No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-22'TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 22, 1985 SPECIAL MEETING Planning Board met 8-22 -85. Chr.B. Caldwell called special meeting to order 8:10 with members R. Chase, H. Slater, B. Lavine, • R. Beck, R. Lampila, & Z.O. S. Stewart present. Absent -J. Hunt. Board reviewed letters from Mayor Lane, & Mr. & Mrs. Caporiccio, Developers Tim Buhl, John Jackson, & Brian Grinter gave presentation for benefit of those who were not present at last weeks Planning Board meeting. Also gave update from Tuesday's meeting with Lee Rd. resident: and had information requested at last weekb meetin.g(drainage, noise, & moving building). They explained they'd tried to minimize impact on Lee Rd. residents & compromised with some of their concerns. Brought figures & report on drainage; tried to address noise & pedestrian concerns from last week; stated buildings were situated at angle to provide buffer from parking lot & will try to put in vegetive buffer on 3 sides to help discourage foot traffic; vegetive buffer to consist of thorny bramble variety; will also put in 4 -5 foot wire fence to provide support for vegetation, estimated 3 -4 year maturity, approx.,5 feet high. Have alternate access road to site; instead of curved road on North side, straight road from east. Felt on -site manager would control noise problem, & possibility of moving building back 651 with planting schedule would also help lessen noise. Population increase would be significant, but not triple as •stated last week. Impact should not be that great with access road coming from Livermore Rd. Fire & emergency access same distance from 4 corners up Livermore & into project as from same 4 corners up Rte. 13 access road to back of college. R. Chase questioned if further development to North was not feasible why additional development would be back down below where original proposed site was© Didn't think developers were willing to exclude expansion possibility. They stated, that after further studies had been made, found addition may not be necessary. Thought 188 students would saturate market for quite a time to come. Logical place for further development would be down hill, but not definite. GENERAL DISCUSSION: cost of pumping system, $25000 up front with yearly maintenance of about $6,000, very costly; location & possibility of future expansion; drainage report given to board & explained to public, possibilities of parking lot being temporary run -tiff control base done with check valves or smaller pipes; not fond of control_ basin near residential area, too much hazard to children; watershed for 1700 acres concentration time approx. 2 hours; made study of possible road access coming in from Lee Rd, Rte 13, or Livermore Rd- Lee Rd out of question because of residential character of neighborhood, Rte 13 too much impact on trailer park & traffic already congested by light at TC3 entrance, besides too wet & major stream crossing, Livermore Rd would be least impact & possibility for two areas for roadway. One with big bend would be 2900 ft long, with average maximum grade of approx. 9/; second alternative straight approach 2300 ft.long with maximum grade of approx. 11 %. Either would be cut & fill, no drainage figured on roads yet, Town Highway Depto requests 12% max. grade. Also discs.- .,ed to small arking lot to studen s would be no & more parking area would need to apply 2 _ 4� t catio. if any additional buildings & why such begi....: with. Explained that developer felt most n- commuters, overflow could use campus facilities, would increase run -off even more. Realized they for a variance. B. Lavineiasked if the curved alternate access were chosen, what restrictions would be proposed to keep students from being on. reservoir access road. Buhl explained that would be the main reason for Preference to straight access, Residents present from Lee Rd., Livermore Rd., & Portzline's Trailer Park included; Macrina, Corey, Cancellari, Cary, McGuire, Strantz, Ciel.and,.Gentz, Larison, Blizzard, Smith, Wheeler, Hart, Chapman, Benson, Drowne, Bartsch, Bravo�Cullen, Lindley, & Wainwright. J. Macrina & T. Corey spokesmen. Stated radio comments had been incorrect, residents not opposed to housing but rather location of housing. Presented two large aerial maps & many photos of residences on Lee Rd. (a 30' pole with flag at top had been constructed especially to illustrate position of proposed housing in regards to view of residents) 48 houses and 59 children. Concerns of residents; unusual utilization of RC zone according to Dryden °si zoning regulations (felt public comment required); negative impact on neighborhood (noise, dust, & changing nature & condition of community); area zoned in Village as single family residences only; area not like college town with mostly student population, but family neighborhood; built or bought homes there because of family nature of street; changing strip of