn’t indicate whether this size is for any use, for residential use, or commercial use. For instance, in the MC district, does a business only need 10,000 sf? And do multi-family uses also only need 10,000 sf even though the density allowed is higher? This should be clarified. 3. Reconsider road frontage requirements. Having too wide of road frontage simply spreads development out and can constrain efficient development patterns. Especially in focus areas, where buildings should be closer together, large frontage requirements can be counterproductive. Dryden’s law has both minimum lot frontage and minimum lot width. I am not sure both are needed. Lot frontage requirements are very large (150 to 250’) and these could be significantly smaller – especially in areas with water and sewer, and where you desire compact development. 4. Lot coverage can be an important tool to protect open spaces and rural character, as well as in sensitive areas such as water recharge locations. In villages, hamlets, and higher density nodes, lot coverage should either be eliminated or allowed to be much higher. I think a 25% lot coverage in RA and CV make sense, but in other locations the lot coverage could be higher. This is where other design standards come into play too. 5. Minimum lot sizes in Varna: I don’t find that the minimum lot sizes set for Varna for the various uses are unacceptable. They reflect the need for more space for those uses that have more parking or other infrastructure needs. 2 Although called Mixed Commercial, this district still allows a variety of residential uses so more aptly should be called a Mixed Use District. 13 6. 270-7.3 – Varna Use Regulations. Most uses require a site plan review and approval. That is likely appropriate for new uses. When there is a change of use in an existing building, site plan review could be waived unless there are changes to structure via additions or expansions. New signs should be able to be approved with a sign permit without Planning Board review. A form-based code or even the current law with design standards could be used here, but that doesn’t eliminate all review - I think site plan review is important for new structures. I do suggest however that: a. Site plan review is not necessary for placement of an accessory dwelling unit. Provided the ADU meets established zoning standards, it could be administratively approved with a zoning and building permit. b. In Varna, site plan review for multifamily dwellings seems appropriate, but requiring a special use permit seems excessive in an area where you want residential uses. I suggest that an important key to acceptance of multifamily is quality design and careful siting to help ensure that residents are confident that what goes in will be designed and sited appropriately. It is also partly density and that has to be balanced with infrastructure, road capacity, environmental features, etc... All issues such as lighting, noise, and traffic can be addressed via a site plan review – these are the normal reviews conducted by the Planning Board. c. Allow two family structures as a permitted use. d. Add three and four family structures as a permitted use with design and siting standards. I would incentivize these types of structures as a subset of multifamily to be encouraged. e. Remove the site plan review requirement for upper floor apartments and allow with a zoning permit and a building permit but ensure that there are standards to be met. f. Consider redefining elder cottages as just an accessory dwelling unit. g. Allow for manufactured homes anywhere a single family home is allowed. h. Consider if the % of green space required in the Varna HMU and HRD districts is appropriate. For a hamlet areas, those open space requirements seem a bit high. Hamlets and other high density areas usually have less green space per lot to allow for higher density. With that said, green space is important in the MHTD due to the need to protect environmental sensitivities. Pocket parks, green areas, landscaping and other similar features can be included in designs to ensure adequate greenspace in a high density areas. While a % requirement to maintain green space is important in the HTD district, I also recommend that the zoning specify the environmental features that need to be included in that green space – in that location it is not just any green space but targeted to protect specific environmental features. i. I recommend further establishing a stream setback from Fall Creek to ensure that the bank/riparian areas there are protected. j. The development pattern should emulate what is currently in those districts, but the open spaces to be protected should be specified, perhaps instead of the green space requirement. k. A minimum lot frontage of 45’ for all uses in all Varna districts may be too large. What is the Town trying to achieve with lot frontages in Varna? Is it to maintain current development patterns? To space out uses to decrease density? I think consideration should be given to lowering this. As with all the other recommendations in this report – design, siting, landscaping, and the other design standards need to go hand in hand in order to make a reduction in lot frontage more acceptable. 7. The Comprehensive Plan calls for additional density of residences in appropriate locations such as in nodes and in mixed use areas. Recommendations: I offer the following comments and regulations related to density. a. The MC districts sets different densities for different types of multifamily housing including distinguishing between rental units, owner-occupied units, condominium units, multistory units, etc. This seems to be a barrier, and it introduces an unnecessary complication to set different densities based on ownership (condo, rental, owner-occupied, etc.). This could be simplified. 14 b. In the MC district, a limitation of 20 dwelling units per building may also be limiting and I suggest this could increase, as that is an area where additional density is appropriate. c. You may not want to allow any single-family units in the MC district, or if they are, perhaps only in combination with other types of housing to be provided. d. In the RR and RA Districts, I recommend allowing 2 family units as a permitted use, and adding three/four unit structures with a modified site plan review as discussed in this report. e. In the RR and RA Districts, sub-section A is confusing in that it sets a 2 dwelling per acre density with a maximum density of 10 dwellings per lot regardless of the lot size. The second sentence implies that there could be additional density calculated by the Planning Director, but this is confusing. f. Further, a 2 dwelling per acre density, especially when it is spread out over many minor subdivisions will not likely result in either rural character, farmland, or preserved environmental conditions. To meet the goals of these districts, I suggest you relook at this density to be lower. I suspect the 10 acres per lot is set to ensure that there isn’t overbuilding, but there are better techniques to ensure for open space – setting appropriate densities in those locations and use of tools such as conservation subdivision with offering of density bonuses where appropriate. These are the districts where there needs to be a balance between housing growth and meeting character and environmental goals. As per the Plan, these areas are appropriately lower density. g. Use the Town’s groundwater study to help establish realistic density capacities where no public water exists. h. In the NR and C districts, zoning doesn’t offer a separate density, so I assume the number of dwelling units falls back to the 1 acre minimum lot size. My biggest concern is that a 1 acre minimum lot size in those areas could result in simply cutting up all those areas into 1 acre lots. That does not conserve the very features those districts are supposed to protect. I recommend that in these areas, the minimum lot area be kept to 1 acre for septic purposes, but to have a lower density – such as 1 dwelling per 3 acres. i. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Concept map suggests new zoning districts that align more closely to the types of land uses and goals for those areas than current zoning. 