HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-16i►
•
U
c'
TOWN OF DRYDEN
PLANNING BOARD
MAY 169 1991
00
100
'
V
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell, Michael Hattery,
Mitchell LaVine, Robert Fletcher, John Davis, and Joseph Lalley.
ALSO PRESENT: Douglas Burrous, Robert Jarrow, and David
Herrick.
The meeting of May 16, 1991 was called to order at 8:00 PM
by Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell.
Additions and /or corrections to the April 18, 1991 minutes
will be made on the original copy.
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by J.
Davis, second by M. LaVine and approved by all members present.
Be Caldwell noted that on June 18, 1991 there is a
conference on Housing.and Economy scheduled at TC3.
Registration forms can by obtained from cooperative Extension
and the cost is $20.000
J. Lalley noted the next Long Range Flan meeting is
scheduled for the Village of Dryden Hall on June 6, 1991 at 7:00
P. M. .
PUBLIC HEARING LOT LINE MODIFICATION (LOTS 2-3 AND 2 -4)
BEAR CIRCLE ROAD - ROTUNDA HOME IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the file and noted there was on file a
letter from the Tompkins County Health Department as
requested. The short form EAF was reviewed and the
following determined: Cl, C21 C31 C41 C51 C6 and C7 "NO"
and D, "NO. PART 111 SECOND BOX CHECKED
MICHAEL
Barbara
Caldwell
MOVED
noted
the legal
TO
notice
EAF WE
placed
in the Ithaca
Journal
for the
hearing.
ON
With no
objections
PROPOSAL.
from
any Board
Members
that the
hearing
be postponed,
due
to
the
fact the
Rotunda's
were
unable
to
attend
tonight,
the
hearing
was held as
scheduled.
The Board reviewed the file and noted there was on file a
letter from the Tompkins County Health Department as
requested. The short form EAF was reviewed and the
following determined: Cl, C21 C31 C41 C51 C6 and C7 "NO"
and D, "NO. PART 111 SECOND BOX CHECKED
MICHAEL
LAVINE
MOVED
AS
PER ASSESSMENT
TO
PART TWO OF THE
EAF WE
ISSUE
A
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
ON
THIS
PROPOSAL.
SECOND BY JOSEPH LALLEY.
NO DISCUSSION
VOTE
CARRIED
YES ( 6 ) Be
J.
NO (0)
Caldwell,
Davis, R.
.
M. Hattery, J. La 1 1 e y,
Fletcher, M. LaVine.
r
PB 5 -16 -91 PG. 2
Douglas (Burnous.. ?) asked for a clarification of the EAF.
• He is the potential buyer of the propert.y if the modification is
approved.
•
•
With no further question or comments Joseph Lalley moved to
close the Public Hearing. Second by Michael Hattery.
VOTE
CARRIED
YES (6)
Eli
(0)
Be
Caldwell,
the
MOVED TO
M.
Hattery,
J.
Lalley,
SUBDIVISION
J.
Davis,
PROPOSED.
R.
Fletcher
and
M.
LaVine.
up
DECISION
JOHN
DAVIS
the
MOVED TO
APPROVE
THE
MODIFICATION
TO THE
SUBDIVISION
lateer by the
AS
PROPOSED.
SECOND
BY-
MITCHELL
LAVINE.
up
VOTE YES (6) Be CALDWELL, M. HATTERY, J. LALLEY,
J. DAV I S, R. FLETCHER AND M. LAVINE.
NO (0)
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 5 LOT SUBDIVISION
AT /ON OR ABOUT 950 SNYDER HILL ROAD
JARROW PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION HEARING
The Board
discussed briefly
the
proposed
covenants and what
would be involved
and necessary
for
a change
lateer by the
residejice, and
who's responsible
for
enforcement.
were
brought
up
at
,
Mr.
Jarrow
stated
he
would
like
to
address
the concerns
which
were
brought
up
at
last
months
meeting:
1. To have Health Department
with the septic systems.
involvement in this process
2. To have some involvement with the County in the
planning review process. Noted Legally they are
required to do that.
F
PP 5 -1E -91 PG. 3
3. Concerns about access to the other.Caroline lands owned
by Jarrow.
4. There
were
concerns
about the road grades
specifications.
Jarrow
all
of
5. Specifications on sight distance for the proposed road
entrance to Snyder Hill Road.
E. Drainage control during and after constructions
Mr.
