Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-19TOWN OF DRYDEN Planning Board April 19, 2007 Members Present: Barbara Caldwell, Chair; David Weinstein; Joseph Laquatra, Jr., Joseph Lalley. Members Excused: I\Tone, Members Absent: Russell Beck, Tom Hatfield. Others Present: Dan Kwasnowski, Environmental Planner; Henry Slater, Director of Code Enforcement; Patty Millard, Recording Secretary; Mary Ann Sumner, Town Board Liaison; Applicant, Mark Mecenas; and Residents: James Blankenship, Barr Ticknor, Chris Balbach, and Paul Rhudy. Meeting called to order at 7:00. Sketch Plan Conference for Mark Mccenas The Planning Board reviewed the letter from TG Miller that was received that day. Discussion regarding subdivision decreasing from 4 lots to 3. This came about during the ZBA variance proceedings. A variance has been granted regarding road frontage. "There will be a shared driveway. H Slater handed out a list of conditions that the ZBA listed in the variances that were granted. A copy of the NYSEG easement agreement is still outstanding. The Planning Board was uncomfortable with the idea of a shared driveway. The ToxNgi has had a previous experience that was not a good experience with a shared driveway. J Lalley was concerned that the lot that is already improved was not included in the subdivision. He felt that this lot needed to be discussed in the scheme of the subdivision and should be included. Others on the Board agreed and Mr. Mecenas agreed to add that lot to the subdivision application. (dote: The map acreage on that lot is transposed — it should be .48, not .84 acres.) A SWPP has not been filed at this point. A driveway permit has been issued for the driveway that has been put in. The driveway is 20' wide as opposed to 14' in a normal driveway. B Caldwell questioned the location of the driveway in reference to the wetland. D Kwasnowski stated that the wetland borders the driveway, Special care needs to be taken to make sure the driveway does not drain in to the wetland. The driveway is not finalized. It is rated for 2 more layers. It needs to be sloped a little more when the final layers are put on, before it's capped, to ensure it drains away from the wetland. Mr. Mecenas was informed that it is his (Mr. Mecenas') responsibility to make sure that nothing from his project affects the wetland. The Board will need a very specific plan that shows how none of the runoff from here will go into the wetland. ®I Lalley stated that his main concerns are: the need to include Lot 1, whether Lot 4 is indeed a buildable lot due to the NYSEG casement, and planning for the ,'WPP of the driveway. O v PR 04-19 -2007 Page 2 of 5 •D Weinstein — part of our responsibility is to create lots that enhance the look and the livability of the town. There are two issues with this. Any house would clearly have to be shoehorned between that next lot and the NYSEG easement. This section does not seem to be a very usable section the way the house is situated. In order f'or these people to use their property, they are going to have these little bits of property in the front of the house, in the back of the house. Not really a very usable section. According to the soils map from the County Natural Resources Survey, lots '2 & 3are listed as having poor soil. Anything that is being done on those lots is going to have a problem in terms of drainage. My interpretation is that even though there is slight drainage, any water Flow that does occur is toward that wetland. The drainage is going to be problematic, and I think you would be better served by combining lots 2 & 3. M Mecenas —just a point of information, those NYSEG easement lines aren't anything physical at this point, and may never be. J Lalley — Ithaca is currently in a load pocket. There is going to come a day when NYSEG is going to want to develop that right -of -way. What I mean by load pocket is that there isn't enough sufficient transmission capacity into the area that if Millican or Dundee went down, that we could power the requirements here from outside the area. The day will come that NYSEG will want to develop that, and the day will probably come, in my opinion, that they will no longer have to go through a bunch of municipal approvals to do that because we'll be in crisis mode. So that right -of -way is very real to me. A resident in attendance asked to what the Board and Mr. Mecenas was referring. J Lalley pointed out the lines on the map designating the NYSEG right -of -way on the property under discussion and stated that NSYEG's ability to build extends between these boundaries. Discussion regarding number of lots and lot lines. NI Mecenas stated that he would lower the number of lots from 3 to 2 based on the Planning Board's concerns and shift the lot lines accordingly. Discussion — Requested that M Mecenas add of placement of houses. At this print., there isn't a reason for their placement. Scale may be off. That will be adjusted for the next meeting. B Caldwell — Requested that M Mecenas add the proposed septic circles as well noting that the applicant should use larger diameter circles (for septic fields and replacement septic fields). The project is a 3 -lot subdivision consisting of 387 Snyder Hill Road and the two new lots behind it. Resident comments Barr Ticknor or Snyder Hill Road — The comment was made at the February ZBA meeting that subdividing this front lot could be