270-7.7 and 7.8 Green Neighborhood Development, Redevelopment, Additional Density. This section introduces the density bonus option whereby additional density is given if the proposal includes LEED Neighborhood Development Protocol and for redevelopment. Use of a density bonus as an incentive is an excellent tool, but this language does not seem to be developed enough to be effective for the following reasons: 1. Density bonuses (or any kind of incentive) can only be issued when consistent with NYS Town Law 261 b. There are specific steps and procedures for the Town to take in order to issue a density bonus, and these are not articulated in the zoning. Primarily, bonuses need to indicate how much of a bonus is allowed, what the maximum bonuses are, what kind of bonus (density, square footage, reduced parking, etc.), and what the approval process for it is. It must further articulate who approves the density bonus (Town Board or Planning Board). There are also specific SEQR requirements needed for issuing bonuses to ensure that there is capacity at that location to handle the bonus, and that environmental features are not impacted. Use of density bonuses are a great way to promote the kind of development desired in the Town. Offering density bonuses for provision of affordable housing, open space, recreational amenities, EV charging stations, and others should be integrated and allowed in all areas of Town to address Town needs. 15 Recommendation: This section should be expanded with those details 3. 2. There are many other residential density bonuses that could be used as incentives that would work nicely in Dryden – these include bonuses for additional open space preservation, provision of public access to a trail or recreational other feature, public green space, development of certain kinds of housing, placement of EV Charging Stations, use of building integrated renewable energy or heat pumps, rooftop solar and more. Recommendation: I recommend the Town use incentives as much as possible and think out of the box about what amenities the Town would like to see that can be incentivized. Related to housing, it may be advantageous to offer bonuses when affordable housing units, senior housing units, live/work developments, and cottage or clustered developments are proposed. Bonuses could include increased density, reduced setbacks, increased height, expedited approval process, reduced parking, or reduced fees. As stated above, whenever incentives are proposed, the Town must follow Town Law 261b to ensure that bonuses are not given out inappropriately, have an approval process and have maximum bonuses articulated. a. Density bonuses can be used in places other than Varna. Current zoning only has this applicable to Varna. I recommend Dryden think of applying density bonuses to other locations in Town. b. Another effective use of density bonuses is when connected to commercial uses – it can be used as a square footage bonus. Current zoning limits building square footage of a commercial use, but this can be increased with a bonus if certain features/amenities are offered – just like with residential density bonuses. 270.8.1 Traditional Neighborhood Development Overlay District Overall, the TNDO district regulations are well organized and crafted. This section could benefit from illustrations showing expectations for a TNDO. An area that could be improved is the TNDO approval process. The TNDO is approved by the Town Board, which is appropriate since it is creating a new zoning district. Recommendations: The section has no provisions for Planning Board input, nor does it refer to the site plan section to identify the required process to be taken (it just indicates that site plan approval is needed). Implementation of a potential new Nodal Development Area presented as part of the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Concept may benefit from many of the TNDO development standards. The TNDO development standards should be augmented with the Character Area development direction contained within the Commercial Design Guidelines document. As above, I suggest that these be included in the zoning law as standards, not a separate guideline. 270-8.2 Large-Scale Retail Development District As mentioned previously in this report, the LSRD district concept does not seem to be consistent with any of the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: Consider removing this as a development option. A further issue is that subsection (B) states that the LSRD as a floating zone would use the procedures of Town Law 261-b, which is for incentives, not for creation of a floating district. If this option is kept in zoning, I recommend that there be more specific procedural requirements stated including roles for the Town Board, Planning Board, and public hearing. Subsection (D) - Commercial Design Guidelines. 3 (Note that 270-8.2 provides for incentives for the Large-Scale Retail Development but that similar issues exist with lack of details on what kind of bonus is considered). 16 Comments on the commercial design guidelines are similar to those made above for the residential design guidelines. The design that is promoted in the 2008 Guidelines are excellent, but it is my recommendation that these become more inherently part of the zoning law. Recommendations: While you have these required and referenced in the zoning law, the guidelines themselves are just that and I feel Dryden would benefit from having these as design standards. We don’t want to stymie creativity of design, but having these as standards and the performance expectation of the community gives developers a clear set of rules and the Planning Board a clear set of expectations upon which to review. The Guidelines are written ‘to the maximum extent practical’ which in some cases is the only way we can proceed but in other cases, the ‘should’ and ‘may’ would better serve the town as ‘shall.’ The direction provided in the Guidelines is good, but can be expanded into realistic, doable design requirements. The pictures (or new ones) can be added right into the zoning. Adding clear expectations for design also brings the zoning closer to a form-based code that emphasizes building and siting form. Section III of the Guidelines is oriented to character areas: Village/Hamlet; Mixed Use/Medium Density; and Rural Highway Corridor character areas. These also are good and form the foundation for addressing the land use concepts from the Comprehensive Plan. With little work, these could be transformed from a set of design guidelines to more form-based expectations for Varna, and areas along Routes 13 and 366. The bottom line is that like the residential design guidelines, the commercial design guidelines should have more ‘teeth’ and incorporated into zoning as standards. Build options into the design standards as well so that applicants have choices of acceptable designs such as a design palette. To do this, the commercial design standards can include a ’pallet of design options’ – all of which would be acceptable to the Town. 270-9.3 Off-Street Parking Current zoning requirements for parking lots use relatively standard ULI/ITE standards for how many parking spaces are required by use. In many instances though, such standards result in over-built parking lots. Excessive parking requirements also add considerable cost to development. Recommendations: Dryden should work to ‘right size’ their parking requirements. Downsizing parking requirements is easier in an urban area where there is public transit opportunities that allow people access. In Dryden, with limited bus service to Ithaca, the Town remains a place where cars are required, so elimination or severe reduction in parking is not realistic. As more public transportation is provided to certain locations (Varna, Villages, future focus nodes), parking requirements could be reconsidered. Learning what is the ‘right size’ is not just a simple number, however. Additional study is warranted to learn about parking demand, parking use, and evaluation of existing lots to determine capacity and use. When updating parking lot minimums and maximums, seek feedback early in the process from a broad range of stakeholders, including transportation planners and engineers, representatives of the local transit authority, and for-profit and non-profit housing developers and managers. Additional analysis to determine actual vehicle ownership rates by income level, age of household head, and household size, as well as proximity to and availability of public transit and actual parking utilization rates may be helpful to inform policy development and ensure requirements reflect local circumstances in Dryden. The Town could consider the following concepts to help ‘right size’ parking: 1. Currently zoning sets a ‘one size fits all’ parking rule. But different locations have different contexts, and parking could be tailored by zoning district. Zoning authorizes the Planning Board to reduce parking to 50% of the minimum required and this should be a provision seriously considered for all commercial parking lots. Some communities do not have a specific number of parking spots required via zoning but require the developer to provide an analysis of parking they need. Most parking lots can be designed to accommodate 80% of peak capacity parking. 