HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-14Ss
k
f
Willard C.
Commissioner of Health
nr
I,r
C .•
IYA
Schmidt, M.D., M.P.H.
Mr. Rocco Lucente
506 Warren Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
November 14, 1979
RE: Proposed Subdivision, Town of Dryden
Tax Parcel 3- 33 -1 =3.2
Dear Mr. Lucente:
On October 3 and
was made on the above
Dryden, to determine
Our findings follow:
Sewage Disposal
1287 Trumansburg Ro
Ithaca, New York
Phone 2734272
I
10, 1979 a preliminary development investigation
property, along the South Caswell Road, Town of
the suitability of-the land as a realty subdivision.
1. Individual systems are proposed on each lot since no municipal
system is available.
2. Enclosed is a copy of the Soil Conservation Service report.
As.outlined in the report there are a number of soils found in
the proposed development area.
3. In general the deep holes dug and soil percolation holes tested
confirm severe limitations for tile fields or fill type sewage
systems.
4. It appears that 2
minimum lot. dimension
filters. Those areas
cluded from developme
er elevations.
to 5 acre lots should be considered, with a
of 250 feet and utilizing built -up sand
of the parcel which are wet should be ex-
nt. Home sites should be located on the high'
Water Supply
Since no municipal water system is available, individual water sy-
stems will be required. It is expected that drilled wells on each lot
will,provide adequate safe water if properly developed.
Mr. Rocco Lucente .
RE: Proposed Subdivision, Town of Dryden
Tax Parcel 3- 33 -1 -3.2
November
r•
14, 1
Page
Your application to our agency will not be complete until the sub-
division application has been made, and any other information requested
is received. The final plan review fee is one hundred ($100.00) dollars
plus three dollars and fifty cents ($3.50) per lot.
Several
gineer durin,
problems of
the alternat
agencies.
other
a me
this s
ives s
items and alternatives were discussed with your en-
eting on October 29, 1979. Due to the developmental
ite, an engineering report exploring and explaining,
hould be prepared for submittal to the reviewing
If you have any questions on the above, either you or your engineer
should contact Mr. John Andersson or me.
CB /ms
Enc.
cc: Town of Dryden Planning Board X
Gary Lamont
Larry Fabbroni, P.E.
Very truly yours,
i
Carl Burgess
Sr. Environmental Health Technician
U
I
I
„4
Rocco Lucente- Caswell Road Subdivision
-2-
Depth to
Soil H2O Bedrock
0.5 -1.5'
0_0.5'
6:o'
i.5 -2.0'
it
0.5 -1.5'
It
0 -0.5'
60"
„
n
„
to
Septic
Severe
it
Moderate
Severe
n
,
n
• 1
A
I
Limitation for i
Dwelling with base
Severe
Moderate'
Severe !
"
„
it
Recommendations
The test pits conducted on October 3 confirmed the soil survey
in the fact that the water table appears to be as close as 6" to the
surface in many areas during certain times of the year. This will
present problems in installing adequate septic systems and providing
dry basements.
The area is flat enough so that there is no real potential erosion
hazard. However, it is still advisable to disturb"a minimal area and
immediately reseed following construction.
Although there is a low erosion hazard, the topography does present a
problem with drainage systems. Careful planning should be done so
that there are acceptable outlets for the surface water ditches and
provisions made for outletting footer drains which are definitely
needed with the high water table. Grading should be done so that
all surface water will flow away from the houses.
If you have any further questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Gary Lamont
District Conservationist
i
1 l
Planning Board 1S
Town of Dryden November 2►, 1979
• Present: Chw. B. Caldwell T. Bonn M
Lavine, J. Motsay, C. Dann,
Tb. J. Graham, Zo. S. Stewart
The meeting opened with public hearing for Cor Drost proposal for Upper
Ellis Highlands. Mr. Drost presented changes, from last meeting, on his
proposal were following two additions.
1) Wasn't clear if large acre lot had enough road frontage, but it does
2) Qmmission of little parcel of land for parcel one and Sao. Makes
one lot a little larger.
He is asking for approval of lots one through six. Lot #7 will not be for
residential use.
Mr. Drost received a letter from Department of Enviromental Conservation
stating no wet lands officially designated.
Area of twenty -one acres had plan to develop but because of high cost of
roads etc. will sell as one lot or keep until more profitable in future. It
has excess to Hunt Hill Road. Most of lots have access from Hunt Hill and one
from Woodland Road.