land from agricultural.field to high density population.; devaluation of property; invasion of privacy, even if building was moved 300 feet away; pedestrian traffic & noise still present; Dormitory Authority doesn't permit footpaths, easements etc. with developments according to talk with officials; The negative environmental impact discussed before. still remains, even with Tim's report on drainage; most of flood damage before due to back up of trees & debris on Livermore Rd, causing excess water in Little Egypt Creek; access road being salted in winter would also cause environmental impact. Comes down to the fact, Lee Rd. is single family, residential neighborhood & wants to retain that type of lifestyle.' Feel special permit should be denied on basis of adverse effect of quality of life in neighborhood. Residents also stated that up until now, TC3 had been an exemplary neighbor! Don't want college or foundation to become thorn!in side. H. Slater questioned residents if anywhere on foundation property would be acceptable location. Residents prefer moved to alternate site, many available properties near TC3. Residents fear once first building constructed & precedent set, too many opportunities could develop. Dave Bravo- Cullen read letter from his wife (unable to attend due to allergies), & presented it to Board. earl Wainwright nuestioned ability of fire & emergency squad to handle excess population without spendirkgextra tax dollars to hire full time, paid employees. a - 3 - Dave Smith said he'd lived here, One on -site manager no students. Police had to be s life- threatenting situations, playing loud music etc; too housing, just location of suc in development like the one proposed t able to succesfully control that many ummoned many times to control sometimes 19 & 20 year olds up at all hours close to residential area' Not opposing h, Residents referred to SERR, & Sec, 1303 of Dryden's own zoning regulations. Also questioned EAF that developers had submitted, pertaining to location & intensity of operation being objectionable or depreciating to adjacent or nearby properties. Be Lavine wanted to follow up on question raised earlier about vehicular access across campus land, what different about pedestrian or bike path? Buhl stated two things were being addressed. Frontage on public dedicated right -of -way necessary to obtain mortgage, foot- path not legal access right -of -way between two properties. If foot- path put in and maintained to boundary by developer, up to TC3 IF desired to continue path but would not be dedicated legal access. R. Chase felt proposed housing was needed & that developers had addressed the specific questions from last week, Thought run -off could be properly.controlled as they proposed, & that vehicular traffic could be controlled. Also felt other concerns would have to be personal decisions, Didn't see any answer to invasion of privacy, all those windows looking down on private residences. Deals with proximity. Developers had done everything within their power to answer questions, but this answer was not available to them. We've •spent great deal of time with zoning & given a lot of time & considera- tion to protecting residential areas with buffers, As it is now, we're trying to create a buffer within a buffer on this strip. The two concerns can't be taken care of on this location. His personal feeling was in favor of another location of -the building. R. Lampila addressed Ron's concerns with buffers reading Planning Board minutes of 2 -28 -85 Sec. 1206 (requiring 30' buffer strip densely planted by time of occupancy at least 8' high at maturity), H. Slater didn't think original intention of. community college proposal should ever go in reverse & become detiment. Wondered if Foundation strip was meant to be buffer originally or intended.to be developed with facilities that could serve college in time, Jackie Shulman from the Foundation had never heard that land refered to as a buffer zone. Said it had been privately owned until a short time ago, &"'sure private owners hadn't kept it as buffer. T. Corey explained how land was originally acquired in 1969 from Fay Stafford by Cortland & Tompkins Counties. Great deal of press coverage dealing with college intent & application to purchase additional adjoining lands for development of dormitories, Legislatures of both counties denied that acquisition of both this piece of land & pieces on North side TC3 because they felt it was inappropriate for community & college property. That is in the legislative documents. •Classic disagreement between two power groups. No question about that. Board of Supervisors (at that time) would not purchase land because didn't want development, i i -4- T. Buhl stated fi�ymes had changed. They had letters supporting concept and support behind dormitory project from heads of legislature from both counties. They had used them as references when approaching institutions for financing. R. Chase .felt anything that had been read about 6 1 high berms was not O going to.change..fact that all those windows would still be looking down on private residences. Definitely a PERSONAL feeling, didn't know how other Board members felt. _ B,.Caldwell asked the Board if there was a feeling for.positive recommend.