Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-15 C J TOWN OF DANBY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING - 01 McCabe / Jayne 7 : 00 December 15 , 1993 PRESENT : Chairperson Weitzel Planning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Joel Gagnon , Eloise Greene , Ken Horst , Don Schaaf Others Present : Secretary - Carol Sczepanski Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners Town Supervisor - Mary Oltz Applicants - Cecil and Lorraine Jayne Members of the Public : R . B . & Linda Howe , Don Schaad , Beth Stanton , Connie Merritt , Frank & Catherine Darrow , Patricia Addy - Schaad Chairperson Weitzel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 00 P . M . and read the following Notice of Publication : NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Danby on Wednesday , December 15 , 1993 at 7 : 00 P . M . , 1830 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York . Purpose of hearing is to consider approval of the proposed Subdivision of Danby Tax Parcel # 8 . - 1 - 21 . 1 , seven ( 7 ) acres total , into three ( 3 ) building lots . Site is located on Jersey Hill Road , east of Hilltop Road . Nicholas McCabe , owner , Cecil and Lorraine Jayne , applicants . At such time and place all persons interested in the subject matter thereof will be heard concerning the same . A regular meeting of the Planning Board will follow the public hearing . By order of the Planning Board Carol W . Sczepanski , Town Clerk Published : December 9 , 1993 Affidavit of Mailing - Neighbor Notification Received . Written Public Comment for the Record Donald Barber - 66 Hilltop Road , Ithaca , New York - Received 12 / 15 / 93 for the record . Mr . Barber is the former owner of said land and - farmed that land for nearly forty ' (40 ) years . He stated that it is unsuitable for subdivision because it is extremely wet , almost swampy in places , and it is not possible to drain the land because it is against the adjacent property owned by Patricia Addy - Schaad . The only portion of the parcel suitable for housing is along Jersey Hill Road . Cecil Jayne - explained to the public and the Planning Board that the original proposal was reduced from four ( 4 ) building lots to three ( 3 ) building lots because he understood from the last hearing that four ( 4 ) were not acceptable . He reported that he has not observed the property when it was in a wet condition . Public Comments : Frank Darrow - 400 Gunderman Road - the parcel a approximately half as large as he originally appears to be ginally thoughtt .. If that property has only 400 ' of road frontage on Jersey Hill Road the zoning ordinance says there is only room for two ( 2 ) residences to be placed there . To place another residence on the back property , some special arrangement would have to be made for access . It is his understanding is that the Town of Danby is not in favor of such arrangements . Due to the wet condition of the back half of the 186 2 Planning Board Minutes P ublic Hearing - Jayne D ecember 15 , 1993 property it makes it not desirable to place a dwelling there . L inda Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - she believes there is only room for two ( 2 ) homes on this property . Most of the properties in this area have over three ( 3 ) acres with approximately three hundred ( 300 ) feet of road frontage . ilk L orraine Jayne - Spencer , New York - explained to the public that t he proposal for three ( 3 ) building lots for three ( 3 ) residences was to take place over a ten ( 10 ) year period . Their plan is not t o place three ( 3 ) houses all at one time . There is a possibility t hat only one ( 1 ) will be built and are only seeking the option to build three ( 3 ) . Don Schaad - 201 Jersey Hill Road - is looking at the final impact , t he one that we are going to have to live with . He does not want t o see a housing project in his neighborhood with houses placed on t op of each other . He said that the back land is very wet and he h as observed a neighborhood farmer getting stuck in mud even in J uly . There is a small creek on the back of the property drains into Lick Brook . Beth Stanton - 285 Jersey Hill Road - lives next to the proposed subdivision and does not want any development planned in the neighborhood to be open ended . She wants to know exactly what is h appening . Robert B . Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - would like to reiterate what he stated at the last hearing . There is seven and one half ( 7 - 1 / 2 ) acres there and seven and one half ( 7 - 1 / 2 ) acres on the I/ other side . He said he thinks that if to the Board makes the decision to approve this proposal it would set a precedence for h ouse behind house . Why anyone would want his house looking at the back of another house ? This proposal does not make good sense to h im as a resident of Jersey Hill for over thirty ( 30 ) years . Motion to Close Public Hearing : . A motion was made by Arch Dotson and seconded by William Farrell to close the public hearing at 7 : 10 P . M . Carried Unanimously Respectfully submitted , W . Scze a' ri� i Secretary Carol P phm12 - 15 . 