No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-23• • 0 ` TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 AGENDA: ROBERT AND DORIS SPEER - PUBLIC HEARING to adjust westerly property line at 136 Lake Road. STEPHEN AND GAYLE WHICHERa PUBLIC HEARING to modify boundary lines, Morewoods Subdivision at Hunt Hill Road. BREWSTER CHASE: PUBLIC HEARING for a 3 lot subdivision at Etna Road, Ithaca, NY. PEREGRINE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION: REVIEW Snyder Hill Environmental Impact Statement, MEMBERS PRESENT: CHAIR BARBARA CALDWELL, CLAUDIA BRENNER, JOHN DAVIS, MICHAEL KELLERHER, MITCHELL LAVINE, ROBERT FLETCHER AND JOSEPH LALLEY 111. Also present Clinton Cott Richard Stil Putnam, Ralp but not limited to: Ra eri 11, Stephen Whicher, lwell, Kay Barns, Donal h Varn, Larry Fabbroni bert Speer, Henry Slater, Mr. Moore, Joann Stillwell, d Gilbert, Min Creasey, Dave and Mario Giannella. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The meeting was called to order by Chair. B. Caldwell. Joseph Lalley moved to approve the August 19, 1993 minutes with corrections. Second by John Davis. Approved. Joseph Lalley moved to approve the July 15, 1993 minutes. Second by Michael Kellerher. Approved, Publ to adjus property 150 feet Riis at PUBLIC HEARING - ROBERT AND DORIS SPEER ADJUST is Heari t their by deed +/- dee 13` Lake PRELIMINARY /FINAL PLAT MENT TC ng on t Westerl ing or p to th Road. PROPERTY he applica y property selling a e adjoinin LI ti 1 st 9 NE AT 136 LAKE ROAD on of Robert and Doris Speer ine at their 136 lake road rip of land 4'feet +/- by property owned by Ron & Della PB 9 -23 -93 PG 2 Henry Slater stated that a variance was granted to Mr. and .Mrs. Riis by the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct a garage closer than 15 feet to their side boundary line. When the building permit was granted a line was strung between the two properties in accordance with the survey. This spring when the Riis's applied for a loan and were required to have an updated survey it was determined that there was an error in the original survey. The adjusted lot line placed a portion of the garage on the Speer property by approximately six inches. The Speer's would like to correct this mistake by deeding the necessary land to Mr. and Mrs. Riis. The land in question was part of the Freeville Lumber Subdivision and the Town Planning Board needs to approve the change. • L I Mr. Slater also stated that by making this adjustment to the boundary line it would not result in making either parcel a non conforming lot. NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC Joseph Lalley moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Claudia Brenner. Approved by all members present with no abstentions. SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM REVIEW OFFICER JOSEPH LALLEY (Page 3 is a copy of the EAF reviewed for applicant Robert and Doris Speer) JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE SHORT FORM EAF. SECOND BY JOHN DAVIS. DISCUSSION: VOTE YES (7) NO (0) B. Caldwell, M. Lavine, J. ABSTAINED R. Fletcher, Davis and C. (0) M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, Brenner, JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF THE SUBDIVISION BY ADJUSTING THE LOT LINE SOUTHEASTERLY AS PROPOSED ON SAID MAP, SECOND BY MITCHELL LAVINE. DISCUSSION: VOTE YES (7) NO (0) B. Caldwell, M. Lavine, J. *R. Fletcher left. ABSTAINED R. Fletcher, Davis and C. (0) M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, Brenner. • • 14 -16 -4 (2187) —Text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 817.211 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I— PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) SEQR 1. APPLIpf�lLS�NSOR � 2. PROJECT NAME 1• /T �/J 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality County J L ( 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address n19 road in (ersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFE TED: �[) O �– PZ Initially ' acres Ultimately acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? %Yes ❑ No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? I t� Residential ❑ Industrial 11 Commercial El Agriculture El Park /ForestlOpen space El Other Describe: 10. 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL►? ❑ Yes NNo 11 yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovais 11. GOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACT; "?I HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Yes ❑ N : If yogi, 93t ar r:ncy name and permit/approval Via 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REOUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE /.2, Applicant /sponsor U_ �. N r l 3 name: _L! .5 _ Signature: It the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 • 0' PB 9 -23 -93 PG 4 PUBLIC HEARING - STEPHEN AND GAYLE WHICHER PRELIMINARY /FINAL PLAT ADJUST LOT LINES - HUNT HILL ROAD - MOORE WOODS SUBDIVISION The Whicher public are notice requesting was read permission by the to Chair: adjust Stephen the existing and Gayle lot lines of 3 lots of an approved subdivision, known as Moore Woods and is located on Hunt Hill Road in the 150 -230 block area. The lots to be altered are on the west side of Hunt Hill. Mr. Whicher stated that they would lik lines in order to shorten their driveway. would mean a 750 foot driveway. Since the have met with the Health Department and ev satisfactory. There have been no changes meeting, e to alt The on last me erything since th er the lot ginal access eting they is e last NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND BY MITCHELL LAVINE. DISCUSSION: VOTE YES (6) NO (0) B. Caldwell, C. M. Lavine, and ABSTAINED Brenner, J. Davis. (0) M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM REVIEW OFFICER JOSEPH LALLEY (Page 5 is a copy of the EAF reviewed for applicant Stephen and Gayle Whicher) JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE SHORT FORM EAF. SECOND BY MITCHELL LAVINE DISCUSSION: VOTE YES (6) B. Caldwell, C. M. Lavine, and • NO (0) ABSTAINED Brenner, J. Davis. (0) M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, 8 • • 14.18.4(2/87) —Text 12 PROTECT I.D. NUMBER 817.21 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SNORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SEOR PART 1— PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Appllcant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME r - 3. PROJECT LOCATION: � T N ; I \ (Za Municipality %sc.d.v ct:es County 5 Tc ,k:N s 4. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) q�c 1n ry n T4 C. 4 - I - 'A 1 . e.L 31... K �ti r I•t; t t ,L� 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion ModifIcatlonlalteralIon_ 8. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 11, -Ck; -F...1 L '3 Lt. lyPC 2.2.e 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially ' S acres Ultimately 7 S• S acres Lj r -7 ��. c / 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? KYes ❑ No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest /Open space Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION 114VOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ❑ Yes W No If yes, list agency(s) and permit /approvals 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACT; IN HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ® Yes ❑ No 11 yes, list ac ency name and permitlapproval u�`c�( )v. oyez-Y►?c .S -�� 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAI REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes ONO I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Appllcantlsponsor name: T hta3 IL Date: Signature: If the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 r. • • PB 9 -23 -93 PG 6 MITCHELL LAVINE Stillwell subdivision would MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF as agent for Brewster Chase. THE Slater SUBDIVISION present any that the map was the same that was primarily approved some AS MAPPED. SECOND BY JOHN DAVIS. DISCUSSION: VOTE YES (6) B. Caldwell, C. Brenner, M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, M. Lavine, and J. Davis. NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) A4001ZC3 VU00 /) MR. AND MRS. MOORE COKE BRIEFLY TO THE BOARD CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE WfgB SUBDIVISION• PERMISSION WAS GIVEN TO WALK THE LAND. A SKETCH CONFERENCE SHOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE MINUTES /APPROVAL MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. • a•..• a a• a• a a a a• a•• a a a a v• a a.•• a a a• a a.•. a a a•• a a a a a BREWSTER CHASE - PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL PLAT 3 LOT SUBDIVISION - INTERSECTION OF ETNA & PINCKNEY ROAD Joann Early Stillwell subdivision would appeared as agent for Brewster Chase. Henry Slater noted present any that the map was the same that was primarily approved some time ago. The Board noted that the subdivision would have a long driveway however as it was 25' wide should not present any problems for emergency travel, FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM REVIEW OFFICER JOSEPH LALLEY The agent appeared as a favor for the applicant and was not familiar enough to answer the boards questions relating to the EAF• There appeared to be a discrepancy with the figures submitted for soil drainage for site description on the overall project. The agent appeared as a favor for the applicant and was not familiar enough to answer the boards questions relating to the EAF• • PB 9 -23 -93 PG 7 The review officer fel.Lthere were enough inconsistences on the EAF to warrant a the Public Hearing until the applicant can be present and /or a new EAF form has been completed. JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED THAT THE HEARING FOR BREWSTER CHASE BE RECESSED UNTIL THE NEXT BOARD MEETING BUT NO LATER THEN THE BOARD MEETING IN NOVEMBER WHICH WILL BE ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 16, 1993. SECOND BY MITCHELL LAVINE DISCUSSION: The agent was advised that the Zoning Officer would be able to answer questions relating to the application. Readvertisement will be necessary before continuance. VOTE YES (6) B. Caldwell, C. Brenner, M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, M. Lavine, and J. Davis. NO (0) ABSTAINED (0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PEREGRINE HOLLOW CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The SEAR time frame /sequence was reviewed with the following to take place: 1. Determine completeness /accuracy of DEIS. 2. Public review and comment period. 