Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-09TA 3 -9.1 t TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD MEETING March 9, 2011 Present: Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner, Cl Stephen Stelick, Cl Joseph Solomon, Cl Jason Leifer, Cl David Makar Elected Officials: Bambi L. Avery, Town Clerk. Jack Bush, Highway Superintendent Other Town Staff: Brian Mellroy, Bookkeeper Daniel Kwasnowski, Director of Planning Supv Sumner opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Supv Sumner presented a proposal to create the Planning Department. This will be forwarded to Attv Pcrkins and she will ask him to write a resolution for next week. The Emergency Planning Task Force has not met yet. Supv Sumner would like a report in April_ A resolution has been received from the Varna Community Association urging the Town Board to enact a moratorium in Varna until a development: plan for Varna is complete. D Kwasnowski has provided information on moratoriums. Supv Sumner said there are a few things in the resolution that are not accurate. it says the town board discussed and raised no objection, but according to the minutes there was no objection, but there was also no discussion. Supv Sumner wants to clarify that: it has not yet: been thoroughly discussed. Supv Sumner said she understands the fears of the community, but on the other hand she fears a moratorium will take the pressure off getting the job done. There is not an application in place for a project in Varna and the developer does not: anticipate an application before late summer. The plan for Varna is expected to be done by late summer. Cl Leifer said the town if putting money into creating a plan for Varna, and plans may come in that clearly don't won't follow that, a moratorium makes sense. There may be an application for a building on the property at the corner of Freese Road and Route 366. D Kwasnowski said there is a provision in the law that if the property is less than two acres and 4 units per acre, it: is adiscretionary review. The stormwater plan would be the big thing on the corner of Freese Road. A zoning permit would mean having to comply with the design guidelines. A local laws and a public hearing are required for a moratorium. Atty Perkins said there would be plenty of time to do that if an application is received. Cl Leifer said he doesn't see how a moratorium would interfere with the planning process. D Kwasnowski said you want those landowners to participate in the planning process, and that may not happen with a moratorium. He believes the property owners will participate without a moratorium. Supv Sumner said she doesn't foresee any major development being approved until the plan is in place, and has every expectation that: it will be in place before there is a proposal for development. If we are prepared to enact: a moratorium if a proposal is received, then there is no need to act on it yet. Cl Leifer asked whether an applicant would have any recourse if the town enacted a . moratorium in reaction to an application. The town is planning a change in the zoning. Atty Perkins said in fairness to the property owner, if the town is considering this, they should be Page 1 0(6 1 r 113 3-9-11 aware of it now. Supv Sumner said she agrees, and it has been in the newspaper. Atty Perkins issaid the developer should be engaged and have input in the process. D Weinstein said the feeling of the community is that a moratorium will make it much more clear what the expectations are. He thinks the reason one person came forward inquiring about a permit is because they were unsure of the future situation. Having a moratorium in place for a specific period of time would make it clearer. Atty Perkins said the same thing can be accomplished by simply asking them to come to the planning table. D Kwasnowski said a moratorium should be for specific types of development, not all building permits. Bruno Schickel said a landowner has acquired property under a certain set: of rules and is moving ahead with development plans under those rules. A moratorium seems capricious. It feels like spot zoning. Supv Sumner said it is not capricious because the landowners are all aware of what is being discussed. Simon St Laurent said this feels like a pocket moratorium. He supports the idea of a moratorium, but: using it only if there is application for development doesn't seem like it should stand up in court. It also creates uncertainty on the part of the residents that want to participate in the planning process. D Kwasnowski said his office must operate according to current regulations, but the board could direct him to notify the board if applications are received for a certain type or a certain number of units. isAtty Perkins said it is not likely that: the planning and zoning work would be done before the moratorium expires. These things always take longer than expected, and the towZi has never had a moratorium that has not had to be extended. D Kwasnowski said if the zoning is adopted as currently drafted, the density in Varna is four. Larger developments cannot be proposed until the planning is done. The sooner the zoning is adopted, the better. A moratorium may not be necessary. Supv Sumner would like to defer a decision on the moratorium until we have a better timeline for adoption of the new zoning law. Atty Perkins suggested that the Supervisor write to 1 about the magnitude of his proposal and that there current not to present a plan, but to become engaged in the study. considered, but that you hope it will not become necessary, certain other landowners should also be notified. That way on notice and knowing what the options are. .ucente and explain the concern ly is study going on, and ask him Tell him moratorium is being Nick Bellisario, Chip Ray, and there will be a record of them being Cl Leifer said if the owners don't then participate, it: will be an indication for a moratorium. now. S St Laurent said the