01 187 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING H ardesty- 02 7 : 30 P . M . December 15 , 1993 PRESENT : Chairperson Nancy Weitzel Planning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Joel G agnon , Eloise Green , Ken Horst , Don S chaaf O thers Present : S ecretary - Carol Sczepanski Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners Town Supervisor - Mary Oltz Applicants - Cecil and Lorraine Jayne Town Attorney - John Barney Members of the Public : B eth Stanton , Connie Merritt , Bob Roe , Ed & Donna Inman , Raymond Mayo , Brayton Foster , John C . Shepardson , Sr . , Richard Lazarus , S amuel C . Egan , David Hinkle , Kenneth & Lily Newton , Attorney Dirk G albraith , Doug Makie , John VanDeMark , Liz Norton , Neil & Diane S herwood , Jennifer Bell , Ric Dietrich , Rolland Manley , John Benjamin , Mary Hovanec , Gaetano D ' Ambrose , Jr . , Tom Niederkorn , Mary Hovanec Chairperson Weitzel called the Public Hearing to order at 7 : 35 P . M . and the following Notice of Publication was read : NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN , that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Danby on Wednesday , December 15 , 1993 at 7 : 30 P . M . , Danby Town Hall , 1830 Danby Road , Ithaca , New York 14850 . Purpose of hearing is to consider a recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a request for Site Plan Approval of a General Site Plan for Planned Development Zone 2 . Such plan is proposed to include a Mobile Home Park Planned Development , a Cluster Subdivision Planned Development , and enlargement of the owners ' adjacent residential lot . The involved properties are located southwest of the intersection of Danby Road ( Rte . 96B ) and South Danby Road , on Town of Danby Tax Parcels # 20 . - 1 - 4 . 2 and 20 . - 1 - 4 . 5 . Paul and Mary Lou Hardesty , Owners , Mary Lou Hardesty , Applicant . At such time and place all persons interested in the subject matter thereof will be heard concerning the same . A regular meeting of the Planning Board will follow the public hearing . Dated : December 2 , 1993 By order of the Planning Board Published : December 9 , 1993 Carol W . Sczepanski , Town Clerk Affidavit of Neighbor Notification mailing was presented . Tom Niederkorn - addressed the public and Planning Board with an overview of the project . Detailed maps and plans were presented . He explained the proposal is to expand the Hillview Terrace Mobile Home Park to include an area of approximately twelve ( 12 ) acres on the northwest corner of the site . On the south side of the existing mobile home park site will be divided into large lots for additional residential development . Lots numbered three ( 3 ) and four ( 4 ) have been eliminated and there are now two ( 2 ) 4 - 1 / 2 acre lots and one ( 1 ) 3 - 1 / 2 acre lot . A large area in the back lands will be available for additional drilling of wells that is necessary before this project can proceed . Mr . Niederkorn said that this area is zoned for this and is a logical extension of an existing mobile home park that enables the owner ' s to optimize the infrastructure that is already in place . This proposal will create relatively affordable housing for an area that does not have a lot . . . , 188 P lanning Board Minutes P ublic Hearing - 02 Hardesdy December 15 , 1993 of this type of housing . It is believed that water will be there in ample quantities to supply the new mobile home park as well as the existing development without any adverse effect on adjacent wells . Members of the Public : Ed Inman - Bald Hill Road - asked if there was a particular problem w ith this water that they were working with . Brayton Foster responded that the well depth was typically below o ne hundred ( 100 ) to one - hundred twenty ( 120 ) feet and is the water e ntry for the existing wells . He said that they would probably not go beyond two hundred ( 200 ) feet and It is almost certain that they will need to drill two ( 2 ) wells . Jennifer Bell - 912 Cayuga Street , Ithaca , NY - Hydrologist said she was asked to review this project . In her opinion the tests made on the existing wells were basically not long enough . An adequate well test should be for forty - eight ( 48 ) hours for draw down testing . She thinks that before this plan goes any further more investigation needs to be done to determine the effects of , construction and how the additional wells that will affect and possibly increase the demand on the neighborhood water supply . Brayton Foster - responded that delivery systems through fractured bedrock typically constrained by fractures so that when a long term pump test is done you do not deplete well water storage as in gravel aquifers . He referred to his report and said it was essentially an investigation to determine what the present wells could do . It should be emphasized that these wells ( three of them ) were in use and are pumped off - peak times from 11 : 00 p . m . to 7 : 00 a . m . daily seven ( 7 ) days per week . The tests were done during the daytime hours . It is less than twenty ( 20 ) feet to bedrock at the site . Mr . Foster referred to the Gaynor Associates Report that was presented as follows : 1 ) It will be necessary to drill additional wells as they must demonstrate to the health department that adequate water exists . 2 ) The figure of 1 , 100 gallons per day is in error and should be 11 , 000 gallons ; 3 ) continuous pumping rate of 7 . 6 gallons of water per minute needs to be pointed out that part of that already exists at t he existing wells ; ( more than three ( 3 ) gallons per minute is already being utilized in the existing park ) ; 4 ) seventy - five gallons per minute should not be confused with t he recovery rate to a well as it is the delivery system rate from the storage tank to the homes ; 5 ) static water pumping - not included as the wells are in use e very day and were pumped the night before ; 6 ) Existing wells are not likely to yield the required quantity o f water is true . Mr . Fostersaid that they already know that it is likely that two ( 2 ) new wells will be needed . 7 ) Location of all wells on adjacent property , their depth and formation should be known - - this was requested by this Board a number of times ; 8 ) Information concerning other impacts of pumping to other wells was not given - - was listed in initial report . The rate n umbers in the chart are indicative of the capacity of the pump . 