justified because the remaining lot would still be the same size as existing parcels in the neighborhood. I think the reference was to these two parcels (16.1 & 16.2) specifically. What I would like to point out is that the division of those two parcels and the separate deeds is; at this point; purely artifactual. It's something that never should have happened in the first place, but did. However, over the years, my partner and I have purchased and effectively reunited these ,parcels. if you look at (pictures), they are occupied as a single residence, with merely an additional structure. P B 04 -19 -2007 Page 3of5 Of you look at that and see that, in effect, those two lots are a single residence, the only reason they haven't been rejoined already is because we had financing on one or both of them and that would have made it ... .i Lalley — To Barr Ticknor — I appreciate the .fact that you're effectively occupying this as one parcel, but it is still currently defined as two separate parcels. D Weinstein — The decision has already been made to adjust this front parcel (387 Snyder Hill Road). That is going to be a small frontage lot that has gotten a variance from the ZBA. J Lalley — What sort of buffers exist along this lot line to the South? There is some red twig dogwood. B Caldwell asked if there were any more questions or comments from Mr. Mecenas. He had none. B Ticknor — My understanding was that the ZBA granted the variances they did because N11r. Marcus said they had a very narrow scope of authority. According to the ZBA meetings where the variances were considered, was that the Board recognized the concerns of the neighborhood, didn't feel they had the jurisdiction to act on them, and assured all of the neighbors that the Planning Board had the authority to consider broader issues and that just because those variances had been approved, it didn't mean the Ssubdivision was a done deal. It meant simply that the Planning Board would be able to consider it. What I am asking is that you just say no to this whole development for a nurnber of reasons. The first and most pressing is groundwater adequacy. This is a well and septic neighborhood. A lot of the development took place many years ago before modern drilling equipment. l would say the majority of wells in the neighborhood, 3 of which arc- on my property, are very marginal in their flow rates. Two of our three wells put Out 1/4 of a gallon per minute, which is about 1000 gallons a day, and if you're carefiil, you can run a household on that. But if it drops below that, you're in deep trouble. The two that I just referred to are (at the same depth). They're about 90 feet. We do have one other well that is deeper and stronger, but the point is, this is a neighborhood where water limitations are a part of the history of the neighborhood. I'm sure some people here remember when the public water district was extended further LIP Snyder Hill because there were houses that were totally without water. That was done by installing an auxiliary in -line pump in the water line and the extension ended where it did because the engineers determined that even with the extra pump, past a certain elevation, we just can't make it. This area is in that zone where there is very marginal water supply, no realistic hope of municipal water in the near future. Everyone in the neighborhood is very aware of the need to conserve water and not to push the limits. 1 think to have 2 or 3 more houses pumping out of that same area could be disastrous for those others who have already invested in the neighborhood. I'm sure Chris will have more to say on that, because they're in one of the more severely affected homes in that regard. Urn also very concerned about the impact on the Federal wetland. Currently there is no provision for runoff from the road - shared driveway. A rose by any other name will still have its thorns, and that still looks like a road to cne. And with a road, you have traffic, you have runoff of not only salt, but other •things that shouldn't be allowed to enter into a Federal wetland if you can possibly help it. But the salt particularly would be an affront. 1 say this with some knowledge. I do have a Bachelor's in Biology, in addition to having lived in the area for 25 years. One of the greatest resources of that wetland area is the diverse population of frogs and amphibians, particularly spring peepers, and they are particularly fragile PB 04-19 -2007 Pabe 4 of 5 *when it comes to salt pollution. The plant life in that area now is very typical of upstate New York wetland plant life — cat tails, yellow flag, blue flag, sagittaria. If we allow salt pollution at that wetland, what we can expect within about 10 or 15 years is for it to be completely overgrown with purple loose strife and common rush, both of which are more salt tolerant species and opportunistic invaders under those conditions. 