Jarrow
stated
issued to
that
Jarrow
all
of
these
transferable.'
Board and put
It is
to rest
issues
were
some what
technical
in
nature
to the
over the
and
the
engineering
be developed
into these
and surveying
lots.
firm he is
working
with
T.G.
Miller
has
sent
a
representative.
Mr. Jarrow informed the Board that he had again discussed
the proposed plan with the neighbors and no objections were
raised to him concerning this proposal. The covenants were
designed with their interest in mind.
David A. Herrick, Engineer discussed the concerns:
The Tompkins County Health Department had advised them that
• they did not wish to be involved with the review process because
they are dealing with five lots, three in access of five acres,
that they didn't need to.
I have convinced them that it is necessary to do so. We are
filling out a permit application for each lot, which will
involve soil testing, deep hole test, perk hold test starting on
Monday in an attempt to get a septic system permit for each lot.
The permits
will
be
issued to
Mr.
Jarrow
and
are
not
transferable.'
Board and put
It is
to rest
our
any
hope to
concerns
bring
the
these
Board
permits
may
have
to the
over the
ability of this
site
to
be developed
into these
five
lots.
We have purposed the lots in the back to be large. The ten
acre parcel takes in a considerable amount bf wood land in the
back, which has from the approximate woods line what you'd call
a mountain goat slope up to the top of the property
The areas on lot two, right below the wood line are
spacious and an empty field and that's where septic system would
be purposed. Same thing for lot three. They are all in *rCess
of two acres, in hopes to install sand filters as an alternative
system, if we find the conventional tile fields won't work.
The soil maps indicate the majority of the sites are covered
• by Bath or Lordstown soils which the SCS consider to be well or
moderately well drained material.
•
•
PB 5 -16-91 PG. 4
Second issue was County Planning Department involvement.
We have sent to the County Planning Department the same
information already submitted to the Town. All the applications
and forms submitted are in accordance with the Municipal Law
that requires this when ever we're within 500 feet of an
adjoining municipality. I understand they have 30 days to
review the material 'submitted and get back to the Planning Board
with any concerns they may have. (30 day tentative date would
be 5 -8 -91)
Third point
- access
object
concerning
to
the
remaining
one lot as proposed.
the
piece
lands
that
Jarrow owns
through
on the
easement
other
side
deed
was
of
the
Town
Line.
Lot
DRYDEN
connect
it woul
the Jar,
time -
Two has an e
- TOWN OF CAR
ed these two
d be very eas
row's wanted
the property
X
O
f
y
t
i
i
L
i
0
s
sting
INE i
elds
to ti
on T
very
fa
s i
and
e i
he
s
rm
mpr
f
nt o
Jar
eep
lan
int
0m
th
row
on
e (about wh
ed on the m
a construct
e road if s
' s have no
the Caroli
ere TOWN OF
ap) that
ion stand point
omeone other then
desire at this
ne Side.
It would be feasible to construct a road from this third
curve up near the "T" over t.o the Town of Caroline property.
Twenty acres on this lot is buildable, ten acres very steep
up in the wooded area. Mr. Jarrow stated he had no
objection to placing a right of wav on this site. However
thought if anyone did develope the Caroline property they
would come from Thomas up. The land is land locked now and
purchases would have to transpire before coming into the
property from Thomas Road.
Discussion
Jarrow does not
object
concerning
way but
retaining
the
one lot as proposed.
the
piece
of
land
through
easement
or
deed
was
discussed.
The
owner
of
lot
two
when
he
/she
purchases
the
property
would
know
there
is
a
sixty
foot
strip
that
is
to
be
conveyed
to
the
Town
when
the
Town
had
reason
to extent
the
road.
If
they
know
from
the
start
that
to
give
there
up
is a
that
potential
property.
there
for
a
road,
then
they
have
J. Lalley sugge
3 so that it would
section in question
the trees, the pote
is on the South sid
the North side with
st e
be
nti
e o
th
d
c
R
a
f
e
changi
lean in
ecogniz
1 for 1
the ri
Town o
ng the boundary
the future that
ing Mr. Jarrow w
ess problems exi
ght of way and L
wning the unimpr
lin
th
ant
st
of
ove
e of 1
e Town
s to p
if lot
line
d port
ots
ow
rot
li
is
ion
and
ns the
ect
ne 1
on
Mr.
Jarrow does not
object
to the Town owning the right of
way but
would like to keep
the
one lot as proposed.