letter should go to all owners of larger parcels. Supv Sumner said a moratorium is a tool and an option, but we don't need to do it right Pace : of 6 416B 309a I I Clarity Connect - D Kwasnowski has just received more information on each of the towers. He will review the material and get it to the board. With respect to the reimbursable expenses, Supv Sumner asked D Kwasnowski to not incur any further expense with engineering re%6ew. Atty Perkins said one factor in determining what is waived is whether the application was acceptable initially. D Kwrasnowski will make a list of whether any items are missing from the application, and the board needs to decide whether the documents submitted are sufficient. Supv Sumner said the permits can be issued with conditions. Supv Sumner raid D Kwasnowski will review the material tomorrow. Atty Perkins said the time to make a decision can be extended by mutual agreement, or the application can be denied. The sense of the board is that it can be approved with conditions. D Kwasnowski, Atty Perkins and Supv Sumner will work on the findings and conditions. It could possibly be done next week. The agenda items proposed by Supv Sumner were reviewed. Dan Kwasnowski introduced Jane Nicholson, the new planner. J Nicholson has worked with Melissa Bianconi on reformatting and adding graphics to the Draft: Recreation Master Plan and it was presented to the board. M Bianconi would like this adopted soon. It is subject to SEAR and that document will be prepared. J Nicholson has also worked with Katie Stone on the Sustainability inventory and it was presented to the board. D Kwasnowski said a lot of work has gone into this document, but there is a lot of data is not available. This document will provide a path forward and K Stoner will be giving a presentation to the Town Board and Planning Board next week. Board members will be asked for feedback. RESOLUTION #60 (2011) - APPROVE ABSTRACT #3 Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its approval: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves Abstract #3, as audited, vouchers # 131 through #232, totaling $753,619.07. 2111' C1 Makar Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes Brirui Mcllroy reported that he has been working on the capital assets and those have been reconciled and documented Back to 2002. There is a complete inventory list of items valued over $1,000.00. The annual update document has been prepared and filed. ZONING DISCUSSION Pagc 3 of 6 n3 3-9-11 B Schickel said he met with D Kwasnowski for a long discussion, and has the following • comments. o The way the zoning is proposed now, if adopted, you can't create anymore neighborhoods unless you're in a hamlet area. Fle asked if that is really the intent., and said you need to allow the creation of neighborhoods. o One criteria of the conservation district is slopes over 15 %. He demonstrated a 1.5% slope and said that is not that steep, and that criteria should be questioned. o The road frontage regulations as currently written are cutting into value of people's property. o The number of hamlet zones has been reduced from three to one. That was one of the better The result is be scattered things to effectively take the development pressure off other areas. that: road frontage will be gobbled up faster and the population will in a broader way. That. is not good planning. o More things in the use table should be allowed out of right. B Schickel said the neighborhoods that have been defined need to have the ability to expand. 1) Weinstein said it can be done with cluster subdivision. B Schickel said you need t:o be able to create more density in the hamlets. D Kwasnowski said the village could expand into the town with the same feel, it could be accomplished with a floating zone. We needed to accomplish what is more in line with reality. Actual permitted density is always less than is allowed by law. It doesn't help people to tell them they can do something that they physically can't do. You need to be able to spell out for people what they are able to do. B Schickel said people need an opportunity for greater density. If there is no density requirement, it will be governed by the health department. If you have water and sewer, you can build at a denser rate. The board took a recess from 9:20 to 9:26 p.m. Supv Sumner reviewed the things agreed to last month - the traditional neighborhood overlay, the large scale retail overlay, and Articles X1I, X111, XiV and XV. Atty Perkins said he substantially revised and simplified Article XiV. Much of that language simply repeated existing state law. The Article should establish a Zoning Board of Appi:als, continue the terms of existing members, provide for appointment of alternates for the reasons that have been determined, and basically say that the state law must be followed. There is no need for repeating state laws. The sound performance standards need t:o be included and will go in place of commercial riding facilities that were removed. Article 1304 - the wording in the use table for mining is different than actually written in the article. Cl Leifer would like to see where mining is permitted now and see where the isexpansion would be. Atty Perkins said where it exists now and where it would logically go Page: 4 of 6 '1,14 3-9 -1 1 (where the resource is) is not permitted right now. D Kwasnowski said there are certain parts • of the town where an overlay may make more sense. Article XV, Non - conforming Uses - D Kwasnowski said this was based on existing language and made somewhat clearer. Atty Perkins said it still needs some work. Any changes in use would be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Bulk Requirements - Lot of record - Atty Perkins said an existing lot should not now become a non - conforming lot because of adoption of the new law. He will work on language for that. If at any time it was a lawful lot, that should be continued, whether it was before the zoning ordinance or before this local law, because it could have been developed previously. They would have to meet requirements for setbacks, ct:c, unless a variance was obtained. D Kwasnowski said one of the things most commented on was the density in the rural residential and rural ag and the frontage/ density requirement and it was hard to grasp as written. He demonstrated how it has been re- written using a road cut limit of one road access point per 250 feet. This gives people more flexibility with respect to road frontage requirements. Lots of record would be excluded. This requirement would be considered in subdivision planning. The cut would be of a specific width and could be a shared driveway or road, but the number of road cuts would be limited. 