9 ) Known impact on a well ninety ( 90 ) feet from a well currently u sed for water supply - - we already know that a well 270 feet t o the north and the Hardesty ' s well 400 feet to the west are u naffected by eight ( 8 ) hours per day pumping at the present t ime and have been in use for the last decade . Mr . Foster said regarding this last statement - - he does not believe that there will be any impact off - site that would determine AMMEMMEMMEMMEM 8 1 9 3 Planning Board Minutes December 15 , 1993 t hat it would be significant a impact . J ennifer Be11 - responded that long term the effects of drawdown t ests could be more over a period of forty - eight ( 48 ) hours . B rayton Foster - responded that they have stabilized the effects of t he draw down by using these wells over a decade . The wells are pumped every night and have been for a long time and are never completely recovered before they are pumped again . When new wells are drilled it must demonstrate to the health department that they can deliver potable water before approval is granted . Forty - eight h our testing can be done on new wells . D iscussion followed between Jennifer Bell and Brayton Foster regarding the possibility of nitrate contaminate . J ennifer Bell - said that there has been no discussion about the drainage fields . Mr . Foster explained that the drainage fields are at the bottom of the hill where the slopes are low and were designed by an engineer . There is already a drainage system in place that works . Tom Niederkorn - explained the drainage system and its design as proposed . The plan has been presented to the health department and has received preliminary approval . The point is here that we know additional wells are going to be needed and what we are asking is if we go to the expense of putting in those wells , testing it , and the risk involved there that the Hardesty ' s receive some reasonable assurance that the project can go ahead if everything works the way we hope it will . Regardless of how many days or how many hours they pump the existing system we probably are not going to know much more than we know right now . We still wouldn ' t have an answer to the question as to whether two ( 2 ) new wells will provide the additional supply needed for the project . Attorney Galbraith - representing Diane and Neil Sherwood - said he would like to speak to the question of the SEQR Review . He thinks from what he has heard Mr . Niederkorn , Mr . Foster , and Ms . Bell that there has been three ( 3 ) potentially large environmental impacts identified ; 1 ) water supply ; 2 ) the effect of adjoining water supplies ; 3 ) drainage . On top of that the project joins wetlands . Therefore , this is a Type I Action . He said the point he would like to make is that the Planning Board is going to have to make a recommendation to the Town Board concerning environmental impact ( whether it is a positive or negative declaration ) . On a Type I Action you can not have a conditional negative declaration . He thinks he heard Mr . Niederkorn say that the problem here is water supply and that the water supply is insufficient to serve the proposed expansion . Mr . Foster has said that there will have to be at least two ( 2 ) additional wells drilled and there has been discussion as to where they might be located . He said the point is that when you make a recommendation to the Town Board you either have to recommend a negative declaration here , which he thinks is inappropriate , because Type I Action under the State regulations requires the positive declaration of environmental significance . You can ' t make a negative declaration conditioned upon the developer successfully drilling new wells . He said that is not a legally permissible alternative and asked the Planning Board to make a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance so that some of the questions that have been raised can be answered before the project goes further . The whole SEQR process is to answer these questions at the earliest stages of development not at the end of the development . Legally it cannot be a conditional negative declaration . Brayton Foster - responded that there is not a problem with the present water system . Wells need to be drilled to develop additional water to supply the expansion . He does not believe that . I ; q ri 4 Planning Board Minutes Public Hearing - 02 Hardesty December 15 , 1993 t here is a problem in getting water . We are sparing over semantics , but water comes first . Attorney Galbraith - said he does not think it is semantics . He t hinks there is substance to this . J ohn C . Shepardson , Sr . - 318 Ridgecrest Road - he thinks the point they are trying to get across is that if they go ahead and spend t his money to drill wells they would like to have assurance that if t hey meet the requirements of the Board of Health that this Board will allow them to go ahead and develop . If the Board doesn ' t want t o allow it why should they spend $ 20 , 000 or $ 25 , 000 without some assurance their project can continue . D oug Macki - 13 South Danby Road - he is concerned about his well water and would like some assurance that if the project does affect it that he be compensated in some way either by the Town or by the H ardesty ' s . He thinks it is the Town ' s responsibility to protect t he existing productive wells . His well is a drilled well and is fifty ( 50 ) feet with a static water level of twenty ( 20 ) feet . Don Schaaf - asked how long this well had been in place . Doug Macki - responded approximately forty ( 40 ) years . S usan Beeners - reported that this is essentially a two ( 2 ) step approval process : 1 ) consideration of a recommendation related to t he rezoning at the present time ; 2 ) a final site plan approval would be considered by the Planning Board at a later time . She stated