V
PB 5 -16 -91 PG. 5
M. LaVine suggested the Board might still want to
• REQUEST FROM TOWN ATTORNEY PERKINS TO INVESTIGATE TWO
ISSUES.
1. SHOULD A STRIP OF LAND BE DEEDED TO THE TOWN WHICH WILL
SEPARATE TWO DIFFERENT PARTS OF PARCEL #2. WOULD THAT
CREATE A TECHNICAL OR LEGAL PROBLEM REGARDING THE UNITY
OF LOT #2.
20 IS THERE ANOTHER TOOL THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO
PROTECT THE
TOWN DESIRE
TO PROVIDE
ROAD ACCESS FOR ANY
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF
THE OTHER
LANDS OF JARROW WITHIN
THE TOWN OF
CAROLINE
OTHER THAN
OWNERSHIP BEING
TRANSFERRED
TO THE TOWN,
SUCH AS
SOME SORT OF AN
EASEMENT WHICH
STILL
PROTECTS THE
TOWNS FUTURE
INTEREST.
for
sight
distance and the
Mr. Herrick continued with the concerns:
#4 Road Grades: Superintendent Don Gilbert stressed that
he is sticking with the limitation of approximately ten per cent
on the road grades.from now on. We had originally in the middle
a short section of 11.9. What this means is that we do have an
area of fill, which will have to be completed with material we
cut from the beginning and end of our road.
! Starting out from Snyder Hill Road on the far left it's 5%
we do a transition to about 8 and 1/2 and the last 500 feet of
the project is 10% Up to the "T" turn around. Mr. Gilbert has
reviewed the revised sketch and stated he would send a letter to
the Board.
The
length
A
of the road is 1,088 feet from the center of
Snyder Hill
profile
Road.
#6. Site drainage during and after constructiona
Part
construct
the site
been adde
note that
tents of
of
ion
and
d t
be
an
our commit
documents
the need
o this .dra
low lot 1
acre in si
ti
ment wit
that wi
for eros
wing, we
is calle
ze.
h
1
i
9
d
Mr. Jarr
1 take in
on contro
re consid
proposed
ow is
to ace
1. On
eying
pond,
to prepare
ount the slope on
e thing that has
a pond on lot #1,
approximately twa
It happens to be a point where several low water course
areas come together on lot #1. It has natural ridges which
• would form two thirds of the circle and then completion of a
dike on the remaining third. We are working with Lyle
Crandall for proper location and construction techniques for use
on the pond.
#5.
A
complete
profile
was
done
on
Snyder
Hill Road where
it
intersects
with
the
proposed
road
for
sight
distance and the
visibility
is
over
500
feet
from
both
directions
Using the
object
height,
and
requirements
the
State
rises.
#6. Site drainage during and after constructiona
Part
construct
the site
been adde
note that
tents of
of
ion
and
d t
be
an
our commit
documents
the need
o this .dra
low lot 1
acre in si
ti
ment wit
that wi
for eros
wing, we
is calle
ze.
h
1
i
9
d
Mr. Jarr
1 take in
on contro
re consid
proposed
ow is
to ace
1. On
eying
pond,
to prepare
ount the slope on
e thing that has
a pond on lot #1,
approximately twa
It happens to be a point where several low water course
areas come together on lot #1. It has natural ridges which
• would form two thirds of the circle and then completion of a
dike on the remaining third. We are working with Lyle
Crandall for proper location and construction techniques for use
on the pond.
It would serve tw
• has a nice setting, i
far as construction i
during construction.
before the constructi
drainage it ties into
property it would hav
will return after all
established to dredge
PB 5 -16 -91 PG. 6
o purposes: 1.
t has some nice
t will work as
I would purpos
on of the road,
the pond befor
e settled out a
the road work
that out.
Aesthet
pines
our sed
e that
so tha
e it ex
ny silt
is done
ics, for lot 1, it
around it. 2. As
iment collection base
that pond be built
t when we do have
its the Jarrow
The contractor
and grass is
The proposed house would be built to the left of #1, on Lot
number one, South of the pond. There is a natural ridge at the
left of the pond, that is the exit point now for a lot of the
drainage that comes from the northwestern part of the property,
exiting across the Klein's in an existing gully down to a
tributary stream which is the boundary between Wate and Jarrow
and is a contributory stream to Six Mile Creek.
reqLi
Lots
what
lots
•
Part
M
e
5
i
1
REVIEW FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BY BOARD
LaVine had a que
ted for the follo
.Streets:), which
s being asked for
1 -5 and after str
of the EAF
A. 2
st
wi
h
ee
i
n
a
t
on on the
g lots an
s been le
e Board t
s.. to be
After discussion and t
indicate type - lands
the board and applican
appropriate to place 1
Brushland (Non- agricul
applica
d street
ft BLANK
o approv
named.