250 feet seems to be a standard. The board agrees this is a good idea, but it not necessarily committed to the 250 feet. The number of houses per shared driveway was discussed. There is currently a max of three. There is a state requirement for a homeowners association for a certain number of homes on a shared driveway. B Schickel suggests the town allow one less home than the state requirement for a homeowners association. Atty Perkins will check on that requirement and will check with title companies to see how they treat shared driveways. B Schickel said that the shared driveways will have the most positive impact if it: is used so that people develop the portions of property further from the road. He agrees this is a less complicated formula. There was some discussion about shared driveways having to be built: to a certain standard to accommodate emergency vehicles. Shared driveway section has been rewritten by Atty Perkins and will be shared in the new draft. Planned Unit Development - D Kwasnowski said he and Atty Perkins agree that the present process is unworkable. J Nicholson has experience with master planning in )Florida and she will sketch out something for the board to review. The administration and enforcement section still needs a bit of work. Use chart - D Kwasnowski has proposed some edits. He said the commercial mixed use zone is most like what exists today as the RC and RD zones. Those are more focused and strategic. He said you have to remember that the business group uses, even if permitted as of right, will require site plan review• and a public hearing. He has suggested some changes and asked the board to review it and provide feedback. With respect to ag enterprises, D Weinstein said the Planning Board felt that as much as they want a certain ag business to be allowed, it may not be appropriate with the existing neighbors. That was why they went with special use permit in that category. B Schickel said iscreation of the neighborhood zones may have taken care of that. Pagc 5 01* 6 173 3-9- 11 Home occupation level It % gill require a Special Use Permit regardless of whether it: is located on a town, state or county road. B Schickel said a bed and breakfast should be allowed in a residential zone. He questioned know with only allowing certainty that a congregate care facility in a hamlet or a use will never be wanted or allowed in a commercial. He said you a certain neighborhood. Supv Sumner said in most cases you don't want. to allow a use because it. will infringe upon the open space or it would add to sprawl or it would cause neighbor conflict. That is what the use chart is based on. D Kwasnowski said we could revisit congregate care. There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /64'an'ibit"L. Avery Town Clerk Pa`c 6 o1' 6 e 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Discussion Items Dryden. ToNArn Board Meeting Dryden Town Hall 93 East Main Street Wednesday, March 9, 2011 - 7:30 PM a. Planning Department b. Varna moratorium request c. Emergency planning d. Clarity — permit conditions and SEQR 4. Proposed March 16"' Agenda Items a. Public hearings: Sound Performance -- 7:00 b. Public Hearing: Tack Shop -- 7:15 [ ?] c. Recreation Masterplan d. Sustainability Presentation e. Clarity Connect Special Use Permit — SEQR and permit conditions f. Creation of Planning Department g. Yellow Barn Water Company Petition h. Planner appointment i. Energy coordinator appointment 5. Abstract approval 6. Zoning Discussion a. Continents on sections completed 2 -9 -11: TNTDO, L,SRO, Articles X11, XI11 XIV, XV b. Discuss remaining items: Article IX, Article XVi and Article XV11 c. PUD, Subdivision Law and Mobile Home Ordinance to be addressed in April. The Next Town Board meeting will be Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM The Next Abstract and Agenda Meeting will be Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM (�T�. p G�.�k Town of Ut"vden Torn Board Meeting March 9, 2011 Name - {please _print} M 1M�� a. CC4��4 , f, (C� Address or Board 19S9 fkYO&J AA .0 a -i1 S - 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call Dryden Town Board Meeting Dryden Town Hall 93 East. Main Street Wednesday, March 9, 2011 - 7:30 PM* 3. Discussion Items a. Planning Department b. Varna moratorium request C. emergency plaruung d. Clarity — permit conditions and SEQR 4. Proposed March 160' Agenda Items a. Public hearings: Sound Performance -- 7:00 b. Public Hearing: Tack Shop -- 7:15 [ ?] c. Recreation Masterplan d. Sustainability Presentation e. Clarity Connect Special Use Permit — SEQR and permit conditions £ Creation of Planning Department g. Yellow Barn Water Company Petition h. Planner appointment i. Energy coordinator appointment 5. Abstract approval 6. Zoning Discussion a. Comments on sections completed 2 -9 -11: 'FNDO, LSR.O, Articles XII, X11, XIV, XV b. Discuss remaining items: Article IX, Article X-V1 and Article XVII c. PUD, Subdivision Law and Mobile Home Ordinance to be addressed in April. The Next Town Board meeting will be Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM The Next Abstract and Agenda Meeting will be Wednesday, April 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM