The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAWHC 2026-03-03 AWHC 2026-03-03 Final AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE March 03, 2026 Virtual (via Zoom) Present: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez (chair and Town Board), Christina Dravis (Town Board) (arrived late), Charles Geisler, Ryan McHugh, Michael Murphy (Village of Dryden) (arrived late), Martha Robertson Absent: Miles McCarty (Village of Freeville) Staff: Ray Burger (Director of Planning), Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) Guest(s): Adam Bonosky (Fisher Associates) The meeting was called to order at 2:03 p.m. Review and Acceptance of Minutes L Sparling amended the draft minutes to reflect suggested minor edits and clarifications sent previously via email. RESOLUTION #4 (2026) – ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 06, 2026 M Robertson offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee hereby accepts the meeting minutes of January 6, 2026, as amended. 2nd C Geisler Roll Call Vote L Vargas-Mendez Yes C Geisler Yes R McHugh Yes M Robertson Yes Trillium Woods R Burger reported that the Planning Board has received updated application materials but is still awaiting a complete Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The application may be deemed complete and sent for a County 239 review as early as next week. Once complete, the application will be circulated to interested committees. It is unlikely to be acted upon at the March 26 meeting of the Planning Board. The Planning Board declined to create a separate subcommittee for this single project until a complete application is received, but still preferring to handle it through regular Zoning Advisory Group (ZAG) and project review meetings. The Planning Board also did not support the Agriculture Advisory Committee’s resolution for an 18-month moratorium on all major subdivisions. C Dravis arrived at 2:06 p.m. Update: ZAG C Geisler summarized the progress of the zoning law revision, noting that the data center review had caused delays in completing Phase 1. The group has now finished definitions and is currently focused on uses and prohibited uses. AWHC 2026-03-03 Final The ZAG is currently reviewing a new, more comprehensive conservation subdivision ordinance (10 pages in length) drafted by Nan Stolzenburg. C Geisler emphasized that this ordinance will give the Town more teeth in ensuring that new developments balance housing needs with environmental preservation. It is viewed as a critical tool for projects like the Trillium Woods subdivision. He will re-circulate the 10-page draft and requested feedback from Committee members by March 5. Kickoff Discussion with Fisher Associates for the Route 13 Project The Town has engaged Fisher Associates to develop a feasibility study for a large parcel of land located in the heart of the Town along Rte 13. The Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee will serve as the steering committee for this project. Via a slide deck, Adam Bonosky introduced his project team, stating that they bring a multidisciplinary approach to the project. He is the Senior Community Designer for Fisher Associates, a licensed architect and certified planner, and a specialist in walkable communities. Scott Townsend (Director of Housing and Community Design) has experience in urban reconnection (I-81 study in Syracuse and I-787 project in Albany). Arthur Hutchinson (Senior Architectural Designer) has a background in housing and creative muralism. Frank Armento is a certified planner and a specialist in grant applications and State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). M Murphy arrived at 2:22 p.m. He explained that the project site encompasses 100 acres. It is bifurcated into approximately 50 acres of highly developable real estate and 50 acres of floodplain and potential recreational land. The project aims to create a conceptual plan for walkable, well- connected spaces that would serve as a template for development across other parts of Dryden, emphasizing connectivity, sustainability, and housing diversity. Proximity to Rte 13 offers employment access, but the site requires significant consideration regarding the costs of extending water and sewer services. A Bonosky then outlined a three-phase approach for the project. Phase 1 consists of a kickoff meeting (i.e., this meeting) and a site visit on Thursday, March 5, to confirm existing conditions and experience the terrain and its natural features. Phase 2 will involve a five-day charrette as the primary vehicle. This is an intensive design period intended to produce a conceptual plan through initial concepts and rapid feedback loops (for real-time adjustments). The benefit of a charrette is that it offers minimal distractions for more production over a shorter period; solutions and concepts are developed quickly. Deliverables for this phase will comprise an illustrative plan (master site plan), housing and building types and numbers, public space types, thoroughfare types and locations, and perspectives. The week of April 6 is under consideration for this charrette. Day 1: Confirmation of existing conditions and commencement of concept design (laying out of street networks, centers, and edges) Days 2-4: Master plan conceptualization and refinement of dwelling unit counts, commercial square footage, and public spaces Day 3: Midpoint feedback meeting with the Committee using fluid digital tools (Miro) Day 5: Work-in-progress meeting with the Committee to present refined graphics and incorporated feedback Phase 3 will comprise a memo that contains