17 2. Promote current language that allows for shared parking lots and interconnections between parking lots, especially along Route 13 and 366 commercial areas. Shared parking in focus areas, Varna and near the Villages should be evaluated to identify parking areas that exist but have low usage and that could be shared with other uses. 3. The Route 13 plan offers additional recommendations consistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan and should be incorporated into zoning regulations. As per the State Route 13 Corridor Study, add additional access management restrictions in SPR and subdivision processes, and add off-street parking setback requirements. 4. The landscaping requirements are good, but there could be more emphasis on the need to screen parking lots from roads. 5. More effectively use the Commercial Design Guidelines to enhance parking lot design by including specific design standards in zoning. Use pictures and illustrations to show design expectations. 6. Add in language that seeks to move parking areas to the rear or side of new commercial and multifamily structures so that the parking lot is not the main aesthetic focus from the road. 7. Add language that seeks to enhance pedestrian connections in parking lots. 8. Require or incentivize use se of solar canopies over parking lots. For example, in a multifamily development, provision of solar canopies could be tied to offering a density bonus for provision of that amenity. 9. Use the NYS Stretch Code standards (energy code) to require parking lots associated with commercial and multifamily uses to require EV charging stations. 10. Reduce the number of required parking spaces in certain locations and for certain uses. For example, the number of parking spaces for multifamily, 3 or 4-plex or other housing types could be reduced when located in Varna and other higher density zoning districts or for certain housing types when within 1/4 mile from a bus . Mixed commercial/residential areas (as recommended in the Land Use Concept map) having bus service can also have reduced parking requirements. 11. Plan for the size of parking to be based on the planned occupancy of residents (seniors typically have fewer cars and less need for parking spots 12. Require all multifamily developments to include bike-friendly facilities and bike parking. 270-9.4 Signs Signage has considerable influence in a streetscape. Like parking, it is usually not a one-size-fits-all situation and different places have different signage needs. Recommendations: 1. Overall, the size allowance for signs are too large in my opinion. I recommend that signage be determined by location rather than by use. For most commercial uses, 24 square feet is adequate. Where there are higher traffic speeds, signs could be allowed to be 32 square feet. (Note, a comment was made at the Planning Board meeting that sign sizes are too small for 55 mph roads. I disagree and 18 suggest that signs have a huge influence on the streetscape and character of the road, and it is not advisable to have too large signs.) 2. The zoning does not offer guidance for building mounted signs and sign lighting. This could be added. 3. To reduce glare and improve aesthetics, signs should be externally lighted rather than internally lighted. If internally lighted, the background should be dark and the letters lighted rather than the other way around. 4. Use your Commercial Design Standards to establish sign design standards. 5. Promote monument signs with landscaped bases instead of pole signs. 6. Add off-premise business sign definition and criteria. Allow for such small, directional signs. 270-9.10 Landscaped Buffers for Multi-family and Nonresidential uses Recommendations: Expand with use of pictures, bringing in guidelines from Commercial Design Standards, size at planting, etc. Note that 270-9.12 discusses the requirement for use of native species, but does not indicate that those should be native to New York, or the northeastern U.S. 270-9.11 Lighting Recommendations: Consider incorporating Dark Sky International lighting standards (https://darksky.org/resources/guides-and-how-tos/lighting-principles) to reduce light pollution. This includes use of targeted, and shielded fixtures, lowering lighting poles and use of low level lighting, control timing so that lights are only on when needed, and use of warm colors. Another aspect of lighting is design, and light fixtures should be carefully chosen to enhance the architectural and aesthetic character of the development. Use of LED lights to address energy use and minimizing light to .2 footcandles at property boundaries will assist in reducing glare and other nuisance lighting. 270-9.13. Short Term Rentals. An issue that many communities grapple with is how to keep accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as affordable, long-term rental options. Often ADUs are converted to short term rental (STR) uses and that removes housing options. I do not have enough information about Dryden to know if this is an issue or not, or whether it could become one. Your current short term rental regulations allow STRs as a permitted use with the standards of this section and approved via an STR registration permit. If STR is, or becomes more of an issue, then zoning can be updated in several ways including requiring a special use permit for STR, but not for ADUs or incentivizing use of ADU by allowing 2 ADUs on certain properties, provided they are not used for STR. Article X – Planned Unit Development Districts. This Article authorizing PUDs does offer a way for certain developments to be flexibly designed and allowed. Dryden’s PUD allows for single-family, multifamily with or without increases in permitted density, single-use commercial development and mixed uses. It is a method that allows for new uses that were not originally thought of and offers developers flexibility. It has been successfully used as a technique in Town and in many other places. However, at the same time, PUDs can often be used simply because a development does not or cannot meet other zoning requirements and they can be a technique used to ‘skirt’ zoning regulations. If too many proposed developments seek to be approved via the PUD process, then it is possible the overall goals of the Town set in zoning will not be met. Overuse of PUDs is something I always caution communities about. Recommendations: 1. Does the Town wish to allow PUDs anywhere in Town? I believe they are not appropriate for all locations and should be targeted to certain focus or nodal areas and Varna in order to fully meet Town 19 goals. I would not think the conservation district, for example, is an appropriate place for a PUD. I recommend the Town look at locations in Town where PUDs may not be appropriate and incorporate this into the regulations. 