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