Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-19TOWN OF DRYDEN
Planning Board
OMarch Y9, 2409
Members Present: Barbara Caldwell, Chair; David Weinstein; Joseph Laquatra, Jr.; Joseph
Lalley; Martin Hatch; Tom Hatfield.
Excused: Megan Whitman.
Staff Present: Dan Kwasnowski, Pnvirorunental Planner; Mary Ann Sumner, Town Supervisor;
Joe Solomon, Town Board Liaison; Patty Millard, Recording Secretary;
Meeting called to order at 7:10.
The Town of Lansing is offering a training at the Lansing Town Hall on April 13, 2009, at 6:30
pm. Scott Chatfield, from the New York State Planning federation, will be providing the
training. This will count as 2 hours towards our annual requirement.
Discussed other possible Training offerings.
There is a new feature to the Dryden website. Josh 1-
information to the website. The current Zoning map
by Behan Planning. Go to wANr%v.daden.nLs, click
at the bottom of the column; click on KML Tiles. If
is a link to download and install it there.
as used Google Earth to add a wealth of
is up there as well as the new one proposed
on Environmental Planning, then on the right
you don't have Google Earth installed, there
• Minutes
Joe Laquatra made a motion to approve the Minutes for February 4, 2009. Marty Hatch seconded
the motion. All voted in favor. Motion passed.
From the Town Sujervisor
M Sumner — The Park Foundation asked her to apply for a grant for a sustainability coordinator.
The County sent out report — progress towards comprehensive plan — last year. Are there action
items in our comp plan to work on? Cornell has a sustainability coordinator. This contact may
help with more information to help M Sumner in her research. Gay Nicholson — Sustainable
Tompkins, also a good contact. Would this bind the town to keep this position permanently? One
of the places that received a three -year grant saved so much money in the first year, they hired
the person permanently without the grant. NYSERDA may also help with this type of a position.
BIG PICTURE ITEMS TO REVIEW
Mobile Homes/ Manufactured Housing
Approach to Mobile Homes: For units built prior to 1976, mobile home is the correct
terminology. After that, manufactured housing is the correct term. Modular Homes are not
Manufactured Homes. They are both factory built homes, but are not the same thing.
There is a perception that having a mobile or manufactured home next to their stick built home
lowers their value. There is no statistical con-elation to that. With Modular homes, there is a very
tight process with how these are installed. With Manufactured homes, the process is not so tight.
If we can't tell the difference between a manufactured home and a modular home, they would be
more acceptable.
a
%0I
PR 03 -19 -2009
Page 2 of 3
Mranufactured Housing (mobile homes) on single lots — discussion. Aesthetics, stability, value
after 10 years or 20 years-
Mobile Home Parks — Expand existing? Allow new? Same concerns as long as infrastructure is
adequate for the density. Expansion; as long as infrastructure is available and existing
infrastructure issues are handled, and the architectural (aesthetic) standards are net (for iviH in
general), this should be ace eptahIaI Ne i% could be handled under Cluster Subdivision,
Joe Laquatra will look at what other some towns have done and come back with some
information to look at regarding MH on single lots and Mobile Home Parks.
Existing ordinance allows singlewide manufactured homes only where. they already exist. If new
MH are coming in; we need to rnake sure they are installed to existing standards-
Mellow Barg water district is meeting here at the Town Hall next week.
ubdi vision
Every lot split can be reviewed
Some can be administrative and some by the Board
Hoke many lots and what time period can determine whether it goes to the Zoning Office or the
Plaruiing Board
Other than the amoant of time it takes, what is the down side to having the PB review ever} one?
Health Dept, isn't going to do a S apt] e ,study if it isn't a Realty Subdivision. Developer would
have. to pay for a perk study in order to meet the requirements.
If we don't review every split, the example we looked on at during sessions could happen. if
splits are looked at right from the beginning, we can by to help make sure the property is being
planned out well and not just lopped up into little pieces-
If they come in with a Development Plan, we can approve that, When it gets to the point where it
would trigger subdivision approval, it would come back to the Planning Board. In the interim, lot
splits that fit the Development Plan that the PB reviewed, these splits could be approved
administratively. This would be less intensive for the developer than doing a subdivision right
offthe bat, would allow Planning Board to look at it from tlhe. beginning, and allow some smaller
splits with less overhead since after the initial look it is an administrative process until it gets to
the subdivision trigger.
There is a diel1y'rence betweern selling off a piece of land because they need to pay taxes ari d
wanting to develop a property- There may be, but we could still help guide them in the process so
that they can get the most out Of their property,
This sounds like the way we want to go. The PB is invoIved at the beginning with a
Development Plan when even only one lot is spl.k. They show maybe the first 4 lots they avant to
PB 03 -19 -2009
Page 3of3
isV do and the PB says, ok, you can do all those — only one is done now. Administratively, the next 3
get approved and once those 4 are done, they would have to come back to the PB. That way they
aren't paying for subdivision approval when the first couple of lots are done but the PB still has
the ability to review the whole plan initially.
Parent Parcel — subsequent owner of a lot split — can they split further? Does it come from
original parent parcel allocation of road frontage- and density? Yes. Unless the parent parcel
owner puts deed restrictions on the lot that was split off, the new lot owner could subdivide
further and affect the parent parcel's allocations.
Nancy Munkenbeek arrived at 8:40.
Paperless Office
Would like to get as paperless as possible. Patty and Joy are working on a table to come up with
a list of who wants everything in paper, in electronic format, in both, just plans in paper and the
rest in electronic format, etc.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Patty Millard
Recording Secretary