2. This Article does not offer any guidelines as to density that may be allowed in town and thus remains an unknown but important feature left to be decided during the process. This creates uncertainty as to how much density will be allowed or appropriate, makes it more difficult for the Town Board, and can contribute to public controversy over a project. I recommend that rather than leaving this totally open, that at least some general guidelines for density and scale of uses be offered by location in Town. I recommend that you consider some, at least broad, expectations as to scale and density. Setting a moderate density along with use of density bonuses may be very helpful here to meet both density and other community goals. 3. PUDs require site plan but do not articulate whether the Planning Board will do site plan or the Town Board. Usually, the site plan work is sent to be done by the Planning Board after the Town Board approves the establishment of the PUD and its development parameters. While the method to have the Town Board do that site plan is legally acceptable, it seems like a lot to ask of Town Board, and that it is better suited to Planning Board. Consider procedural changes to have the Planning Board undertake and approve site plans after approval of the PUD by the Town Board. Note that if the Planning Board does the site plan review part of a PUD, then they would become an involved agency for SEQR and the SEQR process for a PUD would be a coordinated review. 4. 270-10.6 states that all dimensions in a PUD are established as part of the approved development plan. While this is typical and acceptable, I believe it would be advisable to set a minimum lot size for the PUD itself. 5. Anytime a PUD is approved, the zoning map should be updated to show that since the PUD is essentially creating a new zoning district. 6. There are no other expectations attached to a PUD, so I don’t fully understand what benefits the Town seeks with this technique. For example, there is no statement as to the importance of open space, provision of affordable housing, of linkage and connection to sidewalks and trails, of landscaping and screening needs, architectural compatibility with the area, etc. By including these types of development outcomes into the PUD, the Town is more apt to be able to plan for them. My perspective is that if the Town is going to create a zoning district for a specific project, then important needs of the Town should be incorporated and met. Flexibility should be an important component of PUD, but not so open-ended. 7. The preliminary PUD plat should expand the identification of existing conditions and natural systems better than currently stated. This might include submitting information on presence of prime farmland soils, whether the parcel is in a NYS Agricultural District, watercourses, forested areas and linkages between forest patches, surface waters and their riparian areas, floodplains, critical habitats, steep slopes, etc. These are all environmental features that should be carefully considered when reviewing an application for a PUD. Zoning should reflect the Town’s desire to protect those areas within a PUD. Article XI – Site Plan Review. Recommendations. I offer the following comments and recommendations: 1. The sketch plan content and site plan submissions (270-11.3 ) should emphasize the need to have more existing conditions identified. Currently topography, wetlands and watercourse are asked to be shown. I strongly suggest, however, that a fuller picture of the environmental and agricultural conditions on the 20 site be identified. These include, but are not limited to, steep slopes, farmland soils and active farm operations, forested areas and existing vegetation, identification of whether the watercourse is regulated (Class C(t) and higher), archaeological sensitivity, floodplains, riparian areas, critical habitats, etc. The Town’s and Tompkins County natural resource information (and County identified unique natural areas) as well as that from New York State easily provides most of that information. There is also a need to submit information on any historic or cultural resources that may be impacted. This will give the Board a complete picture of the parcel to understand any potential impacts. All that information is generally needed in order to adequately conduct SEQR for a project. 2. In order to effectively use the Dryden Design Guidelines, submitted site plans should have clear elevation drawings showing the proposed structure(s) and its design. Further, the Board should be authorized to require a viewshed analysis or photosimulations to show what the project may look like when completed. Architectural and design features need to be identified. 3. For locations in Town without public water, you may want to consider authorizing the reviewing Board to require well pump tests to ensure water capacity and no impacts to surrounding wells. 4. The Site Plan submission needs to include an Agricultural Data Statement when the proposal is in or within 500’ of a NYS Agricultural District (NYS AML). This Ag Data Statement is used by the Board to notify adjacent farmers of the application, and to gain information to adequately evaluate impacts on agricultural activities. 5. Similar to comments made above related to subdivision procedures, I recommend that the Town ensure that it is clear what the State §274-a procedures are and that all parties easily follow them. This section outlines most of those procedures, but a checklist or flow chart outlining what needs to happen, by whom, and when might help elucidate the approval process for all. Of special importance is to ensure that GML 239-n and m be followed for referral to Tompkins County and that filing procedures and timelines be clearly articulated. 6. Articulate procedures for amendments that may be needed after a site plan is approved. 7. Consider including a modified site plan review process. Originating from NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets as a method to facilitate agricultural projects that need some but not extensive review (such as for agritourism that may have noise or traffic impacts), the modified site plan process has been applied to other uses. It is an abbreviated process that allows the Town to review certain aspects of a development with a shortened, and predictable time frame. It is a useful technique for some more intensive agricultural operations as well as for certain housing projects that needs some review, but not extensive review. I recommend the Town look into this technique for both agritourism uses, and to promote three and four-unit dwellings. Modified site plans require fewer submissions, more targeted submissions (for instance information on design or traffic), and more predictable time frames. Article XII – Special Use Permits. Recommendations: I offer the following comments and recommendations: 1. Currently, the Town Board reviews and approves special use permits, along with the site plan review that is coordinated with it. I suggest that the authority to review and approve special use permits be given to the Planning Board instead of the Town Board. Many communities have authorized the Planning Board to review and approve both special use permits and site plans instead of the Town Board. I am sure the Town Board has plenty on its agenda and the Planning Board is uniquely qualified 21 to conduct these reviews. The Planned Unit Development authority, however, needs to stay with the Town Board as that is a legislative act. 2. 270-12.2 – Town Board Action/standards for consideration. I recommend that these standards be further articulated. They are very broad. There are many specific topics of importance to Dryden that are not articulated here – such as but not limited to protecting habitats, adapting to climate change/impacts on climate change, enhancing open spaces, providing for pedestrian connections, compatibility with agricultural operations that may be near, addressing traffic congestion (traffic is noted in (D) but only related to the economic impacts of traffic), etc. I believe this list of considerations does not fully match the values and goals expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. As stated above for subdivision, clarity on what the exact procedures are for issuing a special use permit seem important. I advocate for including those procedures in the zoning law rather than just referring to them in the State Town law. Of special importance is to ensure that GML 239-n and m be followed for referral to Tompkins County and that filing procedures and timelines be clearly articulated. 4. Articulate procedures for amendments that may be needed after a special use is approved. Article XIII – Standards for Certain Uses 270-13.5 Elder Cottages. Is the Elder Cottage (270-13.5) use common in Dryden? While this is a good section, and allowing for elder cottages are great, I wonder whether the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) section adequately covers the needs? Elder Cottages have restrictions on them, including being temporary, that ADUs don’t. Recommendation: Consider whether there needs to be a distinction between regular ADUs and Elder Cottages. 13.11 Accessory Dwelling Unit. ADUs are a very important part of addressing housing needs. Recommendations: I offer these recommendations and comments for consideration: 1. ADUs are required to either be owner-occupied or the principal dwelling on the property must be owner-occupied. This has been shown to be a barrier to providing additional long-term rentals. The important part is not to allow ADUs from becoming short term rentals, and less importance would be placed on owner-occupation. This is a very difficult rule to enforce. Further there is no definition of ‘primary residence’ so it is unclear what an owner-occupant might be. 2. Excessive parking requirements may be a barrier to use of ADUs to address housing affordability. Parking should be more flexible and tailored to the location in which an ADU is located. Sometimes having a large enough driveway to serve both principal dwelling and ADU is enough. This is a development standard that could also be looked at. 3. (A) establishes that ADUs must be subordinate in area to the single family dwelling. However, this does not address height, and this should also be subordinate to the principal dwelling. 4. 2709-13.11 (B) discusses the application for an ADU. It appears as if it is an administrative review by the Planning Department with no site plan or other review required. If this is so, and no site plan or other review is necessary, I suggest this be stated to clarify the process. 5. Might the Town consider allowing for two ADUs under certain circumstances? This might be because there is a large lot, a large accessory structure such as an existing barn that could be converted to two units, the location is in a focus area or higher density area so that having two would be consistent? This 22 may expand the use of ADU to address long-term rental needs. If two are allowed, I would recommend site plan review or abbreviated site plan review processes (see below) for the second unit. 6. Consider defining and allowing tiny homes to be used as ADUs. These were identified as a problematic development in Town, but I’m not sure why. 13.12 Solar Energy Systems. Recommendations: I offer the following comments and recommendations: 1. Why are applications for installation of a large-scale solar facility reviewed by the zoning officer and not the Planning Director or Planning Department like all other types of applications? The Zoning Officer is not identified nor defined in the enforcement section. 2. The 50’ setbacks seem very small. My experience with solar is that this is not an adequate distance to separate solar uses from other types, especially when there is little natural vegetation or topography to screen it. 3. Consider use of solar overlay district to focus solar development where you want it (or where you don’t want it.) 4. Require site plan review for utility interconnects. 5. My experience with solar developments is that the screening is not often designed well. I suggest that the section on landscaping and appearance/buffering offer more specific detail on what the Town expects. When it comes to screening, what does “have the least visual effect practical” mean? I suggest the code be enhanced by including pictures or illustrations of acceptable screening. This screening should include double row of evergreen plantings (using native species). Seeding under panels should be with pollinator friendly mixes (NYS DOT has a good guide on appropriate seed mixes for NY). 6. What about fencing – many communities require wildlife fences to allow for passage of small animals. And what about ensuring that forested areas are not adversely fragmented or that it be designed to maintain hedgerows and linkages to maintain wildlife travel corridors? Do you want to promote dual use so that some agricultural uses can be intermixed with panels? Do you want to add protections to prime farmland soils? 7. Wildlife use of these areas should include field inventory and determination of whether any endangered, threatened species or critical habitats exist. 8. Another question that often comes up is whether the limits of disturbance include only the solar panels and their infrastructure or whether it also includes fencing, access roads, and landscaping? These should all be articulated on a site plan. 9. I recommend that solar facilities that are proposed on land within a NYS Certified Agricultural District be required to utilize and implement the standards included in the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets “Guidelines for Solar Energy Projects – Construction Mitigation for Agricultural Lands) (https://agriculture.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/10/solar_energy_guidelines.pdf) Article XIV – Zoning Board of Appeals Recommendations: I strongly recommend that this section be updated to be fully consistent with NYS Town Law 267, and 267 a-c. Town Law 267-a details all the required ZBA procedures including voting requirements. Section 267-b is very important in that it details the authorized actions the ZBA can take – including the very important criteria for issuing a use variance and an area variance. While I am sure that the ZBA does use these 23 State Town Laws to guide its practice, your ZBA section should not vary significantly from the process and criteria established via State Law. At the very least, these State Town Laws should be referenced as the procedures and criteria to be used for interpretations, and use/area variances. I would prefer to see all the language incorporated into the local zoning law. It is important that all parties understand the voting rules for the ZBA (a majority of all members of the full board, not a majority of all members in attendance at a meeting), and hearing and filing requirements. Article XV Planning Board Recommendations: Similar to the ZBA, Further detail for the Planning Board can be included, especially those for voting requirements. Given the Towns goal to maintain agriculture, I suggest the Town consider adding the option of adding an agricultural member as per NYS Town Law 271 (11). Article XVI - 270-163. Nonconforming Lots. This section is not clear. The wording is complex and seems to conflict. I suggest this be re-written in simpler language and the rules for nonconforming lots clear. Subsections A and B seem to conflict – at the very least this is hard to understand. General - Other Suggested Zoning Updates 1. Use Reader Aid text boxes to clarify certain sections or topics in the zoning to aid in clarity and understanding. Some language is zoning is necessarily ‘legalese,’ but Readers Aid boxes can be used to simplify meanings for the average user of the zoning and subdivision law. 2. Have up to date application forms ready for applications and offer flow chart or checklists to help people understand the process and know where the process is at once it starts. 3. Clearly identify in both the subdivision and zoning law what a complete application is (via definitions) and develop a file/handout for the public to describe what a complete application is. Public hearings should not be scheduled until the Board determines an application complete. 4. The sketch phase meetings for site plan and special use permits are critical meetings to identify to the applicant what materials must be submitted in order to make the application complete. 5. Be sure to keep up with your Building Permit Fee Schedule on an annual basis. 