HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB ZAG 2025-05-01
Zoning Advisory Group Meeting 5/1/25
Minutes APPROVED 6-5-25
Attendees
PB: Tony, Bill, Chris, John, Craig
Staff: Ray, Joy
CPEA: Nan
ZAG: Martha (Housing), Evan (Ag), Doug (Ag), Janis (ZBA), Marie (Climate)
TB: Dan
1. We made some edits to the minutes from the 4/3 meeting. JAK will make the
changes to the minutes and Project Plan documents and they will be placed on the
project web page once it gets created on the town web page.
2. Janis gave an update on her work to clarify building projections into required
setbacks.
• She suggested that we define "building or floor area” and add it to the
“Definitions” Section of the Code. This definition could read along these lines:
"The area within the surrounding exterior walls plus any exterior spaces that are
permanently attached, such as, but not limited to, decks, patios, carports, gazebos,
balconies."
• There was discussion as to whether “eaves” should be included in the above
definition. Note for future consideration: In most zoning codes, eaves are
generally excluded from the calculation of building area. This means that when
determining the allowable building area on a lot, the area covered by eaves (the
overhang of the roof) is not counted.
• If “building area” was added to definitions, the Area and Bulk Regulations (270-
6.1) for “Accessory building” could be clarified by adding the following:
“Accessory building with less than 15 feet in building height and a building
area of 200 square feet or less.”
• It was then noted that there are various inconsistencies in the dimensional
descriptions of “Buildings” and “Buildings, Accessory.” For example, In
Terminology, (270-3.2) “Building” is said to be any structure greater than 150
square feet in area; “Building, Accessory” lacks any mention of square footage;
and, as noted above, the Area/Bulk table implies 200 square feet or less is the
determining factor for a setback requirement.
• The other key issue that needs consideration regards setback requirements.
Currently, accessory structures under 200 square feet can be 1 foot from the side
and/or rear yard. Discussion revolved around whether that setback was sufficient
(Note: Many towns require 5 feet).
Janis will report on progress at the next meeting.
Zoning Focus Meeting 5/1/25
Minutes
Page 2
3. We briefly discussed Battery Energy Storage Systems and Nan noted that, if public
water is extended into rural districts, we need to be careful that it doesn’t cause
unintended residential density.
4. We agreed 270-13.5 Elder Cottages should be deleted and that the new ADU
ordinance will allow the use with no requirement to remove the building at some
future date.
5. We agree ADUs and their principle dwellings will not be required to be owner
occupied. Both can be rentals. Enforcement of short term rental law is important
regarding its requirement for the owner to be on the premises.
6. We agree ADU area should be less than the principal dwelling and the height should
be equal or less.
7. On the topic of duplex ADUs/ two ADUs on a property, Nan noted she’s frequently
seen strong rejection of the idea by community members. We agreed that multifamily
dwellings and 3+ dwellings on a property are regulated elsewhere in zoning (Article
VI Area and Bulk) and should not be included in the ADU code.
8. We agree ADU’s should be by right in Varna. There are already by right elsewhere.
9. We agreed we need to define Tiny Homes per the definition in the building code and
allow them in all residential zones for primary or ADU use.
10. We noted that NYS law requires manufactured homes (including manufactured tiny
homes) must be allowed wherever site-built homes/ADUs are permitted.
11. We agree to change the approval from SUP to SPR for Senior Care, Manufactured
Home Parks, Home Occupations, Upper Floor Apts, and Multifamily Dwelling in the
MC district.
12. We agreed that we should reduce required road frontages and lot widths for
residential lots. Large dimensions unnecessarily spread development out and should
not be used to control density. Nan will make recommendations.
13. We discussed how to integrate the comments made by the Housing Taskforce into the
scope of the Phase 1 Zoning Update. The Planning Board chose a subset of CPEA’s
overall set of recommendations that will affect meaningful changes to zoning but also
to limit the Phase 1 scope to a manageable size. The ZAG will consider Housing
Taskforce input on the items in the Phase 1 scope. Other comments from the
Taskforce will apply to future phases of the update.