a refinement of Phase 2 deliverables after revisions have been made. Deliverables for this phase will include a refined illustrative plan, perspective sketches, and a regulating plan for building intensity. AWHC 2026-03-03 Final Responding to a question about permission to walk the site, R Burger stated that when he last spoke with Giselle Leonardo in January, she had no qualms about giving the Committee site visit privilege. She has been overseas for the last month and there are currently difficulties in communication. He will re-engage with her upon her return. Committee members emphasized that “pretty pictures” must be backed by economic reality and expressed a strong desire for the consultant to pivot toward economic and market analysis (as was advertised in the RFP) rather than a design study. Such analysis would address the critical need to estimate the costs of water and sewer infrastructure to make the site attractive to a developer. The Committee also seeks data on what price points the market will bear, as there is concern that building the wrong types of units (e.g., oversized single- family homes or mispriced apartments) will lead to projects that miss the mark. The final product should be a package that convinces developers of the site’s economic feasibility, potentially through a phased approach (with Phase 1 being allotted to one developer and Phase 2 to another). A Bonosky offered to open up opportunities for community input about types of housing during the charrette phase. The Committee advised against broad public input at this stage due to the Town’s lack of site control over the private land. A Bonosky reframed his suggestion into a survey about general community concerns and wants for the area rather than site- specific desires; such a survey would inform Fisher’s process. An economic study is usually something that Fisher would outsource to someone else. R Burger put forth his view of the site as generic and typical of that found in Dryden. Public sentiment may be ascertained through the various Town advisory boards and committees, so having those be actively engaged during the charrette would be advised. He added that some of the market analysis has already been done through the Tompkins County Housing Study. C Geisler suggested that Fisher generate several different working numbers of housing units in the project area that would satisfy or richly contribute to the County’s strategic housing plan and the snapshots that it generates, given that the achievements made towards the County’s housing goals have been extremely low. A Bonosky stated that the benefit of having the numbers and design work together is flexibility, as would be illustrated in a phased approach to development. He could see what a first phase could look like, which would identify what the site could be initially. A Bonosky then talked about what makes good neighborhood design. Good neighborhoods are: 1) Readable (i.e., they contain a center and an edge). The centers would contain mixed- use and apartment buildings, as well as condos. The “missing middle” would contain row houses, quads, and duplexes. Towards the edge would be found detached single- family homes. 2) Walkable and bikeable. Everything would be located within a 5 or 10 minute walking radius, but it also means that there would be a lot of intersections. It has to feel safe and be interesting. Destinations (e.g., parks) help encourage people to walk. Walkable cities deliver outsized economic performance; people will pay more to live there. Kids raised in walkable cities earn more money as adults. 3) Focused on public space. Parking should be wisely located. 4) Flexible. Individual modular lots may be combined or split, depending on the market. AWHC 2026-03-03 Final He cited examples in Rhode Island, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and New York’s Hudson Valley where these design elements have been implemented within the past 15 years. A Bonosky recapped the Committee’s primary concerns for the project: 1) market confirmations; and 2) involvement of other boards and committees in the charrette. Fisher’s responsibility will lie in determining a suitable combination of housing elements on this and other sites that would be accepted by the community and desired by new residents. They will provide the Town with a roadmap of what can physically and economically fit on the site. C Geisler highlighted a conundrum identified in the County’s 2024 housing snapshot, where housing costs continue to rise despite a leveling or declining population, largely due to an aging demographic and smaller household sizes. 21% of Dryden’s population is 65 or older (compared to a 16% state average). This “affluent” demographic is sopping up available housing stock, including single-family homes. In addition, more people are living alone or in smaller family units, yet the average size of new homes continues to increase. M Robertson noted that short term rentals further pull units out of the residential market. A Bonosky agreed to coordinate with R Burger and County planners to integrate the most recent housing snapshot and infrastructure studies/market data as project references. There is a pronounced need for workforce housing as well as smaller ownership units and apartments to accommodate both young professionals (e.g., Cornell graduate students) and seniors looking to downsize. Due to a 90% chance of rain forecasted for Thursday, March 5, the project site walk was rescheduled to Monday, March 9 at 9:00 a.m. Town Hall will serve as the meeting point. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk