Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 12 02 minutes planning board.pdfTown of Enfield Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 2, 2009 Present: Virginia Bryant, Ann Chaffee, Steve Givin, Jim McConkey, Calvin Rothermich, Keith Smith, Debbie Teeter Staff: Alan Teeter/Code Enforcement Guests: Ray Vanderpoole, Cris McConkey Call to Order, 7:05 p.m. Approval Minutes: Motion to approve June 3, 2009 minutes by K. Smith, seconded by S. Givin, approved without dissent. Motion to approve October 7, 2009 minutes by D. Teeter, seconded by A. Chaffee, approved without dissent. New Business 1. Welcome and Introductions: The Board introduced themselves and welcomes new members Steve Givin and Keith Smith. 2. Vanderpoole Subdivision: Mr. Vanderpoole provided basic information on his plans, including a large parcel map, and asked for the board’s input. He would like this project to fall under the Minor Subdivision category of the Subdivision law, so the Board reviewed that criteria with him as well as what is needed for subdivision approval. The Board asked if he would need to install new utility lines, he said no, the power company will set one new pole for someone and he will run underground utilities from that. His plans are to subdivide the lot into 5 lots, 4 of which he would build modular homes, each with it’s own well and septic system, on and sell and one of which he would combine with his home’s parcel. This would make the project a major subdivision, so the board suggested he have the parcel survey for his final plans, but keep the piece he intends to combine part of one of the other lots for now and then in no less than a year’s time make another subdivision. The Board confirmed that Mr. Venderpoole has a copy of the Subdivision law and reviewed the section listing the items he will need to present the board to formally begin the subdivision process. They urged him to work with the Code Enforcement Office and/or to call any Planning Board member if he had questions about what he would need to provide at the January meeting. 3. Marcellus Shale Presentation: Cris McConkey spoke to the Board about actions the Town might consider to protect the environment from potential damage from natural gas drilling, such as identifying environmental features that most need protection, like the aquifer, and setting standards for protection. The Town Council of Governments (TCOG) has urged Towns to participate in making comments on the D-GEIS, and Cris suggested reviewing comments compiled by a group in Danby as being particularly comprehensive. Cris said he was disappointed the Town had not taken action on this matter; D. Teeter said the Town was an active member of TCOG and all indications are the Town will endorse whatever comments and recommendations that organization puts forth. TCOG members have indicated they will wait until just before the comment deadline to submit in order to compile the most comprehensive response possible. There was reiteration that the Town could identify critical conservation areas and might be able to require remediation of damage due to drilling. Tompkins County has identified four of critical conservation areas in the Town. K. Smith said we need to provide back up and rationale for why we oppose something, and that should be included in the comments. C. Rothermich suggested residents not fight too hard against this, as the economic impact could be quite large, if any drilling occurs. Several Board members indicated a willingness to assist the Town Board in any tasks related to concerns about Marcellus Shale drilling. Motion by S. Givin to tell the Town Board that the Planning Board is willing to assist in any tasks necessary in regards to concerns about Marcellus Shale issues, such as helping identify critical conservations areas to help protect the Town’s natural and economic resources. Seconded by K. Smith; 4 ayes, 1 nay, 1 present. 4. Site Plan Review Law: V. Bryant told the Board she believes this law really needs re- working as it does not include a number of State Law requirements. She strongly recommends comparing other Site Plan laws to ours. County Planning might be able to provide technical assistance; V. Bryant will ask them for this. A. Chaffee suggested we start by looking at simple example laws since we don’t have zoning, and review State requirements. Motion by A. Chaffee to inform the Town Board that the Planning Board is not asking for a Public Hearing on the relatively minor corrections previously recommended to the Town Board, as the Planning Board will be updating the entire Site Plan Review law to be in compliance with State Regulations, for submission to the Town Board at a later date. Seconded by Bryant, approved without dissent. Meeting adjourned, 8:55 p.m.