6. Be sure to keep your zoning map up to date with any changes or PUDs approved, as it is out of date. 7. Expand and clean up definitions section as outlined in this report. 8. Have a detailed escrow law that allows Planning Boards, Town Board and ZBA to use those funds for whatever professional help they feel are needed. The escrow law should articulate when escrow is collected, how, how accounting is to be done, appeals, and return of unused funds at the end of a project. 9. There are issues with accessory structures located in the front yard. Usually, accessory structures are not allowed in front yards. Allowing for accessory structures in the front may depend on the lot and the use – for instance, a house that is 75’ from the road is very different from one that is 300 feet. If you desire more flexibility in placement of accessory structures, I don’t think it is a one size fits all solution. Consider allowing accessory structures in the front yard under certain lot size and build-to line situations. Accessory 24 structures may be allowed to be in a front yard, but never in the front setback area. Add in clear rules for front yard setbacks for accessory structures. 10. As infill of houses and new structures continues, the zoning should have flexibility in what constitutes a front yard setback. When existing houses are closer to the road, but new structures have to meet larger setbacks, it disrupts the existing build-to line in the area and create a ‘gap-tooth’ aesthetic. I suggest that zoning allow for new houses that are infilling between existing houses to be able to match those setbacks. This will maintain the build-to line in those locations. 11. It is noted that the Stormwater Law requires that a SWPPP needs to be issued prior to any review or approval. However, a final SWPPP is generally not issued until after approval. The Board process should allow for approval of a project when a Draft SWPPP is reviewed and approved. 12. Subdivision, Site Plan and Special Use processes would benefit from specific instructions on when applications must be submitted prior to Board meetings. This will ensure time for staff, volunteer and/or professional review prior to meetings. I recommend at least 5 days prior to the meeting in order to get on the agenda. Many places require 10 days. 13. Consider adding to Use Table and supplemental regulations specific standards to allow for pop-up shops and short-term business incubator spaces. These may be able to be addressed via a modified site plan review process (see above for that discussion). 14. If the Town has opted in to allowing for Cannabis dispensary or lounges, add definitions, include these uses in the Use Table, and add supplementary regulations as may be needed. When allowed in the MU Commercial area, a site plan review would be appropriate, but a special use permit would likely be inconsistent with regulations established by New York State. 15. Include a requirement that digital copies of all application materials for both zoning and subdivision are acceptable and preferred. One or two hard copies may be all that is necessary, if any, but having everything digital will be efficient for review, and for easy posting online for public viewing. 16. I understand there is an effort to address regulating cryptocurrency and high energy users. Not only do these uses require large amounts of energy, but they create heat, noise (often at high frequencies) and vibrations. I am unclear what policy the Town wishes to take, but if you want to prohibit cryptocurrency and crypto mines, or blockchain data centers (others known as Bitcoin Blockchain Verification Facility) as an allowed use in Dryden, then definitions could be developed, and the Use Table amended to show these uses as prohibited in all areas. If the Town does not want to prohibit them, then I recommend further analysis be done to determine appropriate locations that could support this use(possibly near substations), and that they require approval via a special use permit with site plan review, with design standards that address sound barriers and possibly energy use limits. The Town should contact Plattsburgh, NY to learn more about zoning options and situations they have dealt with. 17. Clarify the difference between special use permit approval, site plan approval and what a zoning permit is (perhaps with a readers aid box). My understanding in Dryden is that the zoning permit is issued upon Planning Board or Town Board approval of a project and when someone gets a zoning permit, they are then eligible to get a building permit. For uses that do not need Board review, a zoning permit is issued when it is determined that the application meets all zoning requirements. 18. Dryden’s comprehensive plan establishes an eco/environmentally-friendly perspective – The Town wants to protect open spaces, environmentally important and sensitive locations, have development that is energy 25 efficient, and the Town is climate resilient. However, I do not see that philosophy emphasized in the land use regulations to the same degree as in the Plan. Neither the subdivision nor the zoning really conveys the importance of identifying those environmental features during a project review. This can be rectified with updated definitions, purpose statements that match the Plan and have application submission requirements that detail the types of environmental features to be reviewed and protected. With natural resource inventories, County GIS, Comprehensive Plan maps and other tools, it is quite easy to identify what environmental resources may be on or near a proposed project site. The Town could consider including the Conservation Advisory Board in the application review process so that the Town Board or Planning Board could benefit from their environmental expertise. 19. Correlate and integrate MS4 and stormwater planning and requirements better into the review process. 20. Design standards should include low impact development standards (LID from Chapter 5 of the NYS Stormwater Design Manual). 21. Consider establishing a stream corridor overlay district that is designed to protect stream banks and riparian areas. Use the Tompkins County corridor program (Enhancing Water Resources in Tompkins County: Benefits of Riparian Areas and Stream Buffers) as an aid in establishing this overlay.’ 22. Enforcement: Many comments were received about enforcement difficulties. It is unclear why this Article XVII Section 270-17.2 authorizes the Code Enforcement Officers to administer and enforce provisions of the zoning law, but then allows the Planning Department to issue zoning permits. If the Town wants a staff person other than the Code Enforcement Officer to issue zoning permits, then that staff should be authorized in the law as the zoning enforcement officer. The law should then clarify the different roles code enforcement officers have vs zoning enforcement officers. For zoning, zoning enforcement officers issue permits and enforce those permits and rules. Dryden’s law authorizes the CEO, not the Planning Department, to administer and enforce. This should be clarified to ensure that Code Enforcement Officers have both the authority and the knowledge of applications to adequately issue zoning permits. As an alternative to further drafting of enforcement language, the zoning could also refer to Chapter 118 (Building Code Administration and Enforcement) to give the Zoning Enforcement Officer all the inspection, stop- work order, certificates of compliance, reporting, and other tasks. Considerations for Addressing Housing Affordable housing is a complex issue. The toolbox for addressing housing affordability is large and needs to include a combination of tools. Housing programs need to go beyond just regulations. Regulations offer the opportunity but don’t guarantee that any affordable housing will be built. This Audit looks just at the regulatory side of housing opportunities. The regulatory goal should be to allow for a variety of housing types without regulatory process barriers, in the right places, and at the right density! And at the same time, this needs to be balanced with other goals of the town such as agriculture, rural character, traffic control, walkability, etc. It is my perspective that Dryden’s Comprehensive Plan seeks to provide a balance by establishing new zoning districts including higher density focus areas and nodes. From a regulatory perspective, Dryden already has some tools in its toolbox including use of ADUs, allowance for mixed use (at least in some places), allowance for higher densities for multi-family structures (at least in some places), and authorization for PUDs. It also includes some barriers such as restrictive mobile home/park/manufactured home rules, barriers to easily develop mixed use buildings, and requirements for site plan or special use permits for some residential types, etc. The number of dwelling units allowed is also a factor in housing supply. 