•Future of lot #7 unknown. The neighbors have made a bid on it. There would
be a right of way going through lot #1 to lot V. If neighbors don't buy it,
there would be no right of way.
Chairwoman Caldwell read a letter from Town Attorney Perkins concerning Lot
#7 if used for wood cutting, and at what point is wood cutting a commercial
operation or what point. farming. He stated that number of factors must be
considered.
1) Did the owner of the property own the property at the time of enact-
ment of zoning ordinance.
2) Has property been purchased solely for purpose of the timber rights
that goes with it.
3) Is the property owned by an individual who has a house on the same
property or has been purchased by commercial lumbering company.
4) Trees to be harvested planted for that purpose or exist in natural
state.
He believes sale from timber on wood lot out of the jurisdiction of town
planning board. No way to draw line between personal wood lot management or
lumbering operation. Zoning ordinance doesn't address the question.
Mr. Drost said if used for wood it would be just himself and friend to cut
wood and share the profits of the wood. He has deed restrictions, as follows.
1) No oil drilling, refining or mining operations of any kind will not
• be permitted on any lot or business or commercial enterprise be
allowed on any lot.
I
I
8
i
f.
Planning Board
-2-
November 15, 1979
Mr. Lavine made following recommendation that in addition to -- that stipu-
lation that Greg Humphrey approve turn around for snowplow. Mention be made
of potential rights of way across lot #1 so Health Department be aware of
that for final approval on that. Mr. Bonn made motion that the board give
preliminary approval to plans presented with two stipulations stated. Second
by Mr. Dann. All members voted yes.
Phil Winn and Bob Harkness came for final approval for development on Route
38. Mr. Winn presented following data:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Letter from Mahlon Perkins for town board approving title of property
Certificate from Greg Humphrey regarding construction of the road
Certificate from Greg Humphrey regarding general plan of the road
Letter from New York Department of Transportation approving the road
Copy of deed to road
Release from Tompkins County Trust Company
Release from Consolidated Gas Company from
Map itself
a) general projection of road to west changed. Lot 24 and 8 minor
because of grade required by
size. Moved road 301 to north.
of mortgage on property
lots -- pipe line across it.
changes in lot lines. Necssitated
the town. Lots basically the same
Mr. Lavine questioned frontage for lot #24, onto public road. Concern with
emergency vehicles having access to that lot even if additional roads are not yet
put in.
Depending on placement of house, as to where driveway would go.
•
Mr. Lavine concerned that whoever owns that lot have appropriate access - before
continuing onto next part of development. Owner of lot has to maintain driveway
up to point where public road, concerning snow plowing if emergency vehicle must
get there.
Mr. Lavine stated if there is not public access to that driveway on the owner's
property the town is libel. Presumably reason for road frontage. A stipulation
could be put in making the owner of lot #24, responsibility to keep his drive-
way plowed all the way up to the point of public road.
Mr. Bonn recommend that the board approve it with the assumption that the
driveway will appear at-the corner of the lot. If that does not occur, we
would have to look at it again or some other way give approval.
Mr. Dann suggested a contingent be put in that, road past these driveways,
deed it to the town before building permit issued.
Problem is what can be done since approval had been given previously, so
town not held libel. Seek Town Attorney Perkins advice as to what can be done.
Mr. Bonn made suggestion that the board approve this under the idea of the
right of way but that the town therefore has a right of way and assuming that
it therefore would plow or encouraging that it plow to the driveway on lot #24
and #8 where ever it comes out onto the road. Mr. Motsay second suggestion.
Planning Board
-3-
November.15, 1979
After discussion over whether highway can be asked to plow this, whether
temporary right of way be granted etc., Motion and second to motion.were
withdrawn.
New motion made by Mr. Motsay, that give final approval based on contingences
given at last meeting. If they've done that okay. Look into legalities so not
problem in future. Mr. Bonn second motion. All members voted yes.
Mr. Lavine stated copy of minutes be given to Attorney Perkins for considera-
tion. The board is asking for suggestions of anything we might do. First of
all, the interpretation the town put in a situation where its libel due to
the board's action and is there anything the board might do for this situation.
Such as attaching copy of minutes to building lot permit. Require right of
way granted to town and the town be required to maintain the road all the way
up to driveway at lot line. Or.anyo.ther suggestions he may have.
Letter from Dennis Lowes stating he wanted a continuance granted for Sutton
development. Board members granted this.
Mr. Max Hawkins presented information to do with mobile homes and results of
taxation loss.