that her impression has been that the fact that the applicants have volunteered the water draw down test to happen after they have received a go ahead e . g . a rezoning was not something that implied a conditional negative declaration . It was essentially an integral controlling measure that implied a t echnical measure . It is not something the Board is imposing on t he applicant but something they agreed to do when they first approached the Planning Board in December 1991 . Susan asked Attorney Galbraith why that type of an integral control , that was proposed early on , is something that would appear to be a conditional negative declaration . Attorney Galbraith - he thinks that we don ' t really know what is going to happen in terms of additional service of water with two ( 2 ) new wells . We don ' t have any information of where they are planned to be drilled , distance from the proposed wells to the e xisting wells or anything off premises . He thinks he has heard for the first time tonight that they plan to drill two ( 2 ) wells and it was not included in the Part I of the SEQR . The engineering ✓ eport from Gaynor Associates and Ms . Bells report point out the fact that there is a lack of information on this question at this point . What is being proposed here was the condition imposed by t he Board . What he is hearing is - - could we issue a negative declaration , have the developer do whatever , go out and do whatever t he developer proposes to do concerning wells and come back and see h ow it works . He said that in his mind it is contrary to the SEQR process . He thinks this really talks about a conditional negative declaration and the point is that you cannot do it with a Type I Action . If this was a Type II or an Unlisted Action you could do it , but because a Type I Action has major impacts you cannot do it . J oel Gagnon - said that it is his understanding that the Planning B oard is not going to pass judgement on the SEQR determination . The Town Board is the Lead Agency . They will do the SEQR and make t he determination . Attorney Galbraith - said that he understands that you recommend to t he Town Board . You can make a recommendation for a negative d eclaration or a positive declaration . aMMENIMMI n 1 i 1 5 Planning Board Minutes Public Hearing - 02 Hardesty December 15 , 1993 Attorney Barney - said that it is the Town Board that makes the determination . The Planning Board need not make a SEQR recommendation . III Joel Gagnon - said that the Planning Board makes the recommendation on the project not the SEQR . Attorney Galbraith - said that he realizes that this Board does not have the power to make the ultimate determination . Donna Inman - referred to a letter from Tompkins County Health Department and said it is the Health Department that determines if there is a water problem not the Planning Board . She read a portion of the letter that described their findings on the design for the sewage system and the water issue . She said that this project , like any other project in the Town , cannot be developed without County Health Department Approval . Ric Dietrich - 100 South Danby Road - said he thinks what the Planning Board does is sort out SEQR . Going through Part II there were many questions . It seems that when the Planning Board passes their recommendation on to the Town Board and that some areas were gone over quickly . He referred to the boxes in Part II where there are choices ( boxes ) for either a positive or negative declaration and asked what the Planning Board what they were going to put in those boxes . Attorney Barney responded that this Board does not fill out those boxes . The Town Board fills out those boxes . They can consider the environmental aspects if they choose to and make a recommendation . The actual final determination of environmental significance is not this Boards to make , it is the Town Boards . Ric Dietrich said he is confused as to why the Planning Board is filling out the SEQR . He asked what is the SEQR process this Board has been doing , and Is it covering just the change of use or is it covering the rules of the park . Joel Gagnon responded that it is the same thing . The change of use as proposed is the park expansion in the residential subdivision . The Planning Board has used the SEQR form in order to insure that we as a Board have considered the environmental impact in making our recommendation to the Town Board . We have borrowed their form as a check list for our purposes . Ric Dietrich said that there are a lot of questions related to this project and should be a Type I and feels that there is some resistance about what you are recommending to the Town Board . Joel Gagnon - responded that the Planning Board has been treating this project as a Type I . Speaking for himself he said he thinks the only resistance Mr . Dietrich has sensed is the resistance on the part of the Board to keep dealing with this indefinitely . We III are just getting tired and has come to the point where not much more has been added to the discussion and it might as well get moved on to the next stage where it will happen again . Ric Dietrich - said this has only been going on since September . Chairperson Weitzel - responded that this has been going on for two ( 2 ) years since its beginning . r. Ray Mayo - 335 Ridgecrest Road - said it seems we are going through the same thing that we went through Raptor Heights and referred to the questions and concerns of the neighbors near that project . The concerns of water were raised there , wells were drilled and there was no effect on the neighborhood water wells . r 192 6 Planning Board Minutes Public Hearing - 02 Hardesty December 15 , 1993 S usan Beeners reported that on October 20 , 28 , November 17 , 1993 t he Planning Board granted neighbors time to get a consultant to ✓ esearch their water concerns . The Planning Board also asked the n eighbors to supply them with specific information on their individual wells and water supply . Brayton Foster indicated what some of the remedies would be if the neighboring wells did start to e xperience problems . That was only based on information that some h ave dug wells and there are some poor quantity / quality wells there at this time . The Gaynor Associates were recommending or saying t hat there was no information related to location of neighboring w ells and Foster has reiterated in an attachment to the EAF what some of the typical problems might be and how they might be ✓ emedied . She asked whoever the neighborhood representative is - - why at this time should the Planning Board wait to have any more specifics ? A lot of the specific or baseline data on existing ✓ oads would be more important at a time when the drawdown tests were going to be done . She said there is a delay here and does not see that it is reasonable unless something happens in the next couple of weeks as far as getting specific well information . B rayton Foster - said that in his memo he tried to address some of t he problems that were raised at the last meeting . He recalls that t here were half a dozen people who had water problems that were e ither present or past . Chairperson Weitzel - said that the Planning Board asked the n eighborhood residents to submit information at the October 20 , 1993 meeting and they assured us that they would have the _ information by November 17 , 1993 . It is now December 15 , 1993 and to this date she finds no communication from any neighbor telling h ow deep their well is , where it is located or any other information . That information was also asked for in the Gaynor ✓ eport . Attorney Galbraith - said that there really is no representative for the neighborhood . The neighborhood is not quite as well o rganized as the developer . He asked the Board to rely on the individual input of everyone who shows up here whether they put it in writing or simply got nothing to hold in their teeth . Mr . Foster said that there is about a half a dozen people who are e xperiencing problems . Ken Horst - responded that it was his understanding when this ✓ equest for information was made that the local neighbors were going to have an analysis done on their own and separately from w hat had already been done . We did not expect to get an analysis o f an analysis that had already been done . If there is a separate and quite distinctly different analysis made , and if they both come u p with the same results or conclusions - - then that is meaningful . Or if they both come up with different conclusions then obviously you are going to have a third analysis to break the tie . To analyze something that has already been analyzed does not do us any good . We have waited ample time for something to be done on this issue and we have nothing to show for it . J ennifer Bell - said her question is whose responsibility is it to show what the neighbors problems are ? Chairperson Weitzel - read a portion of the Minutes of Meeting of O ctober 20 , 1993 - - The Planning Board requested documentation and h istory of neighborhood wells be submitted to the Planning Board by t he neighbors who have reported problems . That information should include ; when the well was drilled , how deep it is , what the yield was when it was drilled and what is the yield now . The information must be received within the next four to six weeks and preferably by the November 17th Planning Board Meeting . She said to date we h ave not received any information , to her knowledge , from any of you . 1 93 7 Planning Board Minutes Public Hearing - 02 Hardesty December 15 , 1993 Ken Newton - 2 South Danby Road stated that he has a new well that is ninety - six ( 96 ) feet deep and it cost $ 2 , 300 . He said if something happens to that well he feels he should be compensated for it . He said he was unaware that the Board had asked for this information had been requested in writing . Chairperson Weitzel requested the information in writing and said that the Planning Board was not responsible for the neighborhood group communication problem . Don Schaaf - asked if Ms . Bell was associated with Gaynor Associates and if now who was she associated with . Jennifer Bell - responded that she worked at Cornell University and was representing Neil Sherwood . John Shepardson - said that this whole process has been on for more than two ( 2 ) years and it is more than enough timegfor people to get their act together . He would like to see this settled . It appears that it is up to the Board of Health to determine if there is enough water , Donna Inman - It looks like the neighbors are not going to get documentation of their wells at this point . She would like to know if the neighbors have had their water tested for potability , does it contain iron , hardness , and do their wells run dry at the present time . Don Schaaf - said he thinks what we were offering to the people who were expressing concerns was the opportunity to give some type of documentation so that if anything went wrong there would be a check and balance . In the absence of that , for them to come forward at a later point to say it has changed would be an empty statement to make because " it has changed from what " ? Edw . Roberts - Bald Hill Road - - said he has listened to this drag on and on and once the health department has approved to give them a permit this project should go on . He referred to the original trailer park proposal for one - hundred ( 100 ) units . It is terible to cost them money and to drag this out . He thinks this should move ahead as soon as the health department approves of the wells and sewage . He said he thinks they should be given approval pproval and a Motion to Public Hearin : A motion was made by Arch Dotson and seconded by Don Schaaf to close the public hearing at 8 : 55 P . M . Carried Unanimously Respectfully submitted Wr at Carol W . Sc ! . : nski Secretary 1 i 1 194 TOWN OF DANBY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting 7 . 