3. Public Hearing (Optional) 4. Prepare Final EIS. 5. Findings of each involved agency. 6. Final decision. The Board reviewed the Scope list which was approved on 2/20/92 with the DEIS. CLAUDIA BRENNER REVIEW OFFICER Claudia read the Scope List and the following comments from the Board were noted: J. Davis (11 A -E) felt that a summary of the mitigation measures should be put up front. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (111 C. Design and Layout) Dave Putman stated that the first section of this is essentially what he felt was not exactl J I The report as to the outline of the scope. econd section vv are what the engineers felt they should comment on. Board was satisfied with the DEIS for this r.�tl C] • • PB 9 -23 -93 PG 8 (111 D. Construction MR. FRABBONI and Operation) HE WOULD J. Lalley RATHER THEN CROSS REFERENCE THIS would like to see a best and worst time scenario for completion of all phases of the project. Tabular form time frames would be sufficient. D. Putnam noted that the issue of erosion was not mentioned in this particular part of the scope list however is discussed elsewhere. The rules and regulations on Storm Water have increased and will be required for the construction permit for the storm water discharge. A part of that is erosion control sedimentation plan which they are required to have on site and is subject to DEC review. TO REFERENCE THAT SECTION WOULD BE ADEQUATE. SPDES PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. (1V B 2 e WATER RESOURCES - OTHER) ISSUES HAVE BEEN COVERED IN THE ENGINEERS REPORT OF JULY 1991 AND ALONG WITH MAPS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND IS AVAILABLE FOR THE BOARD IN THE ZONING OFFICE. H. Slater suggested that either Mr. Varn or Mr. Frabboni help him compose the necessary material for public review so that the documentation will be consistent. J. Lalley suggested that after the material is assembled Mr. Putnam reviews for completeness. (1V 4 a.1 -6 HUMAN RESOURCES) SUFFICIENT AS IS - issue not addressed separately but found in section A.1.j. CONCLUDED THAT IF EACH SECTION IS REFERENCED TO A PARTICULAR PLACE IN THE EIS WHICH DOES COVER THE SAME /SIMILAR MATERIAL WOULD BE SATISFACTORY. (Vill C.2 ALTERNATIVES) MR. FRABBONI STATED HE WOULD ELABORATE RATHER THEN CROSS REFERENCE THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. At the Chair's request Mr. Frabboni listed the items which he ascertained needed to be addressed for continuity: 1. There should be an executive summary with the mitigation measures made more clearly for clarity. (thought he had satisfied the scopeing for design and layout when it came to open space land, landscaping, parking) 2. 111 D. for the construction phasinge at least best, worst case tabular projection. Erosion to reference where it is covered in the other sections. In particular 111 2. where the SPDES permits and storm water permits were brought up. We would add the new permit which is required to be filed with DEC. 3. 1V, V & V1 B.2e We would reference the mapping that detailed some of the drainage aspects that Dave brought up. r • • PB 9 -23 -93 PG 9 4. HUMAN RESOURCES A 4 1 -6 Make that a part of the outline to keep the continuity and with the original scope. List the points that are covered or cross referenced A 4 1 -6 item back to A 1j. Ba2 & Ba3 AT LEAST LIST THE SECTION IN THE OUTLINE THAT COVERS THIS. F.5 Determined that the County concerns were covered through out the document as they were similar to the Towns. 5. Vill Cat Should elaborate more as to the scope request and reference to other sections as applicable. THE BOARD MEMBERS AGREED THAT CONCERNS CORRECTLY FOR THE REV Mr. Varn suggested that as which need to be address could the Board before the next meet start the public review. MR. FRABBONI HAD COVERED THE ISED DRAFT. there were not many concerns the revised draft be submitted to ing in order that next month might The Board stated that if the draft was given to the members in a timely fashion that at the next meeting that determination could be made. JOSEPH LALLEY MOVED TO TABLE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAFT EIS ANTICIPATING FUTURE REVISIONS BY THE SPONSOR UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. REVISIONS ARE ON THE VERBAL AND REQUIRED WRITTEN DOCUMENT NO LATER THAN THE NEXT MEETING. SECOND BY MITCHELL LAVINE DISCUSSION: VOTE YES (6) NO (0) B. Caldwell, C. M. Lavine, and ABSTAINED Brenner, J. Davis. (0) M. Kelleher, J. Lalley, a a. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a. a a a a a a a a