Mobile homes on individual lots pay lower school taxes, by 1/3, than a con-
ventional home owner. Town of Dryden and Newfield make up 60% of all mobile
homes in the county.
Virgil requires special permit for mobile homes mainly to exercise control.
Mobile homes can't be barred but can restrict.
Mr. Stewart stated that Amount of mobile homes have gone down from twenty -
seven in 1970 to twelve in 1979. They are mainly replacement mobile homes
but three permits were for new homes replacing mobile homes.
Mr. Lavine made a suggestion that we get some help on tax part of question.
Get some help from Assessment Department or someone. Want overview and also
if in our own municipality whether this differential tax burden is indeed
a reality. Tax to service ratio. Suggestion second by Mr. Bonn,
Other Discussion.
Attorney Perkins was asked about Phil Arneson's plan to split one.seven
acre lot into two lots. As long as on existing road and it would be two lots
and be in compliance, alright. John Anderson from Health Department saw no
problems.
.Also copy of letter from Health Department enclosed concerning Rocco Lucente
sub - division on Caswell Road, stating lot sizes of two to five acres should be
considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Bray
Secretary
d
A
tl
TO: PLANNING BOARD, TOWN OF DRYDEN
FROM: W. MAX HAWKINS, 35 Sweetland Road, Town of Dryden
SUBJECT: MOBILE HOMES
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1979
We all recognize that land is a valuable resource, agricultural land
no less than urban or suburban. It is therefore imperative that close
concern be focused on land use to determine that the best use indeed is
made of available land. My observation of the proliferation of mobile
homes in the Town of Dryden is substantiated by a June 1976 report, titled
"Housing, Phase 5," prepared by the Tompkins County Department of Planning.
The Town of Dryden in 1976 had 930 mobile homes, the highest number
by far of all the towns in Tompkins County. While 701 of these were lo-
cated in parks, the balance was distributed on single lots, or clusters
of single lots. In terms of numbers and percentages, Dryden seems favored
for the location of mobile homes. It is highly probable that these figures
have increased since the 1976 study was made.
This growth, if permitted to continue, could have a detrimental effect
on the Town of Dryden on the following points: 1) strip development and,
2) tax revenues.
On strip development, it seems that if mobile homes continue to be lo-
cated on single lots, or clusters of single lots, along rural roads, a lot
of land will be taken for this purpose over the next ten years. A question
arises, what happens to the land behind these strips occupied by mobile
homes? Will attempts be made to establish more mobile homes beyond the
first row? This possibility raises questions of access roads, utilities
services, etc. In a sense, the scene could be one of an expanded mobile
home park, without the concentration of services available in established
parks. Questions of aesthetics and visual impact will inevitably emerge.
Sound planning is urged to assure orderly growth, when that happens, so
that present residents in conventional homes do not suffer.. This is es-
pecially necessary since the Ithaca - Cortland corridor is obviously a growth
area.
On tax revenues from mobile homes, the 1976 report states on page 44
that "it can be said that they contribute proportionately less in tax
revenues than they demand for comparable services." Table 5 shows that
in the Town of Dryden, a mobile home on a single lot produced $175 in
Municipal and School Taxes, $235 in Parks, and $543 from single family
dwellings. With the county -wide re- assessment of two years ago, while
the market valuations have increased for both mobile homes and regular
homes, the dollar differential in taxes probably remained much the same.
The Town is clearly losing tax dollars from mobile homes.
-2-
• A common justification for a mobile home is that it provides low -cost
housing. •It does that, but also produces fewer tax dollars so that con-
ventional home owners in that area are subsidizing the services enjoyed
by mobile home residents.
Historically, mobile homes depreciated in value while conventional
homes increased in market value. In recent years, the market value of
mobile homes has remained close to original price by virtue of inflation
offsetting depreciation. Either way, the conventional home owner comes
out on the short end of the stick when the respective properties are re
assessed. The assessment on the mobile home will thus remain nearly
constant (as will the low taxes), while the assessment on the conventional
home is increased every few years to keep it close to the market value.
Thus the taxes for the conventional home owner are increased periodically,
while the taxes for the mobile home owner remain fairly constant. This
seems unfair.
In the interests of fairness, the Town of Dryden needs a building
code or a similar device to avoid the large differences in costs or values
of residences, with the resultant differences in taxability.
In my opinion, the Town of Dryden needs to:
1) Develop a comprehensive plan for long -range orderly growth and
development within its boundaries which comprises most of the
Ithaca - Cortland corridor. What is it that the Town of Dryden
• wants to become over the next 10 -20 years?
2) Restrict the establishment of mobile homes to Mobile Home
Parks. In addition to preventing strip development, this
action would place dwellings of equal value closer together
so that the depreciative effect of a mobile home on an adja-
cent conventional home will be minimized. Placing mobile homes
in parks only clearly increases the tax revenues for the Town.
3) Recommend to the County Assessment Office a mechanism to
equalize the property tax burden between mobile home owners
and conventional home owners.
*Willard C.
Commissioner of Health
Schmidt, M.D., M.P.H.
Mr. Rocco Lucente
506 Warren Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
MENT OF HEALTH
November 14, 1979
RE: Proposed Subdivision, Town of Dryden
Tax Parcel 3- 33 -1 -3.2
Dear Mr. Lucente:
1287 Trumansburg Road
Ithaca, New York
Phone 273 -7272
On October 3 and 10, 1979 a preliminary development investigation
was made on the above property, along the South Caswell Road, Town of
Dryden, to determine the suitability of.the land as a realty subdivision.
Our findings follow:
Sewaqe Disposal
1. Individual systems are proposed on each lot since no municipal
system is available.
2. Enclosed is a copy of the Soil Conservation Service report.
As outlined in the report there are a number of soils found in
the proposed development area.
3. In general the deep holes dug and soil percolation holes tested
confirm severe limitations for tile fields or fill type sewage
systems.
4. It appears that 2
minimum lot dimension
filters. Those areas
cluded from developme
er elevations..
to 5 acre lots should be considered, with a
of 250 feet and utilizing built -up sand
of the parcel which are wet should be ex-
nt. Home sites should be located on the high-
I
Water Supply
Since no municipal water system is available, individual water sy-
stems will be required. It is expected that drilled wells on each lot
will provide adequate safe water if properly developed.
•
9
M
Mr. Rocco Lucente. November 14, 1979
RE: Proposed Subdivision, Town of Dryden
Tax Parcel 3- 33 -1 -3.2 Page 2
• Department of Environmental Conservation Permits
It is uncertain at this time whether any of the project area is
considered protected wetlands. We have asked the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation to investigate and send this department a report.
A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (S.P.D.E.S.).Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation is required. You should
sign and have your engineer complete the application and return it to
this department. There is a fee of fifty ($50.00) dollars for up to
10,000 gallons total of sewage per day; seventy -five ($75.00) dollars for
10,000 - 100,000 gallons per day. Please make the check payable to the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation but return the
check and application to this department. Subdivision plan approval
cannot be given until the S.P.D.E.S. permit has been issued.
However, the permit cannot be processed until agreement on type
and number of sewage systems can be reached between this department and
you and your engineer.
Drainage /Erosion
i
There appears to be a problem with drainage of surface waters
from the proposed project area. A drainage pattern must be clearly de-
fined and detailed on the subdivision plan.
Erosion could present problems if large amounts of soil are -moved
around.
State Environmental Quality Review
Under the New York State Environmental Quality Review procedures,
this project is an Unlisted Action, A Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment may be required by any agency that determines the project may have
a significant environmental impact. There are several agencies involved
with this application: the Town of Dryden, the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Health Department.
When one of us has received a completed application, a lead agency may
be determined according to Part 617.7 of the New York Codified Rules and
Regulations. Alternatively, each agency may make its own determination.
I am enclosing a copy of a long Environmental Assessment Form which
you or your engineer should complete and send with any application to
any agency.
0
e
Mr. Rocco Lucente .
RE: Proposed Subdivision, Town of Dryden
Tax Parcel 3- 33 -1 -3.2
• . Your application to our agency
division application has been made,
is received. The final plan review
plus three dollars and fifty cents
November 14, 1979
Page 2
will not be complete until the sub -
and any other information requested
fee is one hundred ($100.00) dollars
($3.50) per lot.
Several other
items
and alternatives were discussed
with your en-
gineer during a meeting
on October 29, 1979. Due to the
developmental
problems of this site,
an engineering report exploring and explaining
the alternatives should
be prepared for submittal to the
reviewing
agencies.
If you have any questions on
should contact Mr. John Andersson
CB /ms
Is Enc.
cc: Town of Dryden
Gary Lamont
Larry Fabbroni,
the above, either you or your engineer
or me.
Very truly yours,
/Carl Burgess
Sr. Environmental
Planning Board)(
P.E.
Health Technician