Zoning Focus Meeting 5/1/25
Minutes
Page 3
14. We jumped ahead a bit in the agenda and got into a discussion of density in the RA
and CV districts and CPEA’s observation that the one acre lot size in these districts is
inconsistent with a main goal in the Comprehensive Plan to protect/preserve the
rural/agricultural environment in Dryden. I’ve tried to capture the essence of the
discussion below. In addition, please see the attached Appendix that contains Comp
Plan and Zoning Density information that was not available for the meeting
1. Current zoning that allows one acre lots everywhere is not meeting the
intent of Dryden’s Comprehensive Plan to protect/preserve natural open
space, prime farm land, sensitive environmental areas, and scenic resources.
2. A large majority of Dryden’s citizens who participated in the development
of Dryden2045 voiced the need to protect Dryden’s rural character.
3. Zoning in the RA and CV districts should be changed to be more consistent
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. While Dryden’s large farm operations probably are not interesting is selling
lots, smaller farm operations and other property owners need to be allowed
to sell lots on their property.
5. If we increase the minimum lot size to meet Comprehensive Plan goals, it
forces farm operations to lose more farmable land when they sell a lot and it
reduces the number of lots that some land owners can sell.
6. The existing Conservation Subdivision regulation can be used effectively to
protect open space but it only applies to major subdivisions and cannot be
used for residential communities where the land is not subdivided.
7. Much of the development in the CV and RA districts is thru minor
subdivisions and consequently it receives no review from the PB or TB.
8. The Conservation Subdivision ordinance is lacking criteria that would
require protection of high quality farm land and scenic resources.
9. Dryden’s 2005 Comprehensive Plan called for protection/preservation of the
town’s rural character. At that time, the Planning Department recommended
minimum lot sizes as large as nine acres in the CV and RR districts in the
subsequent zoning revision. The larger lot sizes never made it into the
zoning code due to strong objection from farmers and other land owners.
10. Nan noted that she’s worked with communities similar to Dryden where
they used density control in place of lot size controls to maintain rural
character.
11. We discussed how the housing diversity/affordability goals fit into the
approach to zoning in the CV and RR districts. We noted that a principal
goal in CV and RR is to limit development and keep these districts rural.
Also that the Comprehensive Plan is clear that Dryden should work to
implement housing goals in and near existing population centers.
12. State law requires zoning to be consistent with comprehensive planning
goals. Dryden should work to strike a balance between the need to allow
property owners to sell lots and the desire of Dryden residents to maintain
the rural character of their community.
Zoning Focus Meeting 5/1/25
Minutes
Page 4
13. We asked Nan to bring examples from her work with communities similar
to Dryden of how they successfully switched from controlling lot size to
controlling density in their districts where they wanted to preserve open
space, prime farm land, sensitive environmental areas, and scenic resources.
Appendix to the Minutes
Excerpts from Dryden 2045 Comprehensive Plan:
Vision: The Town of Dryden is committed to sustainable and inclusive development that
preserves open space, protects its rural character, and supports its agricultural heritage,
while improving quality of life for current and future residents.
• Diverse and affordable housing for all residents
• Support long term viability of agricultural community,
• Protect/preserve natural open space, prime farm land, sensitive environmental areas,
scenic resources
• Channel new development into nodal areas around existing villages, hamlets,
developments
Excerpts from Dryden’s Zoning:
NR RR RA CV Notes
Conservation Subdivision Not Allowed Allowed Allowed Required Can only be used for major
subdivision (5+ lots)
Minimum Lot Size
w/ Public W&S 10000sf 10000sf 10000sf 10000sf
w/o Public W&S 1ac
1ac minor SD/CSD
2ac major SD
1ac minor SD/CSD
2ac major SD 1ac
Smaller lots are allowed with
Conservation Subdivision (CSD)
Road Frontage 150ft 250ft 250ft 250ft
Flag Lots NA Allowed Allowed Allowed Min 25ft frontage
Max # of Dwellings by right 1 SF+ADU 1 SF+ADU 1 SF+ADU 1 SF+ADU SF=Single Family, TF=Two Family
or 1 TF or 1 TF or 1 TF
Max # of Dwellings w/ SPR NA 2-4 SF or TF 2-4 SF or TF NA
Max # of Dwellings w/ SUP NA
Up to 2DU/ac,
10DU/lot
Up to 2DU/ac,
10DU/lot NA
Note the conservation subdivision law does not change the allowed density calculation
that sets a maximum of one dwelling per acre of the parent parcel size. It does allow
reduction in lot sizes but the overall density is not affected by switching from a standard
major subdivision to a conservation subdivision.
5/23/25 jak