15 P . M . December 15 , 1993 PRESENT : Chairperson Weitzel P lanning Board Members : Arch Dotson , William Farrell , Joel G agnon , Eloise Green , Ken Horst , Don S chaaf Others Present : S ecretary - Carol Sczepanski Code Enforcement Officer - Susan Beeners Town Supervisor - Mary Oltz Applicants - Cecil and Lorraine Jayne Town Attorney - John Barney Members of the Public : R . B . & Linda Howe , Don Schaad , Beth Stanton , Connie Merritt , Frank & Catherine Darrow , Patricia Addy - Schaad , Bob Roe , Ed & Donna Inman , Raymond Mayo , Brayton Foster , John C . Shepardson , Sr . , Richard Lazarus , Samuel C . Egan , David Hinkle , Kenneth & Lily N ewton , Dirk Galbraith , Doug Makie , John VanDeMark , Liz Norton , N eil & Diane Sherwood , Jennifer Bell , Ric Dietrich , Roland Manley , J ohn Benjamin , Mary Hovanec , Gaetano D ' Ambrose , Mary Hovanec Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 P . M . to d iscuss the McCabe / Jayne Subdivision Proposal . McCabe / Jayne Subdivision Proposal Discussion : Response of the Planning Board regarding the proposal : E loise Green said that she thought this proposal would set a precedence on two areas in the zoning , the low density zoning and t he road frontage requirements for this land . She would not want t o address this proposal from wetness standpoint and she would be opposed to any more than two ( 2 ) houses on this property . D on Schaaf said that he would agree with Eloise and thinks this parcel could conceivably accommodate two ( 2 ) homes and anything beyond that is not realistic . Ken Horst responded relative to the plan that was presented and asked where entry to the back four and one half ( 1 - 1 / 2 ) acres appeared on the diagram , and if the land was considered very wet and not a wet land . S usan Beeners reported that she has walked the property after a pouring rain and observed standing water in the tractor ruts but did not observe water standing in the field . She talked with Mr . B arber and he said that he could not cultivate the southeast corner because drainage was a problem . Joel Gagnon said that in his opinion the qualifying plat does not q ualify . This is being considered as a so called cluster and you h ave to first demonstrate that you could develop the property conventionally . You cannot do that and meet the Town of Danby H ighway specifications which say that the roads will not be accepted by the Town unless they service at least three ( 3 ) lots w hich this qualifying plat does not satisfy . There is only enough frontage for two ( 2 ) building lots which he would be willing to e ntertain . S usan said that the Planning Board could grant a Negative D etermination of Environmental Significance conditional to this plan being reduced to two ( 2 ) lots and then modify the resolutions accordingly . Under C - 1 of the SEQR a statement should be added t hat this review is presently modified , and given the information presented at public hearing and field investigations that the site might be too wet to develop as a three ( 3 ) lot subdivision . AMMEMMEMMEMEM •s Qt ! i J 2 Planning Board Minutes December 15 , 1993 Chairperson Weitzel said that it is up to the applicants whether they want to subdivide into two ( 2 ) lots . The consensus of the Board is that only two ( 2 ) houses will be allowed in that area . The applicants were asked if they would consider a two ( 2 ) lot subdivision . Cecil Jayne said that they would not be interested in a two ( 2 ) lot subdivision and their purchase offer is contingent on a three ( 3 ) lot subdivision . Susan said that for the record the Town needs to know if the application is being withdrawn . Mr . Jayne said that he is not withdrawing his application and asked the Board for a written statement that they turned down his proposal . MOTION - TO REJECT MCCABE/ JAYNE SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL A motion was made by Joel Gagnon and seconded by Arch Dotson that the McCabe / Jayne Subdivision proposal for the subdivision of Danby Tax Parcel No . 8 . - 1 - 21 . 1 , seven ( 7 ) acres total into three ( 3 ) building lots submitted by Cecil and Lorraine Jayne does not comply with the provision of the ordinance as it pertains to the q ualifying plat . The Planning Board cannot approve a three ( 3 ) lot subdivision on this property . Discussion : S usan asked the Board to add that the property appears to have significant drainage constraints and that you find that the environmental constraints of the site appear limited . J oel said that his objection is not based on any environmental constraint but on its not qualifying under the ordinance . A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows : D otson Aye Farrell Aye G agnon Aye G reene Aye H orst Aye S chaaf Aye W eitzel Aye Carried Unanimously Robert Howe - 231 Jersey Hill Road - asked Chairperson Weitzel if the public hearing record reflects the neighbor turnout at a hearing had an impact on the outcome . He asked if the record would show that the neighbors turned out for two ( 2 ) hearings . Mr . Howe received a copy of the November 8 , 1993 public hearing minutes . The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 7 : 35 for the Hardesty Public Hearing and resumed to the regular meeting at 9 : 10 P . M . Fieldstone Circle Subdivision Susan Beeners reported that the Town has received a request for an extension to complete the filing requirements for the Proposed Fieldstone Circle Subdivision . She asked the Planning Board to accept an attachment to the Part II SEQR form . She reported that there are no changes in the project and the request is for a ninety ( 90 ) day extension to complete miscellaneous requirements . RESOLUTION NO . 