HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-15Town of Dryden Planning Board Q4
' June 15th, 2006
�c
a►
e-
Members Present: Chair. Barbara Caldwell, Tom Hatfield, Jim Crawford,
Joseph Lalley, Joseph Laquatra David Weinstein
Others Present: Dan Kwasnowski, Henry Slater, and Ted Lauve &r Mary Ann
Sumner 01
Agenda: Bryn Mawr Estates - Phase lI & III preliminary
Manhattan Estates - Phase II Sketch Plat
7:07 Meeting brought to order
B. Caldwell Read public hearing notice into the record.
T. Lauve Began with giving a brief summary of the Subdivision
Section I of the Bryn Mawr Estates. The total of a 37 -lot
subdivision with Section I only entails 6 -lots all with frontage
' on Wood Road. Each home has its own individual well and
septic system. The concern of the driveway on the first plat
was changed so that the driveway will now be positioned in
such that there is an appropriate site distance coming over
the hill on Wood Road.
B. Caldwell Asked if there were any questions?
J. Lalley Asked if the track in the south end of the property would be
part of our trail system.
H. Slater Answered that he was not sure.
J. Lalley Wanted to know that if this was to be part of the trail system
that there would be no problems in the future.
T. Lauve I think that this would be a good idea and that area with the
railroad bed in it is a common area and proposed to be
owned by a homeowners association.
D. Weinstein Asked if there should be any particular language or
condition that if the Town were to develop the trail into this
area?
H. Slater Stated that it would need to be in the Homeowners
Association agreement that if the Town were to want an
easement that it would be granted.
B. Caldwell Asked at what point will the homeowners association take
effect?
1
T. Lauve With the first landowner signing a covenant that they agree
to the homeowners association.
B. Caldwell Stated that the Homeowners Association document would
have to be approved by the Town's attorney and to be part of
our agreement with Phase I.
T. Lauve Said that there are times that the covenant for the
homeowners association is included on the plat. We do not
like to do that because it sometimes changes at the last
minute. A copy of the Homeowners agreement will be given
to Henry Slater tomorrow. We can then get that worked out
with the Town Attorney.
T. Hatfield Is the Town Highway Superintendent satisfied with the
various aspects of this project?
T. Lauve Jack is looking to change the road specifications and would
like this road to meet those standards.
If the road specs are changed after this subdivision is
approved but before the road is built it would be subject to
the new specifications.
B. Caldwell Asked for any comments or questions from the public?
New landowners of the Town were present at the meeting
and commented that they were glad they came.
Henry Slater was asked to comment on the Health
Department issue.
H. Slater As you can see the Health Department is an interested
agency as they have authority with the septic approval under
the state health department subdivision regulations. I
cannot tell you whether they have seen the project in depth.
T. Lauve They have received everything you have.
H. Slater As you know early on in this process we had identified the
potential for stream classifications, wetlands ext. We sent
Ted to the Army Corps of Engineers, DEC and Fish and
Wildlife. They have all made their findings and reports. In an
unofficial way because we did not actually offer the SEQR
Lead Agency Status to anyone, we just asked for their input.
We have not vet offered it to anyone else.
It was determined that the review and comments from TG
Miller concerning this subdivision will be addressed. Mr.
Lauve did state that he had just received this
correspondence.
D. Weinstein Asked a question about well and septic sightings. He wanted
to know the regulations on the radius of the septic or if you
draw the radius of the septic field do you not need to fit it
into a certain radius near the well?
2
T. Lauve Under the sketch plan phase we needed to put a certain
radius diameter circle that would fit within each lot and that
was done. On the preliminary/ final plat we have the distance
between the well and septic system at 50', 100' and 200' and
we can see that it meets all the required setbacks, which are
on the septic system drawings. We have a table on those
drawings explaining this.
D. Weinstein My question was on lot 6 where you included the 50'
setback, 1 wanted to be sure you had enough area to include
both a well and septic.
T. Lauve The well is directly north and it has a 50', 100' and 200'
radius around it. The septic system is outside the 100'
radius so that meets the requirement. The septic system is
also 100' away from the wetland and that meets the setback
required for wetlands.
After some investigations and much discussion it was
determined for the best that we ask to be declared lead
agent. This will take approximately 30 days but if we were to
not to take the 30 days and it was challenge it would end up
more of a hardship.
J. Lalley Moved that the Torn of Dryden Planning Board declare itself
®
lead agent on the Bryn Mawr Subdivision
D. Weinstein Seconded that motion
All in favor - Motion carried.
Discussion began on Section II & III.
T. Lauve Section II is twelve lots (66 acres), which is on the lower side
and heads towards common area 1 and includes lots 7 - 18.
They would build a road up to the proposed gravel area with
a permanent turnaround that would go into the parking
area.