26 Dryden aptly separates out lot size from density. Lot size in areas without water and sewer can be as small as allowed for water and septic purposes. Where water and sewer exists, density can be higher. See discussion of density above for more on this topic. The Affordable and Working Family Housing Committee has given considerable thought to ways of increasing housing opportunities in Town. Many of their suggestions are the same or similar to ones included in this report and their input was detailed and important. Some of the regulatory tools that could be considered by the Town and that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan include: 1. See Manufactured Home Section below for specific recommendations related to that section of the Code. 2. Streamline the approval process by allowing both single and two family dwellings as permitted uses in all districts without Planning Board or Town Board review. Assuming all standards are met, these should be approved with a building permit and/or zoning permit only. 3. Remove the site plan review requirement for 2 family dwellings in Varna. 4. Remove the requirement that upper floor apartments in an existing building need site plan review in Varna and allow upper floor apartments (mixed use buildings) in commercial areas. For existing buildings, upper floor residential uses should be permitted without Planning Board (or Town Board) approval. There should, however, be design standards that still should be met. Reduce parking requirements when possible and practical. 5. Define and allow for three and four unit structures with modified site plan review. These are a specific type of multifamily structure that could meet the missing middle housing needs. The modified site plan review process is described above in the site plan section. Ensure that the zoning articulates design and site layout standards to be met. This includes designs that emulate single family homes. Three and four-unit structures fit in to a rural area better and can be an option for additional housing in the RR and RA districts. 6. Remove requirement that ADUs in Varna need site plan review. Those should be allowed as a permitted use provided they meet development standards. 7. Be more specific in the performance expectations for Multifamily structures. This includes siting, building design, landscaping, lighting, screening, and parking. I suggest that there will be more acceptance of multifamily structures, especially three and four unit ones in the RR and RA areas especially if there was adequate screening, control of lighting, smaller and screened parking lots, and buildings designed to emulate single family structures. Form-based codes help with this, but incorporation of your design guidelines into the zoning as standards accomplishes much of this as well from the building-form perspective. 8. Consider implementation of inclusionary zoning. This can be applied to major subdivisions, PUDs, or clustered homes (such as manufactured home communities, cottage communities, etc.). This method requires a set percentage of new units to be dedicated affordable units. It is usually 10 to 15% of the units. This technique requires definition of affordability and a system to approve and monitor maintenance of those affordable units over time. 9. Incentivize provision of a wide variety of housing and of affordable housing through use of density bonuses. Density bonuses are further discussed above in the report. 27 10. Update manufactured home and home park regulations (see below). Consider defining and allowing for ‘tiny’ homes as a manufactured home. 11. Consider allowing for more floors in certain districts to allow for additional density. This would only be appropriate in locations where fire departments have apparatus able to fight fires on floors more than 2 stories. Ezra Village and Varna could be locations where 4 stories could be an effective way to allow for more units. I would caution however, that the form and design of such structures becomes more important to ensure they meet the design and performance expectations of the community – the form based code again or the current code with design standards (instead of guidelines) would be helpful to ensure that large and higher buildings still meet good design and siting and are consistent with the character of the Town. 12. Join the NYS Pro Housing program and begin to implement regulatory programs. Comments on Mobile Home Regulations (Chapter 183) The main recommendation related to Chapter 183 is to rescind it as a separate law and include a wholly new section in the zoning that addresses manufactured home developments/communities (Manufactured homes include modular homes, panelized homes, single or multi-section homes, pre-cut homes and the pre-HUD mobile homes). Much time could be spent to update this, but it is probably more efficient to start with a new model. There are many issues with the current Chapter 183 including old definitions, inconsistency with NYS policies, definitions, and building code, and more importantly – it is outdated. There are many new kinds of manufactured homes and manufactured home community developments (no longer called ‘parks’) that have opportunities for addressing housing needs in Dryden. I suggest that it is more advantageous to develop a whole new section in zoning for manufactured home communities than to try to update the existing Chapter 183. Some of the development standards within Chapter 183 do remain relevant design expectations for new manufactured housing communities. I recommend that all definitions in the Town’s code referring to mobile homes and manufactured homes be updated to reflect current definitions of those terms. The only ‘mobile’ home that legally exists now are those manufactured homes built prior to the HUD code. All manufactured homes having the HUD certification and that have a permanent foundation are just that – manufactured homes and should be treated as single family dwellings wherever single family residences are allowed. New York State Law Executive (EXC) CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE 21-B, TITLE 2, states the following: § 616. Manufactured homes as single-family dwellings in residential districts. A manufactured home that is affixed to a permanent foundation and conforms with the identical development specification and standards, including general aesthetic and architectural standards, applicable to conventional, site-built single-family dwellings in the residential 28 district in which the manufactured home is to be sited, shall be deemed to be a conforming single family dwelling for purposes of the applicable local zoning law or ordinance. Outright prohibition of manufactured homes and manufactured home communities are not allowed under New York law. A new section on manufactured homes can also incorporate the design and siting that is essential to the Conservation Subdivision, without the subdivision. These communities usually have multiple structures on one parcel but could certainly be designed as and function as a clustered conservation development. Residential design requirements can guide the development of a clustered community to ensure safety and quality. Developments of tiny homes and clustered cottages could also meet Dryden’s needs. Both types are often manufactured homes (See pictures of examples) rather than site-built. With these types of development, the structures would be permitted only on a permanent foundation and thus considered single family homes.4 Comments on Possible Use of Form Based Codes in