&tiery to the. Town Board, R. Lampila'said he'd.be very concerned if they didn't make a positive recommendation after establishing the new MA zone three months ago, B. Lavine.felt zoning had been considered over the years & was still being considered., Thought MA zone had been created with "gun -at -their heads ", and they.--shouldn't have rushed into making those decisions. His statement now would be to halt, wasn't too late to make corrections. Some of MA regulations were worded incorrectly & were not useful. Board was pushed into decision without chacne to consider ALL aspects necessary for - details, B. Caldwell said it appeared there were strong reservations on the proposal. R. Chase didn't think anybody on Board wanted to shut door on this. R. Beck thought other sites should be checked out. GENERAL DISCUSSION about moving building back, or to an alternative site; pros -cons; developers said maybe building could be moved 600' feet to the East,.if'that would satisfy.residents. Residents NOT satisfied; discussed cost of rent ($200 per month inc, utilities); questioned possibilities of raising rent to cover costs of installing pumping system; any possibilities of monetary assistance for road development or Foundation subsidizing project (Foundation does not have excessive funds); could Foundation sell that strip of land to individuals (maybe Lee Rd. residents) & subsidize housing on another piece of property; felt ALL possibilities should be pursued! R. Chase said no sense making decision for recommendation assuming everyone agrees when they don't/ Had show of hands for preference to moving building back 6001, or seeking alternate location on other property. Majority of residents in favor of relocation site! B. Caldwell said she would work on to Town Board & have it circulated to next special meeting set for Tuesday, Public is welcome. R. Chase made, motion to adjourn meeti MEETING ADJOURNED 110030 P.M. the wording of recommendation Planning Board members before August 27, 1985 at 8:00 P.M. ng. Seconded by R. Beck. Secretary, cA y T. Buhl stated fi�ymes had changed. They had letters supporting concept and support behind dormitory project from heads of legislature from both counties. They had used them as references when approaching institutions for financing. R. Chase .felt anything that had been read about 6 1 high berms was not O going to.change..fact that all those windows would still be looking down on private residences. Definitely a PERSONAL feeling, didn't know how other Board members felt. _ B,.Caldwell asked the Board if there was a feeling for.positive recommend.&tiery to the. Town Board, R. Lampila'said he'd.be very concerned if they didn't make a positive recommendation after establishing the new MA zone three months ago, B. Lavine.felt zoning had been considered over the years & was still being considered., Thought MA zone had been created with "gun -at -their heads ", and they.--shouldn't have rushed into making those decisions. His statement now would be to halt, wasn't too late to make corrections. Some of MA regulations were worded incorrectly & were not useful. Board was pushed into decision without chacne to consider ALL aspects necessary for - details, B. Caldwell said it appeared there were strong reservations on the proposal. R. Chase didn't think anybody on Board wanted to shut door on this. R. Beck thought other sites should be checked out. GENERAL DISCUSSION about moving building back, or to an alternative site; pros -cons; developers said maybe building could be moved 600' feet to the East,.if'that would satisfy.residents. Residents NOT satisfied; discussed cost of rent ($200 per month inc, utilities); questioned possibilities of raising rent to cover costs of installing pumping system; any possibilities of monetary assistance for road development or Foundation subsidizing project (Foundation does not have excessive funds); could Foundation sell that strip of land to individuals (maybe Lee Rd. residents) & subsidize housing on another piece of property; felt ALL possibilities should be pursued! R. Chase said no sense making decision for recommendation assuming everyone agrees when they don't/ Had show of hands for preference to moving building back 6001, or seeking alternate location on other property. Majority of residents in favor of relocation site! B. Caldwell said she would work on to Town Board & have it circulated to next special meeting set for Tuesday, Public is welcome. R. Chase made, motion to adjourn meeti MEETING ADJOURNED 110030 P.M. the wording of recommendation Planning Board members before August 27, 1985 at 8:00 P.M. ng. Seconded by R. Beck. Secretary,