26 OF 1993 SEQR - PROPOSED FIELDSTONE CIRCLE SUBDIVISION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS - Approved By Joel Gagnon : Seconded by Ken Horst 196 - 3 - Planning Board Minutes December 15 , 1993 WHEREAS , This action is the consideration of granting an extension t o the time period required for completion of the requirements provided in Resolution No . 13 of 1993 , by which resolution the P lanning Board on June 16 , 1993 reaffirmed Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision Approval with certain conditions and provisions for the " Fieldstone Circle Subdivision " , proposed to be located in P lanned Development Zone No . 12 , on Danby Road south of Muzzy Road , Town of Danby Tax Parcel No . 2 . - 1 - 49 . 3 , and WHEREAS , The action of granting such an Extension is a minor modification of a Type I action for which the Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental ✓ eview , and WHEREAS , The Planning Board on December 15 , 1993 has reviewed the SEQR Environmental Assessment Form as amended by the Planning Board o n June 16 , 1993 , and the draft " Attachment to Part II " dated D ecember 10 , 1993 , prepared by the Code Enforcement Officer , now be it RESOLVED , That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in e nvironmental review of this Type I action , accepts the draft " Attachment to Part II " dated December 10 , 1993 , and , finding no substantive change in the project proposal , makes and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed Extension described herein for the proposed " Fieldstone Circle Subdivision " . A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows : D otson Aye Farrell Aye G agnon Aye G reene Aye Horst Aye Schaaf Aye W eitzel Aye Carried Unanimously RESOLUTION NO . 27 OF 1993 PROPOSED FIELDSTONE CIRCLE SUBDIVISION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS - Approved B y Joel Gagnon : Seconded by Ken Horst WHEREAS , This action is the consideration of granting an Extension t o the time period required for completion of the requirements provided in Resolution No . 13 of 1993 , by which resolution the P lanning board on June 16 , 1993 reaffirmed Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision Approval with certain conditions and provisions for the proposed " Fieldstone Circle Subdivision " , proposed to be located in Planned Development Zone No . 12 , on Danby Road south of Muzzy Road , Town of Danby Tax Parcel No . 2 . - 1 - 49 . 3 , and WHEREAS , The action of granting such an Extension is a minor modification of a Type I action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review , has on December 15 , 1993 made a negative determination of environmental significance , n ow be it RESOLVED , That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant an E xtension to the time period required for completion of the ✓ equirements provided in Resolution No . 13 of 1993 , by which ✓ esolution the Planning Board on June 16 , 1993 reaffirmed Final S ite Plan and Final Subdivision Approval with certain conditions and provisions for the proposed " Fieldstone Circle Subdivision " , proposed to be located in Planned Development Zone No . 12 , on Danby Road south of Muzzy Road , Town of Danby Tax Parcel No . 2 . - 1 - 49 . 3 , with such Extension allowing the subdivider ninety ( 90 ) days from D ecember 12 , 1993 to fulfill the following conditions and provisions of Final Subdivision Approval : Execution and filing of " Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Fieldstone Circle Subdivision " , " Suggested ammmimmEMEMEM 197 4 Planning Board Minutes December 15 , 1993 Language for Fieldstone Circle Subdivision Plat for ` natural / rural space " , and " Agreement between Elizabeth Grisanzio , Sponsor and Owner of Fieldstone Circle and Town of Danby " , as approved by the Town Board on May 11 , 1992 and by the Town Attorney on June 24 , 1992 , prior to any building permit issuance for construction on lots within the subdivision with the exception that the developer shall be entitled to obtain building permits for the model homes and sales office on Lot A prior to such execution and filing . A roll call vote on the resolution resulted as follows : D otson Aye Farrell Aye G agnon Aye G reene Aye H orst Aye S chaaf Aye W eitzel Aye Carried Unanimously H ardesty Proposal Review : D ocuments received : 1 ) Draft SEQR Parts II / III as revised 2 ) PERC Planning / Environmental Research Consultants - Two ( 2 ) hypothetical sketch plans ( Nov . 12 , 1993 ) 3 ) Gaynor Associates - Review ( Dec . 9 , 1993 ) 4 ) Evaluation of materials - Jennifer Bell ( Dec . 14 , 1993 ) 5 ) Letter from Doug Makie - Dec . 19 , 1993 6 Materials from Ric Dietrich : Services to Youth in Trailer Parks - Rec ' d . Dec . 