Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-29' TOWN OF DRYDEN PLANNING BOARD THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Barbara Caldwell, Martin Christofferson, Joe Laquatra, Jr., Tom Hatfield and David Weinstein ALSO PRESENT: Henry Slater, Jack Bush, Mark Varvayanis, Deb Grantham, George Franz, Marianne Carter, Peter Mesmer — County Highway Superintendent, Martha Robertson — County Board Rep for West side, and Penny Lisi — Recording Secretary AGENDA. (1) Carter Sketch Conference (2) Kenneth A. Baker, Land Surveyor (3) Red Mill Road Bridge Discussion (4) Master Plan Discussion (1) Carter Sketch Conference B. Caldwell: Opened the meeting at 6:30 pin and slated minutes from the last meeting were not available due to computer problems and requested they be mailed along with the minutes fi-om this evenings' meeting. She next requested Henry Slater to make introductions regarding the first sketch conference. H. Slater: introduced the Planning Board to Ms. Marianne Carter. He referred to the memo he had sent to the Board and stated he could not explain it any better than that. Noting Ms. Carter has used up the remaining 10 acre parcels along with all of her exempt parcels, he informed the Board she had one 5 acre parcel remaining that she has had an offer on and is trying to settle the estate of her father. lie stated she is not a developer but rather an estate settler and is representing tier family and is here to comply with the subdivision zoning ordinance. The parcel is five acres with 150 feet of road frontage. He requested the Board schedule a preliminary final plat at next month's meeting. D. Weinstein: Requested Mr. Slater explain to him the subdivision zoning ordinance. H. Slater: Stated a person can have as many ten acre parcels as your property can provide and then you are allowed at least two less than ten acre parcels to be divided for any purpose during any five year period of time. However, if a person were to keep some of that property you could actually have three. 00 N • J, Laquatra, ,1 r.. Reiterated a person could have two less than ten but asked If you were there for a longer period of time you could have three_ Um Slater: Stated if a person were there for five years they could start over as each and every parcel would become its own individual parcel on its fifth anniversary date ofcreatiom Noted this particular situation she could wait five years to sell it and it wouldn't matter but she would rather settle the estate so she is here to go through the process_ B. aldwell+ Asked tit what point d.1d it trigger major action by the Health Department_ H. later* Stated if you had more than five less than five acre parcels during any three year period of time_ B. Caldwell. Asked if Mr_ dater knew of any unusual features about this particular property the Planning Board should be aware o£ H. dater: Stated it was quite flat and does not have any major potential for erosion or drainage issues. Stilted it is deep. M. Christofferson: Noted (can the. snap) it looks as though there is a creek runs through it and Mr. Slater con med it did but staled it had not been involved in any of the construction to date and noted there was no guarantee a person would not want to build by it. D. Weinstein: Asked a question about another parcel of property and Ms- Ca rter stated it had been divided and tiYent t6 some relatives in Europe and noted she haF. no control aver that. M. Carter: Explained solne of the parcels were not hers an([ noted she was closing can the one ten acre parcel the next week. She stated the only thing she has ]eft is five acres to the left and the big parcel o1.' 16.2 acres and she has nothing to do with that. H. Slater; Stated that is its own parcel because it is greater than ten acres. D. Weinstein: Asked wiry this parcel exists due to (he fact the other parcels had sold, H. Slater: Stated this was the parcel she was holding, D. Caldwell: Asked if there were any questions and stated the Board would set a heari ng for next month to take action, (2) Kenneth A. Baker, Land Surveyor 11. Slater: Stated the next sketch ccri erenee was for a proposed (3)1ot subdivision on 2 18 -240 Main Street lrxt_, FreeviIie5 N1Y_ B. Caldwell: Called the hearing to order at 6L50 pnn I H. Slater: Stated this would not qualify for health department immediate intenyention upon time of application and construction and stated there would not be more than five acres disturbed, Toted that this is not subject to a speedier permit but that in March, 20031 evmthino one acre or ion ore will be subject to such permit. T. Hatfield: Asked if everyone wiI] have to apply for and receive a spedies permit. H. Slater: Stated yes if they arc to disturb more than Cane acre ol� property. Not if the property is mare than one acre but If they are going to disturb more than one acre and stated that& probably, the only thing that will be exempt will be single family dwellings not involved in a subdivision, B. aldwell+ Asked what the water table in this particular area was. H. Slater: Stated it is slightly raised even to the road. B. Caldwell: Asked if there was a particular reason why this ended up pie shaped? Elf, Slater: Mated it was the developer's clioice. Doted if studies] it may be the best utilization of preparing for septic systems and Iot diinensions III conformance with heaalth department standards. M. Christofferson: Asked why they took parcel A I and made it so much sniai Ier than the other parcels and not extend it back? Was it due to the lay of the land? H. Slater: Was not aware of any reason an d could not answer those questions. Noted the sponsor was not present to ask. .B. Caldwell. Asked if there %v(re any questions or issues that needed to be addressed. D. Weinstein. doted to M r- dater lie did not answer some of the questions on the form. H. Slater: Answered them verbaIIy for MrL Weinstein regarding road cuts. Mated you can not restri ct anyone from building a road, however, you can set standards and guidelines on how they do it. D. Weinstein: Asked if there were any decd restrictions? H. Slater: Stated there were none he was aware ofand noted the only thing they could build would be ono and two family houses due to the zoning district - B. Caldwell: Asked if there were any further questiOTIs, M- C hristofferson: Asked Mr. Slater where the exact locution ofthis area was, H. Slater: Stated it was we,] I beyond the Strawberry Faun beyond the bend and head on a straight line towards Wernick's newer store, its weII after the bridge and around the bend onto the straightaway on the northmwest sideb the road and is a slightly elevated area- 0 B. Caldwell: Stated the Planning Board will set next month's meeting for the hearing on this property. �Irde��eie�kiFslr�ek�e��k�cirst�r:!' k�e' k�h�Vr�k�lr4e' �k�t* �Icirsh�lr* tkit* kirslr�le *�k9e'k *ifrAr�Frit *:F� *irk (3) Red Mill Road Bridge Discussion P. Mesmcr: Stated they were present to give a status update on where the Red Mill project stands. Stated there is "hang up" with SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) at this time and noted it is a turning point for the project or could be depending on how. SHPO looks at it and how the County presents their options. He also stated the County wants to make sure and still has the support of the Dryden Planning Board with the direction they are going in as they go into further discussions with SHPO as that will impact the final alternatives. .11. l.,aquatra, Jr.: Asked it' SHPO has a concern with this project. P. Mesmer: Stated it has been deemed a historic bridge eligible for the historic register and with the 1'21 projects, the SHPO loop is one that the project has to go through. M. Robertson: Stated its due to the Federal funding as a x'21 project. P. Mesmer: Stated this is going to be 85% funded with federal money, 2% is state money and 5% local money and stated the total budget for this is 5750,000. M. Robertson: Noted the time line for this project to start is 2005. P. Mesmer: Noted the start date would be October 1, 2005, D. Weinstein. Asked if the prgject was to replace it in kind with keeping its historic character. P. Mesmer: Stated he would get to that shortly and reviewed some past minutes with the different options from December 13, 2000. He noted the option that: was favored was option "B" which was the replacement of the existing bridge on the existing alignment, which could include placing the existing trusses from the old bridge on the side of the new bridge or using it perhaps at another location as a pedestrian bridge. He noted a key link to that option was that the bridge could potentially be relocated and preserved in another location with an entirely new bridge built and stated that was the hang up. B. Caldwell: Asked if that was before SHPO looked at the project. P. Mesmer: Stated it was and apparently it seems, in the chronology of things, that was before SHPO looked at the project. T. Hatfield: Stated he remembers the discussion and believes the thing that was appealing to everyone was that the Dryden trail and that bridge would make a nice addition to that grail. L 0 P? Mesmer: D. Weinstein: P. Mesmer: T. Hatfield: P. 14'1<esmer: �NI. Robertson: P. MC FT met: Slated two main obstacles have conic up; t) HI 'O has rtow weighed in and have stated they Would prefer to see the bridge remain in its original context bey ause often to register on the national register they like to see the bridges stay in their° original context ai part of the historic value; 2) cost — �3omc data from a couple of years ago (noted costs have gone up) to rehab and relocate that bridge as a pedestrian brtdge was rangling from S 1 102000 to $180,400 and believes in recent discussion with engineej�s the cast is up to $200,000. He stated to build a new bridge in the existing location in the oripirra] estiinate vas around $5 3 MOO, Sb4U00 and $470,004 (somewhere in -that range), Asked i Fthat was for a one lane bridge. He stated that was f"or a new two lane bridge to handle the two way traffic and vide farm equipment. He noted the bottom line in reviewing costs with McFarland Johnson, there is not enough money at the $750,000 level to relocate this bridge and rehab it as pedestrian bridge and build a brand new bridge. Stated the County has enough money to build a brand new bridge on the existing location and remove the old bridle and set it aside, for potential future relocation or an option similar if SHPO supports that. He at so stated another option wo uld be similar to the Forest Horne bridge near Corn e11, which was to build essentially a brand new bridge and take the trusses fi-om the old bridge and put them on the uutside of the brand new bridge for acstheties which creates a look like the old