Section III is a total area of 75 acres and would include the
remaining 19 lots. This would involve the rest of the road
construction plus the construction of the pond would need
to be before the road.
The idea of doing this in sections is because the sale of the
lots would generate some income in order to build the road
and the pond.
D. Weinstein Had a question on how the pond will actually work.
T. Lauve It x&411 be off line at the suggestion of TG Miller. The drainage
® area for pond 1 is located in the Stormwater Report. This will
3
include some off site drainage we designed this so it over
is compensates for the portion of the subdivision that is not
draining to it. We have got full quantity control as required
by the DEC permit for the entire site with this pond because
it over compensates. The quality control with the area that
does not drain to the pond we have got individual dry swales
for each of the homes and for the road area that does not
drain to the pond.
B. Caldwell Are you going to have some sort of indication for the
potential owners of those individual lots where swales will be
and that they cannot impact those swales and change the
pattern .
T. Lauve Yes
B. Caldwell I just want the future owners to be educated as to the need
to maintain those swales
T. Lauve It will be documented in the covenant that they need to
maintain those Stormwater controls.
B. Caldwell There have been issues in the past and we don't want it to
happen again.
H Slater Brought up the issues from Jack Bush regarding the road.
He wanted the board to know that the Town is about ready
to change the specifications to meet the specs that Jack gave
to the Board.
J Lalley Stated that at the time that the road is built it would need to
built to the specifications currently in place at the time of
construction.
B. Caldwell What is the feeling on the name?
T. Lauve We have checked with the County 911 services and "Judith"
is not taken. I have not spoken with the ownier to find out
whether they want Blvd, Lane, Road or Circle. 1 am sure he
will be all right with any of them.
H. Slater Once you decide on a final name please let me know so that I
can apply for that name and reserve it.
B. Caldwell Are there any other questions?
D. Kwasnowski With the Stormwater pond the homeowners association will
be maintaining this right?
T. Lauve Correct
D. Kwasnowski There may need to be an easement for the Town to have the
Highway Department inspect it if there is a need and it is not
maintained we would be responsible by law to maintain the
pond and charge that back to the homeowners association.
D. Weinstein I have two other comment's regarding the TG Miller report
prepared by Andy Sciarabba. The unclearness of the
sequence of when the temporary controls are going to be put
into place with the Stormwater plan.
E
T. Lauve They are now put in at the beginning and there was also a
comment about when they will be taken out and that would
be when the first section of the road is put in for Section II.
There is a temporary sediment trap before the water is
discharged towards the wetland. That would be taken out al
the last part of construction and the dry swale for permanent
water control would be put in.
D. Weinstein The other question I had was that contractors are
responsible for maintaining contract limits the limits of
clearing.
T. Lauve That to me means that it is generally understood that the
clearing limits to the road right of way is the right of way and
that they do not go beyond that 60'. Every homeowner
would be on their own as to how much they want to clear.
D. Kwasnocwski Questioned how much area was to actually be disturbed at
any given time?
T. Lauve Stated that each homeowner would be responsible to clear
their lot.
M. Sumner While the area of the road is being disturbed no lots will be
disturbed and the maximum of those first twelve lots could
be in progress.
T. Lauve It is not uncommon for the home construction going on
when the road is being built.
M. Sumner In this case you are not planning to do that.
T. Lauve By virtual effect the road right of sway takes up a certain
amount of area for the two sections that it is going to be built
in. That is the area that is going to be disturbed for the road.
While each homeowner it is up to them how much there is to
be disturbed. It is a possibility that the two could be going on
at the same time.
D. Weinstein Is the new cut line going to be part of the homeowners
association? How are you going to enforce this?
T. Lauve There is language in the covenant that they have to comply
with the plans. There is no specific language regarding a no
cut zone but I can put it in.
B. Caldwell Are there any other question? (Everyone responded no)
J. Lalley Made a motion to close the preliminary hearing for Sections
II and III. Seconded by T. Hatfield
All in favor.
J. Lalley Moved for preliminary approval for Sections lI & III subject to
the following:
• The plat and /or covenant be modified to grant the
Town the right to inspection and repair of the ponds as
necessary in Section III common area 2 at the cost of
the owner.
• The roads for Section II 8a 1II to be constructed to the
current town road specifications at the time of
construction begins.
• Should the town request that the railroad right of way
be given to the town.
• Subject to health department approval and all other
agency approval.
Motion seconded by T. Hatfield
All in favor
B. Caldwell Asked about the status of Howser Meadows
H. Slater Responded with the fact that the Health Department approval is
not yet in. The County Planning Department did not seem to have
any issues.
"Manhattan Estates"
B. Cornelius i would like to get back to this. I have as you can see on the map
two existing houses. One of them sat there for three years it is a
4200 square foot house and is priced at $400,000. 1 then thought
that if I built a house across the road from it and people could see
a neighbor environment. That house has also not yet sold. Both
. houses are at $400,000. I have 50 acres and I have designed a
road that comes to the 100 acres that my son owns and that is in
the future.
I have a map that shows the potential of the piece of property.
Tonight I am asking for your consideration is Phase I which comes
off of Yellow Barn Road and comes in and takes the 4 lots that are
in question with the turn around.
J. Lalley Are lots B1 and B2 to be considered as part of the subdivision?
H. Slater The health department will consider them as part of the
subdivision because they have been developed within the last S
years.
J
J. Lalley Our ordinance will be the same right?
H. Slater They were exempt but the new lots beyond those two will not be
exempt.
J. Lalley They were part of the original parcel.
H. Slater True but they are acceptable the sway they are.
J. Lalley I think we need to consider them as part of the subdivision.
B. Cornelius I have had the health department there and they meet all the
criteria for sewage systems and we have drilled the well, which is
also required by the health department. The quality and quantity
of the water has exceeded expectations. The Stormwater is almost
ready to go to Ellen Hahn, (DEC regional officer).
6
The reverse map you can see where the one retention pond is
present.
J. Lalley Questioned the amount of lots.
There was discussion on whether there would be a lot at the
turnaround or not.
B. Cornelius Stated that he would like to not include as many as could be
allowed because at this point it would change the tax base and the
lots are not yet selling.
D. Weinstein This land seems to have a good slope to it.
B. Cornelius No it really does not. It is not even a 6 % slope. I have gone over
this with Jack Bush.
Invited the board to come and look at the land.
B. Caldwell Stated that this is a sketch conference.
J. Lalley Stated to B. Cornelius that he needed to figure out what it is he is
doing and how many lots he would like to include and then come
back to us.
B. Caldwell You need to work with Henry and get all the necessary documents
in and then we can possibly do a preliminary hearing.
H. Slater I will not be here the week of the 10th so we would need to have
every thing before then in order to get this to you the board.
Discussion on whether we have enough people next month to have
a quorum. The consensus is to have the meeting on the 20th.
D. Kwasnowski Brought back the Renewable Energy Ordinance for discussion with
the board. He explained the process the Conservation Board went
through and handed out a table to the board reflecting their
desired changes.
Tom Hatfield stated that the board has not even talked about the
impact of what is being requested and how in fits in with the town.
Aren't we talking about wind turbines and being how high? The
answer being somewhere between 80 and 100 feet. It was asked
where these would be placed. There seemed to be some confusion
as to the commercial towers and residential towers.
T. Hatfield brought up another issue of the cell towers that have
been put up benefits many people of the town. The wind towers at
best would only benefit the private citizen. This was disputed by J.
Laquatra stating that we are an energy importing state and
everything we spend on energy leaves our local economy
immediately. Energy efficiency benefits local economies by keeping
that money inside our communities so it is spent on goods and
services here.
7
T. Hatfield was looking the impact of the view sheds of the
community. This would impact every person in that view shed that
day. It was stated that within the ordinance there is a visual
impact statement that would need to be addressed and it would
possibly mean a reduced tower height or it not being allowed at all
in that area.
The discussion continued on the visual impact of the towers. Then
the discussion went to commercial vs. industrial, failed wind
turbines, fall zones and mechanical issues.
B. Caldwell asked if someone were to put a. solar panel on a pole
and H. Slater responded with the fact that we currently do not
regulate this. H. Slater went on to explain the two types of zoning
ordinances as inclusive and exclusive the Town of Dryden has an
inclusive zoning ordinance which means that if it is not mentioned
we either do not regulate or we do not permit it.
The issue with the wind turbines is that we have a tall structures
ordinance. That would make it not allowed.
Dan Kwasnowski asked the Planning Board for a recommendation
® for the Town Board. Barbara Caldwell asked Mary Ann Sumner,
Town Board Liaison what it was she is looking for. M. Sumner
responded with at that at this time she has that the Planning
Board has not reviewed this ordinance point by point but is in
general agreement with the following concerns...
• View shed impact
0 Height
• Cumulative effect of a number of towers
• Catastrophic failure (Blade projectory in case of mechanical
failure)
D. Weinstein questioned that we require the individuals to have
liability insurance on their towers. Dan responded that it was
standard language in the other ordinances. H. Slater stated we are
requiring them to have the insurance to protect the general public.
Mary Ann asked for any more supportive comments from the
Board.
T. Hatfield stated that this was focused on wind power as an
alternative source of energy and we should be looking at all the
alternative sources of energy. H. Slater responded that they were
all covered in this ordinance. We have concentrated on the wind
• because this has the most community impact, individual adjacent
P