14 , 1993 S usan Beeners - reported that she is working on proposed resolutions related to the environmental impact for the project . Discussion : J oel Gagnon asked if it was possible to recommend approval of the project to the Town Board provided that it could be demonstrated to their satisfaction that adequate water would be available to serve the proposed uses . Arch Dotson asked what if and what happens to this project after it is approved , the wells drilled , etc . and per chance it is discovered that our representatives of the neighbors have defaulted o n our request . If it is determined that there is a negative e ffect on the water level , quality etc . , what access does the Town Board or Planning Board have to defer the development of the project or to the relief of the neighbors as soon as it is discovered ? Attorney Barney said that he thinks that the Town Board can build their approval in a manner which says that we approve the re - zoning but there will be no additional construction until appropriate tests are conducted and it is established that there is no loss of water to the surrounding neighbors . You can articulate a standard that says the tests will be done and they will meet a certain level of acceptability . Ken Horst asked if we put the contingency in our recommendation relative to the water draw down issue , should it have an effect on surrounding wells , isn ' t it correct that the health department at that time can stop the project ? Brayton Foster responded that this is a municipal system and under the health department ' s requirements . They can specify well construction , testing , etc . I 1 O 5 Planning Board Minutes December 15 , 1993 D iscussion followed regarding the fact that the neighbors did not submit documentation and histories of their individual wells and could the Hardesty ' s be required to supply water to neighbors if t heir systems were to go dry . Susan said that in 1991 there were tests cdone of the existing wells and the Hardesty ' s well located at a four - hundred ( 400 ) foot d istance , and there was no communication between the wells . It appears to her that there is enough information at this time that t here won ' t be any impact . K en Horst asked that if by the next meeting we would have ✓ esolutions that can be considered for recommendation . Joel said that as of now all we have is an offer to do draw down t ests . There is reasonable concern among the neighbors that this project might effect their water and we ' ve been told that there is a very low probability that that might be the case and a draw down t est should confirm that . However , in the event that it does not and the draw down test shows there is linkage , there is nothing spelled out at this point . Attorney Barney said that it will be part of the materials the P lanning Board will review at their next meeting . The parameters o f what is to occur if a draw down test does not prove what the applicant expects it to demonstrate , then the consequences are The consequence he suggests are that you don ' t build a second set of trailers . It is his understanding that the H ardesty ' s do not want to spend the money to drill new wells without some assurance that they are going to get a re - zoning . They have produced enough evidence to suggest that the re - zoning is likely to work . The Town needs to do the re - zoning and go through t hat process . When that is successfully completed then you have t he draw down testing . You do the re - zoning and condition the re - zoning not the SEQR on the provability of the draw down tests . If it doesn ' t prove out the project goes out the window . J oel said that the Planning Board has been told that there is a willingness to do a reasonable number of draw down tests with no consequences spelled out . There was an assertion made that the health department would not let you do it if you showed there was an impact on the neighborhood wells . We ' ve pretty much established t hat that ' s not the case . The Town ' s concern is what if there is an impact on the adjoining wells . B ill Farrell said that the Hardesty ' s have cooperated so far and provided everything the Town has asked for . D iscussion followed on how to obtain the data for monitoring n eighboring wells . Attorney Barney said what the Town needs is sufficient information t o make an informed judgement as to whether there will be an impact o r not here . How you get the information is up to the consultant . B ill Farrell said that the Hardesty ' s shouldn ' t have to pay for the Town ' s information . Attorney Barney suggested that we adjourn this discussion and that t he proposed resolutions be reviewed by the Planning Board before t he next meeting . He said that the Planning Board must have a public hearing on a completed proposal , the completed SEQR and to h ear additional comments if there are any . Chairperson Weitzel said she was surprised that there were no comments or questions from the public at tonight ' s public hearing o n the revised layout and design of the Hardesty proposal . {29 6 Planning Board Minutes December 15 , 1993 The Planning Board requested copies of the proposed legislation of t he local law for the re - zoning and resolutions for recommendation t o the Town Board . Ken Horst said that as a member of this Planning Board he has concerns about our inaction on this project over a period of two ( 2 ) years . To him and the public , a Planning Board that ' s unwilling to make decisions and move or make recommendations , he has concerns about that kind of an image . We ' ve played around with t his for a long time . He said he thinks that we do need to have another meeting in order to make sure we do this right but he does h ave some reservations about another hearing unless it is absolutely necessary . He said he would have strong reservations if we put off for two ( 2 ) or three ( 3 ) more months of meetings and still do not have a decision made and it would be quite damaging . H e urged the Planning Board not to delay . Attorney Barney said that there is information that the Town needs t o get to properly articulate what the Planning Board is recommending . D iscussion followed regarding dates for an additional public hearing and recommendation to the Town Board . Mary Lou Hardesty asked the Planning Board if that means that they must have a total of five ( 5 ) public hearings . She is worried that t hey will loose another construction season . ADJOURNMENT : On a motion the meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 P . M . Respectfully submitted , w . Carol W . Sczepanski , Secretary min12 - 15 . 93