Dryden A form -based code is a one that emphasizes the physical form of buildings and sites (rather than on separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline. If Dryden integrates your current design guidelines into the zoning law as development standards, the code moves towards more of a building and siting form-based code. A full form-based code likely will function better in some more developed areas of Dryden than others. In the RR, RA, and C especially, the Town has many important goals other than promoting density and form. Those districts should place more emphasis on environment, developments that maintain rural character and allowance for agriculture and therefore, a hybrid approach would be appropriate. A hybrid code integrates design expectations with use and other development standards to balance a lot of different, and often competing goals. In the C, RA, and RR areas especially, development should be done carefully to protect environmental features, open spaces, rural character, and agriculture. Uses, dimensions, density, and other typical zoning requirements are needed to attain that. However, a full form-based code could have more success, in my opinion, when applied in Varna, and in any future higher density nodes or focus growth areas including the development nodes and Route 13. These areas can allow for more density, a wide variety of uses, a mix of residential types, and mixed use buildings and place emphasis on walkable communities when there is access to bus lines. In those locations, the form-based code approach could offer designated locations where different building form standards apply, with clear standards for the public realm (sidewalk, on-street parking, street trees, pocket parks, public parks, etc.), and a clear and predictable application process. Comments on Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The recommendations made in this Report would help enhance consistency of Dryden’s regulations with the Comprehensive Plan. Maintenance of the current districts, with some re-looking at boundary lines, and better use of bonuses, design and siting standards, appropriate densities in areas where water, sewer and transportation exists all 4 Tiny homes or other manufactured homes that are not on a permanent foundation could be considered differently. When wheels remain, it should be classified as a recreational vehicle. Note also that NYS Building Code (Appendix Q) defines a Tiny House as being 400 square feet or less in floor area. 29 could move the Town closer to implementing smart growth principles. Those promote focusing growth in appropriate locations in denser, walkable communities that have a variety of housing types in a way that promotes agriculture and protects important environmental natural areas and open spaces. The proposed future land use map within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan offers several new concepts for zoning districts that could further that vision. The focused areas in Varna, around/between the Villages, at the 13/366 intersection as recommended are appropriate smart growth steps. An updated zoning law should not focus just on increasing density but finding ways to balance many needs and goals. The proposed zoning districts could help attain that. The Town will need to decide if a whole new code needs to be developed to attain those, or if the amendments as discussed in this Report coupled with concepts from the Plan are best. I believe that the current zoning, while needing improvement, still is a structure that works in many places in Town. A hybrid zoning map using some current zoning districts with the inclusion of some new districts as recommended in the Plan has promise. I have several observations about the proposed land use map: a. The node shown along Route 13 does not appear to be a node, but more of a corridor. Certainly, Route 13 holds opportunity for a variety of new development, but a corridor would not likely yield that walkable community you seek. Unless the form of development changes there, it is at risk of developing into a suburban-style corridor. Careful planning of new water and sewer infrastructure in the future is needed along Route 13. I believe full development of Route 13 to the extent the map shows would result in a loss of the rural community character that the Town seeks. Planning should re- look at that Route 13 corridor between 13/366 and Etna to ensure it is nodal on the ends (one end near Etna, the other near 13/366) with a more rural form in between. The 13/366 area is identified as commercial/research and development but is a critical node and I am not sure why that can’t be a mixed commercial/residential location. And as per the State Route 13 Corridor Study, it is critical to ensure that access is managed that ‘preserves safety, efficiency and character of the roadway”. This can be accomplished as recommended in an overlay or incorporated into zoning requirements of new nodes. b. The northwest corner of Town is recommended as eco-agricultural and agricultural. This area of Town has many wetlands that will pose challenges to development. With NYS DEC changes to wetland rules, the development in this area is likely going to be more challenging. Given those natural resources, it is also not an area that should have high density. Perhaps use of a conservation overlay district in this part of town could be placed to guide growth in a more environmentally and agriculturally-friendly method. I recognize that corner is adjacent to Lansing and higher levels of development, but, in my opinion, the environmental features there should drive the type of development. c. The proposed open space conservation district extends along Fall Creek and other streams. For those areas, a stream corridor overlay would serve the same purpose. Instead of creating a new zoning district, I would explore the usefulness of such an overlay to protect streams in Town. d. In Varna, the nodal development area there could be better matched to where water and sewer infrastructure exists and perhaps a bit larger to allow for expansion of both services and density. e. A policy of the town should be to focus water and sewer expansions into nodal/focus areas, and not other places. f. Bus transit should also be available at all the nodal development areas. 30 Attachment 1: Agricultural Advisory Committee Recommended Definition Updates for Ag-Related Terms The Agriculture Advisory Committee recommends the following definitions be added to Dryden’s Zoning Law: AGRICULTURAL TOURISM / AGRITOURISM - Recreational, educational and entertainment activities operated as part of an overall direct marketing strategy that contributes to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products, and including activities such as petting zoos, hayrides, corn mazes and other such recreational activities, educational demonstrations, the onsite processing of foodstuffs and sale of prepared foods for consumption on site and off site. The Agriculture Advisory Committee also proposes that the current Zoning Law’s definition of Farm Stand be merged with the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan’s recommended definition of Farm Market. It recommends the following definition of a Farm Market for incorporation into the Zoning Law: “Farm Stand” will be deleted from the Zoning Law. Lastly, the Committee recommends that the definition of Commercial Horse-Boarding Operation be amended as follows: COMMERCIAL HORSE-BOARDING OPERATION - An agricultural enterprise, consisting of at least seven acres and boarding at least 10 horses, regardless of ownership, that receives $10,000 or more in gross receipts annually from fees generated through the boarding of horses, training of horses, or riding lessons (including trail riding activities), or through the production for sale of crops, livestock, and livestock products, or through both such boarding and such production. Under no circumstances shall this definition be construed to include operations whose primary on-site function is horse racing. These recommendations were devised at the Agriculture Advisory Committee meeting of September 13, 2023, and reviewed and approved at its meeting of November 8, 2023.