Tying t
caping,
t felt
3s8 Aft
tUral),
tion #7, (Approval
s •at this phase:
and wish to know
e. Placed after
o iden
After
it wou
er Com
ALTER
t i f y
Com
ld b
plet
ING
"other"
pletion 11.3,
e more
i.on on Meadow or
THE EAF.
REMINDER NOTE TO CONSIDER A RESTRICTION ON THE
SUBDIVISION. (ISSUE PERTAINING TO LEAVING ACREAGE ON
EACH LOT UNIMPROVED SO DRAINAGE FROM THE STEEP SLOPES
IS NOT ALTERED DUE TO VAST LANDSCAPING)
Determined that the 1.2+ acres After Completion on
Roads, buildings and other; paved surfaces (road,
driveways and roof tops) was an accurate figure,
15 Modified unnamed tributary from FALL to SIX MILE
Creek.
17 a) Yes
• b) Yes
r.
•
•
•
PB 5 -16 -91 PG. 7
B 1. c)
Project
acreage
to remain undeveloped changed 35.7
to
0
acres.
NOT
f) Number of off- street parking spaces proposed
changed 10 to proposed 15.
3. a) answer
to read
"Landscaping
/grading within ROW for
proposed
road ".
COULD
NOT
BE COMPLETED
- DUE TO
UNAVAILABLE
APPLICATIONS
E1. And Fossil
fuels
added
after Domestic electric for
type of increased
THE
energy
use.
25. Approvals required: No changes to answers.
Heal
need
prov
Boar
deci
t
e
i
d
5
h D
d d
din
to
ion
epartme
ue to t
g the i
have t
on the
nt ap
he si
nform
he in
subd
Pr
ze
at
fo
iv
oval was discussed. It is not
of lots, however they are
ion on septic approval for the
rmation to help with the approval
ision.
DETERMINATION
OF SIGNIFICANCE
COULD
NOT
BE COMPLETED
- DUE TO
UNAVAILABLE
APPLICATIONS
TO COMPLETE
THE
BOARDS REVIEW
PROCESS.
TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING RECOMMENDATION HAS NOT
BEEN RECEIVED AS OF THIS DATE.
MICHAEL HATTERY MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE RECESSED
UNTIL JUNE 139 1991 AT 8:30.
SECOND BY ROBERT FLETCHER.
DISCUSSION:
J. Davis wished to know if this would create a problem for the
applicants?
D. Herrick stated that he had hoped for a conditional
preliminary plat approval tonight, which was not possible
because the board hasn't heard from the County which is needed
for the SEAR process.
J. Lalley mentioned that #8 of the Covenants might be more
explicate pertaining to the wording of Usual household pets.
B. Caldwell indicated a #18 be added for protection of existing
drainage coverage of the land, and a mechanism-for existing
Covenants.
•
•
VOTE YES (6)
NO (0)
RP 5 -16 -91 PG. 8
Be Caldwell, M. Hattery,
J. Davis, R. Fletcher, M.
CARRIED
J. Lalley,
LaV ine.
M.
LAVINE MOVED TO
RECONSIDER
THE
MOTION
TO
ALTER THE DATE TO
THE
REGULAR MONTHLY
MEETING
DATE
OF JUNE
20,
1991.
SECOND BY J. DAVIS.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Jarrow stated he would not be present but his representative
would be.
VOTE
YES (6)
NO (0)
Be Caldwell, M. Hattery, J. Lalley,
J. Davis, R. Fletcher, M. LaVine.
CARRIED
zauces &a
HEARING G60SE -8
D. Harrtpk stated he would like to proceed with the
construction documents and asked if the Board thought there were
any issues which might nullify his drawings?
M. LaVine's concern was modifications.
He wasn't concerned with modification, only if the sub
division wasn't approved then he would have been billing time to
the Jarrows.
It
was not
there
had been concerns
brought up, but the
decision
had
to
be
theirs.
J. Lalley moved to adjourned. Second M. Hattery Carried
Respectfully submitted,
ft