1 think there's also a concern for traffic flow, but accessibility to the new homes Mr. Mecenas is proposing. You have one point of entry with no workable side door if that point becomes blocked for any reason. It seems like in an emergency situation, that would be pretty bad, even if the neighbors do all get along amicably, which may not be guaranteed. And I think in general this CP development would make a great change in the character of the neighborhood. I think most of us who live there bought in to the neighborhood because it is a quiet, essentially rural neighborhood, with houses along the road, open space in back, teetering on the brink as far as resources, but livable. To create a second echelon of development in back of the current development without adequate public infrastructure to support it, 1 try never to use the word stupid, but that would tempt me. So those are my basic concerns. I don't know how much of this Mr. Slater passed along. i was under the understanding that you guys would get all of the letters and documentation from the two ZBA meetings. (They will have all of the information, but the process is still at a very early stage.) We're talking about the overall development of this area, and that l haven't heard a reasonable plan to deal with. Frank and interested in changing the neighborhood or promoting further situation where we're thinking about redevelopment of this ar really needs to be an imperative in the overall plan. B Caldwell — We will put this information in the file. this is a very nasty Little piece of this area his parents before him ...have not been development. Once we get into this -ea, then 1 think taking care of that house M Mecenas — George Barry who oNvns the property across the street is on record as saying there is plenty of water in this area, lie owns a 4 -unit apartment building. Chris Balbach, 378 Snyder Hill Road, across from the properties that Barr owns. i bought my home in 2001. As part of the home buying process, I have two wells oil the property, and part of the process was to have the flow test done on those wells. What came back was marginal. I think it was like '/4 gpm. Very little. There are two different wells with two different depths, I'm not certain of the depth. They're shown on the survey. The owners were honest with us. They said there are some times when it gets tough up here. You're gonna have to call and have water delivered. They gave us the phone number ofa company they use. We have 1000 gallon storage tank that the wells pump in to and hold. So we were warned, We've lived there since 2001. 1 would be happy to submit my records of what i've paid to buy water. it's $85 for a 1000 gallon delivery. I was told it wasn't appropriate to discuss it at the ZBA meetings, but again this is the point to bring it up. It's not that 1 disagree with the points that Mark (Mecenas) is making. There is a real need for housing in this area, but at the same point, we have limited, we who live there, have limited resources to work with. I would love the town to have a plan, if development of this sort is going to be considered, to have us supplied with water or something similar. 0 L Laquatra — To Dan (Kwasnowski) — Would you be able to get information for us on water capacity? D Kwasnowski — We may be able to get a yield from each well owner in the area. Some people have an excellent well, and then 10 feet over they can't get any water. PB 04 -19 -2007 Page 5 of 5 M Mecenas —I spoke with Dave Putnam, who works for ,rG Miller currently. When the current pump was installed, Dave worked for the engineering firm who did the design and install. He told me that that pump there that exists is near the end of its useful lifespan. It will need to be replaced soon. As a follow - up to that, to put in a bigger pump would not be significantly more money, but could actually push the water up to all these houses if the neighbors would be willing to help pay for expansion of the water district. D Kwasnowski — Can I suggest something? I wouldn't put too much into it until you hear back from the Health Department in Nwiting. You guys have concerns about setting the houses. You know better than I do, setting the houses is not going to be easy with adding a septic system, plus you add a replacement area for the septic system, plus you have to have well heads placed. Until you hear from the Health Department.., because they could say you need 2 acres a lot. Discussion of perk tests and the need for a Health Department permit before submitting the next drawing. B Caldwell — You're going to submit something that shows two lots plus the main lot, well and septic placement, an accurate map, and a SWPP. Reminder that the fire chief in that jurisdiction needs to give approval— ZBA condition of variance. *Discussion of the fact that the box on the map is not a building, it's a turnaround. Paul Rudy, 371 Snyder Hill Road — Asked for an order of events relating to the procedure. Motion by Joe Laquatra to extend the conditioned final approval to July 21, 2007, for Bryn Mawr. Seconded by David Weinstein. All voted in favor. Motion passed. Motion by David Weinstein to approve the January 2007 Minutes with corrections. Joe Laquatra seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion passed. Update from Joe Lallev & David Weinstein regardin;r Special Committee work to date. The RFQ submissions for updating the zoning ordinance were reviewed and 3 were chosen to interview. They are Behan, EDR, and Frantz. Please tell EDR we need a timeline. Dan Kwasnowski will check the references on these three. May 17`x' 4 -7 pm will be interviews with the Planning Board meeting to be held at 7:30. Motion by Joe Lalley, seconded by Joe Laquatra, to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor. Motion passed. Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. ORespectfully Submitted, Fatty Millard