bridge, Asked if there was another option that had been presented that had the existing bridge left in place, brought up to a level that it could be a pedestrian walkway and then a new bridge build at a slightly dil"fcrent angle near it, Stated options like that had heen discussed sLich as.the option to rehab the existing bridge as one lane, slightly widen it to accommodate farm equipment and then build a brand reef bri dge right next to it which would be the other lane but that leaves three trusses that is not preferable to a safety standpoint as the middle truss could get roan into- He noted there was not a long approach from the Fall Creek Road side so that is not a pref-erred option and would put the County out of the proposed budget. A ked to review the costs of these options. Stated it would be a rough estimate to rehab and relocate of $200,000 and the cost o F a nevi hridge would be around $700,000, T. Hatfield: Asked if Sh1PO would be willing to allow the County to remove the bridge and set it aside_ P. Mesmer; Stated he does not feel they will like that option very well and the idea SHF'O would like to see the most would be a refurbished single lane bridge but according to the report fro in McFarland ,lohnson, they believe essentially to bring the c±cisting bridge to modern low levels to handle the traffic it would be a completely ri % %v bridge as the steel is in such load shape and feels it is not feasible to rebuild the old bridge. It was built in 1887, M Weinstein: Asked what the cost would be with a Forest Home type bridge which is a slightly larger one late bridge and adding on the original truLises9 P. klesmer: Mated that concept could be done and is basically the route the County would like to go and becomes the issue of how wide to go_ Stated it needs to be wide enough to accommodate the farin equipment. Noted the County has precedent set with the Forest Home bridge, M. Robertsom Stated she would riot support a two lane bridge as it only needs to be wide enough to accommodate for the farm equipment and einergency vehicles. doted at the Public Works meeting on August 1, 2002, Mr. Mesiner stated a full two lane bridge is 26 feet wide and thought to accomi-nod ate for the Cann equiprent ]t could be 16 to 18 feet wide_ P. Mesmer: Stated it was around those figures. M. Robertson. Feels that would matter to SHPO and stated that maybe a dozen cars cross the bridge a day, T. Hati ield: Stated the other vehicles that use the bridge is inilk equipment and eniergency vehicles, M. Robertson: Stated it does not req;Jre two lane traffic. P. esmer: beets that a stronger position to propose to S HPO would he to argue to build a two lane bridge which the County has the budget for and noted they are the ones to i -nake the ultimate decision. If they do not remotely support it, they will not allow that option to happen, 'Noted If the County starts with that position, it gives them room for SHPO to back the County clown to the width that oul[I accommodate the farm equipment anti stiiI be a singie Mine. D. Weinstein: Doted there are other reasons that the local community there might want i t to be a wirier one lane bridge. If there is a certain traffic calming effect that a one lane bridge has that two Dine bridges don't have, P. Mesmer; Stated the minutes of the people in that area at that time wanted the two lane bridge. T. Hatfield: Feels the County needs to propose the option which is what the neighborhood wants which was the result of two public meetings. P. Mesmer: States he feels the County should argue to Sl IPO the two lane bridge option with the trusses on the outside. M. Christofferson: Feels it should be at least a one and half lane bridge and no less than that and notes the County and Planning Board needs to put their feelings aside and argue what the public wants. P. Mesmer: Stated lie would get with McFarland Johnson and contact Rick Lord at SHPO and sec what lie is waiting for and ask him for a meeting. T. Hatfield: Stated Mr. Mesmer should locate the minutes from the public meetings and take those to the meeting with SH:PO. �e�r7Y�1c�Ir5Ystxhdk *�riF�k *it 9e : FoY�I• irik�r�r�k *k�iciF�lrir�k *9F *ic k�iFalr�rk�t9l •iF�IriFik *:F� *iF *�s4�1r *�kieiF kir (4) Master Plan Discussion B. Caldwell: Opened the discussion on the Master Plan Transportation section at 7:50 pm (page 43). J. L.aquatra, Jr.: Stated he did not have a problem with what was there but wondered if there should be some mention of concern from the residents in the Village of Freeville of the truck traffic. B. Caldwell: Noted the Town should review the truck transportation study from the County. G. Franz: Stated the studv is available on the web and feels the problem is that Freeville is the state highway and there should be a paragraph added about truck-traffic specifically. T. Hatfield: Feels the Board needs to look at. the truck traffic through Freeville, Etna and the Village of Dryden. D. Weinstein: voted the public did not mind so much the local truck traffic but the through truck traffic. M. Christofferson: Stated it is a big problem that is not going to get any better and if the Board can not come up with a solution, we should at least say it needs to be looked at in the future. B. Caldwell: Stated the Board finished the transportation section and will restart at the next meeting on page 46. Closed the meeting at 8:25 pm.